A total of 39 charges have been laid and 10 men arrested, including four from northern Ontario, in a online child luring and sexual exploitation investigation dubbed Project Limestone, police say.
One of the men arrested is a repeat offender who was out on bail.
This chain where they are saying this shouldn’t even be a crime
Okay, I’ll take the bait.
I find the notion of written child pornography repulsive, but I can’t see why it should be a crime, given that writing it doesn’t harm any children, in the same way than writing a murder mystery doesn’t involve killing somebody.
Can you elaborate on why writing a fictional account should be illegal? Something more fleshed out than “eww!”. I’m not seeing it, but I have no trouble changing my mind if a good argument is presented.
And again, I would be very uncomfortable if it turned out that one of my kids’ teachers were reading or writing stuff like that, but then again it’s not very different from how I would feel if I found out they burned rainbow flags and that is perfectly legal as well – as it should be in my opinion, I might add.
In summary, I defend the right of people to do things I disapprove of, as long as they are not hurting anybody.
It does harm children because pedos/the people that write/the people like yourself that defend it use it to normalize it for their victims/convince kids that what they are doing is okay
You can see someone shot on tv but people aren’t going to say “it’s okay to shoot you because I saw it on tv” and have the victims believe the criminal
I’m trying to understand.
Just to be clear, defending the right of somebody to do something doesn’t mean you like it. There is a big gap between “this is not for me” and “this should be illegal”. I don’t think anybody in this thread is normalizing it, I think we are distinguishing between what we dislike and what should be illegal. For me personally, actual physical harm is the deciding factor.
When somebody argues that X leads some people to perform an act of violence Y, the issue for me is still with Y, not with X. For example, I’ve heard people argue that we should ban burning the rainbow flag because they believe it leads to violent crimes against LGBT people. I am queer and defend the right of people to burn the flag, as much as I dislike it happening. Why? Because the flag itself is an inanimate object, and the threshold is crossed only when an actual person is the victim of violence.
In other words, I can’t get behind policing people’s minds. Want to murder somebody? I don’t approve of it, but it’s not even in the same ballpark as actually murdering somebody.
I will say that if I found out that one of my kids’ teachers was involved in any of that stuff, I would promptly find a new school because it’s not worth the risk. So, it’s not like it would be free of consequences either. Same if the teacher was burning the rainbow flag.
Way to ignore the argument
Your comparison should be calling/promoting burning gays is okay as long as they don’t actually do it
But you know people aren’t going to be sympathetic to that so you try to twist it to appear rational
I did my best to understand your argument, but all I had to work with was a fragmented sentence. Thank you for elaborating further.
I’m not quite seeing the parallel here. Would you say that a book that describes a murder/rape is promoting murder/rape? Does that mean the book should be illegal?
The bible contains multiple calls to violence and even genocide, including calls to stone homosexuals and adulterers, yet it remains legal, because we do make a distinction between words and actions.
It is difficult to maintain a friendly conversation when somebody repeatedly accuses you of being malevolent. It is possible for good people to have differing opinions about delicate subjects. I assume you have good intentions, please return the favor.
Anyway, I gotta run. Thanks for the thought provoking conversation.