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

[The Atheist]

Well, Atheist, we agree about paedophilia and kiddie porn, but ... I've never made a single law nor did I ever send anybody to jail. And I think that goes for the majority of people too!

Sorry mate, but I'm with Piscivore on this one - that's exactly who sends people to jail - the majority.

If the majority felt differently, we'd have different laws.

 

[The Atheist]

A majority in the wrong is still wrong.

Tw points there. One - Slartibartfast, "I'd rather be happy tham right."
Two - I'm by no means convinced that the current law is wrong. I think it's a case of doubt prevails, children at stake, have tougher laws than pure logic may dictate.

Usually we call them "Chrisitians" Or "Muslims".

Well, you're going to have to add atheists into the mix, too! I'm not gonna let those damn religious types have the monopoly on uncritical thinking.

What exactly, do you care about, though? Keeping children safe from harm, controlling those who differ from you, assuaging your own emotional upset, or something else?

The "we care" comment is a colloquial statement, which actually means the exact opposite - referring to caring about Kevin's views - caring not at all.

What I do care about, though, is the kids. You've seen the results, from Road and Sling, about what can happen when children are molested. The line between abuse and consent is blurred and will always be so as humans mature at different ages and stages. We make laws to try to suit every situation, but never can and as I see it, the law occupies the middle ground with no real need for change. When kids are involved, I'm one of those parents who's happy to be a little over-protective. If that upsets a few people, I'm not going to lose sleep over it.

 

[dann]

Look up "Godwin's Law" and get back to me with what you think I mean by that.

I am familiar with Godwin's law, is not relevant in this context.

Do you understand the lawmaking process in a democratic country?

Yes, but apparently you don't.

Despite your personal political views you live in a representative democracy.

I live in a representative democracy/constitutional monarchy, yes, but neither because of nor despite of my political views.

 

[Piscivore]

Tw points there. One - Slartibartfast, "I'd rather be happy tham right."

I guess I don't get which side of that false dichotomy you are advocating, I guess.

In any case, don't leave off the rest:
Arther Dent: "And are you?"
Slartibartfast: "No, that's where it all goes wrong of course."

Two - I'm by no means convinced that the current law is wrong.

Which current law?

I think it's a case of doubt prevails, children at stake, have tougher laws than pure logic may dictate.

I think that is very very wrong, and I personally feel that that sort of over-reaction out of ignorance has resulted in far more trouble that it's eliminated over the centuries.

Well, you're going to have to add atheists into the mix, too! I'm not gonna let those damn religious types have the monopoly on uncritical thinking.

Heh.

The "we care" comment is a colloquial statement, which actually means the exact opposite - referring to caring about Kevin's views - caring not at all.

He does care. He just cares about something different than you. And I care about something different from you both.

What I do care about, though, is the kids.

I don't? And just "caring about the kids" doesn't suddenly make you an expert on all issues relating to them. Quite a few, if not most, of the alleged parents up here in the US think that "caring" for their kids means prolonging infancy and childhood as long as possible, even up to and past their late teens. Is that "caring"?

You've seen the results, from Road and Sling, about what can happen when children are molested.

Yes. And it is horrible. How does banning "child pornography", when there are no children involved, help stop that?

The line between abuse and consent is blurred and will always be so as humans mature at different ages and stages.

I've left the consent issue to Kevin. I'm content where it is in my community, though probably for different reasons than you and Toad.

We make laws to try to suit every situation,

Realistically, no, we don't.

but never can and as I see it, the law occupies the middle ground with no real need for change.

Laws always need changing. Else we'd fire all the legistators.

When kids are involved, I'm one of those parents who's happy to be a little over-protective.

Why?
And why does that only go for someone else's kids?
Me: "So you raised your children in a bubble? I hope that works out for you. I chose the opposite tack, and I couln't be more pleased with my kids."
You: "Not at all. I've raised my kids very liberally and truthfully and with the oldest now 16, I'm very happy with where they are, emotionally and physically."

 

[Piscivore]

I am familiar with Godwin's law, is not relevant in this context.

Those in a representative democracy who absolve themselves of the responsibility for the laws they live under simply because they don't personally make or enforce them aren't any better than those who did the same when Hitler and his gang were doing their thing. IMO.

Yes, but apparently you don't.

How so?

I live in a representative democracy/constitutional monarchy, yes, but neither because of nor despite of my political views.

No, in your case it appears to be simply inertia.

 

[dann]

Those in a representative democracy who absolve themselves of the responsibility for the laws they live under simply because they don't personally make or enforce them aren't any better than those who did the same when Hitler and his gang were doing their thing. IMO.

Right! Another one I didn't vote for! I can see why you are so interested in Godwin's law!

 

[Piscivore]

Right! Another one I didn't vote for! I can see why you are so interested in Godwin's law!

Didn't vote for, and wouldn't go out of your way to oppose, either? After all, YOU don't make the laws, YOU don't put the people in prison.

 

[The Atheist]

I guess I don't get which side of that false dichotomy you are advocating, I guess.

In any case, don't leave off the rest:
Arther Dent: "And are you?"
Slartibartfast: "No, that's where it all goes wrong of course."

Ah, but I am happy, that's why I stopped at that point.

Which current law?

The ones which relate to consent, pornography, child pornography etc., as they relate to this subject.

I think that is very very wrong, and I personally feel that that sort of over-reaction out of ignorance has resulted in far more trouble that it's eliminated over the centuries.

Again. We care!

He does care. He just cares about something different than you. And I care about something different from you both.

No, I just don't care what Kevin thinks. I don't care why he thinks it, either. He's on the side of he fence with fewest proponents and he and those others - yourself included - are wasting their time.

I repeat, if you want to find out about irrational attitudes to this subject, take a petition to your local shopping mall. What I occupy is the safe, middle-ground between you and Kevin on one side and burning at the stake on the other. How do you think a petition would go calling for legalisation of child porn on the proviso that it doesn't contain children? You'd be lynched!

I don't? And just "caring about the kids" doesn't suddenly make you an expert on all issues relating to them. Quite a few, if not most, of the alleged parents up here in the US think that "caring" for their kids means prolonging infancy and childhood as long as possible, even up to and past their late teens. Is that "caring"?

No, the caring about kids doesn't make me an expert, but a lifetime dealing with them has.

I have no problem with prolonging childhood, in fact, depending upon the levels we're talking about, it's a trend I'd be very happy with. Far better that than sexualising seven and eight year olds. You'd need to explain the type of thing you mean, because I'm not familiar with it as a lifestyle choice. Mostly, I see the opposite, with parents more likely to try to get their kids grown up as fast as humanly possible.

Yes. And it is horrible. How does banning "child pornography", when there are no children involved, help stop that?

Let me know how that petition gets on, eh? Whether or not that type of porn encourages or discourages paedophilia, I don't know and nor does anyone else, at this stage. In the unlikely event it can be conclusively shown that child-free kiddie porn is a good thing, that's the time to raise it.

Realistically, no, we don't.

Well, realistically, that's exactly what we do do - there are laws to suit all situations, that's why there are so bloody many of them.

Laws always need changing. Else we'd fire all the legistators.

Agree. Most changes are brought about by public pressure. How's that petition shaping up?

Why?
And why does that only go for someone else's kids?
Me: "So you raised your children in a bubble? I hope that works out for you. I chose the opposite tack, and I couldn't be more pleased with my kids."
You: "Not at all. I've raised my kids very liberally and truthfully and with the oldest now 16, I'm very happy with where they are, emotionally and physically."

Over-protection in some areas does not equate to living in a bubble.

As to other parents, have you seen how appalling some parents in the world are? If they can't look after their kids properly, I'll try to ensure that some of those deficiencies are made up for elsewhere. This is an instance of it. Some people are quite happy for mothers to sell their daughter's virginity at age 12 for a dozen bottles of beer. I'm not one of them. Sometimes, the only realistic option is legislation and [again] until solid evidence points to another answer, I'll stick with the one we have.

 

[dann]

Didn't vote for, and wouldn't go out of your way to oppose, either? After all, YOU don't make the laws, YOU don't put the people in prison.

Right, you’re beginning to get it. I don’t make the laws, nor do I put people in jail. What you still don’t seem to get is that voting for another candidate than the Nazi is actually very different from actively opposing him, but voters tend to think that when they have cast their votes, they have nothing left to do. They leave it to their representatives to represent them. They may even have voted in protest, but that is usually as far as their opposition goes. I don’t have to vote in order to take exception to racists and other elitists:
http://www.skeptica.dk/2002/simonsen4.htm
http://www.skeptica.dk/2002/simonsen5.htm

In this particular thread I oppose people who play down the harm done by paedophiles. It does not require voting at all.
How are you going to use Godwin the next time? By implying that Hitler was against kiddie porn?

 

[Piscivore]

Ah, but I am happy, that's why I stopped at that point.

"A person is never happy except at the price of some ignorance." ~Anatole France

The ones which relate to consent, pornography, child pornography etc., as they relate to this subject.

Just being clear.

No, I just don't care what Kevin thinks. I don't care why he thinks it, either. He's on the side of he fence with fewest proponents and he and those others - yourself included - are wasting their time.

I see. So you are with dann- don't rock the boat, maintain the status quo. How do the Maoris feel about that attitude?

I repeat, if you want to find out about irrational attitudes to this subject, take a petition to your local shopping mall.

I don't need to. I live smack in the middle of a Red-State conservative stronghold. I have few illusions about what the majority opinion is in this country.

What I occupy is the safe, middle-ground between you and Kevin on one side and burning at the stake on the other. How do you think a petition would go calling for legalisation of child porn on the proviso that it doesn't contain children? You'd be lynched!

Indeed. Which is why you talk to the people in the middle, not the extreme. If you are effective, the middle shifts.

No, the caring about kids doesn't make me an expert, but a lifetime dealing with them has.

Who's lifetime- yours, or theirs?

I have no problem with prolonging childhood, in fact, depending upon the levels we're talking about, it's a trend I'd be very happy with. Far better that than sexualising seven and eight year olds.

I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about letting the seven or eight year old know that people want to hurt them, and life isn't all Father Christmas and candyfloss.
You don't have to "sexualise" a child to make them aware of sex. And you do not have to child-proof the world to protect them from it.

You'd need to explain the type of thing you mean, because I'm not familiar with it as a lifestyle choice.

Head up, eyes open, no blinders. My son just turned eleven and my daughter is thirteen tomorrow. There is very little I restrict from them as far as information goes.

Mostly, I see the opposite, with parents more likely to try to get their kids grown up as fast as humanly possible.

What is wrong with that? My job as a parent it to prepare these kids for a responsible, functional adulthood. What benefit is there to holding them back?

Let me know how that petition gets on, eh?

As long as you let me know what the weather is like in 1840, mate.

Whether or not that type of porn encourages or discourages paedophilia, I don't know and nor does anyone else, at this stage.

But that doesn't stop all the hand-waving self-righteous moralists from insisting it does and trying to burn it all anyway, does it?

In the unlikely event it can be conclusively shown that child-free kiddie porn is a good thing, that's the time to raise it.

It doesn't have to be "good". The first step is kicking the subjective baggage to the curb. Is it harmful? Who does it harm, and how? These are the factors we should base the decisions on.

Well, realistically, that's exactly what we do do - there are laws to suit all situations, that's why there are so bloody many of them.

No, there aren't. That's another 19th century holdover, which is why all those "wacky laws" are out there. Maybe tiny little one-horse backwater town still try to do it that way (and I don't mean NZ, dude), I don't know. Is there a law specifically about threatening a bank teller with a zebra wired with dynamite? Probably not. Is it legal then?

Agree. Most changes are brought about by public pressure.

That contradicts your "aquiesce to the majority" mentality, doesn't it?

Over-protection in some areas does not equate to living in a bubble.

Fair enough, in which areas do you feel it is acceptable to "over-protect", and in which areas not. And to what extent should your decision to "over-protect" your child infringe on my rights?

As to other parents, have you seen how appalling some parents in the world are?

Yes. they push them around in strollers while the kid vacantly sucks a pacifier. At six.
They tell them that certain words are "bad" words.
They try to pretend the world is nice and happy and that everybody just loves them, and vigorously, albeit futily, shield them from any exposure to information to the contrary.
They think that threats and violence will cancel out biology + ignorance.
They teach them that the world is simple, and can be broken down into "us" vs. "them" categories.

The only good thing about it is my kids are going to eat these little s[rule 8]tbricks for lunch when they are adults.

If they can't look after their kids properly, I'll try to ensure that some of those deficiencies are made up for elsewhere.

F[rule 8] you very much. What right have you to assume that role? Turn it around- I think it is not just deficient, but pretty f[rule 8]g stupid for my neighbor to let her daughter run around completely ignorant of the drug culture beyond "drugs are bad, Mmkay?". Does that give me the right, nay the responsibility, to sit her down in front of "Requiem for a Dream"?

Some people are quite happy for mothers to sell their daughter's virginity at age 12 for a dozen bottles of beer. I'm not one of them.

Who is? Not me either. It is an abdication of parental responsibility (several, probably) that is a criminal act in and of itself, and has f[rule 8] all to do with explicit material.

Sometimes, the only realistic option is legislation and [again] until solid evidence points to another answer, I'll stick with the one we have.

Try and come up with a hypothetical that actually involves explicit material that was not created via children being harmed, and explain how its existence harms a child.

 

[Dave1001]

I see. So you are with dann- don't rock the boat, maintain the status quo. How do the Maoris feel about that attitude?
[\QUOTE]

Piscovore, you and I are pretty much eye-to-eye on this issue, but I think that's a rather low blow to direct at TheAtheist (although it's symmetric to his own argumentative style).

 

[Piscivore]

Right, you’re beginning to get it.

You aren't.

I don’t make the laws, nor do I put people in jail.

You, as a citizen, are still responsible for those that do, even if you abdicate that responsibility.

What you still don’t seem to get is that voting for another candidate than the Nazi is actually very different from actively opposing him,

What you do not seem to get is that this isn't the point.

The point is that however the person voted, or if he voted at all, is irrelevant. When the people in power start passing unjust laws, the person who does and says nothing about it because "it isn't their job" bears the same responsibility for the outcome.

but voters tend to think that when they have cast their votes, they have nothing left to do.

Too true.

They leave it to their representatives to represent them.

Well, that is what we pay them for. But yes, as I said above, we are still responsible.

They may even have voted in protest, but that is usually as far as their opposition goes. I don’t have to vote in order to take exception to racists and other elitists:
http://www.skeptica.dk/2002/simonsen4.htm
http://www.skeptica.dk/2002/simonsen5.htm

Good for you. I think you've got it.

In this particular thread I oppose people who play down the harm done by paedophiles. It does not require voting at all.

And you make several very large mistakes in the process, out of general ignorance of the subject and pure stubborn self-righteous bias. But all that is fine. That is your right. The thing that gets me, is that you strenously deny you want to take any steps to actually put any of this "oppostion" to any f[rule 8]g use, which either way is doing nothing in the face of what you see as evil.

How are you going to use Godwin the next time? By implying that Hitler was against kiddie porn?

That would be in keeping with the rest of his totalitarian beliefs. but bringing up Hitler isn't how you "use Godwin".

 

[The Atheist]

"A person is never happy except at the price of some ignorance." ~Anatole France

I see. So you are with dann- don't rock the boat, maintain the status quo. How do the Maoris feel about that attitude?

Oh no. I rock the boat plenty, when I see a need to to.

Maori? They're happier'n pigs in ###t! Wow, if the status quo continued for another thousand years, they'd own the planet, not just NZ! You haven't been sneakily swallowing a whole history-load of Parihaka, colonialism, cross-generational guilt and lies out of the mouths of apologists have you?

I don't need to. I live smack in the middle of a Red-State conservative stronghold. I have few illusions about what the majority opinion is in this country.

I figured. Hey, when they come to burn you at the stake, be happy in the knowledge that I'll have been long since cremated by them. I'm pretty sure they'll start with people with "The Atheist" in their name.

Indeed. Which is why you talk to the people in the middle, not the extreme. If you are effective, the middle shifts.

Fair point. we're talking, not shooting. That's usually a good thing!

Who's lifetime- yours, or theirs?

Mine, so far. Plenty more of it to go, as well, I hope.

I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about letting the seven or eight year old know that people want to hurt them, and life isn't all Father Christmas and candyfloss.

Yep. My kids have never been under such illusion.

You don't have to "sexualise" a child to make them aware of sex. And you do not have to child-proof the world to protect them from it.

Correct, but lots of parents allow kids to sexualise themslves by learning about life earlier than necessary from inappropriate tv/video/DVD/gaming/PC life. This problem could be made to largely disappear just with a small amount of supervision. We're not talking about supervising a group of inmates from Joliet, we're just asking parents to think about their kids occasionally.

There's also a world of difference between a kid asking and being told honest facts and learning stuff on video which shows a woman's best option is to open her legs asap.

Head up, eyes open, no blinders. My son just turned eleven and my daughter is thirteen tomorrow. There is very little I restrict from them as far as information goes.

Ditto. I find my kids are far more knowldgeable about the world than most of their peers. I have 4/7/16/16.

What is wrong with that? My job as a parent it to prepare these kids for a responsible, functional adulthood. What benefit is there to holding them back?

I'm not advocating holding kids back, just if they want to play with barbie or GI Joe at 12, let 'em. Lots of parents force their kids into roles they aren't ready for. Again, simple supervision rules.

As long as you let me know what the weather is like in 1840, mate.

Hmm. You have been talking to someone, haven't you?

It doesn't have to be "good". The first step is kicking the subjective baggage to the curb. Is it harmful? Who does it harm, and how? These are the factors we should base the decisions on.

I have no problem with that. How are you going to able to show cause and effect in this situation? I think asking for evidence of a believable nature is a bit like asking for Jesus' nails to be displayed. You're looking for something which doesn't exist. Or maybe you expect to gain honest answers from convicted paedophiles.

No, there aren't. That's another 19th century holdover, which is why all those "wacky laws" are out there. Maybe tiny little one-horse backwater town still try to do it that way (and I don't mean NZ, dude), I don't know. Is there a law specifically about threatening a bank teller with a zebra wired with dynamite? Probably not. Is it legal then?

Ah, but yes there is a law against it. Probably several, includinng a couple of SPCA ones! (Depending whereabouts the dynamite is wired to)

That contradicts your "aquiesce to the majority" mentality, doesn't it?

No, that's it in action. When the majority opposed the death penalty in countries where conscience is exercised, the death penalty went. In countries without social conscience, it continues. Public pressure ensures that those countries now execution-free remain so, while those with the death penalty remain so for exactly the same reason - majority approval of the laws. (Apart from good, honest dictatorships, many of which have the death-penalty, but little or no mandate, so we'll ignore them)

Fair enough, in which areas do you feel it is acceptable to "over-protect", and in which areas not. And to what extent should your decision to "over-protect" your child infringe on my rights?

I can't see how it could infringe on your rights. Can you come up with a hypothetical example - it's beyond me. How have I been over-protective? Closer supervision than most parents, I'd say.

Yes. they push them around in strollers while the kid vacantly sucks a pacifier. At six.
They tell them that certain words are "bad" words.
They try to pretend the world is nice and happy and that everybody just loves them, and vigorously, albeit futily, shield them from any exposure to information to the contrary.
They think that threats and violence will cancel out biology + ignorance.
They teach them that the world is simple, and can be broken down into "us" vs. "them" categories.

The only good thing about it is my kids are going to eat these little s[rule 8]tbricks for lunch when they are adults.

Yep, I count that as slack work, too.

F[rule 8] you very much. What right have you to assume that role? Turn it around- I think it is not just deficient, but pretty f[rule 8]g stupid for my neighbor to let her daughter run around completely ignorant of the drug culture beyond "drugs are bad, Mmkay?". Does that give me the right, nay the responsibility, to sit her down in front of "Requiem for a Dream"?

Rights? I've never bothered to check up on it. I just go and get involved. I always have and always will. Whether I have a right to or not hasn't come into it yet. No doubt, one day someone will decide I have no right to interfere and will shoot me instead. C'est la vie. I definitely feel that I have a responsibility to do it, even if just so I can sleep at night.

Who is? Not me either. It is an abdication of parental responsibility (several, probably) that is a criminal act in and of itself, and has f[rule 8] all to do with explicit material.

Course it's criminal - both ways. Who's to say that child-free kiddie porn isn't the thin end of the wedge which allows Kevin and his buddies to claim that the girl was sexually mature and therefore capable of consenting to the act/s.

Try and come up with a hypothetical that actually involves explicit material that was not created via children being harmed, and explain how its existence harms a child.

From studies I've seen, including several I've read during searches for this thread, as you'd expect, sex crimes against children break down into "behavioural" and "opportunistic" crimes. Of those opportunistic crimes, who can say that none were encouraged by reading kiddie-porn? Until you can successfully show that it doesn't, you don't have a case.

 

[The Atheist]

I see. So you are with dann- don't rock the boat, maintain the status quo. How do the Maoris feel about that attitude?
[\QUOTE]

Piscovore, you and I are pretty much eye-to-eye on this issue, but I think that's a rather low blow to direct at TheAtheist (although it's symmetric to his own argumentative style).

Eh?

Don't tell me the apologists' agenda has got as far as high schools in the US?

 

[Piscivore]

Eh?

Don't tell me the apologists' agenda has got as far as high schools in the US?

Better believe it.

In any case, Dave, were our positions reversed he'd have as much right to say the same to me regarding the Navajo, or the Havasupai, or the Latinos. Hell, my house is sitting on what was once prime Hohokam farmland.

 

[Piscivore]

Maori? They're happier'n pigs in ###t! Wow, if the status quo continued for another thousand years, they'd own the planet, not just NZ! You haven't been sneakily swallowing a whole history-load of Parihaka, colonialism, cross-generational guilt and lies out of the mouths of apologists have you?

Well, I'll wait to hear how happy they are from one of them.

In any case, I haven't been swallowing anything from anybody. Only about the only time we hear about them topside is when someone's complaining.

I figured. Hey, when they come to burn you at the stake, be happy in the knowledge that I'll have been long since cremated by them. I'm pretty sure they'll start with people with "The Atheist" in their name.

Well, let's not let it get to that point. That's why I'd rather fight here- on the pedo's turf- set a few precedents, than sit back and wait for the barbarians come to my gate.

Fair point. we're talking, not shooting. That's usually a good thing!

That's my thought.

Mine, so far. Plenty more of it to go, as well, I hope.

No, theirs. Unless you were born with them.

Correct, but lots of parents allow kids to sexualise themslves by learning about life earlier than necessary from inappropriate tv/video/DVD/gaming/PC life.

Who gets to decide what is "inappropriate"? Why it assumed that exposure to sexual material automatically "sexualises" children?

This problem could be made to largely disappear just with a small amount of supervision. We're not talking about supervising a group of inmates from Joliet, we're just asking parents to think about their kids occasionally.

Kids need more supervision than an inmate.

There's also a world of difference between a kid asking and being told honest facts

Kids don't know what to ask.

and learning stuff on video which shows a woman's best option is to open her legs asap.

If that were the extent of it, if you left it at that, that could be a problem. But that attitude is out there. People are going to approach my daughter expecting that is what she is for. She needs to know that. She also needs to know how ugly it is.

Ditto. I find my kids are far more knowldgeable about the world than most of their peers. I have 4/7/16/16.
I'm not advocating holding kids back, just if they want to play with barbie or GI Joe at 12, let 'em. Lots of parents force their kids into roles they aren't ready for. Again, simple supervision rules.

My son still plays with Legos. But not because that's his only option.

Hmm. You have been talking to someone, haven't you?

I talk to a lot of people. No one comes immediatly to mind. The only person I've spoken to about you is you though.

I have no problem with that. How are you going to able to show cause and effect in this situation?

Studies need to be done, no question. But you can't even get started until you stop the screaming and put out the torches and get people looking for facts instead of emotions.

I think asking for evidence of a believable nature is a bit like asking for Jesus' nails to be displayed. You're looking for something which doesn't exist.

We can't study correlations between behaviours, now?

Or maybe you expect to gain honest answers from convicted paedophiles.

Wow, there's a whole bunch of preconceived notions in there, aren't there?

Ah, but yes there is a law against it. Probably several, includinng a couple of SPCA ones! (Depending whereabouts the dynamite is wired to)

A specific law? Against robbing a bank with an exploding zebra? There are a few general laws that this falls under, yes, but not a law specific to this situation.

No, that's it in action. When the majority opposed the death penalty in countries where conscience is exercised, the death penalty went. In countries without social conscience, it continues.

You are assuming again that what the majority believes applies equally to all. In no society, even in ones where there is very little plurality, the population is not homogenous. In your "countries without social conscience", there are dissenters, even in those where the death penalty has been rejected, there are those in disagreement.

I can't see how it could infringe on your rights. Can you come up with a hypothetical example - it's beyond me.

Outlawing my copy of "Justine", just to start. Making it illegal for my daughter to go to movie that you and your majority friends might not approve of. Banning a game that shows teens having sex.

How have I been over-protective?

I don't know, that's why I asked.

Rights? I've never bothered to check up on it. I just go and get involved. I always have and always will. Whether I have a right to or not hasn't come into it yet. No doubt, one day someone will decide I have no right to interfere and will shoot me instead. C'est la vie. I definitely feel that I have a responsibility to do it, even if just so I can sleep at night.

Forgive me, but that seems to be a pretty juvenile attitude.

Course it's criminal - both ways.

"both ways"?

Who's to say that child-free kiddie porn isn't the thin end of the wedge which allows Kevin and his buddies to claim that the girl was sexually mature and therefore capable of consenting to the act/s.

I've given dann about a dozen reasons why.

From studies I've seen, including several I've read during searches for this thread, as you'd expect, sex crimes against children break down into "behavioural" and "opportunistic" crimes.

Of those opportunistic crimes, who can say that none were encouraged by reading kiddie-porn?

Some may have been. Some may have been encouraged by the Sears catalog. Some may have been encouraged by kids playing in the park. Some may have been encouraged by the memory of a first childhood sweetheart.
This is why we punish the wrongdoer for what he does. HE is responsible for his actions- not the explicit material, not the Sears ad, not the park, not the little girl from long long ago.

Until you can successfully show that it doesn't, you don't have a case.

Yes, I do. I'll repeat what dann chose to ignore:
"Having or creating fantasies about, distributing, selling, or passing around explicit material about, talking about, writing about, singing about, shouting about, online chatting about, or harbouring a desire for f[rule 8]ing a child is not f[rule 8]ing a child.
F[rule 8]ing a child and photographing, video taping, or otherwise recording f[rule 8]ing a child is f[rule 8]ing a child."

"Picture of nude child in the hands of a non-pedophile = "not sexually stimulating thing"
Picture of nude child in the hands of a pedophile = "sexually stimulating thing"

Picture of clothed child in the hands of a non-pedophile = "not sexually stimulating thing"
Picture of clothed child in the hands of a pedophile = "sexually stimulating thing""

A person who wants to f[rule 8] a child is going to see EVERY SINGLE CHILD sexually (within his preference, obviously), regardless of context, regardless if the child is packaged and sold. Some of them actually prefer children in realistic settings, if some of what I've seen is to be believed- they don't want them "presexualised". "Porn", as I was trying to to get dann to see, is an absolutely meaningless concept in this context.

We CANNOT remove temptation from the paths of these people, just like we couldn't remove the temptation of alcohol from the alcoholics. And to try runs roughshod over basic freedoms that you, as a minority, should be one of the first to defend.

 

[The Atheist]

Well, I'll wait to hear how happy they are from one of them.

In any case, I haven't been swallowing anything from anybody. Only about the only time we hear about them topside is when someone's complaining.

Well, somone must have the propaganda working well! There are lots of indigenous people around the world who have had a raw deal. Maori aren't one of them. You'll still find plenty who want more, but an open and honest assessment of Maori's position in NZ will show them in a pretty positive deal. Know of another race of people who are guaranteed a specified number of parliamentary seats? I don't.

Who gets to decide what is "inappropriate"? Why it assumed that exposure to sexual material automatically "sexualises" children?

I don't think it's automatic, but it seems to happen with some kids. Show 'em enough dirty/violent/druggie videos and they'll copy it.

Kids need more supervision than an inmate.

Correct. Also stronger leg-irons.

Kids don't know what to ask.

I think they do, actually. They start off a little way off-topic, but work around to it in the end. My daughter usually prefaces her important questions with about 20 irrelevant ones first.

If that were the extent of it, if you left it at that, that could be a problem. But that attitude is out there. People are going to approach my daughter expecting that is what she is for. She needs to know that. She also needs to know how ugly it is.

Of course.

My son still plays with Legos. But not because that's his only option.

Exactly my point. Hell, I still play with Lego - if only to remind me that something good came out of Denmark. (no offence to Dann)

I talk to a lot of people. No one comes immediatly to mind. The only person I've spoken to about you is you though.

No, just funny that you mentioned 1840 a couple of paragraphs after mentioning Maori. 1840 being the year of the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi.

Studies need to be done, no question. But you can't even get started until you stop the screaming and put out the torches and get people looking for facts instead of emotions.

Go ahead, study away!

We can't study correlations between behaviours, now?

You can try, I just don't see it being easy. First off, I suspect lots of victims might not want to participate.

Wow, there's a whole bunch of preconceived notions in there, aren't there?

That paedophiles are lying scum? If you want to dispute that, go ahead.

A specific law? Against robbing a bank with an exploding zebra? There are a few general laws that this falls under, yes, but not a law specific to this situation.

Of course it's specific. Robbery under threat. It doesn't matter whether the threat's from an exploding zebra or a unicorn horn. Same law applies to the guy with a banana in his raincoat pocket - a very specific law which disallows threats of violence as a coercive tool (Or any other reason, for that matter.)

You are assuming again that what the majority believes applies equally to all. In no society, even in ones where there is very little plurality, the population is not homogenous. In your "countries without social conscience", there are dissenters, even in those where the death penalty has been rejected, there are those in disagreement.

Yeah, that's why I've stuck with "majority" rather than "unanimity". It applies to all, whether they like it or not. Or at least, we'd like to think the law is applied like that, even if it often isn't in practice.

Outlawing my copy of "Justine", just to start. Making it illegal for my daughter to go to movie that you and your majority friends might not approve of. Banning a game that shows teens having sex.

Sorry, I don't know the book. I'm not advocating tightening the laws, I haven't said that at any stage. The game show, I wouldn't ban, but would be as it is now, restricted to participants and viewers 18+.

I don't know, that's why I asked.

I asked it in the next sentence.

Forgive me, but that seems to be a pretty juvenile attitude.

Really? That means the mature thing to do is ignore it then.

Nice. I have to say that I was enjoying answering this post until I got to that statement. I don't find being called juvenile distasteful, it's the "not my problem" attitude I find distasteful. So much so, that I see no point in answering the rest of the questions, so I haven't bothered.

I'm sure you've heard the old saying, "All it takes for evil to flourish is for good men to sit idly on their thumbs and do nothing." You're living it.

Well played, fish-boy.

 

[Piscivore]

I don't think it's automatic, but it seems to happen with some kids. Show 'em enough dirty/violent/druggie videos and they'll copy it.

A lot of Gamers out there will hotly dispute that one as well.

I think they do, actually. They start off a little way off-topic, but work around to it in the end. My daughter usually prefaces her important questions with about 20 irrelevant ones first.

Ugh. I hate that. Mine don't do that to me.

No, just funny that you mentioned 1840 a couple of paragraphs after mentioning Maori. 1840 being the year of the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi.

I actually was going to say 1830, but quick Google showed I was a bit early for the onset of Victorian morality.

Sorry, I don't know the book. I'm not advocating tightening the laws, I haven't said that at any stage.

You aren't, but unchallenged someone else might take this as endorsment, or at least encouragement, to advocate such themselves.

Really? That means the mature thing to do is ignore it then.

Nice. I have to say that I was enjoying answering this post until I got to that statement. I don't find being called juvenile distasteful, it's the "not my problem" attitude I find distasteful. So much so, that I see no point in answering the rest of the questions, so I haven't bothered.

I don't have that attitude, and I'm not sure where you are getting it. I'm glad you put your beliefs in action, even if they are misguided. The only reason I made that statement is that "one day someone will decide I have no right to interfere and will shoot me instead. C'est la vie." is very like what my son says occasionly when he messes up big. Death isn't the only result of failure, and such ersatz dramatics to me is juvenile.

I hope you will endeavor to address the rest of my post.

I'm sure you've heard the old saying, "All it takes for evil to flourish is for good men to sit idly on their thumbs and do nothing."

I heard it from Edmund Burke, without the bit about the thumbs.

You're living it.

I would hope my behaviour on this thread would suggest otherwise.

Well played, fish-boy.

Please accept my apologies for the misunderstanding, and consider addressing the rest of the post, as that really contains the meat of the discussion.

 

[The Atheist]

I don't have that attitude, and I'm not sure where you are getting it. I'm glad you put your beliefs in action, even if they are misguided.

Misguided?

Butting in when hearing a kid screaming in pain is misguided? Stopping fights? Refusal to allow a drunken bum to drive off with a baby in the car?

The shooting comment was a little tongue-in-cheek, but there are unquestionably situations I stick my nose into which can turn nasty. No ersatz dramatics at all, just facts of life.

You say that you don't have a "not my problem" attitude. That being so, why then do you consider ?

You said:

What right have you to assume that role? Turn it around- I think it is not just deficient, but pretty f[rule 8]g stupid for my neighbor to let her daughter run around completely ignorant of the drug culture beyond "drugs are bad, Mmkay?". Does that give me the right, nay the responsibility, to sit her down in front of "Requiem for a Dream"?

I took from that that you don't see a mandate to act and therefore don't act. Is that impression now incorrect?

 

[Piscivore]

Misguided?

Butting in when hearing a kid screaming in pain is misguided? Stopping fights?
Refusal to allow a drunken bum to drive off with a baby in the car?

They might be, depending on circumstance- but that's not what I was talking about. I was talking about the issue at hand; parental responsibility for the information their children are exposed to. Limiting other people's children's acces to materials in the name of "caution".

The shooting comment was a little tongue-in-cheek, but there are unquestionably situations I stick my nose into which can turn nasty. No ersatz dramatics at all, just facts of life.

Well, "you catch more flies with honey", and all that. Are you a cop?

You say that you don't have a "not my problem" attitude. That being so, why then do you consider ?
You said:

What right have you to assume that role? Turn it around- I think it is not just deficient, but pretty f[rule 8]g stupid for my neighbor to let her daughter run around completely ignorant of the drug culture beyond "drugs are bad, Mmkay?". Does that give me the right, nay the responsibility, to sit her down in front of "Requiem for a Dream"?

I took from that that you don't see a mandate to act and therefore don't act. Is that impression now incorrect?

Somewhat. I do not have the right to usurp the child's parent's authority in this way. I will do what I can to convince the parent otherwise, but I do not have the right to over-ride them anymore than they have a right to restrict what my children see.

It is less "not my problem" than respecting the same rights in others that I cherish and demand for myself.

And when I say "I will do what I can", that is not likely to be directly confrontational, but subtle and with humour. Maybe a little shock.