Naked Science Forum
General Discussion & Feedback => Just Chat! => Topic started by: jerrygg38 on 15/07/2016 18:09:41
-
The monsters have struck again in France. The laws allow people to promote the means of killing children as free speech. thus your computer can have tons of bomb making procedures, how and where to plant the bombs, and who to kill both children and adults. Yet if you have child pornography on your computer you can go to jail. thus it is okay to kill children but not sexually exploit them.
Free speech is not free. It kills people. They say France has 10,000 terriorists on their watch list. They all have lots of information on how to kill adults and children. So why cannot they be jailed not to protect the adults but to protect the children? to go to a terror country and then return should land them in jail for 20 years at least. To have bomb making equipment should yield the same result. To preach the destruction of others should be a crime. What do you think?
-
i think we're living times where the medias and governments control the public information about the causes of artificial terrorism: Waging war on the people and childrens is an evidence that they have no respect for life.
-
I think that answer to your problem is pretty clear. It's because just looking at the actual content of kiddy porn is what causes the problem whereas reading bomb making instructions isn't. It's the actual planning, building and the thread of a bombs that's the problem. However if you tell someone on the internet that you're going to bomb a place then that's against the law too. Looking at kiddy-porn causes a demand and that demand leads to abuse.
-
I think that answer to your problem is pretty clear. It's because just looking at the actual content of kiddy porn is what causes the problem whereas reading bomb making instructions isn't. It's the actual planning, building and the thread of a bombs that's the problem. However if you tell someone on the internet that you're going to bomb a place then that's against the law too. Looking at kiddy-porn causes a demand and that demand leads to abuse.
Your answers are pretty good. Yet the Rosenbergs were executed for helping the Russians get the A bomb information. And some people believe that the information they gave them was worthless. I am afraid we will have to give up a little of our free speech rights to prevent the total destruction of western civilization. If people are in communication with terrorists I believe they should face criminal charges. That is certainly censorship but what else can we do.
-
i think we're living times where the medias and governments control the public information about the causes of artificial terrorism: Waging war on the people and childrens is an evidence that they have no respect for life.
Modern life has led a lot of people down the path of depression. Years ago people would just kill themselves. Now they want to make a lot of people suffer along with them. What is the cause? Many people feel ill at ease in modern life.
-
According to the official narrative, everyone is a potential terrorist now. Meanwhile the militarization of France continues. Don't you think theses (staged) terrorist attacks serves well the purpose of occupying by military forces our cities? It was the job of police to ensure security before Paris was attacked... Why is this considered a terrorist act and not a random case of citizen unrest?
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-03-11/militarization-french-streets-not-temporary
-
Looks like we're though to believe the whole world has become so chaotic that only militarization of police is the solution. I prefer thinking this is organized crime agaisn't our societies in hope to establish a radical new world order.
What do blacks, gays, childrens, and journalists have in common? I guess they all have the right to live without fear of being labeled a "terrorist". Labeling free citizens as potential terrorist is becoming accepted by common thinking.
Our freedoms are vanishing for the sake of fear and threat of artificial terrorism.
-
It is in the selfinterest of politicians to glamorise a public nuisance by labelling it "terrorism". Murder and conspiracy to murder are crimes in any country (except when committed by politicians, but that is another story) and those who kill random others should always and only be labelled "scum". Their imagined or professed motives for doing so are the irrelevant product of a sick or inferior mind and do not deserve any publicity.
Organised crime in Northern Ireland was at least contained and suppressed until it was labelled "terrorism" and the perpetrators and instigators were given seats in Parliament, for the greater glory of Tony Blair. George W Bush capitalised on 9/11 by declaring a War on Terror and thus gave morons and perverts an excuse for egregious behavior: had he quietly said "we will find out who is behind this, and kill them" things might have turned out very differently but he would not have been re-elected.
I've always found the rules on child pornography to be a bit bizarre, however. To the best of my knowledge, it is illegal to crucify anyone, flay them alive, hang them, enslave them...but not to own images of such activities. Indeed such images often fetch high prices on the open market and their ownership is positively encouraged by those who set themselves up as experts on moral behavior in the Christian tradition (Islam frowns on the representation of human form, and anything more than mug-shots of the committee could raise questions of idolatry in a synagogue). Whilst nonconsensual sex of any kind is and should be illegal, it is illogical to criminalise possession of images of such activity whilst publicising the acts and consequences of mass murder on television news and in print.
-
Why the complex answers to an obvious question?
It is wrong to kill children but even worse to sexually abuse them (Exploit is a whitewash of the despicable and the wrong word)
There is a special place in hell for these monsters or base beasts that claim to be human?
Alan
-
Why the complex answers to an obvious question?
It is wrong to kill children but even worse to sexually abuse them
Alan
Surely you have misspoke Alan. While sexual abuse is a terrible crime and should be punished to the full extent of the law, how can one judge that it is "worse" than taking another life, especially the life of an innocent child?
-
Why the complex answers to an obvious question?
It is wrong to kill children but even worse to sexually abuse them
Alan
Surely you have misspoke Alan. While sexual abuse is a terrible crime and should be punished to the full extent of the law, how can one judge that it is "worse" than taking another life, especially the life of an innocent child?
You are partially right I should have qualified my statement!
The Childs innocence is taken away from them by these unspeakably depraved paedophilic beasts.
Sometimes death is not the worst thing that can happen to a person?
Because a badly sexually abused child is often so scarred so badly affected, by that unspeakable evil meeted on them, that they become monsters themselves or go on to lead a meaningless existence of mental illness and even suicide.
Depravity exists in all human societies but the very worst depravity, the very bottom of the cesspool of human evil exists only in sexual deviants.
Alan
-
To add more fuel to this debate of the horror of child sex abuse and child murder, I recall the discussion over the exploitation of children by a priest in a south American country. the unwanted street children were taken care of by a Priest who sexually abused them. The question that the authorities had was whether it is better to have the children in the street to die of hunger and disease or to have the children well taken care of by the Priest although he abused them.
Then we go to third world countries who often sell their children to the sex trade so they can have food on the table. And in America the children of slaves were abused and even by future presidents of the US.