Morality of brains

[fromderinside]

..... As if by magic.

As in every vote for the deciding view is responsible for the decision.

Oh, and most of the time "to do otherwise" isn't an option

 

[untermensche]

Child pornography is about what one person does to another.

What one does to a child.

Looking at an image is not doing something to someone.

Morality doesn't enter the picture.

If one gets off looking at depictions of horrible exploitation then that is an issue of sanity and sadism, not morality.

People caught with child pornography should not be sent to prison. They should be taught normal empathy somehow though. If that is even possible. Minus that their picture in the paper should suffice.

Well it seems like putting their picture in the newspaper is an effort to shame them and to make an example to others. Similar to placing people in stocks in the town square during the 1700's. So it seems like a response to a moral issue. I don't know how you go about teaching them otherwise. They get to feel how demeaning it is and hopefully recognize that in others. That's how society deals with moral issues that aren't directly hurting others but tend to become that if not addressed. Morality is how we deal with the things we can't always address with laws.

It shames in some because it shows a desire to look at depictions of human exploitation.

This desire is not immoral in itself. Just having a desire is not immoral. What one actually does to another concerns morality.

 

[untermensche]

..... As if by magic.

As in every vote for the deciding view is responsible for the decision.

Oh, and most of the time "to do otherwise" isn't an option

To refrain from searching for child porn is not an option?

To refrain from strangling your wife is not an option?

 

[DBT]

That's a naive position to take. Demand creates a market which drives production. So it is the consumer who mandates the act that is being paid for.

A person is only guilty of what they actually cause.

Not what similar behavior might cause.

The production of this may be due to some customer or customers, and they are all accomplices.

But not every person who looks at it is responsible for the production.

As if by magic.

Not magic. Supply and demand. Customers who are willing to pay for something, create a demand for the product and thereby are paying to have it produced.

 

[fromderinside]

A person is only guilty of what they actually cause.

Not what similar behavior might cause.

The production of this may be due to some customer or customers, and they are all accomplices.

But not every person who looks at it is responsible for the production.

As if by magic.

Not magic. Supply and demand. Customers who are willing to pay for something, create a demand for the product and thereby are paying to have it produced.

Agreed. There is no demand for shit. In fact there is a demand to get rid of it. So for what is there a demand? Devises to get rid of shit.

 

[DBT]

Not magic. Supply and demand. Customers who are willing to pay for something, create a demand for the product and thereby are paying to have it produced.

Agreed. There is no demand for shit. In fact there is a demand to get rid of it. So for what is there a demand? Devises to get rid of shit.

I can interpret your remark in several ways, so I'm not sure what you mean to say.

 

[untermensche]

A person is only guilty of what they actually cause.

Not what similar behavior might cause.

The production of this may be due to some customer or customers, and they are all accomplices.

But not every person who looks at it is responsible for the production.

As if by magic.

Not magic. Supply and demand. Customers who are willing to pay for something, create a demand for the product and thereby are paying to have it produced.

You are claiming magic.

You are claiming that just looking at something, which is what I was talking about, is somehow showing somebody else you have a demand.

Looking at, not buying.

How does that happen exactly?

 

[DBT]

Not magic. Supply and demand. Customers who are willing to pay for something, create a demand for the product and thereby are paying to have it produced.

You are claiming magic.

You are claiming that just looking at something, which is what I was talking about, is somehow showing somebody else you have a demand.

Looking at, not buying.

How does that happen exactly?

If you are looking at child porn, you are in practice supporting the supply and demand economy of the child porn industry. If nobody actually looked at it, nobody would buy it and it would not be produced because there would be no interest in seeing this stuff, or producing it.

 

[another1]

You are claiming magic.

You are claiming that just looking at something, which is what I was talking about, is somehow showing somebody else you have a demand.

Looking at, not buying.

How does that happen exactly?

If you are looking at child porn, you are in practice supporting the supply and demand economy of the child porn industry. If nobody actually looked at it, nobody would buy it and it would not be produced because there would be no interest in seeing this stuff, or producing it.

If a perv screws a kid in the forest and there is no one there later to purchase a video of it, did the kid make a sound? I think the same amount of kids will be screwed, film or not. Before the invention of photography there were way, way more sex acts performed on children, because culture changed. But that isn't really relevant.

What I'm saying is that animals will get stomped on by high heels for pleasure, not profit. Though the profit is always there because the forest is never silent now. See what I'm saying? Animals were stomped on way, way more.. before the invention of bunny-stomper websites. The world is a sick ass stage of that stuff already. You don't contribute to animal cruelty by watching animal cruelty videos. Completely forgo the kid screwing because I can't defend that one without expelling unwanted energy and looking like a monster. Or am I arguing an analogy you used regarding no bunny stomping at all? I said what I wanted and that is all that matters thx

 

[DBT]

There is a distinction between supplying material for consumers and engaging in evil or unacceptable acts for whatever pleasure the act may provide. I was referring to the business of child porn, providing material on a scale that allows access to those who would normally have no access to this material, and probably never actually initiate this activity. As for perpetrators, they will probably always exist, if only in isolation.

 

[another1]

I was referring to the business of child porn, providing material on a scale that allows access to those who would normally have no access to this material, and probably never actually initiate this activity.

So basically you agree but I said it kinda noodle-like.

There is a lumber business, a barely-legal porn business, and a child porn business - all within 10 miles of each other. You're saying that the most exploitation in those 10 miles (excluding the filthy homes between), is at the child porn factory? Tree falls, teen runaway slips and falls on a filmed dick... and child is inevitably violated every 10 miles from here to wherever, film or no. Granted the most horrendous crime imaginable is against a child... wide scale morality isn't changed by the fact that it is marketed as entertainment. It probably PREVENTS more child sex crime, because these greasy freaks out here get their fill on tv instead of peeking out the window at the neighbor's kids?

 

[fromderinside]

Agreed. There is no demand for shit. In fact there is a demand to get rid of it. So for what is there a demand? Devices to get rid of shit.

I can interpret your remark in several ways, so I'm not sure what you mean to say.

Oh Look. fromderinside made another spelling error. How novel.

 

[DBT]

I can interpret your remark in several ways, so I'm not sure what you mean to say.

Oh Look. fromderinside made another spelling error. How novel.

I'm not sure what you meant by 'devices' - do you mean increasingly harsher penalties? Public shaming, or something else?

 

[DBT]

I was referring to the business of child porn, providing material on a scale that allows access to those who would normally have no access to this material, and probably never actually initiate this activity.

So basically you agree but I said it kinda noodle-like.

Nothing ''noodle - like' about. I simply said what I think. As did you. If there was an overlap, it was not a ''noodle - like' agreement.

 

[another1]

I was referring to the business of child porn, providing material on a scale that allows access to those who would normally have no access to this material, and probably never actually initiate this activity

The videos and pictures don't initiate activity. If a person likes child porn, they're already sick. You don't develop a taste for it. You agree, right?

An affinity for child porn is the symptom of a sickness. The existence of child porn neither perpetuates the crime, nor "initiates" some sick part of the brain that could drive a person to hurt a child. The brain malfunction is either there, or it isn't. You agree, right?

So we noodle-agree, right? Like those dogs in the movie, eating noodles that turn out to be one single noodle. 10,000 Damnations or whatever the hell it was called. The same noodle ya know. Al dente when it comes to child porn issues, but still agreeing. Still a noodle.

Watching R-Kelly videos makes me want to pee on no one but R-Kelly. Is this more of an R-Kelly type of agreement?

 

[DBT]

I was referring to the business of child porn, providing material on a scale that allows access to those who would normally have no access to this material, and probably never actually initiate this activity

The videos and pictures don't initiate activity. If a person likes child porn, they're already sick. You don't develop a taste for it. You agree, right?

Not necessarily. Not everyone is the same. There may be a percentage of guys who begin with curiosity, just a look, then another look, then finding they are developing a taste for it, an addiction is formed. Had the material not been available they would not have had access and consequently not have formed an addiction. The material being available because there are those who are willing to create a market for the material.

 

[another1]

Would you rather they look on the internet, than at the public pool? Curiosity is one thing, and it can be eased. Urges too can be eased, but in the case of pedophilia, that means either a video tape gets abused - or a child does. Child porn could be one of the greatest services to mankind. You never know. The Amber-Alert statistics could be overwhelming, if not for child porn. I don't know for sure, but common sense kicks in sometimes after a good morning smoke.

This is a very sad way to point out the inevitability of evil, and the evil ways that evils are avoided. Either way, there is no "demand" for child porn. The stuff sells itself. If they couldn't sell it, they would give it away, because children exist, cameras exist - and so does sex. Just inevitable.

 

[untermensche]

You are claiming magic.

You are claiming that just looking at something, which is what I was talking about, is somehow showing somebody else you have a demand.

Looking at, not buying.

How does that happen exactly?

If you are looking at child porn, you are in practice supporting the supply and demand economy of the child porn industry. If nobody actually looked at it, nobody would buy it and it would not be produced because there would be no interest in seeing this stuff, or producing it.

So by magic just looking at something causes people who have no idea you have looked at it to do things?

There are people who actually do things to cause the production of child pornography.

These people are criminals.

There are people who look at child pornography but have nothing to do with it's production.

They are sadistic and immoral but not criminals. They have harmed no other person with their behavior.

 

[fromderinside]

I mean terlits, sewer systems, yano products. We are talking about processes of bought and sold are we not?are we not.

 

[DBT]

If you are looking at child porn, you are in practice supporting the supply and demand economy of the child porn industry. If nobody actually looked at it, nobody would buy it and it would not be produced because there would be no interest in seeing this stuff, or producing it.

So by magic just looking at something causes people who have no idea you have looked at it to do things?

There are people who actually do things to cause the production of child pornography.

These people are criminals.

There are people who look at child pornography but have nothing to do with it's production.

They are sadistic and immoral but not criminals. They have harmed no other person with their behavior.

You and your magic. The people producing the product are producing it for those who want to use it for their own curiousity and gratification, without which there would be no point in producing it...if nobody wanted to see it. Not all consumers are willing to pay for it, but those that do pay are helping to drive the production of this material.