Autistic (Asperger) Student had 900 child porn collection

Post Reply New Topic

And the judge believes this individual is not likely to be someone likely to abuse children or to continue collecting child porn. It is implied within the news article (though admittidly not stated), that the judge believes this individual is not clinically a pedophile.

[edit]See above. And you still have not responded to the likelyhood of recidivism of the individual, so I'm assuming you advocate death forany individual who has committed a crime that statistically has a high recidivism (i.e. drinking and driving, public drunkness, speeding, etc.)

Last edited by roguetech on 24 Jul 2008, 9:46 am, edited 3 times in total.

If they are actually creating child porn, then they are on a different level. It doesn't matter how they got started.

Most rapists are male. That does not mean that most males are rapists.

Here is an interesting read about Mark Foley: Click Here

Essentially, throughout his congressional career, he went out of his way to pass laws against using minors for porn. He even tried to make it illegal to photograph any minor in any state of dress. In the end, he was caught having homosexual relations with minors and had to resign congress in disgrace.

Like I said, the people who scream the loudest about such things tend to have secrets of their own. Ever hear some guy talking about how evil and sick it is to be gay and how gays should be tortured and executed? That guy that says that kind of thing is probably gay himself and is in denial. In many cases, that is the fact.

What are you sayin that someof us have sick little secrets..
JUST **** *** WITH IT
MAN!

That is an incorrect assumption. The guys who look at child porn are driven by lust. Lust is an emotion that can be eliminated by castration in males. That is an effective treatment for any type of sexual addiction.

OTOH, child pornographers are driven by greed. They make money from the torture of children. Jail is what you use to treat that.

Well, the punnishment should be related to how badly you damage your victim. Pedophiles deserve to die for the psychological and physical damage that they inflict on a kid. Public drunkness? If no one gets hurt? A night in the slammer. But if a drunk driver kills or injures someone for life they need to go to jail forever, or die.

And the judge is an idiot if he thinks that a person who collects child porn is not a pedophile! I diagnose this judge MR!

And seriously, is this punk even an aspie? Was he diagnosed before or AFTER his arrest? Perhaps lawyers are studying aspies closely to help their clients "fake it" so they can get off?

Last edited by Larree on 24 Jul 2008, 9:55 am, edited 1 time in total.

I certianly boubt SIXLUCY has committed child abuse, just becuase she "screams the loudest". Foley was only talking to pages, and did not break a child protection laws (sexual harrassment maybe, ethics definitly). (It was all innuendo, and he never pushed children into discussion they were uncomfortable with, not that I'm defending his work-place behavior, or his double standards... Just saying it was legal under child protection laws.) I am sure he "screamed the loudest", because a politian can never go wrong "protecting the children".

A drunk driver could run over a child (just as downloading a picture could (in some dubious fashion that is by no means clear to me) cause a child to be molested.) A public drunk could hurt a child (puke on the sidewalk, kid slips and falls). You could kill a child by using a car (child gets malaria due to global warming caused by the CO2 emmisions). Point blank, this guy did not hurt anyone, child or adult. So, again, I'm forced to assume that if there is the risk or an indirect link to the harm of a child, the perpetrator should be put to death. It certainly would solve overpopulation, if nothing else.

I'm assuming you will either be at the front of the line, or have already been castrated?

Why are you so concerned with protecting a sick little pedophile? ANYONE who collects child porn IS a pedophile, and simply by collecting this crap and proving (by web stats) that there is a desire for it to the webmasters, he was doing much harm.

Last edited by Larree on 24 Jul 2008, 10:06 am, edited 1 time in total.

I don't think she's a child pornographer either, but people who scream the loudest really are the ones you want to watch.

The Foley pages were all underaged minors. That's where the stink came from. Although he never got caught, he was suspected of having sexual relations with these same minors (there are several of them). In the end, he elected to blame his priest from 50 years ago and claimed he was molested as a child which made him a gay child molester when he became a congressman. I don't think too many people bought that argument.

Although I try to think with an understanding...I queston pics of children in such ways.

I think he should be put away since there is evidence that discloses no guarentee cures for paedophalia. Fixations without actions may turn to actions but this is going by some of the articles I've read which doesn't have a good conclusion.

Just the photos are enough in my opinion to get rid or put this guy away somewhere. I can't imagine, the kids themselves that were photoed or subjected to that. Then again, happens to adults as well but children often have the last say and powerlessness when put into this kind of victimization.

Would you like to rephrase that? It sounds like you are accusing me of something.

Just because someone collects child porn does not mean they are a pedophile, other than legally (which is a circuliar statement). A pedophile is someone who is sexual attracted to pre-pubuscent children. Most normal adults are sexually attracted to post-pubescent people (i.e. sexually mature adults (biologically speaking)), which legally can still be considered pedophelia. And collecting pictures does not equal sexual attraction. And sexual attraction does not equal harm commited.

[edit]Indirect harm of generating a market for the material was taken into account by the judge. It is, indeed, a major reason he was sentenced to jail. However, it is a faliscious arguement, tantmount to saying that going to car website generates interest in cars, which in turn are responsible for gravily injuring and killing many children every day. And, cause possibly irreparable harm to the environment. Therefore, not only should visitors to any website that shows a picture of a car should be punished, but should be put to death.

However, I am not argueing against it being illegal. I am saying that he should not be put to death. Indeed, I feel the punishment was in proportion to the case, as I interpret the meager information in the press article.[/edit]

It is normal for adults to feel lust. Saying that pedophelia is driven by lust seems to be saying the true crime is lust, and that anyone who "suffers" from it should be castrated.

The fixation is not curable (castration sometimes can "cure" it, but not always). However, acting on the fixation is "curable". More to the point, there is no reason to believe this person was sexually fixated on children, but fixated on an "interest" of collecting pictures.

Just as in your example above, its not illegal to be an alcoholic. But when alcoholics drink and drive and run people over, then it becomes a crime.

The same is true of lust. When its just you and your gf getting consensually nasty, then its not usually a crime. When its pedophilia, then it is. And yes, lust is a main ingredient to pedophilia. Get rid of lust and you get rid of pedophilia. Castration gets rid of lust.

I am not castrated and have no need to be, but I have dealt with guys who were. They have absolutely NO sex drive or the ability to lust. They weren't pedophiles, but principle is the same. Can anyone name any castrated pedophile that hasn't been cured?

Look. If you are collecting sick pictures of children, you are a pedophile. Period. End of arguement. And you deserve to fry for it.

Look. If you drive a car, you endanger children. Period. End of arguement. And you deserve to fry for it.

That is ret*d.