Pornography - are you for or against it and why?

[tackattack]

---

Censorship yes, based on my morality no. Child pornography is illegal. Therefore, society has deemed that images being perceived of children having sex is unjust (for whatever reasons they don't really matter).

Society has deemed children should not be taken advantage of sexually. So therefore having sex (and obviously also filming it) with a child is illegal. The fact that it is legal to film a scene with consenting adults doing whatever consenting adults wish to do throws a spanner in the works for your argument that society has deemed "legal child porn" something that needs banning. Society has deemed murder illegal, is showing a simulated or acted version of that illegal? Nope.

Do you think I should let 5 year olds with a credit card but a rocket launcher or a sword? no of course not, but that 's what you're advocating

I defend the right for consenting adults to partake in or view a type of pornography that has NO victims and I'm advocating children buying high explosives? Yeah. Good one.

You're basically saying that everyone should do what they want without regard for the safety or sustainable of society in general.

That is not what I have said at all. I've clearly opposed any porn where there is a victim. All I've done is defend the right to film porn where there are no victims.

What you propose isn't even Ochlocracy, but pure anarchy. Absolute individual freedom just like true free speech, is at best a pipe dream. I thought I was an idealist, till I came here.

Proposing anarchy just means disagreeing with you now does it? Jesus Christ!

I am proposing consenting adults should be able to film or watch whatever porn they wish if nobody is actually getting hurt...porn that is already LEGAL...as deemed so by society

Banning this type of faked or simulated child porn would do nothing to protect children who are actually in danger or who are actually being abused. It could conceivably even increase demand for it if the legal alternative is not there. Even banning this faked child porn would unlikely stop it and just push the otherwise legal, taxable, regulated and safe porn industry that produces it underground. Prohibition of things people want does nothing to stop the demand for those things and I maintain that if there is a demand that can be fulfilled with no victim then I see no reason why fulfilling that demand should be illegal, whether we're talking about alcohol, drugs or porn.

Also, I'm the idealist here? I'm not the one suggesting banning things I don't agree with.

---

That wasn’t referenced to you, I’ve corrected it. My point is that I agree with “Prohibition of things people want does nothing to stop the demand for those things” and I also believe that “if there is a demand that can be fulfilled with no victim then I see no reason why fulfilling that demand should be illegal, whether we're talking about alcohol, drugs or porn.”
Let’s talk about victims then. Child molestation laws punish victimizers of children. This is a physical victimization. Child pornography laws punish who? You say it’s not meant to punish but protect, from what I gather. Protect who, the victims of child molestation of course. So In your argument from what I see, Child pornography laws either have no target or they’re for protecting the victim from possible future emotional abuse. First, it’s unlikely that a person who watched a child porn would even recognize that child 10-20 years later. Second, even on the remote chance they did I don’t think they’re going to be hounding the victim for an autograph.
I’m asking you to think about victims in another way rather than individualistic, because Child pornography laws don’t punish victimizers or protect victims. Child pornography laws punish individuals society doesn’t want to be associated with. The law has determined that victimizing children is bad, society agrees with that law. Having those images circulating is detrimental to society, therefore that law is meant to protect the society that doesn’t want it. If there is a demand for something (someone wants it) but the majority of society (majority of people) don’t want it, I see no problems regulating /prohibiting it. It’s for the betterment of society or the “greater good” in this society. I’ll change your words to show you what I mean: Child pornography is a demand that cannot be fulfilled without a victim and it should be illegal. Legally dressing up consenting adults may not produce victims, which is why It’s legal. However, I feel that having those images circulating is just the same as child pornography images and is still detrimental to society.

---

@RevJ- Yes. Which are you more inclined towards?
A)Child pornography is illegal because it victimises children. Legally faked child pornography produces no victims therefore should be victims.
B)Child pornography is illegal society doesn't feel it morally acceptable. Legally faked child pornography is intended to mimic child pornograpy, therefore should be illegal, because it's socially unacceptable.

For instance.. here in VA it's illegal to smoke marijuanna (I know my personal ethics and choices of topic are attracting me a lot of friends here ). Spice has the same effect as marijuanna, so it was banned. There for the intent of the marijuanna ban wasn't to ban marijuanna , but to prevent the effects of marijuanna use as reflected by a society standard.Marijuanna and spice have the same effect, therefore the same societal standard applies.

Then I would say that you have pointed out a rather obvious flaw in such thinking. If they want to ban the effects of marijuanna, then they failed when they claimed that spice was the same effect. I tried spice. It ISNT like marijuana. This is just more people, like yourself, who want to make everything illegal as possible. I know you say you know it is legal, and you say you would not make it otherwise, but you argue SO MUCH to make as much illegal as possible. It is lines of thought such as this that give support to a dictator. in the name of the "greater good" you make as many things illegal as possible. Eventually natural things (like sex) become heavily regulated and profitable to create criminals for cheap slave labor. "How dare they like sex outside of marriage! People like Tack will support me in taking these people and imprisoning them to create a slave work force."

As I have said before Tack, and this time I will make it aimed directly at you:

How can you tell me that you are not supporting thought crimes?

I can go in depth with intent, as Absurdism points out the great errors that intent can create.

What is your intent Tack? Make even thinking about child porn illegal? Do you ever fantasize about your young love? When you were 13 and your girlfriend was 12, or maybe 14? Do you think of her? Or have you let it completely go as forgotten, because thinking of such, now that you are an adult, would be breaking the intent of the law..that is, sex with a minor. Your very memories break the intent of the law...except in this situation there isnt anything being recorded, except in your memory. Think I am going to far? You went to far when you claimed intent was enough to jail someone. Nothing can go back and correct the idea that you were sexually aware at those young ages, and you still think back about love lost. Do not claim that you dont do such a thing. You were there. Your feelings cannot be denied. There is no erasing it.

By the way, what I stated above in no way means you look at little girls and get aroused or that I do. I am merely mentioning past experiences of young love, and nothing more. I am merely pointing out that your mind plays "what if" fantasies, or replays what you actually did. Here you are, a grown adult, going back to your past experiences, as if you were 12 again, reliving those young love experiences. Me? I was playing "doctor" at 7 years old. I have lots of great memories with the girls of my youth.

Tack, if you want to go indepth with intent, I can guarentee that you will not like what I pull out. I will show that human condition and being in the state you are (a believer), you will more than likely become extremely uncomfortable with it.

P.S. - I couldnt understand option A. Could you word it better?

---

Sorry I’ll reword my bad on that.
A)Child pornography is illegal because it victimizes children. Legally faked child pornography produces no victims therefore should not be regulated, or prohibited.
B)Child pornography is illegal and society doesn't feel it morally acceptable. Legally faked child pornography is intended to mimic child pornography, therefore it should be illegal, because it's socially unacceptable.
I’m not trying to make as much illegal as possible. I’m arguing because I have an opinion and I was asked to share it and I don’t mind doing so publicly. I don’t think prohibiting drugs is a good thing, I think they should all be legal, let idiots kill themselves, and regulate/track/tax it as well. It will also shrink the power of the black market.
“How can you tell me that you are not supporting thought crimes?”
Law is reactionary in nature. I’m not saying punish people for thinking about child pornography. However, child pornography is illegal. Those laws don’t punish intent, they are from the top down a reflection of societal values. They are society’s way of pruning the wilted leaves. Some people feel that a top down approach is negative, but frankly until people can show they care more about others than themselves regularly, I don’t see this as more of a detriment than a benefit. If Child pornography laws punished intent, then lots more people would be punishable I feel, however we have no way to read thoughts, and I hope we never do. I’m not supporting thought crimes, I’m supporting a societies right and ability to govern/shape itself above the individualistic need. It punishes actual images, not thoughts. I’m just holding faked images to the same standard. I didn’t set the standard.
The rest of the earlier part of your post was irrelevant to me because I didn’t have sex till I was 18, but I get your overall point and I think I addressed it above.
What is your intent Tack? To uphold the intent of child pornography laws. To punish faked images of child pornography to the same standard as real child pornography.
Make even thinking about child porn illegal? No a person’s thoughts are at their very nature private intellectual property.

“Tack, if you want to go indepth with intent, I can guarentee that you will not like what I pull out. I will show that human condition and being in the state you are (a believer), you will more than likely become extremely uncomfortable with it.”
I have no problem going as deep in the rabbit hole as you like as it relates to the topic. If you just want to take me through a tour of absurdism and rethink my stances on other topics, perhaps another topic or PM would be more appropriate. Uncomfortableness was never a hindrance for me, and I always welcome a chance to think of something in a different way. Whether I like what you have to say is completely irrelevant, as we’re all entitled to our opinions.