Friday, November 10, 2017

Taking Out The Trash

I won't link to the post in question, mainly from a desire for not needing to shower afterwards, but suffice it to say I'd avoided it until it popped up on another site I visit semi-regularly.

My response should solve the curiosity about to what and to whom I refer, for those possessed of decent skills at Google-fu.

Fred Reed:
Greasing the Slippery Moral Slope with barrels of lube and trying to sell it as a carnival ride since...ever.

I am fine with turning anyone involved with child porn over to the tender ministrations of a jury composed of fathers of school-age daughters, and executing whatever sentence they agree upon in deliberations.

Or, just leaving the perp in the jury room with said jury, along with a dozen pipes and hammers during the lunch break, obviating an afternoon court session entirely.

The purpose of the death penalty for murder isn't pour encourager les autres, it isn't to satisfy and balance the scales of justice, and it isn't to let the state pass along a sentence that if accomplished by the aggrieved family would be merely feuding vengeance, and lend it judicial respectability.

It's to achieve a recidivism rate in perpetrators of 0.0%.
At this it has a batting average of 1.000, every time it's tried.

All I'm saying, is give rope a chance.

And if it's good enough for murder, child porn deserves a seat at that table too.

Of course you can't stop everyone from doing it, Fred (you ignorant slut), but you'll drive it down to such miniscule low levels as to be nearly the same thing as non-existent, while soiling a minimum number of people with complicity in the crime, let alone dragging the entire civilization into the bunghole of the septic tank that complicity and legalization would inevitably do.

And the day the state declines to do that duty, that state is immoral, unjust, tyranny - not leastly in regard to the exact child-victims it consigns to the child-porn sausage machine, whose moving parts Fred would happily oil - and the task falls to every one with a conscience, and a length of handy pipe. Or a gun.

Going the other way, why not just legalize murder, and charge a tax for the privilege, since we haven't stamped it out ever, since Cain? How about a fee to allow the rape of adult women? Or perhaps, as A Modest Proposal, just legalize eating babies to assuage world hunger, as Mr. Swift famously once satirically suggested?

The difference between Fred and a clever literate amoral moron is impossible to measure with existing instrumentation.

But he shouldn't be censored.
He should simply have his fingers and jaws beaten to bloody hamburger with pipes. Weekly.
(And ideally, by child porn victims and their families.)
Then the humor quotient of his future output will accord precisely with his root intelligence.
And the pathetic pain-wracked arm-waving and muffled mrrrphings he'd issue henceforth would be hilarious to behold.

And in that vein, I'm off to the cinema.


Arthur said...

My problem with any discussion of 'child pornography' is the way 'child' is defined. You mention "school-age daughters" What school?

A high school boy who is one month older than his sweetheart can be dragged over the coals for having naughty pictures of his girl the second he turns 18.

If 'child' is defined as not sexually mature then I have zero problem with dousing the perp with flaming gasoline. But there is a GIANT difference between a guy who gets turned on by a 16 year old and one who goes after 10 year olds.

A 25 year old guy who hits on a 16 year old is creepy but biologically sound. One who lusts after grade schoolers is mentally ill and will never be right. That difference matters.

Normal people understand what the words 'Rape' and 'Sexual Assault' mean. But it didn't take long before they came to mean "Someone I didn't like was in the same zip code as me 20 years ago".

I really dislike witch hunts.

*And no I didn't read Fred's piece. He's gotten tiresome for me.

loren said...

I too read Fred. Seems a reasonable guy most times. My guess is I agree more with you than him, but he has his moments. His most recent column on child porn seems more in line with thinking outside the box and getting real kids out danger than promoting it. Not real sure why you chose to go off on this one. Fred being the father of a youngish daughter I'm fairly confident he'd do serious harm to any creep he caught, as would we all.
I'm pretty sure the problem won't go away no matter what we think. Sexual perversion seems to go hand in hand with utter lack of self control. Perhaps technology can get it off the internet and other media but those middle aged men traveling to Asia for sex holidays are harder to stop. Maybe hanging cages of those caught outside international airports would help? Cut down on piracy way back when so maybe. As to families selling their kids, well that's just not something I can grasp.

vanderleun said...

You have to remember that, with Fred, he lives in Mexico where life and sex with children is cheap. Not sayin' anythin' about ol' Fred mind ya. Just sayin' that perverts prosper in ol' Meh-hji-co.

Anonymous said...

I read Fred too. I think he offered a brilliant solution. Fake porn or more correctly high tech realistic "cartoons" of porn. Why is it brilliant? Because it would end or considerably reduced the actual harm to children. Isn't that the goal? Isn't that why we put people in jail for viewing child porn, i.e. to reduce the demand and thus reduce the number of children exploited? Well why not a better solution that simply takes the real children out of it and creates a cartoon porn??? Ironically it seems that people are against that and prefer the current system that continues to allow child exploitation RATHER then let the strange guy viewing the porn be able to view fake porn.

G-man said...

The reason “cartoon” kiddie-porn isn’t okay is this: Johnny Sicko knows it’s a cartoon, which keeps him and his ilk pining for, and then perpetrating the same on actual children. Previous commenters raise legitimate concerns a-la the definitions of ‘child’ (to wit- today, Will’s Romeo would be guilty of statuatory...). However, pre-pubescent kiddos? Aesop’s suggestion to give rope a chance falls short, unless said rope is involved in drawing and quartering.

Anonymous said...

Here's my problem with the death penalty for anything these days that dosn't include actual provably untampered-with video/audio (must be both) evidence that someone raped, or molested, or otherwise practiced sexual malfeasance with a child. ready for it? The shitweasel jack-rags at fedgov.scum are absolute experts at planting evidence on people they want taken down. local cops and department of human services drones are equally adept at such ass-hattery when they want to pump up arrest records and conviction rates. People are so (and rightfully) disgusted with child porn and exploitation that they tend to convict out of hand. Emotion trumps logic and reason to an alarming degree. This same form of glarg is practiced all the time with meth/pot/crack/etc. if you are driving with an expensive car thru an area where the shit-pigs have big eyes. If you are lucky the will just asset forfeit your car. Do you really want to give those bastards even MORE power? -GreyStranger

Aesop said...

Not at all, GS.
I'd be fine with on-the-spot lynching.

All the .gov is good for most times is after-clean-up anyways.