Casuistry: The Good Pedophile?
- Thread starter Dr Adequate
- Start date
-
- Tags
- pedophilia
jjramsey
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2005
- Messages
- 1,494
Re: Significant point
I don't think that what is happening is equating the looking at fake child porn with harming a child. Rather, the child porn is viewed as a sort of early warning system. The reasoning goes something like, "Guys who like to look at child porn are pedophiles. Pedophiles are dangerous. Therefore, guys who like to look at child porn are dangerous."
Of course, as Darat pointed out, it's not so easy to conclude that a pedophile is necessarily dangerous if he/she avoids real child porn.
billydkid said:
I don't think that what is happening is equating the looking at fake child porn with harming a child. Rather, the child porn is viewed as a sort of early warning system. The reasoning goes something like, "Guys who like to look at child porn are pedophiles. Pedophiles are dangerous. Therefore, guys who like to look at child porn are dangerous."
Of course, as Darat pointed out, it's not so easy to conclude that a pedophile is necessarily dangerous if he/she avoids real child porn.
Re: Re: Significant point
It would be easier to do if there was some kind of evidence that this is the case. For example, a study showing "99% of all people who look up child porn abuse children at some point in their life". But even then, it still comes almost too close to a thought crime.
jjramsey said:
It would be easier to do if there was some kind of evidence that this is the case. For example, a study showing "99% of all people who look up child porn abuse children at some point in their life". But even then, it still comes almost too close to a thought crime.
Neutiquam Erro
mennil-toss flykune
Re: Re: Re: Significant point
Unfortunately, many of us lack the intellectual discipline necessary to properly understand such stats. To use your example, I might not appreciate the difference between a study that says "99% of all porn users will abuse children," and another that says "99% of people who abuse children are porn users," although these are two very different statements.
Taffer said:
Unfortunately, many of us lack the intellectual discipline necessary to properly understand such stats. To use your example, I might not appreciate the difference between a study that says "99% of all porn users will abuse children," and another that says "99% of people who abuse children are porn users," although these are two very different statements.
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
I guess the 1% is just out of luck, then?
Neutiquam Erro
mennil-toss flykune
TragicMonkey said:
If I'm incapable of distinguishing between cause and correlation, then yes, unfortunately, they are. I'll justify the persecution of any number of innocents in my pursuit of the guilty, and I'll tell myself that the "innocent" would thank me for doing so.
Is there any need to trot out historical evidence of this phenomenon?
Neutiquam Erro
mennil-toss flykune
Taffer said:
Yes, that's what we like to say. We're pretty good at qualifying such statements, however. Apparently, an accused American citizen's rights to be presented with charges, seek council, and obtain a speedy, public trial, can be dismissed during "Time of War." Certainly Stalin understood that dissent is a cancer -- best to remove a healthy leg (or, an entire population), rather than let the cancer spread!
Neutiquam Erro said:
How does this have anything to do with the topic at hand? How are we at war that we need to "take of the leg" off this guy? Since he hasn't hurt anyone, and obviously made efforts not to hurt anyone (directly or indirectly), is it moral to put him in jail for something he might do? I might go on a shooting rampage and kill 30 people, but you don't put me in jail for the chance that I might, you put me in jail becuase I did, or I was going to. Hence the burden of proof is on not on the defence.
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
Taffer said:
Unless the crime is so heinous that, a la Crucible, the very dreadfulness of the charges outweighs the presumption of innocence. Like charges of terrorism, or the possibility that a sex offender might re-offend.
Neutiquam Erro
mennil-toss flykune
Taffer said:
I couldn't agree more. We commit ourselves to the persecution of innocent individuals through our willful illogic and tendency for careless generalization. Even if, for example, an unambiguous, causal relationship were to be determined along the lines of, say, "99 out of 100 porn users will molest children," we should still hold ourselves accountable for the prosecution and/or acquittal of each and every one of these people.
But then who are we to judge such crimes? Because the body of people believe it to be bad? At one time the body of people thought a moving earth was sacraligious. Didn't make them right 
.
But I hear what you are saying. However, most often these cases are ones of suitable punishment, rather then guilt. A sex offender still has the same rights as a petty thief, until proven guilty.
.But I hear what you are saying. However, most often these cases are ones of suitable punishment, rather then guilt. A sex offender still has the same rights as a petty thief, until proven guilty.
Neutiquam Erro
mennil-toss flykune
Taffer said:Agreed. Methinks I mistook your earlier posts.
I appear to be physically incapable of coming straight to a point.
I know the feeling.Dogdoctor
Canis Doctorius
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2005
- Messages
- 14,786
Neutiquam Erro said:
I am not sure I understand the thinking here. Suppose we look at the ownership of nuclear weapons or intercontinental ballistic missiles. These cause no harm to anyone unless someone decides to use them to harm people or perhaps accidentally harms people with them. Should we allow individual citizens to own these things because they are not harmful? BS I say we don't need no data. We can use common sense and say if you like to look at child porn you are a pedophile and sooner or later you are likely to harm a child. The ability to look at child porn offers nothing to society and only allows undesirable individuals to perpetuate their harmful thoughts about children. A healthy member of society has no need for weapons of mass destruction or child porn. (thank god or anyone else for spellcheckers
)Dogdoctor said:I am not sure I understand the thinking here. Suppose we look at the ownership of nuclear weapons or intercontinental ballistic missiles. These cause no harm to anyone unless someone decides to use them to harm people or perhaps accidentally harms people with them. Should we allow individual citizens to own these things because they are not harmful? BS I say we don't need no data. We can use common sense and say if you like to look at child porn you are a pedophile and sooner or later you are likely to harm a child. The ability to look at child porn offers nothing to society and only allows undesirable individuals to perpetuate their harmful thoughts about children. A healthy member of society has no need for weapons of mass destruction or child porn. (thank god or anyone else for spellcheckers
But here you are making the assumption that anyone who looks a child porn is going to harm a child. What is your basis for this statement? Where is the proof that, indeed, all people who look at child porn are going to predate on children?
And for the record, we do let people own nuclear weapons. The leaders of the military all essentially 'own' nuclear weapons, and they don't run around using them, do they? Also, there is a big difference between stopping someone from owning something (automatic weapons, for example), and essentially ending someones life by putting them in jail.
Neutiquam Erro
mennil-toss flykune
Dogdoctor said:I am not sure I understand the thinking here. Suppose we look at the ownership of nuclear weapons or intercontinental ballistic missiles. These cause no harm to anyone unless someone decides to use them to harm people or perhaps accidentally harms people with them. Should we allow individual citizens to own these things because they are not harmful? BS I say we don't need no data. We can use common sense and say if you like to look at child porn you are a pedophile and sooner or later you are likely to harm a child. The ability to look at child porn offers nothing to society and only allows undesirable individuals to perpetuate their harmful thoughts about children. A healthy member of society has no need for weapons of mass destruction or child porn. (thank god or anyone else for spellcheckers
My argument has nothing to do with the morality of pornography, but with its legality, and its alleged association with other demonstrably dangerous and illegal activites. If a society determines that legal activity "A" is intolerable or undesirable, inherently dangerous, or is so closely associated with illegal activity "B" as to seem indistinguishable, then that society can certainly make "A" illegal and end the whole debate right there.
However, as long as "A" is legal, one cannot be prosecuted for "B" if one has not actually committed "B". This is why your "Nukes" analogy comes up short. In the U.S., we have decided that the mere possession by individuals of nuclear weapons is inherently dangerous, and have therefore made it illegal. At the same time, we have not determined that the possession of handguns by individuals is inherently dangerous, and gun owners cannot be prosecuted unless they use their guns in some other illegal activity.
Hap-hazardly edited for grammar
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
There is also the problem of definitions. Define "child" and "pornography". Some cultures regard people as adults at 13, others at 16, others at 18, others at 21, others even later. Some regard the age as irrelevant, it's physical maturity that counts. These days, puberty is occuring earlier than it has in a long time.
As for "pornography", is any nude a pornographic picture? What degree of nudity is permitted? What if it's not nudity, but activity? Does simulated activity count as bad as actual activity? Is pornography defined by the reaction of the audience, or the intent of the maker? Is Michelangelo's David art, pornography, or both?
I'm not suggesting that child pornography is an acceptable thing, by the way. Just that when you're talking about locking people up, you have to get your definitions very clear. And pornography is ALWAYS a relative concept. My great aunt regards shirtless men at the beach as lewd. Would you want a community of women like her to be judging what's pornograpy, in law?
As for "pornography", is any nude a pornographic picture? What degree of nudity is permitted? What if it's not nudity, but activity? Does simulated activity count as bad as actual activity? Is pornography defined by the reaction of the audience, or the intent of the maker? Is Michelangelo's David art, pornography, or both?
I'm not suggesting that child pornography is an acceptable thing, by the way. Just that when you're talking about locking people up, you have to get your definitions very clear. And pornography is ALWAYS a relative concept. My great aunt regards shirtless men at the beach as lewd. Would you want a community of women like her to be judging what's pornograpy, in law?
Dogdoctor
Canis Doctorius
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2005
- Messages
- 14,786
In the USA we have also decided that mere possesion of child pornography is dangerous and therefor made it illegal so what is the discussion about? Do we have data for nuclear weapon ownership? Do we need data? No we don'tNeutiquam Erro said: