HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   Political Discussion - "on-topic & unmoderated" (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=160)
-   -   Canadian Politics IV (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=1362757)

Pink Mist 02-28-2013 12:14 PM

Canadian Politics IV
 
Continue here

Free Torts 02-28-2013 12:28 PM

I wonder if Vic Toews has placed a call to Tom Flanagan yet.

Transplanted Caper 02-28-2013 01:15 PM

The Wildrose just booted Flanagan from having any position within the party (he was their campaign manager in the last election). It will be interesting to see whether he gets the boot from the CBC.

EDIT:

Answer, yes.

http://www.newswire.ca/en/story/1122...ce=twitterfeed

Concordski 02-28-2013 03:41 PM

Uh, that's a bad thing to say...

Johnnywhite 02-28-2013 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DanielBryanRoleModel (Post 60658799)
Uh, that's a bad thing to say...

"It's a long story but I got put on the mailing list of the National Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) and I started getting their mailings for a couple of years and that's about as close as I got to child pornography." ~ Tom Flanagan

Wonder how that happened?

Harper, start doing the back stroke...Oh, you are!

Epsilon 02-28-2013 03:52 PM

I actually don't think what Flanagan said was that bad (at a certain level I agree with him) but he probably shouldn't have said it, at least in the way he did.

Concordski 02-28-2013 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnnywhite (Post 60659299)
"It's a long story but I got put on the mailing list of the National Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) and I started getting their mailings for a couple of years and that's about as close as I got to child pornography." ~ Tom Flanagan

Wonder how that happened?

Harper, start doing the back stroke...Oh, you are!

Well, the opposition will have to be measured, but that's pretty embarrassing that Harper's pre-2006 campaigns were managed by a possible pedophile. (Because he ended up on a NAMBLA list, not his comments)

Transplanted Caper 02-28-2013 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Epsilon (Post 60659431)
I actually don't think what Flanagan said was that bad (at a certain level I agree with him) but he probably shouldn't have said it, at least in the way he did.

I think there's certainly a distinction between a picture of your baby in a bathtub and images of children being sexually abused. Even consumption of the latter fuels demand - and fuels the abuse, so possession of THAT is, in my view, certainly worthy of criminal charges.

Free Torts 02-28-2013 04:07 PM

Sounds like Flanagan took a typical libertarian talking point about liberty and all that ******** way too far. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy. Too bad it wasn't Jason Kenney or Vic Toews getting caught up in this, Flanagan is mostly irrelevant now.

Epsilon 02-28-2013 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Transplanted Caper (Post 60660123)
I think there's certainly a distinction between a picture of your baby in a bathtub and images of children being sexually abused. Even consumption of the latter fuels demand - and fuels the abuse, so possession of THAT is, in my view, certainly worthy of criminal charges.

I think there has to be a certain amount of intent involved, as well, but I would tend to agree with your general point. For instance, if someone clicks an unidentified link and it leads to an image of child abuse pornography which they were not intending to view, I can't see how that could be considered criminal on their part.

Concordski 02-28-2013 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Epsilon (Post 60660409)
I think there has to be a certain amount of intent involved, as well, but I would tend to agree with your general point. For instance, if someone clicks an unidentified link and it leads to an image of child abuse pornography which they were not intending to view, I can't see how that could be considered criminal on their part.

I don't think somone can get in trouble for accidentally clicking on CP on 4chan or something, I think they have to actually download the photo on to a drive. And it's not just a photo, the production of the photo causes damage to a child and consuming these photos encourages their creation.

Epictetus 02-28-2013 10:38 PM

I don't have a problem with his comments. In fact, in an academic setting it would lead to legitimate discussion, as it concerns issues of 'liberty' and its parameters.

For a law and morality class, we were discussing John Stuart Mill's 'harm principle', where (roughly put) he argues that the restriction on liberty should only be towards actions that harm other individuals. Another student raised the question of pornography, and if it would be allowed or disallowed following from Mill's principle. As you can probably see, this is an academic discussion, and I do not think that far away from Flanagan's comments.

For the record, his comments were (from the CBC article):

Quote:

“I certainly have no sympathy for child molesters, but I do have some grave doubts about putting people in jail because of their taste in pictures,” said Flanagan.

“It’s a real issue of personal liberty and to what extent we put people in jail for doing something in which they do not harm another person.”
My Opinion:

I feel that if he clarified his point to be that he feels there is no problem for persons to be looking at child pornography, since it is in their 'taste' and 'liberty', then he would be fine. Of course people are going to disagree because of their moral views, but legally, if someone enjoys child pornography, then what should the law say? The extent of the law being applicable is debatable, since this a person's personal pleasure.

But instead, I think people read his comments as him suggesting there is no problem with child pornography and that the law is incorrect on this regard. This is different from the above, which concerns people viewing child pornography. This would be about the legality of child pornography, meaning if it should be legal or illegal in a state. And obviously this is wrong; it should be illegal. There is a clear issue of consent, invasion of privacy, and other various external forces put onto a child.

Xelebes 02-28-2013 10:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Epictetus (Post 60705135)
I don't have a problem with his comments. In fact, in an academic setting it would lead to legitimate discussion, as it concerns issues of 'liberty' and its parameters.

For a law and morality class, we were discussing John Stuart Mill's 'harm principle', where (roughly put) he argues that the restriction on liberty should only be towards actions that harm other individuals. Another student raised the question of pornography, and if it would be allowed or disallowed following from Mill's principle. As you can probably see, this is an academic discussion, and I do not think that far away from Flanagan's comments.

For the record, his comments were (from the CBC article):



My Opinion:

I feel that if he clarified his point to be that he feels there is no problem for persons to be looking at child pornography, since it is in their 'taste' and 'liberty', then he would be fine. Of course people are going to disagree because of their moral views, but legally, if someone enjoys child pornography, then what should the law say? The extent of the law being applicable is debatable, since this a person's personal pleasure.

But instead, I think people read his comments as him suggesting there is no problem with child pornography and that the law is incorrect on this regard. This is different from the above, which concerns people viewing child pornography. This would be about the legality of child pornography, meaning if it should be legal or illegal in a state. And obviously this is wrong; it should be illegal. There is a clear issue of consent, invasion of privacy, and other various external forces put onto a child.

I think it matches his chauvinist attitudes that he has espoused over the years. Makes it all the more odd that he made these comments in the middle of his diatribe. . . er discussion on changes to made to the Indian Act. What does photos of child abuse have anything to do with the Indian Act? Oh. . .

The Moose 02-28-2013 11:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Epictetus (Post 60705135)
I don't have a problem with his comments. In fact, in an academic setting it would lead to legitimate discussion, as it concerns issues of 'liberty' and its parameters.

For a law and morality class, we were discussing John Stuart Mill's 'harm principle', where (roughly put) he argues that the restriction on liberty should only be towards actions that harm other individuals. Another student raised the question of pornography, and if it would be allowed or disallowed following from Mill's principle. As you can probably see, this is an academic discussion, and I do not think that far away from Flanagan's comments.

For the record, his comments were (from the CBC article):



My Opinion:

I feel that if he clarified his point to be that he feels there is no problem for persons to be looking at child pornography, since it is in their 'taste' and 'liberty', then he would be fine. Of course people are going to disagree because of their moral views, but legally, if someone enjoys child pornography, then what should the law say? The extent of the law being applicable is debatable, since this a person's personal pleasure.

But instead, I think people read his comments as him suggesting there is no problem with child pornography and that the law is incorrect on this regard. This is different from the above, which concerns people viewing child pornography. This would be about the legality of child pornography, meaning if it should be legal or illegal in a state. And obviously this is wrong; it should be illegal. There is a clear issue of consent, invasion of privacy, and other various external forces put onto a child.

I am not sure I follow your oppinion: are you arguing that viewing child pornography does not harm other people?

Free Torts 02-28-2013 11:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Moose (Post 60708273)
I am not sure I follow your oppinion: are you arguing that viewing child pornography does not harm other people?

That's how I read it too.

Johnnywhite 02-28-2013 11:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KirkP (Post 60708367)
That's how I read it too.

That's exactly what he's saying & exactly what Flanagan intended to say.

Also...
Flanagan's racist treatise 'First Nations? Second Thoughts.' carefully lays out the justification for European industrialised societies stealing the land of non industrial hunter gatherer native cultures, also advocates the suppression & absorption of these native cultures. I suppose that makes him a massive fan of the 'residential school' system.

Epictetus 02-28-2013 11:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Moose (Post 60708273)
I am not sure I follow your oppinion: are you arguing that viewing child pornography does not harm other people?

Yes.

Someone viewing child pornography and taking personal satisfaction in it does not harm other people. It's the creation of child pornography, or child pornography itself that harms other people.

I felt that people read Flanagan's comments to be him questioning the latter point, when he really meant to be discussing the former.

Or, in other words, viewing child pornography is in someone's liberty, but Flanagan came across as arguing that the law should not be constraining said liberty because child pornography itself does no harm.

If he made the viewing/child pornography as act distinction more clear, then I think he would be okay.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xelebes (Post 60707289)
I think it matches his chauvinist attitudes that he has espoused over the years. Makes it all the more odd that he made these comments in the middle of his diatribe. . . er discussion on changes to made to the Indian Act. What does photos of child abuse have anything to do with the Indian Act? Oh. . .

That is very curious and does raise an interesting question.

I was just mainly looking at his comments on child pornography, not necessarily the context of him discussing.

Free Torts 03-01-2013 12:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Epictetus (Post 60712455)
Yes.

Someone viewing child pornography and taking personal satisfaction in it does not harm other people. It's the creation of child pornography, or child pornography itself that harms other people.

Do you not see the logical disconnect involved to actually believe viewing child porn doesn't harm people? It harms children immensely! If perverts weren't watching and downloading child porn, there'd be no market, thus no production. Flanagan was totally off the reservation - a reference I'm sure he'd love - and his comments are extremely offensive.

I'm still totally blown away that anyone would even consider this a logical argument. The production of child porn involves the sexual abuse of children. Someone taking personal satisfaction in viewing it is a party to the sexual abuse of children, not even accounting for the immense long-term mental damage caused to the children forced to participate in it. How is this not registering?

RonFournier 03-01-2013 12:11 AM

So let's say someone in Indonesia kills a man and sells you his kidney, it's acceptable because you enjoying the kidney doesn't hurt the victim directly?

Epictetus 03-01-2013 12:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KirkP (Post 60714875)
Do you not see the logical disconnect involved to actually believe viewing child porn doesn't harm people?

The pleasure from an act taking place and the act itself are logically separate; one is not necessarily defendant on the other.

Many people take pleasure in viewing people fighting, but it doesn't mean that they think people fighting should be legal. Again, as I said before, Flanagan did not make this distinction clearly enough when it comes to child pornography.

Quote:

Originally Posted by KirkP (Post 60714875)
If perverts weren't watching and downloading child porn, there'd be no market, thus no production.

You can say the same for adult pornography. "If perverts weren't watching and downloading child porn, there'd be no market, thus no production."

The difference is that children often cannot consent, are coerced, and taken advantage of when it comes to child pornography. But this concerns the act.

The pleasure that persons get from pornography, whether for some that would be child or adult, is the same. And both involve liberty; the freedom to feel that pleasure.

The pleasure is perfectly legitimate. But the acts of pornography, in the case of children, are not. Flanagan confused the two and now people are upset.

If you extended your argument of removing the pleasure, then many things would arguably have no production. I don't know if many people want that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by KirkP (Post 60714875)
I'm still totally blown away that anyone would even consider this a logical argument.

It's not a logical argument. All it is a distinction: anyone can feel and take pleasure in what they want; but that doesn't mean 'what they want' should be legal.

Quote:

Originally Posted by KirkP (Post 60714875)
The production of child porn involves the sexual abuse of children.

True. But, no one is arguing against this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by KirkP (Post 60714875)
Someone taking personal satisfaction in viewing it is a party to the sexual abuse of children

Your argument for this was because, if you remove the 'personal satisfaction', then there would be no 'production', and thus no 'act'.

There are enormous consequences for this position (see above). Not to mention the legal implications, where if you view your own personal pleasures which are seen as illegal you are then a 'party' to the crime, because without you there is no 'production'.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RonFournier (Post 60714889)
So let's say someone in Indonesia kills a man and sells you his kidney, it's acceptable because you enjoying the kidney doesn't hurt the victim directly?

I'm not quite sure I see how this is related to what I have been saying, or what Flanagan said. Before I attempt to link it and end up misinterpreting you, can you clarify?

Wetcoaster 03-01-2013 12:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnnywhite (Post 60710879)
That's exactly what he's saying & exactly what Flanagan intended to say.

Also...
Flanagan's racist treatise 'First Nations? Second Thoughts.' carefully lays out the justification for European industrialised societies stealing the land of non industrial hunter gatherer native cultures, also advocates the suppression & absorption of these native cultures. I suppose that makes him a massive fan of the 'residential school' system.

What can you expect from a 'Murican, eh?

Garo 03-01-2013 01:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Epictetus (Post 60717687)
The pleasure from an act taking place and the act itself are logically separate; one is not necessarily defendant on the other.

Many people take pleasure in viewing people fighting, but it doesn't mean that they think people fighting should be legal. Again, as I said before, Flanagan did not make this distinction clearly enough when it comes to child pornography.

I think it's a bad example. When you see two people fighting, you're not contributing to the act at all. When you're viewing child pornography willingly, you're a direct contributor to the process. So here you're having pleasure from an act you're actually a part of.

What, however, I'd probably agree with, is that being sexually excited by children isn't in itself illegal, as it's a purely human reaction, even if it's not... usual. The problem is that you'd be extremely limited in ways you can actually feel pleasure from this legally, and viewing child pornography should not be amongst them.

Free Torts 03-01-2013 01:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Garo (Post 60718395)
I think it's a bad example. When you see two people fighting, you're not contributing to the act at all. When you're viewing child pornography willingly, you're a direct contributor to the process. So here you're having pleasure from an act you're actually a part of.

Bingo. Thank you for articulating this perfectly.

Epictetus 03-01-2013 01:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Garo (Post 60718395)
I think it's a bad example. When you see two people fighting, you're not contributing to the act at all. When you're viewing child pornography willingly, you're a direct contributor to the process. So here you're having pleasure from an act you're actually a part of.

The fighting example was just meant to show that you can have pleasures without thinking that those pleasures should be legal. It connected to child pornography in that I think Flanagan thinks that child pornography can be a pleasure for some, but that does not mean it should be legal. Your paragraph below notes this separation point well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Garo (Post 60718395)
What, however, I'd probably agree with, is that being sexually excited by children isn't in itself illegal, as it's a purely human reaction, even if it's not... usual. The problem is that you'd be extremely limited in ways you can actually feel pleasure from this legally, and viewing child pornography should not be amongst them.

Well said. This is what I was conveying in these discussions, and what Flanagan did not convey to the public.

For example:

Quote:

All it is a distinction: anyone can feel and take pleasure in what they want; but that doesn't mean 'what they want' should be legal.
The outcome is that there is no way to take pleasure in children without leading to child pornography.

Johnny LaRue 03-01-2013 01:45 AM

Child porn is definitely harmful. The children involved would be deeply emotionally scarred for life. As Kirk stated, if there were no demand, there would be no production. It is the duty of government to lower demand of child porn by putting penalties on the possession of it as well as the production.

Now, if we were talking about erotic literature that is perverse, I can see how people would tolerate that because no real people are involved.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:14 PM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.