Morality of brains

[untermensche]

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.

If it is produced it is produced by specific people. They are guilty for it's production. Nobody else.

If somebody pays for the production they are guilty for it's production as well.

Crimes do not float through the air as if by some magic spell and attach to others.

People are responsible for what they do, not what other people do.

If somebody looks at child pornography they are guilty of looking at something. Not producing something.

When we make looking at things a crime there is no limit to the insane crimes we can invent.

 

[another1]

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.

I doubt any normal man can see the naked body of a child in a video and get turned on. If he does, he had the illness long beforehand - and he knew it. Or she? Why is my pronounage so messed up today. Men and women seek out the material. They even pay for it. But the material is THERE, with or without money. Why didn't you take my cue to make this about animal cruelty? Now it feels all icky.

But anyway, you're talking about the world's oldest activity. Kids having sex with adults. Some people do it out of cultural obligation, even in today's world. Weird tribes and such. Other people are sick. But they're going to be sick long after digital cameras are rendered useless in the dusty radiation. Mutants will violate their children beneath the carnage with no concept of buying or selling anything, because lust was always in their nature. Putting things into holes for no reason other than putting something into a hole. Pretty simple if you ask me DTB.

 

[DBT]

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.

I doubt any normal man can see the naked body of a child in a video and get turned on. If he does, he had the illness long beforehand - and he knew it. .

Curiosity doesn't necessarily mean getting turned on by the material, there may be other reasons, the morbid curiousity of people gathering to sticky beak at a car crash or some other disaster. But this is beside the point, the point being the creation of demand - for whatever reason - driving production. Which is overwhelmingly driven by sick minds.

 

[another1]

Nothing involving sex applies a business model from the beginning. Sex happens because it feels good and the psychological buffs and etc. Sex happens constantly. Feel the ground, that is the humping of rats and gross centipedes. Animals are too sexually bizarre to bring into this but humans are especially screwed up, when it comes to sex. The Bible says some really off base things sometimes. But yeah, human happens to have sex with every object on earth. Some of them are kids. There is a market because cameras exist, not because people say hey please have sex with that random object and sell me the proof.

I could accuse cameras for every atrocity committed since their invention, if someone gets off on seeing mob hit photos. I could accuse Polaroid of corrupting the whole world with sin because animals are sexy to some people. If I were to blame anything in the situation I'd start there, but that would be useless. Cameras can't be uninvented.

 

[DBT]

Nothing involving sex applies a business model from the beginning.

I'm not talking about a business model. Business and its various models depend on the needs and wants of consumers. If consumers want something, there is a business model waiting in the wings to fulfil these wants and needs.

Wants and needs come first. Business smells an opportunity to make money and sets about the best way to fulfil these needs and wants in order to gratify consumers, and more importantly, make money.

Of course, there are groups that form in order to make and share material that may not be otherwise available, black market trade, etc.

But without an awareness that the material is available, curiousity or gratification cannot be fulfilled.

Without the curiousity or perceived need for gratification, nobody is interested in seeing this stuff or making it.

Of course, that is a pipe dream.

I suppose the realistic option is to make the consequences of getting caught severe enough that this deters would be consumers of this material from indulging in their sick fantasies.

 

[Bronzeage]

This doesn't really have to get that complicated. If you desire and consume a product which requires the exploitation and injury of people who have no control over what is happening to them, you are as guilty as those who produce the product. It doesn't matter if money is involved, or not. You are a bad person. In any context, you are an immoral person.

 

[DBT]

This doesn't really have to get that complicated. If you desire and consume a product which requires the exploitation and injury of people who have no control over what is happening to them, you are as guilty as those who produce the product. It doesn't matter if money is involved, or not. You are a bad person. In any context, you are an immoral person.

Yes, I think that it is as simple as that.

 

[another1]

I think the absence of Child pornography in society would result in more child abuse, so that would be how I put it. Not that anything is right about hurting a child.

Say I want to watch an eagle eating a nest of eggs and I throw some change into a public telescope thing. The telescope was placed there to observe nature. The people who put it there know that nature is an incest driven gene swarm of violence... to the young and old alike. People want to stop with their strollers and shopping bags to put money into the telescope all the time. But here I am watching eggs devoured in public right. And that is natural, innocent, and a decent nough analogy for animal cruelty, which was what I was going to talk about. Not the details of business and the abuse of children. Partly... maybe, in the inevitability sense, but not really. In the sense that nature is disgusting and animals rape pups as a general greeting.

Some people are even under the impression that we evolved from animals. How far from nature and history do we need to step... to even approach the "right" or "wrong" way to behave sexually. I don't know but I see a very good argument from that angle alone.

It doesn't matter if money is involved, or not. You are a bad person. In any context, you are an immoral person. That sums it up on the kids issue. On the surface. I'm just not into debating that deeper. I am right in my assertion about the absence of the material and what it would mean to millions more children. Every pornographically exploited child is playing Christ for a thousand that won't be exploited, basically.

 

[Bronzeage]

I think the absence of Child pornography in society would result in more child abuse, so that would be how I put it. Not that anything is right about hurting a child.

Say I want to watch an eagle eating a nest of eggs and I throw some change into a public telescope thing. The telescope was placed there to observe nature. The people who put it there know that nature is an incest driven gene swarm of violence... to the young and old alike. People want to stop with their strollers and shopping bags to put money into the telescope all the time. But here I am watching eggs devoured in public right. And that is natural, innocent, and a decent nough analogy for animal cruelty, which was what I was going to talk about. Not the details of business and the abuse of children. Partly... maybe, in the inevitability sense, but not really. In the sense that nature is disgusting and animals rape pups as a general greeting.

Some people are even under the impression that we evolved from animals. How far from nature and history do we need to step... to even approach the "right" or "wrong" way to behave sexually. I don't know but I see a very good argument from that angle alone.

It doesn't matter if money is involved, or not. You are a bad person. In any context, you are an immoral person. That sums it up on the kids issue. On the surface. I'm just not into debating that deeper. I am right in my assertion about the absence of the material and what it would mean to millions more children. Every pornographically exploited child is playing Christ for a thousand that won't be exploited, basically.

This is without a doubt, the most bizarre defense of child pornography I have ever read.

 

[another1]

I swear to God... Actually I'll up it big time and swear on my Mother's life... I wasn't defending child porn man.

The idea that child porn somehow perpetuates cruelty to children... nah. I disagree. My better thinking parts just can't let me. I'm not a weirdo. Not it the pervy sense anyway. I'm just trying to be reasonable.

 

[fromderinside]

Geez. Let me introduce a Reagan concert, common sense - you know call a spade a spade stuff - to blow up absence of stuff increases other stuff. Ever hear the expression "out of sight out of mind". Apply that to reduced access to child porn. Got any clues?

 

[another1]

Out of sight out of mind doesn't mean kids won't till get abused. Out of sight works for God, and superficial things... but not child sex. They were doing the stuff to kids before cameras existed. That should be the end of my argument. The camera facilitates the crime, right? Clue?

blow up absence of stuff increases other stuff

I do not understand

common sense - you know call a spade a spade stuff

If I do understand that correctly, you're saying that I, myself, am a pedophile? God Damn dude. Really? I wouldn't satirize and make myself that to slowly break the sad news to you... that stopping child pornographers is futile.

You can talk about morality all day but it doesn't jam-up the gigantic sexpumping machine inside the planet. Hey. Question. When you watch National Geographic, and a giraffe fucks some younger giraffe as a greeting... does it dawn on you that you may have seen something you shouldn't have? I mean, those ugly giraffes are (in some twisted way) related to you, under the theory of evolution. Does that one cover giraffes? I don't know, there may be some missing giraffe clues, but take a look at every other animal if giraffes don't work. Then look at humans. Gross, huh. If we're so much evolved past them, why do we still screw our young, and get into fights over it? Makes us seem twice as primitive in that sense. Just a thought.

 

[Bronzeage]

I swear to God... Actually I'll up it big time and swear on my Mother's life... I wasn't defending child porn man.

The idea that child porn somehow perpetuates cruelty to children... nah. I disagree. My better thinking parts just can't let me. I'm not a weirdo. Not it the pervy sense anyway. I'm just trying to be reasonable.

Let's hope your mother doesn't read this forum, because you swore on her life that you weren't doing what you did in the next sentence.

 

[another1]

I guess it is "sorry Mom, I'm just a man of reason". I would say it to her actual face, as I would anyone else. In an actual talky conversation this would have been squashed very quickly with her because she knows my reasoning usually pans out somehow.

I'd say hey Mom do you think selling pictures of the moon is hurting its orbit, and start edging in from there somehow. How long has the moon been there? Ever been there yourself? Do you think taking pictures moon could benefit ocean scientists? Apparently taking pictures is enough, because no one ever goes there.

We'd close with a killer quote that totally ties it all together, like the child porn industry is as guilty as gravity. She'd accept that lacking demand for the material doesn't stop the act from occurring... and maybe eventually we'd agree that anyone who disagrees with me is immoral, because it just makes sense to do that. It is right to agree with me because I am usually right. Painfully right. Ouch it hurts to think horrible things on the basis of truth, and be right. That is when it hurts the most ya know. Mom would understand.

 

[Bronzeage]

I guess it is "sorry Mom, I'm just a man of reason". I would say it to her actual face, as I would anyone else. In an actual talky conversation this would have been squashed very quickly with her because she knows my reasoning usually pans out somehow.

I'd say hey Mom do you think selling pictures of the moon is hurting its orbit, and start edging in from there somehow. How long has the moon been there? Ever been there yourself? Do you think taking pictures moon could benefit ocean scientists? Apparently taking pictures is enough, because no one ever goes there.

We'd close with a killer quote that totally ties it all together, like the child porn industry is as guilty as gravity. She'd accept that lacking demand for the material doesn't stop the act from occurring... and maybe eventually we'd agree that anyone who disagrees with me is immoral, because it just makes sense to do that. It is right to agree with me because I am usually right. Painfully right. Ouch it hurts to think horrible things on the basis of truth, and be right. That is when it hurts the most ya know. Mom would understand.

If your mother understood anything, it would be her failure to teach you the definition of a false equivocation.

I'll be charitable toward your mother and think that perhaps this is simply a problem of you believing you have expressed yourself clearly, but your words mean something other than you intended.

 

[another1]

I guess they do mean something other than intended. I feel I've made some progress but still a ways to go. Organizational issues and whatnot. This is a polarizing subject for me because I love children. But I love simple reasoning, too. This is so simple to me, I don't understand why reasonable people don't understand, but yes... communication issues I suppose.

I think it has become clear, my concern for children, if you bother reading anything I say. If I ran into a child pornographer, I'd probably find a way to poison them and get away with it. The law doesn't punish them harshly enough. It is a sad thing. It really is.

Last analogy and I'm done- OIL. I can sell it all day long but that doesn't affect the amount that spews from the earth. I could take special orders, put it in special barrels, stamp it with emojis... whatever. It will still spew - with or without my intervention. Thank you, carry on

 

[fromderinside]

Out of sight out of mind doesn't mean kids won't till get abused. Out of sight works for God, and superficial things... but not child sex. They were doing the stuff to kids before cameras existed. That should be the end of my argument. The camera facilitates the crime, right? Clue?



I do not understand

common sense - you know call a spade a spade stuff

If I do understand that correctly, you're saying that I, myself, am a pedophile? God Damn dude. Really? I wouldn't satirize and make myself that to slowly break the sad news to you... that stopping child pornographers is futile.

You can talk about morality all day but it doesn't jam-up the gigantic sexpumping machine inside the planet. Hey. Question. When you watch National Geographic, and a giraffe fucks some younger giraffe as a greeting... does it dawn on you that you may have seen something you shouldn't have? I mean, those ugly giraffes are (in some twisted way) related to you, under the theory of evolution. Does that one cover giraffes? I don't know, there may be some missing giraffe clues, but take a look at every other animal if giraffes don't work. Then look at humans. Gross, huh. If we're so much evolved past them, why do we still screw our young, and get into fights over it? Makes us seem twice as primitive in that sense. Just a thought.

OK. That's one fuse unintended.

Let me put it another way today's humans came from unclothed humans. There it is all the time. No laws, no best practices, just a bunch of humans lead by either a smart, good looking, powerful human. I wonder what the lesson would be there. My guess is it would respond whatever way the leader permitted or dictated which could be most any way regarding children depending on external conditions. If a bunch of raped or abandoned children were the norm and the group survived and flourished then, hey, it's OK.

 

[Bronzeage]

I guess they do mean something other than intended. I feel I've made some progress but still a ways to go. Organizational issues and whatnot. This is a polarizing subject for me because I love children. But I love simple reasoning, too. This is so simple to me, I don't understand why reasonable people don't understand, but yes... communication issues I suppose.

I think it has become clear, my concern for children, if you bother reading anything I say. If I ran into a child pornographer, I'd probably find a way to poison them and get away with it. The law doesn't punish them harshly enough. It is a sad thing. It really is.

Last analogy and I'm done- OIL. I can sell it all day long but that doesn't affect the amount that spews from the earth. I could take special orders, put it in special barrels, stamp it with emojis... whatever. It will still spew - with or without my intervention. Thank you, carry on

You need to stop with analogies. It's not helping.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

I doubt any normal man can see the naked body of a child in a video and get turned on. If he does, he had the illness long beforehand - and he knew it. Or she? Why is my pronounage so messed up today. Men and women seek out the material. They even pay for it. But the material is THERE, with or without money. Why didn't you take my cue to make this about animal cruelty? Now it feels all icky.

Second this. If you don't like it you won't find it arousing at least mentally. (Testing shows that women's bodies respond to any sexual situation, interesting or not. There is no mental arousal, though.)