Is NETFLIX guilty of Child Abuse

@athousandyoung said
He means most pedos are hetero i.e. men who like little girls

Pedophiles are attracted to children regardless of the child's gender.
That would imply that the sexuality of the pedophile is irrelevant.

@earl-of-trumps said
And there is this:

'Cuties' controversy entangles Obamas as pressure grows to pull 'child porn' Netflix film


[i]Critics on the right have called on Netflix producers Barack and Michelle Obama to condemn “Cuties,” a French film released on the streaming service Sept. 9 that already has prompted calls by Republicans for a [b]Justice Department investigatio ...[text shortened]... https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/sep/14/netflix-cuties-film-child-porn-uproar-ensnares-oba/

What if Netflix put out a movie that shows puppies being killed, to point out how killing puppies is not good. Like some people here are say the Cute movie has a good reason like that. Would that be OK , like the cuteys movie is?
I admit I have not seen it but that is not the point, as theses posters here suggest.

@wolfgang59 said
Pedophiles are attracted to children regardless of the child's gender.
That would imply that the sexuality of the pedophile is irrelevant.

how do you know that?

@mott-the-hoople said
how do you know that?

I read.

@wolfgang59 said
I read.

who is your pedophile expert?

@mott-the-hoople said
who is your pedophile expert?

When did you stop beating your wife?

@no1marauder said
Some idiot Republicans, like Ted Cruz, are calling for such a ridiculous waste of law enforcement resources, true.

Curious: are any posters in this thread still insisting that the film is "child pornography"?

No1: "Some idiot Republicans,..."

In other words, liberals, not to worry, No1 has handled by saying that because
Republicans made the motion, IT DOESN'T COUNT.

There ya go. No1 the magician with his magic wand. Just wave it all away.
"Waste of law enforcement resources", No1 says.
Right, why should we ever back up laws on the books? Ridiculous!!


Republicans a re never right about anything. We all know that, right?

So there ya go. It all just goes away, thanks to the wizardry of No1.

You are one sad cookie.

@earl-of-trumps said
No1: "Some idiot Republicans,..."

In other words, liberals, not to worry, No1 has handled by saying that because
Republicans made the motion, IT DOESN'T COUNT.

There ya go. No1 the magician with his magic wand. Just wave it all away.
"Waste of law enforcement resources", No1 says.
Right, why should we ever back up laws on the books? Ridiculous! ...[text shortened]...

So there ya go. It all just goes away, thanks to the wizardry of No1.

You are one sad cookie.

Why not retype that word salad when you are sober, so that we can have a chance to debate what you are saying?

@no1marauder said
That you continue to confuse the concept of something you or someone else doesn't personally approve of with "child abuse" or "child pornography" that should be banned or even prosecuted is your problem. Your question is irrelevant to the issue as stated in the thread title as I have already stated and I feel no requirement to answer irrelevant questions. That you think it's some kind of "gotcha" just shows stubborn ignorance.

It's a common debate tactic to make the scope of discussion far smaller than it ought to be so that your logic can float in this narrow space.

But it's OK -- I understand. We're all guilty of this sometimes.

I think Marauder has in him some of the interminable contrarian -- he can't help himself but to oppose even the most obviously moral stances of people because he likes to present some alternative to the norm... when he is actually pressed on having a moral position, he remarks that such a position is irrelevant, and this is only about legality & black & white definitions.

It's annoying, but what can we do? We can't exactly motivate him to expand the topic into something meaningful, and no one really is excited to discuss some boring legal question when it is something of a gray area in this regards.

@philokalia said
It's a common debate tactic to make the scope of discussion far smaller than it ought to be

"ought to be" ?
And who will be the arbiter of what ought to be discussed?

Surely staying on topic is good middle-ground for us all.

The topic is Is NETFLIX guilty of Child Abuse

@philokalia said
It's a common debate tactic to make the scope of discussion far smaller than it ought to be so that your logic can float in this narrow space.

But it's OK -- I understand. We're all guilty of this sometimes.

I think Marauder has in him some of the interminable contrarian -- he can't help himself but to oppose even the most obviously moral stances of people because h ...[text shortened]... s excited to discuss some boring legal question when it is something of a gray area in this regards.

It's also a common debate tactic to try to take a thread away from the original topic once it becomes apparent the original premise of it is untenable.

I don't regard my or your "morals" as binding on this filmmaker insofar as they should limit her expression of her vision (which is clearly in agreement with almost everybody else's here as regards the sexualization of young girls).

I don't regard the legal issue here as "gray" at all.

If it's a "boring" subject, blame the poster who started the thread and give it the title he did.

@wolfgang59 said
"ought to be" ?
And who will be the arbiter of what ought to be discussed?

Surely staying on topic is good middle-ground for us all.

The topic is Is NETFLIX guilty of Child Abuse

We are all the arbiter of that.

But in another sense, we all instinctively understand that the Mayoral campaign unfolding in Dusseldorf will be less relevant to us than the US Presidental Election, and it might be silly for an American with no connection to Dusseldorf to follow that election very closely.

Just as such, I feel that Marauder is missing the forest for the trees.

@no1marauder said
It's also a common debate tactic to try to take a thread away from the original topic once it becomes apparent the original premise of it is untenable.

I don't regard my or your "morals" as binding on this filmmaker insofar as they should limit her expression of her vision (which is clearly in agreement with almost everybody else's here as regards the sexualization of ...[text shortened]...

If it's a "boring" subject, blame the poster who started the thread and give it the title he did.

Oh, so this is only about whether or not it constitutes child abuse?

Just curious, are we talking about child abuse in a very legal, narrow way, or in the broader, more abstract way...

Which relates closely to what I've exactly been saying all along in this thread: it's a reprehensible film that in a very general way damages everyone who comes into contact with it, and will have particularly damaged those who produced or acted in it.

@philokalia said
Oh, so this is only about whether or not it constitutes child abuse?

Just curious, are we talking about child abuse in a very legal, narrow way, or in the broader, more abstract way...

Which relates closely to what I've exactly been saying all along in this thread: it's a reprehensible film that in a very general way damages everyone who comes into contact with it, and will have particularly damaged those who produced or acted in it.

Apparently the vast majority of film critics disagree with your assessment that the film is "reprehensible" as did the judges at Sundance who gave the director an award.

I doubt very seriously the girls who acted in it will be "damaged" in any way by doing so.

@wolfgang59 said
Pedophiles are attracted to children regardless of the child's gender.
That would imply that the sexuality of the pedophile is irrelevant.

Is this the case though?