1
   

CHILD PORN IMMORAL IF NO REAL CHILDREN INVOLVED ?

 
 
dlowan
 
  2  
Reply Sat 26 Jul, 2008 02:21 am
hawkeye10 wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
Is it inevitable
that the destiny of Man is to degenerate into the Borg ?


as with everything ebb and flow is the natural rhythm. Freedom was the primary principle of the enlightenment, America was birthed by the call to freedom voiced by the movement. But we have gone very far the other way now, the individual has been diminished, freedom seems too scary to these borg like humans. They have been created so deeply submersed in consumer culture that they no longer know themselves, no longer have individual inner lives like the humans of old did. They think what they are told to think, see what they are told that they see, they buy what they are told to buy and value what they are told to value.

But all will come again. At some point the tide will turn, the individual will again walk the earth, and will be respected.


America was birthed by the call to freedom?

Unless you count slaves, native Americans, women....trash like that.
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  2  
Reply Sat 26 Jul, 2008 07:48 am
dlowan wrote:
hawkeye10 wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
Is it inevitable
that the destiny of Man is to degenerate into the Borg ?


as with everything ebb and flow is the natural rhythm. Freedom was the primary principle of the enlightenment, America was birthed by the call to freedom voiced by the movement. But we have gone very far the other way now, the individual has been diminished, freedom seems too scary to these borg like humans. They have been created so deeply submersed in consumer culture that they no longer know themselves, no longer have individual inner lives like the humans of old did. They think what they are told to think, see what they are told that they see, they buy what they are told to buy and value what they are told to value.

But all will come again. At some point the tide will turn, the individual will again walk the earth, and will be respected.


America was birthed by the call to freedom?

Unless you count slaves, native Americans, women....trash like that.


Don't confuse him with facts, Bunny
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Jul, 2008 09:05 am
dlowan wrote:
hawkeye10 wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
Is it inevitable
that the destiny of Man is to degenerate into the Borg ?


as with everything ebb and flow is the natural rhythm. Freedom was the primary principle of the enlightenment, America was birthed by the call to freedom voiced by the movement. But we have gone very far the other way now, the individual has been diminished, freedom seems too scary to these borg like humans. They have been created so deeply submersed in consumer culture that they no longer know themselves, no longer have individual inner lives like the humans of old did. They think what they are told to think, see what they are told that they see, they buy what they are told to buy and value what they are told to value.

But all will come again. At some point the tide will turn, the individual will again walk the earth, and will be respected.


America was birthed by the call to freedom?

Unless you count slaves, native Americans, women....trash like that.


The closed mindedness that comes with being a lifetime moral crusader is a bitch, isn't it? You can't even see that a moral compass of 2008 is useless when trying to understand 1708.
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  2  
Reply Sat 26 Jul, 2008 09:07 am
Does that excuse it and make it right?
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Jul, 2008 10:55 am
dlowan wrote:
hawkeye10 wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
Is it inevitable
that the destiny of Man is to degenerate into the Borg ?


as with everything ebb and flow is the natural rhythm. Freedom was the primary principle of the enlightenment, America was birthed by the call to freedom voiced by the movement. But we have gone very far the other way now, the individual has been diminished, freedom seems too scary to these borg like humans. They have been created so deeply submersed in consumer culture that they no longer know themselves, no longer have individual inner lives like the humans of old did. They think what they are told to think, see what they are told that they see, they buy what they are told to buy and value what they are told to value.

But all will come again. At some point the tide will turn, the individual will again walk the earth, and will be respected.


America was birthed by the call to freedom?

Unless you count slaves, native Americans, women....trash like that.

U don 't count that.
American independence was not declared by slaves nor Indians.

Women (like Abigale Adams) had a lot of influence.




David
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Jul, 2008 11:58 am
Intrepid wrote:
Does that excuse it and make it right?


Who the hell do you think you are that you have the right to judge people you don't know, who lived in a time that you know little about?
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  0  
Reply Sat 26 Jul, 2008 04:44 pm
hawkeye10 wrote:
Intrepid wrote:
Does that excuse it and make it right?


Who the hell do you think you are that you have the right to judge people you don't know, who lived in a time that you know little about?


Who am I judging? Moron.

BTW...What does 1708 have to do with what dlowan wrote?

Also...who the hell do you think you are to judge me? Loser.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Jul, 2008 05:00 pm
Re: agrote
Robert Gentel wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
Does this have consequences, in the real world ?
In other words (respectfully) SO WHAT ?
Is any man accountable to his fellows for what he THINKS


One's individual rights end where their fellow man's right to peaceful coexistence begins. One is only accountable to his own self for his thoughts.

Quote:
Is the individual responsible
for what he thinks, in the privacy of his own mind ?


That's a very vague question, but I think I know what you are trying to say and no I don't believe in thought crimes. I do, however, believe in being responsible for one's own thoughts.

Quote:
Shoud societ try to build equipment
to invade that privacy and monitor what the citizens are thinking ?


I imagine that there would be compelling financial reasons for members of society to attempt this but again if you are asking if I believe in thought crimes I don't.

Quote:

The Red Chinese and North Koreans did that.
During the Korean War, we captured them with pocket diaries
that thay were required to fill out, as to their thoughts.


In a religious context as a child I had to do the same, I am not a fan and you are barking up the wrong tree. I am not saying that thought should be policed by government. I am saying that each individual has a degree of control, and therefore responsibility, for their thoughts.

Quote:

Quote:
What about deliberately stoking fantasies that might
make their compulsions harder to control?

Is there evidence of this ?


That indulging in fantasy "might" make compulsions harder to control? That's a statement of possibility and the only way to prove it would be to prove the absence of evidence that it's impossible.

Given that it's a very pedestrian comment what are you really asking me to give evidence for? That it will lead to realization? That there has been an established causative link?

If you are asking me to settle the nature/nurture debate with a nugget of "evidence" then I'm going to disappoint you. I, like all others, do not have such a nugget of wisdom to impart. The debate on the relative strength of nature and nurture will not be settled here.

Quote:

Can u distinguish the difference in probability
between making urges harder or easier to control ?


Of course not. You might have a general idea about yourself, knowing how strong your compulsions are and your typical reactions to extended fantasy but I can't mathematically quantify it for you. Of course, if you think about it for a bit you might come to agree with me that it would be ridiculous to believe that this can be done with mankind's present body of knowledge.

Quote:

Incidentally, correct me if I am rong,
but I do not remember Agrote asserting that he has urges to actually GRAB girls.


I don't think I claimed he did. In fact my guess is that his paraphilia, if present, is slight. But whatever his case may be, I am merely arguing that if one's indulgence in fantasy increases the probability of realization there are ethical arguments toward shunning the fantasy.

Whether that's relevant to agrote is something for him, not me, to figure out. I'm not arguing that he's a threat to society.

Quote:
Is there evidence that Agrote is planning to DO anything illegal ?


Sigh. I have no idea, and have never claimed as much.

Quote:

If he looks at pornografy,
and if his sexual urges, such as thay may be, are released in catharsis
will that make " harmful consequences " more or less likely to result ?
Are there competent studies on this point ?


Whether or not the use of pornography would result in more or less probability of harm is not something that any "competent study" is going to answer either way in this case. Like much else in psychology it can go either way. The classic knock on psychology is that an abused child may grow to abuse or to have a particular distaste for abuse. In short, as a science there are a lot of areas that simply don't enjoy the kind of simplistic binary exactitude of other sciences that you are seeking.

Quote:
Quote:
It's pretty simple: fantasy and pornography can be addictive,
and lead to stronger compulsions.

Is there PROOF of this ?
Did Agrote say that he has COMPULSIONS ?
If he really does have "compulsions" will pornografy
relieve them catharticly, or worsen them ?
Is there objective evidence on this question ?


Here you go again asking for proof of a possibility. By its nature, a single example would constitute proof. I'm not going to get into moving the goal posts all over the place and try to provide you "objective evidence" of my claim that something is possible. You are asking for yes or no answers in a field of study where the answer is often "both" and asking me to provide simple citations to "prove" absolute positions I have not held.

Are you trying to say that indulging in fantasy can't ever result in an increased likelihood of realization? If not, then what are you asking me to "prove"? I'm not going to stake out a simplistic position in these long standing psychology debates and try to prove it to you and I made no such simplistic claims.


Quote:
Mr. Gentel, in all candor,
I believe that people who promote the idea that their fellow citizens
( or subjects ? ) have a MORAL OBLIGATION concerning what thay
think about are very dangerous people; people with that mindset have
cost much blood and many lives. That is frightening, sir.


David, in all candor, you scare as easily as you get lost in a conversation. I don't advocate the thought police you imagine in my posts and you are sliding down your own slippery slope. Be scared if you wish, but comparing me to brutal authoritarians from the pages of history requires a serious reading impediment or a healthy imagination.

Quote:
Quote:

It may not be, and neither you or I can know this now but that it may
presents a question of ethics even at the mental level.

Do ethics exist " at the mental level " ??
U appear to deny and negate the idea of autonomous sovereignty between the ears.
U 'd invite in the control of society, or its henchman government ?


David, that you managed to highlight each time I indicate "might", "may" and that it "may not be" and then spend a page asking me to prove that it does is what I'm talking about with the reading incomprehension. It's tedious and I don't want to go in circles so I'm not going to try to imagine what you mean when you ask if ethics exists at the mental level and simply note that you imagine the threat to the sovereignty between your ears.

I've not in any way advocated society controlling thought and you can put away your imagined henchmen (who also think you are too paranoid).

Mr. Gentel,
help me to understand something, please.

U have advised Agrote to avoid looking at pornografy,
or even to contemplate thoughts of a sexual nature
(if I understand your position accurately); yet u admit
that there is no evidence within the totality of human knowledge
(if I understand u correctly) that pornografic images in thought or on paper
catharticly release harmlessly nor that thay aggravate sexual motivations or intentions;
i.e., no evidence that such viewing habits in the mind or on paper
increase nor decrease the rape rate.

If that be the case,
then how did u decide what to advise Agrote ?

Did u flip a coin ?




David
0 Replies
 
agrote
 
  2  
Reply Sun 27 Jul, 2008 02:44 am
Re: agrote
Robert Gentel wrote:
Quote:
Most importantly of all, nobody can be blamed for the way they have been nurtured, and therefore nobody can be blamed for being a paedophile (or a hebephile).


I'm not talking about blame but responsibility. Surely you can see that responsibility still exists for the individual regardless of what blame is ascribed.


No, I disagree. Responsibility is what justifies the ascription of blame or praise. If you can be rightly blamed or braised for something, you're responsible for it. If you can't, you're not. When I say that paedophiles can't be blamed for paedophiles, you can take me to be saying that paedophiles aren ot responsible for their sexuality (and nor is anybody else responsible for theirs).

Quote:
Quote:
They can be blamed for abusing children, for looking at child porn, and for any other actions they perform.


What about deliberately stoking fantasies that might make their compulsions harder to control?


What do you mean "stoking fantasies"? Do you mean masturbating every now and then, and turning your head when you see somebody attractive? Does this make one's sexual dispositions harder to control?

Quote:
If fantasy and pornography can be nurture for the compulsions, and can make them harder to control the ethics of choosing to indulge the fantasies and to sate the urges on any level are very relevant. They can be seen as actions that increase the likelihood of harmful consequences.


I don't know whether pornography nurtures one's sexual dispositions, but fantasy probably doesn't. I don't think anybody can help fantasising. If it doesn't happen in front of a computer it will happen in your sleep. Sexuality causes sexual fantasy, not the other way around.

Quote:
That you intend to find a partner near your chronological age indicates to me that you feel you have some control over your sexuality, which is all I aim to emphasize.


But it doesn't indicate this. I don't need to exert any effort to be attracted to certain people near my chronical age. I intend to find a partner near my chronical age because I want to, not only because I have to. My attraction to girls is largely sexual, whereas my attraction to women is largely romantic. A short lived sexual relationship would be okay, but really I'd like a long-term partner with a similar level of intelligence and maturity as myself.

Quote:
It's pretty simple: fantasy and pornography can be addictive, and lead to stronger compulsions.


You're making four claism here:

1) Pornography can be addictive
2) Sexual fantasy can be addictive
3) Addiction to pornography can lead to stronger compulsions
3) Addiction to sexual fantasy can lead to stronger compulsions

Claim 1 is commonly held to be true. The others aren't so well-established. Got any evidence for them?
0 Replies
 
Robert Gentel
 
  2  
Reply Mon 11 Aug, 2008 10:30 am
Re: agrote
OmSigDAVID wrote:

Mr. Gentel,
help me to understand something, please.


That may not be possible.

Quote:
U have advised Agrote to avoid looking at pornografy,


No, I haven't.

Quote:
or even to contemplate thoughts of a sexual nature


Once again, a figment of your imagination.

Quote:
(if I understand your position accurately);


You so clearly don't understand much at all about it and I'd rather not bother trying to continue discussing it with you if you insist on not parting with your reading impediment.
0 Replies
 
agrote
 
  2  
Reply Mon 11 Aug, 2008 10:49 am
Sorry about the typos in my previous post. There were a lot of them.
0 Replies
 
Robert Gentel
 
  2  
Reply Mon 11 Aug, 2008 11:04 am
Re: agrote
agrote wrote:
Robert Gentel wrote:
Quote:
Most importantly of all, nobody can be blamed for the way they have been nurtured, and therefore nobody can be blamed for being a paedophile (or a hebephile).


I'm not talking about blame but responsibility. Surely you can see that responsibility still exists for the individual regardless of what blame is ascribed.


No, I disagree. Responsibility is what justifies the ascription of blame or praise.


Responsibility can exist without blame or praise. You may relate the two, which is fair but don't substitute "blame" when I say "responsibility" because while there is a societal relationship they are not the same words.

So when I say you hold a degree of responsibility for your sexuality, it is not an equitable statement to say you should be "blamed" for it.

Quote:
If you can be rightly blamed or braised for something, you're responsible for it. If you can't, you're not.


You are wrong agrote, watch:

You are responsible for this dog. Does that mean you can be blamed for it? I know where you are getting this restrictive definition from: your philosophy classes. But you either heard or remember it wrong or was taught it wrong.

In philosophy there are a number of different kinds of "responsibility". You are restricting your use of the term to one: moral responsibility.

Other forms of responsibility in philosophy do not so explicitly relate to accountability. In thought and free will issues casual responsibility is often central to the debate.

In any case, I'm not going to spend too much time fighting with you over the definition of the word "responsibility" with you. It means a lot more than you limit it to here.

Quote:
When I say that paedophiles can't be blamed for paedophiles, you can take me to be saying that paedophiles aren ot responsible for their sexuality (and nor is anybody else responsible for theirs).


Then you also purport to have ruled on the nature/nurture debate squarely in favor of nature because by rulling out a casual responsibility you deny any and all choice in the matter.

It's clearly not a mere choice, but I don't think you can establish that there is no casual responsibility.

Quote:

What do you mean "stoking fantasies"? Do you mean masturbating every now and then, and turning your head when you see somebody attractive? Does this make one's sexual dispositions harder to control?


I don't think it would in all cases but there certainly have been some who claimed they have. Ted Bundy claimed, in his final interview, that his use of pornography to sate his fantasy ceased to be effective and while he initially was able to satisfy his compulsions though fantasy he eventually tired of it and had to move to reality.

Now that particular example is good to illustrate a bit of the complexity of this matter. For example, I don't accept a lot of Ted Bundy and James Dobson's generalizations and Ted may well have had a poor understanding of himself. But this is what he had to say about it:

Quote:
Once you become addicted to it, and I look at this as a kind of addiction, you look for more potent, more explicit, more graphic kinds of material. Like an addiction, you keep craving something which is harder and gives you a greater sense of excitement, until you reach the point where the pornography only goes so far - that jumping off point where you begin to think maybe actually doing it will give you that which is just beyond reading about it and looking at it.


It doesn't require a great stretch to see how the excessive fantasy could dull the moral senses and eventually cause more sensation seeking through reality. I don't assert that it is always so but claim that it can often contribute in certain individuals (I think in individuals who have a greater sensory need this would be more prevalent).

Quote:

I don't know whether pornography nurtures one's sexual dispositions, but fantasy probably doesn't. I don't think anybody can help fantasising.


Whether one can help it or not, doesn't have any bearing on whether or not it nurtures it. But event that claim is a bit suspect. You can't possibly believe you have no control over fantasy. I don't assert that you have total control. Just some control.

Quote:
If it doesn't happen in front of a computer it will happen in your sleep. Sexuality causes sexual fantasy, not the other way around.


I'm not saying you can control it entirely. But picture this scenario. Ted Bundy claims his addition to hard core pornography was eventually not enough to sate his fantasy. At some point it did not do enough for him and he needed reality.

Do you think that he may have put off that moment if he had controlled his use of fantasy? If he had fought harder against his addiction?

It's not entirely implausible. If he had been able to resist his urges a little more often maybe he would have lasted a while longer before reaching his threshold and maybe a woman or two wouldn't have died.

Maybe not. And the science of psychology is such that it's not currently possible to prove this one way or the other. But do you find that outside of the realm of possibility?

Quote:
Quote:
It's pretty simple: fantasy and pornography can be addictive, and lead to stronger compulsions.


You're making four claism here:

1) Pornography can be addictive
2) Sexual fantasy can be addictive
3) Addiction to pornography can lead to stronger compulsions
3) Addiction to sexual fantasy can lead to stronger compulsions

Claim 1 is commonly held to be true. The others aren't so well-established. Got any evidence for them?


Evidence that something is merely possible? All you need is one scenario that is not impossible. I have given you that.

Seriously, what kind of evidence do you have in mind? I have given you a man claiming that it was so, but that itself is no proof that it is or even was in his case.

If I said that it would invariably lead to these things then you could easily demand such evidence. I said that it can. Proving that something is merely possible merely requires that you show that it happened once.

But asking me to prove that it happened is to fundamentally misunderstand the science of psychology. I've shown you one man claiming it did in himself with Ted Bundy. But that's not proof that it did and there's really no way to prove these matters of the mind the way you ask me to. You are asking me to resolve decades-old intellectual debates for you in simple "evidence" and "proof".
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Mon 11 Aug, 2008 05:48 pm
Excuse me (i really did not want to post in this stupid thread again), but RG, are you not using casual responsibility when in fact you should be writing causal responsibility?

That was a question, not a criticism. I am actually interested in the answer, although i long ago lost interest in any of Agrote's self-serving posts.
0 Replies
 
OGIONIK
 
  0  
Reply Mon 11 Aug, 2008 05:52 pm
only the actual act of harmign a child is wrong.

better to read a story and masturbate than to go out and rape a little boy or girl IMO..
0 Replies
 
Robert Gentel
 
  2  
Reply Mon 11 Aug, 2008 06:09 pm
Setanta wrote:
Excuse me (i really did not want to post in this stupid thread again), but RG, are you not using casual responsibility when in fact you should be writing causal responsibility?


Yes, thanks for the catch. I typed the more common word each time but ineach instance it should be causal responsibility. And if I'm going to get pedantic about what kind of responsibilities there are I should at least get the name right.
0 Replies
 
Wilso
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Aug, 2008 03:03 pm
@agrote,
agrote wrote:

Re: All BBB cold find about Agrote
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:
A google search for Agrote...


Could you delete this post please? I'd rather avoid the inevitable death threats. If you don't delete the post I'll have to report it.


Well, I've already reported your discussions to an English law enforcement agency that investigates internet child pornography. Hopefully they'll lock you up where you belong. Now I'm going to use that wonderful "ignore" feature to expunge you from my existence you sick scum sucking pervert.
0 Replies
 
HesDeltanCaptain
 
  0  
Reply Sat 8 Aug, 2015 06:16 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Depends on where you live, but here in the US if no children were actually involved then it isn't child pornography. Works differently in Canada and the UK though as I understand it.

With hand-drawn or computer created images of hcildren no that shouldn't be censored or made illegal. Objectively it's no different than stick figures. If I draw two stick figures one half the height of the other and say the shorter one's a child, and the taller an adult, and say they're having sex, should that then be child pornography? Just because someone can draw or create on a computer a much better version of mine doesn't make their's more literally child porno because no actual human beings were involved other than the artist.

Besides, if you made that illegal you'd have to audit museums as there's lot of naked children in renaissance paintings.
Razzleg
 
  8  
Reply Sun 9 Aug, 2015 04:00 am
@HesDeltanCaptain,
You've revived every "child-porn legitimating" thread available on this forum, as far as i can see. And it's embarrassing how many there are...what's your angle? ...aside from legitimating it, i should say...


HesDeltanCaptain
 
  0  
Reply Sun 9 Aug, 2015 04:16 am
@Razzleg,
Legally, it's either child pornography or it isn't. As someone who enjoys sex as well as law, this is a natural topic for discussion. Some have tried banning pornography of even the adult variety for decades. That'd be fine with me if doing so had a positive effect, but it doesn't. So if people wanna talk about it let's talk about it.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Aug, 2015 07:24 am
@HesDeltanCaptain,
HesDeltanCaptain wrote:
As someone who enjoys sex as well as law,


Your sex is as enjoyable as law? It's really that good?
 

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 0.05 seconds on 04/16/2024 at 01:09:06