9
   

Is it wrong to view child pornography?

 
 
agrote
 
  1  
Sun 6 Jul, 2008 09:07 am
OCCOM BILL wrote:
agrote wrote:
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.
This is utter nonsense. If the sum total of your contribution to child porn producers is X, it matters little if you provide it in fractions of a cent at a time or as a lump sum. The result is X either way.


This argument only works if you think that those who view free child porn look at maybe hundreds of times more images than those who pay for it. Which is unlikely.

Quote:
agrote wrote:
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.
I just did in my last post.


You didn't tell me where child porn images are hosted.
0 Replies
 
agrote
 
  1  
Sun 6 Jul, 2008 09:12 am
vikorr wrote:
As a matter of both practicality and legal technicality :

It's rather hard to prove that someone is looking at child porn, without there being physical evidence of the porn (eg porn stored on a computer hard drive)

Agrote seems to be saying that pedo's shouldn't be charged for possessing child porn, unless the police can prove that the pedo's paid for the child porn.

With just a little bit of computer knowledge (and given that pedo's want to hide their activities, one would think most would acquire some computer knowledge), how could anyone prove that porn was downloaded from a pay site, a 'free' site or other?


Yes, there are practical problems. All I can say is that I think that the law should reflect ethical truths (if there are any). Since I am not a law expert, I don't know how this can be done. But if, as I have argued, in certain cases it is not morally wrong to view child porn, then the law should somehow be made to reflect this. I don't know how.
0 Replies
 
agrote
 
  1  
Sun 6 Jul, 2008 09:15 am
RHD wrote:
agrote wrote:
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.


Do you have anything to support this?


I think the burden of proof is on he who claims that it would encourage them to harm children. What reason is there to believe this proposition?

I know that behaviours are reinforced by rewards, and if one is rewarded for doing something, he will be more inclined to do it again. But kidnapping and raping a child in front of a camera (no easy task) is a different behaviour to masturbating in front of a computer. The pleasure obtained from masturbating in front of a computer will make the paedophile more inclined to masturbate in front of a computer. But why would it make him more inclined to plan and execute the kidnapping, raping and filming of a child?
0 Replies
 
RHD
 
  1  
Sun 6 Jul, 2008 10:11 am
agrote wrote:
I think the burden of proof is on he who claims that it would encourage them to harm children. What reason is there to believe this proposition?


What reason is there not to, besides your "I don't think it would happen" idea?

If you think that masturbating to images of children is a good enough alternative to having sex with children, then why isn't masturbating to your own thoughts a good enough alternative to masturbating to images of children? Why do you need the pornography at all? Remember, "pornography isn't everything".
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Sun 6 Jul, 2008 11:32 am
And for how long will the fantasy be enough you?
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Sun 6 Jul, 2008 11:33 am
agrote wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
agrote wrote:
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.
This is utter nonsense. If the sum total of your contribution to child porn producers is X, it matters little if you provide it in fractions of a cent at a time or as a lump sum. The result is X either way.


This argument only works if you think that those who view free child porn look at maybe hundreds of times more images than those who pay for it. Which is unlikely.

Quote:
agrote wrote:
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.
I just did in my last post.


You didn't tell me where child porn images are hosted.
You told me where your child porn images are viewed; forums. This is a forum. When you open a page that has pictures on it; some of those pictures are going to be click throughs to a monetized site. You now know this. But you are now back tracking into a position that you don't create a substantial amount of money by looking, rather than denying that your looking creates money. This is a step in the right direction...

It is also an admission of guilt. The simple fact of the matter is; money provides motive for abusing children and your actions provide some of that money. Your level of guilt can now only be argued from a percentage of harm done by you, which is exceedingly weak any way you slice it. Whether it takes 1, 10, 100, or 1,000 like-clicking perverts like yourself to result in sufficient motivation to abuse a child; you are nonetheless a contributing factor.

One man's pollution has no effect on the earth. One man's contribution to charity is virtually meaningless. One man's vote has never swayed an election. However, by each man doing their part, the environment can be improved, charities can accomplish wonderful things and candidates can be elected... and children will be heinously abused.

You're an intelligent man. Stop dancing and admit there's a problem. Only then can you work on doing your part to correct it.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Sun 6 Jul, 2008 11:38 am
agrote wrote:
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.


There is a slight fault in your logic agrote. Viewing more child porn requires the production of more child porn. The pedophile is harming children by creating the market that produces what he desires.

There is a moral stance in purchasing or even getting a product for "free." Even if you claim to only get it for "free" you are still wanting children to be harmed to get your product. This is quite different from merely "fantasizing" because you are not only encouraging but desirous of children being molested and filmed.

Your argument is morally bankrupt as well as logically bankrupt. You want to promote the idea that actions have no consequences which is not true and has never been true. Personally, you seem to want to absolve yourself from your guilt by seeking confirmation that your actions do have not consequences. What philosophy do you think comes close to permitting actions to have absolutely no consequences? Perhaps sociopaths can try to justify their actions that way but I can think of no ethical standard that allows that.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Sun 6 Jul, 2008 11:56 am
I'm not sure why all of you are trying to argue points of morals with people who has no understanding of its concept.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Sun 6 Jul, 2008 12:31 pm
a point of information is in order. Up till about two years ago child porn could be found on servers connected to the internet. However there has been over the last seven years or so an organized effort by governments and NGO's to locate, document, and remove child porn from the internet. I am not into this stuff so I have not looked, but I doubt that child porn can now be found on the internet with any regular consistency. It is now traded by the pedophiles individual to individual.

On a related note a few weeks ago a couple of internet companies agreed to block access for the customers to sites deemed by the government to be illegal porn sites. I assume that this issue will be headed to the Supremes in short order.

I know about Cyber child porn because I guy I know worked for many years in a military anti cyber porn effort, which he never said was controlled by the NSA but I believe that it is. Their primary target was child porn.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Sun 6 Jul, 2008 02:40 pm
agrote wrote:
joefromchicago wrote:
That's a rather puzzling position for you to take. Elsewhere you have asserted: "I personally want to engage in consentual [sic] sex with pubescent girls." If consent isn't ethically important, why does it matter whether the pubescent girls give their consent or not?


It matters to me personally. I don't like the idea of having sex with somebody who doesn't want me to have sex with them.

Well, why would it matter to you personally? Isn't it because nonconsensual sex is the equivalent of rape?
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Sun 6 Jul, 2008 02:47 pm
Quote:
But if, as I have argued, in certain cases it is not morally wrong to view child porn, then the law should somehow be made to reflect this. I don't know how.


Your arguments, certain cases and all, have all been shown to be in error.

Please.
Stop now and save what remains of your humanity.

Joe(Please)Nation
0 Replies
 
agrote
 
  1  
Mon 7 Jul, 2008 05:11 am
RHD wrote:
agrote wrote:
I think the burden of proof is on he who claims that it would encourage them to harm children. What reason is there to believe this proposition?


What reason is there not to, besides your "I don't think it would happen" idea


As I said, I don't think the burden of proof is on me. You're the one making a positive claim. I'm simply saying that I see no reason to believe your claim. I'm not saying it's definitely false. The existence of unicorns isn't definitely false.

Quote:
If you think that masturbating to images of children is a good enough alternative to having sex with children, then why isn't masturbating to your own thoughts a good enough alternative to masturbating to images of children? Why do you need the pornography at all? Remember, "pornography isn't everything".


Masturbating to images of child porn is masturbating to your own thoughts. It can be difficult to imagine things you've never seen, or situations you'ven ever been in, so the porn helps you fantasise. There's nothing sexy about a two-dimensional naked person frozen in time, but if you imagine your self engaging with the naked person, in all three dimensions, this can be sexy.
0 Replies
 
agrote
 
  1  
Mon 7 Jul, 2008 05:12 am
FreeDuck wrote:
And for how long will the fantasy be enough you?


11 years and counting.
0 Replies
 
agrote
 
  1  
Mon 7 Jul, 2008 05:30 am
OCCOM BILL wrote:
You told me where your child porn images are viewed; forums.


I told you nothing of the sort. I don't look at child porn.

Quote:
This is a forum. When you open a page that has pictures on it; some of those pictures are going to be click throughs to a monetized site. You now know this.


But whose monetized site? Will the people who make the child porn profit, or will some internet company profit? This is what I'm unsure about.

Quote:
But you are now back tracking into a position that you don't create a substantial amount of money by looking, rather than denying that your looking creates money. This is a step in the right direction...


I'm not ready to concede that the monetized clicks benefit the child abusers, rather than some neutral third party. I need more information before I commit myself to saying that looking creates an unsubstantial amount of profit for child abusers, rather than no amount at all.

Quote:
It is also an admission of guilt. The simple fact of the matter is; money provides motive for abusing children and your actions provide some of that money.


What actions?

Quote:
Your level of guilt can now only be argued from a percentage of harm done by you, which is exceedingly weak any way you slice it.


How would you know that? Do you think it's fun to be chronically sexually frustrated?

Quote:
Whether it takes 1, 10, 100, or 1,000 like-clicking perverts like yourself to result in sufficient motivation to abuse a child; you are nonetheless a contributing factor.


If I looked at child porn - which I don't - it might be possible that I would make a small contribution to the harm done to children. But it would be like dropping a piece of litter. It would be bad, but it wouldn't be bad enough for me to deserve the kind of treatment I could expect from mainstream society. Certainly not bad enough to warrant a prison sentence.

Quote:
You're an intelligent man. Stop dancing and admit there's a problem. Only then can you work on doing your part to correct it.


It isn't a black and white issue. I've altered my position to the extent that I can only conceive of a limited number of situations in which the viewing of free child porn could be entirely harmless. I still maintain that the act will rarely be harmful enough to warrant the sort of punishment it gets.

If a paedophile deserves to go to prison for looking at some pictures in a forum, then parents deserve to go to prison for not giving their children enough vegetables. I concede that looking at child porn might be bad. But it is nothing like actually administering torture to a child for your own profit or pleasure. It doesn't come close.
0 Replies
 
agrote
 
  1  
Mon 7 Jul, 2008 06:10 am
parados wrote:
agrote wrote:
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.


There is a slight fault in your logic agrote. Viewing more child porn requires the production of more child porn. The pedophile is harming children by creating the market that produces what he desires.

There is a moral stance in purchasing or even getting a product for "free." Even if you claim to only get it for "free" you are still wanting children to be harmed to get your product. This is quite different from merely "fantasizing" because you are not only encouraging but desirous of children being molested and filmed.


I have responded to these arguments already. I don't have time to repeat myself too much.

Quote:
Your argument is morally bankrupt as well as logically bankrupt. You want to promote the idea that actions have no consequences which is not true and has never been true.


Why would a consequentialist claim that there are no such things as consequences?

Quote:
Personally, you seem to want to absolve yourself from your guilt by seeking confirmation that your actions do have not consequences.


What am I guilty of doing, exactly?

Quote:
What philosophy do you think comes close to permitting actions to have absolutely no consequences? Perhaps sociopaths can try to justify their actions that way but I can think of no ethical standard that allows that.


No, me neither. Good thing I wholeheartedly believe that actions have consequences.
0 Replies
 
agrote
 
  1  
Mon 7 Jul, 2008 06:15 am
hawkeye10 wrote:
a point of information is in order. Up till about two years ago child porn could be found on servers connected to the internet. However there has been over the last seven years or so an organized effort by governments and NGO's to locate, document, and remove child porn from the internet. I am not into this stuff so I have not looked, but I doubt that child porn can now be found on the internet with any regular consistency. It is now traded by the pedophiles individual to individual.

On a related note a few weeks ago a couple of internet companies agreed to block access for the customers to sites deemed by the government to be illegal porn sites. I assume that this issue will be headed to the Supremes in short order.

I know about Cyber child porn because I guy I know worked for many years in a military anti cyber porn effort, which he never said was controlled by the NSA but I believe that it is. Their primary target was child porn.


Useful to know. The only harm I've conceded with sharing child porn is that it increases the risk of victims being traumatised to discover that pictures of their abuse are still being circulated. That would probably be a small risk (I image the victims might assume that the images are being circulated even when they aren't; and I doubt the victims are likely to seem them for themselves).

So if person-to-person trading is, in fact, the way child porn is viewed on the internet, then viewing child porn is something that should be stopped, but not punished with the severity that we do puinish it. You don't need to go to prison for slightly increasing the risk of somebody remembering something bad which has already happened to them.
0 Replies
 
agrote
 
  1  
Mon 7 Jul, 2008 06:28 am
joefromchicago wrote:
agrote wrote:
joefromchicago wrote:
That's a rather puzzling position for you to take. Elsewhere you have asserted: "I personally want to engage in consentual [sic] sex with pubescent girls." If consent isn't ethically important, why does it matter whether the pubescent girls give their consent or not?


It matters to me personally. I don't like the idea of having sex with somebody who doesn't want me to have sex with them.

Well, why would it matter to you personally? Isn't it because nonconsensual sex is the equivalent of rape?


Possibly, yeah. Rape tends to be a pretty unpleasant experience for the victim. But the issue of sexual consent collapses into the issue of harm. It's okay for parents to bathe children when they haven't consented, because it doesn't harm them. It isn't okay to have sex with someone who hasn't consented, because it does harm them.

I was probably going too far by saying that consent isn't ethically relevant. But consent (and anything else for that matter) is only ethically relevant insofar as it has consequences that increase or decrease the maximisation of well-being. Sexual consent minimises the possibility that the sexual partner will be traumatised by the sexual experience. It doesn't guarantee it. The presence or absence of trauma (or other harms and benefits) is what matters. Not the consent itself.

It is possible, though extremely unlikely, that an non-consentual sex act could be performed which both participants greatly enjoy, and which causes no short- or long-term harm to anybody. The 'victim' would have to be a strange sort of person for this to happen, but it's not out of the question.

Anyway, I don't know whether my personal aversion to non-consensual sex is based on the above reasoning. I suspect I'm probably just conditioned to be averse to the idea of having sex with someone who doesn't want me to have sex with them. Not that that's a bad sort of conditioning, of course. Another factor is that the idea of being wanted is a turn on.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Mon 7 Jul, 2008 06:45 am
agrote wrote:
parados wrote:
agrote wrote:
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.


There is a slight fault in your logic agrote. Viewing more child porn requires the production of more child porn. The pedophile is harming children by creating the market that produces what he desires.

There is a moral stance in purchasing or even getting a product for "free." Even if you claim to only get it for "free" you are still wanting children to be harmed to get your product. This is quite different from merely "fantasizing" because you are not only encouraging but desirous of children being molested and filmed.


I have responded to these arguments already. I don't have time to repeat myself too much.
"Free" doesn't make it OK. It is an attempt to absolve yourself of the consequences.


Quote:

Quote:
Your argument is morally bankrupt as well as logically bankrupt. You want to promote the idea that actions have no consequences which is not true and has never been true.


Why would a consequentialist claim that there are no such things as consequences?

Quote:
Personally, you seem to want to absolve yourself from your guilt by seeking confirmation that your actions do have not consequences.


What am I guilty of doing, exactly?

Quote:
What philosophy do you think comes close to permitting actions to have absolutely no consequences? Perhaps sociopaths can try to justify their actions that way but I can think of no ethical standard that allows that.


No, me neither. Good thing I wholeheartedly believe that actions have consequences.
You might claim you believe that but your actions show otherwise.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Mon 7 Jul, 2008 06:51 am
agrote wrote:


Useful to know. The only harm I've conceded with sharing child porn is that it increases the risk of victims being traumatised to discover that pictures of their abuse are still being circulated. That would probably be a small risk (I image the victims might assume that the images are being circulated even when they aren't; and I doubt the victims are likely to seem them for themselves).
There is another example of your attempting to absolve yourself. What do you do when you have seen all the child porn that is presently available? Do you stop wanting it? No, you want more made and then you would still attempt to absolve yourself by claiming you had nothing to do with it when more is produced.
Quote:

So if person-to-person trading is, in fact, the way child porn is viewed on the internet, then viewing child porn is something that should be stopped, but not punished with the severity that we do puinish it. You don't need to go to prison for slightly increasing the risk of somebody remembering something bad which has already happened to them.
It is not for the slight risk of somebody remembering. It is for the very real threat to children being abused to feed the need for more child porn.

Trading the same 1000 or 10,000 pictures over and over is not what anyone interested in porn, child or otherwise, wants to do. They want new stuff they have not seen. There is only one way to produce new child porn. Your desire for more creates that production. Denying that makes you appear to be a sociopath.
0 Replies
 
agrote
 
  1  
Mon 7 Jul, 2008 06:53 am
parados wrote:
"Free" doesn't make it OK. It is an attempt to absolve yourself of the consequences.


I don't need to absolve myself of anything except irritating a few A2K members. I haven't done anything.


Quote:
Quote:
Good thing I wholeheartedly believe that actions have consequences.
You might claim you believe that but your actions show otherwise.


What actions?! What have I done? Please tell me.

Actions obviously have consequences. Your action of writing your previous post has had the consequence of confusing me.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.08 seconds on 11/18/2024 at 11:22:12