Posted by MikeT23 on 7/11/2013 3:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 7/11/2013 3:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/11/2013 3:05:00 PM (view original):
Really? 

This particular circumstance doesn't harm anyone, but he's said multiple times that because of the severity and how terrible the production of child porn is that all ownership should be illegal.

Also I think he's being a little vague to **** you off.

He's always a little vague when his argument is a FAILURE.

The entire point is that his "One Size Fits All" Big Three actually doesn't fit all or that he is severly lacking in morals.    He won't concede either so he'll repeat questions, disappear until the subject changes or just be vague.

Posted by burnsy483 on 7/11/2013 3:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/11/2013 3:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 7/11/2013 3:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/11/2013 3:08:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 7/11/2013 3:05:00 PM (view original):
It's a dumb question. How do make "possession of child pornography where the possession was taken out of a garbage can and the owner will not buy more child porn and nobody knows the owner watches the porn" legal?

There have only been a few high-profile child porn possession cases(Pete Townsend and Gary Glitter come to mind).   The cops seems to do quite well in tracing the origin.

Even if somehow they could establish the taking the porn out of a trash can, what about the not buying of more child porn?

Crimes aren't crimes until they're committed.

How do we know you won't be purchasing child porn in the future?    After all, you've been talking about it for 2 days.

Obama probably has a file on all of us by now.

Exactly. You cant legalize this scenario.

Posted by bad_luck on 7/11/2013 3:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/11/2013 3:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 7/11/2013 3:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/11/2013 3:05:00 PM (view original):
Really? 

This particular circumstance doesn't harm anyone, but he's said multiple times that because of the severity and how terrible the production of child porn is that all ownership should be illegal.

Also I think he's being a little vague to **** you off.

He's always a little vague when his argument is a FAILURE.

The entire point is that his "One Size Fits All" Big Three actually doesn't fit all or that he is severly lacking in morals.    He won't concede either so he'll repeat questions, disappear until the subject changes or just be vague.

I never said anything is one size fits all. In the case of gay marriage, there is no reasonable argument to ban it. Is there a reasonable argument to criminalize child porn possession?

Posted by bad_luck on 7/11/2013 11:10:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 7/11/2013 7:27:00 AM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 7/10/2013 11:39:00 PM (view original):
I'm still trying to find the point of comparing gay marriage to watching child pornography.

I'm not comparing gay marriage to watching child porn.

I'm exploring BL's "big three" criteria of (a) "it makes them happy", (b) "it doesn't affect others", and (c) "what's the harm" that he used in defense of allowing gay marriage.  He seems to be uncomfortable with applying the same criteria to watching child porn. 

So the "big three" doesn't appear to be a "one size fits all" approach to determining what should be allowed and what shouldn't.

I'm trying to figure out what the missing additional criteria is in BL's mind.

I suspect it's "because I said so".  I'm waiting for him to either confirm or convincingly deny that.

So you admit that gay marriage is harmless?

Posted by burnsy483 on 7/11/2013 11:13:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/11/2013 11:12:00 AM (view original):
I disagree.  I think the lingering feeling is there because you'd know your child's life has been changed forever and there's nothing, including getting every copy of the CD off the streets, that will change that.

Yes, that's true.  It's also true that you'd want all the CDs off the streets.  Knowing that you can't do that also hurts.

Posted by bad_luck on 7/11/2013 3:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/11/2013 3:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 7/11/2013 3:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/11/2013 3:05:00 PM (view original):
Really? 

This particular circumstance doesn't harm anyone, but he's said multiple times that because of the severity and how terrible the production of child porn is that all ownership should be illegal.

Also I think he's being a little vague to **** you off.

He's always a little vague when his argument is a FAILURE.

The entire point is that his "One Size Fits All" Big Three actually doesn't fit all or that he is severly lacking in morals.    He won't concede either so he'll repeat questions, disappear until the subject changes or just be vague.

I never said anything is one size fits all. In the case of gay marriage, there is no reasonable argument to ban it. Is there a reasonable argument to criminalize child porn possession?

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/11/2013 3:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 7/11/2013 3:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/11/2013 3:08:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 7/11/2013 3:05:00 PM (view original):
It's a dumb question. How do make "possession of child pornography where the possession was taken out of a garbage can and the owner will not buy more child porn and nobody knows the owner watches the porn" legal?

There have only been a few high-profile child porn possession cases(Pete Townsend and Gary Glitter come to mind).   The cops seems to do quite well in tracing the origin.

Even if somehow they could establish the taking the porn out of a trash can, what about the not buying of more child porn?

Crimes aren't crimes until they're committed.

How do we know you won't be purchasing child porn in the future?    After all, you've been talking about it for 2 days.

Obama probably has a file on all of us by now.

Posted by bad_luck on 7/11/2013 4:44:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 7/11/2013 3:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/11/2013 3:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 7/11/2013 3:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/11/2013 3:05:00 PM (view original):
Really? 

This particular circumstance doesn't harm anyone, but he's said multiple times that because of the severity and how terrible the production of child porn is that all ownership should be illegal.

Also I think he's being a little vague to **** you off.

He's always a little vague when his argument is a FAILURE.

The entire point is that his "One Size Fits All" Big Three actually doesn't fit all or that he is severly lacking in morals.    He won't concede either so he'll repeat questions, disappear until the subject changes or just be vague.

I never said anything is one size fits all. In the case of gay marriage, there is no reasonable argument to ban it. Is there a reasonable argument to criminalize child porn possession?

I'm going to need an answer here.

Posted by tecwrg on 7/11/2013 4:50:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 7/11/2013 11:10:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 7/11/2013 7:27:00 AM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 7/10/2013 11:39:00 PM (view original):
I'm still trying to find the point of comparing gay marriage to watching child pornography.

I'm not comparing gay marriage to watching child porn.

I'm exploring BL's "big three" criteria of (a) "it makes them happy", (b) "it doesn't affect others", and (c) "what's the harm" that he used in defense of allowing gay marriage.  He seems to be uncomfortable with applying the same criteria to watching child porn. 

So the "big three" doesn't appear to be a "one size fits all" approach to determining what should be allowed and what shouldn't.

I'm trying to figure out what the missing additional criteria is in BL's mind.

I suspect it's "because I said so".  I'm waiting for him to either confirm or convincingly deny that.

So you admit that gay marriage is harmless?

What makes you think that I'm saying that?

Besides the "big three", what are the other criteria that should be used to determine if something should be legal (besides "it makes them happy", "it doesn't affect  others", and "what's the harm")?

Posted by tecwrg on 7/11/2013 5:01:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 7/11/2013 3:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/11/2013 3:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 7/11/2013 3:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/11/2013 3:05:00 PM (view original):
Really? 

This particular circumstance doesn't harm anyone, but he's said multiple times that because of the severity and how terrible the production of child porn is that all ownership should be illegal.

Also I think he's being a little vague to **** you off.

He's always a little vague when his argument is a FAILURE.

The entire point is that his "One Size Fits All" Big Three actually doesn't fit all or that he is severly lacking in morals.    He won't concede either so he'll repeat questions, disappear until the subject changes or just be vague.

I never said anything is one size fits all. In the case of gay marriage, there is no reasonable argument to ban it. Is there a reasonable argument to criminalize child porn possession?

So if "one size doesn't fit all" with respect to your Big Three, there must be a fourth (and possibly fifth, sixth, seventh, etc.) criteria that should be applied to each case.

Can you share what they are?

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/11/2013 5:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 7/11/2013 4:44:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 7/11/2013 3:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/11/2013 3:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 7/11/2013 3:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/11/2013 3:05:00 PM (view original):
Really? 

This particular circumstance doesn't harm anyone, but he's said multiple times that because of the severity and how terrible the production of child porn is that all ownership should be illegal.

Also I think he's being a little vague to **** you off.

He's always a little vague when his argument is a FAILURE.

The entire point is that his "One Size Fits All" Big Three actually doesn't fit all or that he is severly lacking in morals.    He won't concede either so he'll repeat questions, disappear until the subject changes or just be vague.

I never said anything is one size fits all. In the case of gay marriage, there is no reasonable argument to ban it. Is there a reasonable argument to criminalize child porn possession?

I'm going to need an answer here.

Do you agree that watching child porn is deviant behavior?    Let's assume "yes".

Do you think that anyone, anyone on earth, thinks that homosexuality is deviant behavior?   Let's assume "yes".

Why is your opinion more valid?    As we've agreed, there is a situation where viewing child porn will "make more people happy", "provide more personal freedom" and "not cause any additional harm to anyone else."    What's the difference here because that seems to be your guidelines for allowing SSM?