|
On August 09 2009 11:50 Ancestral wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2009 11:30 Gnosis wrote:On August 09 2009 10:14 Cheeseball wrote:On August 09 2009 10:04 Gnosis wrote:On August 09 2009 09:59 FortuneSyn wrote:
well how could you disprove this? There's no reason to believe it, what's to disprove? Prove god doesn't exist. OH SHI- Maybe when you've learned you aren't so clever  Edit: Sorry, I suppose one of my first few posts after being away for a while shouldn't be stupid religious flaming. + Show Spoiler +God's existence cannot be disproven, don't be an idiot. To every argument you can devise, theists can say "well he is God and therefore transcends that." Sometimes their arguments are meticulously crafted and devious, to the point of fooling the unwashed masses into believing it is science.
Considering my low post count, maybe
Although you know, Billy Mays was a cocaine user, the cat could have done it... (Joking, of course).
+ Show Spoiler +If we demand on a level of proof on par with that of mathematical certainty, then no, God's existence can't be proven just as it can't be proven God doesn't exist. If by 'proof' we mean something along the lines of inference to the best explanation given all available evidence, then I think surely one could, given the evidence, build a case in which is more reasonable to believe than its contrary. I don't in fact think theists are at all justified in replying, to any given objection, "well he is God and therefore transcends that" -- how is it that God transcends his 'dis-proofs' but not his proofs? Such things should be rejected out of hand. For all the bad arguments for and against the existence of God, there are also some very good arguments for and against the existence of God. For the theist, these would have nothing to do with 'fooling the unwashed masses'. Just my view on things, anyway.
|
On August 09 2009 10:11 Hot_Bid wrote:unfortunately thats not how the legal system works, especially not when it comes to stuff like child porn -- shit is strict liability. if its on your comp, you are guilty. thats how the law for child porn operates, and how it is interpreted 99% of the time. how could you possibly disprove any alibi? oh you have me on tape murdering someone? well it was a clone made by aliens and the real me was time traveling in an alternate dimension. well how could you disprove this?
I have a feeling that a lot of this child porn stuff is reactionary. It's engrossed in the public mindset to crucify these guys for their sexual orientation. Take Law and Order SVU. Every other episode there's some depraved sex fiend who rapes and kills children. I challenge you to find a modern paedophile who is celebrated with his or her paedophilia in mind.
With that said, this bullshit cat alibi could easily be disproved by tracking the download date for the pictures.
-edit- Oh christ this is going to turn into a religion topic
|
On August 09 2009 12:43 Kwidowmaker wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2009 10:11 Hot_Bid wrote:On August 09 2009 09:59 FortuneSyn wrote:
well how could you disprove this? unfortunately thats not how the legal system works, especially not when it comes to stuff like child porn -- shit is strict liability. if its on your comp, you are guilty. thats how the law for child porn operates, and how it is interpreted 99% of the time. how could you possibly disprove any alibi? oh you have me on tape murdering someone? well it was a clone made by aliens and the real me was time traveling in an alternate dimension. well how could you disprove this? I have a feeling that a lot of this child porn stuff is reactionary. It's engrossed in the public mindset to crucify these guys for their sexual orientation. Take Law and Order SVU. Every other episode there's some depraved sex fiend who rapes and kills children. I challenge you to find a modern paedophile who is celebrated with his or her paedophilia in mind. With that said, this bullshit cat alibi could easily be disproved by tracking the download date for the pictures. -edit- Oh christ this is going to turn into a religion topic
Naah, in so many words, Kwidomaker is right. There are academic and non-academic arguments for and against God, that's a fact. End of story. However, with regards to your post, I think pedophiles suffer the unfair plight of the fact that if they carry out their desires, people are hurt in the process. It is unfortunate.
|
How do you get caught for having child porn anyway, unless the cat reported him to the fbi.
|
It's entirely a problem of perspective.
When a paedophile goes a strokin', he (or she, but he has one less letter, no sexism here) has to have his pornography produced somehow, which inevitably requires a minor to be 'sexually abused' (I put that in quotations only to point out that 'sexually abused' is such a fucking gray area). Child rape is of course wholly (though perhaps not holy) wrong as long as rape is, but doing it to a child just makes it that much more unstomachable. There is a difference between the two though, and it should be obvious. When downloading kiddy porn the paedophile is indirectly 'abusing' a minor, whereas the kiddy raper is directly abusing.
Consider the little girl who made your textiles. I think you all know where this is going.
|
How did they get into his files in the first place?
|
|
|
On August 09 2009 12:51 Ancestral wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2009 12:43 Kwidowmaker wrote:On August 09 2009 10:11 Hot_Bid wrote:On August 09 2009 09:59 FortuneSyn wrote:
well how could you disprove this? unfortunately thats not how the legal system works, especially not when it comes to stuff like child porn -- shit is strict liability. if its on your comp, you are guilty. thats how the law for child porn operates, and how it is interpreted 99% of the time. how could you possibly disprove any alibi? oh you have me on tape murdering someone? well it was a clone made by aliens and the real me was time traveling in an alternate dimension. well how could you disprove this? I have a feeling that a lot of this child porn stuff is reactionary. It's engrossed in the public mindset to crucify these guys for their sexual orientation. Take Law and Order SVU. Every other episode there's some depraved sex fiend who rapes and kills children. I challenge you to find a modern paedophile who is celebrated with his or her paedophilia in mind. With that said, this bullshit cat alibi could easily be disproved by tracking the download date for the pictures. -edit- Oh christ this is going to turn into a religion topic Naah, in so many words, Kwidomaker is right. There are academic and non-academic arguments for and against God, that's a fact. End of story. However, with regards to your post, I think pedophiles suffer the unfair plight of the fact that if they carry out their desires, people are hurt in the process. It is unfortunate.
I don't think I've seen an academic argument for religion -- but let's stay away from that subject
As for the case at hand -- it must suck to have an illegal fetish =p
|
On August 09 2009 13:06 eMbrace wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2009 12:51 Ancestral wrote:On August 09 2009 12:43 Kwidowmaker wrote:On August 09 2009 10:11 Hot_Bid wrote:On August 09 2009 09:59 FortuneSyn wrote:
well how could you disprove this? unfortunately thats not how the legal system works, especially not when it comes to stuff like child porn -- shit is strict liability. if its on your comp, you are guilty. thats how the law for child porn operates, and how it is interpreted 99% of the time. how could you possibly disprove any alibi? oh you have me on tape murdering someone? well it was a clone made by aliens and the real me was time traveling in an alternate dimension. well how could you disprove this? I have a feeling that a lot of this child porn stuff is reactionary. It's engrossed in the public mindset to crucify these guys for their sexual orientation. Take Law and Order SVU. Every other episode there's some depraved sex fiend who rapes and kills children. I challenge you to find a modern paedophile who is celebrated with his or her paedophilia in mind. With that said, this bullshit cat alibi could easily be disproved by tracking the download date for the pictures. -edit- Oh christ this is going to turn into a religion topic Naah, in so many words, Kwidomaker is right. There are academic and non-academic arguments for and against God, that's a fact. End of story. However, with regards to your post, I think pedophiles suffer the unfair plight of the fact that if they carry out their desires, people are hurt in the process. It is unfortunate. I don't think I've seen an academic argument for religion -- but let's stay away from that subject As for the case at hand -- it must suck to have an illegal fetish =p
This child thing does go pretty obscenely far. Yes child porn is wrong, that isn't up for debate.... but was it up for debate is that I know that some lawmakers in the US have been clambering to make the possession of drawn lolis illegal (already like that in the UK.)
I don't understand how a clearly drawn picture that ISN'T DEPICTING A REAL ACT could be justified as something to throw someone in jail for.... really... how the hell does that even cross anyones mind?
Sometimes I think children are a little too voraciously protected.
|
LOL, that's a ridiculous defence.
|
|
|
Hong Kong20321 Posts
On August 09 2009 13:12 Jayme wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2009 13:06 eMbrace wrote:On August 09 2009 12:51 Ancestral wrote:On August 09 2009 12:43 Kwidowmaker wrote:On August 09 2009 10:11 Hot_Bid wrote:On August 09 2009 09:59 FortuneSyn wrote:
well how could you disprove this? unfortunately thats not how the legal system works, especially not when it comes to stuff like child porn -- shit is strict liability. if its on your comp, you are guilty. thats how the law for child porn operates, and how it is interpreted 99% of the time. how could you possibly disprove any alibi? oh you have me on tape murdering someone? well it was a clone made by aliens and the real me was time traveling in an alternate dimension. well how could you disprove this? I have a feeling that a lot of this child porn stuff is reactionary. It's engrossed in the public mindset to crucify these guys for their sexual orientation. Take Law and Order SVU. Every other episode there's some depraved sex fiend who rapes and kills children. I challenge you to find a modern paedophile who is celebrated with his or her paedophilia in mind. With that said, this bullshit cat alibi could easily be disproved by tracking the download date for the pictures. -edit- Oh christ this is going to turn into a religion topic Naah, in so many words, Kwidomaker is right. There are academic and non-academic arguments for and against God, that's a fact. End of story. However, with regards to your post, I think pedophiles suffer the unfair plight of the fact that if they carry out their desires, people are hurt in the process. It is unfortunate. I don't think I've seen an academic argument for religion -- but let's stay away from that subject As for the case at hand -- it must suck to have an illegal fetish =p This child thing does go pretty obscenely far. Yes child porn is wrong, that isn't up for debate.... but was it up for debate is that I know that some lawmakers in the US have been clambering to make the possession of drawn lolis illegal (already like that in the UK.) I don't understand how a clearly drawn picture that ISN'T DEPICTING A REAL ACT could be justified as something to throw someone in jail for.... really... how the hell does that even cross anyones mind? Sometimes I think children are a little too voraciously protected.
wtf seriously people put into jail for having like pedo hentai ??? -_-;;
|
My cat is not allowed in my room now.
|
On August 09 2009 13:03 CharlieMurphy wrote:found pic of the accused
GUILTY!
+ Show Spoiler +liked your guide on defending 4 pool.
|
On August 09 2009 13:25 MeriaDoKk wrote:
My cat is not allowed in my room now.
ahaha
|
It is preposterous to believe that sexually abusing a child and wanking to depictions of sexually abused children are of equal detriment to society.
Edit: To embrace
+ Show Spoiler +(Is it ok if the conversation is hidden from those uninterested?) I just mean that theologians have their painstakingly crafted arguments based on, well, theology, in addition to lots of fancy philosophical appeals. I wouldn't know what they are, being a sometimes apathetic engineering major, but basing the argument on academic subjects (history, philosophy, perhaps even theology) is better than trying to come up with ways to make people believe in your religion.
And the former certainly exists.
|
On August 09 2009 10:25 vGl-CoW wrote:
kitty porn
hahaha.. also this proves the cat didn't do it - if it did, it would be kitten porn
|
On August 09 2009 13:03 CharlieMurphy wrote:found pic of the accused
definitely a pedo
|
what the fuck. are you serious?
|
see if lolcats.com is in the web history
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.sun-sentinel.com/media/photo/2009-08/48521486.JPG)
