**
Those are not my words, I did not advance that argument in any way shape or form. Debate over**
Defending someone’s words is not the same as…well, whatever you think they are doing when you call them “your champion.” For one thing, no one has tried to comment on my last post, so there is a viable target of debate, for another thing, all this repeated posting of “debate over” is odd. Is it posssible that DrDeth’s roomate, or someone might be posting under his name for, for the behavior seems odd.
(**Contrapunta**l, paraphrasing **Dr.Det**h for the purpose of the syllogism)--
-
Simple viewing of child pornography is not harmful to the children involved.*
(**DrDeth’s ** actual words)–
Then again- if one doesn’t buy it, but just looks at it- it’s going to be hard to say that that hurts the child who was the victim.
You know, you are really starting to get under my skin, so, congratulations, if that is your intent. If the debate is over, why do you keep dragging your sorry ass back in here?
Here is my original post, with clsrifications- as others have made enquiries.
“But then after that you get into waters where things aren’t as clear. If the “kiddie porn” only involves nudity- no actual sex- is that harmful to the child?” ** Note here the question mark- this is a question. ** “Is that harmful to the child?” It’s not a statement “that is not harmful to the child”.**
“I know one can argue that buying kiddy porn aids ands abets the person who makes it, who possibly wouldn’t make it except for the chance someone would buy it. But since there were penty of sites where perverts would download for free their “work”, it seems like a lot of the current kiddie porn swirling around out there isn’t commercial in it’s original purpose. Then again- if one doesn’t buy it, but just looks at it- it’s going to be hard to say that that hurts the child who was the victim.” **Here- I am asking why some forms of kiddy porn are such a heinous crime, not whether or not it should be a crime at all. I stated up front: “Well- of course- the MAKING of hard-core child porn is harmful to the child, and is a heinous crime.” ** Thus, I am clearly NOT talking about “hardcore” child porn, as my opening statement agreed and dismissed that as a “heinous crime”.
“It has been hotly debated- even here- whether or not simple “possession” of “kiddy” porn should be such a serious crime” ** Here- I am again talking primarily about nudity type child porn, but I am also asking is whether simple viewing of child porn- of any sort- should be a crime as heinous as making it. Should someone who simply downloads a picture (without even paying for it) be criminalized to the same extent as the heinous criminal who MADE the child porn in the first place?**
Note- I am not advocating “free kiddie porn”- I am just playing the “Devils Advocate” and pointing out that not all agree that " (all) “child pornography” is a bad thing". It’s a complex moral subject, not a simplistic one." ** And this is my main point. There have been fathers and legit artists arrested for pictures which are really innocent- thus the whole issue of what is- and is not- 'child pornography" is not a simple black and white issue. Thus some photos that have been *labeled * by over-zealous Prosecutors as “child pornography” are truely innocent, and thus the parent/arist did not do “a bad thing”**.
Nor is the issue of penalties for those who simply view child porn- Are those who simply “view” as heinous of a criminal as those who make it? That’s a “complex moral issue”.
[QUOTE=DrDeth]
Here is my original post, with clsrifications- as others have made enquiries.
Got it. Question mark means question, lack of question mark means statement. I have a question for you. “If the “kiddie porn” only involves nudity- no actual sex- it that harmful to the child?”
Well, actually, you are not asking anything at all, as** there is no **** question mark**, which, as you have ably noted, is the indication that a question is being asked. You are making statements that, in my mind, are hard to defend. I suspect that is why you have not attempted to do so.
No again. Read your own words. You specifically and pointedly referred to the making of hardcore pornography.
Your words again-- (Bolding mine)
"But since there were penty of sites where* perverts ** would download for free their *“work”, ** it seems like a lot of the current kiddie porn swirling around out there isn’t commercial in it’s original purpose. Then again- if one doesn’t buy it, but just looks at it- it’s going to be hard to say that that hurts the child who was the victim."
You speak of the works of perverts,not for the purpose of distinguishing it as a different kind of pornography**, but to distinguish between commercial and non-commercial, and therefore absolve it from any harm that might come to the child. **
*"…it’s going to be hard to say that hurts the child who was the victim." * Note the lack of a question mark. Another statement of yours that seems indefensible.
I don’t know. What do you think?
Then why not simply say that? Why refer to something as “child pornography” and then suggest that it “might not be a bad thing”? Why not simply state that some things that have been labelled pornography were done so mistakenly and provide examples? Your definition of pornography (such as it is) has been elusive and malleable this whole discussion through. You speak of “hardcore”, of porn that involves “no actual sex” (a distinction that allows for quite a range of nasty shit) and of “innocent nudity.” Why ball this all up under “child pornography”?
No again. It a legal issue, pure and simple.
I this is between DrDeth and yourself, but I need to ask you about this. Are you saying that…never mind my trying to summarize, what do you mean by that?
What I am saying is that the issue of what penalty is attached to a particular crime is a legal one. It is not a moral issue, and by no means a complex one. I suppose you could argue that all laws are grounded in morality, but that would make speeding laws a “complex moral issue.”
So… the debate’s not over?
The part I bolded is a fallacious claim. “Actual sex” does not exclusively mean intercourse (I’m a lesbian, does that mean I don’t have “actual sex”?). “Sex”, in this context is most reasonably defined as stimulation of the erogenous zones for the purpose of sexual pleasure.
I don’t think anyone’s arguing that prohibiting adults from stimulating children sexually (or being stimulated by them) is a bad thing. I would be surprised if DrDeth ever said that sex (oral, manual, or any other kind) between adults and children was a good thing, and frankly, IMHO that’s why he won’t debate with you; because you keep on waving this strawman around by practically accusing him of being in favour of 5 year olds giving blowjobs to their fathers.
Re: the defense of d/ling child porn, I can see where he’s coming from; if downloading music is bad because it never benefits the musicians, how does downloading child porn benefit the perps? Besides, not looking at it won’t mean that it never happened; you can’t go back in time. If you catch a child rapist in the act or a pedophile as he’s grooming his victim, you can end it then and there. A film showing child rape is just a record of something that has already come to pass, and it cannot be changed or undone. It’s an ugly truth, but it makes sense.
-
Correct. Adults have no business having sex with children, and doing so is morally & legally wrong.
-
Very perceptive of you.
As I said some time ago “*I knew this was going to happen- to some people everything is SO black&white that even if one simply says “it’s a complex issue with no simple answer”- that they immediately point a finger at you and scream “you’re in favour of child pornography!!!”. You are one of those morons. *” I see no reason to debate with morons. However, others here did have some questions, and others here have been carrying on an interesting debate. I am not in favour of Child Pornography. I think Child Pornography is wrong- assuming a fair & reasonable legal defintion of what is “child pornography”. That definition has not been fair, reasonable or simple for the past decade or so. I do not accept that an innocent father, a mother suckling her baby, or a legit artist are 'child pornographers" and there have been several cases of such being arrested for being “child pornographers”. -
I do not condone even viewing child porn. However, laws that criminalize the Innocent father, nursing mother or Legit Artist are wrong. Laws that would put a simple viewer in prison for 4 times the time that a Murderer would get are also wrong. Simple viewing (of “real hardcore kiddie porn”) is in my opinion wrong. Putting someone in Prison for 20 years for just downloading it is also wrong. kung fu lola here seems to espouse one good reason why such draconic penalties are wrong.
That’s why I used the term “d/ling” in the beginning of my paragraph. The other stuff in there is my own opinion. Sorry I didn’t use a paragraph break to differentiate.
Not to mention that some filesharing software allows people to mislabel or obfuscate the filenames of shared files, so someone looking for 18+ consenting adults, could conceivably get a nasty surprise.
Someone I know once googled the name of a business they worked for out of curiosity, and stumbled across some very, very illegal shit. Googling a business’ name, for Og’s sake! How much more innocent can you get? And imagine if someone searched their cache? They certainly don’t deserve a million years of prison and registration as a Sex Offender.
You make another excellent point. One person here in Silicon valley was arrested- and convicted- of simply having “hit” a “kiddie porno” site. He did not "register’ or “buy”.
Anyone that spends a lot of time websurfing has likely hit a child porn site- and that goes many times over for those that surf for (normal legal, adult) porn.
[QUOTE=kung fu lola]
Fair enough. How about children posed in provocative positions? Children posed in provocative positons with other children? With adults who are in a state of arousal? With animals in a state of arousal? Does that involve actual sex? Would that be harmful the child?
No you are starting to piss me off as well. I have tried to debate in good faith, but this is beyond the pale. Where have I mentioned anything about adults stimulating children? Where have I accused anyone of being in favor of adults giving blow jobs to children? Point it out or retract your ridiculous claims.
This statement is essentially incoherent. I have no idea what one of these has to do with the other.
I want to be very careful to understand you here. Are you suggesting that if I were to download a film of a child being raped, for my enjoyment, and perhaps pass this film around to likeminded individuals, that we are committing no crime because we cannot go back in time and undo the rape? Such a concept truly, and I mean truly, beggars the imagination.
Has it ever occurred to you and your buddy **Dr.Deth ** that perhaps the the transmission of such filth might actually encourage people to commit such acts themselves? That by doing so more perps, and therefore more victims, would result?
For the life of me I cannot understand how, if regular old garden variety pornography is harmful to women because it debases, objectifies, and dehumanizes women as a class, the same is not true of child pornography.
You two are a real piece of work, you know that?
You are a real piece of work, you know that? I’m here too, you know, participating in the argument, and I may not have as good argument as others but I do my best. I wish you said,” You three are…" 
I will simply tackle one of your statements for right now, that is:
Well, I was going to look up an argument against your blanket condemnation of “pornography” , but it is much easier to post the simplified statement:
Oh, and I don’t see how anyone can believe that existance of pornography can lead to people desiring to rape children, for in sane people, porn can be used as a substitute for sex, and insane people would do such things, porn or no porn.
Contrapuntal, pin down your terms. I’m not being a jerk about this, merely pointing out that we have this abstract topic that includes a spectrum of possible meanings. At one end, we have John Ashcroft covering up the breasts of Justice; at the other, video records of forcible molestation of toddlers. Where’s the break?
Suppose, for example, that a sculptor uses a 12-year-old nude girl as symbolic of “budding womanhood” – is that statue pornographic? What if he’s a photographer, instead? Now, what if she’s doing an “innocently seductive” pose? And on and on; you’ll pardon me if I don’t get graphic in my descriptions beyond that point.
Hmmm…what if a 13-year-old comes out to his parents as gay, and they’re accepting of it? What if they photograph him and his boyfriend necking? Is that gay kiddie porn? What if it’s downloaded by a pervert and put up on a site alongside pictures of nude kids – does it become kiddie porn then?
Going along with this train of thought, suppose we have pictures of 10-or-11-year-old boys skinny-dipping? No problem, right? But suppose they’re engaged in innocent horseplay? And that could look erotic to someone with a taste for boys that age? Does it depend on context then? And what if one of those boys develops an erection? – they do happen that young, in a large percentage of boys. Does that suddenly become porn?
All this stuff is in aid of the idea that before we can critique “child pornography,” we need a practical definition of the term.
And I agree that the exploitation and “sexualization,” for lack of a better word – sensitization to sexuality of what should be youthful innocence – of kids is something that really needs to be stopped. But I cannot see any clear indication of a consensus as to where the line needs to be drawn – in fact, I see people assuming their own definition to be the nonexistent consensus.
If Mrs. Grundy thinks the Venus de Milo is pornographic, and Joe Liberated has no problem with nudes of 8-year-old girls pretending to be Playboy models, we have a real difficulty pinning down a standard. And I think we really need to.
Scot_Plaid, I have responded to you here and here ,neither of which have you responded to. This post I did not understand to be germane to the topic, as there are no children involved to be considered victims.
[QUOTE=Scott_Plaid]
Originally Posted by many, many feminist essays
Sexism, not sex, degrades women.
[QUOTE]
So it is your assertion that pornography is sex? And since it is sex, it does not degrade women? Anybody else in favor?
Polycarp, I have been trying to get DrDeth to define his terms, as he has been the one making affirmative statements that I have taken issue with. My arguments have been counters to those assertions. I fail to see how the burden is on me.
He was the one who said, *“not all would argue that **child pornography ** is bad.” * (Emphasis added)
He was the one who said, “But since there were penty of sites where **perverts ** would download for free their **“work”, ** it seems like a lot of the current kiddie porn swirling around out there isn’t commercial in it’s original purpose. Then again- if one doesn’t buy it, but just looks at it- it’s going to be hard to say that that hurts the child who was the victim.”(Emphasis added)
I am on record as saying this–“If he meant to make the point that some pictures of children who happen to be nude are not pornography, a point I think most people would agree with, he chose a clumsy way to do it.”
However, I am content with this cite , privided by Bill Door.
I didn’t need to, for in post 59, DrDeth responded to your criticism of my remarks
However, considering the fact you obviously didn’t see it, I will repost it here.
For me to respond would be even more pointless reiteration.
I do, for it is called ‘virtual child porn’ for a reason. The fact that there are no victims applies to what you are arguing against.
Much legal pornography contains sexual acts, of which can be assumed, due to the regulating agencies, that the women have chosen to do so. To separate pictures of sex from pictures of a nude women with her legs spread is pointless.
Quote:
That seems to be the argument you are making, by saying that porn is degrading
But, sex is not intrinsically degrading. If it was so, every event of a women sleeping with a man would be “sleeping with the enemy.” Besides, if you assume sex to be a degrading act, I guess you are assuming lesbians don’t really have sex, for while I can see how the male/female sex act can be considered degrading, I can see no such fact in an act between equals.
Now, I am asking, " Anybody else in favor?" of what I have said?
Scott_Plaid,
You did not say that pornography depicts sex. You said that pornography is sex. Please tell me that you understand the distinction.
I find it ironic that you take me to task for not responding to you, yet you expect me to understand that a post from** DrDeth ** constitutes a post from you.
Please tell me where DrDeth has answered this question for you,or you have answered it for yourself–
“Are you suggesting that that post constitutes an argument? And even if it did, as Hamlet pointed out, what would it say about whether child pornography is not bad?”
Idiot. I am glad this is in the pit, so I can say that instead of in Great Debates. Here, I’ll say it again. Idiot.
I’ll come back in an hour. Hopefully by then, you will realize that my posting a statement from “many, many feminist essays” does not equal, “I’ve said” besides which, if you are not claimimg that sex acts in legal pornagraphy is degrading, maybe you can explain what the hell you meant by,
as well as it will give you time to re-read DrDeth’s post responding to me.
I tell you what Scott. I really don’t want to get into a name-calling contest. I understand that it is* allowed * in the Pit, but I am sure it is not required. If you want to retract that “idiot” and engage me in a reasonable manner, I will be glad to oblige; otherwise, I wash my hands of you.