The Edges Of Child Pornography: What Should Be Legal, What Shouldn't?

[daenku32]

So.. Since we can ban pornography that is directly abusing underaged kids, how about placing a 'sin tax' on the rest of them. Since much of cigarette taxes can be justified by spending them on treating people who got cancer without smoking themselves (probably because parent's smoked at home), could we at least tax the 'borderline' cases, to treat people who are victimized by sexual crimes? The "we cannot Constitutionally ban it" clause does prohibit many bans but it doesn't inhibit taxation.

 

[Dave1001]

So.. Since we can ban pornography that is directly abusing underaged kids, how about placing a 'sin tax' on the rest of them. Since much of cigarette taxes can be justified by spending them on treating people who got cancer without smoking themselves (probably because parent's smoked at home), could we at least tax the 'borderline' cases, to treat people who are victimized by sexual crimes? The "we cannot Constitutionally ban it" clause does prohibit many bans but it doesn't inhibit taxation.

It sounds like a great idea in principle, but that could be its own dangerous slippery slope ("sin" taxes on some forms of speech). Are there any forms of speech that currently are arguably sin-taxed*?

*I'm aware of the sin-tax/syntax pun potentials.

 

[Gurdur]

.... how about placing a 'sin tax' on the rest of them. ....

Just wondering who you mean by "them". Clarify?

 

[Gurdur]

No. An analogy is a comparison in kind inteded to illustrate or clarify a point. A "slippery-slope" argument is an assertion that a particular situation will lead to a new, less desirable situation. I did not do this.

Wrong again, on no less than three different counts, indeedy.

First off, an analogy is a comparison; however it need not be in kind. Which is why "apples and oranges" fallacies can exist.

Next off you claim you did not commit it; you're very wrong, and *yawn* we will examine exactly what you said, exactly how you committed it, and oh BTW, we'll also examine the other errors you made in exactly the same bit as well. Last time I bother with such a time-consuming crappy derail.
Dann wrote:

It may not only ”facilitate the fantasy” and help the unfortunate paedophile get off, it may also persuade him that this is the way children are and should be treated.

You replied:

You see that word "may"? That's not enough to trade a basic civil right for. Like our donut-crazed dieter, it is incumbent on the person to rein in that desire, not on society to remove all temptaion.
Some people want to commit murder, do we outlaw murder mysteries?
Some people want to rob a casino, do we ban "Ocean's 11"?
Some people want to f[rule 8] animals, do we burn all our copies of "Babe, Pig in the City"?

First off, you tried making a value assertion as if it was a fact.
When you said, "it is incumbent on the person to rein in that desire, not on society to remove all temptation", just who sez so? You? Not good enough. That was only your own personal opinion, nothing more.

Next off, you tried claiming it was a basic civil right, something which is nonsense (since when is publishing kiddie porn a basic civil right?). Freedom of speech is not an absolute right and above all other rights, which is the only tenable position from which you could logically make such an assertion; since the laws of libel, slander, obtaining money under false pretences and numerous other laws all quite affect and limit freedom of speech, it is not an absolute right, but a conditional one. Live with it, suck it up, it is not the absolute right you pretend it is in fact, and ethically it does not necessarily trump all other rights.

Since you have specifically replied you are not advocating unlimited free speech in another post, then you are either being illogical and badly confused, or you are being dishonest.

Now we get onto the two fallacies you committed, an "apples and oranges" false comparison and a slippery-slope fallacy.

The apples and oranges:
"Some people want to commit murder, do we outlaw murder mysteries?
Some people want to rob a casino, do we ban "Ocean's 11"?
Some people want to f[rule 8] animals, do we burn all our copies of "Babe, Pig in the City""

You are claiming these are logically and situationally equivalent to banning kiddie porn so it does not amplify pedophilia. That is completely false.

Porn is very directly about the fulfillment of a desire. Porn is sold on that basis.
Murder mysteries are not. Murder mysteries are not sold because people want to vicariously murder.
Babe, Pig In The City does not have one single bit about humans having sex with animals, and does not advocate it in the slightest.

So it was a bloody stupid analogy of yours, wasn't it? Illogical, non-matching and a mere rhetorical trick.

And at long last we come to the slippery slope. Contrary to what you claim, a slippery slope fallacy starts off with the fallacious claim that various premises are linked by logic and type on a continuum, and one must lead to the next:
IOW, of the logic type: if X, then Y, W, and Z.

You claimed that murder mysteries, kiddie porn, films about robbing casinos and films about ape-challenged pigs in urbania are all linked on the same continuum, and therefore banning kiddie porn because it may amplify pedophilia was therefore logically equivalent to banning murder mysteries on the false premise that they amplify desires to murder.

Thereby the whole slippery-slope fallacy: you were claiming a direct equivalence on a logical continuum between those various statements, an equivalence which simply does not exist. In fact you went further; you directly implied that because kiddie porn is in fact banned (for amplifying pedoism, among other things), we should then ban murder mysteries for causing murder, etc.

There we go:
1) the nature of an analogy
2) your apples and oranges error
3) your slippery slope

Cheers, etc. Last time I bother with such a waste of time.

 

[daenku32]

Just wondering who you mean by "them". Clarify?

With "Them" I mean things like novels that contain written pornography. Constitutional grounds can be use to keep many written novels or even graphics legal. I think some of the recent court cases established that. Since the topic contains arousement of illegal sexual activity, it could get a tax. As I don't think cigarette tax really stops people from smoking, I don't think this would really limit the usage of said material. But it might gain resources to deal with the resulting problems.

It's a topic that probably would require a wider consideration for other things, but it could still be a focus point.

 

[Piscivore]

That is a law that you seem to respect: If you are hungry, you are not allowed to eat bread that doesn't belong to you!
Well, that's one point where I wouldn't be adamant about obeying the law.

I'm sure the bakers in your community will be happy to know this.

I've not argued civil disobediance yet.

Of course it is, but I would still not expose a friend on a diet to the scent of donuts fresh from the oven if I could prevent it. I also would not tempt a recovering alcoholic with a bottle of booze. That still doesn't mean that I don't think that the onus is on the alcoholic.

Such is your right, and you sound like a pretty good friend. But do you think it is just to force all your neighbors to eschew donuts in your friend's presence, despite their wishes? Or to deny alcohol to everyone because some people have a problem with it?

What I said was: "In the case of paedophilia the sexual urge as such is physical, that children are the object of your desire, however, isn’t, it’s a perversion of the sexual instincts."
It, i.e. paedophilia, resides between the ears, not between the legs. The sexual urges are usually aimed at a sexually mature member of the opposite other sex, and of course there's an evolutionary advantage in this: You don't procreate by having sex with bicycle seats or children.
But the sexual urges are very flexible in the sense that they can be directed at objects not 'intended' by nature. A very common variation is homosexuality where you desire members of your own sex, apparently connected to variations in the hormone levels of the amniotic fluid during pregnancy. I don't really know. (And I don't really care.)
Other variations, perversions, appear to be the result of deficient self-confidence, probably due to nurture rather than nature.

"Perversions" reside between the ears as well. Including the judgement that they are "perverse", but that usually happens between a different set of ears.

And "nature" intends nothing.

Then don't ask. I'll get back to your "freedom of expression" and other freedoms.

Thanks. Let's do.

And where exactly do I "equate" them? Would "usual" have been a better word? Or "most frequent"?

Those are better words, yes.

Bicycle seats, for instance?

As an extreme example, yes. I was thinking more prosaically, like the aforementioned shopgirl, et al.

Yes, I do. And sometimes a shoe may come in handy when you need a hammer, but haven't got one. What is your point?

That in the absence of explicit material substitutions can and will be made with unexplicit and sexually neutral material. This seems to show that fantasy does not need or depend on "encouragement", and it raises doubts it even exacerbates them.

I think I do ...

I was hoping you would be a little more detailed.

As long as the end user actually buys whatever the 'creator' wants to sell. That is the reason why the 'creator' is very interested in meeting the demand of the buyer, i.e. his or her (solvent!) needs.

I'm not really sure what you mean by "solvent" needs. The creator is only concerned with the purchaser's needs as far as is required to sell the most product. There is no benefit to the creator to specifically cater to a specific, individualised demand, unless he is doing custom work. in fact, excessively catering to individualised desires can actually be counterproductive as far as sales are concerned.
For example, a creator of pornography is going to create content featuring young-looking girls, or girls wearing a plaid skirt, or girls in stockings and high heels. They are not going to worry much about the pattern of the tartan, or the colour of the heels, or the hair colour of the girl, even though this may be of concern to the end user. There may be buyers that only want to see girls dressed in the uniform of St. Discordia's Home for Wayward Girls, but catering to this market alone might hinder sales to those buyers that don't find them as desirable, for whatever reason.

This is where you find the purpose of pornography.

No, you are wrong. Find me one pornographer that is more interested in making sure guys get off than he is in the bottom line.

Dude, a pimp isn't interested in whether you went away happy, just that you paid and went away.

You seem to confuse the issue with what characterizes any kind of commodity. Utility value as opposed to what you get when you exchange it for other commodities or money. (As if you were not aware of the difference!)

I'm not. Please explain.

Probably. Does it not sound like a fair description of mainstream porn?

One girl, one guy? No.

I don't know. The decider, maybe?

But in outlawing certain types of pornography, aren't you attempting to remove that right from the decider and putting it in the hands of a governmental authority?

There actually is one, an arbiter? I didn't even know that.

Well, you are acting as one, when you declare that monogamus hetero is "fairly harmless". There are people who disagree, and would consider this attitude dangerous to the health and welfare of society at large.

I'll see if I can come up with a link or two.

Please do.

How the hell do you reason when you claim that I'm treading on civil rights, freedom of expression etc.?

How else are you going to accomplish the goal inherent in "the fantasy of having sex with children should be discouraged" without getting into legislating people's thoughts?

And where do I claim that anything would "vanish overnight"

You didn't. I was making a point.

More of my alleged infringements of the catalogue of human rights ... Where do you find them?

The one in question is pretty well summed up in Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Gurdur already dealt with this one?

Badly. Ignorantly. I'd be interested in your take.

No. Do you think that her books encourage people to believe in psychics?

Probably. Does she not have that right?

I wouldn't encourage 'superstitiously challenged' friends of mine to read the crap.

Would you criminalise it?

And who is trying to control how he thinks?

People whio want to use the law to "discourage" his fantasies.

I know that the title of this thread was "The Edges Of Child Pornography: What Should Be Legal, What Shouldn't?" However, my very first words in it were:
I.e. if paedophilia was legal, I would still be against it!

So would I. But "exposure to child pornography" != "pedophilic action", and "explicit depictions of sex with children != pornography".

We can punish people for performing the actions of a pedophile (whether he is or not) but we shouldn't for just being a pedophile.

OK?! I might even try to prevent a paedophile from having sex with children, thus infringing on his inalienable rights. Right!?

No one has a right to break the law. If you disagree with a law, you may certainly violate it to make a statement- it is called "civil disobediance"- but you must be prepared to accept the consequences.

And in any case, I am not arguing in favour of f[rule 8]g children. Thinking it, talking about it, lobbying for the right to do it, writing a story about it, drawing a picture of it, creating a 3d computer model of it, describing it in great detail at the neighborhood pub or the internet- yes. Anyone should be free to do any of those things. But not actually doing it.

 

[Gurdur]

Gurdur already dealt with this one

....Badly. Ignorantly..

I'm amused. Can you actually do any real and rational answer, or are you now limited to employing empty abuse instead?

Edited to add: go back and actually read, and rationally reply, instead of trying the empty abuse.

 

[dann]

You quote me as saying:

I know that the title of this thread was "The Edges Of Child Pornography: What Should Be Legal, What Shouldn't?" However, my very first words in it were:
I.e. if paedophilia was legal, I would still be against it!

Not exactly my very first words on this thread! They were:

I’m not really interested in the question of legality versus illegality. The point is:
Paedophilia hurts children.
Thus it shouldn’t be encouraged.

You seem to be so preoccupied with the question of legality/illegality that you see it everywhere, even when it isn't present. I asked you:

More of my alleged infringements of the catalogue of human rights ... Where do you find them?

And you answer:

The one in question is pretty well summed up in Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

But that still doesn't answer my question: Where do you find my alleged infringements of the catalogue of human rights? I didn't ask you where you find the human rights catalogue!
And why ask me:

Would you criminalise it?

I'm not a politician. I'm not a lawmaker. To quote myself again, and maybe this time you'll notice:

I’m not really interested in the question of legality versus illegality.

And your preoccupation with punishment annoys me for the same reason.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

An awful lot of harm comes from people who claim that they had consensual, non-distressing sex with underage children.

You will have to join the dots a little more for me, I am afraid. A lot of harm comes from people who claim a woman wanted to be raped and/or enjoyed it too. It does not follow from that that women never want to have sex, never enjoy sex, or are inevitably harmed by sex.

So what follows from the fact that sexual predators inevitably lie in their own defence, exactly?

That paedophiles either don't care or can't tell the difference - if your claim is true!

What do you conclude from this, that speaks to the question of whether child pornography (in whatever form) should be legal?

Couldn't images of sexualized preteens, help people to develop into paedophiles ?

It seems to be theoretically possible. Is there any evidence it is actually the case?

Yes. It actively appeals to those who would participate in the criminal activity, and glorifies and actively encourages that activity. Like a children's book describing how great it would be to take your first hit of cocaine.

Yes, but it is perfectly legal to make fiction that appeals to people who would participate in all sorts of illegal activities, that glorify and actively encourage that activity. Unless you cross the border into actually committing crimes, however, it remains protected speech. There needs to be evidence that glorifying/encouraging this particular illegal activity actually leads to harm to real people in the real world.

Bingo.
Because this is one of the clichéd stock claims of pedos running around everywhere --- that it's all nonharmful or could be. IOW, they willfully evade the point for the sake of their agitprop.

It is not a meaningful answer to just say "that evades the point". Where is your evidence that non-distressing, consensual sex is bad for underage people once you control for the other relevant factors? The mere fact that paedophiles make a particular claim is not evidence that particular claim is false.

There is no valid reason at all for child porno displaying in any way children under the age of 13. Prohibition of that is a damned good idea. If anyone wants to try chanting that really tired old cliché of "nanny state" in relation to the criminalization of kiddie porn, bite me. Blow me. Kiss my arse. Put away the dumb strawmen and the self-congratulatory garbage about watching the watchers, and deal with the point.

On the contrary, people want such pornography and enjoy it. Absent evidence that such material leads to real harm to real people, that alone is a valid reason for such material to exist. As others have said I might not like such material, or the people who consume it, but I need more than my dislike to justify criminalisation.

And lastly; children are children. They need to be protected against adult exploitation. And if anyone doesn't like that and wants to whine how brave they personally are by demanding children be treated like adults, kiss my arse again.

It's easy and fun to make bold stand on the internet against "evil". However I am going to ask you to do something much harder and less fun. Find some evidence to back up your implied claim that banning pornographic depictions of underage sexuality actually protects children from adult exploitation.

 

[Piscivore]

Wrong again, on no less than three different counts, indeedy.

Yes, you are.

First off, an analogy is a comparison; however it need not be in kind. Which is why "apples and oranges" fallacies can exist.

An analogy that is not in kind is not an analogy. As you say, it is a fallacy. So, yes, analogies must "need be in kind".

Next off you claim you did not commit it; you're very wrong, and *yawn* we will examine exactly what you said, exactly how you committed it, and oh BTW, we'll also examine the other errors you made in exactly the same bit as well. Last time I bother with such a time-consuming crappy derail.
Dann wrote:
"It may not only ”facilitate the fantasy” and help the unfortunate paedophile get off, it may also persuade him that this is the way children are and should be treated."

You replied:
"You see that word "may"? That's not enough to trade a basic civil right for. Like our donut-crazed dieter, it is incumbent on the person to rein in that desire, not on society to remove all temptaion.
Some people want to commit murder, do we outlaw murder mysteries?
Some people want to rob a casino, do we ban "Ocean's 11"?
Some people want to f[rule 8] animals, do we burn all our copies of "Babe, Pig in the City"?"

First off, you tried making a value assertion as if it was a fact.

No, I didn't. In fact, at your urging, I stated specifically I was arguing my values.

When you said, "it is incumbent on the person to rein in that desire, not on society to remove all temptation", just who sez so? You? Not good enough. That was only your own personal opinion, nothing more.

I didn't claim otherwise.

Next off, you tried claiming it was a basic civil right, something which is nonsense

In your opinion.

(since when is publishing kiddie porn a basic civil right?).

When it falls under freedom of expression.

Freedom of speech is not an absolute right and above all other rights,

I didn't make that claim, that is your error, which I've already once corrected for you.

which is the only tenable position from which you could logically make such an assertion;

No, you are mistaken. Since you do not understand the most basic element of my position I'm not surprised.

since the laws of libel, slander, obtaining money under false pretences and numerous other laws all quite affect and limit freedom of speech, it is not an absolute right,

Quite so.

but a conditional one.

Wrong. Conditional rights are created by statute. Even limited as they must be civil rights trump statutory rights.

Sorry, "In my opinion and as I understand it".

Live with it, suck it up, it is not the absolute right you pretend it is in fact, and ethically it does not necessarily trump all other rights.

I do not so pretend.

Since you have specifically replied you are not advocating unlimited free speech in another post,

And in this one.

then you are either being illogical and badly confused, or you are being dishonest.

No, you just don't understand.

Now we get onto the two fallacies you committed, an "apples and oranges" false comparison and a slippery-slope fallacy.

The apples and oranges:
"Some people want to commit murder, do we outlaw murder mysteries?
Some people want to rob a casino, do we ban "Ocean's 11"?
Some people want to f[rule 8] animals, do we burn all our copies of "Babe, Pig in the City""

You are claiming these are logically and situationally equivalent to banning kiddie porn so it does not amplify pedophilia. That is completely false.

No, it isn't. You are classifying pornography based upon the effect the material has on a certain small group of people, yet you do not do so for other genres.

Porn is very directly about the fulfillment of a desire. Porn is sold on that basis.

It may be for the consumer, not for the provider. The providers could care less if their customers get their rocks off or not, as long as they get paid.
And as I've said about a dozen times now, this desire will be "fulfilled" one way or another regardles of the availability of "porn"

Murder mysteries are not. Murder mysteries are not sold because people want to vicariously murder.

You know the motives of every single person who buys murder mysteries? that's f[rule 8]g impressive. Why do people buy them then?

Babe, Pig In The City does not have one single bit about humans having sex with animals, and does not advocate it in the slightest.

That's the point. A guy that wants to f[rule 8] pigs will still be stimulated by it. Why isn't it considered "porn" on the basis that it excites deviants?

So it was a bloody stupid analogy of yours, wasn't it? Illogical, non-matching and a mere rhetorical trick.

Nope, you just didn't get it.

And at long last we come to the slippery slope. Contrary to what you claim, a slippery slope fallacy starts off with the fallacious claim that various premises are linked by logic and type on a continuum, and one must lead to the next:
IOW, of the logic type: if X, then Y, W, and Z.

But I did not use that structure. There is no "If" or "Then", explicit or implied, linking those terms. They are completely independant, related at all by only a single point of similarity.

I hope that clears up your confusion.

You claimed that murder mysteries, kiddie porn, films about robbing casinos and films about ape-challenged pigs in urbania are all linked on the same continuum,

Nope. this "continuum" idea is your invention.

and therefore banning kiddie porn because it may amplify pedophilia was therefore logically equivalent to banning murder mysteries on the false premise that they amplify desires to murder.

Quite so. The source of your confusion is your dogmatic adherence to the unfouded assertion that "kiddie porn" does in fact amplify pedophilic behaviour. If you have evidence that this is the case I'd love to see it.

Thereby the whole slippery-slope fallacy: you were claiming a direct equivalence on a logical continuum between those various statements, an equivalence which simply does not exist.

The equivalence does. This "continuum" is your addition, and a mistaken one.

In fact you went further; you directly implied that because kiddie porn is in fact banned (for amplifying pedoism, among other things), we should then ban murder mysteries for causing murder, etc.

I did not such thing. That you think so is beyond understanding, as I am arguing the opposite.

I'm sorry this is so hard for you.

There we go:
1) the nature of an analogy
2) your apples and oranges error
3) your slippery slope

All of which you were mistaken about.

Cheers, etc. Last time I bother with such a waste of time.

Sorry it was too much for you.

 

[Piscivore]

You quote me as saying:
"I know that the title of this thread was "The Edges Of Child Pornography: What Should Be Legal, What Shouldn't?" However, my very first words in it were:
I.e. if paedophilia was legal, I would still be against it! "
Not exactly my very first words on this thread! They were:
"I’m not really interested in the question of legality versus illegality. The point is:
Paedophilia hurts children.
Thus it shouldn’t be encouraged."

My mistake, I missed a quote box.

You seem to be so preoccupied with the question of legality/illegality that you see it everywhere, even when it isn't present.

We are discussing "what should be legal, What shouldn't". I'm sorry if the ability to stick to the point comes off as "preoccupation".

But that still doesn't answer my question: Where do you find my alleged infringements of the catalogue of human rights? I didn't ask you where you find the human rights catalogue!

I misunderstood your question. As far as "You see that word "may"? That's not enough to trade a basic civil right for," that does not say that you personally have infringed any rights. That means that prospect that it possibly, maybe, could, might be the case that X media influences Y undesirable behaviour is not enough to trade a basic civil right for.

And why ask me: "Would you criminalise it? "
I'm not a politician. I'm not a lawmaker.

Does that mean, as a citizen, you have no opinion on how you are governed?

To quote myself again, and maybe this time you'll notice:
"I’m not really interested in the question of legality versus illegality."

Well, you picked a funny thread to throw your two cents into, then.

And your preoccupation with punishment annoys me for the same reason.

I like to be spanked. Sorry.

 

[Piscivore]

I'm amused.

Finally. You've been so testy up to now.

Can you actually do any real and rational answer, or are you now limited to employing empty abuse instead?

I'm sorry you take criticism as abuse. It was not meant as such.

Edited to add: go back and actually read, and rationally reply, instead of trying the empty abuse.

I was getting to you, geez. Impaitent much?

 

[Gurdur]

....An analogy that is not in kind is not an analogy. As you say, it is a fallacy. So, yes, analogies must "need be in kind".

Funny. You're really doing terribly with the logic today, aren't you?
I described for you how analogies are used in real life, and pointed out to you that they need not be in kind in real life, just like yours where not in kind.
Now you come up with some twaddle in return.

....No, you are mistaken. Since you do not understand the most basic element of my position I'm not surprised.

*snicker*
Apart from the numerous strawmen and empty rhetoric in your "position", you're bloody confused and illogical about what your position actually is. I like how you blame your own incoherence on everyone else, though.

Wrong. Conditional rights are created by statute. Even limited as they must be civil rights trump statutory rights.

*snicker again*
Let me try making this really clear in ultra-short words for you, so you can understand it.

The right to freedom of expression is conditional to it not transgressing the limits upon that right, limits such as laws on libel, slander etc.
This means that it does not trump those limits, limits predicated on other rights (the right not to be libelled, for example).

OK, I know I used some long words there, but which part of that do you refuse to understand?

....No, you just don't understand.

Sure, sure. There, there.

Translated, that only means I do not agree with you and you have no good return argument.

....You know the motives of every single person who buys murder mysteries? that's f[rule 8]g impressive. Why do people buy them then?

You're being dishonest now; as said, your claim could only logically work if you pretend people buy murder mysteries in order to enjoy murder vicariously --- meaning you lay claim to knowing their motives. I'ld love to see your evidence.

And BTW you could also try backing up your utterly ridiculous claim about Babe In The City.

Quite so. The source of your confusion is your dogmatic adherence to the unfouded assertion that "kiddie porn" does in fact amplify pedophilic behaviour. If you have evidence that this is the case I'd love to see it.

No, now you're really not being honest. Let's see, you totally failed to deal with this post:

.....Point is here we're discussing preventitive action through the banning of kiddie porno, plus see my point about the coming inability to distinguish between virtual (simulated) kiddie porn and kiddie porn using real children.

Since it can be viably mooted that allowing unrestricted kiddie porno creates an atmosphere of acceptance of kiddie sexual exploitation, as well as amplifying desires to exploit chikldren sexually, then a ban seems damned well in order. Also a point I raised already, which seems to have been ignored; in present-day technology, given the ofttimes problems of distinguishing between virtual (simulated) and reallife kiddie porn, then only a ban on both is practicable.

Since there are no good reasons to be made for allowing kiddie porno, apart from appeals to absolutist totally-unlimited freedom of expression, then IMHO there's not much reason not to ban the garbage.

I do believe that covers everything worth covering......

....I'm sorry this is so hard for you. ....Sorry it was too much for you.

Naw, I found your incoherent arguments and strawmen very easy to deal with indeed. Sorry if that upsets you.

 

[Gurdur]

.... Where is your evidence that non-distressing, consensual sex is bad for underage people once you control for the other relevant factors?

You seem not to have read many of the posts in this thread. I'm going to refer you back to some in a minute.

On the contrary, people want such pornography and enjoy it. Absent evidence that such material leads to real harm to real people, that alone is a valid reason for such material to exist.

Bollocks again. Merely because someone wants it is not a "valid" reason for it to exist. You're taking your own personal opinion as a natural law.

It's easy and fun to make bold stand on the internet against "evil".

Meh, it's easier and so much more fun to take a stand on the net in favour of absolute individual freedom regardless of what it costs. Too bad others object.

However I am going to ask you to do something much harder and less fun. Find some evidence to back up your implied claim that banning pornographic depictions of underage sexuality actually protects children from adult exploitation.

I'm going to give you a challenge instead:
Read what I posted before (which I will quote below), and also read my other post on the nature of kiddie porn and just what it is for.

.....Point is here we're discussing preventitive action through the banning of kiddie porno, plus see my point about the coming inability to distinguish between virtual (simulated) kiddie porn and kiddie porn using real children.

Since it can be viably mooted that allowing unrestricted kiddie porno creates an atmosphere of acceptance of kiddie sexual exploitation, as well as amplifying desires to exploit chikldren sexually, then a ban seems damned well in order. Also a point I raised already, which seems to have been ignored; in present-day technology, given the ofttimes problems of distinguishing between virtual (simulated) and reallife kiddie porn, then only a ban on both is practicable.

Since there are no good reasons to be made for allowing kiddie porno, apart from appeals to absolutist totally-unlimited freedom of expression, then IMHO there's not much reason not to ban the garbage.

I do believe that covers everything worth covering......

Since, BTW, kiddie porn is in fact banned in many countries, I'm happy.

 

[Gurdur]

Just to expand on my last point: since kiddie porno is in fact banned in pretty well all civilized places, I feel no great need to waste my time producing the evidence for it to be so on a bulletin board. Go argue with the law courts and governments instead for that one.

 

[Rasmus]

As long as the arguments against such material are more or less the same as the ones used against gay marriage, adoption or homosexuality per se, I will keep supporting the right to produce or use it.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

You seem not to have read many of the posts in this thread. I'm going to refer you back to some in a minute.

I have, and they contain no evidence at all. Your argument is that since your opinions can be "viably mooted" they should be treated as if they were true, which is just plain silly, and that we must ban simulated child pornography now because in a decade or three we might not be able to tell the simulated porn made then from the real thing, which is just plain silly as well.

Bollocks again. Merely because someone wants it is not a "valid" reason for it to exist. You're taking your own personal opinion as a natural law.

I don't believe there is any such thing as "natural law". What I do believe is that if you want to restrict the freedom of a fellow citizen to do, read or possess something then you need to show cause. Which means presenting evidence of harm to someone, not just "mooting" your opinions.

That's not lunatic absolutist libertarianism. I'm not arguing you should be free to do whatever you want even if it hurts other people. I'm arguing you should be free to do what you want if it doesn't hurt other people, and you have yet to show any evidence that child pornography in general hurts people.

I'm going to give you a challenge instead:
Read what I posted before (which I will quote below), and also read my other post on the nature of kiddie porn and just what it is for.

It was indeed a challenge to get through all that, but I didn't see any facts or any evidence in there.

You do understand the difference between facts and evidence on one hand, and opinion and assertion on the other hand?

Since, BTW, kiddie porn is in fact banned in many countries, I'm happy.

Throughout history all sorts of evil things have been legal and harmless things been illegal. The current state of the law is not a reliable guide to whether something actually causes harm or not.

 

[Rasmus]

Regarding the possibility that one might be able to produce computer generated child porn that is indistinguishable from regular film:

1) We're far from having that possibility.

2) A producer of a child porn film is taken to court over the issue and claims that he rendered the entire flick on his PC - but it just so happens that he lost every last shred of data, every single bit of uncountable gigabytes of mesh-data, skins, etc. that was allegedly used in the production. No pre-renderings are available as evidence to the jury; the technical equipment has somehow disappeared. And it's just a total coincidence that the characters in the movie are the 100% look-alikes of the kids of the producer's neighbours...

3) If it was possible to produce material in that kind of quality the incentive to commit a crime by using real children would likely drop. (After all, they do use computers these days to show us things that would have been simply impossible not too long ago or would have cost the live of many a stuntman.)

 

[Skeptic]

The "borderline" of child porn--e.g., things that are very close to it but do not cross the road into actual illegality--reminds me of the old joke about the Rabbi who was asked if a piece of meat that fell into a dung heap is kosher: "It might be kosher, but it sure stinks."

 

[The Atheist]

Now I have it!

You ARE related to unter, aren't you?

All these cries of "evidence?" for positions which are against your pro-child pornography and pro-paedophile grooming, yet so far you haven't produced any evidence yourself!

You've talked about it plenty, though:

I have, and they contain no evidence at all...

... and you have yet to show any evidence that child pornography in general hurts people.

...but I didn't see any facts or any evidence in there.

You do understand the difference between facts and evidence on one hand, and opinion and assertion on the other hand?

There needs to be evidence that glorifying/encouraging this particular illegal activity ...

Where is your evidence that non-distressing, consensual sex is bad for underage people once you control for the other relevant factors?

Find some evidence to back up your implied claim that banning pornographic depictions of underage sexuality actually protects children from adult exploitation.

Yet, on the other hand, your preoccupation with sex with children is also a prevailing thread in your posts.

Are you trying to tell us something?

....and the available evidence based on studies of people involved in underage sex showed that consensual sex could not be scientifically linked to any harm even if one or both participants were underage.

As long as no actual children are coerced or forced into unwanted sexual activities, there is no basis in the available evidence to criminalise the production or possession of erotica involving underage characters.

As I understand it, it would be more accurate to say that the evidence that consensual and non-distressing underage/overage sex causes harm does not rise to the level of statistical significance once you control for everything else.

I wouldn't say it has been rigorously shown to not harm children. I'd say that it has so far failed to be shown to be harmful once you control for correlated factors like broken homes, alcoholic parents and so forth.

Victims of sexual abuse show statistically significant levels of harm based on such measurements. People who were once the underage partner in consensual and non-distressing underage/X sex do not.

Sex in and of itself is not harmful to a statistically significant degree to underage people.

The evidence is that as long as the sex is consensual and non-distressing there is no long-term harm regardless of the age of the other person involved.

Based on the avilable evidence, consensual and non-distressing sex does no harm at all to underage people in and of itself. Rape, pregnancy disease and so on all do, but sex does not.

So child pornography depicting such sex acts is depicting something which causes no harm.

Sorry, but facts and reality are not on your side Dann. Well designed and controlled studies show no statistically significant harm coming to people who had consensual, non-distressing sex while underage regardless of the age of their partner.

Lovely. Enjoy!