Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Loren Pechtel · 05-07-2003, 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by August Spies
Child pornography is so detestable not because it is "child" pornography

bullshit.

Actually, he has something of a point. The greatest harm from it comes from it's illegal nature.

Loren Pechtel · 05-07-2003, 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by August Spies
Totalitarian:

Im not going to pretend to be a psychologist, but from what ive read there are certainly things about a young childs mind that make them less able to understand things.

Also, I am really surprised you would say sex can't cause serious damage. I would think our culture has been so immersed in fruedian psychology by now to know sex can cause SERIOUS psychological damage. Especially sexual stuff when young.

No. Sex doesn't cause serious psychological damage to the young. The great damage comes from societies reaction to the situation and the acts of the abuser.

Loren Pechtel · 05-07-2003, 05:44 PM

Originally posted by Totalitarianist
Watching violent films does not directly hurt anyone. But it can create a sadist. Watching sex can create a sex addict, a fetishist, and will certainly in all cases deprave a man's mind.

Bad comparison. Watching sex can create a desire for sex. It doesn't create a sex addiction, though.

It could create a fetishist--but only from repression. If the only porn they can get their hands on happens to be that of some fetish then the result might be a fetish. This is not caused by the fetish material but by it being the only material.

I'm sure most of the people on here have seen porn. Are we all depraved?

I disagree that sex is a beautiful act. I agree with Plato, who says that it is quite repulsive. I am not asexual, but it is a repulsive process when one thinks about it.

Obviously a virgin, or else someone with some *MAJOR* sexual hangups. There is no way someone who has enjoyed a healthy sexual relationship would say what you did.

In my opinion, yes, it should be illegal.

"Does it hurt anyone?" That is not how I determine right and wrong. "Is it undesirable to the majority, is it a repulsive or selfish act?" is how I determine right and wrong.

This is a quite unreasonable standard and porn doesn't meet it anyway.

Undesirable to the majority? Nope--most people partake to some degree. It's presence reduces sex crimes.

Repusive? That's a totally subjective thing and not something to base a law on at all. My wife eats many things I find repulsive. So long as she doesn't serve them to me it's her business.

Loren Pechtel · 05-07-2003, 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Totalitarianist
In my opinion, non-procreative and underaged sex is morally incorrect. I am fifteen; few persons of my age have sex. However, I have experienced sex many years ago, and I can safely say that it is an activity whose appeal is the "sensation" element entirely.

Many years ago sounds like molestation. At that age it would be about sensation. In the context of a loving relationship it's much more, though.

Loren Pechtel · 05-07-2003, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by NobleSavage

What really bothers me is the ease that someone could be unknowingly convicted of this. It would be very easy for some one to send you an e-mail Trojan with out you knowledge. Once the Trojan is on your computer they could simply upload a few child porn images to your computer a give the police an anonymous tip. Seriously, this is very easy to do if you are a little computer savvy. A common Trojan is Back Orifice that is put out by the hacker group Cult of the Dead Cow. They "claim" it is a network admin tool, but it was and is designed to be a Trojan. You can download it here:

I hadn't thought of that but it's certainly possible.

I've blown Sub7 off the neighbor's machine. They had no idea their system was infected. No anti-virus. No firewall. (Note to the non-techies: Sub7 is another such program that permits an outsider to take control of your machine.)

August Spies · 05-07-2003, 06:33 PM

Sex doesn't cause serious psychological damage to the young. The great damage comes from societies reaction to the situation and the acts of the abuser.

Obviously I did not mean sex PER SE. But the consequences, personally, socially etc...

Ultron · 05-07-2003, 10:00 PM

You won't find me defending child porn addicts but I'd say life in jail for having photos is a bit severe. However considering he'll probably only serve a few years ultimately I'm not bothered by the sentence.

99Percent · 05-08-2003, 11:21 AM

Another thread that belongs in MF+P

Loren Pechtel · 05-08-2003, 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ultron
You won't find me defending child porn addicts but I'd say life in jail for having photos is a bit severe. However considering he'll probably only serve a few years ultimately I'm not bothered by the sentence.

*WITHOUT PAROLE*.

JerryM · 05-08-2003, 12:22 PM

Obviously, the prosecutor and judge wanted to make an example in this case. Was this really only a case of possession? Was there a jury trial, or was he convicted on a plea? I don't know what the law is in AZ, but I've heard of cases where a defendent pleads to what he thinks will be a lesser charge, and then the judge still hits him with a huge sentence. To me, the main purpose of incarceration is to remove the perpetrator to where he will not be a danger to society. That's of more primary importance than punishment. Making money from child pornography (producing, selling, etc) necessarily involves exploitation of children and certainly should be treated as a serious crime. But is just being a customer also a crime? I guess you could say that customers enable the industry, but I don't think that alone constitutes a danger to other people that requires imprisonment. I would think that closely supervised probation, enforced non-contact with children, community service (obviously not dealing with children), and maybe a fine (paid to a worthy charity) would be more appropriate. And also, a psychological evaluation to determine, if possible, if the offender is likely to actually molest children, or just likes to look.

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

05-07-2003, 05:44 PM	#53
Loren Pechtel Obsessed Contributor Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Not Mayaned Posts: 96,752	Originally posted by Totalitarianist Watching violent films does not directly hurt anyone. But it can create a sadist. Watching sex can create a sex addict, a fetishist, and will certainly in all cases deprave a man's mind. Bad comparison. Watching sex can create a desire for sex. It doesn't create a sex addiction, though. It could create a fetishist--but only from repression. If the only porn they can get their hands on happens to be that of some fetish then the result might be a fetish. This is not caused by the fetish material but by it being the only material. I'm sure most of the people on here have seen porn. Are we all depraved? I disagree that sex is a beautiful act. I agree with Plato, who says that it is quite repulsive. I am not asexual, but it is a repulsive process when one thinks about it. Obviously a virgin, or else someone with some MAJOR sexual hangups. There is no way someone who has enjoyed a healthy sexual relationship would say what you did. In my opinion, yes, it should be illegal. "Does it hurt anyone?" That is not how I determine right and wrong. "Is it undesirable to the majority, is it a repulsive or selfish act?" is how I determine right and wrong. This is a quite unreasonable standard and porn doesn't meet it anyway. Undesirable to the majority? Nope--most people partake to some degree. It's presence reduces sex crimes. Repusive? That's a totally subjective thing and not something to base a law on at all. My wife eats many things I find repulsive. So long as she doesn't serve them to me it's her business.

05-07-2003, 06:33 PM	#56
August Spies Contributor Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: The Vine Posts: 12,950	Sex doesn't cause serious psychological damage to the young. The great damage comes from societies reaction to the situation and the acts of the abuser. Obviously I did not mean sex PER SE. But the consequences, personally, socially etc...

05-07-2003, 10:00 PM	#57
Ultron Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: here Posts: 738	You won't find me defending child porn addicts but I'd say life in jail for having photos is a bit severe. However considering he'll probably only serve a few years ultimately I'm not bothered by the sentence.

05-08-2003, 11:21 AM	#58
99Percent Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: my mind Posts: 5,996	Another thread that belongs in MF+P

05-08-2003, 12:22 PM	#60
JerryM Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: St. Louis, MO. Posts: 1,100	Obviously, the prosecutor and judge wanted to make an example in this case. Was this really only a case of possession? Was there a jury trial, or was he convicted on a plea? I don't know what the law is in AZ, but I've heard of cases where a defendent pleads to what he thinks will be a lesser charge, and then the judge still hits him with a huge sentence. To me, the main purpose of incarceration is to remove the perpetrator to where he will not be a danger to society. That's of more primary importance than punishment. Making money from child pornography (producing, selling, etc) necessarily involves exploitation of children and certainly should be treated as a serious crime. But is just being a customer also a crime? I guess you could say that customers enable the industry, but I don't think that alone constitutes a danger to other people that requires imprisonment. I would think that closely supervised probation, enforced non-contact with children, community service (obviously not dealing with children), and maybe a fine (paid to a worthy charity) would be more appropriate. And also, a psychological evaluation to determine, if possible, if the offender is likely to actually molest children, or just likes to look.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.