0
   

Yes, it is wrong to view child pornography.

 
 
agrote
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jul, 2008 03:20 pm
DrewDad wrote:
agrote wrote:
You're being dogmatic again.

Calling me dogmatic doesn't make me wrong.


No, it just means that nobody has any reason whatsoever to be convinced by your unsubstantiated claim. You haven't given reasons to believe your claim, you've just given your claim.
0 Replies
 
agrote
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jul, 2008 03:36 pm
DrewDad wrote:
agrote wrote:
But you haven't given an argument for this claim.

My claim that your argument is wrong? I've shown that a number of times. The idea that a single special case invalidates a general rule is just plain wrong.


Nothing is "just plain wrong". Things are wrong "because... XYZ". You asserting that things are "just plain wrong" is precisely what I'm complaining about.

Quote:
I stop at red lights. If a police officer tells me to go through anyway, I do so. The general rule still stands that I should stop at red lights.


But that's because the policeman's permission doesn't act a counterexample to the truth-claim that "it is against the law to drive through a red light."

Your claim, as I understand it, was that the fact that viewing child porn involves profiting from an immoral act, was sufficient to make it wrong. I gave an example of a morally acceptable act which involves profiting from an immoral act. This proves that profiting from an immoral act isn't a sufficient condition for wrong-doing. If it were a sufficient condition, then it would be morally wrong for child charity workers receive good wages.

Charity wasn't a 'special case' either. I can think of many other cases: journalists, novelists, counsellors, health workers. These are widespread cases of morally acceptable actions which involve profiting from other people's morally unacceptable actions.

If profiting from an immoral act isn't a sufficient condition for wrong-doing, then more needs to be said about viewing child porn to establish that it is wrong. If it is wrong to view child porn, then there must be something else about it which makes it wrong. It isn't enough to say that it invovles profiting from an immoral act.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jul, 2008 03:44 pm
For purposes of this discussion,
is child pornografy being defined as children
in sexual relationships with ADULTS ?

or with other children ?

or just unclothed with no sexuality involved ?
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jul, 2008 03:47 pm
You can find as many special cases as you wish; it still does not invalidate the initial rule.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/glossary.html#Ruleofthumb

Quote:
Rule of thumb
A rule which holds true for all normal members of a class, but admits exceptions.


"It is immoral to profit from an immoral act" would be considered a rule of thumb.

I doubt that you can show that viewing child pornography has some mitigating feature that exempts it from being immoral.
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jul, 2008 03:54 pm
OmSigDAVID wrote:
For purposes of this discussion,
is child pornografy being defined as children
in sexual relationships with ADULTS ?

or with other children ?

or just unclothed with no sexuality involved ?


You see a difference?????
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jul, 2008 03:57 pm
If an innocent bystander beholds an immoral act,
by what reasoning is it immoral for him to profit from it ?

If a witness sees a car being stolen
and writes a financially profitable book about it,
or paints a picture of the theft (an immoral act) how is he immoral
for banking his profit ?? What is the logic to that ?
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jul, 2008 04:00 pm
In each senario that you mention, it was accidental or by chance. A concious decision was not made by the bystander.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jul, 2008 04:00 pm
A bank robber drops a bag of money during his getaway.

Moral or immoral to pick it up and keep it?
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jul, 2008 04:03 pm
OmSigDAVID wrote:
If an innocent bystander beholds an immoral act,
by what reasoning is it immoral for him to profit from it ?

If a witness sees a car being stolen
and writes a financially profitable book about it,
or paints a picture of the theft (an immoral act) how is he immoral
for banking his profit ?? What is the logic to that ?

Yet another tortured hypothetical situation.

He would not be profiting from the immoral act; he would be profiting from his artistic insight, and the work he puts into creating the artwork.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jul, 2008 04:04 pm
Intrepid wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
For purposes of this discussion,
is child pornografy being defined as children
in sexual relationships with ADULTS ?

or with other children ?

or just unclothed with no sexuality involved ?


You see a difference?????

WHAT is "child pornografy" within the usage of this discussion ?

EVERYONE:

EXACTLY WHAT are we talking about ?
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jul, 2008 04:05 pm
Intrepid wrote:
In each senario that you mention, it was accidental or by chance. A concious decision was not made by the bystander.

That, too.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jul, 2008 04:08 pm
Go start a thread on how to define child pornography, if you truly do not know what it is.

Otherwise, be quiet while the adults talk.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jul, 2008 04:08 pm
DrewDad wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
If an innocent bystander beholds an immoral act,
by what reasoning is it immoral for him to profit from it ?

If a witness sees a car being stolen
and writes a financially profitable book about it,
or paints a picture of the theft (an immoral act) how is he immoral
for banking his profit ?? What is the logic to that ?

Yet another tortured hypothetical situation.

He would not be profiting from the immoral act;
he would be profiting from his artistic insight, and the work he puts into creating the artwork.

FALSE.
The immoral act is the foundation
and the sine qua non of the enterprize and its profit.


CAN WE DEFINE OUR TERMS HERE, PLEASE ?

ARE U DISCUSSING STATUTORY RAPE, OR NOT ???????
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jul, 2008 04:14 pm
DrewDad wrote:
Go start a thread on how to define child pornography, if you truly do not know what it is.

Otherwise, be quiet while the adults talk.

It its very improper to tell that to an old man,
retired after over 35 years in a profession.


That does not speak well of u.
It seems to indicate a semi-hysterical state-of-mind on your part,
refusing to define your terms.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jul, 2008 04:18 pm
OmSigDAVID wrote:
It seems to indicate a semi-hysterical state-of-mind on your part,
refusing to define your terms.

I'm not the one doing the Internet-equivalent of shouting.

I do often find you to be hysterically funny, however.
0 Replies
 
Endymion
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jul, 2008 04:38 pm
i had thought i was never going to laugh again after reading Agrote's thread yesterday... but this....

surprised to find myself laughing -
life's weird like that
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jul, 2008 05:16 pm
DrewDad wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:
It seems to indicate a semi-hysterical state-of-mind on your part,
refusing to define your terms.

Quote:
I'm not the one doing the Internet-equivalent of shouting.

1) There is nothing rong with drawing attention
to specific parts of my posting; it is emphasis without shouting.

2) U ALSO persist in keeping SECRET the definition
of what u r talking about. I suspect that u r ASHAMED
of your beliefs -- too ashamed to admit what thay r.


3) It is sad that the author of this thread raised an interesting topic,
concerning an interesting aspect of public policy and public perception
of that policy, but most of the posters have been UNWILLING
to offer objective analysis of the pros & cons of issues involved,
preferring to sling mud in ill-defined, emotional acrimony
instead of addressing (or even identifying) the issues.








Quote:
I do often find you to be hysterically funny, however.

I suspect that is intended as a personal insult.
I am not offended.

Humor is off-topic.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jul, 2008 05:34 pm
DD:
Quote:
I do often find you to be hysterically funny, however.


I'mSickDavid:
Quote:
I suspect that is intended as a personal insult.


Laughing
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jul, 2008 06:06 pm
So WHAT ???????
0 Replies
 
boomerang
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jul, 2008 06:21 pm
Quote:
3) It is sad that the author of this thread raised an interesting topic,
concerning an interesting aspect of public policy and public perception
of that policy, but most of the posters have been UNWILLING
to offer objective analysis of the pros & cons of issues involved,
preferring to sling mud in ill-defined, emotional acrimony
instead of addressing (or even identifying) the issues.


Ummmm....... DrewDad started this thread. You have it confused with the pro-child porn thread that agrote started. This is the anti-child porn thread.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.39 seconds on 12/23/2024 at 01:35:30