|
REPORT COPYRIGHT VIOLATION IN REPLY
|
|
Message Subject
|
John Grisham: men who watch child porn are not all paedophiles
|
|
Poster Handle
|
Em18966 |
|
Post Content
|
...
Now wait a minute. Media is the Ministry of Propaganda & Indoctrination. Within its creations, it places what it is that they want you to take away from it. Just before your quote is the clincher of the whole article, the thing that they want you to adopt as your belief.
Asked about the argument that viewing child pornography fuelled the industry of abuse needed to create the pictures, Mr Grisham said that current sentencing policies failed to draw a distinction between real-world abusers and those who downloaded content, accidentally or otherwise.
Do you notice that he does not answer the question?
Do you notice the pattern of writing which equates two things to each other?
Realworld abusers = create the pictures
"Non-abusers" = viewers of child porn, those who downloaded content, accidentally or otherwise
This is known programming speech. Under the pre-text of a viewer of 16 year olds, he has just stated his belief to you. Whilst you come away with thinking that it's only discussing viewers of 16 year olds this article is actually teaching the audience that those who view and download child porn are not child abusers.
When the reality is, if EVERY LAST PERSON REFUSED TO WATCH IT, not ONE CHILD WOULD BE SEXUAL PREY TO THE CREATERS Of CHILD PORN.
Zero watchers = no children sexually abused for the making of child porn
Children sexually abused on film IS TO SATISFY THE PERVERTED SEXUAL DESIRES OF PEOPLE
And that is why he does not answer the question but instead gives you his belief;
That the child abuser is the creator of these films and the watcher is not a child abuser.
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 27565386 I don't know about all that. I agree with you that child porn is completely gross and wrong, but not what you're getting at with the subtext of this interview. Maybe my comment was over simplified. My intention was only to point out that the article title was misleading. Does he actually say, "those who view and download child porn are not child abusers?" If he did, I missed it, and can't be bothered to reread the article to find it. Whether the watcher is a child abuser or not is a case by case thing and more complicated than I wish to debate. Some of them probably need help, not prison. Others need to be neutered. There is no 'helping' a pedophile. Have you ever heard of an 'ex-pedophile'? Nope The only good pedo is a dead pedo. The damage they do can't be undone and it is of the worst kind. Not only that, but we have created a society that makes exceptions and excuses for this behavior. Fucking sick, man. Now you're just letting your passions cloud what I said. I never gave specifics of any cases and you have no idea what I would consider, someone needing help or who is a pedophile. But, like you've done with the article, and my limited post. I'm sure it would be misconstrued. There is no need for specifics. Grown adult with sexual desire for child = pedophile Pedophile = cannot be fixed There is no help for a pedophile, it is that simple. No degrees of pedophilia. No successful anti-pedophile treatment. It doesn't matter if the dude in question is 21 and looking at little girls or 61. It doesn't matter if he's jacking off to kiddie porn, making kiddie porn or physically abusing children. It's all the same and the only way to treat these people effectively is with a bullet to the brain.
|
|
|
Please verify you're human:
|
|
|
Reason for copyright violation:
|
