3 ms·

>And yet I could never bring myself to boil a kitten and if I knew someone who enjoyed boiling kittens, I would consider that person to be an incredible danger

>And yet I could never bring myself to boil a kitten and if I knew someone who enjoyed boiling kittens, I would consider that person to be an incredible danger to everyone else. Anyone who would do that, means there is something incredibly and dangerously broken about them, and no one else is safe around them. So what you're doing there is creating thoughtcrime. Allow me to explain. Suppose we have Steve, George, and Mike. Steve does not want to boil kittens, and would never do it. George would like to boil kittens, but would never and will never do it[1]. Mike likes to boil kittens and has done it already. I think we both agree that Steve should not be punished for boiling kittens, while Mike should be. Do you think George should be punished, though? We both agree that George is at least potentially dangerous, but should he be punished for harboring a desired that he never acts on? From a purely practical standpoint, doesn't that encourage people like George to act on their desires at the earliest available opportunity? If having the desire to do something is basically the same as having done it already, George may as well do it. [1] The reason why doesn't matter. Maybe he doesn't think he can get away from it. Maybe he has conflicting emotions about it. Maybe he feels he would enjoy boiling a kitten but morally couldn't bring himself to do it.

ToucanLoucan 3y ago
The entire thrust of this thought experiment presupposes that the response by society for crime, thoughtcrime or no, should be punishment. This is not an understood conclusion, at time of comment, 71% of the United States has some anti-prison sentiment, and many of them are completely prison abolitionist. I don't want anyone in prison for anything, not because crime shouldn't be resolved, but because prisons don't work. They don't work for pedophiles, they don't work for people who boil kittens, and they don't work for anyone else either. And I mainly say this because a more prison-abolitionist position here makes even more sense for these kinds of issues: be something akin to organized, intensive therapy and/or psychological treatment to address the underlying issues, and, failing that, a position in society where the person in question would not be exposed to children; where they're allowed to live an existence they find fulfilling and contribute somehow to society, while not being put in a position where their desires will put them and others in danger. Not locking them away, and certainly not indulging their desires with placebos until such time as the fakes don't work anymore. And certainly certainly certainly not doing it in such a way where only the rich ones can take advantage of the fakes in the first place. Like, you can slice this however you want, but at the end of the day, a sex bot company providing kids to pedophiles for luxury car money is not solving the societal issue of pedophiles existing, not even remotely.
- fluoridation 3y ago
  I don't know why you're bringing up prison when my question didn't assume any specific form of punishment. >And I mainly say this because a more prison-abolitionist position here makes even more sense for these kinds of issues: be something akin to organized, intensive therapy and/or psychological treatment to address the underlying issues, and, failing that, a position in society where the person in question would not be exposed to children I disagree with your reasoning. If it was possible to immediately and perfectly detect pedophiles, confinement for life would be the best way to deal with them, because there we would be sure they could not possibly have access to children. I don't know why you think that abolishing prison would make more sense to deal with pedophiles. >certainly not indulging their desires with placebos until such time as the fakes don't work anymore I see, the gateway sexbot argument. >not solving the societal issue of pedophiles existing It's unclear to me that it's a problem that has a solution. Like the other guy said, if conversion therapy for homosexuality is believed to be ineffective, why are we assuming that conversion therapy for pedophiles would not be? I am able to be convinced that somehow only one of the two could be effective, but I would need to hear some justification.
  - Brian_K_White 3y ago
    One difference is you can explain what makes paedophilia wrong, who it harms, and exactly how, and how that harm compares to the "harm" of denying the paedophile, while there are no such facts to explain about homosexuality. I don't mean that merely stating a few truths solves all the problem and that conversion therapy would work, I'm just saying that there is a difference. I know if it were me, maybe nothing would change what I want, but the therapy aspect has to have valid arguments just as a baseline to even allow for the possibility that I even listen at all. Maybe for some at least it's enough to cause them to artificially control themselves. I don't think that's too crazy because I think artificially civil behavior is rather common. I mean good grief just the phenomenon of cheating in relationships. It happens rather a lot, but for every occurance of cheating in a relationship there must be 1000 artificially decided not to do something they really did want to. It probably just comes down to how many paedophiles are actually full on sociopaths or psychopaths that don't really empathize with anyone, the kids being no different, vs how many just want what they want in that one context but otherwise are functional humans who do possess the ability to empathize and care about anyone else. Those are two different cases.

ToucanLoucan 3y ago

The entire thrust of this thought experiment presupposes that the response by society for crime, thoughtcrime or no, should be punishment. This is not an understood conclusion, at time of comment, 71% of the United States has some anti-prison sentiment, and many of them are completely prison abolitionist. I don't want anyone in prison for anything, not because crime shouldn't be resolved, but because prisons don't work. They don't work for pedophiles, they don't work for people who boil kittens, and they don't work for anyone else either. And I mainly say this because a more prison-abolitionist position here makes even more sense for these kinds of issues: be something akin to organized, intensive therapy and/or psychological treatment to address the underlying issues, and, failing that, a position in society where the person in question would not be exposed to children; where they're allowed to live an existence they find fulfilling and contribute somehow to society, while not being put in a position where their desires will put them and others in danger. Not locking them away, and certainly not indulging their desires with placebos until such time as the fakes don't work anymore. And certainly certainly certainly not doing it in such a way where only the rich ones can take advantage of the fakes in the first place. Like, you can slice this however you want, but at the end of the day, a sex bot company providing kids to pedophiles for luxury car money is not solving the societal issue of pedophiles existing, not even remotely.

fluoridation 3y ago
I don't know why you're bringing up prison when my question didn't assume any specific form of punishment. >And I mainly say this because a more prison-abolitionist position here makes even more sense for these kinds of issues: be something akin to organized, intensive therapy and/or psychological treatment to address the underlying issues, and, failing that, a position in society where the person in question would not be exposed to children I disagree with your reasoning. If it was possible to immediately and perfectly detect pedophiles, confinement for life would be the best way to deal with them, because there we would be sure they could not possibly have access to children. I don't know why you think that abolishing prison would make more sense to deal with pedophiles. >certainly not indulging their desires with placebos until such time as the fakes don't work anymore I see, the gateway sexbot argument. >not solving the societal issue of pedophiles existing It's unclear to me that it's a problem that has a solution. Like the other guy said, if conversion therapy for homosexuality is believed to be ineffective, why are we assuming that conversion therapy for pedophiles would not be? I am able to be convinced that somehow only one of the two could be effective, but I would need to hear some justification.
- Brian_K_White 3y ago
  One difference is you can explain what makes paedophilia wrong, who it harms, and exactly how, and how that harm compares to the "harm" of denying the paedophile, while there are no such facts to explain about homosexuality. I don't mean that merely stating a few truths solves all the problem and that conversion therapy would work, I'm just saying that there is a difference. I know if it were me, maybe nothing would change what I want, but the therapy aspect has to have valid arguments just as a baseline to even allow for the possibility that I even listen at all. Maybe for some at least it's enough to cause them to artificially control themselves. I don't think that's too crazy because I think artificially civil behavior is rather common. I mean good grief just the phenomenon of cheating in relationships. It happens rather a lot, but for every occurance of cheating in a relationship there must be 1000 artificially decided not to do something they really did want to. It probably just comes down to how many paedophiles are actually full on sociopaths or psychopaths that don't really empathize with anyone, the kids being no different, vs how many just want what they want in that one context but otherwise are functional humans who do possess the ability to empathize and care about anyone else. Those are two different cases.