7 comments on "Comment bay for Haterblog Cracker"

• 09 March, 2007 @ Anti Paedo (http://anti-paedo.blogspot.com/2007/03/war-against-paedophiles-or-paedophilia.html) on behalf of LeX BL:

  Jacey, you’re right; the attraction is fine, but sexually acting on that attraction is not fine in the slightest. Unfortunately though, often people are hated simply for having the attraction, even though they never act on it.

  Llort – I never thought I’d say this! 🙂 – is right too. Such pictures are of crimes in progress, sometimes serious crimes, and the authorities need to spend more time tracking down the perpetrators.

  LeX

• Continues

  Violet, the attraction in itself is no different from a straight man’s attracton to women; if he’s got it, he’s stuck with it. No. not “fine” for many people, but not changeable.

  Acting on it, of course, is not fine at all; fortunately most people are capaple of self-control.

  Regarding porn, I never denied that child porn was a crime. However, I think you’ll agree that violently assaulting and raping a kid is rather more serious than taking pictures of one playing in the garden naked. That’s what I meant by “sometimes serious crimes”.

  I’m actually agreeing with you (and Jacey) here!

  Stitches, I don’t know what you think I’ve done, but if you think I’m breaking the law – which I’m not – I suggest you call the police.

  As for defending anyone, you must have misunderstood me. Child porn is bad, don’t do it. Sex with kids is bad, don’t do it. Frankly I don’t really care what people get off on in their own private fantasies, but putting things into practice when people could get hurt is a definite no-no.

  LeX

• Continues

  Violet, you’re right, therapy can ver very good for helpiing people deal with undesirable or unpleasant thoughts and feelings. 12-step groups like SAA show good success rates for sex offenders or people who think they could be.

  I’m afraid you’re wrong about one thing, though: the reason I don’t molest children is because I think it is morally wrong to do so (quite apart from it being illegal). An adult who has sexual contact with a child puts that child at risk of psychological, social and even physical consequences that could last for years. I love children far too much to allow them to suffer so.

  Stitches, you may well be right in your suggestion that I’ve been influenced by “propaganda”. For a while I’ve been wondering whether I’m a paedophile at all, since my own feelings are so far removed from the “received wisdom”. I’ll be interested to read what you come up with.

  Yes, the guy who takes photos of children – even quite legal and innocent photos – for his sexual enjoyment definitely needs to see someone, and yes again, there is a risk he could be dangerous.

  Best regards,
  LeX

• Continues

  they unwillingly splash the faces of children all over

  Quite right Jacey. Previously published photos are one thing, but “here’s a cutie I saw yesterday” and the like are quite another. Taking someone’s photo and putting it on the internet without asking them is at the very least rude and shows a lack of respect, and could cause all sorts of problems for the child in the picture.

  As you say, children are people too, and deserve just as much care and respect as everyone else. Something that is all too often forgotten.

  LeX

• 09 March, 2007 @ Warriors For Innocence (WFI) (http://www.warriorsforinnocence.org/2007/04/day-care-molestations-go-on-for-30.html) on behalf of LeX BL:

  This guy definitely has something wrong with him. Several things, probably.

  He’d “never been accused of misconduct” said the policeman. Obviously, if he went for preverbal kids! I doubt he’ll see the light of day again. Hopefully he’ll get some therapy when he’s inside so he can learn – albeit too late, alas – how wrong what he did was.

  I hope his victims are doing well.

  As a result of this, LeX informs me that he was banned from WFI

• [Moved to more appropriate thread – Daniel]

  [Any following posts unrelated to the Cracker project will be deleted entirely on sight. Let this post stand as an example]

• Not sure if time elapsed, but this was not published at http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/12/choice_of_phrase.html

  I see all of this debating over opinions and whose opinions should be represented in the general tone and terminology of news reporting, but hardly anything relating to bias, and the responsibility of the BBC not to patronise its audience; to let them form their own opinions.

  The above surprises me because “child abuse images” appears to be an utterly biased term, because it contains a very obvious value judgement. A broadsweeping application of such terminology would also be indicative of one of our largest problems when it comes to issues of child sexuality and pedophilia, i.e. the failure to adequately describe the subject matter.

  If the image or video were to portray the brutalisation and rape of a child by men and dogs, we already have an adequate description for the material, and “pornography” would most certainly be a trivialisation, for that material. If the image or video were to portray a prepubescent child apparently engaged in a sex act with an adult, whilst under no obvious physical coercion, “child pornography” is a perfect description, as we are dealing with material which aims to arouse the viewer sexually. No matter what our opinions on how “horrific” or psychologically “abusive” the act is, such inferences are what they are – opinions, and therefore have no place in the voice of a news article. Much the same can be said for the law, i.e. articles should make clear what is and what is not illegal, but should not cloak their language in the biases and justifications of current moral law.

  Another problem pertaining to the issue at hand, concerns images that are not at all abusive, for example naturist photos, or images of anthropological significance, used to depict acts that would be classified as sexual abuse in the west, but not in their respective societies (many such acts involve the oral stimulation of a child’s genitals, with not taboo or expectations of shame). Other images may include highly sexualised solo performances by western children, produced in societies (for example, Denmark) where such activities were until recently legal. This is where interpretations such as “every image depicts the scene of a crime” fall flat, not only as value judgements, but logically flawed ones.

Comments are closed.