4 ms·

> But he was saying that a being attracted to children is in itself not doing anything wrong. > The rhino equivilent would be if you wanted to use rhino horn b

> But he was saying that a being attracted to children is in itself not doing anything wrong. > The rhino equivilent would be if you wanted to use rhino horn but because you know it would be wrong to, you never do use it. I would argue that both of these things are wrong, though not as wrong as actually acting on the desires. I don't think there should be any legal consequences for the thoughts in your head, but the social stigma and pressure to change those thoughts is very much needed and is a useful social tool for protecting vulnerable classes. Let's introduce another analogy. Racism is wrong, if you think racist thoughts, even if you never act on them, then you are contributing to the denigration and subjugation of people of color. The only socially-acceptable response to having racist thoughts is to work to change those thoughts. Paedophilia may be sexuality, and yes, it was wrong to demonize homosexuality, but unless you're arguing that one day we'll look at paedophilia the same way, then you can't put them in the same boat morally. Celibacy is an acceptable response to paedophilic sexuality, but a better one is to stop being a paedophile. Sex therapists exist, it is something you can work on. It's worth it to at least try.

Retric 10y ago
It's really important to separate what someone thinks from what someone does. Having violent thoughts about people is very common, acting on them far less so. Someone who reads sick fiction and or looks at man made images is hardly harming anyone. I mean Vorarephilia is also a thing, and they can get off watching monster movies. But, there are very few actual cannibals out there. At best you could make a comment based on reproductive success in our culture. But, I have trouble going from there to paying to lock people up.
- vinceguidry 10y ago
  > It's really important to separate what someone thinks from what someone does. I agree. That's why I said that people shouldn't be subjected to legal consequences for their thoughts. They should definitely not be morally absolved. > Having violent thoughts about people is very common, acting on them far less so. I would argue that a person that looks at paedophilic content is arguably being violent themselves. If you went to a ancient Roman gladiator arena and eagerly watched the bloodsport, or to a current-day dogfighting event as a spectator, then you are participating in the violence, even if you aren't actually conducting any of it. What separates bloodsport from horror movies is that in movies, nobody is actually getting hurt. There is definitely a relative aspect to right and wrong, and we all have ways in which we are wrong. It's important to recognize what is wrong and what is right, and to work to become more right over time.
  - Retric 10y ago
    If someone watches 'gladiator' the movie then real people are not actually being harmed. IMO, it's harder to suggest that watching fake content is also wrong. Now, extend that to fringe Anime and there is now sick content that's was not harmful to create. I don't see how your suggesting there is an actual difference between movie types assuming all actors are adults and blood was faked etc.
    - vinceguidry 10y ago
      The difference is of degree and not kind. When you add reality to content it makes it both morally and psychologically worse. In between the real and the completely fake is the very convincing. Snuff films fill this niche. In between snuff films and Gladiator would be your fringe anime. Fake content isolates negative aspects of experience and presents it in a comforting bubble where you don't have to contemplate all of the nasty context surrounding the portrayal if it were real. As content acquires more reality that bubble is progressively burst. I've watched lots of questionable content over the years, but the things I've seen that have left the nastiest impressions were always real or based on the real. The audio of the Jonestown massacre was among the most horrifying things I've ever came across. If you're watching real content of real kids really getting abused, that's probably one of the worst things you could ever do short of actually doing what was in the video. But the difference between enjoying that and the less graphic is one of degree and not kind.
      - Retric 10y ago
        You are making a psychological argument not a moral one. Actual evidence suggests things like violent video games actually reduce violent crime in society. So, your going to need actually evidence to support that line of thinking and I don't think it exists.
        vinceguidry 10y ago
        The moral argument only works if there's a real psychological component. You can't consider them in isolation. It wouldn't be morally wrong if it weren't also psychologically harmful. Can you make an argument that easily accessible kiddie porn is going to reduce child violence? Even if you could, I would hesitate to make even the fake stuff legal unless the science was very conclusive. I'd argue that with kiddie porn, the default should fall on 'no' and not 'yes'. That said, it's really difficult to draw a line here. Content creators are going to find ways around any laws we pass. That's why we need a moral component, so that we can enforce these things not just legally, but also socially.
Kristine1975 10y ago
>even if you never act on them, then you are contributing to the denigration and subjugation of people of color. How so? I sometimes think racist (and sexist, and...) thoughts, but I know they are wrong, so I don't act on them. How am I contributing to the oppression of people of the ethnicity I have racist thoughts against? (Incidentally I think "people of color" is a pretty racist term, since it lumps all non-white ethnicities together.) >Paedophilia may be sexuality, and yes, it was wrong to demonize homosexuality, but unless you're arguing that one day we'll look at paedophilia the same way, then you can't put them in the same boat morally. Well I do argue that. Just as homosexual rape is a crime (although often treated as a joke, c.f. prison rape), child rape is a crime. No matter the sexual orientation of the perpetrator. >but a better one is to stop being a paedophile Since when can sexual orientation be changed? According to Wikipedia: There is no evidence that pedophilia can be cured. Instead, most therapies focus on helping the pedophile refrain from acting on their desires
- vinceguidry 10y ago
  > How so? I sometimes think racist (and sexist, and...) thoughts, but I know they are wrong, so I don't act on them. How am I contributing to the oppression of people of the ethnicity I have racist thoughts against? So do I. Whenever I do, I work to try to understand where the thought came from, and how, if millions of people also had that same thought, what the consequences for minorities would be. I feel it's my obligation to understand the deeper psychological dynamics at play. One's thoughts can't be controlled like one's hands can be, but that doesn't mean you can't work on them. > (Incidentally I think "people of color" is a pretty racist term, since it lumps all non-white ethnicities together.) More racist or less racist than the n-word? And why would lumping them together be racist? Terms by themselves are not racist, it's how you use them that matters. > Well I do argue that. Just as homosexual rape is a crime (although often treated as a joke, c.f. prison rape), child rape is a crime. No matter the sexual orientation of the perpetrator. Still waiting on the argument that we'll one day be as accepting of paedophilic sexuality as we are of homosexuality. Yes rape is a crime, but criminality is not the point of contention here, morals are. You and others seem to be arguing that morality is not useful as a social tool, that one should not feel bad about thoughts that one has that could exacerbate social problems. That we should draw the line at legal consequences for actions and treat the mind as sacrosanct. I very much disagree, racism has taught us that the law can itself be used to perpetuate evils. > Since when can sexual orientation be changed? According to Wikipedia: Thanks for the pointer to Wikipedia. (not being snide, I didn't do my research before opening up my mouth this time) It still looks like an active area of research and I'm hopeful that new therapies will emerge in the future. I do think sexuality is at least somewhat malleable. I could never see myself becoming homosexual, but I can easily see how I could have been or could in the future become bisexual. I would be adding a new sexuality on top of my old one, figuring out a new way to have that experience. I fail to believe paedophilia is the only mode of sexuality that's open to most or even a significant fraction of paedophiles.

Retric 10y ago

It's really important to separate what someone thinks from what someone does. Having violent thoughts about people is very common, acting on them far less so. Someone who reads sick fiction and or looks at man made images is hardly harming anyone. I mean Vorarephilia is also a thing, and they can get off watching monster movies. But, there are very few actual cannibals out there. At best you could make a comment based on reproductive success in our culture. But, I have trouble going from there to paying to lock people up.

vinceguidry 10y ago
> It's really important to separate what someone thinks from what someone does. I agree. That's why I said that people shouldn't be subjected to legal consequences for their thoughts. They should definitely not be morally absolved. > Having violent thoughts about people is very common, acting on them far less so. I would argue that a person that looks at paedophilic content is arguably being violent themselves. If you went to a ancient Roman gladiator arena and eagerly watched the bloodsport, or to a current-day dogfighting event as a spectator, then you are participating in the violence, even if you aren't actually conducting any of it. What separates bloodsport from horror movies is that in movies, nobody is actually getting hurt. There is definitely a relative aspect to right and wrong, and we all have ways in which we are wrong. It's important to recognize what is wrong and what is right, and to work to become more right over time.
- Retric 10y ago
  If someone watches 'gladiator' the movie then real people are not actually being harmed. IMO, it's harder to suggest that watching fake content is also wrong. Now, extend that to fringe Anime and there is now sick content that's was not harmful to create. I don't see how your suggesting there is an actual difference between movie types assuming all actors are adults and blood was faked etc.
  - vinceguidry 10y ago
    The difference is of degree and not kind. When you add reality to content it makes it both morally and psychologically worse. In between the real and the completely fake is the very convincing. Snuff films fill this niche. In between snuff films and Gladiator would be your fringe anime. Fake content isolates negative aspects of experience and presents it in a comforting bubble where you don't have to contemplate all of the nasty context surrounding the portrayal if it were real. As content acquires more reality that bubble is progressively burst. I've watched lots of questionable content over the years, but the things I've seen that have left the nastiest impressions were always real or based on the real. The audio of the Jonestown massacre was among the most horrifying things I've ever came across. If you're watching real content of real kids really getting abused, that's probably one of the worst things you could ever do short of actually doing what was in the video. But the difference between enjoying that and the less graphic is one of degree and not kind.
    - Retric 10y ago
      You are making a psychological argument not a moral one. Actual evidence suggests things like violent video games actually reduce violent crime in society. So, your going to need actually evidence to support that line of thinking and I don't think it exists.
      - vinceguidry 10y ago
        The moral argument only works if there's a real psychological component. You can't consider them in isolation. It wouldn't be morally wrong if it weren't also psychologically harmful. Can you make an argument that easily accessible kiddie porn is going to reduce child violence? Even if you could, I would hesitate to make even the fake stuff legal unless the science was very conclusive. I'd argue that with kiddie porn, the default should fall on 'no' and not 'yes'. That said, it's really difficult to draw a line here. Content creators are going to find ways around any laws we pass. That's why we need a moral component, so that we can enforce these things not just legally, but also socially.

Kristine1975 10y ago

>even if you never act on them, then you are contributing to the denigration and subjugation of people of color. How so? I sometimes think racist (and sexist, and...) thoughts, but I know they are wrong, so I don't act on them. How am I contributing to the oppression of people of the ethnicity I have racist thoughts against? (Incidentally I think "people of color" is a pretty racist term, since it lumps all non-white ethnicities together.) >Paedophilia may be sexuality, and yes, it was wrong to demonize homosexuality, but unless you're arguing that one day we'll look at paedophilia the same way, then you can't put them in the same boat morally. Well I do argue that. Just as homosexual rape is a crime (although often treated as a joke, c.f. prison rape), child rape is a crime. No matter the sexual orientation of the perpetrator. >but a better one is to stop being a paedophile Since when can sexual orientation be changed? According to Wikipedia: There is no evidence that pedophilia can be cured. Instead, most therapies focus on helping the pedophile refrain from acting on their desires

vinceguidry 10y ago
> How so? I sometimes think racist (and sexist, and...) thoughts, but I know they are wrong, so I don't act on them. How am I contributing to the oppression of people of the ethnicity I have racist thoughts against? So do I. Whenever I do, I work to try to understand where the thought came from, and how, if millions of people also had that same thought, what the consequences for minorities would be. I feel it's my obligation to understand the deeper psychological dynamics at play. One's thoughts can't be controlled like one's hands can be, but that doesn't mean you can't work on them. > (Incidentally I think "people of color" is a pretty racist term, since it lumps all non-white ethnicities together.) More racist or less racist than the n-word? And why would lumping them together be racist? Terms by themselves are not racist, it's how you use them that matters. > Well I do argue that. Just as homosexual rape is a crime (although often treated as a joke, c.f. prison rape), child rape is a crime. No matter the sexual orientation of the perpetrator. Still waiting on the argument that we'll one day be as accepting of paedophilic sexuality as we are of homosexuality. Yes rape is a crime, but criminality is not the point of contention here, morals are. You and others seem to be arguing that morality is not useful as a social tool, that one should not feel bad about thoughts that one has that could exacerbate social problems. That we should draw the line at legal consequences for actions and treat the mind as sacrosanct. I very much disagree, racism has taught us that the law can itself be used to perpetuate evils. > Since when can sexual orientation be changed? According to Wikipedia: Thanks for the pointer to Wikipedia. (not being snide, I didn't do my research before opening up my mouth this time) It still looks like an active area of research and I'm hopeful that new therapies will emerge in the future. I do think sexuality is at least somewhat malleable. I could never see myself becoming homosexual, but I can easily see how I could have been or could in the future become bisexual. I would be adding a new sexuality on top of my old one, figuring out a new way to have that experience. I fail to believe paedophilia is the only mode of sexuality that's open to most or even a significant fraction of paedophiles.