The Mudcat Café TM
Thread #55581   Message #864949
Posted By: GUEST
11-Jan-03 - 11:27 PM
Thread Name: BS: Pete Townshend a Child Fondler?
Subject: RE: BS: Pete Townshend a Child Fondler?
I think you are pretty damn over the top here Cluin. You are probably right, Pete Townsend likely will never live this down. Who's fault are you suggesting that is?

As to the contagion thing you are ranting on about, I have no clue what you are rambling on about, as you aren't making rational sense. Do you have some theory on what causes men to become pedophiles? Are you trying to tell us that child abusers haven't been abused as children? Just because some people have been abused as children, doesn't mean they all grow up and become child abusers, yet you are ranting as if that is what has been claimed here. No such claims are being made.

Now then, if men are repeatedly going to child pornography sites online, are you suggesting the government has no right to keep them under surveillance? If so, I would disagree completely. Child pornography is illegal for a reason. It is a real crime, with real victims.

I would feel much more sympathetic to your "cause" of civil liberties, if you were also screaming about the injustices of the US government illegally detaining Arab and Muslim men who are in this country legally and complying with the law now and then, rather than just coming in here to defend an aging pop star who has publicly admitted he has visited child porn sites online and paid for it with his personal credit card.

Again I ask, what civil rights of Pete Townsend's are being violated here? The answer is none. He has admitted to having gotten caught using his credit card to view child porn. Now, you can accept his reasons at face value if you wish. But to suggest that anyone who chooses to remain skeptical of the reasons he gave for paying to view child porn on the internet, must mean that they have utter disregard for civil rights and liberties, doesn't make any rational sense. You are reacting in an over-emotional way to this. There is no logic to the argument you present. I said he is definitely innocent until proven guilty. Let us all remember, no charges have been filed against him at this time. All we are talking about is a rumor of an investigation, and a man's confession to paying to view child porn online. But that is still a confession of wrongdoing, and we all know it, even though no charges have been filed.