Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
aquatus1

Thought-Crime in America

358 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Beckys_Mom
I literally can't believe I'm arguing this, but:

Yes it's gross. Yes it's creepy. Yes it's morally objective. Yes it's royally ****ed up.

But it is not and should not be illegal to draw pictures. Of anything.

You should be able to draw and write and speak about literally everything.

Well the law says likewise and I happen to agree with it.....only because I detest anything like it....to think people that do it have those images going through their minds <--yeaa same sort of images that went through the minds of those that actually have done it to kids in the past....sick freaks

What would it look like if.....they didnt find those comics? He would most likely be under suspision of having lil kids pose for him.....while being sexually abused!!! (key words - under suspision) because lets face it, a lot of kids are afraid to tell what has happened to them...too many are under a threat!!

I've read stories of serial killers, who's parents have stated that growing up as a teen, they found drawing in their rooms of people killing in brutal ways that looked twisted......and later they found their own kid convicted of.killing ...............it doesnt surprize me...freaks!!

Edited by Beckys_Mom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
KRS-One
Well the law says likewise and I happen to agree with it.....only because I detest anything like it....to think people that do it have those images going through their minds <--yeaa same sort of images that went through the minds of those that actually have done it to kids in the past....sick freaks

My argument is that the law is prohibitive of free speech.

Like yourself, I find the topic of children being sexually abused, raped, or even portrayed sexually to be morally wrong and frankly, disgusting.

I also find the idea of a giant statue of liberty marching through an allied base-camp and ***-****ing herself [use your imagination] with living marines to be disgusting and tasteless. As a social commentary however, I don't feel it should be illegal.

Why would the other "cartoon" prove to be so? It is a set of ideals or morals laid out on paper as plainly as words, which also aren't illegal.

What would it look like if.....they didnt find those comics? He would most likely be under suspision of having lil kids pose for him.....while being sexually abused!!! (key words - under suspision) because lets face it, a lot of kids are afraid to tell what has happened to them...too many are under a threat!!

I've read stories of serial killers, who's parents have stated that growing up as a teen, they found drawing in their rooms of people killing in brutal ways that looked twisted......and later they found their own kid convicted of.killing ...............it doesnt surprize me...freaks!!

This, as is usual of you, is completely nonsensical.

I've read stories of serial killers as well, who's background was well documented in comic books which trivialized them and their families. Am I to presume that making an anti-hero out of someone should be a criminal offense?

What you're saying has no real substance. However, I get your point.

Or rather, your lack of it.

You make the assumption that someone who draws these things is morally responsible for the assualt on children.

I'll be the first to tell you that I despise the war in the ME but grew up drawing helicopters and fighter jets shooting at each other. By your logic should I not be a junked out veteran incapable of thinking based on my predilection for war-art?

This whole argument is so freaking illogical I'm not sure how to continue.

Edited by KRS-One

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
InHuman

And I thought you hated PC-thought police nanny state liberals?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beckys_Mom
My argument is that the law is prohibitive of free speech.

Like yourself, I find the topic of children being sexually abused, raped, or even portrayed sexually to be morally wrong and frankly, disgusting.

I also find the idea of a giant statue of liberty marching through an allied base-camp and ***-****ing herself [use your imagination] with living marines to be disgusting and tasteless. As a social commentary however, I don't feel it should be illegal.

Why would the other "cartoon" prove to be so? It is a set of ideals or morals laid out on paper as plainly as words, which also aren't illegal.

Reading this...is supposed to make me feel what? I still stick by what I said........and I seriously don't care if you or anyone else feels I am wrong lol...I agree with the law on that issue

This, as is usual of you, is completely nonsensical.
really? what part?.........the part where I had suggest - what do you think would happen to him, if they had not have found the comics ? that he would most likely be under susp***ion of actually having kids over ect ect?? <--how is that stupid?

Or this part --> Where I have read stories on some serial killers ect ect <---ok WHY is that not making sense? so you are trying to suggest that there has never EVER been a case of a serial killer that has been drawing pictures of people killing? no?...............ohh man !!!

You make the assumption that someone who draws these things is morally responsible for the assualt on children.
...........What assumptions? all I did was call him a few things..........I never suggested anything else......so please present these assumptions....sigh!!

I'll be the first to tell you that I despise the war in the ME but grew up drawing helicopters and fighter jets shooting at each other. By your logic should I not be a junked out veteran incapable of thinking based on my predilection for war-art?

LOL...I would fully understand you saying this.IF...I had of suggested that all serial killers have had drawings found in their possession LOL but see, thing is..............I DIDNT......I said I have read stories of serial killers, ok granted I was vague....what I have read was only a couple of stories...that does not cover every last rotten serial killer throughout history...does it? No....I mean come on KRS..think about it...I didnt say ALL serial killers LOL.........again I will state just a couple.....and trust me, I read a lot on true crime, and a couple of stories about serial killers out of thoudsands of other stories I have read is not that many...seriously!!!!!!!

Now make note, I am not in any way, thinking you are crazy for thinking the law was wrong for wanting to punish him for drawings <--I do understand fully why you said so........I only view it differently than you, I have my own reasons....Child abuse is something I destest (yes I know you said you do too)...but I support charities for the cause and my own past is linked with my views, but best I keep that to myself.....but like I said, I do understand why you think its silly to arrest anyone for drawings...

Edited by Beckys_Mom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
KRS-One

Beckys_Mom that last post was so full of self-aggrandizement and complete nonsense that I have nothing to respond to but the very last sentence of it.

like I said, I do understand why you think its silly to arrest anyone for drawings....

*ding!*

The toast is done. The point has been made.

In an open society, drawings of any content should not be persecuted.

Oil and water have run together. Cats and dogs are breeding. We agree!

*releases doves to the sound of church music*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AROCES
And might as well manufacture GI-Joes.

And when one go and shoot a live one, you be one of those wondering why.

And might as well manufacture action films.

And when one go after an automatic weapons duel with opponents you be one of those wondering why.

And might as well manufacture sex toys of giant black dildos

And when one go after a live one, you be wondering why.

And might as well manufacture movies about Wolverine.

And when one go after trying to have an indestructable exo-skeleton and get killed you be one of those wondering why.

And might as well manufacture sentence of terrible construction and grammer

And when one go after a well written one you be one of those wondering why.

Might as well, break all the law that no one gets hurt. Urinate whever you want as long as no one gets hurt.

Ever heard of hate speech? Ever heard of hate crime? If I sell animated clips of certain race killing other race, or gay and lesbians being humiliated you still will consider it as harmless because of GI joe, right?

Edited by AROCES

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AROCES
I literally can't believe I'm arguing this, but:

Yes it's gross. Yes it's creepy. Yes it's morally objective. Yes it's royally ****ed up.

But it is not and should not be illegal to draw pictures. Of anything.

Did he draw it himself or purchased the drawings?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
KRS-One
Might as well, break all the law that no one gets hurt. Urinate whever you want as long as no one gets hurt.

Aww. That's nice of you. You and I are going to save this for later. Believe me, this will get addressed.

Ever heard of hate speech?

Yep.

Ever heard of hate crime?

Yep.

If I sell animated clips of certain race killing other race, or gay and lesbians being humiliated you still will consider it as harmless because of GI joe, right?

Yep.

I'm not sure you "get it". The most disgusting thing you can come up with that doesn't actually harm real people is protected by free speech. This is entirely the point.

Gay underaged nazi youth ****ting on each other while screaming "**** America!" before being pistol whipped by grade-school teacher lesbians wearing Jesus costumes should be entirely legal. And no, I'm not being sarcastic.

edit: Portrayals of such things. The actual acts might be against the law, but portraying them and discussing them should not be.

Edited by KRS-One

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beckys_Mom
Beckys_Mom that last post was so full of self-aggrandizement and complete nonsense that I have nothing to respond to but the very last sentence of it.

DING!

Translated - Beckys_Mom your post made sense to me I dont have a single comeback...so all I can say is DING!! . :rolleyes: .

Yet you accuse me of coming out with assumptions and when I ask you to present these so called assumptions....you fail and say DING!!...sigh didn't see that coming lol

you think its nonsense for someone to read out of thousands of serial killer true crime stories that a couple (a couple meaning 2)..of them had dark drawings of killing <--- sigh LMAO

You find it nonsense to think that I agree with the law <---uhuh *shakes head*

At least I had the decency to say you actually had a point...!!!I could lower myself and get rude, and put down everything you said ...like what you have done above to my posts...but I am not that ignorant :hmm: most people like to agree to disagree!!.............most people can debate a topic without acting like a (word that sounds like berk) <--not calling you anything but come on the rudeness is not clever!!

Edited by Beckys_Mom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leonardo
Might as well, break all the law that no one gets hurt. Urinate whever you want as long as no one gets hurt.

Ever heard of hate speech? Ever heard of hate crime? If I sell animated clips of certain race killing other race, or gay and lesbians being humiliated you still will consider it as harmless because of GI joe, right?

It's legal for someone to hate you, AROCES. It's legal if you decide to hate me and vocalise this. If, due to your hate, you were to portray me as a certain type of person, I might be able to sue you for slander or libel, but it is your right to hate me if you want to. It is not legal for you to threaten or encourage violence against me due to your hating me - that is what hate laws are about.

It is the right of anyone who reads the OP to hate (or despise) the person who drew the pictures. It should not be the right of anyone to forbid that person from drawing the pictures.

Edited by Leonardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BlindMessiah

No I don't think this should be illegal. The man should seek psychological help though before he does harm someone or become involved in actual child pornography.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leonardo
No I don't think this should be illegal. The man should seek psychological help though before he does harm someone or become involved in actual child pornography.

I agree, and maybe he should be offered help.

A question related to the OP, however. Does thought equal deed?

As far as we know, this person never had any intent to harm a child, but must have thought of child abuse to draw the pictures. So, does thought equal deed?

Edited by Leonardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
KRS-One
So, does thought equal deed?

No.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BlindMessiah
I agree, and maybe he should be offered help.

A question related to the OP, however. Does thought equal deed?

As far as we know, this person never had any intent to harm a child, but must have thought of child abuse to draw the pictures. So, does thought equal deed?

Not even remotely. Thoughts can however, when entertained, eventually lead to deeds. Which is exactly why, as we agree, he should seek help before anything like that happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leonardo
No.

I agree with this also. Thought does not equal deed.

So, is it okay for this person to have a position of responsibility or care for children?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beckys_Mom
. The man should seek psychological help though before he does harm someone or become involved in actual child pornography.

Maybe that is what they should do...get him some sort of help....I totally agree with you on that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fluffybunny
Maybe that is what they should do...get him some sort of help....I totally agree with you on that

Would that then mean that a person that draws pictures of medieval sword battles, WWII Normandy Beach landings, or Iraq combat scenes should be treated before they kill someone?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AROCES
Would that then mean that a person that draws pictures of medieval sword battles, WWII Normandy Beach landings, or Iraq combat scenes should be treated before they kill someone?

Did he draw it or purchase the drawings?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fluffybunny
Did he draw it or purchase the drawings?

What difference would it make?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fluffybunny
Did he draw it or purchase the drawings?

So would the people that created the artwork for the DVD cover for Band of Brothers need treatment? The producers? the Director? makeup artists? Where do you draw the line?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AROCES
What difference would it make?

If there are no difference then anyone can sell computer image of child pornography or sex dolls of 6 year old girls.

Edited by AROCES

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fluffybunny
If there are no difference then anyone can sell computer image of child pornography or sex dolls of 6 year old girls.

So again, does your idea of controlling peoples thoughts continue on to war imagery?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beckys_Mom
Would that then mean that a person that draws pictures of medieval sword battles, WWII Normandy Beach landings, or Iraq combat scenes should be treated before they kill someone?

I don’t think so.........but see drawing pictures of battle, is what a lot of boys do, and artists....some call it tasteful..(many boys and guys like the idea of going into battle and joining the army ect)............but drawings of sick perverted things is so OUT there...its not even funny...why would someone have those images going through their head?.......most artists do sketches of things that interest them......see where I am going with this?

once again....

I can understand someone drawing a battle ground of a WWll...so many boys like my brother did it, he wanted to be in the army and fight LOL....but I don’t see how that is sick or twisted...and not seen in the public eye as sick or twisted...heck its seen as a career lol and normal....yeaa yeaa you get the odd one that will cry out war is bad...but millions like to get into battle and fight for their country.........

what that guy in the news article did, as far as I am concerned was sick and perverted..........and I didnt suggest he would for cert go out and do it.......I agreed with Blind Messiah...only because there is a BIG difference between a battle war drawings <---not seen in millions and millions of peoples eyes as sick and oh so twisted................drawing children being sexually abused <---is something the law see's as sick an twisted and needs to be punished, therfor, others will believe any vision of it...whether its a drawing, paining, cartoon, photo...video...all tied to the same stick Fluffy

Now you may not agree with me, I am not asking you to lol......but that is my view.....

Someone asked earlier would you have someone like him look after your kids?.....hell NO!!! :blink: whether he would or not do it...its a chance I'd rather not face!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AROCES
So again, does your idea of controlling peoples thoughts continue on to war imagery?

Nope, just laying out what you believe in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
President-Elect Acidhead

http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=63722

May 07, 2008

In the wake of WND news coverage, the FBI is now reviewing a Wikipedia photo of a nude adolescent that could violate federal child-pornography laws.

The image in question, titled "Virgin Killer" from RCA's 1976 Scorpions rock album, depicts a naked pre-pubescent girl (appearing about 10 years of age) in a provocative pose. Her chest is completely exposed and a small crack is placed over her vagina.

linked-image

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Killer

In December 2008, the image again gave rise to controversy, when the British Internet Watch Foundation placed certain pages from Wikipedia on its internet blacklist, since it considered the image to be "potentially illegal" under current UK law.[3] This resulted in much of the UK being prevented from editing Wikipedia, and significant public debate of the decision. The decision was reversed by the IWF after four days of blocking.[4]

Edited by acidhead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.