OOOHHHhhhh baby ...

POSTED BY: rue
UPDATED: Friday, April 6, 2007 16:57
VIEWED: 2724
PAGE 1 of 1

RUE

Wednesday, April 4, 2007 11:26 PM

http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/?last_story=/mwt/broadsheet/2007/0
4/04/child_porn/

When sentencing a man for possessing child pornography, Nevada Judge Bill Maddox said, "These kinds of offenses are problems with impulse control. When I say that, it's my understanding that most men are sexually attracted to young women. When I say young women I don't just mean women that ... you should be attracted to. I mean women from the time they're 1 all the way up until they're 100."

... there's a line -- or deep, crocodile-infested moat -- that should be drawn between sexual attraction to babies and the unpleasant-but-natural reality of sexual attraction to post-pubescent teenagers.

The Maddox ruling doesn't recognize these distinctions. In his ruling, Maddox defined child pornography as "malum prohibitum" (an act that isn't inherently wrong) as opposed to "malum in se" (an act that is inherently wrong).

... this kind of moral philosophizing seems inappropriate coming from the bench. And setting legal and moral standards according to other cultures' values seems like a reach when we have our own cultural value system handy -- a value system that holds that sex with children is inherently wrong because children are not able to offer consent in any kind of meaningful way.

CITIZEN

Wednesday, April 4, 2007 11:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
When sentencing a man for possessing child pornography, Nevada Judge Bill Maddox said, "These kinds of offenses are problems with impulse control. When I say that, it's my understanding that most men are sexually attracted to young women. When I say young women I don't just mean women that ... you should be attracted to. I mean women from the time they're 1 all the way up until they're 100."

If the only reason your judges don't have sex with infants is because the law says it's wrong I do wonder about the future of your nation.

That is I wonder more about the future of your nation.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

RUE

Wednesday, April 4, 2007 11:31 PM

snicker ...

I wanted to add one more thing here. This isn't the product of one of those Californicated liberal judges. No siree. This was a product of true American values. The only shock was that it wasn't a Utah judge.

FREMDFIRMA

Thursday, April 5, 2007 12:10 AM

http://www.protect.org
http://www.vachss.com

I have nothin useful to add beyond this, other than I been fightin the good fight on this one since the early 90's when it came to my attention that what we do to our youth is the direct source of many of our social ills.

We do unto them, they grow up, and they do unto US... hard to blame em.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

CAUSAL

Thursday, April 5, 2007 12:31 PM

America snark snark snark

Great Britain snark snark snark

AMERICA SNARK SNARK SNARK!

GREAT BRITAIN SNARK SNARK SNARK!!

Amazing how frequently our discussions follow the same pattern, isn't it?

________________________________________________________________________
- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

Vote for Firefly! http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

HERO

Thursday, April 5, 2007 1:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
In his ruling, Maddox defined child pornography as "malum prohibitum" (an act that isn't inherently wrong) as opposed to "malum in se" (an act that is inherently wrong).

As a prosecutor I can say that the only thing I look at is the "malum". If you "malum" in my City I'm putting you in jail. You can debate the "to se or not to se" all you want after that (your new husband Bubba will enjoy the pillow talk).

H

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Thursday, April 5, 2007 1:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
If the only reason your judges don't have sex with infants is because the law says it's wrong I do wonder about the future of your nation.

And here I thought the linked article was about ONE Judges ruling on a child pornography case. You sure don't mind making large leaps when it serves your purposes.

Posting to stir stuff up.

GEEZER

Thursday, April 5, 2007 1:47 PM

Sounds like Judge-firin' time to me. At that level, 'put brain in gear before engaging mouth' is a given.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

CITIZEN

Thursday, April 5, 2007 1:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
And here I thought the linked article was about ONE Judges ruling on a child pornography case. You sure don't mind making large leaps when it serves your purposes.

And you certainly don't mind writing attack emails when it suits your purposes.

Compared to some of the leaps and lies you've spouted adding an 's' to a sentence isn't even on the radar. But I guess selective reading and history is something you sure don't mind doing when it suits your purposes.

Hypocrite much?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Thursday, April 5, 2007 2:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
And you certainly don't mind writing attack emails when it suits your purposes.

Enough of that already. I sent you one discrete PM about making changes to your post after posting it. Since you are apparently not mature enough to handle that, I guess it's now everyone's business. It must have struck close to home if you are still bringing it up.

Quote:

Compared to some of the leaps and lies you've spouted adding an 's' to a sentence isn't even on the radar.

Please link al least two 'leaps and lies' I have made. Do not personally attack me without proof, that could be misinterpreted as trollish behaviour. And I am well aware of how anti-troll you are.

Quote:

But I guess selective reading and history is something you sure don't mind doing when it suits your purposes.

Hypocrite much?

So adding the 's' to judge was a simple mistake on your behalf? I would be more inclined to believe that if you didn't follow it up with the following

Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
...I do wonder about the future of your nation.

That is I wonder more about the future of your nation.

Posting to stir stuff up.

RUE

Thursday, April 5, 2007 4:13 PM

S'wenyways, if this had been a California judge there'd have been no end of right-wing postings.

Hypocrites much?

CITIZEN

Thursday, April 5, 2007 4:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
Enough of that already. I sent you one discrete PM about making changes to your post after posting it. Since you are apparently not mature enough to handle that, I guess it's now everyone's business. It must have struck close to home if you are still bringing it up.

We both know there was more too it than that. It was more of your baiting and thinly veiled attacks, attempting to inflame a thread off board so you can deny any culpability but if you aren't mature enough to admit it...

Quote:
Please link al least two 'leaps and lies' I have made.

Why, pretty much every post passes for it. I'll quote every post on RWED if you like.

Quote:
Do not personally attack me without proof, that could be misinterpreted as trollish behaviour.

You mean, don't act like you? Sounds pretty hypocritcal and trollish, especially coming from the poster who only ever posts to make insinuations about other posters. When was the last time you made an on topic responce?

Quote:
And I am well aware of how anti-troll you are.

Ohh, a bit more baiting, must have struck close to home with some of what I said eh.

I am aware how pro troll you are. I mean, posting to stir stuff up and defending the trolls of the board and so on.

Quote:
So adding the 's' to judge was a simple mistake on your behalf? I would be more inclined to believe that if you didn't follow it up with the following

So when you do it (the S I mean) its nothing when I do it it says this an that about me (not that insinuating something erroneous about me is a personal attack of course).

You're opening post, as is true of this one, is much in line with the blowing out of proportion and hyperbole I was talking about in the other thread. You should work for the Daily Mail, tabloids need people like you, you know.

Quote:
Posting to stir stuff up.

Oh I have no doubt.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

KANEMAN

Thursday, April 5, 2007 7:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
If the only reason your judges don't have sex with infants is because the law says it's wrong I do wonder about the future of your nation.

And here I thought the linked article was about ONE Judges ruling on a child pornography case. You sure don't mind making large leaps when it serves your purposes.

Posting to stir stuff up.

What did you expect to come from CiTz? He is an America hater....fuck him....He has never posted an opinion that did'nt in some way say 'bad, bad, bad USA'...he is a tool......

WHODIED

Thursday, April 5, 2007 8:01 PM

That's right, gorram it! Don't let that english poofter smack talk our venerable sickos!

--WhoDied

_______________________

...provide, in writing, one *glowing* letter of
recommendation from any member of our faculty who is not an English
librarian.

CITIZEN

Thursday, April 5, 2007 10:13 PM

Wow BDN, and the Trolls dun just got yo back too ahyup.

Guess there is honour amongst trolls, sweet in a sick kinda way.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Thursday, April 5, 2007 11:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
Why, pretty much every post passes for it. I'll quote every post on RWED if you like.

Not necessary, I only asked for two.

Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
You mean, don't act like you? Sounds pretty hypocritcal and trollish, especially coming from the poster who only ever posts to make insinuations about other posters. When was the last time you made an on topic responce?

http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=27904#473527

Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
I am aware how pro troll you are.

Well, I am talking to you.

Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
I mean, posting to stir stuff up and defending the trolls of the board and so on.

I have never defended anybody who I consider to be a troll.

Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
So when you do it (the S I mean) its nothing when I do it it says this an that about me (not that insinuating something erroneous about me is a personal attack of course).

You put what in the where now???

Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
You're opening post, as is true of this one, is much in line with the blowing out of proportion and hyperbole I was talking about in the other thread. You should work for the Daily Mail, tabloids need people like you, you know.

Like insinuating all American judges would have sex with infants if it wasn't illegal.

Posting to stir stuff up.

CITIZEN

Thursday, April 5, 2007 11:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=27904#473527

Well done, one on topic too every ten just to start a flame war, you must be very proud.

Quote:
Well, I am talking to you.

I'm not the one whose posting "Just to stir things up" nor am I the one whose a troll buddy, but bait all you like, we expect no better.

Quote:
I have never defended anybody who I consider to be a troll.

In other words anyone whose politics you disagree with.

Quote:
like insinuating all American judges would have sex with infants if it wasn't illegal.

I don't know, since I didn't do that, nice try, but verifyable lie.

If you'd read what I had written, you'd know that.

Hey that's one right there.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

WHODIED

Friday, April 6, 2007 4:03 PM

I appologize for my crappy sarcasm. I was in no way defending those idiots or attacking you--quite the opposite really. Sadly, I often mangle these things. (The 'poofter' was a Spike thing.)

--WhoDied

_______________________

Because . . . Stinking, rotten luck is why. On top of that, now I got this buggering chip up my head.

CITIZEN

Friday, April 6, 2007 4:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by WhoDied:
I appologize for my crappy sarcasm. I was in no way defending those idiots or attacking you--quite the opposite really. Sadly, I often mangle these things. (The 'poofter' was a Spike thing.)

--WhoDied

I was talking about Kaneman, but thank you anyway. Sorry for the confusion.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

KANEMAN

Friday, April 6, 2007 4:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by WhoDied:
I appologize for my crappy sarcasm. I was in no way defending those idiots or attacking you--quite the opposite really. Sadly, I often mangle these things. (The 'poofter' was a Spike thing.)

--WhoDied
I was talking about Kaneman, but thank you anyway. Sorry for the confusion.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

Well, I was right and so was BDN. Anyone who has ever read your posts would agree...unless of course they were retarded.....Good day.