|
posted by dennisn on November 29th, 2011 at 9:07PM
No. No I do not. What does that have to do with ideas and information?
|
posted by dsk on November 29th, 2011 at 9:26PM
>What does that have to do with ideas and information?"
Nothing. I'm going off on a tangent.
Do you support the right to buy graphic child pornography directly from "content creator" (e.g. the child rapist)?
Do you support the right to pay for and view LIVE child rape by a third party? That is the right to pay a rapist for, say, webcam view of child rape?
|
posted by dennisn on November 29th, 2011 at 11:02PM
Yes, I support the right to buy (beautiful or obscene) photography.
There's no need to cloud the issue with the "child-" prefix. Rape is rape. So, if there is a direct involvement/conspiracy in the rape, well, that is essentially an accomplice to rape. However, if there is no direct remuneration, but simply looking at evidence afterwards -- ie. looking at a real rape video, or worse still, a murder video (ie. war videos), then it's perfectly "legal" -- albeit subjectively distasteful.
|
posted by dsk on November 29th, 2011 at 11:07PM
You're deflecting. I want you to answer directly the two scenarios (plus one more).
Do you support the right to buy graphic child pornography directly from "content creator" (e.g. the child rapist)?
Do you support the right to pay for and view LIVE child rape by a third party? That is the right to pay a rapist for, say, webcam view of child rape (a rape which would have happened regardless)?
(and a third)
Do you support the right of child rapists to trade images/videos of their rapes?
|
|
|
|
