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

[Piscivore]

Appears to be the opposite of your own description, but if you're welcome to give it any label you like. Given that it does contain absolutes, I fail to see it myself.

"I don't see any one position having a mortgage on morality" = "conceptions of... moral values are... relative to the persons or groups holding them"

"evolving" = "not absolute"

"contain[ing] absolutes" != "absolute"

Eh? That post alone should make it clear that I do find christians worth talking to. If you read it in context, I was saying that CTists have no redeeming features, exactly the opposite of christians, who often do.

Honestly, I've not paid that much attention to you thusfar. I've skimmed a few posts previous to this thread, formed a first impression. If I've misunderstood you, I again apologise.

 

[Piscivore]

I concluded it from some statements you made: If you're not and I am wrong, I will be happy to hear your explanation of your exact stance. Succintly, of course.

In this case, I was interested in what a fellow atheist might have as a moral basis, so I took up a contrary position to challenge him.

I think that there is a objective basis to morality, and it will be and is being found in our biological makeup. As we learn more about how our brain works we uncover it. I do not pretend to know what exact shape it will take, or even what progress has been made so far. It would seem to me that intellectual freedom is key to this morality, and even to the process of uncovering it.

Oh, bollocks and codswallop. The Atheist made a statement about the relation of moral systems to other things; you decried it as "incorrect", IOW you made a truth value statement about his system of relations to morality. Get it straight, fer crissakes.

No, actually, I made a statement about atheism being a factor in the difference between relativist and absolutist moral theories. He said I was wrong, and I said he was wrong about my being wrong. No one discussed any specifics of the "moral systems" in question.

ETA: I made a "truth value" statement about his analogy about my statement about something I felt was a factor in deciding between relativism and absoluteism that he did not.

Not all "truth value statements" are moral "truth value statements." in this case it was a "truth value statement" about a fact, not a moral judgement.

If I had asked if his atheism influenced whether he would save a drowning child, or how it affected his definition of "pornography", you might have something, but I didn't. We were not discussing systems, but theory.

It involved most certainly morality,

The word came up, yes. But we could just as well have been discussing his cosmology or how he spends his Sunday mornings.

and you are simply not being honest here.

See, you can't just say I'm wrong anymore, I have to be a liar.

Here FYI is The Atheist's statement yet again:
"Playing rugby has exactly the same to do with morality as atheism; zero."

"Playing rugby has exactly the same to do with cosmology as atheism; zero."
"Playing rugby has exactly the same to do with how I spend my Sundays as atheism; zero."

So The Atheist was saying atheism has nothing to do with morality, just as rugby doesn't; you flat-out told him he was wrong, and only said "See above" as to why he was wrong.

"See above" means I had just typed the reason in the same post and didn't feel it was necessary to retype it again. Since you've twice demonstrated that you do not read my entire posts and I wasn't talking to you in the first place, What is your point?

So you are not being honest at all when you claim it was not about a moral relation; sheeeeesh, what's the matter with you?

See above.

Ah, you are defending inconsistancy then.

When there is no relation to require consistancy, yes. Treating my child different than my cat is "inconsistant", isn't it?

Don't be so stupidly silly. If you want private discussions unmarred by the intrusion of others, grow up, and use PM's or email instead. This is a public bulletin board.

I'm not opposed to the "intrusion of others", in fact I enjoy it. What I don't get is why you abandon discussions we two were having to nitpick at me in a discussion I'm having with someone else. Did you find all those strawmen you said I was using? Have you accounted for the discrepancy between your definition of "subjectivism" and your own source?

Now you are drama-queening; I have no idea why you conclude I have anything specially in for you, but your paranoia is simply unwarrented;

No drama, no paranoia, just puzzlement.

I assure you, I have no special attitude to you whatsoever, and you are a mere blip on my horizon.

Then why do you abandon discussions we two were having to nitpick at me in a discussion I'm having with someone else?

So grow up already if you want to have an adult discussion.

Heh.

 

[The Atheist]

I think that there is a objective basis to morality, and it will be and is being found in our biological makeup. As we learn more about how our brain works we uncover it. I do not pretend to know what exact shape it will take, or even what progress has been made so far. It would seem to me that intellectual freedom is key to this morality, and even to the process of uncovering it.

I hope you're wrong.

Stuff like that just comes across as too deterministic and I hope that isn't what it's about.

On balance, I'd rather find god than determinism.

(I know that's to Gurdur, but I'll chip in with my 2 cents)

No worries on seeing me as an anti-theist, lots of people do, somtimes I come across that way.

 

[Piscivore]

I hope you're wrong.

Stuff like that just comes across as too deterministic and I hope that isn't what it's about.

It was really hard for me to give up "free will". Even now, it's hard to not default to those concepts in conversation.

Kinda like when you give up god, at first.

On balance, I'd rather find god than determinism.

You gotta go where the evidence leads.

(I know that's to Gurdur, but I'll chip in with my 2 cents)

Hey, if he can cut in I guess you can too.

 

[The Atheist]

It was really hard for me to give up "free will". Even now, it's hard to not default to those concepts in conversation.

I take it that means that you are a determinist?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Why am I not surprised that you don't get it, Kevin?

If you think there is something important that I do not get, then explain it to me. Preferably without rhetorical questions, appeals to emotion, personal attacks or blatant cop-outs.

I am not saying that you have used such tactics in the past, just saying that I would greatly appreciate it if you did not start using them now.

 

[Piscivore]

I take it that means that you are a determinist?

Short answer, yes.

 

[dann]

And why do you have to make yet another abstraction from what this case is actually about?

I think there are defensible arguments for saying that it should be illegal to possess or distribute pictures of other people, if those other people do not want their pictures possessed or distributed. I think there are also defensible arguments for saying that criminalising such possession or distribution is a bad idea.

"... pictures of other people ..."!!! Are you actually unable to make the distinction or are you just being silly? Are you actually unable to distinguish between kiddie porn and a photo of somebody who did not look his best that day and therefore does not want the photo distributed?
Aren't you even able to see the distortions of the facts you have to make in order to present the case as an example where "criminalising such possession or distribution is a bad idea."? Is there no length you won't go to in your pursuit of presenting the "possession or distribution" of child pornography as something that "there are also defensible (!) arguments for"?

OK, so let's rewrite it in order to make you feel better: No rhetorical questions.
1) You abstract completely from what the case is actually about: sexual abuse of a child and using photos from the abuse as pornography.
2) You don't distinguish between kiddie porn and a photo of somebody who just does not like a photo for some personal reason and therefore does not want to have other people distribute and see it. On the contrary. This is the point you try to make: It's just somebody who does not like a photo of herself.
3) When you argue against criminalising the possession and distribution of child pornography, you abstract from what it is: Your definition of "such possession" leaves completely out of the picture what we are actually talking about: child pornography.
4) Apparently there is no lenght you won't go to, intellectually, to defend the "possession or distribution" of child pornography. You defend it by neglecting what it actually is.

See? No rhetorical questions!
Do you agree, Roadtoad?

 

[Roadtoad]

OK, so let's rewrite it in order to make you feel better: No rhetorical questions.
1) You abstract completely from what the case is actually about: sexual abuse of a child and using photos from the abuse as pornography.
2) You don't distinguish between kiddie porn and a photo of somebody who just does not like a photo for some personal reason and therefore does not want to have other people distribute and see it. On the contrary. This is the point you try to make: It's just somebody who does not like a photo of herself.
3) When you argue against criminalising the possession and distribution of child pornography, you abstract from what it is: Your definition of "such possession" leaves completely out of the picture what we are actually talking about: child pornography.
4) Apparently there is no lenght you won't go to, intellectually, to defend the "possession or distribution" of child pornography. You defend it by neglecting what it actually is.

See? No rhetorical questions!
Do you agree, Roadtoad?

I agree, and it's worth a nomination, too.

Damn, I love this board!

 

[The Atheist]

Short answer, yes.

Excellent!

Short answers are good, especially when one will suffice.

Interesting. I've never met a fully-convinced determinist before. I've met several people who claimed to be, but upon investigation, they've really been fatalists in disguise.

I'm going to work on the premise that you're clearly smart enough not to be mistaken on that, and that you're not a compatibilist, going by your free will comments.

I can see the attraction in determinism exactly as I can see the attraction in religion. Determinism just seems to be ID minus god. Granted, a strict determinist offers sufficiently myriad choices that the illusion of free will is enough for most people anyway. I just like to hope there's more.

 

[Piscivore]

Excellent!

Short answers are good, especially when one will suffice.

Indeed.

Interesting. I've never met a fully-convinced determinist before.

Well, let's say 92% convinced.

I've met several people who claimed to be, but upon investigation, they've really been fatalists in disguise.

I'm going to work on the premise that you're clearly smart enough not to be mistaken on that,

Heh, thanks.

When I'm in a bad mood I flirt with Nihilsm, but, no. Not a Fatalist.

and that you're not a compatibilist, going by your free will comments.

That depends on if you are speaking of Hume's brand or Dennett's.

I can see the attraction in determinism exactly as I can see the attraction in religion. Determinism just seems to be ID minus god.

How so? I don't see that at all.

Granted, a strict determinist offers sufficiently myriad choices that the illusion of free will is enough for most people anyway.

It has to be.

I just like to hope there's more.

Like what, exactly?

 

[The Atheist]

That depends on if you are speaking of Hume's brand or Dennett's.

Haven't read either of them, so I have no idea.

Like what, exactly?

I'd like to think that true spontaneity exists, that somewhere along the line I can make a decision which isn't either nature or nurture, just something for the hell of it.

 

[Earthborn]

Haven't read either of them, so I have no idea.I'd like to think that true spontaneity exists,

Sounds to me like your position is more like Intelligent Design that the position of determinists is. You like to think that something exists and therefore believe that it exists, just like IDers like to think an Intelligent Designer exists and believe that it exists.

that somewhere along the line I can make a decision which isn't either nature or nurture, just something for the hell of it.

That might be true, if and only if all the laws of nature as we know them today are completely and utterly wrong. As far as physics is concerned, it is either determinism or non-determinism caused by random factors. There may be a small chance there is a place for "conciousness", but none whatsoever for the concept of libertarian Free Will. Even the existence of God is more likely.

Sorry, you're bound by the laws of physics just like the rest of us.

 

[Piscivore]

Haven't read either of them, so I have no idea.

Per Wiki:
"According to Hume, free will should not be understood as an absolute ability to have chosen differently under exactly the same inner and outer circumstances. Rather, it is a hypothetical ability to have chosen differently if one had been differently psychologically disposed by some different beliefs or desires."
This to me is tautological ('if things were different things would be different') and pretty meaningless.

"Dennett's stance on free will is compatibilism with an evolutionary twist – the view that, although in the strict physical sense our actions are pre-determined, we can still be free in all the ways that matter, because of the abilities we evolved. Free will, seen this way, is about freedom to make decisions without duress, as opposed to an impossible and unnecessary freedom from causality itself."
I've not read him yet either, but this sounds like what I got from reading "Beyond Freedon and Dignity" by Skinner.

I'd like to think that true spontaneity exists, that somewhere along the line I can make a decision which isn't either nature or nurture, just something for the hell of it.

Why? What would be special about that?

 

[Piscivore]

I agree, and it's worth a nomination, too.

Damn, I love this board!

Do you care why he's wrong?

 

[The Atheist]

Sounds to me like your position is more like Intelligent Design that the position of determinists is. You like to think that something exists and therefore believe that it exists, just like IDers like to think an Intelligent Designer exists and believe that it exists.

And it sounds to me as though you're typing through a hole in the wrong end.

I haven't said that I believe it exists - I've expressed a hope - that free will might exist. Get off'n ya hoss, lady [?] and get back to the saloon. When I start saying it's what I believe, then you can take the argument up, meanwhile you can shove in the hole doing the typing.

Cheers

That might be true, if and only if all the laws of nature as we know them today are completely and utterly wrong. As far as physics is concerned, it is either determinism or non-determinism caused by random factors. There may be a small chance there is a place for "conciousness", but none whatsoever for the concept of libertarian Free Will. Even the existence of God is more likely.

Sorry, you're bound by the laws of physics just like the rest of us.

But good on ya for following it up with this load of steaming manure.

Congrats for keeping the thread in this new and far more interesting direction.

Pity you have nothing to add.

 

[The Atheist]

"Dennett's stance on free will is compatibilism with an evolutionary twist – the view that, although in the strict physical sense our actions are pre-determined, we can still be free in all the ways that matter, because of the abilities we evolved. Free will, seen this way, is about freedom to make decisions without duress, as opposed to an impossible and unnecessary freedom from causality itself."
I've not read him yet either, but this sounds like what I got from reading "Beyond Freedon and Dignity" by Skinner.

Ok, that's an all-embracing answer. I could probably buy that, because what it's saying is that within the scope of our knowledge and ability, we can exercise free will.

We can't decide whether or not we want to eat or love groungecks since nobody has any knowledge of groungecks? Makes sense.

Why? What would be special about that?

I'm a longshot punter.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

OK, so let's rewrite it in order to make you feel better: No rhetorical questions.
1) You abstract completely from what the case is actually about: sexual abuse of a child and using photos from the abuse as pornography.

This is where you should explain what exactly about such cases differentiates them from all other possible cases of people possessing photos of other people, which the other people are distressed by them having.

This is an example of what I referred to as a blatant cop-out.

2) You don't distinguish between kiddie porn and a photo of somebody who just does not like a photo for some personal reason and therefore does not want to have other people distribute and see it. On the contrary. This is the point you try to make: It's just somebody who does not like a photo of herself.

One is a subset of the other. If you want that particular subset to be treated differently it's up to you to explain why it should be treated differently.

3) When you argue against criminalising the possession and distribution of child pornography, you abstract from what it is: Your definition of "such possession" leaves completely out of the picture what we are actually talking about: child pornography.

If I use a less emotive term to refer to exactly the same thing, it is not a cunning trick intended to fool you. We're referring to exactly the same thing. You are pitching a fit over terminology to avoid talking about actual issues.

4) Apparently there is no lenght you won't go to, intellectually, to defend the "possession or distribution" of child pornography. You defend it by neglecting what it actually is.

That's it? That's the extent of your argument? "You use less emotive terms than I do, therefore there is no length you won't go to to defend child pornography"?

This is just the appeal to emotion fallacy worked backwards. "This person is not using appeals to emotion in place of logical argument, therefore he is defending paedophilia". Nice.

See? No rhetorical questions!
Do you agree, Roadtoad?

I agree you stopped using rhetorical questions. You ignored everything else I asked for though. All you've done is build a shrine to the appeal to emotion fallacy, and then insult both myself and our collective intelligence by assuming that if I don't wallow in the appeal to emotion fallacy I must have an evil paedophile agenda.

I still want to see you try to make a post that contains sensible arguments, does not rely on appeals to emotion, does not assume what it should be proving and does not contain unjustifiable personal attacks.

 

[dann]

You are very good at false abstractions, Kevin. That, however, does not make it a question of using more or less "emotive" terms. I have already used the example of murder as a "subcategory" of human behaviour. You don't criticize human behaviour in general because you criticize murder. When you abstract from murder, it is only because you don't want to deal with reality, not because you are looking for a less "emotive" term.
You might also describe a crime like using the nerve gas sarin to poison people as merely an example of somebody polluting breathing air, thus equating it with, for instance, smoking tobacco. However, smoking tobacco is not equated with mass murder in reality merely because somebody creates a false abstraction that does.

I can see why some people would like to prevent the use of emotive language when referring to the case of Marsha Allen. Any defense lawyer, for instance, probably would.
But let’s take a look at he case in hand:

This article from today's paper made me think of this thread, so I thought I'd link to it for the perspective of a child whose pictures appear in 80% of kiddie porn collections
http://www.thestar.com/article/169555
http://www.thestar.com/article/169557

Let’s hear what the [emotive language]poor[/emotive language] girl has to say:

When I arrived at Matthew's house, I was only five years old and didn't know much English. I did know that he didn't have a bedroom for me. Or a bed. Instead I slept with him in his bed for almost five years until I was 10 years old. During that time Matthew made me have sex with him every day.

As far as I can see, this is not a very emotive way of describing what happened to her, is it? OK, I might object to the euphemism of ”slept with”, but what the hell …

He made me take showers with him ... Sometimes he chained me in the basement and took pictures of me with dildos or dressed in a wedding gown. He would pretend to marry me and then make me have sex with him. There was oral sex, anal sex, dildos and sex toys. He did and made me do terrifying things when I was just 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 years old.

What would you object to in this description, Kevin? The word ”terrifying”, I presume. Or maybe you would prefer to rephrase the sentence “He made me take showers with him” as 'Like most other foster parents he was naturally concerned about my personal hygiene' ….

I can't even remember all the abusive things he did to me. Unfortunately, though, I can't forget because there are pictures of the abuse. Hundreds and hundreds of pictures of Matthew doing horrible things to me like the kind I describe above. ... All of this and I was just a child. Since he didn't want me to grow up, he only let me eat a little bit of food – plain pasta, raw vegetables, no meat. Five years after I went to live with him I had only gained a little bit of weight. When the FBI found me I was 10 years old but only wore a size 6X.

Wow, here the girl gets outrageously emotional using words such as ”abusive” and ”horrible”! We must avoid that at all costs! You would probably prefer to rephrase the second half as, 'he was seriously concerned about my weight and did everything in his power to avoid that I become a victim of the curse of obesity'.

The absolute worse thing about everything that happened to me was that Matthew put my pictures on the Internet. He traded them with other people like baseball cards. What kind of people want to see pictures of a little girl being abused in this way?

The absolute worse thing about this paragraph – Isn’t it as obvious to the rest of you as it is to me? – is that the dirty little manipulative whore ends this paragraph with a rhetorical question!!!

OK, let’s get ‘unemotional’ and see how you, Kevin, would like to describe this case:

downloading a picture of a crime long after the criminal involved has been brought to justice is simply not morally equivalent to committing that crime in the first place. Even if a child abuse victim says otherwise.

I think there are defensible arguments for saying that it should be illegal to possess or distribute pictures of other people, if those other people do not want their pictures possessed or distributed. I think there are also defensible arguments for saying that criminalising such possession or distribution is a bad idea.

We are no longer dealing with rape, statutory rape, sexual abuse, abuse of a child in your care, which would all be categories that abstract from the actual case. Instead you insist on using the word ”crime” in order to put in on par - not with other such cases, but – with shoplifting, joyriding or similar crimes. And in the manner of somebody joyriding who may find it a little disconcerting that a video of his crime and apprehension can now be found on YouTube, it may be quite understandable that this particular little girl does not like to see photos of herself as a six-year-old, dressed in a wedding dress and with a dildo inserted in her vagina, being downloaded by perverts who get off on this. But it’s probably just due to her age. Hopefully, when she grows up, she won’t be so emotional about the whole thing ….

I feel an ad hom coming up, Kevin, but I simply cannot think of words to describe you!

 

[dann]

For some weird reason Piscivore wants to export his defence of paedophiles to a different thread that has absolutely nothing to do with the theme.