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

[Dave1001]

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:

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?

Lovely. Enjoy!

The Atheist, that's a really disappointing argumentative tactic. Kevin_Lowe made clear in this thread that he's not sexually attracted to children -which by the way, is none of our business about any thread participant, in my opinion.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

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!

Well, you do seem awfully committed to the idea that child pornography is harmful. So is it totally unreasonable to expect you to have some evidence you can present to back up your idea?

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?

Developmental sexuality and morality is an interesting topic because normally rational people are often incapable of even approaching the matter from an evidence-based perspective. Even on these forums, where skeptics are the majority of the population, it's still nigh impossible to move a discussion past people yelling "Anything involving underage sex is icky and bad, we know it! Anyone who asks for evidence is a child molester!".

If that doesn't make a topic interesting to a skeptic, I don't know what does.

 

[dann]

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".

There's a big difference between sticking to the point and insinuating that this is what I'm talking about.

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

No, I do have an "opinion". I don't like to be governed.

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

I have argued against some of the people advocating the legality of (certain kinds of) kiddie porn. I have argued against kiddie porn. I haven't attempted to answer the question "What Should Be Legal, What Shouldn't?"- mainly because the illegality of kiddie porn does not seem to prevent it from being produced and distributed.

 

[Gurdur]

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,

tsk tsk tsk.
No rational argument from you, merely an unsubstantiated assertion. How ironical in view of ......

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

Apparently I understand it far better than you do.

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.

Since I have no respect for your little games, I will point out what you have missed and that is that is that I am putting the burden of proof back on you; prove to me that kiddie porno doesn't cause harm.

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.

Aaaaaawwwww. Now give me one good argument why kidde porno should be legalised. Come on, I want to hear from you exactly why porno depicting the adult sexual exploitation of children should be legalised. Tell me.

 

[Dave1001]

tsk tsk tsk.
No rational argument from you, merely an unsubstantiated assertion. How ironical in view of ......
Apparently I understand it far better than you do.

Since I have no respect for your little games, I will point out what you have missed and that is that is that I am putting the burden of proof back on you; prove to me that kiddie porno doesn't cause harm.


Aaaaaawwwww. Now give me one good argument why kidde porno should be legalised. Come on, I want to hear from you exactly why porno depicting the adult sexual exploitation of children should be legalised. Tell me.

Given that civil liberties protections are designed to protect power minorities, it does seem unfair to shift the burden arbitrarily for child porn fiction, but not for murder fiction. A lot more people, forming a much more powerful cultural block, enjoy fiction that centers around murder and mayhem, even if it has arguably no other redeeming values. I doubt they can come up with a better reason their fiction should be legalized than can users of child porn fiction. It seems to me the only distinction is that fans of child porn fiction are a smaller percentage of the population -just the sort of power minority that civil liberties notions are designed to protect.

 

[Gurdur]

Given that civil liberties protections are designed to protect power minorities, it does seem unfair to shift the burden arbitrarily for child porn fiction, but not for murder fiction.

Really? Since I've already asked Piscivore to back up his claims on murder fiction, let alone his utterly ridiculous claim about Babe In The City, I'ld say I am treating both the same.

A lot more people, forming a much more powerful cultural block, enjoy fiction that centers around murder and mayhem, even if it has arguably no other redeeming values.

The point was made before, but I will make it again.

Porno is deliberately designed to be an inducement and encouragement to a sexual act (often masturbation but also other sexual acts).

That, BTW, is exactly why kiddie porno is not worthy of legalization in any form; since it is specifically designed to induce and encourage the thought of sex with children, it has no redeeming value whatsoever.

Murder mysteries are not designed to be an inducement to murder, or even to beat someone up.

Therefore trying to equate murder mysteries and kiddie porn does not work; an apples and oranges false comparion.

I doubt they can come up with a better reason their fiction should be legalized than can users of child porn fiction. It seems to me the only distinction is that fans of child porn fiction are a smaller percentage of the population -just the sort of power minority that civil liberties notions are designed to protect.

Really? No. Civil liberty notions are not designed to protect those that would inflict willful harm on others. Civil liberty notions are not designed to protect pedophiles wanting to commit pedophilia. Civil liberty notions are not designed to protect pedophiles wanting to celebrate pedophilia publically. Civil liberty notions are not designed to protect Ku Klux Klan liking of lynch porno.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

tsk tsk tsk.
No rational argument from you, merely an unsubstantiated assertion. How ironical in view of ......
Apparently I understand it far better than you do.

All I can conclude is that you are unable or unwilling to distinguish between fact and opinion.

Since I have no respect for your little games, I will point out what you have missed and that is that is that I am putting the burden of proof back on you; prove to me that kiddie porno doesn't cause harm.

The "little game" of asking people who express opinions to justify them might be one you have no respect for, but it's becoming clear you don't have any respect for rational argument or fact. By extension it seems to me you do not have any respect for the other people posting here either.

If you have no evidence be and adult and admit it.

Aaaaaawwwww. Now give me one good argument why kidde porno should be legalised. Come on, I want to hear from you exactly why porno depicting the adult sexual exploitation of children should be legalised. Tell me.

You have heard several already, but you prefer to make childish noises rather than engage with the cogent arguments that have already made.

Such pornography might well make people happy.

Such pornography might well reduce the rate of sexual predation upon children.

Such pornography might not harm, directly or indirectly, any being.

 

[Gurdur]

All I can conclude is that you are unable or unwilling to distinguish between fact and opinion.

Tsk, you're projecting.

The "little game" of asking people who express opinions to justify them might be one you have no respect for, but it's becoming clear you don't have any respect for rational argument or fact. By extension it seems to me you do not have any respect for the other people posting here either.

Tsk, what a weak response of yours. Apart from one very dumb illogicality of yours there above, I am asking you to back up your position with actual evidence, , not just your opinions.

The fact you are unable to do so was exactly my point.

If you have no evidence be and adult and admit it.

*snicker*
Take your own advice.

.... but you prefer to make childish noises

Tsk, you're projecting again.

Such pornography might well make people happy.

So what? What a silly little stance of yours. It might make some happy to lynch others as well, and to have little lynch porn gatherings, still doesn't constitute any valid argument for its legalization.

Such pornography might well reduce the rate of sexual predation upon children.

Ha ha ha ha ha HA! Do you have one tiny iota of evidence for that self-serving statement?

 

[pgwenthold]

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.

Well, that's not how the "founding fathers" of the US saw it.

See my post above. This is ABSOLUTELY correct. Merely because someone wants it is more than sufficient for it to exist, and that is the way it must be.

My example above is about standing in the driveway hopping on one foot. It serves no purpose, and I do it for no reason other than I want to. Moroever, I am pretty much alone among the adults in my neighborhood in wanting to do it. Yet, it is perfectly legal. Why? Because there is no reason to make it illegal.

That is the only standard that makes sense in a free society

 

[Dave1001]

Porno is deliberately designed to be an inducement and encouragement to a sexual act (often masturbation but also other sexual acts).

Masturbation is legal, just like eating a large popcorn and drinking a large soda is legal. That doesn't seem to me like an argument to burden-shift for advocates of simulated child pornography in an exceptionalist way. Fans of simulated child pornography just seem to be less powerful than advocates of violent movies.

 

[Dave1001]

Such pornography might well reduce the rate of sexual predation upon children.

Ha ha ha ha ha HA! Do you have one tiny iota of evidence for that self-serving statement?

There is some evidence which I posted earlier in this thread.

A slate article claiming that studies are showing that internet porn reduces rape and violent movies reduce real world violence (with links to the actual studies):

http://www.slate.com/id/2152487/

 

[Piscivore]

There's a big difference between sticking to the point and insinuating that this is what I'm talking about.

That was the topic at hand. I'm sorry I didn't realise you wanted to discuss something else.

No, I do have an "opinion". I don't like to be governed.

Okay.

I have argued against some of the people advocating the legality of (certain kinds of) kiddie porn.

That's why I thought you were discussing the topic. Sorry.

I have argued against kiddie porn.

Okay.

I haven't attempted to answer the question "What Should Be Legal, What Shouldn't?"- mainly because the illegality of kiddie porn does not seem to prevent it from being produced and distributed.

I thought that was part of the topic. Again, my apologies.

 

[dann]

... claiming that studies are showing that internet porn reduces rape ...

This may be true. At least this is what happened when Denmark abolished the ban on porn back in the mid 1960s, but a lot of things concerning sexuality changed back then, so it is hard to claim a cause-and-effect relationship between the two things.
As far as I know no studies have been made of the effect of child porn on the rate of sexual abuse of children, long-term or short-term. But I still don't think that it would be a good idea to make kiddie porn available to either paedophiles or others. Anything that sexualises the way people (= adults) look at children should be avoided, in my opinion, but ... no studies.

 

[dann]

A slate article claiming that studies are showing that internet porn reduces rape and violent movies reduce real world violence (with links to the actual studies):
http://www.slate.com/id/2152487/

The same relationship between porn and rape is claimed here: ... the plummeting rape statistics nationwide, (...) to question whether that drop could be attributable to more people watching more porn, ...

 

[Dave1001]

The same relationship between porn and rape is claimed here: ... the plummeting rape statistics nationwide, (...) to question whether that drop could be attributable to more people watching more porn, ...

There's some indication that watching a lot of porn or becoming addicted to porn makes a person less interested in seeking actual sexual contact with other people, including consensual sex.

I haven't found any studies or summaries of them, but I've found indirect indications that such research has been done.

For example this porn addiction site:

http://www.no-porn.com/test.html

lists "Would you rather masturbate than be sexual with a partner?" as an indication that someone's addicted to porn. Open question to the thread: Isn't that the sort of problem we want pedophiles to have?

 

[Piscivore]

Funny. You're really doing terribly with the logic today, aren't you?

I thought I was using my opinion, not logic. Isn't that what you said?

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.

Then what was the problem?

Apart from the numerous strawmen

Which strawmen? Point them out please.

and empty rhetoric in your "position", you're bloody confused and illogical about what your position actually is.

Okay, that may be. Please explain my position to me.

I like how you blame your own incoherence on everyone else, though.

"Everyone"? Who did I blame? Show me.

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

Please do.

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?

I agreed with that. Continue.

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.

Actually, what I said was that some people want to murder people- that people are murdered would seem to back up that part. That some of those people enjoy the fantasy of vicarious murder doesn't seem to be a stretch. That some of the people that do not particularly want to murder anybody might enjoy the fantasy as well isn't even a stretch.

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

What, that there are people that want to have or watch sex with animals? Google "farm sex"- to post any links would violate my membership agreement. That people who want to have sex with animals will be aroused by a movie heavily featuring animals seems to be, as you would say, as "common sense" as the assertion that heterosexual men are turned on by Baywatch.

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.

"Why should that matter? If our concern is protecting children, isn't the only consideration whether a child was harmed?"

Since it can be viably mooted that allowing unrestricted kiddie porno creates an atmosphere of acceptance of kiddie sexual exploitation,

"Almost anything can be "viably mooted". Prove it. "

as well as amplifying desires to exploit children sexually,

"Prove it. It seems to me the desire exists independantly and regardless of the availability of explicit material."

then a ban seems damned well in order.

"If your premises are correct. I do not think they are. Prove them."

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.

"I would say that as the virtual porn gets better, the relative cost to use real children would go up, and therefore the impetus to use real children would decline. That seems like a good thing to me."

Since there are no good reasons to be made for allowing kiddie porno,

"There have been several in this thread, and not just made by me. Did you miss them?"

apart from appeals to absolutist totally-unlimited freedom of expression,

"I've never so advocated. I think you've misread my position."

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

I'm not upset. Please do show me the strawmen, though.

 

[dann]

For example this porn addiction site:
http://www.no-porn.com/test.html
lists "Would you rather masturbate than be sexual with a partner?" as an indication that someone's addicted to porn. Open question to the thread: Isn't that the sort of problem we want pedophiles to have?

I see your point, but I think it's fairly hypothetical. Your idea seems to be: The paedophiles have this sexual orientation so in order to prevent their hurting children, they should be supplied with reading (= masturbation) material as an outlet. However, since you cannot exclude that this (imaginary, but still) sexualization of children may also reinforce their sexual orientation towards children, it probably wouldn't be a very good idea.
I think that paedophiles probably do both: abuse children and collect kiddie porn. Ask a policeman ...

I think that in order to get on with this discussion, we would have to try to find out how and why people become paedophiles - and how to cure them since they harm a lot of children.

 

[ponderingturtle]

That erotica involving children is reprehensible is obvious.

Define child, is say erotic fiction about high school kids with other high school kids wrong or not?

 

[ponderingturtle]

On that basis, written stories featuring any kind of child sex is ok, along with pictures of naked children? After all, no children are harmed by having their photo taken, are they?

So who's standards do you use to determine what is enough clothes? Shorts will get you charged with indecent exposure in some areas. What about pictures of your kids in the bath? IF you take them you should go to prison?

Animated cartoons of child rape are fine, no kids are harmed during that, either.

Are you serious?

Yes.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Oh boy, where do I begin to answer such a delightfully put defence of paedophile grooming?

Lets not forget that all nudists must go to jail in your reasoning, they must be child molesters after all.