CHILD PORN IMMORAL IF NO REAL CHILDREN INVOLVED ?

No, consequentialists believe in one moral absolute.

boomerang wrote:

Quote:

The first openly gay bishop might want to re-think his participation in an activity that has the potential to provoke hecklers:

Oh please. This man didn't hide. He stood up and said "This is who I am".

You, not so much.

Well, I did. I stated my controversial beleifs, and I confessed to being a paedophile
(although, the term 'hebephile' would have been slightly more accurate,
and it is the word I used a long time ago in my other thread about child sexuality).

I did come into a public forum and say "this is who I am, and this is what I believe".
It's not as brave/risky as what the bishop has done, but it does amount to
not letting myself be silenced by the possibility of death threats.
That was the point I was making: contrary to what Philbis said,
I shouldn't let the possibility of death threats prevent me from airing my
views or expressing myself.

In order to LEARN, I must probe the minds of people who DISAGREE with me, to get new information.

THAT is the subject matter of this inquiry, not pornography.

agrote wrote:

This is half-true. A number of others demonstrated that my original assumptions were wrong. Joe demonstrated that I am confused about consequentialism. You didn't demonstrate very much at all. You responded to me, but not point-by-point.

That's a lie--you are fundamentally dishonest. I selected a specific post of yours, quoted it, and responded to it point by point

Quote:

Quote:

You continue to trot out the same idiotic arguments.

Where do I do this?

As is said in another thread, i am not going to be suckered in to playing a game with you in which each time you profess your ignorance, i am obliged to trot around the site from thread to thread, finding the quotes which show just how you have done this.

In particular, we have your claim that viewing free images won't create demand, and that viewing free images won't hurt those who were originally victimized. I have stated in detail, and O'Bill has stated in detail how someone can profit from showing "free" images.

Joe remarked on how someone might be motivated to show more images even if they are not profiting personaly.

Joe and i and several others pointed out that the original victims can suffer from having their humiliation dragged before the public yet again.

I left your thread because you keep trotting out such things, not just these issues but others. You bring them up again and again, and each time you address them, you behave as though they had never been discussed before.

You attempted to pull that on me in Hawkeye's thread, and in that thread, on page 10, O'Bill for at least the second time gave a detailed account of how people can profit from showing "free" images, and on that same page you were bringing out the entire free images dog and pony show again.

You must really think the people at this site are stupid.

You are fundamentally dishonest.

The rest of your post is a lie and a whine. A lie in that you claim that you were unconvinced, but at the time that i posted, you acknowledged the force of my arguments--it wasn't just O'Bill who shot down your free images bullshit, i did too.

In both cases, you were right back offering the stupid contention which had been initially challenged, and in the case of Hawkeye's thread, O'Bill posted a detailed rebuttal on the top of page 10, and you were peddling your horseshit a few posts later on the same page.

It's a whine because your chickens have come home to roost, and you don't like it.

agrote wrote:

No, consequentialists believe in one moral absolute.

An absolutist would say, for example, that lying is always wrong, regardless of the outcome. (Haven't you read your Kant?)

Congratulations to Agrote, who has managed to make yet another thread a thread about himself, and the unjust persecution he suffers.

OmSigDAVID wrote:

In order to LEARN, I must probe the minds of people who DISAGREE with me, to get new information.

THAT is the subject matter of this inquiry, not pornography.

This is fundamentally dishonest.

This thread was intended to advance an argument
that providing child pornography from children
who "consented" would stop child rape.

The evidence for it lies in the poll to be seen at the top of every page,
which has two question, each of which are begged. One can either choose
to agree that the proposal will end child rape, or one can choose to agree
that one loves censorship for its own sake.

It is only after getting burned ?? for this that David now claims that this was just an intellectual exercise,
and that child pornography was never the subject.

As for those who disagree, i disagreed and very specifically explained why i disagreed.
In response, i was told to go start my own thread,

I remember you did that once. But I also remember responding to your response, and I'm not sure that you proceeded to respond point-by-point again.

Anyway, more importantly, your response was not a decisive refutation of my view. Your arguments weren't as compelling as you think.

Okay, that's fair enough. But this gives me no reason to think that you weren't lying when you accused me of trotting out the same arguments. In fact, I've been making new arguments.

And I have come to agree that viewing free images can create a demand, and therefore encourage further abuse.

I'm not yet sure that it will hurt those who were originally victimised (i.e. the children depicted). I think the victims would need to know that you are looking at pictures at them, in order to be hurt by your action.

Quote:

Joe remarked on how someone might be motivated to show more images even if they are not profiting personaly.

Yes, and I responded to this with a counter-argument.

Quote:

Joe and i and several others pointed out that the original victims can suffer from having their humiliation dragged before the public yet again.

But this is a reason not to distribute child porn. Once the child porn has been made public, somebody who logs on and merely views it will not be dragging the victims' humiliation before the public. He will just be dragging it in front of his own eyes, and the child is unlikely to know about this.

(But his action will create a demand for more child porn, and it is wrong for that reason.)

Only when my arguments have been misunderstood and need to be clarified. Or when new people enter the conversation and make arguments that I've already addressed... then I have to bring them up to date.

Quote:

You attempted to pull that on me in Hawkeye's thread, and in that thread, on page 10, O'Bill for at least the second time gave a detailed account of how people can profit from showing "free" images, and on that same page you were bringing out the entire free images dog and pony show again.

I was responding to your post, which proceeded O'BILL's. I hadn't read O'BIll's post at that point. I then went onto read O'BILL's post, and I responded with requests for clarification. I was reluctant to trust somebody who had just called me a "miserable piece of garbage", so I was being as cautious as possible, asking O'BILL to explain exactly how child abusers profit even when there is no advertising on their porn sites, or when they post their porn on domains which they don't own (blogs and forums). O'BILL hadn't yet explaiend the issue of image-hosting, which was what eventually led me to be convinced that viewing child porn is rarely (if ever) a harmless action.

I didn't just bring out the "free image dog and pony show". I accepted the point about advertising and about the value of a domain increasing with the number of viewers, and I limited myself to defending the viewing of child porn in forums and blogs. O'BILL was yet to explain how that, too, could profit child abusers.

Quote:

You must really think the people at this site are stupid.

Some of them are, some of them aren't.

Quote:

You are fundamentally dishonest.

You can say that as many times as you like, but it won't make it true.

Quote:

The rest of your post is a lie and a whine. A lie in that you claim that you were unconvinced, but at the time that i posted, you acknowledged the force of my arguments--it wasn't just O'Bill who shot down your free images bullshit, i did too.

I don't remember enough of the details to comment on whether I thought your arguments were forceful. But I do know that it was O'BILL who gave me the facts which convinced me to change my mind. You didn't explain to me that images on the internet are hosted in such a way that the author profits from the number of times the images are viewed, even in forums and blogs. As joefromchicago pointed out, for a consequentialist moral questions are reducible to fact questions. O'BILL answered my fact questions, and you didn't.

Quote:

In both cases, you were right back offering the stupid contention which had been initially challenged, and in the case of Hawkeye's thread, O'Bill posted a detailed rebuttal on the top of page 10, and you were peddling your horseshit a few posts later on the same page.

See above. You've mentioned this three or four times now. This seems to be the only evidence you have of my "fundamental dishonesty". And as I have explained above, it is not evidence of this at all. It is evidence of persistence, patience, stamina, caution. Not dishonesty.

Quote:

It's a whine because your chickens have come home to roost, and you don't like it.

Have you not noticed me saying, again and again, that it is wrong to view child porn? I'm quite happy to admit that I've made mistakes, and that I was wrong to think that viewing child porn is harmless and morally acceptable.

But I'm not happy to accept your evaluation of my character, because it's based on half-truths, speculations and prejudice.

Setanta wrote:

Congratulations to Agrote, who has managed to make yet another thread a thread about himself, and the unjust persecution he suffers.

You insulted me. I briefly responded. You gave a lengthier response, and it escalated from there. You made this thread about me, as much as I did.

U [sic] LOVE that frase [sic]; can t get enuf [sic] of it ? Is EVERYONE fundamentally dishonest" (unless he agrees with u [sic]) ?

I am unwilling to concede what u [sic] and your philosophical allies have implied, that this subject shud be avoided not discussed
(your assertions to the contrary not withstanding).

I remain steadfast in support of the proposition that any aspect of legal or social policy may be FREELY discussed and considered. You are not required to participate against your will, tho [sic] your participation is welcome; hopefully you will become civil.

As I have indicated elsewhere on these threads, I do not believe that anything will STOP rape, but it might be possible that some measures will reduce the incidence thereof.

I raised the question of whether social policy shud [[sic] be to end sexual censorship in hope that (some) rapists will be satisfied to direct their negative energies into non-living photographic objects, to save the living women or children.

My use of the word "end" rape in the caption was influenced by shortness of space.

Quote:

The evidence for it lies in the poll to be seen at the top of every page, which has two question, each of which are begged. One can either choose to agree that the proposal will end child rape, or one can choose to agree that one loves censorship for its own sake.

It is only after getting burned for this that David now claims that this was just an intellectual exercise, and that child pornography was never the subject.

Nonsense. I have not pointed to any law and recommended that it be amended nor repealed. I wish to probe opinions, and I will continue to DO that.

U [sic] endeavor (unsuccessfully) to clothe me in shame
for raising a question for discussion.

The subject matter of this thread
is ENDING RAPE by deflecting the emotions that impel it,
toward non-living (photografic) [sic] objects.

These threads have been explorations into the relationship between emotions and photography, or perhaps more broadly into the relationship between emotions and art.

I 'm not inquiring into pornography; I am inquiring into WHAT u [sic] all THINK about it, and how the law shud [sic] apply to it and how your thought process operate.

In order to LEARN, I must probe the minds of people who DISAGREE with me, to get new information.

THAT is the subject matter of this inquiry, not pornography.

Quote:

As for those who disagree, i disagreed and very specifically explained why i disagreed. In response, i was told to go start my own thread,

Look, u [sic] can start your own threads and cast your assertions and your aspersions and your questions any way that u [sic] want, and so can I. There is NOTHING rong [sic] with pointing that out. U [sic make it sound as tho [sic] I had abused u [sic]; jeez !

I reject your bluster about fundamental dishonesty.

I think its really very sad and troubling,
that we cannot discuss social policy (censorship)
without such fierce ad hominem invective and defamation.

agrote wrote:

I remember you did that once. But I also remember responding to your response, and I'm not sure that you proceeded to respond point-by-point again.

Your uncertainty is not evidence that i failed to respond point by point to the post i quoted.

Quote:

Anyway, more importantly, your response was not a decisive refutation of my view. Your arguments weren't as compelling as you think.

This is pure bullshit--you are lying again. After an exchange of posts over a series of pages, you acknowledged every point i had made.

Quote:

Okay, that's fair enough. But this gives me no reason to think that you weren't lying when you accused me of trotting out the same arguments. In fact, I've been making new arguments.

As i have already pointed out, i left your other thread because of your fundamental dishonesty. Making up new bullshit arguments does not alter that your claim that viewing "free" images doesn't hurt the original victims and does not increase demand for such images have been soundly and definitively refuted.

As to whether or not you think i'm lying, go read your own, pathetic goddamned thread. Read Hawkeye's thread. You do it time and time again. It was explained to you how someone can profit from providing you images of child porn, even if you don't pay for them. Within a few pages, you were trotting out once again the argument that viewing such images doesn't create a demand for them. It was explained to you all over again. Within a few pages you were trotting out the argument once again. O'Bill twice gave you detailed explanations of how someone can profit from providing images to you for free, thus establishing that viewing free images can increase demand. In both instances, you were, within a few pages (and in one case, on the very same page), trotting out a claim that viewing free images doesn't create demand.

I don't give a rat's ass if you think i'm lying or not. You're the one with the serious honesty problem.

Quote:

And I have come to agree that viewing free images can create a demand, and therefore encourage further abuse.

This does not alter that you were hammered on this point, and time and again attempted to advance the argument that view free images does not create demand.

Quote:

I'm not yet sure that it will hurt those who were originally victimised (i.e. the children depicted). I think the victims would need to know that you are looking at pictures at them, in order to be hurt by your action.

It has been explained to you time and again that the original victims continue to be victimized by the humiliation of knowing that images of them are out there, and available to be viewed. Who gives a **** if you are convinced or not?

Quote:

Quote:

Joe remarked on how someone might be motivated to show more images even if they are not profiting personaly.

Yes, and I responded to this with a counter-argument.

Liar

Quote:

Quote:

Joe and i and several others pointed out that the original victims can suffer from having their humiliation dragged before the public yet again.

But this is a reason not to distribute child porn. Once the child porn has been made public, somebody who logs on and merely views it will not be dragging the victims' humiliation before the public. He will just be dragging it in front of his own eyes, and the child is unlikely to know about this.

(But his action will create a demand for more child porn, and it is wrong for that reason.)

Jesus, what an idiot! It has to be distributed for you to be able to view it, genius.

Quote:

Only when my arguments have been misunderstood and need to be clarified. Or when new people enter the conversation and make arguments that I've already addressed... then I have to bring them up to date.

Yeah, i know all about how you are a victim of unjust persecution . . . you prate about it frequently.

Quote:

Quote:

You attempted to pull that on me in Hawkeye's thread, and in that thread, on page 10, O'Bill for at least the second time gave a detailed account of how people can profit from showing "free" images, and on that same page you were bringing out the entire free images dog and pony show again.

I was responding to your post, which proceeded O'BILL's. I hadn't read O'BIll's post at that point. I then went onto read O'BILL's post, and I responded with requests for clarification. I was reluctant to trust somebody who had just called me a "miserable piece of garbage", so I was being as cautious as possible, asking O'BILL to explain exactly how child abusers profit even when there is no advertising on their porn sites, or when they post their porn on domains which they don't own (blogs and forums). O'BILL hadn't yet explaiend the issue of image-hosting, which was what eventually led me to be convinced that viewing child porn is rarely (if ever) a harmless action.

I didn't just bring out the "free image dog and pony show". I accepted the point about advertising and about the value of a domain increasing with the number of viewers, and I limited myself to defending the viewing of child porn in forums and blogs. O'BILL was yet to explain how that, too, could profit child abusers.

This is a string of lies. When you trotted out your idiotic argument that viewing free images does not create demand, you were not responding to anything which i had written.

What limits you subsequently placed on your feeble arguments in no way alters that you have consistently been dishonest about your arguments, bringing up the same arguments again and again, usually doing so in a manner which doesn't acknowledge that they have been addressed by someone else, and sometimes even behaving as though your interlocutor had not already addressed your arguments.

You have been fundamentally dishonest.

Quote:

Quote:

You must really think the people at this site are stupid.

Some of them are, some of them aren't.

You have still treated those who are not as though they were. It is a testament to your fundamental dishonesty that you would imply that if someone here were stupid, you were somehow justified in advancing arguments which have already been refuted by others.

Quote:

Quote:

You are fundamentally dishonest.

You can say that as many times as you like, but it won't make it true.

Your behavior here makes it true.

Quote:

Quote:

The rest of your post is a lie and a whine. A lie in that you claim that you were unconvinced, but at the time that i posted, you acknowledged the force of my arguments--it wasn't just O'Bill who shot down your free images bullshit, i did too.

I don't remember enough of the details to comment on whether I thought your arguments were forceful. But I do know that it was O'BILL who gave me the facts which convinced me to change my mind. You didn't explain to me that images on the internet are hosted in such a way that the author profits from the number of times the images are viewed, even in forums and blogs. As joefromchicago pointed out, for a consequentialist moral questions are reducible to fact questions. O'BILL answered my fact questions, and you didn't.

Another string of lies. You claim that you don't remember enough detail to comment on whether or not you thought my arguments were forceful--yet above you have stated that you thought they were not compelling.

So, you remembered what you thought of my arguments when you began writing this post, but forgot by the time you reached this point? You're a piece of work.

There was no need to ask "fact questions" because both i and O'Bill explained just how site advertising and traffic click-through counters pay the site owners.

You are lying when you say that i did not explain that the site owner profits from the number of times and image is viewed.

Changing the term to "author" is a dodge, i do not care, and i doubt that anyone here cares if the "author" of an image and the site owner are one and the same person. If a site owner is exploiting the "author" of such images, i seriously doubt that any public outrage will be raised. You're just making **** up now.

You want to claim that persisting in peddling the same bullshit argument when it has been refuted time and again is evidence of a series of virtues on your part?

It is amazing just how much you are out of touch with reality. I have mentioned the O'Bill incident in Hawkeye's thread simply because it is the most egregioius example.

O'Bill gave you the same detailed response in your own thread--and it was after seeing you trot out your bullshit argument once again that i left that pathetic piece of **** thread forever.

Quote:

Quote:

It's a whine because your chickens have come home to roost, and you don't like it.

Have you not noticed me saying, again and again, that it is wrong to view child porn? I'm quite happy to admit that I've made mistakes, and that I was wrong to think that viewing child porn is harmless and morally acceptable.

But I'm not happy to accept your evaluation of my character, because it's based on half-truths, speculations and prejudice.

It is not based on half-truths, it is completely true that you have been shown that your arguments are based on faulty assumptions, and yet have returned to them time and again.

I have not speculated on these matters, i have addressed directly the facts concerning how images are distributed and how people profit from them online.

The prejudice comment is part and parcel of you martyr image.

Poor, poor misunderstood Agrote--there's nothing wrong with being a paedophile, it's just an unjust social prejudice.

You had made yourself fair game for invective because you had employed it against me and against others. - setanta

On Abuzz, I defended david when he was accused of being one of the more notorious trolls (Massagato). david thanked me. Then, when I appeared on one of his threads, he attacked me in the face of my friendly posts, with a flurry of invective I won't try to recount. My point is, he he has not gotten respect from me from that day. Any here who have noticed my attitude can now know why.

agrote wrote:

No, consequentialists believe in one moral absolute.

An absolutist would say, for example, that lying is always wrong, regardless of the outcome. (Haven't you read your Kant?)

Agrote revealed his paedophilia quite some time ago--it may have been as much as two years ago. Then he began his latest attempt at self-justification in the thread to which i and others have referred. In the interim, between the time he first revealed that he is a paedophile, and the time when he started his thread on a law proposed in the UK, the member Hawkeye raised some truly bizarre issues about rape and the age of consent. He stated that he thought rape laws are actually an example of prejudice against men. He stated that there can be no such thing as marital rape. He even wandered deep enough into the quicksand to allege that having sexual relations with an unconscious woman does not constitute rape. He railed against age of consent laws, and argued that even "the experts" don't have a clear idea of what consent is, and he consistent avoided ever responding to the issue of informed consent. He jumped into Agrote's thread about the proposed new law in the UK to bring up his views on rape again, and he got hammered for it. So he started a thread of his own, and attempted to justify sexual relations with adolescent girls, and attempted to justify his views on rape. Drew Dad started a thread in which he stated in no uncertain terms that it is wrong to view child pornography, a direct response to and lampoon of Agrote's thread.