Freethought & Rationalism Archive

echidna · 09-02-2002, 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Amen-Moses:
Yes, back on track.

Hmm, possible future emotional harm? Is there any human activity that could possibly be said to avoid this?

The scenario that I was thinking of was the taking of pictures (either photographs, sketches or paintings) of a child enjoying life to the full, by for example running along the beach wearing nothing more than underwear, which are then transmitted (by whatever means) into the private collection of someone who "gets off" on that sort of image.

Quote:

Originally posted by Tom Piper:
If the benefit to the adult involved in the sexual activity outweighs the damage to the child, doesn't that justify it?

You�re both joking, right ?

If not, fortunately we have several institutions which can deal with people who consider these activities acceptable. Zero tolerance of these activities is the only acceptable option. Why ? Because in our society, there are activities which I believe cannot even be partially accepted. Disagree ? Well, that�s where I can phone those institutions �

Freethinking does not mean that freespeech extends into justification for clearly illegal and socially unhealthy activities.

Freethinking does however allow you to open another thread about censorship and your individual freedoms to rape and abuse others, or even to pretend to without hurting them, if you like.

Tom Piper · 09-03-2002, 12:20 AM

echidna,

Quote:

You�re both joking, right ?

If not, fortunately we have several institutions which can deal with people who consider these activities acceptable. Zero tolerance of these activities is the only acceptable option. Why ? Because in our society, there are activities which I believe cannot even be partially accepted. Disagree ? Well, that�s where I can phone those institutions �

Freethinking does not mean that freespeech extends into justification for clearly illegal and socially unhealthy activities.

Freethinking does however allow you to open another thread about censorship and your individual freedoms to rape and abuse others, or even to pretend to without hurting them, if you like.

The above appears to be your answer to questions having to do with the morality of involving children in sexual activity. If something is illegal and socially unhealthy (as echidna sees things) , then it is immoral-- You are joking, right?

Tom Piper

Ted Hoffman · 09-03-2002, 05:07 AM

InfinityLover

Quote:

Emotional damage to state the bloody obvious.
Perhaps it would be better to ask how it could possibly NOT be wrong to sexually exploit children

Why will it cause emotional damage to for example take photos of a nude child while it is legal to mutilate their sexual organs in the name of circumcision?
Why won't cutting off a part of their sexual organs cause them emotional damage?

Is sex an emotional experience for a child? (lets say a five year old)? If it is, why? And is circumcision an emotional experience for a child? If not, why?

raistlinjones

Quote:

But to ask the question in the way that you do is like asking why it's wrong to do morally bad things.

That is exactly what I am asking. I am asking for the rational basis (if any) for deciding that an act is unethical or morally wrong.
Specifically - sexual exploitation of children.

Mr Darwin

Quote:

In what state? In what country?

Any state, any country. Pick one and make your argument

echidna

Quote:

There’s a hidden malevolence in these topics which degrades the boards, either deliberately or otherwise.

I asked a question. If you find it too shocking, ignore this thread.

The Other Michael

Quote:

Amen-Moses may be thinking somewhat along the same lines I am.
If I can presume that "exploitation" has a negative connotion and implies some disadvantage/damage to the child, then it seems to me that in general exploitation of children is a bad idea because you may wind up with a damaged child that grows up into a damaged adult.

a damaged adult will be less able (it seems to me) to make a positive (or as much of a positive) contribution to the common weal. [I agree with this reasoning]

So if there is a general desire to improve the common weal then you'd want to maximize the ability and inclination of members of the society towards making positive contributions.

Huh, finally, some logical reason.
But this would bring me back to Amen Moses' question - why would sexual exploitation damage them sexually?
There are societies that marry off girls at 11 years for example to men several years older than them and there is no evidence that they get emotional damage from that.

Why would the society set itself up such that if one gets abused sexually at childhood, they get "emotional damaged", while physical acts of violence like circumcision are exacted on sexual organs without "emotional damage" taking place.
Which one is worse - having a grown up fondling a child, or having him cut the sexual organs?

Infinity Lover

Quote:

If you put it like that, I guess it's also perfectly cool to decapitate you, if it doesn't mortally wound you.

Decapitating him would lead to his death. If decapitation is sanctioned, it would threaten the survival of our species.

Tom Piper

Quote:

Even if there is emotional damage to the child, this is not all there is to the evaluation, is it? If the benefit to the adult involved in the sexual activity outweighs the damage to the child, doesn't that justify it? Once one starts talking about the impact on/consequences for the people involved one must take into consideration all of the impacts, all of the consequences, on all involved, or say why some need not be considered.

If you are saying that it is justified for adults to exploit children sexually if the adults enjoy it, I dont think that is adequate.
It provides a motive for the exploitation but it fails to answer my question - why the exploitation is wrong.
OTOH
Are you saying that it would be unfair if the child derived more benefit than the adult? Why?

Concerning the amount of benefit one party enjoys relative to the other?, I think it is not necessary for the benefit to be equal to both parties. For example, there are many business people who employ the poor under very inhumane wages while the employers reap massive profits and the society allows it. This is exploitation of the poor for example.

Even among married people, one partner may derive more pleasure from the act of sex than another - does that mean they are exploiting the other party?. That doesn't mean that the partners who enjoy more should cease the act because does it?.
The only difference between the scenarios is "mutual consent", which children are not supposed to be party to (legally).

Quote:

Is the answer to the question that starts this thread supposed to be one that should convince a couple who sincerely believes that there is nothing wrong with having a child for the precise purpose of providing a sexual outlet for one or both of the parents? If not, what values are taken to be operative, and why?

Its a question - answer it with the values that are operative for YOU.
The question implies its wrong to perform such acts on children. It however demands a rational explanation for viewing the act as wrong.
If all we have is personal disgust and lack of ability to "stand the thought", then we are very irrational indeed to state that it is wrong to sexually exploit children because we have no rational basis for classifying such acts as wrong.

tronvillain

Quote:

As I already said, children should not be exploited because it bothers me. To me more specifc, children should not be exploited because it bothers me enough to want to actively prevent it. It is as simple as that.

Why does it bother you so much? Perhaps the thought evokes some pain in your subconscious?

echidna

Quote:

Because in our society, there are activities which I believe cannot even be partially accepted.

This is asking us to adopt a herd mentality instead of reasoning things out. No thank you.

And you do not need to explain to us what freethinking entails. What even makes you think anyone here is a freethinker?

Stick to the question please.

[ September 03, 2002: Message edited by: Intensity ]

Ted Hoffman · 09-03-2002, 05:12 AM

[ September 03, 2002: Message edited by: Intensity ]

MadMordigan · 09-03-2002, 05:27 AM

What about a case that reverses the assumed gender roles? Would it be so clear that exploitation took place if the actors were an under-aged male and an adult woman?

It certainly didn't seem so at the time.

Ted Hoffman · 09-03-2002, 05:36 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by MadMordigan:
What about a case that reverses the assumed gender roles? Would it be so clear that exploitation took place if the actors were an under-aged male and an adult woman?

It certainly didn't seem so at the time.

You have brought up a question that is based on Gender roles and perspective. When I was seven, I dont think I would have had a problem being seduced by a 38 year old beautiful woman. I would have considered myself very blessed indeed. Whether I would have been up to the task physically is of course another matter altogether.

Boys think sex (and many other adventurous things) is fun. Girls consider virginity to be their sacred privacy, and the basis of their sexual (even personal) honour. Hence the word "defiled".

Whats your take on this exploitation question MadMordigan?

Amen-Moses · 09-03-2002, 05:43 AM

Originally posted by echidna:
If not, fortunately we have several institutions which can deal with people who consider these activities acceptable.

Which activity? The child running on the beach? The person taking the photograph? The person posting it on their website? Or the person getting off on looking at it?

Which activity should have zero tolerance?

Freethinking does not mean that freespeech extends into justification for clearly illegal and socially unhealthy activities.

Please show me where any of the above activities are illegal, now show me how any of them are socially unhealthy and why.

Freethinking does however allow you to open another thread about censorship and your individual freedoms to rape and abuse others, or even to pretend to without hurting them, if you like.

Why do you bring rape and abuse into the equation?

Amen-Moses

Infinity Lover · 09-03-2002, 06:14 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by tronvillain:
As I already said, children should not be exploited because it bothers me. To me more specifc, children should not be exploited because it bothers me enough to want to actively prevent it. It is as simple as that.

I'm with that.

There's also my more generalized question in the other thread (which led to this one), nobody unfortunatly seemed to take notice of.

does demand always justify supply?

I'd like to evolve that on into a slightly differnt one.

Doesn't the nature of the demand determine which supply would be justified?

Demand:
Person X gets of on pictures of little kids
(it would be difficult to exactly specify the nature of the pictures, though it's pretty safe to asume we're not talking mere portraits)

Which supply does this justify?

1) supply of pictures for x
2) supply of mental treatment for x

Ted Hoffman · 09-03-2002, 06:33 AM

Infinity Lover

Quote:

Which supply does this justify?

The supply that meets the demand. Only person X can tell us which one that would be. Unless person X is insane.
But if you mean to ask which supply meets YOUR demand, then of course, the answer is obvious. You seem to apportion greater importance to your demands at the expense of the demands of others.

It's one thing to meet a demand and another to eliminate it. You have also missed the point of my question, you are treating the demand as a disease and engulfing it in a curative solution while my question is, why is it a disease?
Not how its supposed to be dealt with.

Please avoid the sublime impulse to short-circuit the question becuase of your personal discomfort.

[ September 03, 2002: Message edited by: Intensity ]

99Percent · 09-03-2002, 07:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by tronvillain:
As I already said, children should not be exploited because it bothers me. To me more specifc, children should not be exploited because it bothers me enough to want to actively prevent it. It is as simple as that.

Morally, this is a completely meaningless statement. There is no way I can reasonably act morally if the only way to know what "bothers" you or anyone else is if you or someone "actively prevents" my "immoral acts" which ultimately means using violence or threat of force.

09-03-2002, 05:12 AM	#24
Ted Hoffman Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: "" Posts: 3,863	[ September 03, 2002: Message edited by: Intensity ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-03-2002, 05:27 AM	#25
MadMordigan Beloved Deceased Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Vancouver BC Canada Posts: 2,704	What about a case that reverses the assumed gender roles? Would it be so clear that exploitation took place if the actors were an under-aged male and an adult woman? It certainly didn't seem so at the time.

09-03-2002, 05:43 AM	#27
Amen-Moses Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Portsmouth, England Posts: 4,652	Originally posted by echidna: If not, fortunately we have several institutions which can deal with people who consider these activities acceptable. Which activity? The child running on the beach? The person taking the photograph? The person posting it on their website? Or the person getting off on looking at it? Which activity should have zero tolerance? Freethinking does not mean that freespeech extends into justification for clearly illegal and socially unhealthy activities. Please show me where any of the above activities are illegal, now show me how any of them are socially unhealthy and why. Freethinking does however allow you to open another thread about censorship and your individual freedoms to rape and abuse others, or even to pretend to without hurting them, if you like. Why do you bring rape and abuse into the equation? Amen-Moses

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.