The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > A debate we had to have > Comments

A debate we had to have : Comments

By Hetty Johnston, published 6/6/2008

As a society we simply can not legitimise the sexual portrayal of children in the name of art or anything else.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 14
  7. 15
  8. 16
  9. Page 17
  10. All
Lev

Your reasoning that it is okay to take nude shots of 12 year old kids but not okay to give a tantrum throwing 4 year old a whack is exactly why we have so many problems in society today. Since corporal punishment has gone from our schools violence has increased at an alarming rate. It must irk you to see so many well balanced young people who have had mums and dads who loved their kids enough to give them a smack when needed. Your portrayal of these mums and dads as beasts is unbelievable coming from someone who constantly defends the pervert industry. Next thing you will be quoting statistics showing how little harm is done to children by porn. You seem an expert at playing on words. A smack is not child abuse while taking photographs of nude children is. The United nations is a joke to any sensible thinking people on earth. You say 'The physical abuse of children, even when 'applied with love' and even when sanctioned by some holy book is an utter wickedness.' For someone who claims not to believe in absolutes you certainly contradict yourself. You obviously believe in the absolutes you make up in your own mind. You are irrational.
Posted by runner, Friday, 13 June 2008 12:20:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"It must irk you to see so many well balanced young people who have had mums and dads who loved their kids enough to give them a smack when needed."

Try to stay on topic. I must say though that it more than "irks" me to see people that don't have the cognitive tools to think of alternatives to forcing their children to comply through fear, humiliation and violence. Go and look at some peer-reviewed studies of outcomes and then come back when you have a clue. Those of us that don't beat our children, and have friends that don't beat their children (many now youths), *know* you are wrong and have been harming your children out of ignorance.
Posted by Sams, Friday, 13 June 2008 9:31:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
runner: << Thankfully the Sinless One became sin so I could view things through God's eyes rather than that of those who are so caught up in their lusts that they can't admit that child porn is wrong even if a few 'elite; label it art. >>

Fortunately, this isn't a view that's shared universally among Christians - or rather, there are intelligent Christians out there who can distinguish between art and child pornography [ see http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1890 , or Graham Young's blog posts on the subject at 'Ambit Gambit', for example ].

One therefore can only draw the conclusion that runner's prudish and hysterical ravings on this issue are fed by something other than his belief in Jesus. Now, I wonder what that might be?
Posted by CJ Morgan, Friday, 13 June 2008 11:24:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sams

You write
'Try to stay on topic.' I suggest you read before writing. It was Lev who linked corporal punishment to this topic not me. I was responding to his/her idiotic statements where a deserved smack was called 'utter wickedness'. You obviously agree with this idiotic statement. Do you also defend taking photographs of nude 12 year old girls. Are you to a defender of the pervert industry. The ridiculous bias studies you refer to in relation to children being disciplined are typical of the nonsensical government funded crap that governments write papers on knowing what answers they want. Wake up to the simple reality that violence has increased dramatically due to undisciplined kids. Any honest study will reveal this.

CJ writes
'One therefore can only draw the conclusion that runner's prudish and hysterical ravings on this issue are fed by something other than his belief in Jesus. Now, I wonder what that might be?'
I can only expect this kind of comment from someone who admits he would allow his daughter to be used in child porn *as long as she at 12 consents). Coming from a person with any decent morals I would be offended but not from you.
Posted by runner, Friday, 13 June 2008 5:23:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
runner,

You claim that since the decline of corporeal punishment, school violence has increased at an alarming rate. Yet the researched data I have seen indicates school violence is actually declining (De Voe et al, 2003, CDCP 2004, Coggersell and Kingery 2001) and is dramatically lower in those areas where the government prohibits corporeal punishment.

You have given no response against the the widespread and massive peer reviewed studies which strongly correlate corporeal punishment with immediate physical harm and future pathologies. You have ignored the advise of numerous nation-wide professional pederatic associations.

Do you seriously expect anybody to think that your claims are right and these studies and professional associations are wrong? You constantly engage in utterly unfounded assertions and demonstrate an total inability to ever admit error. Nobody here, or anywhere else, will respect a person who ceaselessly engages in such behaviour. If you make an assertion. If the data uncovered shows your hypothesis to be wrong, swallow the ill-founded pride, and admit that the claim was wrong.

Biblical justification is insufficient. Would you sell your daughter (Exodus 21: 8) or do you murder 'witches' (Exodus 22:18)? Do you stone women to death who have "a familiar spirit" (Lev 20:27)? And so forth. The Bible is just a historical document, written by fallible human beings who often sought political power and thus often offers seriously erroneous attempt to provide some moral guidance. It is not the infallible, eternal word of the sky daddy, and it certainly isn't up to you to determine how to interpret it and apply it rules to others.

Just stop beating kids runner. It's not the right thing to do and soon it will be banned here like it has in other civilised nations in the world. It has been proven time and time again that it harms them, whereas your wild claims about Henson's photographs or the sculpture's of David do not come with any empirical backing.

On another topic, perhaps next month I shall take the opportunity to explain to you the difference between moral absolutism, moral relativism and moral universalism.
Posted by Lev, Friday, 13 June 2008 6:42:58 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
runner wrote: "Any honest study will reveal this."

Methinks your definition of an "honest study" is a study that agrees with your point of view. What about this (non-government) research that draws on: "the findings from 84 international studies on corporal punishment, involving nearly 40,000 subjects":

http://www.wavetrust.org/Preventing_Violence/Effects_of_Smacking.htm

Still not honest enough?
Posted by Sams, Friday, 13 June 2008 8:34:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 14
  7. 15
  8. 16
  9. Page 17
  10. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy