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

[luchog]

Could you explain in what way you feel you were sexually attracted as a pre-pubescent? What were the symptoms?

Sorry, if the questions are a bit intrusive, but I really wonder whether you were actually sexually attracted.

It's not something I'm particularly interested in discussing in an open forum, particularly with someone who has already expressed unqualified support for adult/pre-pubescent sexual relations.

You seem to be agreeing with me then, right?

No, definitely not. While children may be capable of a certain amount of sexual ideation, that doesn't change the fact that pre-pubescent and early adolescents are not equipped to handle sexual activity, and it cannot be anything other than harmful in the long term.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Instead of looking at the argument, DD simply implies that it is an argument against free speech, and on the basis of this misreading he declares himself an advocate of free speech and thus opposed to what I say. This appears to be the way you think when your head is full of law.

On the contrary, any argument in favour of censorship is an argument against free speech. If you add up "speech that is censored" and "speech that is free" you get "all speech". You can't add anything to the censored list without taking things off the free list.

That's not having a head full of "law", it's having a head full of logic.

If you are sufficiently committed to supporting free speech then you can reject any argument in favour of censorship just on the basis that you are in favour of free speech and against censorship.

If you want to have a discussion which assumes as a starting point that some censorship of "obscene" or "dangerous" material is a good idea, you need to find someone to talk to who shares that belief.

Myself I'm still waiting for actual evidence that fictional depictions of underage sex cause harm, or that criminalising such depictions (even if they turn out to be harmless in and of themselves) prevents harm. I can't morally support criminalising such material lacking such evidence.

 

[The Atheist]

Myself I'm still waiting for actual evidence that fictional depictions of underage sex cause harm, or that criminalising such depictions (even if they turn out to be harmless in and of themselves) prevents harm. I can't morally support criminalising such material lacking such evidence.

Oh, to be an idealist!

Much easier when you live your life in a bubble. Then you can have all the free speech you'd ever like. It must just gall the hell out of you that nobody is going to allow you to have that 100% freedom of speech.

Keep waiting for the evidence, because:

a) nobody cares (at least nobody who matters)
b) laws are made my man, not the mythical god-head of free speech you worship.

This isn't the thin edge of Newspeak/Doublethink, Kevin, it's the thick edge of life.

We care.

Take it to Tiananmen Square.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Oh, to be an idealist!

Much easier when you live your life in a bubble. Then you can have all the free speech you'd ever like. It must just gall the hell out of you that nobody is going to allow you to have that 100% freedom of speech.

Keep waiting for the evidence, because:

a) nobody cares (at least nobody who matters)
b) laws are made my man, not the mythical god-head of free speech you worship.

This isn't the thin edge of Newspeak/Doublethink, Kevin, it's the thick edge of life.

We care.

Take it to Tiananmen Square.

You seem to be saying that you believe what you believe despite your total lack of evidence, and that you like it that way. It's hard to pick meaning out of a string of apparent non sequiturs though so I could very easily be wrong.

If that interpretation of what you wrote is correct, and assuming I value evidence and rationality, what do you think the point of having a conversation with you might be?

 

[The Atheist]

If that interpretation of what you wrote is correct, and assuming I value evidence and rationality, what do you think the point of having a conversation with you might be?

None whatsoever. I wasn't seeking conversation, I was telling you how it is.

The fact that you don't like it pleases me no end.

Hammegk covered the point beautifully many pages back. No surprise you missed his point.

This is one of those subjects where you may as well hang your hat on a stick and preach to that.

Nobody cares - me in particular.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

None whatsoever. I wasn't seeking conversation, I was telling you how it is.

Thank you for being honest about your intent.

The fact that you don't like it pleases me no end.

Thank you for being honest about your motives.

Hammegk covered the point beautifully many pages back. No surprise you missed his point.

Thank you for confirming that you are indeed very much like Hammy in significant and important ways.

This is one of those subjects where you may as well hang your hat on a stick and preach to that.

I think my hat would have significant advantages over you as a conversational partner. Thanks one last time for making it abundantly clear that I will not be missing anything when I put you on Ignore.

 

[dann]

Instead of looking at the argument, DD simply implies that it is an argument against free speech, and on the basis of this misreading he declares himself an advocate of free speech and thus opposed to what I say. This appears to be the way you think when your head is full of law.

On the contrary, any argument in favour of censorship is an argument against free speech. If you add up "speech that is censored" and "speech that is free" you get "all speech". You can't add anything to the censored list without taking things off the free list.

That's not having a head full of "law", it's having a head full of logic.

If you are sufficiently committed to supporting free speech then you can reject any argument in favour of censorship just on the basis that you are in favour of free speech and against censorship.

If you want to have a discussion which assumes as a starting point that some censorship of "obscene" or "dangerous" material is a good idea, you need to find someone to talk to who shares that belief.

Myself I'm still waiting for actual evidence that fictional depictions of underage sex cause harm, or that criminalising such depictions (even if they turn out to be harmless in and of themselves) prevents harm. I can't morally support criminalising such material lacking such evidence.

It is actually rather funny, Kevin. You are doing the exact same thing DD does: Instead of looking at my argument, you imply that since I criticize child porn, I must favour censorship and thus argue against “free speech”. Would you please point out where I advocate censorship?
Like I already said: People with their heads full of law cannot think straight! You simply assume that if somebody criticizes something, they must automatically advocate that this something should be outlawed.

You may not get it anyway, but let me try another example: I think that it is very bad idea to make yourself an advocate of kiddie porn, right? Does that imply that I want to take away your right to express this idea, your beloved basic right to “free speech”? If I say that parents should not hit their children, it implies only that I want them to stop doing so, it does not imply that I advocate a law against it, does it?

When you get as far as ‘I cannot morally support criminalising kiddie porn without evidence that it is harmful in and of itself’, you don’t even notice how far out you’ve got.
By the way, I don’t know if you have noticed, but censoring or banning kiddie porn does not seem to be a very efficient way of putting a stop to it, does it?!

Why not? Wanting to have sex with children is an idea. Fantasizing about having sex with children is an idea. Sharing your fantasy with others is sharing an idea. Selling a fantasy to others is selling an idea. They may be icky, squicky unpleasant ideas, but they are unarguably ideas. The fact that they are usually generated and distributed by people you don't like, or that some of the people that have and trade in them go on to commit related crimes, does not make them any less so.

These thoughts are ideas in exactly the same way as standing in the bank line fantasizing about robbing it is an idea, or daydreaming about killing someone who screwed you over, or breifly considering running the car that just cut in front of you off the road, or wanting to grab the gun of the policeman standing idly next to you and shooting random strangers until you are cut down in a hail of bullets, or picturing yourself with Angelina Jolie tied up in your basement.

These are all ideas, only ideas, about crimes. If one were to act on these ideas, besides the acts being illegal they are all in varying degrees immoral. But only thinking about them is not immoral, and communicating these ideas is not immoral.

1. Wanting to have sex with a child is not an idea, it's a desire. It does not (as far as I know) suddenly pop up when you are standing in line: ‘Wouldn’t it be awfully nice to bugger a 5-year-old?’
2. Dreaming about may a fantasy or a daydream, but in the case of paedophiles and kiddie porn, wish fulfillment is probably a better word. (And, as daydreams or fantasies go, your examples seem to be rather peculiar. I’ve never come close to having any of them, but since I cannot use myself as an argument, I recommend taking a look at Wiki.)
3. Selling a fantasy to others is selling a fantasy. Selling a masturbatory fantasy is selling a masturbatory fantasy. And selling a masturbatory fantasy about children is selling a masturbatory fantasy about children. Your abstraction from the contents of the fantasy, even the abstraction from fantasies in an attempt to turn fantasies into ideas, does not help clarify anything, on the contrary: You attempt to confuse kiddie porn with ideas, because you don’t want to distinguish between what is going on here, in this forum where we exchange ideas, with what is happening when paedophiles exchange kiddie porn. Whether or not I like the people who do so is uninteresting. I don't like what they are doing.
4. Only thinking about sex between adults and children is neither immoral nor illegal. It’s what we have been doing in this thread. That you pretend to be unable to see the difference between what we are doing here and what goes on in a paedophile kiddie porn ring, does not make the actual difference between the two go away.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/desire
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idea
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fantasy_(psychology)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daydream
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornography
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erotica
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erotic_art
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_pornography

 

[Dave1001]

LEGALLY, however, there are a few problems.

of course it's not legal in th US. I meant "should have the right" no one currently does have the right to sell, distribute or maybe even own child pornography of themselves as an underage performer in the US, to my knowledge.

 

[Dave1001]

Venezuela

Venezuela? proto-fascist at most.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

It is actually rather funny, Kevin. You are doing the exact same thing DD does: Instead of looking at my argument, you imply that since I criticize child porn, I must favour censorship and thus argue against “free speech”. Would you please point out where I advocate censorship?

Sorry, I assumed you were addressing the topic of the thread.

I'm not hugely interested in your opinions on the matter if you have no hard evidence and you're not interested in addressing the issue of "What should be legal, what shouldn't?".

Like I already said: People with their heads full of law cannot think straight! You simply assume that if somebody criticizes something, they must automatically advocate that this something should be outlawed.

In the context of this thread, and charitably assuming you had a point you were trying to make, it's not unreasonable to presume that you meant your statements to make up part of a case for outlawing some forms of child pornography. Otherwise what was the point?

You may not get it anyway, but let me try another example: I think that it is very bad idea to make yourself an advocate of kiddie porn, right? Does that imply that I want to take away your right to express this idea, your beloved basic right to “free speech”? If I say that parents should not hit their children, it implies only that I want them to stop doing so, it does not imply that I advocate a law against it, does it?

Well, if I started a thread titled "Should it be illegal to ask if there is evidence child pornography causes direct or indirect harm?", and you launched into criticisms of such behaviour and personal attacks on the people arguing that such behaviour should be legal, then yes it certainly would imply that you would like to see some legal restrictions on that behaviour.

When you get as far as ‘I cannot morally support criminalising kiddie porn without evidence that it is harmful in and of itself’, you don’t even notice how far out you’ve got.

I'm well aware that I might as well be advocating universal suffrage and an end to slavery 300 years ago for all the public support I'm likely to get. That doesn't make me right or wrong though.

By the way, I don’t know if you have noticed, but censoring or banning kiddie porn does not seem to be a very efficient way of putting a stop to it, does it?!

Not knowing how much of it would be trafficked if it was legal, I cannot say how much of an effect the laws have.

1. Wanting to have sex with a child is not an idea, it's a desire. It does not (as far as I know) suddenly pop up when you are standing in line: ‘Wouldn’t it be awfully nice to bugger a 5-year-old?’
2. Dreaming about may a fantasy or a daydream, but in the case of paedophiles and kiddie porn, wish fulfillment is probably a better word. (And, as daydreams or fantasies go, your examples seem to be rather peculiar. I’ve never come close to having any of them, but since I cannot use myself as an argument, I recommend taking a look at Wiki.)

Sorry, which examples of daydreams and fantasies have I presented? Exact post number and/or URL please, or withdraw that statement and apologise.

3. Selling a fantasy to others is selling a fantasy. Selling a masturbatory fantasy is selling a masturbatory fantasy. And selling a masturbatory fantasy about children is selling a masturbatory fantasy about children. Your abstraction from the contents of the fantasy, even the abstraction from fantasies in an attempt to turn fantasies into ideas, does not help clarify anything, on the contrary: You attempt to confuse kiddie porn with ideas, because you don’t want to distinguish between what is going on here, in this forum where we exchange ideas, with what is happening when paedophiles exchange kiddie porn. Whether or not I like the people who do so is uninteresting. I don't like what they are doing.

Kiddy porn is ideas, absolutely. Stories depicting sexual activities which still fall under the heading of "sodomy" in less enlightened parts of the world (including some US states I believe) are, in exactly the same way, ideas. It's still not illegal to write stories that give people ideas... although if you want to address the actual topic of the thread you could try to argue that it should be.

It's not an "abstraction" to say that speech about sex, drugs, violence and what-have-you is still speech. It's a concrete fact.

You aren't very clear in any of your arguments, but here you seem to be arguing that free speech is all well and good in theory until you examine exactly what people are saying, and then you realise that some speech is terribly bad and should not be free. If so, the whole point of free speech is to stop people like you from cherry-picking the things they do not want said and criminalising the act of saying them.

But you simultaneously deny any such intent and accuse people who interpret your posts in the obvious way of having "a head full of law". So what are you trying to say?

4. Only thinking about sex between adults and children is neither immoral nor illegal. It’s what we have been doing in this thread. That you pretend to be unable to see the difference between what we are doing here and what goes on in a paedophile kiddie porn ring, does not make the actual difference between the two go away.

I have to assume you mean there is a moral difference, because again, any other interpretation means you are just moving electrons around for no reason.

I would have assumed that you also meant to say that this moral difference supported the case for the criminalisation of "what goes on in a paedophile kiddie porn ring" (your words), but you seem not to want to make that claim.

I'm really not sure what point, if any, you are trying to make in your posts now.

 

[dann]

Otherwise what was the point?

To criticize misconceptions of what constitutes kiddie porn, its purpose and its uses.

I'm well aware that I might as well be advocating universal suffrage and an end to slavery 300 years ago for all the public support I'm likely to get. That doesn't make me right or wrong though.

A lot of very noble causes, right?

Sorry, which examples of daydreams and fantasies have I presented? Exact post number and/or URL please, or withdraw that statement and apologise.

Why don't you go back and take a look at my post, Kevin?

Kiddy porn is ideas, absolutely.

And murder is human behaviour.

It's not an "abstraction" to say that speech about sex, drugs, violence and what-have-you is still speech. It's a concrete fact.

No, it's an abstraction, and a false one. Murder is human behaviour. That does not mean that I condemn human behaviour (or even the right to freely express yourself) if I say that murder is not a very nice thing to do.

You aren't very clear in any of your arguments, but here you seem to be arguing that free speech is all well and good in theory until you examine exactly what people are saying, and then you realise that some speech is terribly bad and should not be free. If so, the whole point of free speech is to stop people like you from cherry-picking the things they do not want said and criminalising the act of saying them.

I am quite clear, and, no, I'm still not arguing for or against free speech.

But you simultaneously deny any such intent and accuse people who interpret your posts in the obvious way of having "a head full of law". So what are you trying to say?

It does not seem to be very difficult to understand for those whose heads are not full of law.

I have to assume you mean there is a moral difference, because again, any other interpretation means you are just moving electrons around for no reason.

I would have assumed that you also meant to say that this moral difference supported the case for the criminalisation of "what goes on in a paedophile kiddie porn ring" (your words), but you seem not to want to make that claim.

I'm really not sure what point, if any, you are trying to make in your posts now.

No, I don't think you are.

 

[Piscivore]

If I say that parents should not hit their children, it implies only that I want them to stop doing so, it does not imply that I advocate a law against it, does it?

I know this part was directed at Kevin, but let me add that it was the part where you said "it shouldn't be encouraged" is what led people to beleive you would favour censorship.

By the way, I don’t know if you have noticed, but censoring or banning kiddie porn does not seem to be a very efficient way of putting a stop to it, does it?!

Of course it isn't. Yet another reason not to do it.

1. Wanting to have sex with a child is not an idea, it's a desire.

As long as it is not put into practice a desire remains an idea.

It does not (as far as I know) suddenly pop up when you are standing in line: ‘Wouldn’t it be awfully nice to bugger a 5-year-old?’

Maybe it does, I don't know. How do you? From other desires I've had I can say that this sort of thing does happen, though.

2. Dreaming about may a fantasy or a daydream, but in the case of paedophiles and kiddie porn, wish fulfillment is probably a better word.

Well, your link has two definitions for that phrase. The first one, "gratification of a desire", is moving from the realm of ideas and into action.
Your second is a definition from the long discredited pseudoscience of Psychoanalysis, so I wouldn't call that a "better word".

But even if you want to use this definition, it is still just an idea.

(And, as daydreams or fantasies go, your examples seem to be rather peculiar. I’ve never come close to having any of them, but since I cannot use myself as an argument, I recommend taking a look at Wiki.)

I'm sure you haven't, I tried to pick things that would fall outside your range of experience and be unpleasant to you.

3. Selling a fantasy to others is selling a fantasy. Selling a masturbatory fantasy is selling a masturbatory fantasy. And selling a masturbatory fantasy about children is selling a masturbatory fantasy about children.

They are all still fantasy. Do you have a problem with mastabatory fantasy? On what basis do you get to judge other people's fantasies as "immoral"?

Your abstraction from the contents of the fantasy, even the abstraction from fantasies in an attempt to turn fantasies into ideas, does not help clarify anything, on the contrary:

"fantasy" itself is an abstraction. And so is "idea". As is "kiddie Porn". What is wrong with abstraction?

None of your links contradict this, and indeed, you links about "Pornography" and "Erotica" emphasise the fuzziness of the categories.

You attempt to confuse kiddie porn with ideas,

No, I'm attempting to distinguish which elements of "kiddie porn" are dealing with ideas you find immoral, which deal in ideas that you find acceptable, and which actually harm people.

Labeling a vauge group of ideas of which you do not approve under the blanket category "kiddie porn" is what is confusing.

because you don’t want to distinguish between what is going on here, in this forum where we exchange ideas, with what is happening when paedophiles exchange kiddie porn.

Distinguish it for me. What is the difference?

Whether or not I like the people who do so is uninteresting. I don't like what they are doing.

What they are "doing" is exchanging ideas. When they go beyond that, I don't like it either.

Only thinking about sex between adults and children is neither immoral nor illegal. It’s what we have been doing in this thread. That you pretend to be unable to see the difference between what we are doing here and what goes on in a paedophile kiddie porn ring, does not make the actual difference between the two go away.

What is it? what is the "actual" difference? Given that you have confessed you have no damned idea what the specific content of "kiddie porn" is, what makes you think you can pretend you know what goes on in a "paedophile kiddie porn ring"?

ETA: If having "a head full of law" is a bad thing, as you seem to intimate, does that mean all lawyers, judges and legislators, as well as policemen, insurance agents, OSHA inspectors, doctors, and so on are "confused" as well?

If having "a head full of law" is a bad thing, what is yours full of?

 

[Piscivore]

of course it's not legal in th US. I meant "should have the right" no one currently does have the right to sell, distribute or maybe even own child pornography of themselves as an underage performer in the US, to my knowledge.

Read it again. My entire post was about "should", not "is".

 

[Dave1001]

Read it again. My entire post was about "should", not "is".

That wasn't a criticism of your post. It was a clarification of mine.

 

[Dave1001]

Morally, I think they should be allowed to do with it what they want. Certainly to own it, or to view or display it in their own homes- as long as both parties equally consented. If one of the partners wanted it destroyed in the future I think the right thing for the other to do would be to destroy it.

Selling it, only if both parties were equally enthused about it. If one partner had doubts morally the other shouldn't press it.

LEGALLY, however, there are a few problems. How does law enforcement determine that the product being sold actually depicts the persons doing the selling? What about resales? What about the can of worms it is going to open from the people that are going to be trying to videotape 15-16 year olds, waiting a few years, then getting their consent- or just faking the consent forms outright? What about the ones that are going to claim that since an adult has a legal right to sell explicit videos of him- or herself as a minor, a parent or legal guardian has the right to give consent for the minor to participate?

No, I think there are far to many problems and far to few people that would potentially benefit for that to be a good idea.

ETA: Think of it this way- I morally should have the right to do what I like with my own property, right? But I can't burn my own house down, because it puts my neighbors in danger and wastes the fire dept's time and resources. Same thing here.

That's a fair perspective, but I don't share it. Here's my responses.

1. Resale rights should work the way they normally do with media/intellectual copyright. However that is.
2. Videotaping minors engaged in sexual activity without their consent would remain illegal. So that would remain the deterrent. But, once those minors turn 18 they should have the right to consent to the sale or sell themselves media of themselves as minors having sex.
3. Parents and legal guardians should not have the right to consent to filming underage children engaged in sexual activity. Filming underage sexual activity should remain illegal. However, if such film exists, such as if it was created accidentally, people who are currently adults and were in that film should have the right to sale and market the film. I agree with you that every single underage person who was in that film would need to give adult consent before such a film should be able to be legally be distributed and sold.

What are the perspective of other thread participants, particularly ones that favor pseudo child pornography being legal?

 

[dann]

As long as it is not put into practice a desire remains an idea.

No, a desire still remains a desire; a desire that hasn't been put into practice.

Maybe it does, I don't know. How do you? From other desires I've had I can say that this sort of thing does happen, though.

That somebody suddenly turns into a paedophile? I don't think so. It wouldn't be that sudden. Neither would falling out of being a paedophile which is one of the reason why kiddie porn should be discouraged.

Well, your link has two definitions for that phrase. The first one, "gratification of a desire", is moving from the realm of ideas and into action.
Your second is a definition from the long discredited pseudoscience of Psychoanalysis, so I wouldn't call that a "better word".

As a definition, however, it is very good.

But even if you want to use this definition, it is still just an idea.

No, a fantasy is still a fantasy, a desire still a desire.

They are all still fantasy. Do you have a problem with mastabatory fantasy?

No, not really.

On what basis do you get to judge other people's fantasies as "immoral"?

What do mean with get to judge? Head full of law again? I don't have to ask anybody to let me dislike adults' fantasies about having sex with children. I can dislike it and present you with my reasons for disliking it on my own. See moral

"fantasy" itself is an abstraction. And so is "idea". As is "kiddie Porn". What is wrong with abstraction?

Nothing wrong with abstraction. A lot wrong with abstractions that choose to neglect aspects of reality: idea, as you use it, is an abstraction from feelings, fantasies, desires etc. You choose not to distinguish between them and treat them all as ideas.

None of your links contradict this, and indeed, you links about "Pornography" and "Erotica" emphasise the fuzziness of the categories.

On purpose! Not the categories so much as the precise point where one becomes the other. Wiki's explanation of Pornography contradicts itself.

No, I'm attempting to distinguish which elements of "kiddie porn" are dealing with ideas you find immoral, which deal in ideas that you find acceptable, and which actually harm people.

"Immoral" was never my point! There are a lot of ways of ruining people's lives that are considered very moral.

Labeling a vauge group of ideas of which you do not approve under the blanket category "kiddie porn" is what is confusing.

The particular fantasies catering to paedophiles are not particularly vague.

Distinguish it for me. What is the difference?

Well, for one, I don't think that anybody is masturbating to your last post ... or this one! They wouldn't be suited for that purpose, since they don't contain fantasies about children being undressed or made to touch or be touched inappropriately (for lack of a better word) by adults.

What they are "doing" is exchanging ideas. When they go beyond that, I don't like it either.

No, what they are doing is exchanging porn. You know the difference, you just don't want to acknowledge it.

What is it? what is the "actual" difference? Given that you have confessed you have no damned idea what the specific content of "kiddie porn" is, what makes you think you can pretend you know what goes on in a "paedophile kiddie porn ring"?

No, a couple of times you have tried to impress us with your extensive knowledge or pornography and you may be right, I don't know. If you receive cable TV in Copenhagen you have access to two porn channels, one 'soft' = no actual penetration, the other one 'hard' = penetration and close ups. I'm pretty sure that this covers 90% of porn; let's call it mainstream porn. I guess the majority of the remaining 10 % would be gay porn, let's call it mainstream gay porn, and what is left would then be SM, urine, bondage etc. And for a very small discerning minority would follow 'under the counter' sex with animals etc.
Everybody knows approximately what kiddie porn consists of. It's been shown on Danish TV with faces and other body parts covered. You may consider yourself an expert because you have actually seen it. The rest of us don't need to see it.

ETA: If having "a head full of law" is a bad thing, as you seem to intimate, does that mean all lawyers, judges and legislators, as well as policemen, insurance agents, OSHA inspectors, doctors, and so on are "confused" as well?

I hope for their sake that lawyers and judges are able to stop watching the world through the glasses of jurisprudence when they leave the office. What doctors have to do with this is beyond me.

If having "a head full of law" is a bad thing, what is yours full of?

The problem with having a head full of law is that the law does not look at things to find out what they are. That is what science does. The law looks at things in order to establish which chapter and statute of the law covers it. That is a completely different thing. Science categorizes the world according to the laws you find in the world (the Swedish scientist Linné, for instance). The law, jurisprudence, catetorises the world not according to the world's categories, but according to the law's!
You do the same thing here, which is why you refuse to see things for what they are. You would rather see them as something else in order to make them fit into the slots where you would like to place them: 'kiddie porn is an idea, the law talks about free exchange of ideas, consequently the law says (or ought to say) OK to kiddie porn ...'

 

[varwoche]

I am going to ask you to either take my word for it or to actually read the articles yourself, as opposed to skimming and cherry-picking.

Holy cow. If I "cherry-picked" any further I'd be in violation of rule 4. Whereas you quote exactly nothing from the article you cited -- the article that diametrically contradicts you.

As to taking your word for it ... this defies credulity of course. It's not a topic I intended to rehash until I noticed this gem...

I'm not hugely interested in your [dann's] opinions on the matter if you have no hard evidence

 

[Dave1001]

No, a desire still remains a desire; a desire that hasn't been put into practice.
That somebody suddenly turns into a paedophile? I don't think so. It wouldn't be that sudden. Neither would falling out of being a paedophile which is one of the reason why kiddie porn should be discouraged.
As a definition, however, it is very good.
No, a fantasy is still a fantasy, a desire still a desire.
No, not really.
What do mean with get to judge? Head full of law again? I don't have to ask anybody to let me dislike adults' fantasies about having sex with children. I can dislike it and present you with my reasons for disliking it on my own. See moral
Nothing wrong with abstraction. A lot wrong with abstractions that choose to neglect aspects of reality: idea, as you use it, is an abstraction from feelings, fantasies, desires etc. You choose not to distinguish between them and treat them all as ideas.
On purpose! Not the categories so much as the precise point where one becomes the other. Wiki's explanation of Pornography contradicts itself.
"Immoral" was never my point! There are a lot of ways of ruining people's lives that are considered very moral.
The particular fantasies catering to paedophiles are not particularly vague.
Well, for one, I don't think that anybody is masturbating to your last post ... or this one! They wouldn't be suited for that purpose, since they don't contain fantasies about children being undressed or made to touch or be touched inappropriately (for lack of a better word) by adults.
No, what they are doing is exchanging porn. You know the difference, you just don't want to acknowledge it.

In the above quote you seem to be saying that kiddie porn includes pseudo child pornography, where there are still pornographic ideas of adult-child sex being disseminated, even if no actual children are used in making it.

But in the below quote you seem to be saying that kiddie porn is only that porn which uses actual children. No mention here of media which has the idea of adult-child sex but no actual children in it.

Does your definition of kiddie porn include pseudo child pornography or not?

If you receive cable TV in Copenhagen you have access to two porn channels, one 'soft' = no actual penetration, the other one 'hard' = penetration and close ups. I'm pretty sure that this covers 90% of porn; let's call it mainstream porn. I guess the majority of the remaining 10 % would be gay porn, let's call it mainstream gay porn, and what is left would then be SM, urine, bondage etc. And for a very small discerning minority would follow 'under the counter' sex with animals etc.
Everybody knows approximately what kiddie porn consists of. It's been shown on Danish TV with faces and other body parts covered. You may consider yourself an expert because you have actually seen it. The rest of us don't need to see it.

 

[The Atheist]

I'd like to nominate this entire thread as a perfect example of where the line between skepticism^TM and stupidity are blurred.

On the basis that several people here are posting, I could make a case for paedophilia, open-ended pornography, genocide and slavery as being perfectly acceptable as there is no evidence that they don't advance the human race.

Thank god I'm an atheist and not a skeptic^TM It's heartwarming to see just how many of these same arguments are supported by members of Stormfront.

Thank god even more that MEN make laws, not namby-pamby, bleeding heart libberuls and skeptics^TM.

 

[hammegk]

My apologies to The Atheist who doesn't fit his title imo. And I apologise too for a crosspost:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110009482

For them, belief in God is beyond childish, it is unsuitable for children. Today's atheists are particularly disgusted by the religious training of young people--which Dr. Dawkins calls "a form of child abuse." He even floats the idea that the state should intervene to protect children from their parents' religious beliefs.

For the new atheists, believing in God is a form of stupidity, which sets off their own intelligence. They write as if they were the first to discover that biblical miracles are improbable, that Parson Weems was a fabulist, that religion is full of superstition. They write as if great minds had never before wrestled with the big questions of creation, moral law and the contending versions of revealed truth. They argue as if these questions are easily answered by their own blunt materialism. Most of all, they assume that no intelligent, reflective person could ever defend religion rather than dismiss it. The reviewer of Dr. Dawkins's volume in a recent New York Review of Books noted his unwillingness to take theology seriously, a starting point for any considered debate over religion.

The faith that the new atheists describe is a simple-minded parody. It is impossible to see within it what might have preoccupied great artists and thinkers like Homer, Milton, Michelangelo, Newton and Spinoza--let alone Aquinas, Dr. Johnson, Kierkegaard, Goya, Cardinal Newman, Reinhold Niebuhr or, for that matter, Albert Einstein. But to pass over this deeper faith--the kind that engaged the great minds of Western history--is to diminish the loss of faith too. The new atheists are separated from the old by their shallowness.

Seems apt here, too.