|
i believe the less freedoms people have, the more evolved they are and the less people there are in a community, the more civilized they are (both of those within some boundaries). being deprived of something is like an environmental pressure to adapt further.
under the rule of absolute freedom, instincts take over, societies crumble and soon humans will return to their animal selves.
so no, giving more alleged freedoms to people that don't know what to do with them, is worse then restricting said freedoms.
|
On June 15 2013 00:59 Vetro wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2013 00:55 Djzapz wrote:On June 15 2013 00:52 Vetro wrote:
The point is:
-If you believe animals have a right to consent, then you must oppose eating, killing, caging, etc. as well, otherwise you are being incoherent/hypocritical.
-If you believe animals should not be harmed (more specifically, harmed beyond a certain level, or "unnecessarily"), you should prove that bestiality unequivocally results in harm to the animal, and you should also oppose much worse practices.
-If you believe that bestiality should be banned because the majority considers it a perverted act, then you should also oppose homosexuality and numerous other practices.
1- I just think if we're going to breed them, may as well make it as painless to them. I don't oppose everything. 2- Why would I have to prove that it does harm the animal? Any reasonable person would say that the opposing party needs to prove that it doesn't harm the animal... I almost want to get angry because of how dumb that point was. 3- Not the case. 2- Guilty until proven innocent then? Is that what you are arguing?
No, I'm not talking about a specific case there, I'm talking about a general thing - it's fair to assume that screwing an animal can be harmful to the animal, there undoubtedly are cases of harmed animals... what reason do I have to believe that any given animal is unharmed by it, and why should I assume that the person didn't harm the animal if it's not externally obvious?
|
On June 15 2013 01:01 xM(Z wrote:
i believe the less freedoms people have, the more evolved they are and the less people there are in a community, the more civilized they are (both of those within some boundaries). being deprived of something is like an environmental pressure to adapt further.
under the rule of absolute freedom, instincts take over, societies crumble and soon humans will return to their animal selves.
so no, giving more alleged freedoms to people that don't know what to do with them, is worse then restricting said freedoms.
You're well tamed aren't you x_x.
On June 15 2013 00:59 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2013 00:53 Djzapz wrote:On June 15 2013 00:50 Zaqwe wrote:On June 15 2013 00:43 mcc wrote:On June 15 2013 00:23 Zaqwe wrote:On June 15 2013 00:04 mcc wrote:On June 15 2013 00:00 Zaqwe wrote:
Child pornography is illegal despite the fact that unless the person paid for it they aren't actually harming anyone. Most people are okay with this because paedophiles are so repugnant and despicable it is acceptable to punish them just for being disgusting.
This is much the same reason for bestiality laws. Who cares if they are nor harming the animal or the animal likes it? It's revolting. People who do such things should be exposed, punished, and ostracized just for their disgusting acts, not because they have committed any harm. Actually the harm in child pornography and sex with minors is the possibility of psychological harm (among others). That is the point of the whole thing. So no, it is actually a ban based on harm. EDIT:clarification added Viewing pornography is not the same as having sex. Some people will try to make ridiculous arguments to claim that harm is done by someone viewing a video. For example claiming that the video being viewed is harming the victim all over again. Of course those arguments are preposterous on the face of them and we all know it. Nobody tries to ban viewing videos of assault. The reality and simple truth is that child pornography is illegal simply because most people find it despicable and the people who view it are so repugnant that it is a social good to punish them, ostracize them, and ensure they can never live a normal life. Not because they harmed anyone at all, simply because they are disgusting. Many countries even have laws against drawn child pornography and other obscenities. The same is true of bestiality. It's just so disgusting and beyond the pale that people who engage in it should be legally punished and ousted from society, not due to causing any harm but just for being awful people. Someone had to create that pornography, I was not talking about viewing it, but about creating it, you were not clear that you meant just viewing. Even viewing might be considered as harming someone indirectly and then we run into the whole problem I posted earlier. Saying it is true of bestiality means that you probably did not watch the VICE video that was posted earlier. Seems not everyone is disgusted, maybe not even majority in some places. My point exactly is that this sort of tortured logic is wrong on the face of it. Nobody wants to ban viewing videos of assault, because people who watch knockout or fighting videos are not considered socially repugnant. Any sort of logical justification that viewing a video of a crime causes harm can be equally applied to other crimes, where suddenly nobody seems to care about this imaginary "harm" caused by viewing a video. The reality is that we are using backwards logic. Everyone hates paedophiles, so we reach into our moral toolbox and try to justify punishing them without admitting it's simply a matter of their behaviour being socially unacceptable. I think we should just drop the pretense. It's okay to punish paedophiles, zoophiles, necrophiles, et cetera, just for being disgusting people who aren't welcome in society. A lot of necrophiles do it on people who didn't consent, do you think this is fine? Just curious... we're not going to convince you anyway since you've apparently decided that the argument is a "pretense" I think it's pretty difficult to harm someone who is already dead. Do you disagree that these are moral laws, rather than logical ones motivated by preventing harm?
I agree that that one is a moral law which is why in a previous post I wouldn't technically be opposed to it being legal if consent was given before death... That said, if no consent is given, then the person's will should be worth something. No? I'm confused about where you stand tho.
|
|
|
On June 15 2013 00:59 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2013 00:53 Djzapz wrote:On June 15 2013 00:50 Zaqwe wrote:On June 15 2013 00:43 mcc wrote:On June 15 2013 00:23 Zaqwe wrote:On June 15 2013 00:04 mcc wrote:On June 15 2013 00:00 Zaqwe wrote:
Child pornography is illegal despite the fact that unless the person paid for it they aren't actually harming anyone. Most people are okay with this because paedophiles are so repugnant and despicable it is acceptable to punish them just for being disgusting.
This is much the same reason for bestiality laws. Who cares if they are nor harming the animal or the animal likes it? It's revolting. People who do such things should be exposed, punished, and ostracized just for their disgusting acts, not because they have committed any harm. Actually the harm in child pornography and sex with minors is the possibility of psychological harm (among others). That is the point of the whole thing. So no, it is actually a ban based on harm. EDIT:clarification added Viewing pornography is not the same as having sex. Some people will try to make ridiculous arguments to claim that harm is done by someone viewing a video. For example claiming that the video being viewed is harming the victim all over again. Of course those arguments are preposterous on the face of them and we all know it. Nobody tries to ban viewing videos of assault. The reality and simple truth is that child pornography is illegal simply because most people find it despicable and the people who view it are so repugnant that it is a social good to punish them, ostracize them, and ensure they can never live a normal life. Not because they harmed anyone at all, simply because they are disgusting. Many countries even have laws against drawn child pornography and other obscenities. The same is true of bestiality. It's just so disgusting and beyond the pale that people who engage in it should be legally punished and ousted from society, not due to causing any harm but just for being awful people. Someone had to create that pornography, I was not talking about viewing it, but about creating it, you were not clear that you meant just viewing. Even viewing might be considered as harming someone indirectly and then we run into the whole problem I posted earlier. Saying it is true of bestiality means that you probably did not watch the VICE video that was posted earlier. Seems not everyone is disgusted, maybe not even majority in some places. My point exactly is that this sort of tortured logic is wrong on the face of it. Nobody wants to ban viewing videos of assault, because people who watch knockout or fighting videos are not considered socially repugnant. Any sort of logical justification that viewing a video of a crime causes harm can be equally applied to other crimes, where suddenly nobody seems to care about this imaginary "harm" caused by viewing a video. The reality is that we are using backwards logic. Everyone hates paedophiles, so we reach into our moral toolbox and try to justify punishing them without admitting it's simply a matter of their behaviour being socially unacceptable. I think we should just drop the pretense. It's okay to punish paedophiles, zoophiles, necrophiles, et cetera, just for being disgusting people who aren't welcome in society. A lot of necrophiles do it on people who didn't consent, do you think this is fine? Just curious... we're not going to convince you anyway since you've apparently decided that the argument is a "pretense" I think it's pretty difficult to harm someone who is already dead. Do you disagree that these are moral laws, rather than logical ones motivated by preventing harm?
One is a human the other is an animal. If you want to treat them the same way we would have major problems.
I would also not having a problem if someone had sex with a corpse if he didnt kill it and if the corpse had no relatives friends or other people that take offense.
|
On June 15 2013 00:23 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2013 00:04 mcc wrote:On June 15 2013 00:00 Zaqwe wrote:
Child pornography is illegal despite the fact that unless the person paid for it they aren't actually harming anyone. Most people are okay with this because paedophiles are so repugnant and despicable it is acceptable to punish them just for being disgusting.
This is much the same reason for bestiality laws. Who cares if they are nor harming the animal or the animal likes it? It's revolting. People who do such things should be exposed, punished, and ostracized just for their disgusting acts, not because they have committed any harm. Actually the harm in child pornography and sex with minors is the possibility of psychological harm (among others). That is the point of the whole thing. So no, it is actually a ban based on harm. EDIT:clarification added Viewing pornography is not the same as having sex. Some people will try to make ridiculous arguments to claim that harm is done by someone viewing a video. For example claiming that the video being viewed is harming the victim all over again. Of course those arguments are preposterous on the face of them and we all know it. Nobody tries to ban viewing videos of assault. The reality and simple truth is that child pornography is illegal simply because most people find it despicable and the people who view it are so repugnant that it is a social good to punish them, ostracize them, and ensure they can never live a normal life. Not because they harmed anyone at all, simply because they are disgusting. Many countries even have laws against drawn child pornography and other obscenities. The same is true of bestiality. It's just so disgusting and beyond the pale that people who engage in it should be legally punished and ousted from society, not due to causing any harm but just for being awful people.
This is the silliest argument I've ever seen, it makes absolutely no sense.
The reason viewing child pornography is illegal is because:
1) It vastly reduces the "demand" for the stuff, which means there will be less "supply" of the stuff. I think the ACLU considers it evidence to a crime, thus not protected.
2) Simply viewing a minor in a sexually explicit way is illegal by itself (IRL/in porn/whatever), because they are not old enough to consent.
3) Whether you believe it being viewed "hurts" or not, the fact of the matter is that it DOES cause pain. No, you clicking on the link will not harm the victim, that much is true. But if the video/pictures/whatever are able to be plastered all over the internet on porn sites/whatever, it can definitely cause pain, etc.
You could go on and on with logical reasons it's illegal, just like you could with bestiality. But just saying "they're nasty xD" is an awful way to justify anything.
|
EDIT : unecessary. Don't drink and write !
|
On June 15 2013 01:02 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2013 00:59 Vetro wrote:On June 15 2013 00:55 Djzapz wrote:On June 15 2013 00:52 Vetro wrote:
The point is:
-If you believe animals have a right to consent, then you must oppose eating, killing, caging, etc. as well, otherwise you are being incoherent/hypocritical.
-If you believe animals should not be harmed (more specifically, harmed beyond a certain level, or "unnecessarily"), you should prove that bestiality unequivocally results in harm to the animal, and you should also oppose much worse practices.
-If you believe that bestiality should be banned because the majority considers it a perverted act, then you should also oppose homosexuality and numerous other practices.
1- I just think if we're going to breed them, may as well make it as painless to them. I don't oppose everything. 2- Why would I have to prove that it does harm the animal? Any reasonable person would say that the opposing party needs to prove that it doesn't harm the animal... I almost want to get angry because of how dumb that point was. 3- Not the case. 2- Guilty until proven innocent then? Is that what you are arguing? No, I'm not talking about a specific case there, I'm talking about a general thing - it's fair to assume that screwing an animal can be harmful to the animal, there undoubtedly are cases of harmed animals... what reason do I have to believe that any given animal is unharmed by it, and why should I assume that the person didn't harm the animal if it's not externally obvious?
While there are clear cases (for example when the animal is too small), there is no reason to assume any kind of bestiality involving other animals, like horses and big dogs, certainly results in harm to the animal.
Furthermore, all the clear cases were already accounted for with the previous legislation, so I'm arguing there is no need to completely ban something which is not certain, or almost certain, to result in harm.
|
On June 15 2013 00:50 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2013 00:43 mcc wrote:On June 15 2013 00:23 Zaqwe wrote:On June 15 2013 00:04 mcc wrote:On June 15 2013 00:00 Zaqwe wrote:
Child pornography is illegal despite the fact that unless the person paid for it they aren't actually harming anyone. Most people are okay with this because paedophiles are so repugnant and despicable it is acceptable to punish them just for being disgusting.
This is much the same reason for bestiality laws. Who cares if they are nor harming the animal or the animal likes it? It's revolting. People who do such things should be exposed, punished, and ostracized just for their disgusting acts, not because they have committed any harm. Actually the harm in child pornography and sex with minors is the possibility of psychological harm (among others). That is the point of the whole thing. So no, it is actually a ban based on harm. EDIT:clarification added Viewing pornography is not the same as having sex. Some people will try to make ridiculous arguments to claim that harm is done by someone viewing a video. For example claiming that the video being viewed is harming the victim all over again. Of course those arguments are preposterous on the face of them and we all know it. Nobody tries to ban viewing videos of assault. The reality and simple truth is that child pornography is illegal simply because most people find it despicable and the people who view it are so repugnant that it is a social good to punish them, ostracize them, and ensure they can never live a normal life. Not because they harmed anyone at all, simply because they are disgusting. Many countries even have laws against drawn child pornography and other obscenities. The same is true of bestiality. It's just so disgusting and beyond the pale that people who engage in it should be legally punished and ousted from society, not due to causing any harm but just for being awful people. Someone had to create that pornography, I was not talking about viewing it, but about creating it, you were not clear that you meant just viewing. Even viewing might be considered as harming someone indirectly and then we run into the whole problem I posted earlier. Saying it is true of bestiality means that you probably did not watch the VICE video that was posted earlier. Seems not everyone is disgusted, maybe not even majority in some places. My point exactly is that this sort of tortured logic is wrong on the face of it. Nobody wants to ban viewing videos of assault, because people who watch knockout or fighting videos are not considered socially repugnant. Any sort of logical justification that viewing a video of a crime causes harm can be equally applied to other crimes, where suddenly nobody seems to care about this imaginary "harm" caused by viewing a video. The reality is that we are using backwards logic. Everyone hates paedophiles, so we reach into our moral toolbox and try to justify punishing them without admitting it's simply a matter of their behaviour being socially unacceptable. I think we should just drop the pretense. It's okay to punish paedophiles, zoophiles, necrophiles, et cetera, just for being disgusting people who aren't welcome in society.
Ok, so you are arguing how things are not how they should be. As I think it is NOT ok to punish those people just for being them and more and more people think it is not ok. I think that just viewing child pornography is ok if the act of viewing does not increase demand for those videos.
|
On June 15 2013 00:52 Vetro wrote:
-If you believe that bestiality should be banned because the majority considers it a perverted act, then you should also oppose homosexuality and numerous other practices.
That is just you drawing your own personal moral lines.
If most people democratically agree that homophilia is socially acceptable behaviour but zoophilia is not, that is where the line for moral laws should be drawn, no?
If your morals conflict with the society you are living in, maybe you move somewhere that people's morals are more in line with yours.
|
On June 15 2013 00:59 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2013 00:53 Djzapz wrote:On June 15 2013 00:50 Zaqwe wrote:On June 15 2013 00:43 mcc wrote:On June 15 2013 00:23 Zaqwe wrote:On June 15 2013 00:04 mcc wrote:On June 15 2013 00:00 Zaqwe wrote:
Child pornography is illegal despite the fact that unless the person paid for it they aren't actually harming anyone. Most people are okay with this because paedophiles are so repugnant and despicable it is acceptable to punish them just for being disgusting.
This is much the same reason for bestiality laws. Who cares if they are nor harming the animal or the animal likes it? It's revolting. People who do such things should be exposed, punished, and ostracized just for their disgusting acts, not because they have committed any harm. Actually the harm in child pornography and sex with minors is the possibility of psychological harm (among others). That is the point of the whole thing. So no, it is actually a ban based on harm. EDIT:clarification added Viewing pornography is not the same as having sex. Some people will try to make ridiculous arguments to claim that harm is done by someone viewing a video. For example claiming that the video being viewed is harming the victim all over again. Of course those arguments are preposterous on the face of them and we all know it. Nobody tries to ban viewing videos of assault. The reality and simple truth is that child pornography is illegal simply because most people find it despicable and the people who view it are so repugnant that it is a social good to punish them, ostracize them, and ensure they can never live a normal life. Not because they harmed anyone at all, simply because they are disgusting. Many countries even have laws against drawn child pornography and other obscenities. The same is true of bestiality. It's just so disgusting and beyond the pale that people who engage in it should be legally punished and ousted from society, not due to causing any harm but just for being awful people. Someone had to create that pornography, I was not talking about viewing it, but about creating it, you were not clear that you meant just viewing. Even viewing might be considered as harming someone indirectly and then we run into the whole problem I posted earlier. Saying it is true of bestiality means that you probably did not watch the VICE video that was posted earlier. Seems not everyone is disgusted, maybe not even majority in some places. My point exactly is that this sort of tortured logic is wrong on the face of it. Nobody wants to ban viewing videos of assault, because people who watch knockout or fighting videos are not considered socially repugnant. Any sort of logical justification that viewing a video of a crime causes harm can be equally applied to other crimes, where suddenly nobody seems to care about this imaginary "harm" caused by viewing a video. The reality is that we are using backwards logic. Everyone hates paedophiles, so we reach into our moral toolbox and try to justify punishing them without admitting it's simply a matter of their behaviour being socially unacceptable. I think we should just drop the pretense. It's okay to punish paedophiles, zoophiles, necrophiles, et cetera, just for being disgusting people who aren't welcome in society. A lot of necrophiles do it on people who didn't consent, do you think this is fine? Just curious... we're not going to convince you anyway since you've apparently decided that the argument is a "pretense" I think it's pretty difficult to harm someone who is already dead. Do you disagree that these are moral laws, rather than logical ones motivated by preventing harm?
They harm the relatives of the dead person. Otherwise I am perfectly ok with necrophiles fucking dead bodies.
|
On June 15 2013 01:05 Skwid1g wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2013 00:23 Zaqwe wrote:On June 15 2013 00:04 mcc wrote:On June 15 2013 00:00 Zaqwe wrote:
Child pornography is illegal despite the fact that unless the person paid for it they aren't actually harming anyone. Most people are okay with this because paedophiles are so repugnant and despicable it is acceptable to punish them just for being disgusting.
This is much the same reason for bestiality laws. Who cares if they are nor harming the animal or the animal likes it? It's revolting. People who do such things should be exposed, punished, and ostracized just for their disgusting acts, not because they have committed any harm. Actually the harm in child pornography and sex with minors is the possibility of psychological harm (among others). That is the point of the whole thing. So no, it is actually a ban based on harm. EDIT:clarification added Viewing pornography is not the same as having sex. Some people will try to make ridiculous arguments to claim that harm is done by someone viewing a video. For example claiming that the video being viewed is harming the victim all over again. Of course those arguments are preposterous on the face of them and we all know it. Nobody tries to ban viewing videos of assault. The reality and simple truth is that child pornography is illegal simply because most people find it despicable and the people who view it are so repugnant that it is a social good to punish them, ostracize them, and ensure they can never live a normal life. Not because they harmed anyone at all, simply because they are disgusting. Many countries even have laws against drawn child pornography and other obscenities. The same is true of bestiality. It's just so disgusting and beyond the pale that people who engage in it should be legally punished and ousted from society, not due to causing any harm but just for being awful people. This is the silliest argument I've ever seen, it makes absolutely no sense. The reason viewing child pornography is illegal is because: 1) It vastly reduces the "demand" for the stuff, which means there will be less "supply" of the stuff. I think the ACLU considers it evidence to a crime, thus not protected. 2) Simply viewing a minor in a sexually explicit way is illegal by itself (IRL/in porn/whatever), because they are not old enough to consent. 3) Whether you believe it being viewed "hurts" or not, the fact of the matter is that it DOES cause pain. No, you clicking on the link will not harm the victim, that much is true. But if the video/pictures/whatever are able to be plastered all over the internet on porn sites/whatever, it can definitely cause pain, etc. You could go on and on with logical reasons it's illegal, just like you could with bestiality. But just saying "they're nasty xD" is an awful way to justify anything.
Does viewing a knockout video on youtube create a "demand" for assault? Why then is it not a crime to view or possess knockout videos?
Let's examine a hypothetical situation: Someone is walking down the street and finds a flash drive on the ground. He takes it home and finds it contains child pornography. He then keeps it, views it regularly, and therefore violated child pornography laws.
Has he caused harm? If so, what harm? Who is his victim?
|
On June 15 2013 01:15 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2013 01:05 Skwid1g wrote:On June 15 2013 00:23 Zaqwe wrote:On June 15 2013 00:04 mcc wrote:On June 15 2013 00:00 Zaqwe wrote:
Child pornography is illegal despite the fact that unless the person paid for it they aren't actually harming anyone. Most people are okay with this because paedophiles are so repugnant and despicable it is acceptable to punish them just for being disgusting.
This is much the same reason for bestiality laws. Who cares if they are nor harming the animal or the animal likes it? It's revolting. People who do such things should be exposed, punished, and ostracized just for their disgusting acts, not because they have committed any harm. Actually the harm in child pornography and sex with minors is the possibility of psychological harm (among others). That is the point of the whole thing. So no, it is actually a ban based on harm. EDIT:clarification added Viewing pornography is not the same as having sex. Some people will try to make ridiculous arguments to claim that harm is done by someone viewing a video. For example claiming that the video being viewed is harming the victim all over again. Of course those arguments are preposterous on the face of them and we all know it. Nobody tries to ban viewing videos of assault. The reality and simple truth is that child pornography is illegal simply because most people find it despicable and the people who view it are so repugnant that it is a social good to punish them, ostracize them, and ensure they can never live a normal life. Not because they harmed anyone at all, simply because they are disgusting. Many countries even have laws against drawn child pornography and other obscenities. The same is true of bestiality. It's just so disgusting and beyond the pale that people who engage in it should be legally punished and ousted from society, not due to causing any harm but just for being awful people. This is the silliest argument I've ever seen, it makes absolutely no sense. The reason viewing child pornography is illegal is because: 1) It vastly reduces the "demand" for the stuff, which means there will be less "supply" of the stuff. I think the ACLU considers it evidence to a crime, thus not protected. 2) Simply viewing a minor in a sexually explicit way is illegal by itself (IRL/in porn/whatever), because they are not old enough to consent. 3) Whether you believe it being viewed "hurts" or not, the fact of the matter is that it DOES cause pain. No, you clicking on the link will not harm the victim, that much is true. But if the video/pictures/whatever are able to be plastered all over the internet on porn sites/whatever, it can definitely cause pain, etc. You could go on and on with logical reasons it's illegal, just like you could with bestiality. But just saying "they're nasty xD" is an awful way to justify anything. Does viewing a knockout video on youtube create a "demand" for assault? Why then is it not a crime to view or possess knockout videos? Let's examine a hypothetical situation: Someone is walking down the street and finds a flash drive on the ground. He takes it home and finds it contains child pornography. He then keeps it, views it regularly, and therefore violated child pornography laws. Has he caused harm? If so, what harm? Who is his victim?
Dude, this is pretty clear cut. If there is profit to be gained in child pornography, which there will be if it was legal, then more hild pronography will be made, and thus more children raped. This is extremely black and white.
|
On June 15 2013 01:17 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2013 01:15 Zaqwe wrote:On June 15 2013 01:05 Skwid1g wrote:On June 15 2013 00:23 Zaqwe wrote:On June 15 2013 00:04 mcc wrote:On June 15 2013 00:00 Zaqwe wrote:
Child pornography is illegal despite the fact that unless the person paid for it they aren't actually harming anyone. Most people are okay with this because paedophiles are so repugnant and despicable it is acceptable to punish them just for being disgusting.
This is much the same reason for bestiality laws. Who cares if they are nor harming the animal or the animal likes it? It's revolting. People who do such things should be exposed, punished, and ostracized just for their disgusting acts, not because they have committed any harm. Actually the harm in child pornography and sex with minors is the possibility of psychological harm (among others). That is the point of the whole thing. So no, it is actually a ban based on harm. EDIT:clarification added Viewing pornography is not the same as having sex. Some people will try to make ridiculous arguments to claim that harm is done by someone viewing a video. For example claiming that the video being viewed is harming the victim all over again. Of course those arguments are preposterous on the face of them and we all know it. Nobody tries to ban viewing videos of assault. The reality and simple truth is that child pornography is illegal simply because most people find it despicable and the people who view it are so repugnant that it is a social good to punish them, ostracize them, and ensure they can never live a normal life. Not because they harmed anyone at all, simply because they are disgusting. Many countries even have laws against drawn child pornography and other obscenities. The same is true of bestiality. It's just so disgusting and beyond the pale that people who engage in it should be legally punished and ousted from society, not due to causing any harm but just for being awful people. This is the silliest argument I've ever seen, it makes absolutely no sense. The reason viewing child pornography is illegal is because: 1) It vastly reduces the "demand" for the stuff, which means there will be less "supply" of the stuff. I think the ACLU considers it evidence to a crime, thus not protected. 2) Simply viewing a minor in a sexually explicit way is illegal by itself (IRL/in porn/whatever), because they are not old enough to consent. 3) Whether you believe it being viewed "hurts" or not, the fact of the matter is that it DOES cause pain. No, you clicking on the link will not harm the victim, that much is true. But if the video/pictures/whatever are able to be plastered all over the internet on porn sites/whatever, it can definitely cause pain, etc. You could go on and on with logical reasons it's illegal, just like you could with bestiality. But just saying "they're nasty xD" is an awful way to justify anything. Does viewing a knockout video on youtube create a "demand" for assault? Why then is it not a crime to view or possess knockout videos? Let's examine a hypothetical situation: Someone is walking down the street and finds a flash drive on the ground. He takes it home and finds it contains child pornography. He then keeps it, views it regularly, and therefore violated child pornography laws. Has he caused harm? If so, what harm? Who is his victim? Dude, this is pretty clear cut. If there is profit to be gained in child pornography, which there will be if it was legal, then more hild pronography will be made, and thus more children raped. This is extremely black and white.
Yet you ignored my hypothetical situation, because it actually is not a black and white issue at all.
|
On June 15 2013 01:17 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2013 01:15 Zaqwe wrote:On June 15 2013 01:05 Skwid1g wrote:On June 15 2013 00:23 Zaqwe wrote:On June 15 2013 00:04 mcc wrote:On June 15 2013 00:00 Zaqwe wrote:
Child pornography is illegal despite the fact that unless the person paid for it they aren't actually harming anyone. Most people are okay with this because paedophiles are so repugnant and despicable it is acceptable to punish them just for being disgusting.
This is much the same reason for bestiality laws. Who cares if they are nor harming the animal or the animal likes it? It's revolting. People who do such things should be exposed, punished, and ostracized just for their disgusting acts, not because they have committed any harm. Actually the harm in child pornography and sex with minors is the possibility of psychological harm (among others). That is the point of the whole thing. So no, it is actually a ban based on harm. EDIT:clarification added Viewing pornography is not the same as having sex. Some people will try to make ridiculous arguments to claim that harm is done by someone viewing a video. For example claiming that the video being viewed is harming the victim all over again. Of course those arguments are preposterous on the face of them and we all know it. Nobody tries to ban viewing videos of assault. The reality and simple truth is that child pornography is illegal simply because most people find it despicable and the people who view it are so repugnant that it is a social good to punish them, ostracize them, and ensure they can never live a normal life. Not because they harmed anyone at all, simply because they are disgusting. Many countries even have laws against drawn child pornography and other obscenities. The same is true of bestiality. It's just so disgusting and beyond the pale that people who engage in it should be legally punished and ousted from society, not due to causing any harm but just for being awful people. This is the silliest argument I've ever seen, it makes absolutely no sense. The reason viewing child pornography is illegal is because: 1) It vastly reduces the "demand" for the stuff, which means there will be less "supply" of the stuff. I think the ACLU considers it evidence to a crime, thus not protected. 2) Simply viewing a minor in a sexually explicit way is illegal by itself (IRL/in porn/whatever), because they are not old enough to consent. 3) Whether you believe it being viewed "hurts" or not, the fact of the matter is that it DOES cause pain. No, you clicking on the link will not harm the victim, that much is true. But if the video/pictures/whatever are able to be plastered all over the internet on porn sites/whatever, it can definitely cause pain, etc. You could go on and on with logical reasons it's illegal, just like you could with bestiality. But just saying "they're nasty xD" is an awful way to justify anything. Does viewing a knockout video on youtube create a "demand" for assault? Why then is it not a crime to view or possess knockout videos? Let's examine a hypothetical situation: Someone is walking down the street and finds a flash drive on the ground. He takes it home and finds it contains child pornography. He then keeps it, views it regularly, and therefore violated child pornography laws. Has he caused harm? If so, what harm? Who is his victim? Dude, this is pretty clear cut. If there is profit to be gained in child pornography, which there will be if it was legal, then more hild pronography will be made, and thus more children raped. This is extremely black and white.
You understand that the demand is there even if it is not legal and I doubt illegality is seriously decreasing said demand.
|
It is a good law, it is not only weird, could hurt the animal, but a danger to society.
One of the main theories on how AIDS started was when someone had sex with a monkey or came in contact with bodily fluids of an infected monkey and the virus mutated / started infecting humans. So ya it's not just cruel to the animal, it could really hurt society as a whole with the spread of diseases and such.
|
On June 15 2013 01:05 Skwid1g wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2013 00:23 Zaqwe wrote:On June 15 2013 00:04 mcc wrote:On June 15 2013 00:00 Zaqwe wrote:
Child pornography is illegal despite the fact that unless the person paid for it they aren't actually harming anyone. Most people are okay with this because paedophiles are so repugnant and despicable it is acceptable to punish them just for being disgusting.
This is much the same reason for bestiality laws. Who cares if they are nor harming the animal or the animal likes it? It's revolting. People who do such things should be exposed, punished, and ostracized just for their disgusting acts, not because they have committed any harm. Actually the harm in child pornography and sex with minors is the possibility of psychological harm (among others). That is the point of the whole thing. So no, it is actually a ban based on harm. EDIT:clarification added Viewing pornography is not the same as having sex. Some people will try to make ridiculous arguments to claim that harm is done by someone viewing a video. For example claiming that the video being viewed is harming the victim all over again. Of course those arguments are preposterous on the face of them and we all know it. Nobody tries to ban viewing videos of assault. The reality and simple truth is that child pornography is illegal simply because most people find it despicable and the people who view it are so repugnant that it is a social good to punish them, ostracize them, and ensure they can never live a normal life. Not because they harmed anyone at all, simply because they are disgusting. Many countries even have laws against drawn child pornography and other obscenities. The same is true of bestiality. It's just so disgusting and beyond the pale that people who engage in it should be legally punished and ousted from society, not due to causing any harm but just for being awful people. This is the silliest argument I've ever seen, it makes absolutely no sense. The reason viewing child pornography is illegal is because: 1) It vastly reduces the "demand" for the stuff, which means there will be less "supply" of the stuff. I think the ACLU considers it evidence to a crime, thus not protected. 2) Simply viewing a minor in a sexually explicit way is illegal by itself (IRL/in porn/whatever), because they are not old enough to consent. 3) Whether you believe it being viewed "hurts" or not, the fact of the matter is that it DOES cause pain. No, you clicking on the link will not harm the victim, that much is true. But if the video/pictures/whatever are able to be plastered all over the internet on porn sites/whatever, it can definitely cause pain, etc. You could go on and on with logical reasons it's illegal, just like you could with bestiality. But just saying "they're nasty xD" is an awful way to justify anything.
Your number two is a bloody thought crime.
As for point one and three, agreed.
|
On June 15 2013 01:19 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2013 01:17 Excludos wrote:On June 15 2013 01:15 Zaqwe wrote:On June 15 2013 01:05 Skwid1g wrote:On June 15 2013 00:23 Zaqwe wrote:On June 15 2013 00:04 mcc wrote:On June 15 2013 00:00 Zaqwe wrote:
Child pornography is illegal despite the fact that unless the person paid for it they aren't actually harming anyone. Most people are okay with this because paedophiles are so repugnant and despicable it is acceptable to punish them just for being disgusting.
This is much the same reason for bestiality laws. Who cares if they are nor harming the animal or the animal likes it? It's revolting. People who do such things should be exposed, punished, and ostracized just for their disgusting acts, not because they have committed any harm. Actually the harm in child pornography and sex with minors is the possibility of psychological harm (among others). That is the point of the whole thing. So no, it is actually a ban based on harm. EDIT:clarification added Viewing pornography is not the same as having sex. Some people will try to make ridiculous arguments to claim that harm is done by someone viewing a video. For example claiming that the video being viewed is harming the victim all over again. Of course those arguments are preposterous on the face of them and we all know it. Nobody tries to ban viewing videos of assault. The reality and simple truth is that child pornography is illegal simply because most people find it despicable and the people who view it are so repugnant that it is a social good to punish them, ostracize them, and ensure they can never live a normal life. Not because they harmed anyone at all, simply because they are disgusting. Many countries even have laws against drawn child pornography and other obscenities. The same is true of bestiality. It's just so disgusting and beyond the pale that people who engage in it should be legally punished and ousted from society, not due to causing any harm but just for being awful people. This is the silliest argument I've ever seen, it makes absolutely no sense. The reason viewing child pornography is illegal is because: 1) It vastly reduces the "demand" for the stuff, which means there will be less "supply" of the stuff. I think the ACLU considers it evidence to a crime, thus not protected. 2) Simply viewing a minor in a sexually explicit way is illegal by itself (IRL/in porn/whatever), because they are not old enough to consent. 3) Whether you believe it being viewed "hurts" or not, the fact of the matter is that it DOES cause pain. No, you clicking on the link will not harm the victim, that much is true. But if the video/pictures/whatever are able to be plastered all over the internet on porn sites/whatever, it can definitely cause pain, etc. You could go on and on with logical reasons it's illegal, just like you could with bestiality. But just saying "they're nasty xD" is an awful way to justify anything. Does viewing a knockout video on youtube create a "demand" for assault? Why then is it not a crime to view or possess knockout videos? Let's examine a hypothetical situation: Someone is walking down the street and finds a flash drive on the ground. He takes it home and finds it contains child pornography. He then keeps it, views it regularly, and therefore violated child pornography laws. Has he caused harm? If so, what harm? Who is his victim? Dude, this is pretty clear cut. If there is profit to be gained in child pornography, which there will be if it was legal, then more hild pronography will be made, and thus more children raped. This is extremely black and white. Yet you ignored my hypothetical situation, because it actually is not a black and white issue at all.
Becuase you just ignored what I said. You don't need any hypoethical situations. If its legal, demand will increase. Its extremely easy. No "Well what happens if a plane crashes near my neightborhood, and there happens to be a laptop with child pornography on it?" situations. Its just stupid to try. You can't have a law that states "its legal only if there very rare situations.
|
On June 15 2013 01:11 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2013 00:52 Vetro wrote:
-If you believe that bestiality should be banned because the majority considers it a perverted act, then you should also oppose homosexuality and numerous other practices.
That is just you drawing your own personal moral lines. If most people democratically agree that homophilia is socially acceptable behaviour but zoophilia is not, that is where the line for moral laws should be drawn, no? If your morals conflict with the society you are living in, maybe you move somewhere that people's morals are more in line with yours.
I believe that laws should be at least: democratically chosen, and have a logically sound reason to exist (there shouldn't be laws, or absence of laws, with contradicting reasons).
If you believe laws should be only democratically chosen, I can't argue against that, because we just hold different basic assumptions.
EDIT: Just to clarify, if 2 objects: A and B, both have property X, and i ban object A because of property X, then I should also ban object B.
|
On June 15 2013 01:19 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2013 01:17 Excludos wrote:On June 15 2013 01:15 Zaqwe wrote:On June 15 2013 01:05 Skwid1g wrote:On June 15 2013 00:23 Zaqwe wrote:On June 15 2013 00:04 mcc wrote:On June 15 2013 00:00 Zaqwe wrote:
Child pornography is illegal despite the fact that unless the person paid for it they aren't actually harming anyone. Most people are okay with this because paedophiles are so repugnant and despicable it is acceptable to punish them just for being disgusting.
This is much the same reason for bestiality laws. Who cares if they are nor harming the animal or the animal likes it? It's revolting. People who do such things should be exposed, punished, and ostracized just for their disgusting acts, not because they have committed any harm. Actually the harm in child pornography and sex with minors is the possibility of psychological harm (among others). That is the point of the whole thing. So no, it is actually a ban based on harm. EDIT:clarification added Viewing pornography is not the same as having sex. Some people will try to make ridiculous arguments to claim that harm is done by someone viewing a video. For example claiming that the video being viewed is harming the victim all over again. Of course those arguments are preposterous on the face of them and we all know it. Nobody tries to ban viewing videos of assault. The reality and simple truth is that child pornography is illegal simply because most people find it despicable and the people who view it are so repugnant that it is a social good to punish them, ostracize them, and ensure they can never live a normal life. Not because they harmed anyone at all, simply because they are disgusting. Many countries even have laws against drawn child pornography and other obscenities. The same is true of bestiality. It's just so disgusting and beyond the pale that people who engage in it should be legally punished and ousted from society, not due to causing any harm but just for being awful people. This is the silliest argument I've ever seen, it makes absolutely no sense. The reason viewing child pornography is illegal is because: 1) It vastly reduces the "demand" for the stuff, which means there will be less "supply" of the stuff. I think the ACLU considers it evidence to a crime, thus not protected. 2) Simply viewing a minor in a sexually explicit way is illegal by itself (IRL/in porn/whatever), because they are not old enough to consent. 3) Whether you believe it being viewed "hurts" or not, the fact of the matter is that it DOES cause pain. No, you clicking on the link will not harm the victim, that much is true. But if the video/pictures/whatever are able to be plastered all over the internet on porn sites/whatever, it can definitely cause pain, etc. You could go on and on with logical reasons it's illegal, just like you could with bestiality. But just saying "they're nasty xD" is an awful way to justify anything. Does viewing a knockout video on youtube create a "demand" for assault? Why then is it not a crime to view or possess knockout videos? Let's examine a hypothetical situation: Someone is walking down the street and finds a flash drive on the ground. He takes it home and finds it contains child pornography. He then keeps it, views it regularly, and therefore violated child pornography laws. Has he caused harm? If so, what harm? Who is his victim? Dude, this is pretty clear cut. If there is profit to be gained in child pornography, which there will be if it was legal, then more hild pronography will be made, and thus more children raped. This is extremely black and white. You understand that the demand is there even if it is not legal and I doubt illegality is seriously decreasing said demand.
Yes, because no amount of laws ever decrease demands for any product in ever. In fact, laws are kinda useless, no one follows them anyways.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
