Is it wrong to view child pornography?

Setanta wrote:

agrote wrote:

Look, I have dealt with these claims already. You're going to have to backtrack and read what I have already written if you want to have a discussion with me. You're about 20 pages out of date with these claims. I don't want to repeat myself, I'm sorry.

In the cannibalism thread, you demanded that i produce the evidence that your objections had been met in this thread. Here, however, you object that such an exercise be required of you. Have you never heard the dictum of folk wisdom to the effect that sauce for the goose makes sauce for the gander?

We have learned that you were unaware of the word turpitude until you read it here. How about hypocrisy, is that a word with which you are also unfamiliar?

I suspected you of making things up. I wanted evidence that demonstrated that you weren't making things up. If Parados thinks I am lying about having dealt with his claims previously, he can say so. If he asks me to do the backtracking for him, then I will oblige.

joefromchicago wrote:

Given that you now concede that consent has ethical implications under a consequentialist system...

Sexual consent. Not consent in general.

You suspected me of making things up ? ! ? ! ? Jesus H. Christ on a pogo stick, boy, despite your vaunted intellectual capabilities, about which you were bragging in another thread...

...you were unable to recall that every one of the arguments you were advancing in the cannibalism thread had been addressed, repeatedly, in this thread?

You didn't recall, for example, that you were told again and again in this thread that viewing images of child sexual abuse does create a demand for such images, even though you don't pay for it?

In fact, in that thread, you trotted that bullshit out again, and several times, people pointed out to you why viewing images of any kind can build demand, even though you don't pay for them--and you continued to state that this is not true.

O'Bill gave you a detailed explanation in that thread (just as i did in this thread) of reasons why people who offer free images at their web sites can profit even though you don't pay--and you still continued to assert that this is not true.

I suspect you of either being an idiot child or a goddamned liar.

agrote wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:

Given that you now concede that consent has ethical implications under a consequentialist system...

Sexual consent. Not consent in general.

Why the distinction? As you noted before, it all comes down to a question of harm. If a requirement of consent prevents harm, it really doesn't matter if it's in a sexual or a non-sexual situation. Wouldn't you agree?

My point is that the requirement of consent only prevents harm in a sexual context. Consent to sexual intercourse, and perhaps other sex acts, will go some way towards preventing certain psychological harms. But consent to all sorts of other things will not have that preventative effect. Sexual consent has ethical implications under a consequentialist system. Consent in general does not.

Anyway, this is very off topic.

agrote wrote:

My point is that the requirement of consent only prevents harm in a sexual context. Consent to sexual intercourse, and perhaps other sex acts, will go some way towards preventing certain psychological harms. But consent to all sorts of other things will not have that preventative effect. Sexual consent has ethical implications under a consequentialist system. Consent in general does not.

You're fooling yourself. Previously you brought up the example of a boxing match -- but what is the difference between a boxing match and a brawl except for the fact that the participants in the former consented to their participation? Clearly, even you believe that consent has ethical implications in non-sexual situations.

Anyway, this is very off topic.

Yes yes yes, okay. But it all boils down to harm/well-being/happiness/whatever. Doesn't it. I really think consent is a red herring. The act of consenting can be utile/inutile just like any other action. So what?

I can't even remember what position I'm trying to do defend.

Why? What's it got to do with viewing child porn? Who needs to consent to that? What harm will consent to being wanked over prevent?

I guess if we were locked up for our thoughts alone, I would have been years ago. I have in the past (not so distant) thought some not so nice things about certain people. The whole child sex thing isn't just a thought though is it? If it was a thought it would remain in your own head, you can create whatever images you wish. It does not remain a thought when you add actual photos.

This is an aspect of peoples lives that isn't healthy or "normal" which I suppose you can argue that normal is different for each of us. I can generally be out of touch with reality here, but when was the last time a pedophile was arrested for the "thought"?

A thought leaves no evidence behind. What they are arrested for is the often thousands of photos they have stored on their computers, as well as other physical evidence.

How about letting these people defend themselves? Why do you choose to be their voice? Did they ask you to? I know even rapists and murders get a lawyer to represent them, morally I don't know how they do it. I couldn't imagine fighting for someone's freedom, when you know they are guilty. (yes I know some are innocent) even Charles Manson had a lawyer defending what he did, along with Jefferey Dalmer and all the others.

Again I will stress that the thought isn't what gets people arrested, it's the actions that follow that thought. With the child pornography it seems the more they look the more they need to keep looking, it's never enough, obviously this is true because they are down loading thousands of pictures in most cases they get progressively worse in content. I can see your points and sort of understand where they are coming from. It's just sad to me that this is what you have chosen to spend your time on, and darn it I just realized that I am wasting my time too.

No way no how will I change your mind on this...

...the same as you will never change mine to your way of thinking.

agrote wrote:

Yes yes yes, okay. But it all boils down to harm/well-being/happiness/whatever. Doesn't it. I really think consent is a red herring. The act of consenting can be utile/inutile just like any other action. So what?

Hold on. Although the act of consenting can be utile or inutile, the focus is more properly on whether the rule of consenting is more utile than inutile. You are, after all, most certainly a rule consequentialist, not an act consequentialist.

agrote wrote:

I can't even remember what position I'm trying to do defend.

Then that doesn't reflect very well on your position.

agrote wrote:

Why? What's it got to do with viewing child porn? Who needs to consent to that? What harm will consent to being wanked over prevent?

Patience, grasshopper.

Why? What's it got to do with viewing child porn? Who needs to consent to that? What harm will consent to being wanked over prevent?

In the case of pedophiles, they can not control themselves

joefromchicago wrote:

agrote wrote:

Yes yes yes, okay. But it all boils down to harm/well-being/happiness/whatever. Doesn't it. I really think consent is a red herring. The act of consenting can be utile/inutile just like any other action. So what?

Hold on. Although the act of consenting can be utile or inutile, the focus is more properly on whether the rule of consenting is more utile than inutile. You are, after all, most certainly a rule consequentialist, not an act consequentialist.

Am I?

Hey agrote (if you've answered this before, please excuse),
Just curious - have you ever had a physically intimate relationship with a female of any age? If so, how old was she?

Now that you've conceded looking at child porn on forums does indeed provide financial benefit (motive) to producers of same: What sources do you use other than forums?

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Now that you've conceded looking at child porn on forums does indeed provide financial benefit (motive) to producers of same: What sources do you use other than forums?

You haven't been paying attention.

agrote wrote:

Why? What's it got to do with viewing child porn? Who needs to consent to that? What harm will consent to being wanked over prevent?

If someone is abused, don't you think that knowing about tens of thousands of people around the world "enjoying" images of their abuse will cause a great deal more psychological harm than just the abuse on its own?

Here's an analogy: if a friend played a humiliating joke on you, you might be upset. But you would be far more upset if they uploaded photos of your humiliation to the Internet (or put a video of it on YouTube), so that many others would enjoy your humiliation. If the friend asked for your consent before doing this, would you give it? Do you recognise that not doing it without your consent would prevent some harm?