posted by dennisn on November 29th, 2011 at 11:19PM
Umm, I answered quite directly.
Although, I misread the first question. You mentioned buying stuff directly from the criminal. Which is pretty darn close to a direct involvement in the crime. It's not as bad as committing the crime, but pretty close. (It's similar to the distinction between an assassin and the person who pays for him -- ie. between Bush and a "soldier"). I'm actually still not sure about this issue. Should only the assassin/rapist/criminal be charged, or those that incentivized him as well? I'm going to lean on the side of caution, and say that it's okay to pay for whatever you want. Only the person committing the actual crime is the criminal. (Thought experiment: I make a bitcoin pool for anyone to kill Obama. Someone eventually does. Are the people who entered the pool complicit in the crime? I say no.)
I'm not sure what the difference between that and the second question is. But the reasoning will be the same -- only the person doing the crime should get charged for the crime. The slope is unecessarily way too slippery any other way. (Any anti-Obama person can be said to have incentivized an Obama assassin). Although, the fact that you said it would have happened regardless further distances the payers from the crime.
Thirdly, I definitely support the right of anyone to trade any information -- including child rapists of their rapes. Not only is the only alternative a lack of free speech (free speech is binary), but it will also probably help as evidence in finding them. The only possible contentious issue is that of imaginary property / "privacy", but that is far less serious.
Although, I misread the first question. You mentioned buying stuff directly from the criminal. Which is pretty darn close to a direct involvement in the crime. It's not as bad as committing the crime, but pretty close. (It's similar to the distinction between an assassin and the person who pays for him -- ie. between Bush and a "soldier"). I'm actually still not sure about this issue. Should only the assassin/rapist/criminal be charged, or those that incentivized him as well? I'm going to lean on the side of caution, and say that it's okay to pay for whatever you want. Only the person committing the actual crime is the criminal. (Thought experiment: I make a bitcoin pool for anyone to kill Obama. Someone eventually does. Are the people who entered the pool complicit in the crime? I say no.)
I'm not sure what the difference between that and the second question is. But the reasoning will be the same -- only the person doing the crime should get charged for the crime. The slope is unecessarily way too slippery any other way. (Any anti-Obama person can be said to have incentivized an Obama assassin). Although, the fact that you said it would have happened regardless further distances the payers from the crime.
Thirdly, I definitely support the right of anyone to trade any information -- including child rapists of their rapes. Not only is the only alternative a lack of free speech (free speech is binary), but it will also probably help as evidence in finding them. The only possible contentious issue is that of imaginary property / "privacy", but that is far less serious.
|
posted by dennisn on November 29th, 2011 at 11:32PM
Or, if you're too lazy to read:
1. Yes 2. Yes 3. Yes
|
|
posted by dsk on November 29th, 2011 at 11:30PM
You're a fuckin coward. I don't give a fuck about your extensive qualification of your dumbass reasoning. I want you to give me a YES or NO answer to each statement, not buried in shit ton of your useless garbage.
1. Do you support the right to buy graphic child pornography directly from "content creator" (e.g. the child rapist)? 2. 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) 3. Do you support the right of child rapists to trade images/videos of their rapes?
|
