agrote wrote:Setanta wrote:In responding to comments by Wolf Woman and Wilso . . .
agrote wrote:My claim that real child abuse is worse than fantasy?
My claim that downloading free pictures does not create a demand for more pictures to be produced?
My claim that images of child abuse should be reported to the police?
My claim that the protection of children is more important than the prevention of sexual pleasure?
Any claim that real child abuse is worse than fantasy would be predicated upon an assumption that fantasizing about a crime cannot be linked to actually taking criminal action.
Not quite. It's predicated on the assumption that an actual instance of child abuse is worse than a raised propbability [
sic] of child abuse.
Nonsense--my response was to the first question you posed in response to Wolf Woman and Wilso, to wit: "(What about) My claim that real child abuse is worse than fantasy." That makes no reference to a "raised probability," so your claim here is nonsense.
Quite apart from that, you chose to truncate my response by quoting only the first sentence and discarding the rest of my response to that first question. In that my entire post leads to a response to the theme of the thread, that is unacceptable editing. You are now dancing around, and straying a great deal from the topic of the thread, and from the five questions quoted above. Given your butchery of my response, i feel no qualms at all about ignoring and omitting the tedious and meaningless portions of your response here, and the responses which follow, especially in view of their irrelevance to my post, which was a response to the topic of the thread.
Quote:Quote:I consider it nothing short of naive to attempt to suggest that downloading images, free or otherwise, will not create a demand for it. People use web sites to make money, and even if they give you the image for free, they are selling advertising to people who hope to attract your patronage of their web sites and products. Even if it is not obvious to Agrote, it is obvious to me that downloading such images, free or otherwise, will help to create demand.
If there is advertising on the site, and if that advertising puts money in the pockets of child abusers, then looking at the images may have harmful consequences.
But what if there is no advertising? Or what if the images are posted (without permission) on somebody else's site - say a blog-making website or a forum - where the advertisors are only paying the owners of the website who have nothing to do with abusing children?
When
merely looking at child porn causes child abusers to earn money for abusing children, then it is harmful. When it doesn't, I don't see how it could be harmful.
This is some of the worst bullshit you have posted here. You and Joe have had a long and continuing discussion of how and why viewing images of child sexual abuse can create a greater demand. Your response reads as though that discussion had never taken place. That is dishonest of you, and i don't intend to engage in a discussion with you which mirrors the one you have had with Joe.
Quote:Quote:I am left, then, with Agrote's attempt to suggest that providing images of child sexual abuse which are not produced through actual child sexual abuse is a victimless crime.
I think you've misunderstood me. I have been talking in this thread about images of child sexual abuse. Obviously those images cannot be made without child sexual abuse taking place. But once they have been made, I am arguing that unless money is involved, looking at those images does not cause any further harm to children. Looking at child porn of any kind is a victimless crime so long as it doesn't put money in the pockets of child abusers.
This, also is a dishonest statement on your part. In your opening post, you write:
Quote:This recent article describes a potential change in UK law which will criminalise people who create or possess non-photographic images of imaginary scenes of child sexual abuse . . .
So the topic never was one which concerns itself with photographic or filmed images of child sexual abuse, and you are wandering all over Hell's half acre now in your discussion, and you are responding to things which i clearly was
not discussing--given that i was discussing the topic of the thread as outlined in your initial post.
It is also dishonest as regards the prolonged discussion which you had with Joe about what rewards a paedophile might feel he enjoys even if he receives no remuneration, and it is dishonest as you have never disputed or refuted Joe's claim that children who have been photographed or filmed during acts of child sexual abuse may have to endure future pain and suffering through the dissemination of those images.
What is most dishonest, though, is this statement: "I have been talking in this thread about images of child sexual abuse. Obviously those images cannot be made without child sexual abuse taking place." But your own initial post, which i have quoted above, states that this regards "non-photographic images of imaginary scenes of child sexual abuse." So your response here is yet another non sequitur to my discussion of the topic of this thread as outlined in your initial post.
Quote:Quote:So it boils down to a question of whether or not people are stimulated to attempt acts of child sexual abuse by viewing images of child sexual abuse. As i've said, i don't possess an expertise to say that this is so.
You're not sure whether or not this is so. Yet I "disgust" you for thinking that it isn't so. That's a little strange, isn't it?
This is a strawman on your part. I did not say that you disgust me because you don't think that viewing images of child sexual abuse will stimulate someone to attempt child sexual abuse. In fact, i did not say why it is that you disgust me. I'll be happy to supply that deficiency, however. You disgust me for the mere fact that you are a paedophile.
Quote:Or do you find me disgusting because of my sexuality? Presumably my condition is either an illness or a sexual orientation. With that in mind, I ask you this: Do you find schizophrenic people disgusting? Or homosexuals?
I have no reason to assume that paedophilia is a "sexuality," at least not in the sense of normal sexualities, such as heterosexuality, homosexuality or bisexuality. In each of those cases, we are referring to sexual preference with regard to sexual acts between consenting adults. That is clearly not the case with child sexual abuse. Bringing up schizophrenia is irrelevant unless you are now willing to admit that paedophilia is a psychological pathology, and a condition of poor or damaged mental health. If that were so, you'd have to abandon your argument which seeks to portray paedophilia as though it were just another form of sexuality, such as heterosexuality or homosexuality.
My disgust is reserved for the nature of the acts of any paedophile who acts upon his lusts--which are cowardly and brutal.
***********************************************
My response was intended to address the topic of this thread, as it was originally laid out, not as you choose to twist the discussion at this point. Your final paragraph in the initial post reads:
Quote:I'm aware of how controversial my views on this subject are, so I am interested to hear what people have to say about the ethical claims I am making. I am saying that paedophilic actions are only wrong insofar as they cause harm to others (specifically children). I am saying that it should be permissible to seek sexual gratification by looking at free images of child pornography, since this does not harm children. I am saying that the new laws proposed against viewing drawings of child abuse are based on the absurd idea that child porn is wrong because people enjoy it, not because people are harmed in the making of it. I am defending the right of paedophiles to satisfy their sexual needs in the privacy of their own homes, just as other people are able to. Since paedophiles cannot help their sexuality, we cannot condemn them for it. We can only condemn them for harming children because of those desires; and they are less likely to do this if we give them a safer outlet such as erotic drawings and even real child pornography which has already been made (I am not advocating the production of new child pornography.)
And, i will repeat that portion of your initial post which referred to the proposed change of the law in the United Kingdom:
Quote:This recent article describes a potential change in UK law which will criminalise people who create or possess non-photographic images of imaginary scenes of child sexual abuse . . .
You hacked up my post with wild abandon. The post was a unitary whole, and lead to my final remark on the topic, which you aborted completely from your response, so i will post it again.
I wrote:So it boils down to a question of whether or not people are stimulated to attempt acts of child sexual abuse by viewing images of child sexual abuse. As i've said, i don't possess an expertise to say that this is so. However, if those who are alleged to possess that expertise convince lawmakers that the provisions of such images can or will stimulate people with paedophilic tendencies to commit criminal acts, i see no problem with the state alleging a proximate and compelling interest in regulating or prohibiting such activity.
Your thread whines about a proposed law in the United Kingdom which would criminalize the possession of any type of image of child sexual abuse. You whine about this interference with your sexuality in your own home, as though paedophilia were a form of sexuality equivalent to heterosexuality or homosexuality, which is clearly not the case, since those are matters of activity between consenting adults, which child sexual abuse can never be. But just above, you have attempted to compare paedophilia to schizophrenia, which is agreed to be a pathological and unhealthy psychological condition. So which is it, a sexuality, or a pathological and unhealthy psychological condition?
My response to the topic of this thread is that if those who possess the expertise to make such a judgment advise lawmakers that it is a psychological pathology, and the possession and viewing of images of child sexual abuse, of whatever type or provenance, have a high probability of stimulating criminal acts of child sexual abuse, then i consider it justifiable to make possession of such materials criminal, regardless of the type or provenance of those materials. I reject your self-serving whine entirely.
****************************************************
agrote wrote:hawkeye10 wrote:Setanta wrote:Well, having now read the entire thread, i also begin to suspect that Agrote derives some sort of pathetic pleasure from merely discussing child sexual abuse . . . after all, he has posted more frequently than anyone else in this thread, and although one could argue that results simply from his attempt to answer all remarks made about the subject or about him, i still suspect that a great deal of the reason for Agrote having broached this topic more than once at this site is that he derives pleasure from discussing the subject.
Or maybe he likes an intellectual challange, or maybe he likes attention, or maybe......
You can't know his motives for saying what he does any better than I can know yours for what you say. Who Agrote is and what he wants is unknowable to us and mostly irrelevant. What is relevant is the subject of the morality of looking at kiddy porn, real and in art.
Hawkeye has some wacky ideas about sexual ethics which I don't agree with. But he is right about the relevance (or lack thereof) of some of the comments being made. My motives are irrelevant, my sexuality is irrelevant, whether you like me or not is irrelevant. This thread is not about me, it's about the ethics of certain actions.
Hawkeye is not the thread police and you are not the thread police, and neither of you have any power or authority to circumscribe what i post. Having responded to your thesis as outlined in the initial post, i consider myself free to make any comment i wish thereafter, especially as i waded through sixteen pages of your stupid, self-serving whines about your sexuality and how put upon you would be by the proposed law, and your incredible self-righteousness about ethics, a concept which i doubt you understand.
This thread is very much about you. This is not the first time you've started a thread about paedophilia, and you cannot reasonably claim that the responses you've gotten were any surprise to you, given how at least one other thread which i recall was received--in fact, i believe there are more than just the two, but even if not, there are more than two threads in which you have brought this up. You knew coming in what kind or response you would get.
Given that, i think that you are either a glutton for punishment (rather like self-flagellating christian ascetics), or you derive some weird kind of kick out of parading your pathology in front of an audience. And nothing you or Hawkeye will say takes away my right to make that observation.
