[SprCForr]

Him going postal results in four people shot dead.

His definition of normal is right out of it.

[roger-roger]

So westerns are sick because we think naked images of children are pornography? Russians are normal because they think naked pictures of children are ok?
Thats what I get out of that rant....

[benny_patrick7]

$1:

So westerns are sick because we think naked images of children are pornography? Russians are normal because they think naked pictures of children are ok?

Yes, there is absolutely nothing wrong of a picture of naked child. And if you think otherwise, you are very sick and you need to ask for help before it is too late. Every parent in Russia always had pictures of their newborn naked, just because it is very cute. Nobody dared to consider it anything but normal.

$1:

Him going postal results in four people shot dead.
His definition of normal is right out of it.

First, I killed 4 people who belonged to a gang, which threatened my life. This is perfectly normal reaction. Second, even presuming that I am abnormal in one sense, I still could be perfectly capable of deciding what is normal in sexual domain. Does this make sense to you?

[EyeBrock]

Unfortunately, pictures of naked children are in great demand by pedophiles and other sick and disturbed types.

On the other, are you for real or just a loony?

[benny_patrick7]

[quote="EyeBrock"]Unfortunately, pictures of naked children are in great demand by pedophiles and other sick and disturbed types.
quote]

So what? Because there are some perverts out there, you are going criminalize normal parents who consider their children to be just cute? You do not make legislation for perverts which penalize normal people.

There are people who get aroused by looking at shoes. Now you would make picture of shoes to be pornography?

[EyeBrock]

Shoes and children are hardly of similar ilk. Do you like looking at naked pictures of other people's kids?

[roger-roger]

Right, your fucked if you think there is nothing wrong with hanging a 8x10 picture, of a 12 year old girl spread eagle, in your living room.

[SprCForr]

benny_patrick7 benny_patrick7:

First, I killed 4 people who belonged to a gang, which threatened my life. This is perfectly normal reaction. Second, even presuming that I am abnormal in one sense, I still could be perfectly capable of deciding what is normal in sexual domain. Does this make sense to you?

That's your version. The courts saw it different and the facts supported their decision. Your mental processes led you to execute four innocent people.

You're deranged, suck it up princess.

[OnTheIce]

Eisensapper Eisensapper:

Right, your fucked if you think there is nothing wrong with hanging a 8x10 picture, of a 12 year old girl spread eagle, in your living room.

The guy may be a bit looney on some topics, but you guys are out to lunch on this topic.

He's not talking about pictures of children being exploited for personal gain. He's talking about the pictures that millions of parents take of their babies and infants some who happen to be naked.

If you happen to get a chub or think parents shouldn't take these types of pictures cause if they fall into the wrong hands.....get a clue.

[roger-roger]

Thats different, when you say "Child Pornography" your not talking about pictures of your kids taking a bubble bath, or a baby on a bear skin rug.

$1:

Because there are some perverts out there, you are going criminalize normal parents who consider their children to be just cute? You do not make legislation for perverts which penalize normal people.

That sounds like he wants to decriminalize child pornography to me.

[OnTheIce]

Eisensapper Eisensapper:

Thats different, when you say "Child Pornography" your not talking about pictures of your kids taking a bubble bath, or a baby on a bear skin rug.

$1:

Because there are some perverts out there, you are going criminalize normal parents who consider their children to be just cute? You do not make legislation for perverts which penalize normal people.

That sounds like he wants to decriminalize child pornography to me.

What he was trying to say, but was incorrect in doing so, is that Canada has made ANY picture of a nude child to be considered "pornography".

This is not the case and no such law exists.

He thinks that we're criminalizing parents for taking completely innocent and cute pictures of our kids when it's not the case and he's misinformed.

[roger-roger]

He should really invest some time in educating himself then.

[llama66]

benny_patrick7 benny_patrick7:

First, I killed 4 people who belonged to a gang, which threatened my life. This is perfectly normal reaction. Second, even presuming that I am abnormal in one sense, I still could be perfectly capable of deciding what is normal in sexual domain. Does this make sense to you?

yeah they were part of the Concordia Faculty Staff gang, dude you are one sick individual,do us all a favor and go elsewhere, you make me sick. I can't even put into the words the rage I'm feeling as you try to say Child Porn (which is what nude pictures of a child is) is right and proper. Do us all a favor, ask to be put in GP, I'm sure some of your prison mates would be happy to "educate" you on Child Porn. Go straight to hell.

[benny_patrick7]

$1:

That's your version. The courts saw it different and the facts supported their decision.

Which facts are you talking about? I was there and you were not. How come I was not allowed to testify at my own trial and corrupt Court of Appeal decided that it was Ok? Is this Ok in your books?

Right now, I made application in Faint Hope case and again, judge denied me permission to testify about what really happened. Why are they so scared of my testimony if the facts support them, according to you?

Have you bothered to read my account of what happened? If not, read it at http://geocities.com/benny_patrick.

$1:

What he was trying to say, but was incorrect in doing so, is that Canada has made ANY picture of a nude child to be considered "pornography".

This is not the case and no such law exists.

Ok, why don't we look at the wording of the law. Here is the law:

"(ii) the dominant characteristic of which is the depiction, for a sexual purpose, of a sexual organ or the anal region of a person under the age of eighteen years;"

Now, how the hell does this constitute pornography is beyond my comprehension. Any picture made by a parent of their newborn where those areas are visible may qualify. As far as purpose is concerned, one person would say that the purpose was purely esthetical, and the other would say that it is sexual. This is a slippery slope where no law should go.

I also fail to understand why two consenting "children" filming themselves having sex at, say 17 and half years of age, are to be considered to be making child pornography. Grow up, people!

[SprCForr]

benny_patrick7 benny_patrick7:

Self serving babble...

Again, your version. Your behavior prior to and after the slaying of four innocent people speaks volumes. You should have paid more attention to what that judge was telling you.

Oh wait! In your little world the judicial system is completely corrupt. Yeah! That must be it. The ranting of a mass murderer has convinced me.

I'm taking my wife out to dinner tonight. Maybe some wine with supper, a little dancing. Or a nice walk in the country tommorrow on a beautiful autumn day. Hmm, so many choices...

Have fun eating swill and pacing your cell. For the rest of your life.

You're all but forgotten now.