Yes, it is wrong to view child pornography.

Call it what you will, agrote, you're deriving pleasure from another's torture.

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 ?

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.

agrote wrote:

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.

Once again, yes it is immoral because it is profiting from an immoral act.

boomerang wrote:

Call it what you will, agrote, you're deriving pleasure from another's torture.

You're de facto deriving pleasure from another's torture. But it isn't the torture that pleases you. It's the nudity and the sexual fantasy.

If a man is tortured until he dies, and his family all meet up at the funeral and have an enjoyable time at the party afterwards, then they de facto[/] derive pleasure from another's torture. The man's torture forms part of a chain of causes which lead to these people experiencing pleasure. But they are not doing something wrong by experiencing this pleasure. In a sense they are pleased because he was tortured (his being tortured lead to the situation in which they fidn themselves experiencing pleasure). But they are not pleased that he was tortured.

A child's torture forms part of a chain of causes which leads to a child porn viewer experiencing pleasure. But the child porn viewer needn't be pleased that the child has been tortured.

OmSigDAVID wrote:

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 ?

R we?

Gibberish is gibberish; crazy is crazy. It's not acrimonious to accurately label something.

Occasionally, I find you entertaining. That does not equate to "normal," "logical," "reasonable," or, god forbid, "comprehensible."

You're being dogmatic. I've demonstrated that profiting from an immoral act is not sufficient for an act to be immoral. If it were, then professional child charity workers would be immoral. You haven't dealt with my argument. You've dismissed it, and simply restated your position.

1) It is not among my ambitions to comport with your norms.

2) If u cannot comprehend, that is not my problem.

You're de facto deriving pleasure from another's torture. But it isn't the torture that pleases you. It's the nudity and the sexual fantasy.

If a man is tortured until he dies, and his family all meet up at the funeral and have an enjoyable time at the party afterwards, then they de facto[/] derive pleasure from another's torture. The man's torture forms part of a chain of causes which lead to these people experiencing pleasure. But they are not doing something wrong by experiencing this pleasure. In a sense they are pleased because he was tortured (his being tortured lead to the situation in which they fidn themselves experiencing pleasure). But they are not pleased that he was tortured.

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.

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.

agrote wrote:

boomerang wrote:

Call it what you will, agrote, you're deriving pleasure from another's torture.

You're de facto deriving pleasure from another's torture. But it isn't the torture that pleases you. It's the nudity and the sexual fantasy.

If a man is tortured until he dies, and his family all meet up at the funeral and have an enjoyable time at the party afterwards, then they de facto[/] derive pleasure from another's torture. The man's torture forms part of a chain of causes which lead to these people experiencing pleasure. But they are not doing something wrong by experiencing this pleasure. In a sense they are pleased because he was tortured (his being tortured lead to the situation in which they fidn themselves experiencing pleasure). But they are not pleased that he was tortured.

A child's torture forms part of a chain of causes which leads to a child porn viewer experiencing pleasure. But the child porn viewer needn't be pleased that the child has been tortured.

You're completely around the bend, you know that? You're so far around the bend, that I doubt you can see the bend from where you are.

You may provide all of the tortured hypotheticals you wish (pun intended), but the basic tenet stands that profiting from an immoral act is immoral.

agrote wrote:

You're being dogmatic. I've demonstrated that profiting from an immoral act is not sufficient for an act to be immoral. If it were, then professional child charity workers would be immoral. You haven't dealt with my argument. You've dismissed it, and simply restated your position.

Yes, I've dismissed it because it is fallacious. You have not demonstrated anything, except that you can find special cases. Once again, the special cases do not disprove the original tenet.

agrote wrote:

You're de facto deriving pleasure from another's torture. But it isn't the torture that pleases you. It's the nudity and the sexual fantasy.

If a man is tortured until he dies, and his family all meet up at the funeral and have an enjoyable time at the party afterwards, then they de facto[/] derive pleasure from another's torture. The man's torture forms part of a chain of causes which lead to these people experiencing pleasure. But they are not doing something wrong by experiencing this pleasure. In a sense they are pleased because he was tortured (his being tortured lead to the situation in which they fidn themselves experiencing pleasure). But they are not pleased that he was tortured.

What's being tortured here is the analogy - unless you can show that people are being tortured to death, solely for the sake of providing the survivors with a jolly wake.

agrote wrote :

Quote:

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.

because children are being abused in the process of creating child prnography !
hbg

You're being dogmatic again.

DrewDad wrote:

agrote wrote:

You're being dogmatic. I've demonstrated that profiting from an immoral act is not sufficient for an act to be immoral. If it were, then professional child charity workers would be immoral. You haven't dealt with my argument. You've dismissed it, and simply restated your position.

Yes, I've dismissed it because it is fallacious. You have not demonstrated anything, except that you can find special cases. Once again, the special cases do not disprove the original tenet.

But you haven't given an argument for this claim.