Author Topic: Mark Salling, "Glee" co-star, dead at 35  (Read 3042 times)

yea I still don't think anyone should go to prison over child research. if someone is purchasing it than that's a different story (because they are directly supporting child rape). but people will always be child enthusiasts--and I've never seen a study to suggest that viewing child research makes them more likely to abuse children. since it isn't causing anybody harm (the actual rape/production is) why do we sentence these people to go to prison?

if someone is discovered as possessing or viewing child research they should attend mandatory treatment. if you lock a child enthusiast in jail for seven years he will still be child enthusiast when he comes out--and since he's now a felon and a love offender he wont be able to get work, meaning he'll probably get involved with crime, further harming society. he may even be more likely to commit a loveual assault against a child because he feels the need to take 'revenge' on society.

lock people up if they buy, produce, or sell child research. but is it really worth ruining somebody's life and driving them to suicide for looking at photos? the highest estimates suggest about 20% of child enthusiasts will eventually commit a loveual assault, with the lowest around 1%. child enthusiasts aren't rapists or molesters until they commit those crimes. they're seriously ill people who should receive treatment before we destroy their lives and/or allow them to hurt children.

lost of people get off on pictures of dead women and children. lots of torture and gore videos are produced by cartels and terrorist groups. by viewing these videos, people directly support the crimes in question. cartels wouldn't torture people on video if nobody was watching it (either for morbid shock or perverse pleasure). it's illegal to torture and kill people--so why don't we ban this sort of content in the same way? I really don't know. I think that anyone known to regularly look at that sort of stuff for pleasure should have to undergo the same sort of treatment (to ensure that they will not harm anybody in the future).

imo it's extremely immoral to lock people up over this sort of thing.
pretty funny coming from you


it's literally exactly the same for cp
I don't think it should be illegal to just be a child enthusiast. not like you can do much about it
but you can control your actions
It's bait fox, don't even bother


yea I still don't think anyone should go to prison over child research.

Stop giving me ammo jesus christ

Yea, it's easy to oppose decriminalization because you look like you're "going easy" on child enthusiasts. But it's the opposite--locking them up does nothing to change their mindset. The only way to make them stop being child enthusiasts is to give them treatment or kill them.

it's literally exactly the same for cp
I don't think it should be illegal to just be a child enthusiast. not like you can do much about it
but you can control your actions
Yea, it shouldn't be legal to watch child research, it should be decriminalized. In my second sentence I said that it should be illegal to pay money for CP because you're supporting the production of that sort of content. There's a difference between child enthusiasts and loveual predators. It's like locking up a heroin addict for doing heroin--yea, they could choose not to use heroin, but it would be extremely difficult for them because both addicts and child enthusiasts have severe issues in need of treatment. If you lock up a heroin addict, they'll still be a criminal, just an addicted one. If you lock up a child enthusiast--they're still a child enthusiast, just now a love-offender criminal child enthusiast who can't   get work.

So four lolis want to forget you...

So four lolis want to forget you...
and if dont you forget them you become a loli

yea I still don't think anyone should go to prison over child research. if someone is purchasing it than that's a different story (because they are directly supporting child rape). but people will always be child enthusiasts--and I've never seen a study to suggest that viewing child research makes them more likely to abuse children. since it isn't causing anybody harm (the actual rape/production is) why do we sentence these people to go to prison?

if someone is discovered as possessing or viewing child research they should attend mandatory treatment. if you lock a child enthusiast in jail for seven years he will still be child enthusiast when he comes out--and since he's now a felon and a love offender he wont be able to get work, meaning he'll probably get involved with crime, further harming society. he may even be more likely to commit a loveual assault against a child because he feels the need to take 'revenge' on society.

lock people up if they buy, produce, or sell child research. but is it really worth ruining somebody's life and driving them to suicide for looking at photos? the highest estimates suggest about 20% of child enthusiasts will eventually commit a loveual assault, with the lowest around 1%. child enthusiasts aren't rapists or molesters until they commit those crimes. they're seriously ill people who should receive treatment before we destroy their lives and/or allow them to hurt children.

lost of people get off on pictures of dead women and children. lots of torture and gore videos are produced by cartels and terrorist groups. by viewing these videos, people directly support the crimes in question. cartels wouldn't torture people on video if nobody was watching it (either for morbid shock or perverse pleasure). it's illegal to torture and kill people--so why don't we ban this sort of content in the same way? I really don't know. I think that anyone known to regularly look at that sort of stuff for pleasure should have to undergo the same sort of treatment (to ensure that they will not harm anybody in the future).

imo it's extremely immoral to lock people up over this sort of thing.
ur not very smart r u


ur not very smart r u
Can you actually argue against my beliefs (which are backed by numerous studies) using any sort of evidence? Or can you just shake your head and insult me because you don't actually know why I'm wrong?

Can you actually argue against my beliefs (which are backed by numerous studies) using any sort of evidence? Or can you just shake your head and insult me because you don't actually know why I'm wrong?
we can argue against you by using basic human morals

kill all creeps. we're paying taxes for creeps to be treated with 3 meals a day and a bed to sleep in. kill them all

kill all creeps. we're paying taxes for creeps to be treated with 3 meals a day and a bed to sleep in. kill them all

this is the type of content i like to see from hillkill

kill all creeps. we're paying taxes for creeps to be treated with 3 meals a day and a bed to sleep in. kill them all
the only sociopathic post you've made thats worth considering