showing someone porn is a felony in the US :O

The intention is what matters. Your point is as facile as comparing what that subhuman done to seeing your own penis when taking a piss. If you are going to claim they are equivalent i'd seriously have to question your intellectual integrity, let alone your ability to function in civilised society.

AGAIN.... if i showed your wife pictures of my penis against her will should the law be powerless to stop me?

 

Sorry, you didn't seem to answer my question, Just like the rest of them avoided it.... i'm not tying it out again, i'm sure you have the capacity to read, so go back, read it, then have a go at answering it. There's a good lad. Or, of course, you could just chicken out again and demonstrate even further your inability to reconcile what you claim to believe and what you actually believe. After all, if you think the law should be able to prevent it happening to your wife, mother or sister but not other women, that makes you a hypocrite, so it's understandable that you'd be reluctant to answer.

 

For showing PICTURE? No Law should make criminal offense bad taste, stupidity or illness.

As you said he is pervert which means he is incapable to recognize differences between
right and wrong thus his mental state should be treated by psychiatrist and not the Judge.



fastreplies

 

you probably aren't married then if you are willing to let people show obscene images to your wife against her will and the law be powerless to stop them, either that or you hold your wife in utter contempt.

 

You’re putting emphasis on term obscene as if it is criminal and not moral act whereas even Courts have difficulties to define what's really constitutes that term.

• Federal law forbids obscenity in certain contexts (such as broadcast), however the law does not define the term.
• The U.S. Supreme Court similarly has had difficulty defining the term. In Miller v. California, the court defers definition to two hypothetical entities, "contemporary community standards" and "hypothetical reasonable persons".
• The courts and the legislature have had similar problems defining this term because it is paradoxical, and thus impossible to define.
• Because the term "obscenity" is not defined by either the statutes or the case law, this law does not satisfy the Vagueness doctrine, which states that people must clearly be informed as to the prohibited behavior. Thus, this law confers no new rights, and is in fact, null and void.
• Because the determination of what is obscene (offensive) is ultimately a personal preference, alleged violations of obscenity law are not actionable (actions require a right).
• Because no actual injury occurs when a mere preference is violated, alleged violations of obscenity law are not actionable (actions require an injury).

Pay attention to text in bold

fastreplies

 

So the pictures are obscene because the people are naked or having sex? According to your logic, that makes you a Gymnophobe(fear of nudity) or an Erotophobe(Fear of sex). Sorry if I don't approve of letting you be the little Hitler to dick-tate to everyone else what is or is not obscene.

As far as the rest of your post goes, I see you've fallen back on your usual attempts at trolling for lack of an argument. Let me highlight it for you:

In regard to showing pictures of your penis to my wife, if your penis turned out to be visible to the naked eye on those pictures, I'm sure she would respond by either saying, "No thanks, I don't smoke", or "No thanks, I choke on small objects". Either way, if I were there to see it, I would join her in laughing at you. Does that clarify it enough for you?

 

No because i didn't ask you to invent what she might say, i asked you if the law should have powers to prevent people showing her obscene images against her will. Well, in actual fact, what you "think" isn't worth shit, because it is illegal and this disgusting little potential rapist is going to be tried for it. Maybe you should go and defend him outside court, and any other sex offenders that take your fancy.

I love how you edit out the argument, and then claim one wasn't made... how typically deceitful of you. I'm still trying to decide if your motivation for defending an obviously disgusting and blatantly illegal act is a result of your love of sex offenders, your love of Democrats or your contempt of women.

@fastreplies you just copy and pasted the "criticisms" section from wikipedia.... what's the matter? unable to think of your own so you just paste someone elses opinions? that's probably the weakest argument you have made so far. On the plus side, it wasn't actually your argument. Crimes don't have to consist of an "injury.

 

Like if she considers two homosexuals kissing in public to be obscene? Or if she considers any woman not wearing a burka to be obscenely dressed? Oh, I'm sure you are a HUGE fan of the state dictating what is and is not obscene, so long as the state's definition agrees with yours, right.

No, I highlighted the parts of your "argument"(what a laugh), that were typically you. Do you really think that type of emotional wording lends anything to what you have to say? It makes you sound like you've been severely victimized in your life. If that is the case, you really ought to get therapy. You only get one go around, and you should make the best of it.

Come talk to me when you lose your virginity, and I'll explain it to you son.

 

It's the act that can be obscene, not the people doing it. If she finds kissing obscene i'd suggest she get's help, if she considers gay people kissing i'd suggest she is a homophobe. Saying that gay people kissing is oscene is equivalent to saying that seeing black people kissing is obscene. Thanks for letting us know just how repulsive your "opinions" are.

 

You have nothing to add, as usual. I'll go back to my wording from the first post on this thread. Nice to see the militant left giving Atheists a bad name, AGAIN. Tell you what. I'll concede one of your morality laws if you concede one of mine. I want all women in the UK to wear burkas. Wasn't it Polite Teen who said something like, "You would probably have them walking around all skimpily clad like some kind of prostitute you disgusting little pervert. "? Perhaps you and he have more in common than you thought.

 

I wouldn't "have" women doing anything, they can make their own minds up and dress themselves. Which is why i am against perverts showing them obscene images against their will.

 

Curious you keep referring to a law and order fanatic as being left wing, as a bad name to an innocent bystander. There really needs to be more discovery to make a determination for this particular individual and defendant - the underlying issue (SToX) is custom made for S Ca. with racial overtones patently nonadmissible.

 

My word Breeze. A practically coherent argument. Touche. The man in question, Alvin Greene, is a Democrat and I find myself defending him against a man calling for "Law and Order". Obviously labels like left and right are often generally placed and do not fit every portion of a person's belief system. To clarify, I used the label "leftist" in reference to Stox because his purpose on this forum seems to center around speaking down to the religious, for the very fact they are religious. This is a typically leftist stance. I've noted the few times he's weighed in on American politics, he's been rather glowing about our liar and chief, Obama.

Anyway, I appreciate you bringing it up. In my opinion, it is a wonderful illustration of how someone would have no problem trampling your civil liberties in the name of civil liberties. It is the leftist agenda in a nutshell. In another post a few months ago, Stox recommended military occupation of Muslim lands to enforce western values on them and rid them of their evil religion. Amazing overlap with the neo-con agenda, wouldn't you say?

 

I never made claim that I originated reply in my post. Now did I?

On contrary I’m using my own brains and refuse to follow someone else’s sick religious believes that human anatomy
is dirty and obscene as you do.

Wrong, it was my way to tell you talk to my hand.

And that is exactly why you’re making your posts in forums or on washroom walls and not in the Courts of Law,
you can't hold straight thoughts.

Explain how showing body part to someone is injurious? Specifically, how naked body IN PICTURE can effect
somebody's physical or psychological well-being?



fastreplies

 

No. You also didn't say you ripped it off and that none of it was a statement of fact and that it was all someone else's opinions. You should have known i wouldn't let you get away with such lazy nonthinking. You must be desperate to make that kind of mistake.

I don't need to explain it.. i just need to ask you if showing porn to children is "legal". case closed. You aren't going to sink any further and say showing porn to children is ok too are you? Keep digging, i can still see you.

 

Yeah, should have done it this time too. But then that would have made it harder for you to pass off someone else's personal opinion as your own statement of fact.

Wow, so you think showing children porn is ok? After all, how could seeing a naked body effect their physical or mental wellbeing? I think this is the lowest i have ever seen you sink trying to defend the indefensible, and i have seen you sink very low.

A crime doesn't need to consist of an injury if the intent is to coerce or cause injury. He attempted to arouse the women against her will by showing her obscene images against her will with the express intention of having sex with her. By your logic conspiracy to murder is legal too.

Disregard my last question, i have a better one now. Should and is conspiracy to murder be illegal? To save my posting again after you try to wriggle out of answering, let's assume the person they are conspiring to murder doesn't know anything about it.

 

Anyone wants some?

 

The latest news........

 

Sorry fastreplies, you appear to have replied so fast that you completely glased over my examples of "crimes" in which no "injury" has occurred, namely conspiracy to murder when the person being conspired against has no knowledge of it. So have a go at answering it now, unless of course answering will completely blow your argument out of the water, as i inevitably always would do. You're no match for me kid.

1. Should, and is, conspiracy to murder illegal when the person being conspired against has no knowledge of it?
2. Where is the "injury" in that example?

It's no good getting all hysterical just because you have talked yourself in to a corner.

 

If this were library material displayed inside the library, what crime has been committed.