Jun 6, 2013 at 12:06:36
“Buddy, YOU'RE an alien. You are alive among a civilization on some pathetic planet. Do you believe that in 10,000 years from now we will not have developed the technology to find other planets with life on them?
So why can't another civilization have already done so?
And if they have, it seems to make sense that a government would keep it secret to maintain order, which would certainly otherwise be broken.
It's a perfectly reasonable consideration, followed by a catch 22.”
lynus55 on Jun 11, 2013 at 08:09:28
“The other civilisation may have done so. But there is ZERO evidence. Therefore, all of Hellyer's ravings are purely, 100% made up. Not facts. Just wild speculation. I live where he used to live. We have heard WAY more from this guy than you could imagine, and we are now bored of his ravings. He may be a genius who has crossed over to the dark side.”
Mar 2, 2013 at 03:50:34
“Monstersfromtheid: "If you buy something that you know came from a violent crime you have committed a crime. If you encourage someone to commit a crime to supply you, you have committed a crime."
I was simply pointing out that everyone in the western world who has purchased a good that has been produced via some form of human rights abuse (i.e. slave labour or even sweat shops)-and you have- then we are all just as much accessories to crime.
Just because you are not held accountable due to foreign jurisdiction does not mean you are morally exempt. And you are casting the first proverbial stone at someone who simply spoke on a controversial topic. In a University.
So you, unwittingly hypocritical, should either agree that you too are a criminal -or- allow a popular figure to speak freely on a controversial topic in academic context without cheering like some brain cell deprived wrastlin' fan in a chair match as this man's career is ruined.”
monstersfromtheid on Mar 2, 2013 at 15:57:24
“Again- Huh? Shopping at Walmart is the moral equivalent of child porn? You conflate criminal and immoral and treat them as interchangable. They are not.
You create false equivalences, not all things that may be considered immoral are equally bad, there are lesser and greater evils. Even in countries with poor labour laws child sexual exploitation is a crime - as Gary Glitter found out in Thailand. You misunderstand the concept of academic freedom, it is not unlimited and even there, there are topics that are beyond the pale, especially if there is suspicion of a personal agenda. Where in my post do I call for his removal or for his career to be ruined? You may consider him the persecuted spokesman for a misunderstood minority, but do try and compose an intelligent argument in his defense that makes at least as much sense as his did, which wasn't much.”
Mar 2, 2013 at 03:21:04
“Libertarianism combines socially "left" ideology with economically "right" ideology.
Although this idea could fall under libertarianism because it is socially progressive, social progressivism itself is primarily characteristic of the modern left.
You can reply and I'll read, but I will cringe my teeth into marshmallows if I talk semantics beyond a couple posts.”
Mar 1, 2013 at 01:37:41
“He isn't saying that it isn't wrong; he is saying imprisonment seems a bit excessive.
Did you not watch the video? Or did you just read the ....HEADLINE!!!!!!.”
Miville on Mar 1, 2013 at 09:33:16
“I have no tolerance for child sexual abuse whatsoever. It is actually the one and practically the only one crime which I think calls for instant death at the hands of whomever is capable of visiting it upon the abuser caught in the act, any other crime is somewhat less serious, whereas all holocaust mongers who roam the political circles generally started out with child abuse practised as a form of initiation. Those who produce and sell cultural material encouraging to child abuse should be treated likewise as soon as caught in the operation of their business. As for those who merely consume such material, they should be subject to forcible psychiatric internment and stern mind-deprogramming programs as are used against dangerous cults. Mere imprisonment is too lenient, such individuals having indulged for a long time in kid porn should no longer be considered responsible adults by society. Flanagan is a militant paedophile as it seems by his own chutzpah and official endorsement of the Boy Love NGO : either he makes all this up in a schizophrenic delirium to be severely treated as such, either what he pretends to is real and he should be sent a drone on his head before all most dangerous Pakistani terrorists.”
Feb 28, 2013 at 22:36:39
“How in your head is being of the opinion that a certain crime should not warrant imprisonment "short of academic standard"?
You have been either living under a rock or the Taliban.”
bendygirl on Mar 1, 2013 at 00:09:06
“I've stated my position quite clearlym in plain english, try applying some critical thinking skills to what I've posted and see if you can catch up with the rest of us. -- it appears to me that you are looking for someone to put down with your snarky little barbs - keep that childishness to yourself. I've not been rude to you, there was no reason for you to be rude to me...thanks for your time.”
Feb 28, 2013 at 21:49:29
“He didn't commit a crime by expressing an idea. It was in academic context and that should be protected from being shunned by society. That is what we did to scholars in the past- that should not be the case today.”
bendygirl on Feb 28, 2013 at 22:14:04
“I never suggested that what he said was a crime - nor would I agree with throwing him in jail for it. It IS however, an unsupportable, repugnant, non-factual statement - and quite frankly, he deserves all the backlash he has received. An academic of his seasoned experience should absolutely know better - my father was the head of the geography department at a local university where I live - and I will unreservedly say that Mr. Flanagan's comments fall well short of any reasonable academic standard - nor should the sentence he spoke have ever been uttered by anyone - of influence or not- with respect to the subject of child pornography. ”
Feb 28, 2013 at 21:18:30
“This guy's career and social life is in jeapordy over an opinion he expressed in academic context? He is expressing that imprisoning viewers of the material is in his opinion exsessive.
You can't express a controversial opinion over an emotionally charged issue without being stoned to death by brainless patriots like you? Is that your country?”
MoonJoy on Feb 28, 2013 at 22:00:16
“That was not an expressed opinion. It was expressed tacit support for criminal behavior that is extremely damaging to children.”
Turdinthepunchbowl on Feb 28, 2013 at 21:50:18
Flanagan expressed his years-long personal membership with a pedophile organization and his opinion that viewing child porn harms no one in the context of his own personal life, not as an abstract case, but as an actual statement of HIS views. That he happened to state these views in a university classroom is incidental and epiphenomenal. This was not a "controversial" opinion it was a professor advocating for an illegal activity; the viewing of child porn (an illegal activity) but one that causes no harm according to Flanagan (idiocy). Flanagan is the brainless and morally degenerate one according to his own words.”
bendygirl on Feb 28, 2013 at 21:29:34
“No...he outright said that viewing child porn harms no one - which is patently false and criminally negligent. By it's very nature, the comment supports people participating in criminal activity - however passively - your freedom to view things ends, legally, when you are participating in a crime or not turning over evidence of a crime to authorities (and every image of child pornography is a crime scene) - whether you are American, Canadian, British, Australian, Spanish. etc. most of the civilized world recognizes that the sexual assault of children is a matter that must be treated differently than other things that are merely objectionable (like consensual hardcore pornography, for some - I have no issue with it - they are consenting adults - child porn does not have that little consent feature).”
Feb 28, 2013 at 18:15:06
“All people who believe in legalizing marijuana smoke pot?
All people who don't believe in raising tax on the wealthy are wealthy?
All people who believe Obama's birth certificate is fake are from Kenya?
People who think Michael Jackson was murdered are Michael Jackson?
This corn niblet will provide you food-for-thought.”
Feb 28, 2013 at 17:41:58
“Obviously children are victims in the creation and distribution of this material. What Flanagan most likely meant by "does not harm another person" is that watching child pornography is the only scenario in canadian law in which you can be imprisoned for "creating demand", as opposed to direct harm.
There is no other scenario in our legal system in which you would be imprisoned for viewing illegal material posted online.
(in case you get mixed up, pirating movies is not a valid example as the logic behind that is of course theft.)”
Feb 28, 2013 at 16:12:10
“unfortunately you misread or missed the point entirely.
the question i was addressing by the commenter was if child pornography changed "viewers" into "doers".
and i answered by pointing out that pedophilia has been pervasive throughout history, before cam corders existed. this of course demonstrates that pornography is not really the culprit of action.