Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 08-31-2002, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by lcb:
... 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.

That brief is <a href="http://www.aclu.org/court/nambla.pdf" target="_blank">here</a>. There is no mention of secular humanism in it. It's a free speech case, and the ACLU is defending NAMBLA for the same reasons they defend the KKK.

I don't expect to see a NAMBLA delegation at the Godless March.

lcb · 08-31-2002, 02:52 PM

uhh TOTO, Pomp asked me to refrain on this topic and i complied, why is it that you disobeyed your own moderator? (and are you afraid of the slippery slope of relatavistic morality?)

Toto · 08-31-2002, 03:02 PM

lcb - it was a cross post. I did not see Pomp's post until mine was already posted. (I had spent some time reading the ACLU brief.) I am now dropping the topic of NAMBLA on this thread.

raistlinjones · 08-31-2002, 06:50 PM

Quote:

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?

Is there a reason why 13 year olds can't exploit other 13 year olds? Unless I'm mistaken, this is what we usually mean when we say that "child pornography exploits children": that the child was not mature enough to really understand the implications and consequences of what she is doing, and was therefore "conned" into doing it.

I guess my question is, then, do you think it impossible that one 13 year old could con another into being involved in pornography?

In answer to the original post - look, the main problem with child pornography is that it takes advantage of people who can't reason out what they're doing and make good decisions. They can't really give consent. And if we judge the participants incapable of making the decision to be part of the pornography (and therefore, I would think, judge them free from moral judgement in the matter), then I fail to see how we can morally judge the boy looking at the pornography. It seems like he would be just as free from moral judgement.

The Other Michael · 08-31-2002, 08:03 PM

You might also consider the case of the 13 year old in 3002 who finds an archived bit of child erotica in his/her local hyper-dimensional museum.

The participants/producers of said erotica have long since turned to dust and dropped from the ken of humans.

Should that 13 year old in 3002 refrain from using the aforementioned erotica in personal pleasure because of what may or may not have transpired 1000 years earlier?

cheers,
Michael

99Percent · 08-31-2002, 08:13 PM

There is also the possibility that the pictures are completely fake. Is it still morally wrong to be aroused by a bunch of binary digits that happen to render pornography?

GunnerJ · 09-01-2002, 08:13 AM

Quote:

Is there a reason why 13 year olds can't exploit other 13 year olds? Unless I'm mistaken, this is what we usually mean when we say that "child pornography exploits children": that the child was not mature enough to really understand the implications and consequences of what she is doing, and was therefore "conned" into doing it.

But wait a second, isn't that why we have age of consent laws too? Wouldn't, by your reasoning here, sex between two 13-year-olds be mutual exploitation?

Amen-Moses · 09-01-2002, 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Rimstalker:
But wait a second, isn't that why we have age of consent laws too? Wouldn't, by your reasoning here, sex between two 13-year-olds be mutual exploitation?

In actual fact it isn't really illegal for two 13 year olds to fuck each others brains out, neither of them can be charged with any crime because they are too young!

(except in some societies of course, where the age of consent is 13 in which case they still aren't breaking any laws)

The more telling moral questions start when you ask should a boy one day after his 16th birthday (in the UK at least) be charged with statutory rape if he screws his girlfriend one day before her 16th birthday?

Personally the age limits are arbitrary and stupid, what should be the deciding factor is the sexual maturity of those involved.

(for example should a 20 year old woman who just so happens to look 12 due to a hormonal deficiency be allowed to portray a 12 year old in a pornographic movie?)

Amen-Moses

[ September 01, 2002: Message edited by: Amen-Moses ]

99Percent · 09-01-2002, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Amen-Moses:
Personally the age limits are arbitrary and stupid, what should be the deciding factor is the sexual maturity of those involved.

How do you objectively determine when a person is sexual mature? Even children who are not sexually mature engage in sexual activities by themselves, for example is "playing doctor and nurse" immoral?.

It is important for the law to be objective, and unfortunately the only way it can do so is by defining an arbitrary but established age of consent. Or is there any other way?

Pomp · 09-01-2002, 11:49 AM

raistlinjones,

Is there a reason why 13 year olds can't exploit other 13 year olds?

I don't know, that's why I asked. You also said:

And if we judge the participants incapable of making the decision to be part of the pornography (and therefore, I would think, judge them free from moral judgement in the matter), then I fail to see how we can morally judge the boy looking at the pornography. It seems like he would be just as free from moral judgement.

I agree, and that's another reason I asked my question. Would we also consider a 13 year old who was producing such material to be incapable of making an informed decision and, thus, free from moral judgement?

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

08-31-2002, 02:52 PM	#42
lcb Banned Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: washington d.c. Posts: 224	uhh TOTO, Pomp asked me to refrain on this topic and i complied, why is it that you disobeyed your own moderator? (and are you afraid of the slippery slope of relatavistic morality?)

08-31-2002, 03:02 PM	#43
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	lcb - it was a cross post. I did not see Pomp's post until mine was already posted. (I had spent some time reading the ACLU brief.) I am now dropping the topic of NAMBLA on this thread.

08-31-2002, 08:03 PM	#45
The Other Michael Honorary Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: In the fog of San Francisco Posts: 12,631	You might also consider the case of the 13 year old in 3002 who finds an archived bit of child erotica in his/her local hyper-dimensional museum. The participants/producers of said erotica have long since turned to dust and dropped from the ken of humans. Should that 13 year old in 3002 refrain from using the aforementioned erotica in personal pleasure because of what may or may not have transpired 1000 years earlier? cheers, Michael

08-31-2002, 08:13 PM	#46
99Percent Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: my mind Posts: 5,996	There is also the possibility that the pictures are completely fake. Is it still morally wrong to be aroused by a bunch of binary digits that happen to render pornography?

09-01-2002, 11:49 AM	#50
Pomp Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Indianapolis area Posts: 3,468	raistlinjones, Is there a reason why 13 year olds can't exploit other 13 year olds? I don't know, that's why I asked. You also said: And if we judge the participants incapable of making the decision to be part of the pornography (and therefore, I would think, judge them free from moral judgement in the matter), then I fail to see how we can morally judge the boy looking at the pornography. It seems like he would be just as free from moral judgement. I agree, and that's another reason I asked my question. Would we also consider a 13 year old who was producing such material to be incapable of making an informed decision and, thus, free from moral judgement?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.