2 ms·

> So, if you want to use it you need to demonstrate harm. That's a false dichotomy. We cannot have perfect knowledge about everything that could possibly help

> So, if you want to use it you need to demonstrate harm. That's a false dichotomy. We cannot have perfect knowledge about everything that could possibly help or harm society. We need to retain the ability to act in its absence. > I really don't know, but I also accept I don't know. Not all things should be treated this way, but in the case of kiddie porn, I'd argue that defaulting to the stance that all conduct in this space being morally wrong, perhaps even criminal, is justified. It's tempting to want an ideological framework that preserves sanctity of thought so that we don't have to consider that we, ourselves might be morally wrong on occasion, but the world doesn't work that way. The mere fact that millions of people want something is enough to create a market in violence and suffering. Whether it's children, rhinos, or slaves. (I use market in a non-economic sense here, any venue for satisfying a desire is a market)

Retric 10y ago
I get where you are coming from. I think the sanctity of thought needs to be maintained so you can examine new evidence with minimal bias. However, as something to consider. There is a very long history of things people assume without evidence being wrong. Abstractly, unsupported ideas are random in nature and the number of true ideas are vastly outnumbered by the number of wrong ideas. So, IMO the default assumption for unsupported ideas should be they are false. Anyway, nice chatting with you.
- vinceguidry 10y ago
  So what if they turn out to be wrong later? Fighting paedophilia makes the world better now. Unless you are arguing that is not the case. Look, at some point this is going to boil down to a simple question. Do you really consider sanctity of thought to be more important than the security of the people those thoughts threaten? Because to a very, very real extent, the thoughts themselves threaten. They create threatening atmospheres and markets in cruelty and suffering. We're not talking about rights here. We can fight paedophilia completely within the current constitutional framework using completely aboveboard laws. We are talking about nothing more than social pressure of making people feel bad about thoughts that they have that are bad. Simple, uncomplicated moral pressure. Sex with children is wrong and you deserve whatever happens to you if you do it. Can you at least agree with that?
  - Retric 10y ago
    > So what if they turn out to be wrong later? A peasant picks up a rock and due to a local legend decides it prevents tiger attacks. So, they carry it around for the rest of their lives. Not a big deal right? Well, what if they have their tiger rock, hippo rock, fire rick, snake rock, cancer rock, martian rock, ... Until they are not willing to leave the house without 150 pounds of rocks in a backpack. Individually each issue may have been tiny. But, each and every one of them are also a drain. Also, they may get eaten because they falsely assume they are safe when in imminent danger. Or in this case you might assume your fighting when in fact your just making things worse. So, even if the cost is low and it might be true, avoiding wrong ideas is still valuable. PS: As to actual direct harm, sure shoot em. But, that's really not what I have been talking about.

Retric 10y ago

I get where you are coming from. I think the sanctity of thought needs to be maintained so you can examine new evidence with minimal bias. However, as something to consider. There is a very long history of things people assume without evidence being wrong. Abstractly, unsupported ideas are random in nature and the number of true ideas are vastly outnumbered by the number of wrong ideas. So, IMO the default assumption for unsupported ideas should be they are false. Anyway, nice chatting with you.

vinceguidry 10y ago
So what if they turn out to be wrong later? Fighting paedophilia makes the world better now. Unless you are arguing that is not the case. Look, at some point this is going to boil down to a simple question. Do you really consider sanctity of thought to be more important than the security of the people those thoughts threaten? Because to a very, very real extent, the thoughts themselves threaten. They create threatening atmospheres and markets in cruelty and suffering. We're not talking about rights here. We can fight paedophilia completely within the current constitutional framework using completely aboveboard laws. We are talking about nothing more than social pressure of making people feel bad about thoughts that they have that are bad. Simple, uncomplicated moral pressure. Sex with children is wrong and you deserve whatever happens to you if you do it. Can you at least agree with that?
- Retric 10y ago
  > So what if they turn out to be wrong later? A peasant picks up a rock and due to a local legend decides it prevents tiger attacks. So, they carry it around for the rest of their lives. Not a big deal right? Well, what if they have their tiger rock, hippo rock, fire rick, snake rock, cancer rock, martian rock, ... Until they are not willing to leave the house without 150 pounds of rocks in a backpack. Individually each issue may have been tiny. But, each and every one of them are also a drain. Also, they may get eaten because they falsely assume they are safe when in imminent danger. Or in this case you might assume your fighting when in fact your just making things worse. So, even if the cost is low and it might be true, avoiding wrong ideas is still valuable. PS: As to actual direct harm, sure shoot em. But, that's really not what I have been talking about.