Congressman fights to ban sick ‘child sex dolls’

There are some things for which a society has the right to utterly eradicate by the fiercest justice possible.

 

I hate the idea of government banning anything, including child dolls. But if it is proven the use of the dolls increases the likelihood of an attack on actual children (a big if), I think we have to look at a ban.

 

Muhammad slept with an eight year old girl. I don't think Muslims would be hostile to child dolls.

 

Is this a serious question?

 

I don't get that feeling, but I (right now) don't know anything about domestic Iranian life. We do know Muhamadism is very strict, though. Child dolls, proably not. Deranged sexual deviant dolls (Miley Cirus bending over, ect), that might be another story.

 

Uh...waitaminit....I THOUGHT that looked familiar, oh...clever girl but no, I'm sorry, moral relativism doesn't work both ways. If i'm saying whether you ought to leave people alone I get all the breaks because, after all, who's being harmed (in THIS world, not the next) if somebody does something that ONLY God gets upset about and gets away with it. If I'm going to be restricting someone's freedom, throwing someone in jail or sending them to the gallows I need an actual real REASON to do so. Maybe, coulda, might and who knows don't really cut it there. See how that works?

Speed limits are set by engineers and they are designed into the road itself. They are for everybody, even including your 75 year old grandmother, The cop can't tell by looking that you, with the reflexes and judgment of Dale Earnhardt are driving and that 97 on that dirt road is really a safe speed. Nor can the judge realize that this particular 14 year old is really very mature and there is good argument makable that all drugs should be legal since you can overdose on chocolate pudding.

What you CAN"T do is show me how a guy didling some expensive plastic in the sanctity of his own home is hurting anyone, you me or Ivanka. What you're trying here won't work. Go write some campaign slogans for Roy Moore like "I probably really raped several young girls and almost became a Senator, Now I want to send you to prison for using an Onahole"

 

My post makes no sense to you because you seem to have your usual comprehension problem.

"Zapping" an appropriate member isn't even a penalty for convicted pedophiles yet you want to do that with someone boinking a doll.

You and your ilk also say that shooting a person in a Stand Your Ground state is not an appropriate "penalty" for someone doing a B&E on your own home.

Get it now?

Do you see your utter hypocrisy now?

What a stupid question.

 

LOL...you ASS-U-me that I am against stand your ground states when I say no such things. I do believe though you can't simply shoot a person simply for standing on your front lawn.

I thought you rightists are for the death penalty, so why would you be against zapping a pedophile so he won't ever commit his heinous crime again?

It's you that's a hypocrite, defending a pedophile just so you can quick to label me "prog/ilk." Pick up a dictionary and learn some new words.

Oh and

What a stupid question.

Not really in light that you are defending the pedos and you ran away from answering the question.

 

Are you sure about this?

Can you provide proof to back this up?

 

Death penalty is Constitutional and mayhem is forbidden.

What part of the Constitution do you FAIL to understand?

I responded to your utterly ignorant and stupid post.

I'm only defending pedophilia in your mind.

You and your lib/prog ilk are known for masking such ignorant and stupid assessment(s).

 

I more or less agree. I would be open to considering a ban if the state overwhelmingly show what you suggest.

 

This whole issue has a familiar ring to it.

It reminds me of the countless bogus claims of the Moral Majority back in the 80's against drugs, porn, and rock n roll. It was the original start of the "culture wars" and from the smell of it, they are still going strong.

Now granted, almost everyone loves to hate on pedophiles. It's an easy boogeyman, but rather than automatically throwing the baby out with the bathwater per se, has anyone stopped here for a second and thought there just might be a non-pedophile related market for these type of dolls?

I remember a couple of years back seeing some documentary where a woman makes anatomically correct life-like dolls, and many of them were purchased by women who had miscarriages or had babies die of SID. These dolls were a means of therapy for them to cope with the loss.

None of us can begin to understand the minds of those who are pedophiles, but if this helps curb it, all the better. The counter argument that this would encourage pedophilia just doesn't pass the sniff test. That same argument has been used for everything from marijuana to homosexuality. It's a lame illogical fallacy.

 

( “child pornography” means any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where—
(A)
the production of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;
(B)
such visual depiction is a digital image, computer image, or computer-generated image that is, or is indistinguishable from, that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or
(C)
such visual depiction has been created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct.
identifiable minor”—
person—
(i)

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2256

 

Google " Mary the virgins tight teen (you know what) " and you can get that sex "toy" online at a place you might not expect.

But does the manufacturer get away with something like that because "teen" could mean someone could very well be eighteen or nineteen?

In other words, maybe they're on to something by having to make new laws to make these pedo dolls illegal.

And, BTW... I was RV'ing on the beach south of San Diego a year ago and one of these "toys"...and a BIG one...washed up on the beach one morning.

And, yes, I have photographic evidence! (Complete w/ ships anchored off the coast waiting to come into port in the background.)

 

Wrong is wrong. And this is WRONG. The dolls have the capability to be adjusted to have fear or pain or sadness on their robotic faces? REALLY? And some are "conflicted" about this?

omg

 

Thank you for admitting your ignorant and stupid assessment that I don't support "stand your ground" states.

Rightists like you are not beyond making stupid comments and make up lies as you've just demonstrated. Yet another troll post from you to use your tired "lib/prog ilk" phrase. What a decerebrate post.

 

Bull-****in'-****!

You (and your ilk) have whined more than once about shooting an unarmed person even when they have broken into one's house so don't give me that crap.

 

Thanks for providing that with a link.

Now, I really don't know how to interpret this (from your link):

(11) the term “indistinguishable” used with respect to a depiction, means virtually indistinguishable, in that the depiction is such that an ordinary person viewing the depiction would conclude that the depiction is of an actual minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct. This definition does not apply to depictions that are drawings, cartoons, sculptures, or paintings depicting minors or adults.
the term “indistinguishable” used with respect to a depiction, means virtually indistinguishable, in that the depiction is such that an ordinary person viewing the depiction would conclude that the depiction is of an actual minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct. This definition does not apply to depictions that are drawings, cartoons, sculptures, or paintings depicting minors or adults.
​

So what does this mean?

 

As downright creepy as I find this, it is an object a product and I don't know how you band someone from purchasing a product and tell yourself you're living in a free country.

It would be like Banning adult sex dolls because people rape adults.

I don't know the creepy pedophilia connections give me pause but looking at it rationally it's not a child it's not a picture of a child it's a representation of one.

 

Pedophiles should be denied freedom. That would deny them access to children and sex dolls.

I think you're trying to blur the disconnect between homosexuality and pedophilia and I think you have been doing that for the better part of five years.

One can say that pedophilia is wrong because it causes harm.

As far as the sex dolls go, I'm torn as well because I believe in a free market that being said there should be a limit to it. should not be able to Market child pronography are child prostitutes.

I might have to take a position in support of this ban on child like sec dolls.

 

Iran with the out of control Mullahs has it's own depravity driven by their Missuse of religion.

 

So why is prostitution illegal? I am sure you think it should not be, but why is it? Who is it harming, right? IOW, society is totally f- - ked up except for you. Because you would never stop men from acting out on any perversion they choose, in this case, an amorous 4 year old child sex doll.

Well, the fact remains, I have next to nothing in common with atheists because they have no concern for what their actions may have on them by some "mythical" god, nor do they believe that their depravity has any effect on their neighbor. I say it does. I say a man with a strange sex perversion left to engage in it all he wants turns into a monster. That is why young girls are raped and murdered. Because the man’s lust has consumed him where he can no longer think straight in those moments of burning passion.

I am not willing to experiment with a demented soul who is given more and more opportunities to act out his lust for children in either movies or sex dolls. It is not a deterrent, it is a catalyst and more children, not less, will become victims. Plus it makes our society look all the more debauched where we legalize all kinds of perverse practices. The soul of the nation has gone from virtuous to wicked because of its need to feed its lust. Either man controls his passions or his passions control him.

 

Sure. Religious extremism, I would agree, is not a good thing, but it is not depravity.
Depravity is the sexual perversion that emanates from Hollywood. Apples and oranges. (I.E. MTV)

 

Oranges and tangerines ... they can cross pollinate.

 

And who determines the limit? For example, I view those who choose the homosexual lifestyle, cross-dressing, pedophiles and abortionists as people in need of mental help. Most leftists disagree, so who gets to set the limits, the folks who try and indoctrinate children into gay-sex or those who listen to God and know that it's wrong?

How do you ask a person with morals to compromise? How do you ask an immoral person to acknowledge that their immorality is wrong?

If a person wants to buy a love doll that is in the shape of a walrus then so be it. The same if they want one like an infant. That person as well as the manufacturer must answer to a higher being. And then it again comes to immorality and recognition of mental illness. For those who claim that the gay-lifestyle is acceptable and simply an "orientation", then consistency demands that pedophiles and necrophiles must be given the same consideration.

The only consistency is for those of us who follow our lord and savior.