Not all rape is violent.

 

I understand this topic is hard for most of you on many levels.

 

Like I said, try to put Jared aside and think about housing non-violent felons with violent felons.

Not all rape is violent.

 

I understand this topic is hard for most of you on many levels.

 

Like I said, try to put Jared aside and think about housing non-violent felons with violent felons.

 

You did not answer my question

Not all rape is violent.

 

I understand this topic is hard for most of you on many levels.

 

Like I said, try to put Jared aside and think about housing non-violent felons with violent felons.

 

I'm with you on not housing a guy who's in jail for selling weed with murderers. That's what the different levels of security are for in the prison system.

 

Rapists and child molesters can be thrown to the wolves, IMO.

You did not answer my question

 

You tell me what violent acts Jared committed (be specific on the actual violence part) and then question away?

You did not answer my question

 

Guru did answer your question essentially. While distributing photos of young kids is sick, no violence occurred in the crime. Saying that the victims will most likely be scarred from this doesn't mean violence was used. Not all harmful affects are a result of violence. Similar, if you pay a 14 year old for sex, while you may be a sick worthless piece of garbage, so long as you didn't use force or threats, you are not a violent offender but still need to spend a few decades in jail and be on the sex offender registry.

Delete

You tell me what violent acts Jared committed (be specific on the actual violence part) and then question away?

 

You beat me to it.

You tell me what violent acts Jared committed (be specific on the actual violence part) and then question away?

 

If you and others choose to rationalize away the fact that sexual exploitation of children is inherently a crime of violence regardless of who committed the violence....I am at a loss. Your argument is tantamount to saying that a person who hires a hit man to commit a murder is guiltless because he did not pull the trigger. The consumers of child pornography are no less guilty than the pieces of crap who are doing the raping of those kids. I have no idea how you can defend them.

You tell me what violent acts Jared committed (be specific on the actual violence part) and then question away?

 

And, sorry. I don't have the names of any of the children involved, so I can't be as specific as you might need in order to be offended by what he did.

If you and others choose to rationalize away the fact that sexual exploitation of children is inherently a crime of violence regardless of who committed the violence....I am at a loss. Your argument is tantamount to saying that a person who hires a hit man to commit a murder is guiltless because he did not pull the trigger. The consumers of child pornography are no less guilty than the pieces of crap who are doing the raping of those kids. I have no idea how you can defend them.

 

Where is Guru defending him? I assume Guru fully wants the pervert in jail but acknowledges violence assumes inducing physical harm on someone which did not happen here. Inducing emotional or psychological harm on someone is abuse and deserves severe punishment but it is not violence.

 

Somehow people assume if a child is harmed, than violence had to happen, that is not the definition of violence.

If you and others choose to rationalize away the fact that sexual exploitation of children is inherently a crime of violence regardless of who committed the violence....I am at a loss. Your argument is tantamount to saying that a person who hires a hit man to commit a murder is guiltless because he did not pull the trigger. The consumers of child pornography are no less guilty than the pieces of crap who are doing the raping of those kids. I have no idea how you can defend them.

 

Agreed, and by the same token those who condone, and celebrate others getting beaten up by violent prison thugs might not be as low as a prison thug, but the mentality isn't too admirable to civilized people to say the least.

 

When society turns their heads to this, or champions the idea it sends a peculiar message to inmates, as well as to the rest of society, that the general public is quite alright with this, so go ahead and kick some butt because we will, by the masses, applaud you while laughing at the victim.

 

"Here's your chance Mr. Low Life to get a pat on the back for once in your life".

 

The social temperature about it is such that even usually everyday decent people pile on to accepting these violent acts because the casual and common acceptance of it has bled its way into the average citizen, which is being made all too painfully obvious by the abundance of posters here who all along thought it was great and funny before I came along to spoil their party, and without hesitation or thought have mindlessly and knee-jerkingly jumped to attention to defend violence like good little keepers of the general public's general consensus, even when violence ordinarily is not an accepted norm, and my suggestion that accepting it is wrong seemed instantly foreign to the majority.

 

Puzzling.

 

Wait...what..wait...did he actually suggest that we shouldn't be happy that someone was violently abused?

 

Though they're not conscious of the effect that this particular temperature regarding this topic has had on them in their assessment throughout their lives, subconsciously it has made them internally think,

 

"Hey, everybody else thinks it's ok, so It must be".

 

"Hey, I've heard people my whole life condone it, so it's the accepted norm, right?"

 

It becomes ingrained and a cliche' in the masses that it's an accepted norm so much that when someone would suggest otherwise, it's as if they've presented a horror of an idea that this violence is unacceptable.

 

It would appear that some feel that by not accepting this type of violence it is saying that they accept child molestation.

 

No... seriously, you can despise both.

 

"But wait, don't take away from us our one accepted neanderthal ideal from our mindset, can't we at least keep one mass agreed upon uncivilized ugly notion?"

 

Yes, In fact you can, and you have.

 

Right or wrong the general consensus is that it's quite alright.

 

Feel good about yourself because you are among society's majority who have adopted a mindset where unbeknownst to even yourself you've accepted it because you've been schooled by your culture your whole life that it's the norm.

 

And just think, all along you thought you had been thinking for yourself.

 

No...join the club like most common folk do, thinking just like everyone else is the accepted and popular thing to do...

 

...but I shouldn't have to tell some of you that, you've been doing that all of your life.

Where is Guru defending him? I assume Guru fully wants the pervert in jail but acknowledges violence assumes inducing physical harm on someone which did not happen here. Inducing emotional or psychological harm on someone is abuse and deserves severe punishment but it is not violence.

 

Somehow people assume if a child is harmed, than violence had to happen, that is not the definition of violence.

 

He and now you, are defending him by claiming no violence took place. Just because Fogel may not have (key words being, MAY Not Have ) personally laid hands on the children he watched being violated, violence was committed upon those children. Do you not see child rape as violence? Fogle, by being a consumer of the product, enabled and encouraged the rapists to continue this cycle of violence. He is as guilty as the rapists and deserves whatever punishment his new society decides to hand down.

If you and others choose to rationalize away the fact that sexual exploitation of children is inherently a crime of violence regardless of who committed the violence....I am at a loss. Your argument is tantamount to saying that a person who hires a hit man to commit a murder is guiltless because he did not pull the trigger. The consumers of child pornography are no less guilty than the pieces of crap who are doing the raping of those kids. I have no idea how you can defend them.[/QUOTE]

 

I have no idea how you can make an intellectually honest argument that he is in anyway defending them. He simply stated correctly that in cases like Jared's or the Penn State Coach(forgot his name) , there is seldom violence involved. Not minimizing the harm done to these children at all. It's terrible and egregious and he deserves every bit of time he will spend behind bars, but it's not likely that he bashed any child's head in while committing these horrendous acts. That's all that's being said. BTW, these acts are worse than physical violence as far as the emotional damage done. In no way is guru or anyone defending his actions or marginalizing the damage done to kids. Jared deserves his punishment . Was he violent in his assaults? Case studies suggests probably not.

He and now you, are defending him by claiming no violence took place. Just because Fogel may not have (key words being, MAY Not Have ) personally laid hands on the children he watched being violated, violence was committed upon those children. Do you not see child rape as violence? Fogle, by being a consumer of the product, enabled and encouraged the rapists to continue this cycle of violence. He is as guilty as the rapists and deserves whatever punishment his new society decides to hand down.

 

His actions were more egregious than physical violence. I think what some of us are saying is that he probably wasn't "physically" violent with any of his victims. Not defending his actions at all.

I'm firmly convinced we have a few posters who simply like to hear themselves talk, or in the case of BGP, read their own posts. :ohbrother: