sbscout, your quotes are a lot better now but can still stand to use some cleanup...
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by sbscout
Quote:
|
...pedophilia is not illegal but having sex with children is.
|
You are correct, according to your source... however it does state that it is a "sexual perversion in which children are the preferred sexual object." |
I don't understand the point you're trying to make here. First, you agree that I am using the term correctly but then you attempt to contrast my usage with a quote, verbatim, from my source (which happens to be
Merriam-Webster...). What are you trying to say?
Quote:
Quote:
|
These are images concocted out of nothing but one's own imagination and, obviously, involved absoluetly no children, or anyone for that matter.
|
Are "highly stylized" and/or "anime" words that PROVE that no one was used as a model for this stuff? IMO, there was a source somewhere, at sometime as a "mind model."
|
Well, I guess you don't believe in the whole "innocent until proven guilty" garbage...
Honestly, I am so astonished by this attitude that I don't actually know how to respond. You don't think someone, an artist, can imagine a child? A person's imagination can't be the "source?"
Hell, suppose all your wild assumptions are true. Even if they drew a child that they actually saw in life (unlikely if you've ever seen anime/manga), so what? I see a child walk down the street, go home, draw images of that child doing disturbing things, and suddenly that child is abused? I never touched that child or even interacted with them in any way. All those images represent is an idea and, again, we're back to regulating thought. My thoughts can involve other people, that doesn't make it abuse...
Quote:
Quote:
|
...US government really do want to make pedophilia, as I've described it, illegal, which I truly find frightening and offensive.
|
Why is this frightening and offensive? The laws are on the books in an attempt to protect the children from what you acknowledge is a perversion.
That being said, do I agree that this judge overreacted? Quite probably, although I don't know what the pictures looked like. I am appalled when a convicted child molester - one who I assume you are holding up as a true criminal - is given probation or a light sentence when an actual child is abused.
He has a right to think what he wants... once the thinking becomes action, however, the government has the right to decide if he's acting within the boundaries of what it deems to be acceptable.
|
In this case, no children were harmed so, exactly, what children were protected by these laws? The frightening part is that this guy is going to prison for the rest of his life despite having hurt no one. The offensive part is that "
the land of the free" wants to
imprison you for what you think.
Does it really matter what the
drawings (not pictures, remember) were?
My point is that he has not acted on his thoughts. He is indulging his thoughts and that is enough for the government to prosecute you. That's like my wife divorcing me and winning alimony because I was commiting adultery by reading
Playboy!