0
   

Yes, it is wrong to view child pornography.

Forums: Philosophy, Ethics, Pornography
Email this Topic • Print this Page
 
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jul, 2008 05:02 am
hawkeye10 wrote:
There have been 65 active threads in the last three hours alone,
if you are not interested in the subject matter of a thread kindly move along
....the solution to your perceived problem ain't complicated folks.

It kinda looks like,
in addition to some people not desiring to discuss certain topics,
thay ALSO don 't want OTHER people to discuss them EITHER.

I wonder Y that IS ?


Is that like censorship, or something ?
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jul, 2008 05:14 am
JLNobody wrote:
It is wrong to have anything to do with an industry
that exploits children.

Does that mean that schools
shud go out of business and teachers r bad ?

Was Disney evil for inventing n selling Mikey Mouse cartoons ?

Was the Mattel toy company morally foul ?

Quote:
I am, for the same reason, also against child labor.

It seems to me
that a person of any age has a natural right
to look for a job, if he wants to.



Quote:


Forget about the clinical implications of fetishes;
I suspect we all have some.

Forgotten.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jul, 2008 05:39 am
agrote wrote:
boomerang wrote:
Damn straight, snood.

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

Disgusting.


You're simply missing the point. Have you heard of 'suspension of disbelief'?

Paedophiles are not aroused by heartbreak and humiliation. That is called sadism, not paedophilia.


Yeah, they simply don't think about the heartbreak and humiliation while they get aroused. That is called denial.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jul, 2008 05:40 am
DrewDad wrote:

Quote:
This consequence needs to be weighed up against the (admittedly small) positive consequences for the viewer of the porn. I'm sure I won't persuade anyone else to acknowledge the benefit that the viewer receives by watching the porn. But as a consequentialist, I must take this into account.

Dear God.




Quote:
Abusing children is immoral.

Is that a unique attribute of children ?
Is it morally OK to abuse their grandparents,
or their pussycats ?
By definition, abusing anyone is immoral.




Quote:
Creating child pornography abuses children.

Will u explain specificly how ?
Maybe a broken bone ? or falling hair ? hi blood presure ?

What if the child originates this idea
to raise funds to apply to his or her own delights ?




Quote:

Therefore,
creating child pornography is immoral.

U have not demonstrated your logic.
U have not shown cause and effect.
Maybe u IMPLY that everyone shud take your word for it ??



Quote:
It is immoral to profit from an immoral act.
It does not matter if the original immoral act
was your action or someone else's.

What is your reasoning ?
Y do u believe this ?

If u r morally correct,
then I am immoral if a criminal immorally kills my creditor
(who has no heirs nor legatees) before I pay him,
thereby disabling me from paying that debt.




Quote:
Therefore, enjoying child pornography is an immoral act.

This is a non-sequitur,
regardless of whether or not it is indeed an immoral act.

Your logic simply has not come even close to proving it.

U just ask us to accept your word for this, on blind faith in you.
0 Replies
 
agrote
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jul, 2008 07:49 am
snood wrote:
agrote wrote:
boomerang wrote:
Damn straight, snood.

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

Disgusting.


You're simply missing the point. Have you heard of 'suspension of disbelief'?

Paedophiles are not aroused by heartbreak and humiliation. That is called sadism, not paedophilia.


Yeah, they simply don't think about the heartbreak and humiliation while they get aroused. That is called denial.


You could call it that, or you could call it suspension of disbelief. Is it a hamrful practice, do you think?

When people go to see troubled singers perform (e.g. with serious drug problems), they don't necessarily think about the singer's serious personal problems (which will have inspired their music) while they enjoy the performance. They lose themselves in the music - since that is what they are there for - and they suspend their knowledge of the singer's subjectivity.

It's a similar sort of situation. The singer's art would not be as it is, were it not for the singer's emotional pain, and the audience may realise this and they may have tremendous sympathy for the singer. But they may suspend those feelings during the course of the performance, for the sake of enjoying the performance. Nobody climbs onstage at an Amy Winehouse concert and offers to help get her off drugs. They bracket those thoughts, and enjoy the music.

Is this wrong? If not, then why is it wrong for a paedophile to bracket (for ten minutes or so) his concern for child welfare, for the purpose of arousing himself in private?
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jul, 2008 08:04 am
agrote wrote:
All I'm saying is that your theory of why it is wrong to view child porn is flawed. I'm not saying you're wrong to think it's immoral to view child porn. I'm saying you're wrong to think that the reason for it being immoral is that it involves profiting from another person's moral act.

Nope. It may be immoral for other reasons as well, but profiting from an immoral act is immoral. Until you can disprove that, you're stuck.

And I'm not buying your fallacious counter examples of people being justly compensated for assisting people who have been harmed.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jul, 2008 08:07 am
OmSigDavid, even in your craziest rants about guns or spelling you have not shown yourself to be as completely screwed up as you have in this thread.

And shouldn't it be nawn-sekwitur or something?
0 Replies
 
agrote
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jul, 2008 08:20 am
DrewDad wrote:
agrote wrote:
All I'm saying is that your theory of why it is wrong to view child porn is flawed. I'm not saying you're wrong to think it's immoral to view child porn. I'm saying you're wrong to think that the reason for it being immoral is that it involves profiting from another person's moral act.

Nope. It may be immoral for other reasons as well, but profiting from an immoral act is immoral. Until you can disprove that, you're stuck.


I've already disproved it. Professional charity workers profit from immoral acts. Children are abused, which is an immoral act. Charities work to try and prevent such abuse. This work would not and could not exist, were it not for the immoral acts of abuse (you can't have a charity to protect children from abuse unless children get abused). These charity workers of course have the best of intentions, and they do what they do for the children, not for their own profit or satisfaction. Nevertheless, the professional charity workers do get paid to do what they do. They de facto profit from the immoral abuse of children. That isn't their goal, but it's an inevitable consequence of making a career out of protecting children from abuse.

And it's no bad thing. It's perfectly okay for charity workers to get paid for what they do. There's nothing wrong with it. Profiting from an immoral act is not necessarily immoral.

Quote:
I'm not buying your fallacious counter examples of people being justly compensated for assisting people who have been harmed.


You've just introduced a new concept: "justly compensated." It seems you think that it is wrong to view child porn for pleasure because it involves unjustly profiting from an immoral act. Is this correct? If so, that's a perfectly reasonable view to hold. But it isn't the view that "it is immoral to profit from an immoral act." It's the view that "it is immoral to unjustly profit from an immoral act."
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jul, 2008 08:23 am
agrote wrote:
I've already disproved it.

No, you've (may have) found special cases where there are redeeming factors.

Your special cases do not disprove the basic rule.

There are no redeeming factors in viewing child pornography.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jul, 2008 08:37 am
DrewDad wrote:

OmSigDavid, even in your craziest rants about guns or spelling you have not shown yourself
to be as completely screwed up as you have in this thread.

Abandoning any pretense of reason or logic
in favor of naked personal acrimony, are we ?

Quote:
And shouldn't it be nawn-sekwitur or something?

No.
Non is non. I c nothing rong with that. It is already fonetic,
as almost all of English already is with few exceptions such as jamming
Ls into wud, cud or shud, or like adding UGH to the word tho, or view for vu, for no reason.
Sequitur likewise is already fonetic enuf, as not to justify tampering,
but u pull us off topic by diverting attention to what u claim
I have "shown" myself. I am not running for office and this forum is anonymous.
Hence, your personal mud-slinging is pointless and without effect.



I think its interesting (sometimes) to inquire into the make-up of emotions
and how the mind operates.
0 Replies
 
boomerang
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jul, 2008 08:38 am
Quote:
OmSigDavid, even in your craziest rants about guns or spelling you have not shown yourself to be as completely screwed up as you have in this thread.


Yes indeed, David's gone off the deep end here.

Surely it would make more sense for our entrepreneurial 5 year old to stick with whatever activity had allowed him to purchase a camera, lighting, tripod, location and internet connection to develop his fledgling porn business.
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jul, 2008 08:40 am
It must have some effect. You took the time to make a rambling rebuttal on it.

BTW - cud is something that cows chew.



It IS wrong to view child porn.
0 Replies
 
boomerang
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jul, 2008 08:42 am
snood wrote:
agrote wrote:
boomerang wrote:
Damn straight, snood.

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

Disgusting.


You're simply missing the point. Have you heard of 'suspension of disbelief'?

Paedophiles are not aroused by heartbreak and humiliation. That is called sadism, not paedophilia.


Yeah, they simply don't think about the heartbreak and humiliation while they get aroused. That is called denial.


Exactly, snood.

Call it what you will, agrote, you're deriving pleasure from another's torture.
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jul, 2008 08:43 am
That last post was directed to OmSigDAVID
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jul, 2008 08:45 am
DrewDad wrote:
agrote wrote:
I've already disproved it.

No, you've (may have) found special cases where there are redeeming factors.

Your special cases do not disprove the basic rule.

There are no redeeming factors in viewing child pornography.

Are there any redeeming factors in viewing
a picture of a tree or of a river, or of a baseball game ?
I am not aware of any distinction.

I have never been much into art, juvenile nor otherwise,
but I care A LOT about government screwing around with censorship
or other curtailments of the citizens' personal freedom.

Government MUST be kept on a short leash
or the damned thing will forget its place and take over.
(Some will say it already has.)
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jul, 2008 08:51 am
This is just as stupid an your crazed gun rantings. Guns and dispowerment of government at any expense.... even that of innocent children.

You are pathetic.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jul, 2008 08:55 am
boomerang wrote:
Quote:
OmSigDavid, even in your craziest rants about guns or spelling you have not shown yourself to be as completely screwed up as you have in this thread.


Yes indeed, David's gone off the deep end here.

Surely it would make more sense for our entrepreneurial 5 year old to stick with whatever activity had allowed him to purchase a camera, lighting, tripod, location and internet connection to develop his fledgling porn business.

This is not a product of my creative imagination.
Maybe around 15 or 20 years ago, on a train into Manhattan,
several boys looking around 12 years old were near me, discussing this among themselves.
I don 't remember any discussion of the Internet.
I do remember them laffing about not paying taxes on their profits.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jul, 2008 09:04 am
Intrepid wrote:
This is just as stupid an your crazed gun rantings. Guns and dispowerment of government at any expense.... even that of innocent children.

You are pathetic.

Your ability to communicate seems confined to gushing mindless emotion,
and personal character assassination, rather than objective analysis of ANYTHING;
all u can do is dump liberal emotion.

I doubt that anyone can argue with u because u do not seem to have
the ability to reason.

I don' t need to know about your pathos; keep your pathos.
0 Replies
 
agrote
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jul, 2008 09:10 am
DrewDad wrote:
agrote wrote:
I've already disproved it.

No, you've (may have) found special cases where there are redeeming factors.

Your special cases do not disprove the basic rule.

There are no redeeming factors in viewing child pornography.


So viewing child porn is wrong because it doesn't have 'redeeming factors'. Not because it involves profit from an immoral act.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jul, 2008 09:13 am
OmSigDAVID wrote:
I am not aware of any distinction.

This may be the first statement from you with which I am in total agreement.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
The Void and the Absolute Oneness of the Universe - Discussion by Relinquish
can we reconcile darkness in man with madness(lunacy) ? - Question by studentnorway
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
In the GRAND scheme of things, what matters? - Question by komr98
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
How can something come from nothing? - Question by ripple
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Yes, it is wrong to view child pornography.
  3. » Page 3
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.12 seconds on 12/22/2024 at 03:36:36
▲ ▼