No, a desire still remains a desire; a desire that hasn't been put into practice.
And where does a "desire that hasn't been put into practice" reside, Hmm? In the pedophile's bedside table? In a nice little box on his coffee table, perhaps?
idea
• noun
1 a thought or suggestion about a possible course of action.
2 a mental impression.
3 a belief.
4 (the idea) the aim or purpose.
A "desire" or a "want" fit well within the first definition.
That somebody suddenly turns into a paedophile? I don't think so. It wouldn't be that sudden.
Again, on what basis do you make this assesment? You have none.
Neither would falling out of being a paedophile which is one of the reason why kiddie porn should be discouraged.
You don't know. I don't know. But given that you later say that you feel that pedophiles should be treated, and this may well be the case, wouldn't it be important to determine the actual causes of this disorder and an effective treatment, rather than basing it on emotionally generated, completely uninformed opinon?
As a definition, however, it is very good.
No, it isn't. Really.
No, a fantasy is still a fantasy, a desire still a desire.
Wrong. See above.
What do mean with get to judge?
"Kiddie porn is bad and should be discouraged." That's a judgement.
Head full of English.
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
I don't speak or read German, sorry.
moral • noun
2 (morals) standards of behaviour, or principles of right and wrong.
Distinguishing between "principles of right and wrong" is judging.
Not all judgements are legal.
judgement(also judgment)
• noun
1 the ability to make considered decisions or form sensible opinions.
2 an opinion or conclusion.
3 a decision of a law court or judge.
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.
I treat all mental activity generated by the brain the same, yes. In this way the use of "idea" is not an abstraction from feelings, fantasies, or desires, but a simple application of the relevant definition. See above.
In any case, your hair-splitting is for naught, because I'm not arguing "freedom of ideas" but "freedom of expression":
self-expression
• noun
the expression of one’s feelings or thoughts, especially in writing, art, music, or dance.
So even if you want to count them as distict, which you seem to but I do not, they both are included.
On purpose! Not the categories so much as the precise point where one becomes the other.
So how does one decide which to encourage and which to not?
Wiki's explanation of Pornography contradicts itself.
Exactly. Most of our cultures' attitudes and thinking about this subject are still mired in the Victorian era.
"Immoral" was never my point!
Legality was not your point, morality is not your point. What was your point?
There are a lot of ways of ruining people's lives that are considered very moral.
Name one.
The particular fantasies catering to paedophiles are not particularly vague.
You don't know- you do not know what they are.
Do you have any idea what the most popular form of "kiddie porn" on the web is right now? I bet you wouldn't ever guess.
Well, for one, I don't think that anybody is masturbating to your last post ...
If only... *sigh*
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.
And your expertise on what people want to masturbate to comes from where?
No, what they are doing is exchanging porn. You know the difference, you just don't want to acknowledge it.
I wanted to hear what you thought it was. We have very different ideas about a lot of things, I don't want to mistake you.
What is wrong with exchanging porn?
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.
So then you admit you have no basis for any of your claims about pornography.
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.
That's it? You poor fellow.
Still, that's better than I get on my cable.
I'm pretty sure that this covers 90% of porn;
Not even close. That's barely the tip of the f[rule 8]g iceberg, so to speak.
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.
In my experience BDSM seems to have a slight edge on "straight" sex, and Gay sex eclipses both. Pedo and pseudo-pedo is right up there too. I won't pretend at citing percentages, but your "mainstream" porn seems to be in a clear minority.
Everybody knows approximately what kiddie porn consists of.
If you are "everybody" then "everybody" is wrong.
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.
Such an enlightened, skeptical view you have.
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.
Why? And through what lenses would you have them look?
What doctors have to do with this is beyond me.
All the occupations I mentioned, and many many more- if not almost all- are heavily regulated.
The problem with having a head full of law is that the law does not look at things to find out what they are.
Bullsh[rule 8]t. Prove it.
That is what science does.
Indeed, and it does it best- but hardly exclusively. And is there some reason you feel that law cannot make use of science?
The law looks at things in order to establish which chapter and statute of the law covers it.
Enforcement does. Not legislation. Apparently not "having a head full of law" = ignorance. Is that what you are advocating? It's shaping up to look like you are.
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!
That's just weak-ass equivocation.
science
• noun
1 the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
2 a systematically organized body of knowledge on any subject.
No mention of "the laws you find in the world", certainly no suggestion that is the criteria by which knowledge is "systematically organised".
law
• noun
1 a rule or system of rules recognized by a country or community as regulating the actions of its members and enforced by the imposition of penalties.
2 such rules as a subject of study or as the basis of the legal profession.
3 statute law and the common law.
4 a statement of fact to the effect that a particular natural or scientific phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions are present.
5 a rule defining correct procedure or behaviour in a sport.
6 something having binding force or effect: his word was law.
7 (the law) informal the police.
Oh, there we have a mention of science and law- there in number 4. But gee, it only talks about one type of fact statement, not the basis for the syystematic organisation of a body of knowledge.
Also note that Law, as you used it above, does not "categorise the world", it "regulate
the actions of [a country or community's] members".
You do the same thing here, which is why you refuse to see things for what they are.
No, sorry, that's you. You have demonstrated you have formed your opinions on this subject out of complete ignorance. How, exactly, does one "see things for what they are" without ever looking?
You would rather see them as something else in order to make them fit into the slots where you would like to place them:
Again, that is you. You cannot even give a coherent criteria for what constitutes "kiddie porn" beyond "it's obvious", and when pressed admit to the fact the definitions we have are fuzzy and inadequate.
'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 ...'
Wrong.
"Freedom of expression" is not limited to "free exchange of ideas", although that is included.
