Yes, it is wrong to view child pornography.

dlowan wrote:

That's what's so incredibly sad about people like hawk, agrote and you.

Please don't compare me to David. Hawkeye was one thing. I actually like hawkeye, and I think he is a fairly reasonable debater. I just think he's very wrong about rape, early childhood sexuality, child prostitution, etc. As another poster pointed out, I challenged his views about rape in another thread, almost as relentlessly as I've defended my own views about child porn. So it's a shame that we've been lumped together just because he didn't join in with the character assassination in my thread.

Quote:

But omsigdavid is another thing altogether.
He is an old man who writes like a 12 year old boy.
I refuse to be associated with him.

When I was 12 years old, I wrote as u do now.
U have failed to detect the error of your ways.

However, after I retired from the profession of law,
I felt guilty of perpetuating the stupid spelling that u continue to apply.
I have REJECTED loyalty to traditionalism that adheres to anti-logic.
It was by employment of SOUND REASONING that we rose to the top
of the food chain, not by traditionalistic atavism.
I will be loyal to sound reasoning, including efficient spelling that is FONETIC,
and I will continue to offer leadership by example.
I will not be deflected therefrom by ad hominem insults.

Thank you, dlowan, for attending, and making arguments.

These threads cause me personal anguish - I don't argue on them as my usual feisty self.

I won't hold you to it, I know the rest of us need to step up.

Anyone want a tape of my wailing/screaming? No, of course I'd never tape myself doing that.

But really, pain happens with all this stuff.

agrote wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

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.

No, it seems to indicate that you write like a child.

So according to U,
a person shud refuse to define his terms,
if someone else writes like a child,
and (presumably) that person shud be enuf of a snob
to refuse to talk to any child.

I will not be deflected therefrom by ad hominem insults.

Actually, I think it would be far better if we all ignored these people, and let these pro-rape, pro-child abuse threads sink into oblivion.

I regret having contributed more than one post, as it was evident pretty much immediately that no rational argument would have any effect, and I think they get off on the debate.

Oh...and whan it comes to arguing...people like Joe from Chicago have done a far better job.

it was evident pretty much immediately that no rational argument would have any effect, and I think they get off on the debate.

dlowan:

Quote:

it was evident pretty much immediately that no rational argument would have any effect, and I think they get off on the debate.

ditto. nuff said.

dlowan wrote:

Actually, I think it would be far better if we all ignored these people, and let these pro-rape, pro-child abuse threads sink into oblivion.

It seems you already have ignored me. My thread wasn't pro-child abuse.

Quote:

I regret having contributed more than one post, as it was evident pretty much immediately that no rational argument would have any effect, and I think they get off on the debate.

I do enjoy debate, I won't deny that. But others' rational arguments have had a significant effect on my views. I have drastically changed my stance regarding child porn, based on arguments from Robert (can't remember the surname), OCCOM BILL and others.

I no longer think that viewing child porn is morally acceptable. I just don't think it is bad enough to warrant a prison sentence.

Well there are bad arguments against my former position, and good ones. People have continued to repeat the bad arguments, and I've found myself tempted to raise objections to them. Raising objections to bad arguments against position X does not, however, constitute a defence of position X. I don't think you have seen me defend a position that I no longer hold.

agrote wrote:

Well there are bad arguments against my former position, and good ones. People have continued to repeat the bad arguments, and I've found myself tempted to raise objections to them. Raising objections to bad arguments against position X does not, however, constitute a defence of position X. I don't think you have seen me defend a position that I no longer hold.

I know there's people here who don't have children, who have opposed your position, but I'm damned sure that you don't have any!

It's a bad rule of thumb though, isn't it?

dlowan:

Quote:

it was evident pretty much immediately that no rational argument would have any effect, and I think they get off on the debate.

ditto. nuff said.

Oh...and whan it comes to arguing...people like Joe from Chicago have done a far better job.

dlowan wrote:

Oh...and whan it comes to arguing...people like Joe from Chicago have done a far better job.

At first, it actually appeared that agrote was interested in a genuine exchange of ideas, and that he was remarkably receptive to new ideas and to reevaluating his own position. Alas, with his disclosure that he is an act consequentialist, he revealed that he is nothing more than a common bamboozler, an intellectual grifter. His mind is open, to be sure, but only in the way that the American prairie was open: vast, unexplored, and empty. The surprising thing is that he is fooling himself as much as he is fooling the rest of us. His argument is the equivalent of a game of three-card monte, and even he doesn't know where the queen of spades is located. He is lying, to be sure, the question is: is he lying mostly to himself?

snood wrote:

dlowan:

Quote:

it was evident pretty much immediately that no rational argument would have any effect, and I think they get off on the debate.

ditto. nuff said.

You're right, you're right. I know you're right.

I haven't even posted in the other thread, 'cause it was so absurd, disgusting, and glaringly obvious that it was a major troll.

After weeks of seeing it though (was it weeks? sure seems like it), I just couldn't keep my yap shut anymore.

I nearly stopped coming here (A2k) because I felt so physically distressed as the place seemed to become a child abuse/rape supporters' playground.

dlowan wrote:

I nearly stopped coming here (A2k) because I felt so physically distressed as the place seemed to become a child abuse/rape supporters' playground.

Me, too.

Then I figured that if I could put up with and find amusement in our regular trolls that I could find a way to do it with these dipweeds.

So....is a consequentialist like a utilitarian? If not, how do they differ?

Can you explain your objections to act consequentialists?

agrote wrote:

It's a bad rule of thumb though, isn't it?

No.

Again:

A bank robber drops a bag of money during his getaway. It would be immoral to take the money.

Your list (charity workers, journalists, health workers, social workers, counsellors, psychiatrists, artists etc.) are not people profiting from immoral acts. They are people being compensated (usually poorly) for their training, expertise, time, empathy, insight and effort.