Keith and The Girl Forums

Keith and The Girl Forums (https://www.keithandthegirl.com/forums/)
-   Show Talk (https://www.keithandthegirl.com/forums/f5/)
-   -   1349: Six Years Down (https://www.keithandthegirl.com/forums/f5/1349-six-years-down-16144/)

stulagu 03-08-2011 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by beerchick (Post 694458)
Okay so 58 minutes into the show now and two mentions that Keith got married - I'm going to take it that congratulations are in order, otherwise I am now the butt of a joke that reveals itself later in the show. Ah wells, I'll take the risk. I wish the best and am very happy for you both - cheers!

he said he was dating Kat with a quick little comment at the end of a show...I think he is married and his twitter is a red herring. Is there a way you can accidentally say you're married when you aren't married?

Junkenstein 03-08-2011 03:03 PM

ok, you got him. he actually has 3 kids and has really moved to scotland. and cat is a man.

stulagu 03-08-2011 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Junkenstein (Post 694483)
ok, you got him. he actually has 3 kids and has really moved to scotland. and cat is a man.

He said ALL OF THAT on the show? I must have missed it...where did he SAY THAT ON THE SHOW? Funny, how I just believe things out of the air with no one actually SAYING it...yes, ON THE SHOW.

Junkenstein 03-08-2011 03:10 PM

hes a jazz host yuou should listen to what he's NOT saying.

he also joined the KKK.

stulagu 03-08-2011 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Junkenstein (Post 694485)
hes a jazz host yuou should listen to what he's NOT saying.

he also joined the KKK.

hmmm, I'm thinking sarcasm doesn't work for you....

Junkenstein 03-08-2011 03:15 PM

nah, im stupid. i dont get jokes.

stulagu 03-08-2011 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Junkenstein (Post 694487)
nah, im stupid. i dont get jokes.

oh ok, thanks for clearing that up, for a while there I couldn't figure out why you would infer I was stupid for believing something Keith said because I tend to believe people when they state facts and was basing my thoughts on previous experiences.

myq 03-08-2011 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Junkenstein (Post 694477)
allow me to add that my love for the awesomeness that is Myq Kaplan continues to grow.

Allowable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blitzgal (Post 694480)
From what I've read on Gawker, the kiddie porn book included explicit photos of the author touching children. It was NOT just "words."

It's also why I do not accept the rationalization that viewing kiddie porn images is a victimless crime. Real children are assaulted to create the images that other pedophiles share. So frankly I don't give a shit if guy A only looks at pictures on the internet. He is creating a market in which guy B exploits and assaults children to provide the product that guy A wants.

Two things...

1) If there are pictures of naked kids in the book, agreed that that is worse and more worthy of being illegal than just words. (But then I would still say, why is it "obscenity laws," and not "child pornography laws," unless that is indeed what it is, in which case I'm on board.)

2) What do you think about the idea of computer-generated pictures of naked kids? Where real children are NOT assaulted. (Sort of the opposite of an organic, free range, locally grown situation--all artificial, no children were harmed in the making of this porn.) I believe that stuff exists and that there have been legal battles over whether it should be allowable. (It would probably be easy for me to google it in the time it takes for me to say how easy it would be, but I didn't. Thoughts or facts, anyone?)

stulagu 03-08-2011 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by myq (Post 694490)
What do you think about the idea of computer-generated pictures of naked kids? Where real children are NOT assaulted. (Sort of the opposite of an organic, free range, locally grown situation--all artificial, no children were harmed in the making of this porn.) I believe that stuff exists and that there have been legal battles over whether it should be allowable. (It would probably be easy for me to google it in the time it takes for me to say how easy it would be, but I didn't. Thoughts or facts, anyone?)

I still have a problem with kiddie porn if it is animated. Can't it just be one of those things where everyone agrees that it is really wrong and shouldn't be depicted in any way? It seems to encourage the thought that it is ok.

I'm trying to think of a comparable and I can't. Even cruelty to animals isn't a crime if it is only animated. Child porn is just on its own level and even when animated is very wrong. WRONG, Myq Kaplan!

myq 03-08-2011 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stulagu (Post 694492)
I still have a problem with kiddie porn if it is animated. Can't it just be one of those things where everyone agrees that it is really wrong and shouldn't be depicted in any way? It seems to encourage the thought that it is ok.

I'm trying to think of a comparable and I can't. Even cruelty to animals isn't a crime if it is only animated. Child porn is just on its own level and even when animated is very wrong. WRONG, Myq Kaplan!

More questions... what about in art?

Like, you can have a movie where rape is depicted in graphic fashion, yes?
Or you could have paintings of horrible violent acts, right?

Obviously if you had a movie about a pedophile, I could see not wanting to have a real child even pretend to be molested or what have you (though certainly there are movies where children play abused children, and have to say and do things that, even though pretend, might be arguably traumatic), so in such situations, wouldn't an animated child rapee be the lesser of evils?

I mean, part of this question adds the element of "if child porn is illegal but child rape depiction for artistic purposes is not, where do you draw the line" (Keith: 'EVERYWHERE!'), and then we're back to the "I know porn when I see it" ambiguity...

Also, what about this: there's obviously not a lot of research done one what makes there be less pedophilic activity. But we know that there certainly are pedophiles who behave themselves, who keep their unfortunate genetic makeup to themselves, and live out their fantasies in fantasy only (Dan Savage calls them "gold star pedophiles"), and it sucks to be them, but it's great that they do what they do, and don't do what they don't. So my question here is, would having access to CGI child porn make there be more satisfiable gold-star pedos? Or would having that exist make them be more likely to go out looking for the real thing, gateway style? Again, I don't know if this is answerable with no real research able to be conducted ethically, but it seems to me that pedophiles are fantasizing anyway, having no porn available might make them go crazier and seek whatever they can, including real children, as opposed to having the potential outlet of animated fake stuff available.

Just horrible food for gross thought.


PS I am sexually attracted to adults. And arguments.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:23 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1
Keith and The GirlAd Management plugin by RedTyger