Is censorship moral?

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

That way maybe we'll have a generation that ...[SNIP]... eliminates child sexual abuse by rooting out what really causes it.

So you're going to eliminate free will?

...

...

...

...

By getting rid of child porn laws?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There's no particular reason to think kiddie porn is going to harm children who view it because why would they view it?

Oh yeah there is.

Seriously, you think that kids watching other kids have sex isn't going to impact them?
"Because why would they view it?"

That is dumber than

Below puberty kids normally find pornography boring or disgusting (sex is basically a gross act if you don't have the hormones driving you to like it) and they don't watch it.

 

[DBT]

There are things that are not suitable for children, or perhaps even the general public, video's of murder, torture, dismemberment, etc.

I've been watching all of that since my youth, and here I am, a well-adjusted adult. I've only ever been harmed by censorship.

I've read a fair number of your posts. I don't find this assessment very credible.

You can imagine anything you wish. I should point out that it's an ad hominem to argue against what I say by arguing against me.

For what it's worth, bringing children into the conversation is a game changer.

Tell that to whoever brought up the issue of kiddie porn. (It was Shadowy Man.)

The rules are different and the stakes are much higher.

I think that it's far more important to teach kids and everybody else about the Bill of Rights and the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech than to threaten people with years in prison because they're looking at a picture of a nude 17-year-old girl. That way maybe we'll have a generation that is the first one that actually respects the Bill of Rights not to mention eliminates child sexual abuse by rooting out what really causes it.

Child porn, immoral and illegal for obvious reasons, was brought up as an example of something that should be censored.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Child porn, immoral and illegal for obvious reasons, was brought up as an example of something that should be censored.

Not according to Unknown Soldier, who asserts that all censorship is immoral. He also seems to question that viewing it is more harmful than censoring it. Though he does concede that creating it is immoral. But once that harm is done why pile on more harm by censoring it?

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Child porn, immoral and illegal for obvious reasons, was brought up as an example of something that should be censored.

Actually, the view that extramarital sex including voyeurism is immoral has its roots in the Bible, Christian theology, and in church tradition. The age of the girls who were sold off into marriage by this tradition has often been much younger than today's "legal" age although most US states allow child marriage.

So in the USA you might be technically breaking the child porn laws if you have photos of your wife in the nude.

 

[Jarhyn]

Child porn, immoral and illegal for obvious reasons, was brought up as an example of something that should be censored.

Actually, the view that extramarital sex including voyeurism is immoral has its roots in the Bible, Christian theology, and in church tradition. The age of the girls who were sold off into marriage by this tradition has often been much younger than today's "legal" age although most US states allow child marriage.

So in the USA you might be technically breaking the child porn laws if you have photos of your wife in the nude.

Yes, because that marriage should not be legal and the only reason is conservatives, the same conservatives that want to censor homosexuality and broadcast child beauty pageants.

I would rather censor child beauty pageants and let adults be adults in adult places.

That said, if you want to get your rocks off to whatever, just... go to civit.ai and download whatever model gets your rocks off. I know FurtasticV20 makes some absolutely fantastic filth, in fact. It has no standards, and will generate pretty much anything you want, as long as you don't mind furry, and what's more, you know you're consuming something not-real, and the law actually stands on your side there in the United States.

You have absolutely no reason to ask for access to a view of live child abuse happening somewhere in spacetime. There is no reason to allow people to consume that material evil, unless to feel rage and hate. It is erosive to the joyful and good things.

Personally I don't like the thought of mixing my enjoyment of my own memories of carefree innocence and exploration with what should be well connected to someone's native impulse for hate-of-evil.

It sets my teeth buzzing thinking what I would do to the director of a "child beauty pageant", of all such persons, and all such mothers who do that to their daughters, and all the creepy men that buzz around such hives of child abuse and thinly masked pedophilia.

I would as soon say all photos of children belong to them, and all naked photos especially, and to the adults they become, to do as they wish, except most would wish these never existed and you have no way to know who those are, and neither do investigators have any way of knowing, and the people who consume the most disgusting evil this world has to offer simply do not care; they will do to children to make whatever style of fucked up evil they wish to perpetrate.

You have AI. I will teach you how to use it and I will argue for your right to do so. I argue for my own right to do so...

... But...

For the love of fuck please stop asking the world to let you touch the most disgusting of it's evils. There's no reason to want that.

 

[DBT]

Child porn, immoral and illegal for obvious reasons, was brought up as an example of something that should be censored.

Actually, the view that extramarital sex including voyeurism is immoral has its roots in the Bible, Christian theology, and in church tradition. The age of the girls who were sold off into marriage by this tradition has often been much younger than today's "legal" age although most US states allow child marriage.

So in the USA you might be technically breaking the child porn laws if you have photos of your wife in the nude.

False analogy. What consenting adults do or what they watch in terms of the actions other consenting adults, porn, etc, (if nobody is being harmed), does not compare to child exploitation. Children are vulnerable, they don't have the life experience to understand the significance of what is being done to them.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Child porn, immoral and illegal for obvious reasons, was brought up as an example of something that should be censored.

Whether a thing is obvious or not is subjective, i.e. it depends on the subject considering it and especially their brains. For example, it wouldn't be obvious to a person in a brain coma, a psychopath, a pedophile, or a newborn baby.

 

[DBT]

Child porn, immoral and illegal for obvious reasons, was brought up as an example of something that should be censored.

Whether a thing is obvious or not is subjective, i.e. it depends on the subject considering it and especially their brains. For example, it wouldn't be obvious to a person in a brain coma, a psychopath, a pedophile, or a newborn baby.

That a child lacks life experience and is unable to grasp the nature of what is happening to them or how they are being exploited is probably quantifiable and testable through questioning the child. Isn't that why children are protected?

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Child porn, immoral and illegal for obvious reasons, was brought up as an example of something that should be censored.

Actually, the view that extramarital sex including voyeurism is immoral has its roots in the Bible, Christian theology, and in church tradition. The age of the girls who were sold off into marriage by this tradition has often been much younger than today's "legal" age although most US states allow child marriage.

So in the USA you might be technically breaking the child porn laws if you have photos of your wife in the nude.

False analogy.

I didn't post an analogy.

What consenting adults...

Please define "adult" and explain how you arrived at that definition.

...do or what they watch in terms of the actions other consenting adults, porn, etc, (if nobody is being harmed), does not compare to child exploitation.

I'm against any harmful exploitation.

Children are vulnerable, they don't have the life experience to understand the significance of what is being done to them.

Then how is censoring children moral? Censorship is a kind of exploitation.

Finally, please check out these paintings by Lewis Carroll. Do they constitute child porn? Should we imprison people for having those images?

 

[Jarhyn]

Child porn, immoral and illegal for obvious reasons, was brought up as an example of something that should be censored.

Actually, the view that extramarital sex including voyeurism is immoral has its roots in the Bible, Christian theology, and in church tradition. The age of the girls who were sold off into marriage by this tradition has often been much younger than today's "legal" age although most US states allow child marriage.

So in the USA you might be technically breaking the child porn laws if you have photos of your wife in the nude.

False analogy.

I didn't post an analogy.

What consenting adults...

Please define "adult" and explain how you arrived at that definition.

...do or what they watch in terms of the actions other consenting adults, porn, etc, (if nobody is being harmed), does not compare to child exploitation.

I'm against any harmful exploitation.

Children are vulnerable, they don't have the life experience to understand the significance of what is being done to them.

Then how is censoring children moral? Censorship is a kind of exploitation.

Finally, please check out these paintings by Lewis Carroll. Do they constitute child porn? Should we imprison people for having those images?

Censoring adults taking pictures of children, not censoring the children themselves.

Secondly... paintings aren't real people, are not photographs or evidence of a crime I progress as of the production.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Child porn, immoral and illegal for obvious reasons, was brought up as an example of something that should be censored.

Actually, the view that extramarital sex including voyeurism is immoral has its roots in the Bible, Christian theology, and in church tradition. The age of the girls who were sold off into marriage by this tradition has often been much younger than today's "legal" age although most US states allow child marriage.

So in the USA you might be technically breaking the child porn laws if you have photos of your wife in the nude.

False analogy.

I didn't post an analogy.

What consenting adults...

Please define "adult" and explain how you arrived at that definition.

...do or what they watch in terms of the actions other consenting adults, porn, etc, (if nobody is being harmed), does not compare to child exploitation.

I'm against any harmful exploitation.

Children are vulnerable, they don't have the life experience to understand the significance of what is being done to them.

Then how is censoring children moral? Censorship is a kind of exploitation.

Finally, please check out these paintings by Lewis Carroll. Do they constitute child porn? Should we imprison people for having those images?

What does it matter that you can find examples of photos or other media depicting naked children that aren’t child pornography? Is that supposed to mean that child pornography doesn’t exist? Or are you trying to point that there may not be a hard line between objectionable material and non-objectionable material? If the line is fuzzy does that mean there’s effectively no line at all? That censorship is bad because it might lead to censoring something non-objectionable so best play it safe and not censor anything at all?

I see these kinds of arguments that ignore all nuance in many areas. Guns, abortion, etc. it seems intellectually weak to avoid the fact that nuance exists and that thinking humans are able to navigate the fuzzy line on a case-by-case basis. Can corruption of rules happen? Yes, of course, but that doesn’t mean rules shouldn’t exist.

I categorically disagree with your statement that all censorship is immoral. It may be difficult to walk the line but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

creating laws for crimes of --and/or civic crushing by lawsuit of--fraud, slander, libel, disturbing the peace, conspiracy to commit murder or sedition, copyright infringement are all forms of censorship. They are all based on a principle of multiple individuals in civil society where one individual's right (free speech) impacts the rights of others, i.e. causes harm.

IF we talk about something that is purely offensive and the harm to the individual is that they are offended and that is that, then harm is just another word for offended, and it's indeed censorship. But if there are harms besides being offended, then, for example child porn laws, are based on the same principle of harm as any other number of laws that have existed for centuries.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Then how is censoring children moral? Censorship is a kind of exploitation.

Finally, please check out these paintings by Lewis Carroll. Do they constitute child porn? Should we imprison people for having those images?

Censoring adults taking pictures of children, not censoring the children themselves.

Are you saying it's wrong or right to censor children?

And you'll need to explain how adults photographing children is wrong.

Secondly... paintings aren't real people, are not photographs or evidence of a crime I progress as of the production.

But paintings often are depictions of real people as much as photos are. Why are paintings art and photos porn?

But as we all know artists have been painting naked kids for millennia, and it's only recently that we became dumb enough to outlaw it.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Finally, please check out these paintings by Lewis Carroll. Do they constitute child porn? Should we imprison people for having those images?

What does it matter that you can find examples of photos or other media depicting naked children that aren’t child pornography? Is that supposed to mean that child pornography doesn’t exist? Or are you trying to point that there may not be a hard line between objectionable material and non-objectionable material? If the line is fuzzy does that mean there’s effectively no line at all? That censorship is bad because it might lead to censoring something non-objectionable so best play it safe and not censor anything at all?

You'll need to answer my questions before I answer yours.

I see these kinds of arguments that ignore all nuance in many areas. Guns, abortion, etc. it seems intellectually weak to avoid the fact that nuance exists and that thinking humans are able to navigate the fuzzy line on a case-by-case basis. Can corruption of rules happen? Yes, of course, but that doesn’t mean rules shouldn’t exist.

What do you mean by nuance? If you mean that there's room for disagreement, then I agree. After all, all along I've been disagreeing with censorship being a blessing.

I categorically disagree with your statement that all censorship is immoral. It may be difficult to walk the line but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try.

You should try to answer questions posed to you. What censorship is moral?

 

[steve_bank]

Is banning censorship itself a form of censorship? Good god almighty, what a logical conundrum. A moral dilema of epic scale.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Finally, please check out these paintings by Lewis Carroll. Do they constitute child porn? Should we imprison people for having those images?

What does it matter that you can find examples of photos or other media depicting naked children that aren’t child pornography? Is that supposed to mean that child pornography doesn’t exist? Or are you trying to point that there may not be a hard line between objectionable material and non-objectionable material? If the line is fuzzy does that mean there’s effectively no line at all? That censorship is bad because it might lead to censoring something non-objectionable so best play it safe and not censor anything at all?

You'll need to answer my questions before I answer yours.

I did in my first sentence.

I see these kinds of arguments that ignore all nuance in many areas. Guns, abortion, etc. it seems intellectually weak to avoid the fact that nuance exists and that thinking humans are able to navigate the fuzzy line on a case-by-case basis. Can corruption of rules happen? Yes, of course, but that doesn’t mean rules shouldn’t exist.

What do you mean by nuance? If you mean that there's room for disagreement, then I agree. After all, all along I've been disagreeing with censorship being a blessing.

The fact that you can’t understand what I mean by nuance in this conversation explains our problem communicating with each other.

I categorically disagree with your statement that all censorship is immoral. It may be difficult to walk the line but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try.

You should try to answer questions posed to you. What censorship is moral?

When not censoring causes more harm than censoring it would be moral to censor.

I don’t believe it is all or nothing.

 

[Shadowy Man]

You want a concrete example: I think in many cases death threats would be moral to censor.

But again, because there is nuance involved, we would have to investigate any specific case to assess harm.

 

[bilby]

You want a concrete example: I think in many cases death threats would be moral to censor.

But again, because there is nuance involved, we would have to investigate any specific case to assess harm.

This 'nuance' you speak of; Is it good, or bad?

Do we need to make it mandatory, or ban it?

 

[Jarhyn]

Then how is censoring children moral? Censorship is a kind of exploitation.

Finally, please check out these paintings by Lewis Carroll. Do they constitute child porn? Should we imprison people for having those images?

Censoring adults taking pictures of children, not censoring the children themselves.

Are you saying it's wrong or right to censor children?

And you'll need to explain how adults photographing children is wrong.

Secondly... paintings aren't real people, are not photographs or evidence of a crime I progress as of the production.

But paintings often are depictions of real people as much as photos are. Why are paintings art and photos porn?

But as we all know artists have been painting naked kids for millennia, and it's only recently that we became dumb enough to outlaw it.

Those aren't real children.

You should see some of the filth I've generated today playing around with prompts.

Covering that up is censorship.

Deleting photographs of real, living (or passed) humans who did not want to be photographed in that way and didn't have a chance to consent to it is a different matter.