|
On June 15 2013 01:21 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2013 01:19 Zaqwe wrote: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.
Is there a demand for knockout videos, caused by them being legal and shared on youtube? Is this demand fueling more assaults? By this logic it should be illegal to posses or view videos of any crime.
|
On June 14 2013 20:15 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 20:12 S:klogW wrote:On June 14 2013 20:06 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 20:02 xM(Z wrote:On June 14 2013 19:54 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 19:52 xM(Z wrote:On June 14 2013 19:46 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 19:35 xM(Z wrote:On June 14 2013 19:09 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 18:53 xM(Z wrote:
[quote]
dude, just watch bestiality porn. the horses just want to get the fuck out of there or they don't/can't even get hard and are tormented for hours untill they do. the 100% of the time the animal doesn't care is bs. you ASSUME it doesn't care.
edit: they get a mare in heat then have the horse sniff it, just so they could film 5-10 min of something. Does it matter if the horse isn't getting off on it? Horses don't get off on pulling ploughs either, nor on carrying mongol hordes across Asia. This is the same bullshit argument as when homophobes go "I don't personally mind what two consenting adults do but I'm worried about the children" while simultaneously giving no shits about children in any other context. You don't get to outlaw things you don't like unless they're harming someone and if you think that protection against harm should be extended to animals then have the intellectual honesty to extend it in more than just this one context that you disagree on. That's the difference between believing in a cause and making an excuse. so i'm a hypocrite and i don't care or, being a hypocrite is better then the alternative: kill or be killed, abuse or get abussed and so on. but how about you?, you want to make rules for something/someone/everything else based on your judgement/reason/logic. that makes you just like me, not better. ignorance does not excuse innocence. edit: i also never defended this law; i argued how people can't make calls, any calls, in behalf of someone/something else but themselves. My argument is that the government shouldn't outlaw things based upon the personal disgust of individuals unless harm is being done. I think we agree? yes, in principle, but then someone might come in and make you define the word "harm" and then you'll be screwed. Infringing upon the person or property of an individual ought to serve. I'm not a lawyer or a legislator here so I haven't gone to great effort to make that as watertight as it could possibly be but it ought to be a concept people can understand. but it's not about people understanding concepts, it's about animals understanding concepts too. allow all/everything, or be a hypocrite. i said i am one, but you're trying to weasel out of it, out of being one  I believe there is no public good issue here if it is done by individuals in the privacy of their own home. Bringing the government back into the bedroom in a situation when no humans are being harmed in any way is wrong, even if people dislike the idea of it. It's no different than the ban on homosexuality (not saying that beastiality is the same thing as homosexuality, saying that legislating sexual behaviour when no harm is occurring is wrong in both cases for the same reasons) I believe that the animal welfare issue was previously covered by the old law which already covered animal cruelty. The remaining argument is the question of the right of consent over their own bodies for domesticated animals. If someone genuinely believes that animals should have the right of consent over their own bodies then they can argue that beastiality is literally rape and that slaughtering for meat is literally murder but they can't just pick one. If someone believes that eating animals is literally murder then good luck to them, their position is intellectually sound although I think somewhat silly. Also I feel strongly about this because I think it's a litmus test for allowing sexual freedom based on principles of the government not being in the bedroom against just allowing what the majority think is fine. If we allow homosexuality and then ban beastiality based purely upon the distaste of the majority then we really haven't learned a thing. Could the harm then be that sex with other species might cause the transfer of disease to humans? Better outlaw all sex given that humans already have STDs then.
Snip
Could have said:
AIDS would not exist without beastiality, yes, but does that apply to all STDs? Of course not. So why ban beastiality based on that?
Or just say what you said, it makes the same point faster and I ppl had problem will point that out and then you elaborate. So
This is probably the argument you were pretty much making. Edit: actually was cleared up a long time ago. Sorry.
Disclaimer: I state no opinions on this matter myself. I come from a religious standpoint yet believe in separation of church and state.
|
On June 15 2013 01:21 Maxie 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. Your number two is a bloody thought crime. As for point one and three, agreed.
His point 1 and 3 are wrong.
#1 is wrong because it is based on a false assumption, no evidence supports it, and it falls apart under scrutiny. Someone having or viewing a video does not create demand for those videos. A very clear example is provided in my hypothetical about a person finding a flash drive on the ground.
#3 is wrong because the victim has no way of knowing when the video is viewed or who has a copy of it. The harm in this case has been caused by the rapist and the person who video recorded the rape. Someone who owns a copy cannot conceivably be causing any additional harm.
|
I find it hilarious that such a thread would go to 25 pages with people arguing. My god we are talking about fucking animals being illegal. How is that not a given for everybody. Beats me
|
On June 15 2013 01:03 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +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.
i'd kill you just to see how it makes me feel.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On June 15 2013 01:24 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2013 01:21 Excludos wrote:On June 15 2013 01:19 Zaqwe wrote: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. Is there a demand for knockout videos, caused by them being legal and shared on youtube? Is this demand fueling more assaults? By this logic it should be illegal to posses or view videos of any crime.
Yes. Thats why I think it should be illegal to own a video of someone getting murdered as well (for real, not fake deaths, obviously). And for a fact, its already technically illegal if they can prove you have watched it without reporting it to the authorities (Its illegal to watch a murder without reporting it, but its not illegal to own a video with a murder in it). Its really grey area right now and I would like that to be a bit more clear cut as well.
The line should be clear depending on the severity of the crime. Assault, in most cases, isn't that severe of a crime. Child abuse is one of the worst crimes you can do on this planet, almost worse than murder in some cases.
|
On June 15 2013 01:37 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2013 01:03 Djzapz wrote: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. i'd kill you just to see how it makes me feel. + Show Spoiler +
 please don't
|
On June 15 2013 01:38 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2013 01:24 Zaqwe wrote:On June 15 2013 01:21 Excludos wrote:On June 15 2013 01:19 Zaqwe wrote: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. Is there a demand for knockout videos, caused by them being legal and shared on youtube? Is this demand fueling more assaults? By this logic it should be illegal to posses or view videos of any crime. Yes. Thats why I think it should be illegal to own a video of someone getting murdered as well (for real, not fake deaths, obviously). And for a fact, its already technically illegal if they can prove you have watched it without reporting it to the authorities (Its illegal to watch a murder without reporting it, but its not illegal to own a video with a murder in it). Its really grey area right now and I would like that to be a bit more clear cut as well. The line should be clear depending on the severity of the crime. Assault, in most cases, isn't that severe of a crime. Child abuse is one of the worst crimes you can do on this planet, almost worse than murder in some cases.
That's an interesting position to take, and one that could certainly be justified on moral grounds.
However I think your attempt to justify it on logical grounds can't pass muster. Apply my earlier hypothetical situation: A man finds a flash drive on the ground, and this time it contains gore/murder photos and videos. He decides to keep them and view them.
He hasn't paid for it, and he didn't view it on a gore website that makes ad revenue from his visit. In no way has he created demand that could result in more murders (or at least more murderers video taping their crimes).
Hopefully you can understand that owning or viewing something is not equivalent to creating demand. Only the method used to acquire something could possibly do that, and it is not a given that just because you acquired it somehow that acquisition created demand.
|
Wow. What an entertaining but interesting thread, after page 16 or so I started skimming as all the main points have already been raised and argued.
I guess its really about that psychological factor in animals, or perhaps the slight pain that occurs when a man violates an animal - as true pain and suffering is covered under animal cruelty laws as has been repeated many times earlier in the thread.
Is this worthy of protection? While it would be something good to the animal, I can't help but feel like it is less important than the liberty of the human being considering that these cases don't really harm the animal in any meaningful way.
So I guess Kwark convinced me. Although I think this is definitely a temporary statement; over time as we discover more about animals, and perhaps discover that their minds are more complex and aware than we previously realized - and that maybe some of these acts can be traumatic, then the laws should be revised again. But for the moment this doesn't seem to be the case...I don't think animals have the self-awareness and intelligence to really be harmed in such a way. Pretty good debate though, even the banning of Evangelizer, the "professional physicist" 
|
On June 15 2013 01:53 radscorpion9 wrote:Wow. What an entertaining but interesting thread, after page 16 or so I started skimming as all the main points have already been raised and argued. I guess its really about that psychological factor in animals, or perhaps the slight pain that occurs when a man violates an animal - as true pain and suffering is covered under animal cruelty laws as has been repeated many times earlier in the thread. Is this worthy of protection? While it would be something good to the animal, I can't help but feel like it is less important than the liberty of the human being considering that these cases don't really harm the animal in any meaningful way. So I guess Kwark convinced me. Although I think this is definitely a temporary statement; over time as we discover more about animals, and perhaps discover that their minds are more complex and aware than we previously realized - and that maybe some of these acts can be traumatic, then the laws should be revised again. But for the moment this doesn't seem to be the case...I don't think animals have the self-awareness and intelligence to really be harmed in such a way. Pretty good debate though, even the banning of Evangelizer, the "professional physicist"
On the flip side, what if we find that the animals actually enjoy it? Are we going to legalize it for consenting animals?
|
151 Posts
This law is a bit silly, isn't it? The old one was just fine. If you want to smear peanut butter on your junk and have a dock lick it off then who cares? The dog gets a tasty treat and doesn't feel any shame while you get your rocks off. Seems like a win win to me.
Now if a dog humps your leg then you have committed illegal bestiality and should be jailed and/or fined.
|
Seems some of you do not understand the love that can exist between man and goat.
|
On June 15 2013 01:46 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2013 01:38 Excludos wrote:On June 15 2013 01:24 Zaqwe wrote:On June 15 2013 01:21 Excludos wrote:On June 15 2013 01:19 Zaqwe wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Is there a demand for knockout videos, caused by them being legal and shared on youtube? Is this demand fueling more assaults? By this logic it should be illegal to posses or view videos of any crime. Yes. Thats why I think it should be illegal to own a video of someone getting murdered as well (for real, not fake deaths, obviously). And for a fact, its already technically illegal if they can prove you have watched it without reporting it to the authorities (Its illegal to watch a murder without reporting it, but its not illegal to own a video with a murder in it). Its really grey area right now and I would like that to be a bit more clear cut as well. The line should be clear depending on the severity of the crime. Assault, in most cases, isn't that severe of a crime. Child abuse is one of the worst crimes you can do on this planet, almost worse than murder in some cases. That's an interesting position to take, and one that could certainly be justified on moral grounds. However I think your attempt to justify it on logical grounds can't pass muster. Apply my earlier hypothetical situation: A man finds a flash drive on the ground, and this time it contains gore/murder photos and videos. He decides to keep them and view them. He hasn't paid for it, and he didn't view it on a gore website that makes ad revenue from his visit. In no way has he created demand that could result in more murders (or at least more murderers video taping their crimes). Hopefully you can understand that owning or viewing something is not equivalent to creating demand. Only the method used to acquire something could possibly do that, and it is not a given that just because you acquired it somehow that acquisition created demand.
The problem as I see it is that if its legal, you make it easier for people to make money off of it. What you watch and do with your life, I don't really care. So I don't care if you find a hdd with child porn on it (in fact, I once had child porn on my pc without knowing it. Probably like 10 years ago, I downloaded a video I didn't know what it was through cc++. Situations like that obviously doesn't harm anyone), but what I really don't want is to make it easy to set up a website anyone can visit, where you can pay to download child pronography. And naturally, its easier to just ban everything, especially as severe of a crime as child abuse is.
|
On June 15 2013 01:24 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2013 01:19 mcc wrote: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.
Sometimes they do sometimes they do not. Nice of you to offer useless generalizations even though my post implied specifics of this particular scenario. Considering that attraction is pretty much given biologically and people watching child pornography are probably attracted to children so they will be most of the market. Considering that laws governing sexual behaviour have low compliance as they go against one of the most powerful instincts and they are not extremely well enforced. Thus my conclusion. Unless you have hard empirical data, which part of my argument is problematic to you ?
Anyway I am not disputing that there is some decrease, but not significant. And thus the question arises, is it worth it ? Making people that otherwise would never hurt anyone into criminals. It is problematic question.
|
On June 15 2013 02:11 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2013 01:24 Excludos wrote:On June 15 2013 01:19 mcc wrote: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. Sometimes they do sometimes they do not. Nice of you to offer useless generalizations even though my post implied specifics of this particular scenario. Considering that attraction is pretty much given biologically and people watching child pornography are probably attracted to children so they will be most of the market. Considering that laws governing sexual behaviour have low compliance as they go against one of the most powerful instincts and they are not extremely well enforced. Thus my conclusion. Unless you have hard empirical data, which part of my argument is problematic to you ? Anyway I am not disputing that there is some decrease, but not significant. And thus the question arises, is it worth it ? Making people that otherwise would never hurt anyone into criminals. It is problematic question.
I've made 3 more posts since that one where I explain my stance a bit more in depth. I don't feel like repeating them.
|
On June 15 2013 02:14 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2013 02:11 mcc wrote:On June 15 2013 01:24 Excludos wrote:On June 15 2013 01:19 mcc wrote: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. Sometimes they do sometimes they do not. Nice of you to offer useless generalizations even though my post implied specifics of this particular scenario. Considering that attraction is pretty much given biologically and people watching child pornography are probably attracted to children so they will be most of the market. Considering that laws governing sexual behaviour have low compliance as they go against one of the most powerful instincts and they are not extremely well enforced. Thus my conclusion. Unless you have hard empirical data, which part of my argument is problematic to you ? Anyway I am not disputing that there is some decrease, but not significant. And thus the question arises, is it worth it ? Making people that otherwise would never hurt anyone into criminals. It is problematic question. I've made 3 more posts since that one where I explain my stance a bit more in depth. I don't feel like repeating them.
As far as I can tell you said nothing in them regarding your claim that banning it significantly reduces demand.
|
On June 14 2013 20:06 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 20:02 xM(Z wrote:On June 14 2013 19:54 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 19:52 xM(Z wrote:On June 14 2013 19:46 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 19:35 xM(Z wrote:On June 14 2013 19:09 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 18:53 xM(Z wrote:On June 14 2013 18:45 aNGryaRchon wrote:On June 14 2013 18:27 Reason wrote:
[quote]
Good lord making love is an expression synonymous with having sex, but usually implies an emotional connection or meaning behind the action than simply having sex.
Do you accept some people love animals?
Do you accept some people have sex with animals?
If the answer to both of those questions is yes then why is it so difficult for your infant mind to wrap itself around the concept that some people consider their intimate relations with an animal to be love making?
Seriously, stop being a massive penis. Let's use definition then, and kill you with your own sword so to speak. I am sure 99.99% of the time or more, people involved in bestiality don't allow a dog's or a horse's cock into their vagina, ass, or whatever orifice because they want to express that emotional connection with the animal. On the other side of the act, 100% of the time the animal doesn't care otherwise. There is no way out of this for you unfortunately. Just admit that you are wrong, that bestiality is not an act of love, and then learn from it and hope that you can develop better reasoning skills in the future. Massive Facepalm. dude, just watch bestiality porn. the horses just want to get the fuck out of there or they don't/can't even get hard and are tormented for hours untill they do. the 100% of the time the animal doesn't care is bs. you ASSUME it doesn't care. edit: they get a mare in heat then have the horse sniff it, just so they could film 5-10 min of something. Does it matter if the horse isn't getting off on it? Horses don't get off on pulling ploughs either, nor on carrying mongol hordes across Asia. This is the same bullshit argument as when homophobes go "I don't personally mind what two consenting adults do but I'm worried about the children" while simultaneously giving no shits about children in any other context. You don't get to outlaw things you don't like unless they're harming someone and if you think that protection against harm should be extended to animals then have the intellectual honesty to extend it in more than just this one context that you disagree on. That's the difference between believing in a cause and making an excuse. so i'm a hypocrite and i don't care or, being a hypocrite is better then the alternative: kill or be killed, abuse or get abussed and so on. but how about you?, you want to make rules for something/someone/everything else based on your judgement/reason/logic. that makes you just like me, not better. ignorance does not excuse innocence. edit: i also never defended this law; i argued how people can't make calls, any calls, in behalf of someone/something else but themselves. My argument is that the government shouldn't outlaw things based upon the personal disgust of individuals unless harm is being done. I think we agree? yes, in principle, but then someone might come in and make you define the word "harm" and then you'll be screwed. Infringing upon the person or property of an individual ought to serve. I'm not a lawyer or a legislator here so I haven't gone to great effort to make that as watertight as it could possibly be but it ought to be a concept people can understand. but it's not about people understanding concepts, it's about animals understanding concepts too. allow all/everything, or be a hypocrite. i said i am one, but you're trying to weasel out of it, out of being one I believe there is no public good issue here if it is done by individuals in the privacy of their own home. Bringing the government back into the bedroom in a situation when no humans are being harmed in any way is wrong, even if people dislike the idea of it. It's no different than the ban on homosexuality (not saying that beastiality is the same thing as homosexuality, saying that legislating sexual behaviour when no harm is occurring is wrong in both cases for the same reasons) I believe that the animal welfare issue was previously covered by the old law which already covered animal cruelty. The remaining argument is the question of the right of consent over their own bodies for domesticated animals. If someone genuinely believes that animals should have the right of consent over their own bodies then they can argue that beastiality is literally rape and that slaughtering for meat is literally murder but they can't just pick one.
^this should have stopped all discussion
|
On June 15 2013 02:17 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2013 02:14 Excludos wrote:On June 15 2013 02:11 mcc wrote:On June 15 2013 01:24 Excludos wrote:On June 15 2013 01:19 mcc wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Sometimes they do sometimes they do not. Nice of you to offer useless generalizations even though my post implied specifics of this particular scenario. Considering that attraction is pretty much given biologically and people watching child pornography are probably attracted to children so they will be most of the market. Considering that laws governing sexual behaviour have low compliance as they go against one of the most powerful instincts and they are not extremely well enforced. Thus my conclusion. Unless you have hard empirical data, which part of my argument is problematic to you ? Anyway I am not disputing that there is some decrease, but not significant. And thus the question arises, is it worth it ? Making people that otherwise would never hurt anyone into criminals. It is problematic question. I've made 3 more posts since that one where I explain my stance a bit more in depth. I don't feel like repeating them. As far as I can tell you said nothing in them regarding your claim that banning it significantly reduces demand.
It makes it easier for people to put up a website anyone could visit and pay money to download child porn from. I really, really, don't want to make it easier for people to film Child pornography and sell it. Think of this scenario: what if there is actually a lot of people who enjoy child porn, and someone ends up earning a ton of cash through his new website "ChildTube".
Lets just keep it illegal, shal we? 
|
On June 15 2013 02:20 Desmoden wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 20:06 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 20:02 xM(Z wrote:On June 14 2013 19:54 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 19:52 xM(Z wrote:On June 14 2013 19:46 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 19:35 xM(Z wrote:On June 14 2013 19:09 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 18:53 xM(Z wrote:On June 14 2013 18:45 aNGryaRchon wrote:
[quote]
Let's use definition then, and kill you with your own sword so to speak.
I am sure 99.99% of the time or more, people involved in bestiality don't allow a dog's or a horse's cock into their vagina, ass, or whatever orifice because they want to express that emotional connection with the animal. On the other side of the act, 100% of the time the animal doesn't care otherwise.
There is no way out of this for you unfortunately. Just admit that you are wrong, that bestiality is not an act of love, and then learn from it and hope that you can develop better reasoning skills in the future.
Massive Facepalm. dude, just watch bestiality porn. the horses just want to get the fuck out of there or they don't/can't even get hard and are tormented for hours untill they do. the 100% of the time the animal doesn't care is bs. you ASSUME it doesn't care. edit: they get a mare in heat then have the horse sniff it, just so they could film 5-10 min of something. Does it matter if the horse isn't getting off on it? Horses don't get off on pulling ploughs either, nor on carrying mongol hordes across Asia. This is the same bullshit argument as when homophobes go "I don't personally mind what two consenting adults do but I'm worried about the children" while simultaneously giving no shits about children in any other context. You don't get to outlaw things you don't like unless they're harming someone and if you think that protection against harm should be extended to animals then have the intellectual honesty to extend it in more than just this one context that you disagree on. That's the difference between believing in a cause and making an excuse. so i'm a hypocrite and i don't care or, being a hypocrite is better then the alternative: kill or be killed, abuse or get abussed and so on. but how about you?, you want to make rules for something/someone/everything else based on your judgement/reason/logic. that makes you just like me, not better. ignorance does not excuse innocence. edit: i also never defended this law; i argued how people can't make calls, any calls, in behalf of someone/something else but themselves. My argument is that the government shouldn't outlaw things based upon the personal disgust of individuals unless harm is being done. I think we agree? yes, in principle, but then someone might come in and make you define the word "harm" and then you'll be screwed. Infringing upon the person or property of an individual ought to serve. I'm not a lawyer or a legislator here so I haven't gone to great effort to make that as watertight as it could possibly be but it ought to be a concept people can understand. but it's not about people understanding concepts, it's about animals understanding concepts too. allow all/everything, or be a hypocrite. i said i am one, but you're trying to weasel out of it, out of being one I believe there is no public good issue here if it is done by individuals in the privacy of their own home. Bringing the government back into the bedroom in a situation when no humans are being harmed in any way is wrong, even if people dislike the idea of it. It's no different than the ban on homosexuality (not saying that beastiality is the same thing as homosexuality, saying that legislating sexual behaviour when no harm is occurring is wrong in both cases for the same reasons) I believe that the animal welfare issue was previously covered by the old law which already covered animal cruelty. The remaining argument is the question of the right of consent over their own bodies for domesticated animals. If someone genuinely believes that animals should have the right of consent over their own bodies then they can argue that beastiality is literally rape and that slaughtering for meat is literally murder but they can't just pick one. ^this should have stopped all discussion
Unless of course people argue also on basis other than consent. And surprisingly they do, gasp.
|
On June 15 2013 02:21 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2013 02:17 mcc wrote:On June 15 2013 02:14 Excludos wrote:On June 15 2013 02:11 mcc wrote:On June 15 2013 01:24 Excludos wrote:On June 15 2013 01:19 mcc wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Sometimes they do sometimes they do not. Nice of you to offer useless generalizations even though my post implied specifics of this particular scenario. Considering that attraction is pretty much given biologically and people watching child pornography are probably attracted to children so they will be most of the market. Considering that laws governing sexual behaviour have low compliance as they go against one of the most powerful instincts and they are not extremely well enforced. Thus my conclusion. Unless you have hard empirical data, which part of my argument is problematic to you ? Anyway I am not disputing that there is some decrease, but not significant. And thus the question arises, is it worth it ? Making people that otherwise would never hurt anyone into criminals. It is problematic question. I've made 3 more posts since that one where I explain my stance a bit more in depth. I don't feel like repeating them. As far as I can tell you said nothing in them regarding your claim that banning it significantly reduces demand. It makes it easier for people to put up a website anyone could visit and pay money to download child porn from. I really, really, don't want to make it easier for people to film Child pornography and sell it. Think of this scenario: what if there is actually a lot of people who enjoy child porn, and someone ends up earning a ton of cash through his new website "ChildTube". Lets just keep it illegal, shal we?
How does it make it easier to setup a website. Setting up such a site would still be illegal. The only thing that would be legal would be viewing, commercial usage would still be illegal. And that is where my question comes in. Making viewing illegal makes sense only if it actually increases demand. If it does not, making viewing legal would be a better course of action.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
