Pornography - are you for or against it and why?

[tackattack]

@RevJ- I wasn't talking about anything.. It may be a slippery slope but that's no reason not to do something about it. I see no problem with having the child pornography laws expanded to include other pornography pretending to be child pornography. I don't think it will cause the market to implode or violence to erupt, in fact I think it would be a great PR move by a more reputable porn industry to distance themselves from something socially unacceptable.

@Ash- So which is more likely
A) that the entirety of the reason child pornography is illegal is to protect the victim's privacy?
B) to protect the child's privacy and because society doesn't condone or want to see child pornography?
C) A number of other variables to include both of the above

If you answer A, no amount of discussion will help you see any different and I don't wish to try any more.
If you answer B or C then let's fast forward the train a bit

If you answered B:
1)The purpose of child pornography laws are to both protect the victim and the general consensus of society doesn't want to see child pornography
2) Faking child pornography creates no victims
2.5) Faking child pornography is legal with proof of age
3) Faked child pornography is something the general consensus of society doesn't want to see
4) Intentionally faking child pornography is meant to imitate illegal child pornography
5) While faking child pornography causes no victim and isn't illegal, it is still something the general consensus of society doesn't want to see.
6) Faking Child pornography breaks the intent of the law, but is not punishable by law.

I could go on with my train of thought on this, but this is starting to seem like an argument to argue.

[Ashendant]

@RevJ- I wasn't talking about anything.. It may be a slippery slope but that's no reason not to do something about it. I see no problem with having the child pornography laws expanded to include other pornography pretending to be child pornography. I don't think it will cause the market to implode or violence to erupt, in fact I think it would be a great PR move by a more reputable porn industry to distance themselves from something socially unacceptable.

@Ash- So which is more likely
A) that the entirety of the reason child pornography is illegal is to protect the victim's privacy?
B) to protect the child's privacy and because society doesn't condone or want to see child pornography?
C) A number of other variables to include both of the above

If you answer A, no amount of discussion will help you see any different and I don't wish to try any more.
If you answer B or C then let's fast forward the train a bit

If you answered B:
1)The purpose of child pornography laws are to both protect the victim and the general consensus of society doesn't want to see child pornography
2) Faking child pornography creates no victims
2.5) Faking child pornography is legal with proof of age
3) Faked child pornography is something the general consensus of society doesn't want to see
4) Intentionally faking child pornography is meant to imitate illegal child pornography
5) While faking child pornography causes no victim and isn't illegal, it is still something the general consensus of society doesn't want to see.
6) Faking Child pornography breaks the intent of the law, but is not punishable by law.

I could go on with my train of thought on this, but this is starting to seem like an argument to argue.

A is the true answer, Laws are there to protect people and act neutral(mostly, stupid religious people), it's not there to condone behaviour but to judge people on their actions, it's just that some people want to impose their vision of the law on other's people social freedoms

[reverendjeremiah]

2k+ hits and 45 votes. I never thought THIS thread would be so popular. I expected it to be cut and dry "I approve" in the 90's percent range. I always thought the gay marriage or guns poll would be the popular topic. I want to thank all of you for participating. It has been a great discussion, and still is a great discussion. By all means keep it going as long as it is interesting to you.

-Tack-

Is there any way you can show me how we can inforce the intent of the law without turning it into a thought crime? Intending to break a law does not equal breaking the law, until you actually BREAK the law, then we have actual evidence.

---

Perhaps we could agree then that the law should be reworded to prevent intentional or unintentional similarities to illegal activities?

That would put so many people into jail, actors, Comic book artists, Hell, even a mime who acts like he is stealing something is doing something that can fall under this quote of yours. I will not agree. He broke the intent of the law by INTENTIONALLY doing something similar to stealing.

All shows would be incredibly boring.

LOL..is this REALLY helping the discussion? LMFAO. Im guessing you would throw the mime in prison for boring you to death.. the intent to murder your attention span.

[tackattack]

@Ash- There is no necessary correlation between morality (societal or personal) and law, however they are very congruent. Morality can, and has, influenced law. It is not in the scope of law to punish intent. Law is reactive and compells out of fear and punishment. It is a public guide to the basic principles of conduct a society accepts.

"For society is not something that is kept together physically; it is held by the invisible bonds of common thought. If the bonds were too far relaxed. the members would drift apart.A common morality is part of the bondage. The bondage is part of the price of society; and mankind, which needs society, must pay its price "—The Philosophy of a Law, ed. R.M. Dworkin, Oxford Press, (1977).

The laws here do not protect victims, they prevent future victims by reactively punishing victimization. The law removes people harmful to the society reflected in their laws.

This isn't the first, nor is it the last time you'll throw religion in the mix. I bet you would have all Christian morality removed from the law if you had a chance wouldn't you? That's just enforcing your morality on the laws. The fact is that laws are based on whatever the moral concensus is in that society. People can claim their morality comes from God, or natural selection, or wherever it doesn't matter. They're morales held by individuals, individuals that form a society, and the majority concensus of morality is then applied to law to establish a system of enforcement of those values.

Slavery was legal till someone said "I don't condone that behavior". If you think laws are not about upholding societal values you've being naive. If you are of the thought that viewing child pornography is acceptable, luckily you're in the minority. But people found a way around the law to get just that legal child pornography. That's where we stand now, we have legal and illegal child pornography. I'm just saying child pornography should be either entirely legal or entirely illegal (my moral stand), faking it does nothing but manipulate the law to serve a few individuals within a 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.

[Ashendant]

LOL..is this REALLY helping the discussion? LMFAO. Im guessing you would throw the mime in prison for boring you to death.. the intent to murder your attention span.

You misunderstand, what i said is that if all happened all show would be incredibly boring

Slavery was legal till someone said "I don't condone that behavior". If you think laws are not about upholding societal values you've being naive. If you are of the thought that viewing child pornography is acceptable, luckily you're in the minority. But people found a way around the law to get just that legal child pornography. That's where we stand now, we have legal and illegal child pornography. I'm just saying child pornography should be either entirely legal or entirely illegal (my moral stand), faking it does nothing but manipulate the law to serve a few individuals within a society

Do people go to jail for faking slavery for a movie? What are you trying to do is just censorship, just because you think society thinks some ways

[Skipper]

There is no such thing as legal child pornography Tack. Stop saying there is. Just because there is some porn that fakes or simulates it, it dosen't mean it's child porn. Are murders in movies legal murders now? No, of course not.

Dramatic claims of legal child porn aside, if these simulations or faked scenes were banned would this do anything to protect children or young people who were in real danger and already being abused in actual child pornography? Obviously not. Would we run the risk of increasing demand for said videos if the legal version full of consenting adults were banned? Possibly. So why ban something that would do nothing to protect people who are actually in danger of being abused? It makes no sense other than to conform to your ideals of morality and sexuality.

[tackattack]

@ ASH - 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). The legal porn industry has created images of perceived children having sex. It should be censored based solely on that.

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. You're basically saying that everyone should do what they want without regard for the safety or sustainable of society in general. Absolute individual despotism leads to Chaos and the people with the biggest clubs getting what they want. It's retarded and I wouldn't want to live there, not because I don't have a big club, but because society and structure has value. 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.

[Skipper]

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.

[reverendjeremiah]

@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?

[Sarcasm]

Yea i kinda remain neutral on this, as long as the person knows what they're getting into i don't really see how its something i should decide for them. Though I do find it funny that its illegal to pay people to have sex with you, yet its legal to pay someone to have sex with you as long as you videotape it. Strange isn't it?