If I missed something in one of the posts above, then I stand corrected. But from what I've seen here NO ONE has said that looking at porn makes one a sicko.

I believe that what is being discussed here is CHILD porn. An as far as I'm concerned ANYONE who looks at or even thinks about looking at child porn is a sicko who has absolutely no place in society.

If it turns out that this scumbag is NOT Jonbenet's killer, the freaky perverted bastard still should be kept away from society, especially from children.

We've debated this many many times in the past and I still stand by my feeling that any adult who desires sex with a child cannot and will not ever be rehabilitated.

Sick f**ks!


Don Cardi

Again, don't say that.

We should just relocate them next door to policitcians like Ted Kennedy, Michael Dukakis, Nancy Pelosi, and Howard Dean. :p

Yes, because we've all forgotten to dust off that part in the constitution that says, "The right to consensual sex between adults and minors shall not be prohibited." :rolleyes:

First of all, what a legal diatribe. Such evidence. "it is widely known that this girl was experienced beyond her years, and basically a slut."

Well, wow, open and shut case! Heresay as solid evidence, what an amazing system you've got down there.

Or did you forget those rape shield laws which prevent the previous sexual history of the victim to be admitted as evidence?

Sorry. A 18-year-old who is no longer a minor banging a 14-year-old girl who just barely started high school still constitutes as statutory rape. Nothing in the Constitution (the sacred document you libbies love to use when its in your favor but is expendable when it isn't) says otherwise.

No, this is what happens when liberals with a penchant for defending criminals and turning victims into an afterthought blame conservatives for laws designed to prevent rape.

But then again, with such great evidence ("everyone knows," "basically a slut,"), it's no surprise your response, Dontomasso.

"We're talking about S-E-X in front of the C-H-I-L-D-R-E-N."

"Sex Cauldron? I thought they closed that place down?!?"

Best,
DJ

DJ do you ever have original ideas or do you just copy this drivel you foist on us from Bill Orielly's talking points?

Here…..

I don’t make such a tremendous distinction between “adult porn” and child porn.

And I certainly don’t think that someone who "even thinks about looking at child pornography a ‘sicko’ who has no place in society"

As long as he doesn't act on his feelings or impulses or whatever, keeps it private where it belongs, and minds his own business.

What you’re doing here, I think, is arguing that child porn is a far worse form of pornography –which it is.

But the factors which make it worse – the abuse of children who are incapable of consenting and the psychological damage it does to them – are not components of what makes that form of pornography more sexually stimulating to the viewer.

So on that basis, I can’t say that a person who enjoys child porn is necessarily that much “sicker” than someone who enjoys what?

Regular porn?

Like I said, if someone doesn’t act on whatever it is that excites them, how do you rate them on a sicko scale?

Child porn is terrible.

Maybe a hundred times worse than regular porn.

But that doesn’t make the viewer all that much worse..
Does the fact that an individual can be sexually aroused by child porn make him "sicker" than someone who enjoys only regular porn?

If there was no place in society for everyone who enjoyed adult, well gee.....I don't think there'd be very many of us left.

The point is that whatever the factors are which make child porn worse than adult porn, those factors in and of themeselves do not necessarily make the person who derives excitement from one any sicker than someone who derives excitement from the other.


Of course it's not OK

Where did I say it was?

Do you think that regular porn is OK?

I think people watch porn everyday without realising it.

Don't be indignant just because you're wrong.

Just listen to DC: "Please spare me your bullshit," and the world will be a better place.

Best,
DJ

Stay on topic! Sheesh!

My question is, to cop and legal minded folks, why was he arrested after the suspect confessed, but before any DNA tests came back?

Because...he confessed?

DJ, if a crazy homeless drunk funk on the street corner told you that he was the real assassin behind JFK's murder, would you believe him?

Besides, I think the DA arrested him only because the news broke out of Thailand, and the DA basically was forced in their hand, and had to arrest him, or possibly appear weak on crime.

Thoughts folks?

Plaw, first you write :

Then, several paragraphs below, you write :


Well which is it?


You're going to sit there and tell me that someone who gets excited watching an eight year old pose naked to arouse themselves, or having sex with a 7 year old to get themselves off is not a sicko?

Your going to tell me that an adult who watches a fully grown adult woman or man pose naked to arouse themselves or has sex with a fully developed adult female or male to get themselves off may be in the same category as a child porn lover?

My friend, I just don't know where your logic is sometimes. You scare me with this one.


Don Cardi

Actually, the D.A. did not want to make any arrests until she was able to find out more information and hopefully mount more evidence. But according to her something was found out, information given, that this guy was about to do something, or move on something that could have possibly jeapordized the well being of some other children. So in order to protect those children from him possibly putting them in danger, she had no choice but to move in and make an arrest. She herself, admitted that she did not want to arrest him as fast as they did, but with the new information provided to her, she knew that she could not jeaprodize the well being of these other children, who were about to come into contact with him, just to hopefully make her case against him stronger.


Don Cardi

Thanks DC!

Well, it's more plausible than the Warren Commission. :p

I really wish you would stay on topic, DJ.

Besides, has anyone else heard anything new on the case?

New question....who here always figured the family had always been somehow behind the murder itself?

Oh, you mean, like:

---

As for the family being involved, I think that almost anyone had some sort of inclination they did, though I remember watching a documentary that used auditory research and a cold case expert to determine the Ramseys didn't do it. It was awhile ago.

Then again, it could have been one of those Connie Chung "AIDS threatens everyone" documentaries, it was so long ago.

I feel sorry for Jonbenet's parents, John and Patsy they have been defending themselves against the allegations of murdering their daughter for ten years.
The mother passed away two months ago.

Oh, you mean, like:

---

Didn't we move away from this already? Stay on topic dude.

Any other updates folks? Anyone here actually live in Colorado?

Oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooookay.

I admit DJ, I'm wrong. At least I see that at least you keep things out of left field.

Anyway, I had figured for years that somehow the family had been involved with the murder, in one form or another. Not that I was certainly sure, but the possibility wasn't impossible.

Plaw, this seems to have turned into another who can post the better cartoon/pictures topic. :rolleyes: So we'll continue our discussion through the PM.

See ya there.


Don Cardi

Didn't people suspect her brother for awhile?

Yes many people suspect including the media, but I didn't.

When the police arrived at the Ramsey house, Jon Benet's brother Burke, who was 10 at the time, was supposedly sleeping and had to be awakened by cops. When they did wake him, he seemed to be unaware that his sister was dead. Yet when replaying a 911 tape of Patsy Ramsey reporting the crime, she didn't hang up the phone in her distress, and Burke can clearly be heard in the background. The theory was that Burke had murdered his sister, and that the parents were covering for him.

Regular porn is ok, if that's the kind've thing you're into. Personally, I always found it boring.

As for this fellow taken in on the JonBenet case, it's becoming more & more apparent that he didn't do it and is enjoying his 15 minutes of fame. Not to mention king prawns and champagne during the flight home.

Apple

I'm sorry, but I don't think he did it. He was just looking for his 15 minutes of fame and a free plane ride home. There's, in my opinion, more to this than meeys the eye. I still think it was an inside job. When something like this happens (this kind of murder) in the end one of the family did it. I'll be very surprised if DNA proves he did it.

If I missed something in one of the posts above, then I stand corrected. But from what I've seen here NO ONE has said that looking at porn makes one a sicko.

I believe that what is being discussed here is CHILD porn. An as far as I'm concerned ANYONE who looks at or even thinks about looking at child porn is a sicko who has absolutely no place in society.

If it turns out that this scumbag is NOT Jonbenet's killer, the freaky perverted bastard still should be kept away from society, especially from children.

We've debated this many many times in the past and I still stand by my feeling that any adult who desires sex with a child cannot and will not ever be rehabilitated.

Sick f**ks!


Don Cardi [/b][/quote]SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! Very Much Agree With You DC..
You Took The Word's Right Out Of My Mouth!..END OF STORY!

There was a warrant for this guy's arrest on charges of child porn and that's why he skipped the country and that's probably why he's been arrested (that and he confessed)

However, the media storm is saying that he was in Thailand to get a sex change... because, duh, transgender people must be kiddy porn loving freaks like this guy :rolleyes: Seriously though, what ever happened to journalistic integrity? Fact checking instead of pure speculation?

The guy's a freakin' nut and if he wants to die, by all means let him.

The media reported speculation instead of Fact?

OH MY GOD!

I AM SHOCKED AND OUTRAGED!!!

Fox News or the New York Times would never do such thing!

I'M PISSED!