Is it wrong to view child pornography?

agrote wrote:

hawkeye10 wrote:

agrote said

Quote:

I support the paedophile's right to use pictures of previous crimes against children, to aid his harmless sexual fantasies. I do not support any paedophile's belief that it is okay to actually go out and rape children.

Do you not subscribe to the general notion the individuals should not be allowed to profit from ill gotten gains? If you do then why is this situation different? I don't think that we should make pictures of crimes illegal, and I am aware that there are people who get off on looking at stuff like pics of murder victims and who get off on it...so far as I know this is not a crime. But I am not sure that I agree with your above statement

It's okay to profit from something terrible as long as the situation wouldn't be any better if you weren't profiting from it. It's okay for new reporters to get paid to report murders and wars and other nasty things. And I think it's okay to be aroused by pictures of sex crimes. There is a problem, however, when people are aroused by committing sex crimes, or when they profit financially from committing them, because this will encourage them to keep committing them.

The arousal gained by the paedophile who views child porn may encourage him to view more child porn. But it won't, by itself, encourage him to harm children.

You have avoided the question. The question is why is it ok to let an individual profit from his ill gotten gains? The profit is sexual arousal derived from looking at his trophies, the ill gotten part is abusing kids. This question has no connection that I can see to the safety of kids or any future acts by the abuser. It involves only profit from past acts.

You will notice the picture is actually a link to a web address. Each time this page is loaded, not only has A2K received a valuable 'click', but so has the page that is hosting that picture. As a surfing pervert; you can have no idea where a pic is hosted until after you've already monetized it by opening the page in the first place.

Your dance is BS and you damn well know it.

I'm a consequentialist. I mention the safety of kids and the possibility of future acts because those are the consequences that spring to mind, that might make it consequentially wrong to profit from ill-gotten gains. I don't think it is wrong to profit from ill-gotten gains as a matter of principle. If it is wrong, it is wrong because it limits the maximisation of well-being. I don't think it necessarily does limit this, so I don't think it is necessarily wrong.

I see useless, circular arguing and not a debate (at all) that's worth participating.

Quote:

I'm a consequentialist. I mention the safety of kids and the possibility of future acts because those are the consequences that spring to mind, that might make it consequentially wrong to profit from ill-gotten gains. I don't think it is wrong to profit from ill-gotten gains as a matter of principle. If it is wrong, it is wrong because it limits the maximisation of well-being. I don't think it necessarily does limit this, so I don't think it is necessarily wrong.

you reallize of course that you are at odds with a core principle of Western Law, and that society will not be changing this principle.....

Ragman wrote:

I see useless, circular arguing and not a debate (at all) that's worth participating.

Where are the circles, Ragman? Show me a piece of circular reasoning.

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:

I'm a consequentialist. I mention the safety of kids and the possibility of future acts because those are the consequences that spring to mind, that might make it consequentially wrong to profit from ill-gotten gains. I don't think it is wrong to profit from ill-gotten gains as a matter of principle. If it is wrong, it is wrong because it limits the maximisation of well-being. I don't think it necessarily does limit this, so I don't think it is necessarily wrong.

you reallize of course that you are at odds with a core principle of Western Law, and that society will not be changing this principle.....

Yes. Well, they won't change it in the near future. And Western law has been influenced by consequentialist reasoning. Homosexuality was legalsied in my country because it doesn't have bad consequences. The moral absolutist condemnation of it was done away with.

joefromchicago wrote:

Agrote: are rules regarding a minor's incapacity to form consent justified on consequentialist grounds? In other words, is the rule that minors, for instance, are incapable of consenting to enter into contracts productive of more utility than a rule that states otherwise?

Consent isn't relevant to the issue of whether paedophiles should be allowed to view child porn. You don't need someone's consent to have sexual thoughts about them.

But in answer to your questions, I don't think that consent is ethically important. ... Consent doesn't seem to have very much to do with the maximisation of human well-being. ...

OCCOM BILL wrote:

You will notice the picture is actually a link to a web address. Each time this page is loaded, not only has A2K received a valuable 'click', but so has the page that is hosting that picture. As a surfing pervert; you can have no idea where a pic is hosted until after you've already monetized it by opening the page in the first place.

Your dance is BS and you damn well know it.

I don't damn well know it. This is news to me.

If a paedophile uploads child porn onto a forum, where will the images be hosted? On his computer? On a site for hosting pictures, not affiiliated with the producer of the child porn, and not able to provide any financial gain for the producer of the child porn?

If the images are hosted in one of those ways, then it seems the paedophile won't profit. The question of whether it is wrong to view child porn now boils down to the question of where free images of child porn are typically hosted. Right?

nicely illustrating the American propensity to throw everything we say we believe in as a democratic and free society out the window to "protect the kids". Actions based upon fear, especially some nebulous fear of boggy men, rarely results in smart choices (see iraq for most current illustration).

Another thing worth noting is that, while it may be the case that images of child porn are hosted in a way that allows the producers of the child porn to profit from people viewing it... this will only make it wrong to view child porn. It won't make it a terrible thing to do. Giving a tiny financial reward (or a small possibility of a tiny financial reward) to a child abuser is bad. But not that bad. It's not as bad as actually purchasing child porn for a substantial amount ofm oney. And it's nowhere near as bad as actually abusing a child. It doesn't even come close.

But I'm not conceding that images of child porn actually are hosted in a way that allows the producers of the child porn to be financially reward for abusing children. I don't know whether this is the case, but perhaps you can enlighten me.

hawkeye10 wrote:

nicely illustrating the American propensity to throw everything we say we believe in as a democratic and free society out the window to "protect the kids". Actions based upon fear, especially some nebulous fear of boggy men, rarely results in smart choices (see iraq for most current illustration).

lol. Well, I'm not even an American, but that is besides the point.

To me it's common sense.

I don't argue with drunks, and I don't argue with people who push agendas that go against my core values.

The fact is neither one will get anything out of that.

Honestly, I find your comment totally out to lunch (so to speak) and out of blue. So you disagree with me - yet haven't even bothered to find out what I actually believe in.

Anyways, I agree with Ragman at this point. No real point hanging around here any longer. Nothing good can come of it.

agrote wrote:

Ragman wrote:

I see useless, circular arguing and not a debate (at all) that's worth participating.

Where are the circles, Ragman? Show me a piece of circular reasoning.

This has been well documented by others already. You're in denial so what would be the benefit of repeating?

The value of further participation here has been reached for me.

The arousal gained by the paedophile who views child porn may encourage him to view more child porn. But it won't, by itself, encourage him to harm children.

agrote wrote:

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:

I'm a consequentialist. I mention the safety of kids and the possibility of future acts because those are the consequences that spring to mind, that might make it consequentially wrong to profit from ill-gotten gains. I don't think it is wrong to profit from ill-gotten gains as a matter of principle. If it is wrong, it is wrong because it limits the maximisation of well-being. I don't think it necessarily does limit this, so I don't think it is necessarily wrong.

you reallize of course that you are at odds with a core principle of Western Law, and that society will not be changing this principle.....

Yes. Well, they won't change it in the near future. And Western law has been influenced by consequentialist reasoning. Homosexuality was legalsied in my country because it doesn't have bad consequences. The moral absolutist condemnation of it was done away with.

You're kidding right?? The consequence of letting people profit from ill gotten gain is that you encourage them to go after ill gotten gain.

It is human nature, greed, this will never change, thus the morality stance against ill gotten gain will never change, thus the law will never change.

agrote wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:

Agrote: are rules regarding a minor's incapacity to form consent justified on consequentialist grounds? In other words, is the rule that minors, for instance, are incapable of consenting to enter into contracts productive of more utility than a rule that states otherwise?

Consent isn't relevant to the issue of whether paedophiles should be allowed to view child porn. You don't need someone's consent to have sexual thoughts about them.

That's fine. If someone ever makes that argument, you be sure to give them that response.

But in answer to your questions, I don't think that consent is ethically important. ... Consent doesn't seem to have very much to do with the maximisation of human well-being. ...

agrote wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:

You will notice the picture is actually a link to a web address. Each time this page is loaded, not only has A2K received a valuable 'click', but so has the page that is hosting that picture. As a surfing pervert; you can have no idea where a pic is hosted until after you've already monetized it by opening the page in the first place.

Your dance is BS and you damn well know it.

I don't damn well know it. This is news to me.

If a paedophile uploads child porn onto a forum, where will the images be hosted? On his computer? On a site for hosting pictures, not affiiliated with the producer of the child porn, and not able to provide any financial gain for the producer of the child porn?

If the images are hosted in one of those ways, then it seems the paedophile won't profit. The question of whether it is wrong to view child porn now boils down to the question of where free images of child porn are typically hosted. Right?

You're still doing a meaningless dance.

A. Since you will never be able to know where a pic is hosted until you've already opened the pervert-page in the first place; more opened pages will inevitably amount to more monetized 'clicks'. The multi-billion dollar juggernaut that is Google operates on this simple principle. Google is one of very few web presences more profitable than porn. If by some chance you are telling the truth, and you really didn't know what I just made clear enough for one of your younger victims to understand; you do now. It is not a difficult concept.

B. Since child porn is illegal in most places; it is exceedingly unlikely that many child porn providers are hosting the heinous evidence to convict them on their own computer. It is equally unlikely that many hosts will allow it. Regardless of how many there may be who do; YOU still can't know where it's hosted until after you've opened the page. Hence; each time you even search for your disgusting pics, some percentage of your clicks will monetize them whether you want them to or not. There is no hole for you to squirm out of here.