Man sentenced to 20 years for pictures on phone and inappropriately touching child

You get tired of chasing the same monkey around the same coconut tree

 

Why bother posting links like that. The people in your link raped people. The man in this story did not.

 

And How do you know? Some of the pornography he was viewing could very well be from these men who were sharing what they did online

 

I honestly thought he might have some new insight. I don't pretend to be the repository of all knowledge and watching other people think sheds light on my own thoughts and why I think them. In the event, this turned into an evening I won't get back. My own fault really.

He seems to want to believe that white guys can't do crimes against other groups. If you're female or not white, you're SOL.

 

Without the product there is no risk. The perv pays for the product, not the risk. He is charged because the risk exists. Also because he can be charged to feed his perversion.

What school of economics did you get that theory from? People do not produce porn 'out of the goodness of their heart'. They do it because there's money in it or other incentive. this slimeball was part of the market, one way or another. That porn did not leap from the internet to his device by itself.

We've gone through all this before; it is not a case of Deja New.

 

Except it was. you're the only one who doesn't agree.

 

That depends on the definition of "fondling" you are using. His hand was pushed against her holding her up, and the material of her swimsuit was separating his hand from her private area. There does not seem to be any evidence that he was moving his hand back and forth, or touching her in a specifically sexual way.

It was inappropriate for him to put his hand there, but that does not obviously constitute fondling, at least not anywhere close to 100%.

You know well completely well that it is disingenuous for you to try to use the loaded word "fondling" to try to win your argument. Since the specifics of exactly how he touched her are what this argument hinges on, and I think you know there are plenty of forms of "fondling" that are far worse.

I believe it's a logical error, specifically an oversimplification, overgeneralization fallacy for you to try to argue "He fondled her, therefore..."

 

It was your argument that they needed to be paid money to compensate them for the risk they are taking.
That part is technically not an incentive to do the illegal activity, it is a counter to the legal disincentive of not doing it.
A rationale person would not do something only for the money if that money did not cover the risk they were taking from doing it.
The only reason they would still do it anyway is because they liked doing it.

I was explaining how one of your arguments sort of contradicts and counters part of another argument you were making.

It was your argument that part of what they were paying for was the risk.

Here is what your argument was:

 

It could be, but we don't know that.

Do you want to argue about whether it is fair to make that assumption?

Apparently you believe if someone does one thing that is illegal, it is fair to automatically assume they have done something else that is illegal and obviously extremely wrong?

(But in this case, I believe your assumption is even more stretched out than that. You believe if police find one piece of evidence, it is fair to make the assumption that that evidence shows a person did something illegal, and once you assume the person did that illegal thing, you then you think it is reasonable to take that to assume that person did something else that was very wrong. That is TWO different levels of assumption you are making.)