Huh? I drove my parents car a lot when I was 18-20, and I am taller than both my parents, so yeah, adjustable seats are cool.

I also used my parents PC before I could buy my own. And I've used friends and family's telephones from time to time too. I've played with colleague's iPhones and let them play with my Android phone. I let friends and family use my computer at home. I would set user accounts should I want to hide something, or let them use it for extended period of time.

Interestingly enough, I know a lot of people who shares their computer, phones, cars, whatever.

if it were possible to encrypt the system volume, THEN I might start trusting it with my data

Apparently it runs Linux. This might not be a problem

The fact that it is a modern computer is exactly the point. By the way, the iPad has the same restrictions as the iPhone and it is not a mobile phone. I can't see how you could define this as something else than a computer. So what if it isn't upgradable? I don't see any reason why I should have restrictions on a piece of hardware I own.

The laws for statutory rape are invariably applied in cases where a legal adult is having consensual sex with a *teenager*, not a prepubescent child. And adults having sex with teens is *not* paedophilia.

Yes I agree with that.

I strongly suspect your average prepubescent child isn't willing to engage in *consensual* sex.

A prepubescent child might be more easy to manipulate than you think... And for the offending adult to convince himself this is not rape, even with a functioning set of morals (well, not very functioning :s). This is speculation, as I really cannot put myself in the place of a paedophile, as I cannot imagine the thought patterns said paedophile would go through.

Yeah, well, when my 'mobile phone' has more computational power that my 15-year old 'personal computer', where do I draw the line?

Added to that, there's also more hard drive space, more RAM, a better sound card, a better video card. The only thing smaller is the *screen*. Now the screen of an iPad is larger that that of said 15-year old computer. So, how exactly is it NOT a personal computer? Because Steve said so? Sorry to be unconvinced.

Well, is seems pretty likely actually... A 2-D movie is generally played at 24 frames/seconds. A 3-D movie is played at least à 24 frames/second/eye (ie 24 left frames, 24 right frames), if you use 2-D glasses (which would filter away say all the left frames), you still get 24 frames/second, which is like a normal movie.

Now some 3-D technologies plays the movies at a higher frame rate (I think 144 frames/second in all, though each frame is repeated 3 times (see RealD)), so one still gets a high enough frame rate.

Or do you *really* think that a normal person could have sufficiently powerful sexual urges that they would violate someone simply to satiate that need?

I don't know, I don't really understand killing people neither, but apparently some do it.

Statutory "rape" isn't a violent act.

It is still illegal, which was the only point I was trying to make, no legal way to have sex with a child.

Now, I'm not aware of any pedophiles engaging in consensual sex with prepubescent children.

There are though, I don't know how much or if it is even vaguely common, but if there weren't, there wouldn't be any laws regarding statutory rape.

I see your point. I'm not competent in this area, is there no possibility that rape be about relieving oneself from urges and not about power? In particular considering statutory rape, when the other person seemingly agrees to the acts? This is a honest question, as I'm possibly prejudiced in these matters.

You're right, I haven't proved anything. My point was to the GGP, just because people view porn and cause no harm doesn't mean anything, because the situation is hugely different, as the sex depicted in regular porn is legal, and someone can just go out and do it (finding a willing partner is an issue of course... But not the issue at discussion here), as child porn depicts something that is illegal, so that nobody can "go out and do it".

The situations are quite different, therefore one can't draw that kind of conclusion.

I'm pretty sure there is very few Vatican citizens (the whole Swiss Papal Guard are (of course) Swiss. Other members of the High Clergy are from countries around the world, temporarily serving at the Vatican). So this lets the Pope himself, which is his own citizen, and I don't see anyone else.

By the way, the Code of Canon Law seems to say that men cannot marry before 16, and women before 14 (see Canon 1083 and that the conference of bishops can set a higher age locally (this is the assembly of bishops in a given country).

Correlation is not causation - are you suggesting they only have sex because they watched porn?

I'm suggesting a correlation, by no means a causation, I'm perfectly aware that some people have sex and don't watch porn. (And perhaps some people do watch porn and don't like to have sex, but they may be aberrant points)

Most people don't have the choice to have sex with someone they want - people routinely might fancy someone, who doesn't wish to have sex with them - I guess according to you, this means that they go and rape them?

Of course not... But at least it would be legal if both parties were willing to have sex. In the case of children, it wouldn't. That was the only point I was trying to make actually. The fact that people watch regular porn and live with it isn't relevant, because, it is not that rare to find a willing partner in the general subset of people that one's attracted to. Now if this subset is children, it is more problematic, because there is no legal solution except abstinence.

I guess according to you, this means that they go and rape them?

Not even close to everyone, but, yeah, rape exists, so some must do it. That was not my point however.

I wouldn't want any woman to be near you, with that attitude...

Are you suggesting that I must be a rapist, based on your own extrapolations of what I said earlier? Or that I must approve of this behaviour, because I acknowledge its existence? And you lecture me about flawed logic?

We criminalise actual images of children because of the harm done in their production, not because of the hoops of illogic that you are trying to argue.

This doesn't explain the ban on sexually explicit drawings of children in some countries. Therefore, some must criminalise images of children because of both the harm done on actual children and the "hoops of illogic I try to argue".

My point was not to agree with the post that begins with "Let's not split hairs." by AC. Just saying that regular people watching regular porn might not be a good counter-example.

Millions of people view porn, those people generally like to have sex, and I assume it is generally the same kind that the porn they look at (a man looking at asian porn would love to bone an asian woman, I have of course no proof of that)

People would look at child porn and would want to have sex with a child, which is generally not legally possible. So if they act upon this desire, it would be at least statutory rape (assuming the child is willing)

I think the point of the GP's GP is that consumption of drawn child pornography creates a demand for actual child pornography. Could anyone say that consumers of drawn material would never look at the live stuff? Do statistics about that exist?

I believe that some people that seeks lolicon images would never look at the live stuff, for moral/legal reasons. I believe the majority not to be that righteous.

So yeah, drawn child pornography doesn't hurt actual children directly, but legalising it could allow for a greater demand, quickly followed by a greater offer in the illegal stuff.

Firefox 3.6.3 : 40 or so fps Chrome 4.1.249.1045 (42898) (dunno if this is old) : 1 - 2 fps Chromium 5.0.370.0 (43808) : 2 - 4 fps IE7 goes to 50 fps but doesn't react to the position of the mouse.

This works with Newtonian physics. But relativity is so much harder to understand than that. I don't understand it fully. But I think it states that, due to relativistic effects, no two points can move away from one another faster than light, even if they both move away from a third point at the speed of light in opposite direction. I don't really understand the implications of this though.