Amen-Moses

Which would be great if we were taking about child abuse, but we aren't.

Of course the usual trick is to try and claim that "one thing leads to another so ...", if this is the case then we are back to my original point that there are hardly any things that humans do that are moral. (e.g looking at pictures of grapes will eventually lead to a drunken driver running over my son so we should ban anyone from taking picture of plants just in case there are any ingredients of alcoholic drinks in the picture)

I know it is a stupid example, I made it stupid on purpose to make a point!

We legislate against ACTs not THOUGHTs.

Amen-Moses

himynameisPwn

No, exploitation is wrong by definition. If you view advertising as exploitation, then you are defining it as wrong. Dont twist my words.

Anyone under the age of 18. Obviously the definition has flaws, but its legally accepted.

But we arent in those countries, there is no universal morality.

Its banned in 49 states I believe, except Nevada.

The social contract we all sign when we agree to live in society, the US is the society Im using in this argument.

Amen-Moses

Which only accounts for around 5% of the world!

btw, other countries are called states, it isn't just the US. i.e when the EC gathers together they refer to "member states" as do the other trade organisations around the globe.

Amen-Moses

himynameisPwn

Again, morality is relative to the time and place your living in. So, I use the example of the US because I live there now. Get it?

Amen-Moses

OK fine I'll take that as an admission that morality is subjective. So wtf are we arguing about?

Amen-Moses

himynameisPwn

We are arguing why child porn is wrong. If you use the word exploitation of children, then its automatically wrong as exploit by definition is unethical. So, I think a better question would be "Why is child porn wrong." Since morality is subjective, in the US at the present time, child porn is wrong because of what I said in my first post.

Amen-Moses

Originally posted by himynameisPwn:
We are arguing why child porn is wrong.

Umm, no, we are trying to answer the question "Why shouldn't children be sexually exploited?", no mention of child porn (which noone has yet defined btw).

If you use the word exploitation of children, then its automatically wrong as exploit by definition is unethical.

Bait and switch? Isn't unethical just another way of saying immoral? The modern world (at least the bit I live in) would not exist if it weren't for the exploitation of the masses by the more powerful (admittedly mostly in the past), does the end justify the means I wonder?

So, I think a better question would be "Why is child porn wrong."

So start another thread and please define what exactly you mean by "child porn".

Since morality is subjective, in the US at the present time, child porn is wrong because of what I said in my first post.

Very myopic of you , so does that mean that sexually expoiting children is wrong in the US but OK elsewhere?

Let's try this out with a hypothetical question, a moral dilemma if you like:

I have on my PC many pictures of children, some with very little on, down at the beach say or maybe at parties. I also have on my PC some pictures of a couple of 16 year old girls making out and possibly even a couple of 16 year old boys making out, nothing that would be classed as illegal in my country, nothing "Hard Core".

Now I travel to the US taking my PC with me and whilst there I put it in the repair shop and the engineer reports me to the FBI as a paedophile.

Have I done anything wrong?

(this has actually happened the other way around btw, where someone has entered the UK with a PC containing images that are perfectly legal in the country where they were downloaded and viewed but illegal here. The guy involved was arrested and charged even though he claimed he had forgotten all about the images and hadn't viewed them since his return. He didn't go to prison but he did have to register as a sex offender and lost his job over the incident!)

Amen-Moses

[ September 06, 2002: Message edited by: Amen-Moses ]</p>

himynameisPwn

Sexual exploitation is wrong everywhere, regardless, because by definition it is wrong. Why can't you grasp that? Redefine exploitation and it might not be wrong, but as it was previously defined, ANY and ALL forms of exploitation are ALWAYS wrong by definition. Regardless of whether the ends justify the means, exploitation is none the less immoral.

In your situation, you've violated the law, but morally, I'd say, 16 year olds are(ussually), aware of their sexuality enough that its really not kiddie porn. However, if the kids were exploited into child porn, its wrong nonetheless as you are promoting exploitation. Porn in and of itself is not exploitation, it just happens that when it comes to children, who are not aware of consequences etc. that porn is almost always exploitation. When that occurs, the law steps in and takes away liberties to protect the masses, hence the "social contract."

If however, you said 7 year olds, then thats a bit too much. 7 year olds can't really decide sexually whats in their best interests, and it would be sexual exploitation no matter what the circumstances. If the parents of the children themselves had taken the pictures, you're still taking advantage of a young child to appease your desires, when the child can't fully understand or know whats going on.

The laws definition of adulthood is what it is not because everyone suddenly becomes an adult at 18, but because by 18 you should be sufficiently experienced and self-aware that you can make your own descisions.

Vesica

I took the question to be 'Why is it not ok to sexually exploit children?'

I can not see a simple YES or NO answer to this.

Who are children?
What is exploitation?
Who is looking at the situation and calling it exploitation??

For example, All of the following could be called cases of sexual exploitation of children in courts of law, I don't define all of them as such:

1) A 15 year old has consenual (from her perspective) sex with her now 18 year old boyfriend. Her parents accuse him of sexually exploiting a minor..essentially arguing that thier daughter does not own her own body, that it is thiers and they do not approve of what has been done.

2) A young girl leaves home, lies about her age and secures a job as an exotic dancer. The boss suspects she may have lied but does nothing about it until the cops get involved.

3) Nude pictures of young children that were taken by thier families are then posted, without the consent or knowledge of the children or parents, to a porn site.

4)An employee is caught spying on and photographing people, including children, in local store's fitting rooms.

5)A newspaper or magazine runs a photo of a young boy who has won a swim meet in a skimpy suit with the boy striking a 'kind of sexy' movie star pose.

Is intent relevant?
Does the child get any call as to whether or not they have been exploited?

This ambiguity is what I was trying to get at...YES I think that sexually exploiting children is wrong but that is according to my personal opinions about who are children and what is exploitation....I have no idea how any of you answer these questions....

To me it is like saying 'Killing another person is wrong' but never addressing accidental homicides, failed medical proceures, deaths resulting from negligence and the like...

The AntiChris

Intensity gave his definition on the first page of this thread and, in doing so, answered his own question.

Chris