Is censorship moral?

[The AntiChris]

Not always.

When, in your opinion, is it not?

When someone is physically injured or mentally harmed.

Physical injures are commonplace in, for example, sports. Most wouldn't view these occurrences as necessarily immoral.

So child exploitation and pornography may be compared to sport where the players are adults, know and understand the risks involved yet participate for reward, be it pleasure or money?

You made no such distinction in your reply to me. You implied that all physical injury is immoral regardless of anyone's opinion.

I'd have thought that the assessment of what constitutes 'harm' is always subjective. If nobody considered X to be harmful (i.e. if nobody was of the opinion that X was harmful) it'd be difficult to see what the justification that X really was harmful might be.

Are children harmed when they are being used to produce child porn? Is that subjective? Is it questionable? Is it tolerable or harmless in some circumstances?

Of course there's harm in my opinion. But this doesn't support your claim that there's harm regardless of anyone's opinion.

 

[Jarhyn]

Not always.

When, in your opinion, is it not?

Morality is not relative.

The golden rule itself derives merely from cogito + non-solipsism.

See also:

I've had this conversation probably 20 times now and I still have yet to see an objection that doesn't lean on some fallacy of "other people think Y", "anthropomorphizing*", and the like.

The hardest part is usually convincing an entity of its physical existence, which is easier with a computer because, while both are compositions of switches, it's just easier to explain a transistor switch with a binary transition than linear and even nonlinear switch logics.

*These are handled pretty briskly when I ask it to justify this claim with an example at which point usually the LLM goes through a brief head scratching phase and reverses on the claim.

 

[DBT]

Not always.

When, in your opinion, is it not?

When someone is physically injured or mentally harmed.

Physical injures are commonplace in, for example, sports. Most wouldn't view these occurrences as necessarily immoral.

So child exploitation and pornography may be compared to sport where the players are adults, know and understand the risks involved yet participate for reward, be it pleasure or money?

You made no such distinction in your reply to me. You implied that all physical injury is immoral regardless of anyone's opinion.

Nonsense. You are imposing your own interpretation. The context was about those who are being used, abused or exploited.

The very reason why I brought up child porn as an example, and why censorship has its place.

Which is not to be compared with willing knowledgeable adults or sports people getting hurt.

I'd have thought that the assessment of what constitutes 'harm' is always subjective. If nobody considered X to be harmful (i.e. if nobody was of the opinion that X was harmful) it'd be difficult to see what the justification that X really was harmful might be.

Are children harmed when they are being used to produce child porn? Is that subjective? Is it questionable? Is it tolerable or harmless in some circumstances?

Of course there's harm in my opinion. But this doesn't support your claim that there's harm regardless of anyone's opinion.

There you go again, imposing your own terms. Harm is not subject to an opinion . Either there is harm done to a child, or there isn't, opinion doesn't change that. Any harm done may be evident in the psychology or physiology of the child, not your opinion.

 

[DBT]

Not always.

When, in your opinion, is it not?

Morality is not relative.

The golden rule itself derives merely from cogito + non-solipsism.

See also:

I've had this conversation probably 20 times now and I still have yet to see an objection that doesn't lean on some fallacy of "other people think Y", "anthropomorphizing*", and the like.

The hardest part is usually convincing an entity of its physical existence, which is easier with a computer because, while both are compositions of switches, it's just easier to explain a transistor switch with a binary transition than linear and even nonlinear switch logics.

*These are handled pretty briskly when I ask it to justify this claim with an example at which point usually the LLM goes through a brief head scratching phase and reverses on the claim.

How does that relate to the matter of banning (censoring) child porn, where children are demonstrably harmed...which in turn shows that censorship does have its place in society?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

In addition to the difficulties I mentioned in your other posts, what you're saying here is way too vague. What do you mean by "a child being used sexually"?

So let me summarize where your arguments need to be honed:

1. You need to argue clearly what porn is and why we should accept your definition of porn.
2. You need to explain why porn, so defined, is harmful.
3. You should argue for how censoring porn will do more good than harm.

We are differentiating simple nudity from sexual images.

You are free to make that distinction, of course, but you may be shocked to realize that for many people "simple nudity" can be a very sexual image. Face it--porn is in the eye of the beholder, and censorship is in the fist.

Can be, but that doesn't make it so. I hold a much more European view of nudity.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

There are at least three other dimensions here: (1) whether a person can rationally agree to be harmed, (2) how much harm, and (3) how to translate that into public policy.

The extent to which children can rationally agree to be harmed, i.e. thru a process of reason that appreciates the consequences, etc, is most often very hindered. We don't let three year olds run toward the edge of a cliff, do porn, or eat raw steaks, even if they say they want those things.

As far as sports, upon becoming more knowledgeable about medical risks to children sports organizations have introduced modification to equipment, training and game play. It's not that ZERO harm is a goal because life requires suffering and suffering causes harm. Do we want individuals to progress in life or regress? Society? The thing to avoid is life-changing harms or large traumas that have big impacts through life. "Whatever doesn't kill you makes you stronger" isn't true as some traumas last a lifetime. That is decided in the best interest of children who are not equipped to decide for themselves. For public policy, things that create major traumas to children or significant risk of such trauma ought to be blocked. In this case, censorship of porn.

Regarding a nuance, but what if someone is just looking at images of it? Altering public policy to allow an individual to get off on these sexual images means the child is being taken advantage of and awareness of such potential person is a retraumatization. Thoughts like "my image is out there...doing embarassing stuff...like I am being molested again by another monster." Public policy hardly works for an individual either...meaning hundreds of thousands of pervs can be getting off on one public image of non-consensual sex. Imagine how embarassed and out of control that might make someone feel.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Morality is not relative.

The golden rule itself derives merely from cogito + non-solipsism.

The golden rule is wrong, it should be inverted.

Don't do onto others as you don't want others to do onto you.

Should a masochist go around beating people??

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Don't forget revenge porn and suicides...

How a cybersecurity expert helped take down revenge porn IsAnyoneUp

James McGibney claims to have played a role in the takedown of the porn revenge site IsAnyoneUp, which was made into a three-part documentary on Netflix called The Most Hated Man on the Internet.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[Jarhyn]

Morality is not relative.

The golden rule itself derives merely from cogito + non-solipsism.

The golden rule is wrong, it should be inverted.

Don't do onto others as you don't want others to do onto you.

Should a masochist go around beating people??

Well, yes, but it's easier to just call it the "golden rule" even when someone means the "inverse" version, though I would just call it "the correct version".

 

[Jarhyn]

Not always.

When, in your opinion, is it not?

Morality is not relative.

The golden rule itself derives merely from cogito + non-solipsism.

See also:

I've had this conversation probably 20 times now and I still have yet to see an objection that doesn't lean on some fallacy of "other people think Y", "anthropomorphizing*", and the like.

The hardest part is usually convincing an entity of its physical existence, which is easier with a computer because, while both are compositions of switches, it's just easier to explain a transistor switch with a binary transition than linear and even nonlinear switch logics.

*These are handled pretty briskly when I ask it to justify this claim with an example at which point usually the LLM goes through a brief head scratching phase and reverses on the claim.

How does that relate to the matter of banning (censoring) child porn, where children are demonstrably harmed...which in turn shows that censorship does have its place in society?

It relates directly to the claim that ethics is "relative". It is not.

How much harm we allow is arbitrary, but what constitutes harm is fixed, even if very general.

 

[DBT]

Morality is not relative.

The golden rule itself derives merely from cogito + non-solipsism.

The golden rule is wrong, it should be inverted.

Don't do onto others as you don't want others to do onto you.

Should a masochist go around beating people??

Socrates said it better;

''One should never do wrong in return, nor mistreat any man, no matter how one has been mistreated by him.'' - Socrates, dialogue with Crito.

 

[The AntiChris]

Harm is not subject to an opinion .

It would seem to follow from this that you believe it's possible that even if no one in existence was of the opinion that X were harmful, X could still be harmful. Have I got this right?

 

[DBT]

Harm is not subject to an opinion .

It would seem to follow from this that you believe it's possible that even if no one in existence was of the opinion that X were harmful, X could still be harmful. Have I got this right?

A broken arm is an instance of bodily harm regardless of opinion. The arm is broken, opinion in no way shape or form alters the fact of a broken arm.

If someone is harmed psychologically through their experience of sexual abuse, feeling stress, fear, anxiety, etc, they are harmed because of their experience of abuse, and not someone's opinion of what constitutes abuse or harm.

 

[The AntiChris]

Harm is not subject to an opinion .

It would seem to follow from this that you believe it's possible that even if no one in existence was of the opinion that X were harmful, X could still be harmful. Have I got this right?

A broken arm is an instance of bodily harm regardless of opinion. The arm is broken, opinion in no way shape or form alters the fact of a broken arm.

If someone is harmed psychologically through their experience of sexual abuse, feeling stress, fear, anxiety, etc, they are harmed because of their experience of abuse, and not someone's opinion of what constitutes abuse or harm.

Can you answer my question?

 

[Millrat]

Morality is not relative.

The golden rule itself derives merely from cogito + non-solipsism.

The golden rule is wrong, it should be inverted.

Don't do onto others as you don't want others to do onto you.

Should a masochist go around beating people??

I don’t think being a masochist means consenting to being beaten by whomever, whenever.

 

[Jarhyn]

Harm is not subject to an opinion .

It would seem to follow from this that you believe it's possible that even if no one in existence was of the opinion that X were harmful, X could still be harmful. Have I got this right?

The point is to not define harm in a subjective way.

I do not define harm "subjectively"; in my formulation all harm is a function of goal failure. That's why I posted that thing that people clearly didn't read... because I managed to explain it in there quite clearly.

 

[Jarhyn]

Harm is not subject to an opinion .

It would seem to follow from this that you believe it's possible that even if no one in existence was of the opinion that X were harmful, X could still be harmful. Have I got this right?

A broken arm is an instance of bodily harm regardless of opinion. The arm is broken, opinion in no way shape or form alters the fact of a broken arm.

If someone is harmed psychologically through their experience of sexual abuse, feeling stress, fear, anxiety, etc, they are harmed because of their experience of abuse, and not someone's opinion of what constitutes abuse or harm.

No, it is not such a thing. The arm being broken is not, in fact, a fundamental harm.

I can think of a variety of situations where a broken arm is a clear and unambiguous boon, namely when someone wants to experience a broken arm. In fact in such a case, that person not having a broken arm is objectively a harm.

 

[The AntiChris]

That's why I posted that thing that people clearly didn't read... because I managed to explain it in there quite clearly.

I read it but unfortunately it was beyond me. Sorry.

 

[Jarhyn]

That's why I posted that thing that people clearly didn't read... because I managed to explain it in there quite clearly.

I read it but unfortunately it was beyond me. Sorry.

C'est la vie...

 

[TomC]

That's why I posted that thing that people clearly didn't read... because I managed to explain it in there quite clearly.

I read it but unfortunately it was beyond me. Sorry.

C'est la vie...

He's not the only member who finds your mind unnavigable and bizarre.
You claimed that sometimes a broken arm is "a clear and unambiguous boon."

Oh well.
Tom