Freethought & Rationalism Archive

lcb · 08-31-2002, 01:03 PM

please read the Secular Humanist Manifesto again and the "Secular Humanist Paradigm" and the "FreeThinkers" Manifesto again and then please categorize NAMBLA for us. In addition to the sources i previously cited, go ask four or five PHd level social science academics (into what category they would classify NAMBLA) or groups which want to legalize polygamy or polyandry etc,, and then read the brief filed on behalf of NAMBLA by the ACLU(its on the internet too),and then come back and tell us all with a staright face that NAMBLA isnt a secular humanist organization.

Pomp · 08-31-2002, 01:04 PM

While all this NAMBLA stuff is facinating (heavy sarcasm), it strikes me as quite off-topic. The question at hand deals with the moral implications of children, as opposed to adults, viewing child pornography. Whether or not NAMBLA represents a "secular humanist" point of view is quite beside the point, IMO. Lcb, if you think you have a real case regarding NAMBLA's supposed secular humanism, please feel free to make it in a spanking new thread you'll start for that purpose in the appropriate forum (probably Misc. Discussions). I realize that you've already started on such thread but, first, you simply asserted and did not argue your case and, second, a RRPEtc. thread is probably not the best place in which to make a serious argument.

Pomp · 08-31-2002, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by luvluv:
Why shouldn't children be exploited?

Well, for the purposes of this discussion, I suppose we could simply take it as axiomatic that children should not be exploited, as most of us here, and most people (at least in modern nations) in general, seem to feel that such exploitation is reprehensible. I see this topic as a question of practical ehtics. If we're going to have such a discussion, we have to agree to accept certain principles in order to avoid spiraling down into yet another discussion of theoretical ethics.

lcb · 08-31-2002, 01:09 PM

p.s and please dont try the semantic dodge of backtracking and using a generic undifferentiated term such as "pagan" or "freethinker" or "hedonist" to classify NAMBLA. Another research tool would be for you all to go over to the NAMBLA gathering at the Godless March and ask all of them if they are secular humanists or not.

pz · 08-31-2002, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by lcb:
The north American Man Boy LOve Association refers to themselves as a "secular humanist organization" (1), Their "relativistic moral analysis " comports with the secular humanist relativistic philosophy (2),nambla will be marching in the Godless March on Washington as a "secular humanist organization".(3),The leading sociologist, Amitai Etzioni classifies NAMBLA as one of the myriad of "secular humanist" groups which "question traditional societal mores concerning sexuality taboos",(4)Camille Paglia ( a leading secular humanist author and academic) refers to NAMBLA as a "secular humanist" organization,(5), to be cont.

The Aryan Nation, Christian Identity, and KKK refer to themselves as "christian organizations". That does not mean that all christians endorse racism -- it just means that a collection of despicable scoundrels are scrabbling to justify themselves by hiding under the umbrella of more reputable organizations.

Your claims here are meaningless. While some cockroaches may admire the fine cabinetry in a kitchen and claim it as their home, that does not in any way imply that they built it, or that carpenters like roaches.

lcb · 08-31-2002, 01:15 PM

well I see the moderators are descending again, i wont be allowed to continue this i suppose, I could try to argue that the NAMBLA open support for child erotica and man/boy pornography does in fact fit the topic of "is child pornography bad" but I always lose these christian/moderator tiffs, so I will simply close with my "what goes around comes around" argument.

Pomp · 08-31-2002, 01:21 PM

lcb,

...I could try to argue that the NAMBLA open support for child erotica and man/boy pornography does in fact fit the topic of "is child pornography bad"

If you presented it the right way, yes, you could. For example, "NAMBLA supports child pornography because X, Y, and Z, and I disagree because A, B, and C" would be a perfectly acceptable and on-topic thing to say. Simply interjecting your opinion regarding NAMBLA and secular humanism yet again adds nothing to this discussion, any more than I would be making a positive contribution to, say, a discussion of Xian ethics in which racism was being considerd if I were to simply state "the KKK is a Xian organization."

Daggah · 08-31-2002, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by lcb:
please read the Secular Humanist Manifesto again and the "Secular Humanist Paradigm" and the "FreeThinkers" Manifesto again and then please categorize NAMBLA for us.

Nowhere in any of these is pedophilia positively mentioned...your point is...?

Quote:

In addition to the sources i previously cited,

You haven't cited any sources! You made vague references and searches to gather info on these references have not supported your assertions.

Quote:

go ask four or five PHd level social science academics (into what category they would classify NAMBLA) or groups which want to legalize polygamy or polyandry etc,, and then read the brief filed on behalf of NAMBLA by the ACLU(its on the internet too),and then come back and tell us all with a staright face that NAMBLA isnt a secular humanist organization.

Again, PROVE that NAMBLA _IS_ a secular humanist organization. You keep claiming it, but evidence to support this claim so far = 0.

Pomp · 08-31-2002, 01:31 PM

Arrowman,.

1. There is nothing inherently "immoral" in pleasuring oneself to any image.

I concur.

2. However if one is aware that the image is very likely from a questionable source (children unable to make an informed decision to participate, and likely to be damaged by the experience), then it could be argued that "using" such an image despite its source, is at best a rationalisation and at worst immoral (I'd prefer "unethical").

I disagree, with one caveat. I don't see how pleasuring oneself to an already existing image harms anyone, regardless of the questionable source of that image, except insofar as it helps to create a market for such images and encourage the production of more such images.

3. However (again) - having stumbled across such images, could your average 13 year old be expected to appreciate the (probable) nature of their source? If they were acting in genuine ignorance, I wouldn't apply 2 above to a 13 year old - in other words, I wouldn't accuse them of acting immorally or unethically.

I agree. Here's an follow-up question: what if the images in question were produced by 13 year olds? In other words, if there is no exploitation of children by adults involved (if the entire chain of production, from supply to demand, is carried out by children) do we have a moral issue?

4. And some might argue that the viewer is not supporting or encouraging the provider in any way if
(a) the material is free
(b) the website in question does not have a hit counter (to encourage the author) or any revenue source based on hits.
- So therefore it is not immoral, because your use or non-use of the image in no way affects whether that image (and future ones like it) will be created.
Personally, I would see that argument as rationalisation.

So would I, to a large extent. While I have no issues with someone using such images in a manner that does not encourage the production of more, I don't see any way to be absolutely sure that one's usage does not encourage the development of a child porn market, and I would prefer to draw the line very conservatively on this issue.

[ August 31, 2002: Message edited by: Pomp ]

Pomp · 08-31-2002, 01:33 PM

Say, could we all stop responding to the NAMBLA nonsense perhaps? I've asked lcb not to continue in this vein in the current thread, and it's only fair to ask the rest of us not to press a point he's been asked to drop, right?

08-31-2002, 01:31 PM	#39
Pomp Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Indianapolis area Posts: 3,468	Arrowman,. 1. There is nothing inherently "immoral" in pleasuring oneself to any image. I concur. 2. However if one is aware that the image is very likely from a questionable source (children unable to make an informed decision to participate, and likely to be damaged by the experience), then it could be argued that "using" such an image despite its source, is at best a rationalisation and at worst immoral (I'd prefer "unethical"). I disagree, with one caveat. I don't see how pleasuring oneself to an already existing image harms anyone, regardless of the questionable source of that image, except insofar as it helps to create a market for such images and encourage the production of more such images. 3. However (again) - having stumbled across such images, could your average 13 year old be expected to appreciate the (probable) nature of their source? If they were acting in genuine ignorance, I wouldn't apply 2 above to a 13 year old - in other words, I wouldn't accuse them of acting immorally or unethically. I agree. Here's an follow-up question: what if the images in question were produced by 13 year olds? In other words, if there is no exploitation of children by adults involved (if the entire chain of production, from supply to demand, is carried out by children) do we have a moral issue? 4. And some might argue that the viewer is not supporting or encouraging the provider in any way if (a) the material is free (b) the website in question does not have a hit counter (to encourage the author) or any revenue source based on hits. - So therefore it is not immoral, because your use or non-use of the image in no way affects whether that image (and future ones like it) will be created. Personally, I would see that argument as rationalisation. So would I, to a large extent. While I have no issues with someone using such images in a manner that does not encourage the production of more, I don't see any way to be absolutely sure that one's usage does not encourage the development of a child porn market, and I would prefer to draw the line very conservatively on this issue. [ August 31, 2002: Message edited by: Pomp ]</p>

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

08-31-2002, 01:03 PM	#31
lcb Banned Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: washington d.c. Posts: 224	please read the Secular Humanist Manifesto again and the "Secular Humanist Paradigm" and the "FreeThinkers" Manifesto again and then please categorize NAMBLA for us. In addition to the sources i previously cited, go ask four or five PHd level social science academics (into what category they would classify NAMBLA) or groups which want to legalize polygamy or polyandry etc,, and then read the brief filed on behalf of NAMBLA by the ACLU(its on the internet too),and then come back and tell us all with a staright face that NAMBLA isnt a secular humanist organization.

08-31-2002, 01:04 PM	#32
Pomp Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Indianapolis area Posts: 3,468	While all this NAMBLA stuff is facinating (heavy sarcasm), it strikes me as quite off-topic. The question at hand deals with the moral implications of children, as opposed to adults, viewing child pornography. Whether or not NAMBLA represents a "secular humanist" point of view is quite beside the point, IMO. Lcb, if you think you have a real case regarding NAMBLA's supposed secular humanism, please feel free to make it in a spanking new thread you'll start for that purpose in the appropriate forum (probably Misc. Discussions). I realize that you've already started on such thread but, first, you simply asserted and did not argue your case and, second, a RRPEtc. thread is probably not the best place in which to make a serious argument.

08-31-2002, 01:09 PM	#34
lcb Banned Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: washington d.c. Posts: 224	p.s and please dont try the semantic dodge of backtracking and using a generic undifferentiated term such as "pagan" or "freethinker" or "hedonist" to classify NAMBLA. Another research tool would be for you all to go over to the NAMBLA gathering at the Godless March and ask all of them if they are secular humanists or not.

08-31-2002, 01:15 PM	#36
lcb Banned Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: washington d.c. Posts: 224	well I see the moderators are descending again, i wont be allowed to continue this i suppose, I could try to argue that the NAMBLA open support for child erotica and man/boy pornography does in fact fit the topic of "is child pornography bad" but I always lose these christian/moderator tiffs, so I will simply close with my "what goes around comes around" argument.

08-31-2002, 01:21 PM	#37
Pomp Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Indianapolis area Posts: 3,468	lcb, ...I could try to argue that the NAMBLA open support for child erotica and man/boy pornography does in fact fit the topic of "is child pornography bad" If you presented it the right way, yes, you could. For example, "NAMBLA supports child pornography because X, Y, and Z, and I disagree because A, B, and C" would be a perfectly acceptable and on-topic thing to say. Simply interjecting your opinion regarding NAMBLA and secular humanism yet again adds nothing to this discussion, any more than I would be making a positive contribution to, say, a discussion of Xian ethics in which racism was being considerd if I were to simply state "the KKK is a Xian organization."

08-31-2002, 01:33 PM	#40
Pomp Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Indianapolis area Posts: 3,468	Say, could we all stop responding to the NAMBLA nonsense perhaps? I've asked lcb not to continue in this vein in the current thread, and it's only fair to ask the rest of us not to press a point he's been asked to drop, right?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.