Yes, it is wrong to view child pornography.

I didn't say people don't do it; I said it's immoral.

I'm sure there are entire classes in journalism school dedicated to the ethics of covering war, crime, and the like.

Viewing pornography, however, is not journalism.

If it weren't for immoral acts of child abuse or neglect, members of child-oriented charities wouldn't be able to make a career out of protecting children from abuse or neglect.

Quote:

If it weren't for immoral acts of child abuse or neglect, members of child-oriented charities wouldn't be able to make a career out of protecting children from abuse or neglect.

Oh please.

You want to legitimize child pornography so that social workers can keep their jobs?

I willing to bet they would all celebrate is they were no longer needed because people quit abusing children. They'd probably rather work at McDonalds than face another broken child. They certainly don't enter this field for money or prestige.

But they do profit from the occurence of immoral acts, and they are not wrong to do so. Therefore, it is not necessarily wrong to profit from the occurence of an immoral act. If it is wrong to view child porn, there must be some other explanation for why it is wrong.

But they do profit from the occurence of immoral acts, and they are not wrong to do so. Therefore, it is not necessarily wrong to profit from the occurence of an immoral act. If it is wrong to view child porn, there must be some other explanation for why it is wrong.

agrote wrote:

But they do profit from the occurence of immoral acts, and they are not wrong to do so. Therefore, it is not necessarily wrong to profit from the occurence of an immoral act. If it is wrong to view child porn, there must be some other explanation for why it is wrong.

This is not some chicken v. egg thing. Therapists did not create child abuse in order to have a nice profitable career. They're there because they care about kids and they hate what adults sometimes do to them.

I know that they would rather live in a cardboard box and panhandle for spare change than see one more damaged child.

By your logic every single business "profits" from an immoral act.

The oblivious store owner accepts money from a customer who has robbed a bank. That doesn't mean the store owner "supports" bank robbery.

Hannah Montana and The Jonas Brothers don't support pedophilia even though a pedophile is probably spending a lot of time listening to their pubescent "girlfriend" talk about such things and lots of money buying tickets to take them to the concerts.

agrote wrote:

But they do profit from the occurence of immoral acts, and they are not wrong to do so. Therefore, it is not necessarily wrong to profit from the occurence of an immoral act. If it is wrong to view child porn, there must be some other explanation for why it is wrong.

Suck it.



Viewing pornography ain't being a therapist.

Viewing pornography ain't being a journalist.

Viewing pornography ain't being a cop.



You need to justify viewing pornography. I do not need need to justify treating abused kids.

from another person's moral act.

agrote wrote:

from another person's moral act.

Freudian slip?

The child porn looker does know that a child was harmed in the making of his "entertainment" and he doesn't give a ****.

It doesn't matter where you get it.

It doesn't matter if you pay for it.

It doesn't matter if anyone knows about it.

It is created through abusing children.
It is wrong to enjoy looking at images of children being abused. Period.

Can we all move on, now?

Jesus, buddy - you have really gone completely off the deep end of the self-deluded pool.

Following your "reasoning" to its "logical" end, a person could be justified in watching ANYTHING - no matter how depraved; no matter how wrong the act depicted - because he just "didn't think about" anything while he gratified himself.

You KNOW using that shyt to pleasure yourself is wrong. You just won't admit it.

Hopefully, but you do realize that only the majority of readers will understand what you said.
The author of the other thread will dispute
your concise and accurate statements.

Damn straight, snood.

I simply can't imagine being so horney that I could find someone else's humiliation and heartbreak erotic.

Disgusting.