El Sitherino Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 However at this point isn't it all really just a bunch of accusations? Without clarification on what they even describe as hardcore porn, no one can make any reasonable conclusion. Remember, catalogues are still described as smut and skinemax is considered hardcore by many. Without anyone explaining what was shown and what actually took place, it's all a bunch of over-reactions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jae Onasi Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 However at this point isn't it all really just a bunch of accusations? Without clarification on what they even describe as hardcore porn, no one can make any reasonable conclusion. Remember, catalogues are still described as smut and skinemax is considered hardcore by many. Without anyone explaining what was shown and what actually took place, it's all a bunch of over-reactions. Sure, it warrants further investigation. If he's terminally stupid, fine, he should at least lose custody of the kids and be allowed only supervised visits. The guy is incredibly lucky that he found a lawyer who found that loophole in the law or he'd likely be in jail. I'm just saying I don't buy his excuse for sick behavior in the least. I'm 99.999% sure they'll find child porn in his possession somewhere, and that the girls will be lucky if they haven't been already abused. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimartin Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 It was not a loophole, it is the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jae Onasi Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 I don't think that letting an (alleged) pedophile get off Scot-free was the original intent of the law, do you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimartin Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 Sorry he is now an Alleged pedophile? I thought he just showed harmful material to his daughter. The law in question does nothing as written to protect pedophiles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jae Onasi Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 I have no proof, but I've never known of a man watching porn with young girls who wasn't a pedophile, either. Hopefully the girls will be OK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimartin Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 Texas is the modern era, we do have laws to protect children from pedophiles. However, we also have laws that keep the government out of our private business. This law protects patents from a meddlesome government. It is not design to protect pedophiles. However, parents should know what is best for their children. I happen to agree with you that he should most likely lose custody of the children (dependent on what was actually shown the children. As I said I do not trust Fox News or Texas for that matter to define what Hardcore Porn is), but that is a matter for the family courts. If he did abuse them in a sexual nature, then that is a matter for the criminal courts and has nothing to do with this law. I actually like this law since the matter of what is harmful is up for debate. Parent should be the one to decide what is best for their child and not the government. If however a patent does abuse that trust, then there are avenues to punish that abuse. You are correct that this should be looked into deeper, but it is just as likely that this is all a custody ploy as the danger of the father being a pedophile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lockhead Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 It's a custody ploy or the father's defense says it's a custody ploy? This raises a good point in how we might all be so taken aback by what happened, whether you think it's silly or sinister, that we fail to think, 'wait a minute, these are the claims that have been made, but how much truth is there in them?' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
purifier Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 Well the main thing here is, even if there isn't a discrepancy in their law about it, it's obvious that he crossed the line from a morale standpoint. And when it comes to teaching sex education to children it's a very thin line indeed, there really is no leeway. Now he could of checked out any book about the subject from the local library or even bought some books just for the real educational purpose about the birds and the bees. Or for that matter, try to even explain it to them verbally with a few illustrations on paper; if he just wanted to give them some sort of an idea about it. But really... please, to have them watch online porn is a whole different matter indeed; which should make a person become suspicious of his real intent behind it all in the first place. Because you can't show them the scientific part of procreation from a online porno. They would really need to know the in's and out's (no pun intended) of it, not just the copulation of male and female in various postions, but instead the process of insemination to child birth. It's as simple as that. Another reason that this warrants suspicion about his real motives by doing this, from some of us, is the fact of his excuse...it's pretty much lame. I mean he knew that those girls would of have eventually seen such things on the internet or on a rented movie within there lifetime, but probably by themselves at a later age. Yet he chose to expose them to it now while they are so young. Which brings up the question: What the hell for and why now? I don't belive it was just because of the sake of educational purposes. The point of all this is, when it comes down to the question of family morality, that "right is right and wrong is wrong" and that should really go for anything else as well. And there is no leeway when it comes to the high morale standards we should practice while children are under our care, custody, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vanir Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 However, parents should know what is best for their children. Rather curious statement. God smacks them with an intellect bat when the stork comes bringing bundles of joy? Or could it be they just as dumb/intelligent/abusive/criminal as they were before they bumped uglies? Which directly infers parenthood confers no special knowledge about the rights and well being of minors. This mediaeval "it's my child and I can abuse it if I want to" popularism is just criminal intent, nothing more. Institutionalising it does nothing more than institutionalising criminal tendencies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 Well, whatever this guy is or isn't guilty of, he'd better hope that they keep Jae away from him, or he may wake up to find that his ability to abuse has been surgically removed. I'm rather skeptical of his story, myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Avlectus Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 I think what we all can agree upon is: If he *did* do something/was planning to/etc., then shame on him; if he did nothing more, then fine--he's an idiot for choosing and showing PORN (hardcore or NOT). The laws are what they are, and he'll be dealt with accordingly in any case. It in all probability will be thorough in a case such as this one. Though I'm with Q on this one about Jae and a pair of snippers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimartin Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 Rather curious statement. God smacks them with an intellect bat when the stork comes bringing bundles of joy?I'm somewhat find this comment offensive. My mother never graduated college, she never even graduated high school until I was graduating college, her husband of nine years left her when she was pregnant with their first and only son. She was a waitress and a checker. Not an overly intelligent woman. However, when it came to raising her child she always put his needs first. She always did what was right for him. In raising a child her intelligence was on par with anyone. So yes, when dealing with their own children people that care find away no matter their intelligence. It is the parents that do not care and are irresponsible that are the problem, those that love their children and are willing to put them first will always find a way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jae Onasi Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 Though I'm with Q on this one about Jae and a pair of snippers. I prefer spoons in situations like this, preferably dipped in 10M sodium hydroxide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForeverNight Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 Only Na(OH) Jae? I would've expected something a little bit more.... vicious. Maybe 15M H2SO4? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totenkopf Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 Maybe 15M H2SO4? That's evil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForeverNight Posted November 20, 2009 Share Posted November 20, 2009 He earned it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jae Onasi Posted November 20, 2009 Share Posted November 20, 2009 Only Na(OH) Jae? I would've expected something a little bit more.... vicious. Maybe 15M H2SO4? NaOH keeps burning through tissue even after having water poured on it, and it eats away skin and soft tissue a lot better (saponifies the lipids in cell membranes). I'll save the H2SO4 for the bones, however. They dissolve nicely in that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForeverNight Posted November 20, 2009 Share Posted November 20, 2009 True, never thought of that, spilled 8M Na(OH) on myself once by accident in a Chem. class..... that one hurt like a big dog for the rest of the day. Anyway, I think this has pretty much been killed now, unless there's some news about what happened to him now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.