Leaving Babble for awhile
Comments
Cueball wrote:Why should such a thread be in the "mens" forum. Is there a mens forum? If there is I suggest it be closed.
Well, from my perspective, because this topic that you AGAIN insist on derailing another thread with IS EXTREMELY OFFENSIVE to some.
Take it to a properly titled thread for that discussion, please, so I can ignore it, and so you can stop derailing other threads.
It's hardly appropriate to derail stargazer's goodbye thread.
I don't give a fuck really. If Stargazer wanted to post some inocuous "I am taking a break" type "see you all later" thread, then she could have. She chose not to. She instead used the opportunity to chastise me, as you are doing now, and I will speak both to that, and to the issues she raised, especially if people start saying that I don't have a right to. I have a right to defend myself and make my arguements in support of that defence, both to her and to anyone else who decides to intervene on her behalf.
I don't really care if its offensive to some. Others on the board post a lot of things about the Israeli/Palestinain conflict that I find extremely offensive and in bad taste. Countless times I have seen threads about Israeli violence derailed by endless discussions of the "Suicide Bombers" but I tackle those arguements as they come up. I don't try and "formalize consent" on the basis of the fact that what they say is personally offensive to me.
If we curtailed board content on what is "offensive to some" there would be no discussion, just a bunch of sychophants appologizing to each other.
Doesn't seem to be too damaging considering one of the men, caught in this sweep, worked for the City of Delta, and has several prior CONVICTIONS from 1997. Moreover, considering the heinious nature of the crime, its long term impacts, the sentence durations seem hardly adequate.
Who are we talking about now? Surely we are not talking about the thousands of charges laid during "Operation Ore", and the 33 suicides that have resulted, and the later discovery that the police evidence against many of the accused was stolen credit card numbers found in the possession of the purveyors of the child abuse porn?
I am also very curious to know what the Attorney General of Ontario wont let court reporters look at the case file of Ayad Mejid, reputedly a "terrorist" and a "pedophile". An interesting correlation between the political and the criminal in this case, to be sure.
Seems pretty up to date and factually correct to me.
You are wrong.
The Criminal Code has been amended since that article was written.
For example, most of what the article calls "child erotica" is now definitely illegal, according to the current definition of "child pornography" which you yourself quoted.
You see, it's easy to cut and paste. What's harder is to read and understand.
Take it to an appropriately titled thread that I can ignore, K.
I really don't care for the subject.
Hey, I was just responding to you. You expect me to start another thread to do that?
And for someone who doesn't "care for the subject" you certainly seem to have a lot to say about it.
This we did, and the thread was sacked by the interlocutors from the last thread, who then made pretty much similar types of accussations against people who were trying to discuss the topic. The mods then basically deemed that no third thread was welcome, and as such discussion was ended, through what I view as a kind of sabotage.
A compendium thread from the get go cue, not after, when things blew apart. I know, I know, often we see these things in hindsight.
Some people viewed your interlocution as sabatoge, cue, and I think neither was the case. Michelle's response in one of the threads was absolutely correct, personal leanings/biases, coming to the forefront and driving the dialogue to where it wasn't meant to be (simply put).
Fair enough. I personally never post on child abuse threads generally speaking, but the issue of the enhancement of police powers and so on are ones of interest to me. It's not as if I am constantly spamming these types of threads with this angle, so I am suprised that people were annoyed by asserting this topic.
My comments were entirely in line with my previous interests in issues of state control of the media, police surveiliance overreach, abuse of police power, wrongful conviction and freedom of speech. The fact that people were suggesting that my "interest" was "unusual" and therefore "suspect" in its motives was pretty disgusting, I thought.
Fidel's comment in particular was gratuitous.
The issue of wether or not my comments were in "bad taste", which seems to be the latest line, never came up in the original thread, as far as I can remember.
Some things just are to some people, and those people think it is self evident. However, it isn't, so called bad taste is also a personal perspective, and therefore subjective.
See, mods? You can end it, but it doesn't end :)
Cueball clearly stated what the second thread was about. Anyone else posting in that thread to refocus the discussion on child sexual abuse was derailing it, technically. Although we can understand why a "neck up" discussion of the issue is sometimes not going to work, and maybe even offensive to some.
Saga, I did not understand your two posts in that thread. This is the first time I've understood (kind of? I think?) what your position is. Still, even here, you say things like:
It took me two or three reads to understand that you were referring to police powers here and not to child porn. In any case, this was exactly Cueball's point - if I may say so. That even progressives will sweep over due process in their anxiousness to lock up who they perceive as the perps.
The main line of arguement was that any discussion of so called "libertarian" principles was a deflection and a defence of patriarchal male privilege. I can only respond to what is being said, not some hidden ethical and moral construct, based in of all things "taste".
Yes, and in fact I have just finished having a discussion with a friend of mine who has actually done police foresnic work in these cases, and I asked him point blank if the police still arrest and charge people with even a small amount of child abuse images in their "cache" and he says that indeed they do. Though he did say they are becoming more "rational" about it.
That is hearsay, as far as this board goes, so you can take it or leave it, but there it is.
Well, if accessing any child porn is a crime, then one can be charged, but I do wonder what "small amount" means here. And which "cache" you are referring to. Your personal "cache"? Or a temporary internet directory?
Secondly, how would a "small amount" of child abuse images be detected, except by whomever is reporting it looking in someone's hard drive? How are these things being reported? By family? Workplaces? Do you know?
Yes, as in, if you accidentally hit upon a child abuse site, and those images were downloaded into your cache, and the police identified your computer as one in the "ring" they would indeed sieze your computer, do a forensics examination, and even if you had "one or two" imgaes on your HD somewhere they would charge you.
No doubt, they would also sieze any computer associated with you, such as those in your workplace and so on. I hardly see how they could do it otherwise, since they actually need the computer in order to see what's in it. Beyond that, he affirmed that they would charge you.
Suffice to say, nothing said so far in response to my suspicions about the flaws in the investigation and criminal proccess regarding this kind of crime has been met with a satisfactory answer.
The only answer seems to have been that my interest is merely to perserve my own patricarchal privilege, or worse.
So one or two pictures. OK. Technically, that is the law.
However, we are in danger of getting back into argument here as I believe we established, with Sanizadeh's informed input, that it would be hard to get child porn images onto your hard drive without having actually gone to those sites. I guess the argument remains as to how "easy" it is to accidentally access a website with illegal content on it. I don't intend to continue the argument here.
Anyone could post child porn images right here on Babble and you'd have accessed it. The moderators would report them and obviously ban them but you'd still have accessed it. Its unfortunately not that uncommon on some legal and more highly visited discussion boards.
Sorry I know you said you didn't want to discuss that.
Fine. And so in this context we can just shut up about anything else, is that the idea? My point in a nut shell.
I'd say that 2 out of every 3 women I have ever dates were the victims of some kind of sexualized violence. I am no stranger to this issue.
I'd PM you, Stargazer, but then you'd have to come back here to read it...and I know you're not in the mood to do that right now.
So...
I'll just type my message here and, if you come back to read this thread, you'll see it then.
Take a break -- BUT PLEASE COME BACK!!
If it's a week, a month, six months...whatever. But, 99.9% of us would very much like to see you and your passion back here at babble.
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
Don't rely on that document for accuracy as to the current law. It is at least five years out of date, and in some cases factually wrong.
(Just had to check what I was responding to.)
Yup. Take em all to jail!
Let the courts sort out who was and was not viewing child porn, NOT the police. Their opinions are too easily distorted by whether you are middle class or not, and other superficial factors (Like whether you 'know' anyone or not). Also, child porn is not free. How difficult is it to determine if someone paid to view the child porn? Seems to me that's a pretty obvious parameter.
You wallow in the (porn) barnyard, you might get some shit on you.
Not many women are inclined to take to the streets to defend men's right to access porn. Don't want to get caught with the kiddie porn? Stay away from the porn.
Doesn't solve the problems that cueball raised (inappropriately in that thread, I maintain) but it shows why many of us are still rolling out eyes at this 'issue'.
Did you know, btw, that the Pickton farm and a posh establishment in Vancouver supply(ied) children for all manner of deviance, including snuff entertainment? No doubt the dead kids were fed to the pigs so none of their remains were found.
Did you know that 90 kids died 'in care' last year? Do you know that the gov has never before even looked at that issue? Do you know that they still have not yet even tried to determine how many children in care are missing and unaccounted for?
Did you know that the CIA programs children to become their 'agents', and photographs them in bed with men they want to blackmail into acting for them? (MKULTRA lives on.)
Do you know that there are more aboriginal children 'in care' now than there were in the 'Indian' Residential schools, where the pedophile rings flourished? Do you know the whereabouts of all of those children? (Neither does the government.)
Do any of you who stumble upon child porn report it to the police so they can perhaps try to identify the children and rescue them from their living hell?
DO YOU???!!!
And cueball, if stargazer made this thread about you, she also made it about me.
I'm taking this opportunity to say that I have challenged the reigning 'feminist' orthodoxy here on babble because it is, imo, very unhealthy and restricts helpful discussion of important issues. As a primary proponent of the status quo, stargazer has a problem with that and has responded with persistent personal attacks on me, so I opened it up for discussion to clear the air. I hope stargazer comes back with a fresh perspective, as I have always enjoyed her insight.
I would prefer that we simply add 'Women' and 'Men' forums here on babble, to allow equal access to a safe place. The Feminist forum can keep it's particular perspective.
Cueball, your derail of the child porn thread should have been a new thread in a 'Men's Forum', imo.
Why should such a thread be in the "mens" forum. Is there a mens forum? If there is I suggest it be closed.
Right. Judges are never influenced by things like that.
And you know this how?
Besides whether or not the accused paid for it is no defence.
Seems pretty up to date and factually correct to me.
I have little interest in cueball's obsession on this topic and some impatience that it was allowed to derail a more important topic.
It's not the topic of this thread either, so my impatience is showing.
Take it to an appropriately titled thread that I can ignore, K.
I really don't care for the subject.
Well, from my perspective, because this topic that you AGAIN insist on derailing another thread with IS EXTREMELY OFFENSIVE to some.
Take it to a properly titled thread for that discussion, please, so I can ignore it, and so you can stop derailing other threads.
It's hardly appropriate to derail stargazer's goodbye thread.
Thanks. Very useful. Of course no one is every going to say that they knowingly caused themselves to view such, and the police would be rightly suspect of such a contention. Therefore, they would doubtless, search sieze and charge them, regardless, and this in itself is certainly extremely damaging to a persons reputation, regardless of what came out in court.