Yes, it is wrong to view child pornography.

I also think that agrote's and hawk's ongoing dismissal of any emotion in arguments against them is actually symptomatic of their problems.....

in that empathy, for example, is a valid and essential part of life in human societies,

...and of understanding why child abuse and rape are not ok.

Lacking this basic understanding is highly problematic.

So now you've identified two cases in which your rule-of-thumb might actually apply. I've identified at least seven in which it doesn't.

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.

agrote wrote:

So now you've identified two cases in which your rule-of-thumb might actually apply. I've identified at least seven in which it doesn't.

The number of cases in which it applies or does not apply does not invalidate the rule.

And were I to play your game, I can also find a hell of a lot more examples of profiting from an immoral act. Let's start with burglary, robbery, fraud, assault, slavery, murder, copyright piracy... Shall I go on?

(Maybe Deb's right… and you don't all need a bullet…)

DrewDad wrote:

agrote wrote:

So now you've identified two cases in which your rule-of-thumb might actually apply. I've identified at least seven in which it doesn't.

The number of cases in which it applies or does not apply does not invalidate the rule.

It makes it quite a useless rule-of-thumb.

Is viewing child porn wrong because paedophiles enjoy doing it? Or is it wrong because it runs the risk of feeding the child sex industry and encouraging the further abuse of children?

dlowan wrote:

I also think that agrote's and hawk's ongoing dismissal of any emotion in arguments against them is actually symptomatic of their problems.....

What problems? Is disagreement a problem? If I hold a minority view, does that mean I have a 'problem'?

Or are you referring to my/our sexuality problems (paraphilia)? If so, I think you've made a mistake. Lack of empathy is not a symptom of being attracted to children. It's a bad thing, for sure, but you can be an empathetic paedophile, or a non-empathetic non-paedophile. They're independent things.

Quote:

in that empathy, for example, is a valid and essential part of life in human societies,

I'm with you here.

Quote:

...and of understanding why child abuse and rape are not ok.

I'm with you here too. I have never thought that child abuse or rape are okay. I don't think that thought has even crossed my mind. If you recall, my thread was about viewing pictures of children being raped. It was not about raping children.

Quote:

Lacking this basic understanding is highly problematic.

You're right, but fortunately I have this basic understanding. You obviously think I don't, but perhaps this is just because you misguidedly think that I am in favour of forcibly penetrating defenceless children.

A defence of looking at pictures of a crime is not a defence of committing the crime. And I've pretty much withdrawn my defence anyway.

OmSigDAVID wrote:

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.

It isn't snobbish to ignore children
when you're busy trying to reach the truth of a complicated ethical matter.

agrote wrote:

DrewDad wrote:

agrote wrote:

So now you've identified two cases in which your rule-of-thumb might actually apply. I've identified at least seven in which it doesn't.

The number of cases in which it applies or does not apply does not invalidate the rule.

It makes it quite a useless rule-of-thumb.

Nope. It makes you wrong. When did "usefulness" come into the conversation?

Don't rules-of-thumb need to be useful?

I think you don't because it was not immediately apparent to you that jerking off to pictures of children being abused was wrong.

You needed goddess knows how many pages of persuasion, in order to "pretty much" make some concession....and yet you are still arguing the point, as far as I can see.

All that argument and drama is not necessary to someone with the tiniest amount of empathy for the victims.

agrote wrote:

Don't rules-of-thumb need to be useful?

Do they? That sounds like a whole different discussion.

Although I don't accept your assertion that it's useless.

one very sick puppy.

dyslexia wrote:

one very sick puppy.

I guess that 's the best u can do; offer a veterinary diagnosis.