Is it wrong to view child pornography?

I think of myself as a very open minded person, and try to see the other person's point of view. When it come to this topic I feel that something needs to change, I don't know how to solve this issue. Children can't be hurt period, how do we stop that? You have your proposed idea, but it is something that I don't happen to agree with. I don't think it's a solution. It's very hard for us, even experts to understand another person's mind. Unless you have walked in their shoes, you can't really know what a person gets from looking at the photos. Is it just sexual gratification, or is it something more? None of us have all the answers as the think different people use it for different reasons. Everyone has their own set of fantasies I suppose. The matter of harsh punishment being for the thought, well that comes from seeing the horrific damage done to children. Is it wrong to view a photo of a child being abused that some "other" person did the abuse doesn't matter. You are getting off on it, you are enjoying it, how can that be right or good? I am not a religious person, I have my own thoughts and ideas. I believe in the death penalty and don't believe in suffering. I wouldn't wish a pedophile to be put in prison and raped and beaten by other inmates. Violence and abuse are wrong no matter what. I doesn't change a thing. I kind of laugh at your idea of living like monks and not being allowed sexual thoughts. Have you been inside the head of a monk? How do we know what they think about? Not having sex obviously isn't the answer, Uh priests and nuns have had "affairs". Back to the topic, I will just state that when it comes to people enjoying looking at child pornography in my mind I don't see how there can be and "good" come from it. Hey I like good looking men with muscles. I don't sit at home on my computer watching porn and getting my jollies. I don't go to the park or where ever you find these guys, and lear at them and fantasize about sex with them. Who ever you find attractive sexually, it becomes a problem when you are obsessed with it. In the case of pedophiles, they can not control themselves, so society has to do what we can to stop the damage they do to others. I don't see anything in your arguments that has changed my mind. I do see you getting a lot of attention from others and wonder that you aren't dizzy from all this debate. As I mother I will tell you this...
Go do your homework! Stop procrastinating and get your paper done.

agrote wrote:

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?

You want a rule that says that it is morally acceptable to view child porn as long as the viewer doesn't pay for it. You have never suggested that the morality of such viewing should be judged on an act-by-act basis. Of course you're a rule consequentialist.

agrote wrote:

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.

Are you retracting this admission?

No no, I originally thought that all acts of viewing free child porn were consequentially okay. I didn't think you could cause harm by just accessing free child porn. I now think that only some such acts are consequentially okay, because in certain cases there are (small) harmful consequences. This indicates that I am making judgments on an act-by-act basis.

agrote wrote:

No no, I originally thought that all acts of viewing free child porn were consequentially okay. I didn't think you could cause harm by just accessing free child porn. I now think that only some such acts are consequentially okay, because in certain cases there are (small) harmful consequences. This indicates that I am making judgments on an act-by-act basis.

No, you've just determined that certain cases no longer fall under your rule. Your general rule -- that viewing free child porn is morally acceptable -- still stands. You have just created a few exceptions to the rule.

Paedophilia is not Uncontrollable? Sorry but I don't understand this. Are you saying that they are pedophiles because they choose to be?

You may think this a stupid question but I will ask it anyway. Is there a difference between looking at child pornography and being a pedophile?

It seems like you are saying that they can control themselves, they just don't. If this is the case then why make child porn of any kind available? What I know is that if child porn isn't out there then that would be a good thing.
May I ask how it is that you are so knowledgeable about pedophiles? Is this something that you have done extensive research into? or have you worked with patients with this issue? I guess I am asking if you are a Dr.

snood wrote:

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?

She was 855.

snood wrote:

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?

She was 855.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

agrote wrote:

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.

Are you retracting this admission?

Prove that I made it. Quote me making it.

joefromchicago wrote:

agrote wrote:

No no, I originally thought that all acts of viewing free child porn were consequentially okay. I didn't think you could cause harm by just accessing free child porn. I now think that only some such acts are consequentially okay, because in certain cases there are (small) harmful consequences. This indicates that I am making judgments on an act-by-act basis.

No, you've just determined that certain cases no longer fall under your rule. Your general rule -- that viewing free child porn is morally acceptable -- still stands. You have just created a few exceptions to the rule.

You may think my 'general rule' still stands, but I don't. I don't think it's morally acceptable to view free child porn in cases where the images are hosted in such a way that the child abuser profits from the number of times the images are viewed. Thoses cases are not exceptions to a rule. They are harmful actions, and it is not unlikely that their harmfulness outweighs the benefit they provide to the viewers.

There may still be morally acceptable ways to view child porn, but I no longer think that all ways of viewing it for free are morally acceptable.

Set wrote:

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 remember O'Bill's explanation, not yours. I altered my position according to the information that he gave me. What more can you ask? Do you want me to have blind faith in your judgment? Do you want me to worship you as a god?

Why do people keep responding to this person? For 6 months now, he has sung this same tune and people keep indulging this mishigas. He offers nothing new or different and no insight. He keeps ignoring or deflecting intelligent debate and offering up one lame justification after another. The fact that anyone still responds here is a study in sociology and psychology. Also, if anyone REALLY thinks he's 20, they're more delusional than he is.

RHD wrote:

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?

Yes, but how would consent help? How would it make the psychological harm any less?

Quote:

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?

I realise that not doing it would prevent some harm. I don't see where consent comes into it.

Also, if anyone REALLY thinks he's 20, they're more delusional than he is.

agrote wrote:

snood wrote:

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?

She was 855.

Ashamed to give an honest answer?

agrote wrote:

snood wrote:

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?

She was 855.

Well, you chose not to answer and instead offered up something facetious (or maybe more accurately- wiseass), but the question is relevant in this context:

You are trying to convey the image of someone relatively normal, sane and healthy (except for the fact that he wants to have sex with underaged girls).

I submit that it would speak directly to just how "normal" you are, if you're having such a lively fantasy life, but are in reality just terrified and virginal.

I showed you how forum pictures are actually click through hits that register on other sites. You would have to be an idiot to not admit that some of those other sites are monetized sites...

...hence more child porn forum page views = more money for child porn producers.

1. Child abuser abuses child.
2. Child abuser sells pic to website.

3. Likeminded perverts link to website pictures.
4. Likeminded perverts click on pages that link these pictures.
5. Website profits from pay per view, subscription, per hit, click through, ad space, or simply by selling the website to some other pervert-profiteer based on the number of hits it has received.

One only need understand that this happens sometimes to be forced to admit that opening a page that contains such pictures, inevitably, adds a profit motive to the child abuser… because he who does the page opening can't possibly know where the pic is hosted until AFTER he's opened the page… at which point the click through profits have already been realized… even if he never scrolls down to where the pic is located.

Hence; every sicko looking for child porn online shares some percentage of blame for creating the profit in producing it.

This answers, beyond a reasonable doubt, that yes, viewing child porn is wrong... and should be punished accordingly.

Why do people keep responding to this person? For 6 months now, he has sung this same tune and people keep indulging this mishigas. He offers nothing new or different and no insight.

He keeps ignoring or deflecting intelligent debate and offering up one lame justification after another.

The fact that anyone still responds here is a study in sociology and psychology. Also, if anyone REALLY thinks he's 20, they're more delusional than he is.

Yes, but how would consent help? How would it make the psychological harm any less?

You haven't exaplined how it would reduce the harm. You've only restated that it would.