vikkor wrote:agrote wrote:Just because you support something, this does not entail that you support everything on which it depends.
Poppycock - that is exactly what it means.
You can say "poppycock" all you like, but I've provided an argument to support my claim - where's yours?
There may be a disanalogy between the war on terror example and the child porn issue. But the war on terror example still supports my claim that you can support something without supporting everything on which it depends. Those who support the war on terror do not support the existence of terrorism on which it depends. Therefore it is not "poppycock" for me to say that "Just because you support something, this does not entail that you support everything on which it depends." This general claim is clearly true. You can dispute whether I can apply it to the case of child porn (although you will need to explain your objection to this), but I don't think you can dispute the claim itself.
Support for X does not mean support for everything on which X depends, because the war on terror depends on terrorism, and yet we can support the war without terrorism.
When X = making sculptures out of rubbish, we can again support X without supporting everything on which X depends, since we needn't support the creation of rubbish.
When X = giving dirty money to charity, we can again support X without supporting everything on which X depends, since we needn't support the crimes that were committed to earn the dirty money.
You have correctly pointed out that clearing up rubbish is a community service. So what? Obviously looking at child porn and making art out of rubbish are not exactly the same thing; I never suggested that they were. My point was that in both cases one supports an action without supporting certain things on which the action depends. I am in favour of making art out of excess waste, even though I am against the creation of excess waste. I am in favour of letting paedophiles view child porn, but I am against the creation of child porn. I understand that you don't agree with my position, and I don't expect you to. But you've misconstrued my position if you think I am in favour of child abuse itself. I'm simply not, and to say that the view I have defended commits me to being in favour of the abuse of children, is to abandon logic altogether.
I imagine you might be in favour of destroying all child porn so that it can never be used, or perhaps handing all of it over to the police and ensuring that nobody else can ever have access to it. Those actions depend on the existence and prior production of child porn. But if you supported these actions, would I accuse you of supporting the existence and production of child porn? Of course not. One can be in favour of doing something with the child porn that has already been created (using it, burning it, handing it over to the police), without condoning the actions that took place to create it, and without being in favour of the creation of new child porn.
If you still disagree, please provide an argument to back yourself up.
