Tom Flanagan Apologises for Child-Porn Comments

[oleoleolanda]

O,

I agree with you and disagree with Flanagan regarding the resulting harm from viewing child porn. But I am not an academic.

However I disagree with you regarding restricting the freedom of expression of academics. Laws change because people speak out against them. At one time, homosexuality was illegal in Canada. Academics on both sides of the issue debated the laws and eventually the laws changed.

Our drug laws are another area where the law may actually be a bigger problem than the problems they supposedly address.

I believe academics should be able to debate whatever they want without censorship or restrictions. They should be able to debate all sides of the child porn laws and even statutory rape laws. I have no fear that our laws will change to remove protection of children from adult exploitation, precisely because of critical thought will determine the outcome of those debates and the evolution of our laws.

For example, manga animations and cartoons are technically child porn, even though no children were involved in their production. It is debatable in my opinion whether outlawing this material protects children. This material is legal in Japan and I don't believe Japan has a worse child exploitation problem than we do in Canada.

Japan has a very serious problem with sexual abuse of children. In fact, all forms of child abuse. Until very recently, it has been a society in denial. This has started changing. Sometimes people compare societies that are tackling the issue openly with those that continue to bury it and deny it, which makes the society in denial appear way better. We used to have almost zilch cases of domestic violence in Canada back in the days when men could beat their wives and it was their God-given right to do so. The problem was way worse than it is today, of course, but the stats and laws did not reflect that.

I agree Japanese animations and cartoons are child porn, although they are not depictions of actual crime scenes. That said, they are a reflection of a wider society ignorance and tolerance for sexual abuse.

I believe in equality in society. I do not see any reason why academics should have more freedom of speech than anyone else, nor be exempt from laws that apply to the rest of us. I do think freedom of speech is very important in a democratic society, which is why I don't think Flanagan should be arrested for his statements, even if it were to turn out he was once a paid member of NMBLA. I also defend the right of all his critics to their freedom of speech as well.

Flanagan was not fired by the University of Calgary. The date of his retirement had already been decided long before his Lethbridge presentation. He was fired from the CBC. I seem to recall that low-wage employees have been fired for posts their employers found inappropriate on their personal FB pages. Do you think just because Flanagan is a public figure and professor, he should be protected from this while a retail worker struggling to make pay the bills can get fired for stating opinions or using language to his or her friends that his employer finds unacceptable?

I think freedom of speech and accountability for what we freely speak should be discussed equally for all citizens, don't you?

Earth, one question:

They should be able to debate all sides of the child porn laws and even
statutory rape laws.

Do you think statutory rape laws should be debated by professors of English lit or mathematics or engineers and that they should be allowed to argue in favour of their removal? What if it's a professor of English lit who belongs to the National Man/Boy Love Association? Should they be allowed to debate this in their English lit class, maybe in a discussion on Lolita?

 

[earth_as_one]

I consider academics to be mostly university profs, but also recognized or accredited experts in some field of knowledge. Academics should be encouraged to express their qualified ideas and opinions in their field of expertise... even if they have ideas and opinions most people find disturbing. Academics should only have to defend their expert opinions to their peers.

An English literature academic should be able to discuss freely all the themes in the novel Lolita.

Psychologists should be able to debate all aspects of human behavior, including illegal ones.

Everyone should be able to say what they want, even things few people like. But unless they harm someone, damage property or advocate/support such, they should be left alone.

Exploiting children to produce child porn harms children. Legalizing this material would create a market, which would be harmful to children. So this material must remain contraband.

However similar material whose production doesn't involve children is only a moral issue. I oppose the thought police arresting people for what they think... even if what people think is disturbing.

I support arresting people for their actions which harm people or damage property... or advocating such actions.

Just because politicians pass laws, doesn't mean that further discussion or debate should be limited, prohibited or banned. That's how police states work.

 

[CDNBear]

You can see in this video that former Harper adviser Tom Flanagan was on the mailing list of the National American Man Boy Love Association(NAMBLA) and here he questions whether people who view child pornography should go to jail.

I'm sure you are unaware and completely against such silly things as freedom of association, or even scarier, that being on a mailing list isn't a crime, nor make you complicit in anyway.

And FYI, NAMBLA, is a legally recognized American lobby group. Whose rights are protected by the US Constitution, and upheld by the USSC.

Their platform and agenda, completely abhorrent, but they have the right to lobby and associate for what they believe in freely.

As they should.

Considering his close association with PM Harper and his seeming support for homosexual child molestation, I was wondering how much he "rubbed-off" on Harper and whether or not Harper might have "rubbed-off" on him. These are things I think most Canadians would like to know.

Not really, most Canadians aren't idiots, or prone to jumping to unsubstantiated conclusions, based more on partisan bias, than intellectual or critical thought.

Flanagan is saying that viewing child pornography doesn't hurt anyone which is complete nonsense.

No, what he said was...

“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,”

I can see how that provocative conversation starter would stump left wing extremists and idiots alike.

Child pornography is made for people to watch, so viewers are only one step removed from one of the most disgusting offences in this country.

Actually, most child porn is made as a memento.

Much of Harper's government is based on the ideas of this "man".

Not really.

And this has opened the debate up so other controversial figure like Conrad Black have weighed in on something as fundamental as how much protection should we give children in our society.

Talking about it is good.

It oft helps people find solace and an avenue for help.

According to Black it shouldn't matter if you're indirectly contributing to one of the most heinous offences there is as long as you're good conversationalists.

He said that?

I read the article, I couldn't find anything like that.

So in part thanks to Harper and the kind of Canada he's worked so hard to create where we can open up debate on whether or not we're going to allow the continued exploitation and degradation of children in some of the most horrible ways imaginable. If you let people watch this crap then other people are going to keep making it.

Really. Maybe you should try and stick to the facts. The Harper gov't has enacted some of the most severe anti child exploitation legislation in Canadian history.

Which is pretty much what Flanagan was speaking out against.

If you stuck with reality, your posts wouldn't make you look so stupid.

We don't talk seriously about climate change or the democratic deficit in this nation, but now we are seriously discussing whether or not child pornography should be allowed if you didn't actually make it yourself.

No one has said child porn should be legal.

Stop embarrassing yourself.

besides, throwing flanagan's mud at harper in hopes that it sticks, is pretty low.

You'll find that the Cobalt Kid, although he blathers on about how he's looking for political debate, isn't one for higher conversation.

 

[CDNBear]

Walter get real please, I am more left than right although I am on either side depending on the issue. I don't see where Harper had anything to do with this mans behaviour and he likely had no idea what he might be involved in.

What he might be involved in?

Until now most people didn't know he was registered in the man boy association either so how would Harper know?

He wasn't registered in NAMBLA, he wasn't a member, he was on the mailing list.

There are likely dozens, if not more, reporters and academics that are, simply to keep abreast of the lobby's actions.

This man is incredibly stupid, to be involved in something like this while being in a high profile position.

Why? How can you keep tabs on, and/or counter what any lobby group is forwarding, if you don't know what it's publishing?

As for asking the question itself, remember, he was in a public forum speaking on an
intellectual forum. he didn't say people should go to jail or not go to jail he asked
Should someone go to jail for watching it. Putting it into context he didn't actually condone
anything.

Putting it into context, he actually spoke out against child molestation.

Public reaction was swift however and his high profile status made him a target
for public outrage.

His political leanings are more likely the cause of the outrage.

 

[oleoleolanda]

I'm sure you are unaware and completely against such silly
things as freedom of
association, or even scarier, that being on a mailing
list isn't a crime, nor
make you complicit in anyway.

And FYI,
NAMBLA, is a legally recognized
American lobby group. Whose rights are
protected by the US Constitution, and
upheld by the USSC.

Their
platform and agenda, completely abhorrent, but
they have the right to lobby
and associate for what they believe in
freely.

As they
should.

I'm sure you are unaware and completely against such silly things as freedom
of association, or even scarier, that being on a mailing list isn't a crime,
nor make you complicit in anyway.

And FYI, NAMBLA, is a legally
recognized American lobby group. Whose rights are protected by the US
Constitution, and upheld by the USSC.

Their platform and agenda,
completely abhorrent, but they have the right to lobby and associate for what
they believe in freely.

As they should.
[/QUOTE]

NMBLA only puts paid members on their mailing list so it's quite the mystery how he got on a mailing list by accident. The reason I think it would be important to clear this up is that NMBLA uses very sneaky ways to lobby for the legalization of sexual abuse against children that exploit public ignorance and even good values, such as freedom of speech and tolerance, even children's rights. They advocate for legal reforms. Flanagan's comments are quite in keeping with NMBLA's, even his apology. For example, NMBLA claims to find child sexual abuse abhorrent and denounce it. However, they claim that child/adult sex in a "loving relationship" is not sexual abuse. They don't consider themselves "child molesters" and claim to denounce "child molesters," as in those who kidnap kids and rely on force rather than manipulation to rape them. They also lobby for reforms in laws and punishment for child sex offenders and child porn violations. They also work very hard to create a public perception of pedophiles as innocent and harmless victims of intolerance and "public hysteria." They present child porn as "just pictures." They minimize the well documented psychological (which actually involve physiological changes to the brain), emotional and physical injuries victims of sexual abuse suffer. The research shows that around 80% of those convicted of child porn viewing have sexually abused children themselves. That doesn't mean the other 20% haven't. It just means, there's no proof they have. So in fact, those who view child porn are not personally "harmless". However, pushing forth the perception they are among a naïve population is very much part of NMBLA's agenda. I am not advocating for anyone being imprisoned for belonging to NMBLA. However, I am very much against the duplicity and manipulations of its members, who typically hide their association to the organization and their pro-pedophilia views and lobby covertly and manipulatively. Let me give you an example. Conrad Black described the men he met in prison as being professionals, intelligent and seemingly decent. Anyone who understands the reality of sexual abusers knows that this is irrelevant and in fact sexual abusers are often professionals, intelligent and seemingly decent, but those who are successfully hide their crimes because of this misconception. He also said that he'd looked at their records and had not been charged with sexually abusing a child. Again, he assumes that they are innocent of any direct crime. The reality is the vast majority of sexual abusers are never charged, let alone found out. Ironically, another push by NMBLA and pedophiles is that pedophilia is genetic and they are born with this "sexual preference" and suffer desperately and often unsuccessfully trying to control their biological sexual urges because society disapproves of it and what they need is "treatment and therapy" rather than punishment and judgment so they can comply with society's morality. So on the one hand, we're to believe pedophiles who view child porn are decent men who just like to "look at pictures" but on the other we're to believe that they suffer greatly, pulled by their biological urges. Victims, the poor things, always victims. Conrad Black is naïve, believing in old myths, just as many in the public are. As a professor and political advisor, one would assume that Flanagan debates from an informed position rather than from one of ignorance and misconceptions. Yet his statements show either complete ignorance or an agenda. Which is it? Do we really have professors of political science and political advisors who are so ignorant of the facts, and like Black, are mislead? That's depressing. Or is there something more to this? The fact is, Flanagan's comments have pushed forth the misconception that those who view child porn are primarily harmless individuals who pose no direct threat to children and are to have society's empathy rather than condemnation. Whether or not he has real associations for NMBLA, that's a real coup for their lobby efforts in this country.

Extremist, oppressive groups, Bear, often use very covert tactics, hide behind facades and manipulate naivety, whether it is Islamists, or pedophiles or white supremacists, or Hitler's propaganda machine, or what have you. The ones who come out with their extremist views blatantly tend to not be too influential. The real dangers come from those who work covertly, inject misconceptions, manipulate and work on changing public opinion in this manner. I don't believe in jailing them. I do believe in debating and discussing issues honestly, openly and challenging those with destructive views straight up, head on.

 

[CDNBear]

NMBLA only puts paid members on their mailing list so it's quite the mystery how he got on a mailing list by accident.

I checked that out, it's false.

You can visit their site and see for yourself. The bulletin comes with a paid membership, or you can pay to be on the bulletin mailing list.

Click on Registration and notifications.

The reason I think it would be important to clear this up is that NMBLA uses very sneaky ways to lobby for the legalization of sexual abuse against children that exploit public ignorance and even good values, such as freedom of speech and tolerance, even children's rights.

So?

That has nothing to do with the context of my post.

They advocate for legal reforms.

As is their right. Again, nothing to do with the context of my post.

Flanagan's comments are quite in keeping with NMBLA's, even his apology.

So? Again, nothing to do with the context of my post

Extremist, oppressive groups, Bear, often use very covert tactics, hide behind facades and manipulate naivety, whether it is Islamists, or pedophiles or white supremacists, or Hitler's propaganda machine, or what have you.

I'm well aware of that.

It can even be found in any post by CC's resident Jew haters.

And yet again, has nothing to do with the context of my post.

Your entire post is a strawman.

I don't believe in jailing them. I do believe in debating and discussing issues honestly, openly and challenging those with destructive views straight up, head on.

So do I, and if one actually looks at what Flanagan said, he was attempting to do just that.

 

[oleoleolanda]

I checked that out, it's false.

You can visit their site and see for
yourself. The bulletin comes with a paid membership, or you can pay to be on the
bulletin mailing list.

Click on Registration and notifications

I did check their website. The point is you have to pay to be on their mailing list. Flanagan said he was put on it by accident, that he had put himself on a mailing list of a white supremacist group he was investigating and that he figures when they dissolved they sold their mailing list to NMBLA, which makes no sense. It does sound like he is lying.

So? X 2

So, NMBLA is within its legal rights to do exploit, manipulate, spread misinformation, etc. By me exposing this, arguing against it, I'm not taking their legal right away. I am using my legal right to freedom of speech to fight them. That's why freedom of speech works! If Flanagan did pay to be on the NMBLA mailing list and he shares their views, agenda and method of spreading misinformation on child porn users, etc. it puts his comments in a very different light than those of someone like Conrad Black, who seems to be clearly just ill informed.

I'm well aware of that.

It can even be found in any post by CC's resident Jew haters.

And yet
again, has nothing to do with the context of my post.

Your entire post
is a strawman.

It's the other way around. You post was the strawman. I did not argue that Flanagan should go to jail if he was a member of the NMBLA list. I didn't argue that he should be put in jail for his comments and denied freedom of speech. I didn't argue that if he was on the NMBLA list he was a sexual abuser, as in guilt by association. Your response to my comments was as if that's what I had done.

In fact, I have argued against the ignorance and misinformation of his comments, exercising my freedom of speech to stand up for my belief in the need to protect children from sexual abuse, which includes child porn. I've argued for honesty in debate, which NMBLA abhors because it exposes their agenda. I agree, many anti-Semites use the covert and manipulative ways to spread their ideas and cause. Just as with NMBLA that is their legal right to freedom of speech. But clearly speaking up, challenging, exposing them is our legal right as well. Many Islamist Jihadists wear a mask and hide among Muslims, trying to manipulate and spread their ideology while pretending to be "tolerant Muslims" and trying to create a rift between Muslims and non-Muslim, which serves their Jihadist cause. Exposing their true agenda and ideology and connections is absolutely critical to reducing their power and influence.

It's much the same with NMBLA and those with a pro-pedophilia agenda. I'm not trying to silence them. I don't try to silence Jihadists. In fact, I learned most about Jihadists by reading their websites and comments. I've learned tons about the agenda and mentality and propaganda methods of the pro-pedophilia lobby group thanks to them exercising their freedom of speech. I don't want them silenced. I want them out in the open. I want to combat their misinformation and BS. I want to argue against them so we can uphold good laws and create better laws and societal approaches to stop sexual abuse and child porn. You seem to be saying to me that this equates me wanting to deprive them of their freedom of speech and legal rights!

So do I, and if one actually looks at what Flanagan said, he was attempting
to do just that.

No what Flanagan was attempting to do was argue a false anti-science, anti-knowledge view (that those who view porn are harmless individuals who should not be sent to jail),that is in sync with that of NMBLA and the pedophile lobby groups, while presenting this as objective, informed debate, which it is not. And he continues repeating his position that those who view child porn are harmless individuals who deserve therapy rather than prison sentences. The stats are that most people who view child porn have directly and personally sexually abused a child. So the very premise of his debate is nonsensical. It has, however, apparently taken off like wildfire, with many people now under the false belief those who view child porn don't sexually abuse children themselves. Seems to me that's less about honest debate and more about misinformation.

 

[CDNBear]

I did check their website. The point is you have to pay to be on their mailing list.

So? That isn't what you claimed.

Even if he is lying (And I can understand why given the lengths even you are willing to go to tie him to NAMBLA's policies), you don't have to be a member.

You fail, as did the bulk of the media outlets that said the same thing.

So, NMBLA is within its legal rights to do exploit, manipulate, spread misinformation, etc. By me exposing this, arguing against it, I'm not taking their legal right away. I am using my legal right to freedom of speech to fight them. That's why freedom of speech works! If Flanagan did pay to be on the NMBLA mailing list and he shares their views, agenda and method of spreading misinformation on child porn users, etc. it puts his comments in a very different light than those of someone like Conrad Black, who seems to be clearly just ill informed.

There you go with the conjecture and strawman again.

It's the other way around. You post was the strawman.

Not even in the slightest.

I did not argue that Flanagan should go to jail if he was a member of the NMBLA list. I didn't argue that he should be put in jail for his comments and denied freedom of speech. I didn't argue that if he was on the NMBLA list he was a sexual abuser, as in guilt by association. Your response to my comments was as if that's what I had done.

I know what you did, you tried to make the discussion about NAMBLA and connect Flanagan to its policies.

You fail, again.

The rest of your post is more strawman, and conjecture.

 

[oleoleolanda]

So? That isn't what you claimed.

Even if he is lying (And I can understand why given the lengths even you are willing to go to tie him to NAMBLA's policies), you don't have to be a member.

You fail, as did the bulk of the media outlets that said the same thing.

There you go with the conjecture and strawman again.

Not even in the slightest.

I know what you did, you tried to make the discussion about NAMBLA and connect Flanagan to its policies.

You fail, again.

The rest of your post is more strawman, and conjecture.

If he's lying about not having paid to subscribe to NMBLA, you don't think that's relevant to the discussion?!!!!??? It is Flanagan himself who brought up NMBLA! The bulk of the media outlets have actually ignored discussing this, with only a few barely mentioning it. If he paid to subscribe and is lying, this is quite relevant context to understanding his comments. I'm surprised by how you are debating, Bear. You're being dismissive rather than actually addressing the points, thinking it through and responding with reasoned arguments. That doesn't seem like you. I had no negative opinion on Flanagan prior to this. I realize many people are going at Flanagan not so much for what he said but because of his political leanings, and others defend him not so much for what he said but because they share his political leanings. My concern in this is the protection of children and moving society forward in the fight against sexual abuse. If anyone had else had made his comments and stated that they'd been "accidentally" on NMBLA's mailing list, I'd be arguing exactly the same things.

 

[CDNBear]

If he's lying about not having paid to subscribe to NMBLA, you don't think that's relevant to the discussion?!!!!???

Not the one you originally quoted.

Even if he did have a paid subscription, it doesn't prove what you want it to.

It is Flanagan himself who brought up NMBLA!

Ya so?

The bulk of the media outlets have actually ignored discussing this, with only a few barely mentioning it. If he paid to subscribe and is lying, this is quite relevant context to understanding his comments.

Except for making the same silly and incorrect claim you did.

I'm surprised by how you are debating, Bear.

I'm not debating. You quoted my response to an extremist that was making up a litany of falsehoods. Not unlike the conjecture you've been posting.

You're being dismissive rather than actually addressing the points, thinking it through and responding with reasoned arguments.

Because I'm not going to debate your strawman.

That doesn't seem like you.

Actually, since I'm simply dismissing your conjecture and strawman argument, it is in keeping with my style.

I had no negative opinion on Flanagan prior to this. I realize many people are going at Flanagan not so much for what he said but because of his political leanings, and others defend him not so much for what he said but because they share his political leanings. My concern in this is the protection of children and moving society forward in the fight against sexual abuse. If anyone had else had made his comments and stated that they'd been "accidentally" on NMBLA's mailing list, I'd be arguing exactly the same things.

Good for you.

 

[oleoleolanda]

Not the one you originally quoted.

Even if he did have a paid subscription, it doesn't prove what you want it to.

Ya so?

Except for making the same silly and incorrect claim you did.

I'm not debating. You quoted my response to an extremist that was making up a litany of falsehoods. Not unlike the conjecture you've been posting.

Because I'm not going to debate your strawman.

Actually, since I'm simply dismissing your conjecture and strawman argument, it is in keeping with my style.

Good for you.

You had commented on one of my comments and I replied to that, or so I thought!

If he had a paid subscription, save some exceptional explanation, it would most certainly indicate that his comments and views were not objective.

Except for making the same silly and incorrect claim you did.

Which was that?

 

[CDNBear]

You had commented on one of my comments and I replied to that, or so I thought!

You thought wrong.

If he had a paid subscription, save some exceptional explanation, it would most certainly indicate that his comments and views were not objective.

Maybe. Anything you may think it means is 100% conjecture.

Which was that?

That you have to be a member to receive the bulletin.

 

[oleoleolanda]

]You thought wrong

.

Well, apologies for that, Bear.

Maybe. Anything you may think it means is 100% conjecture.

Well, everything is conjecture until you have all the verified facts. That includes that his position and comments were based entirely on objective views on child porn. I've outlined my concerns and the parallels between his position and those that NMBLA pushes.

Did you see the piece they posted on their site about Flanagan?

That you have to be a member to receive the bulletin.

You have to PAY to receive the subscription. Flanagan said he was put on their mailing list by accident for a couple of years, then claimed it was by accident. Who wants to pay money to an organization that lobbies for the legalization of sexual abuse of children?!He seems to have lied about it being accidental. Why?

 

[CDNBear]

.Well, apologies for that, Bear.

No worries.

Did you see the piece they posted on their site about Flanagan?

Yes, a long with several other pieces relating to public lynchings and legal reviews.

You have to PAY to receive the subscription.

Ya so?

Flanagan said he was put on their mailing list by accident for a couple of years, then claimed it was by accident. Who wants to pay money to an organization that lobbies for the legalization of sexual abuse of children?!

Journalists, academics, politicians.

That's how you know what they're thinking.

It can really be that simple.

He seems to have lied about it being accidental.

Maybe.

Why?

Although conjecture, because of people like you that would try and connect him to NAMBLA in anything other than an academic way.

 

[oleoleolanda]

No worries.

Yes, a long with several other pieces relating to public lynchings and legal reviews.

Ya so?

Journalists, academics, politicians.

That's how you know what they're thinking.

It can really be that simple.

Maybe.

Although conjecture, because of people like you that would try and connect him to NAMBLA in anything other than an academic way.

in this month's issue of Maclean's Magazine, there's an interview with Flanagan. He was asked how he got on the mailing list. He stated that he'd been asked by Manning to investigate white supremacist groups in an effort to weed out extremist within the party and had signed up to one group's mailing list to do so. (I guess if they were weeding out people based on names of those somehow associated with the group, Manning and Flanagan were guilty of guilt by association?) That white supremacist group disappeared. Flanagan claims he believes that group sold their mailing list to NMBLA and that's how he got on the list. Does that jive with all subscriptions being paid?

I wanted to know how he got on the mailing list, why and why he stayed on it for a couple of years. Indeed, it might have been for research, although if that was the purpose becoming a paid member would have provided far more material and information.

In any case, his explanation, which includes an apparent lie, opens up serious questions. That, combined with the fact that his arguments are very much in tune with NMBLA's positions, leads to even more serious questions.

It isn't me or others who have connected him to NMBLA in ways that are not academic. It was Flanagan himself.

 

[CDNBear]

Flanagan claims he believes that group sold their mailing list to NMBLA and that's how he got on the list. Does that jive with all subscriptions being paid?

The internet works in mysterious ways.

I wanted to know how he got on the mailing list, why and why he stayed on it for a couple of years. Indeed, it might have been for research, although if that was the purpose becoming a paid member would have provided far more material and information.

Maybe.

Are you a paid member?

If not, how do you know it comes with more intell?

In any case, his explanation, which includes an apparent lie...

100% conjecture. Any questions it opens up, are based on your fantasy, not reality.

That, combined with the fact that his arguments are very much in tune with NMBLA's positions, leads to even more serious questions.

If you want to make the connection. But that really says something about the person making the connections.

 

[oleoleolanda]

Bear, as for public lynchings... Neuroscience research now has given us a clearer understanding of the injuries sexual abuse survivors suffer. The trauma literally damages their brains and brain function and these can be seen in brain scans. All this is linked to not just serious trauma related psychological issues, that affect the child's mental and physical health throughout their lives. It affects their productivity, relationships, addictions, and often shortens their lives. And this doesn't include the actual physical injuries children can sustain in child abuse, which can be horrific, especially in the production of child porn. If these injuries were visible, or the body equivalent, they would look like a child with limbs torn off, broken and disfigured, their senses mutilated, crippled beyond any ability to function without constant extreme pain. The public "lynchings" or "hysteria" is actually just a normal, rational and appropriate reaction to the horrors of the crimes committed by sexual abusers and those who support the child porn industry.

 

[CDNBear]

Neuroscience research now has given us a clearer understanding of the injuries sexual abuse survivors suffer. The trauma literally damages their brains and brain function and these can be seen in brain scans. All this is linked to not just serious trauma related psychological issues, that affect the child's mental and physical health throughout their lives. It affects their productivity, relationships, addictions, and often shortens their lives. And this doesn't include the actual physical injuries children can sustain in child abuse, which can be horrific, especially in the production of child porn. If these injuries were visible, or the body equivalent, they would look like a child with limbs torn off, broken and disfigured, their senses mutilated, crippled beyond any ability to function without constant extreme pain. The public "lynchings" or "hysteria" is actually just a normal, rational and appropriate reaction to the horrors of the crimes committed by sexual abusers and those who support the child porn industry.

That, has absolutely nothing to do with...

Bear, as for public lynchings...

 

[oleoleolanda]

That, has absolutely nothing to do with...

Again: The public "lynchings" or "hysteria" is actually just a normal, rational and appropriate reaction to the horrors of the crimes committed by sexual abusers and those who support the child porn industry.

It`s not public lynching.

 

[CDNBear]

Again: The public "lynchings" or "hysteria" is actually just a normal, rational and appropriate reaction to the horrors of the crimes committed by sexual abusers and those who support the child porn industry.

It`s not public lynching.

You've just confirmed you are incapable of objective discussion on the topic.

Putting all your previous claims of objectivity in question.

I suspected as much.