Tom Flanagan Apologises for Child-Porn Comments
- Thread starter Spade
- Start date
Oh yeah! That would be why so many times the actual issues don't get discussed beyond a superficial level.
This sort of thing is especially difficult for people who find themselves attracted to children and want to seek psychological help to ensure they never act out on it and to help deal with the trauma it causes. The psychologists are required to inform the police in some places, and then you wind up on a watchlist which gets leaked...
All because you want to do the right thing.
Partisan attacks are just ridiculous. I have a hard time taking those sorts of people seriously. When I find that sort of person agreeing with me, I start doubting myself.
I completely understand that and I'm not without sympathy for those who want to prevent harm from occurring from their own actions. I just know that I could never actually work with these people. I cannot get past my own bias and prejudice to do so and if that makes me a bad person, then so be it. I am glad that there are people out there who can, because it's necessary and important.
I just have to place the welfare of children above that consideration. Even the potential welfare.
When you get a thumbs up from them does it make you want to take a shower? LOL.
Who's being sarcastic?
That usually doesn't get past me, lol.
lol
I don't think I could help those sorts of people because I like to go around advocating moral nihilism.
Here's a related problem, once you know your son is gay, do you continue to let his friends spend the night? Ok... it is unfair to make that comparison, but acting on certain knowledge can have unfair side effects to the concerned, in both cases further ostracizing them.
I cannot blame you for having your worries, but I can make the general human decency point that people deserve the benefit of the doubt. Until someone actually harms another person, I question what right we have to harm them by locking them in a cage. Locking them in a cage and then looking the other way as the other caged animals abuse them in the way we feared the innocent person would abuse children. And so many of us find that to be some sort of perverted justice that they get abused in prison, those people who abused no one but possessed some pictures.
Don't worry, I understood. I am just a very serious individual. I know what point you were trying to make, and I agree.
No. He is an idiot that brought up a topic and made the statement that it was victimless -that he should have been aware of that does cause harm. Boils down to being a freaking idiot. Like they said - He did it once walked away no problem.
This time he was hung.
He is educated - he knows he was way off topic.
He if he felt that the law was to stringent, to wide, a catch all then he should have used a discussion forum on this very topic.
And as an educated man he would have educated himself on the opposing positions - perhaps he may have learned that it is not always victimless. In the last I am referring to your point about 2 teens making porn for themselves.
Other than a supposed connection between watching/looking, and creating a market, you've failed to show a case for harm.
There's some very good conversation taking place about the laws and how they have over stepped the limits of protection v punishment.
I don't think he's the idiot.
Why?
Again, you haven't established that.
You still have to present a victim. I have asked you numerous times.
And not a victim of the child abuse photographed, Flanagan acknowledges that that creates victims.
Who does the existence of the photograph hurt and why could the same not be said of pornography?
Really? I don't get that from you. I always took your position to be about limiting the reach and intrusiveness.
LMAO!!!
What a great paradoxical question!
Hear, hear!
Good to know.
Well, I recall having this conversation with my boss and explaining I was a moral nihilist. He asked me, "What impact does this have on your life?"
And I realized the truth was, nothing. It just changes the way I rationalize people's actions.
Yes, I definitely want to limit government reach and intrusiveness, that extends to a lot of situations.
Got ya. He's smart enough to figure it out though.
Whole other topic of conversation, lol.
Does it make a difference that I can literally answer that question? Which would be in the affirmative by the way and also not a fair comparison.
Actions always have consequences, some intentioned, some not.
I can buy the argument against imprisonment, I reject offhand the option to do nothing (which I do understand was and is not what you've been advocating) and, to the heart of the matter, I think that the discussion of what should be done needs to take place and thus is why I object strenuously to how Flanagan was censured for opening the matter for consideration.
I also completely agree that people deserve the benefit of the doubt, however that has to be weighed with the potential consequences that might occur in very specific cases and circumstances, not in a blanket way throughout society.
In 2009 he did not make such a statement.
Only after the uproar did he then make a statement.
A person is remembered by their last act and Tom Flanagan who worked with Prime Ministers and rising political stars got tripped up by a question if answered properly would be no problem but the good professor’s mind went into a logic mode and answered the question without thinking of the ramification of his words.
Tom was in a university setting talking to students discussing hypothetically issues of free speech and with the cell phone cameras filming raw video footage being transferred to social media with no explanation words were taken out of context and with all the re-texting and twittering and massive amounts of people getting the wrong information people reacted by putting pressure on the school where Tom taught and the news agencies that used Tom as a paid commentator to drop him as if he was a dangerous criminal.
This case will be a game changer where cameras will be restricted from the classroom just because no professor will ever teach with a recording device present.
Child pornography is a victim crime because it is a business where people make money by trampling on the rights of little children where reputations are tarnished which leads to depression and hurt in an unforgiving society that leads to crime and drug abuse and stresses on families and suicides just to satisfy a small select clientele that has deep pockets.
Tom Flanagan will have to live with his mistake and it will be a loss just because he could have done a lot more good.
.
.
Tom was in a university setting talking to students discussing hypothetically issues of free speech and with the cell phone cameras filming raw video footage being transferred to social media with no explanation words were taken out of context and with all the re-texting and twittering and massive amounts of people getting the wrong information people reacted by putting pressure on the school where Tom taught and the news agencies that used Tom as a paid commentator to drop him as if he was a dangerous criminal.
This case will be a game changer where cameras will be restricted from the classroom just because no professor will ever teach with a recording device present.
Child pornography is a victim crime because it is a business where people make money by trampling on the rights of little children where reputations are tarnished which leads to depression and hurt in an unforgiving society that leads to crime and drug abuse and stresses on families and suicides just to satisfy a small select clientele that has deep pockets.
Tom Flanagan will have to live with his mistake and it will be a loss just because he could have done a lot more good.
.
.
For some dummies here, "child porn" means an adult raping a child. No discussion is required. The term child porn is toxic, anyone who casually throws it around is stupid. It does not mean two innocent children fooling around and it gets on the web. Flanagan easily qualifies as stupid and arrogant beyond belief. But hey, he thought god was on his side or something, fat lot of good his god did him here.
Flanagan is like the judge that gave James Graham only two years for raping Theo Fleury and hundreds of other boys he coached. Which is an absolute outrage of a sentence. Graham should have got 30-50 years, no parole.
Some men are very casual about child porn and pay the price. Judges still give short sentences for this crime but they keep their mouths shut because they are being watched very closely on the topic. The public knows judges give it low priority.
I read the article. Had Flanagan stated that drawings of art by an individual of child porn, then ok, live your own sick life. But to view child porn, which can be easily done with the internet, means it is happening, a child is being abused by an adult. It is out there, and many people do not want it out there. It is like being open to a debate about wife abuse, you aren't going to get much traction on the topic these days.
Flanagan is like the judge that gave James Graham only two years for raping Theo Fleury and hundreds of other boys he coached. Which is an absolute outrage of a sentence. Graham should have got 30-50 years, no parole.
Some men are very casual about child porn and pay the price. Judges still give short sentences for this crime but they keep their mouths shut because they are being watched very closely on the topic. The public knows judges give it low priority.
I read the article. Had Flanagan stated that drawings of art by an individual of child porn, then ok, live your own sick life. But to view child porn, which can be easily done with the internet, means it is happening, a child is being abused by an adult. It is out there, and many people do not want it out there. It is like being open to a debate about wife abuse, you aren't going to get much traction on the topic these days.
I appreciate you telling us you think child porn is strictly an adult raping a child.
The stupidity in that comment aside, yes, actually it is a crime and it is called child porn under the law.
Were you aware you shared that in common with him?