But it sounded as if he was saying that many people have been caught. I'm going to need a citation for that.
At most, I've seen them pretend to be children or perhaps even set up honey pots.
You rememebr that site mentioned on/. that showed eveything you've ever torrented (to some degree of accuracy)?
Well, if that's how accurate their tools are, then no one has anything to fear (not that such a thing would be useful to the police in this situation anyway).
Soon after this article, a few articles such as this showed up. And these describe perfectly the "for the children" pro-censorship mentality that I was talking about (anyone who disagrees must be a pedophile).
But this is for the children, so I must be a pedophile for disagreeing with him.
Well, you can attempt to backtrack if you like, but "appeal to popularity" is also known formally as Bandwagon fallacy. See what I mean that you don't know what you're talking about?
What? I told you that I didn't use the appeal to popularity fallacy. If you're such an expert, shouldn't you have been able to decipher that I meant that I didn't use the bandwagon fallacy?
Because I didn't. You just, yet again, misinterpreted me. In that second comment, I never specifically said that you yourself used appeal to popularity (but since you're only attacking my word usage now, I'll tell you that I mean "bandwagon fallacy").
here ya go, champ, this should help:
It didn't. Because after the first comment, you actually described what you were talking about.
Unfortunately, your claim of moral relativism isn't upheld by your statements.
Really? Meta-ethical relativism sounds like it describes my beliefs quite accurately. Are you so sure?
Regardless of what you'd call it, you now know what I believe, yes? Certainly not moral universalism.
It has nothing to do with popularity, nor what the majority of people believe.
"If a broad population would not wish to see their own children, if not explicitly exploited, even merely suggestably exploited, then its an indicator that it is very likely unethical."
Sorry, but the way you worded that made it sound like it does have to do with popularity.
By the way, I reject your tests. As a moral relativist, I believe all morals are subjective. As such, I believe that someone can think that they can do something and have it be a "good" thing, while if someone else does it, it's "evil." I'm sure people might not agree with them, but that's irrelevant to me.
It is NOT Bandwagon fallacy
Actually, in the second comment, I never claimed that it was (I only mentioned it as a mindset that I disagree with). It was only after you explained that you did not mean it in an objective way that I realized it was not quite the appeal to popularity fallacy.
Sounds like what you are saying is it is morally acceptable to you ( "you don't care") that pornographic images of children exist so long as no child was physically harmed. You haven't thought this out properly.
I haven't thought it out properly? An interesting assertion to make. How do you know I have thought it out, but just disagree with you? Shocking, I know.
But there is no Bandwagon fallacy, thus, again, your argument is a strawman.
Looks like you just misinterpreted my second comment to me.
morally acceptable to you
Since I said that I didn't care, technically I'd be apathetic. Not accepting and not opposing.
By what you have said, you are perfectly ok with peep holes in bathrooms for the purpose of photographing children so long as no child gets hurt, and since they are unaware, they are not hurt.
I fail to see how that's relevant to commercials and the like where all parties know of the footage and are consenting.
As for my personal feelings? I don't really care about such things, either.
The reason is that while he may be claiming not to harm children, he is viewing material where children were (psychologically) harmed during the production of the material. Maybe he's not raping little girls, but he is providing demand, and the suppliers are harming children.
I'd say that's the fault of the suppliers (the people I think we should go after).
In any case, did he actually view material where children were being psychologically harmed? It looked like he just frequented the subreddits that were banned (and those didn't contain actual illegal child porn).
Firstly, it is not an appeal to popularity, or bandwagon fallacy, as its usually called. It is an ethical test known as ethical universalization, and it is not definitive, but is a very strong indicator.
Alright, not definitive.
But a very strong indicator? I disagree entirely. When someone claims that a majority of people believe something, the only thing I conclude from that is that a majority of people believe something. I don't conclude that something is true (appeal to popularity), that it's more likely (only in certain people's opinions), or anything such as that. It either is or it isn't, and a majority believing something isn't going to make it more likely to be true.
Frankly, I don't even care what a majority of people believe, and I don't believe in absolute morals.
Secondly, this dialogue is pointless unless you can accept that the exploitation is there whether or not there is someone masterbating to it.
I think you might have ignored me when I said things such as, "Are they being held against their will, raped, or is anyone doing anything that could hurt them? If not, then no."
I fail to see how being in provocative commercials equates to any of those if they're not doing it against their will. Chances are, they don't even understand it. I simply don't care (which I've said multiple times).
No, it isn't. What I would or would not do if I was in another situation than I am now is irrelevant to whether or not my current arguments are wrong.
Would you be offended if someone looked at your children in a sexual way if you were someone who didn't care about that kind of thing? I can create many scenarios where your viewpoint is different from how it is now, but that wouldn't make you wrong.
even merely suggestably exploited, then its an indicator that it is very likely unethical.
Right. Because appeal to popularity is a nice way to prove something.
We are not talking about "thought crime,"
It looks like you are. Some people masturbate to some picture/video, and apparently they need to be stopped. We must save the children in their thoughts!
Its not a particularly difficult question to answer... allow me to rephrase.
It is a difficult question to answer when you don't have children. If I had children, and I didn't change from how I am now, no.
Would you like it if your own child (or if you are childless, then substitute a little sister, or a baby niece, or what have you) were sexually exploited, even if only in a suggestable sense?
"If I had children, and I didn't change from how I am now, no. "
Do you take any issue whatsoever with the sexualization of fully clothed minors?
Are they being held against their will, raped, or is anyone doing anything that could hurt them? If not, then no.
That is interesting. So if a pedophile had pictures or video of your children fully clothed, and used these images as props for sexual arousal, you just wouldn't care.
I don't know, and I don't think it's relevant. Banning things because you don't like them is not, I feel, a good solution.
Besides, whether or not you know it, it likely happens. I'm not a fan of thoughtcrime (as you seem to be), and I, at least right now, don't really care what person fantasies they have.
Who raised you?
Irrelevant. Difficult to believe that someone can disagree with what may or may not be the norm, isn't it?
Just his yard!? Are you mad!? He could be raping children in his bathroom! We need surveillance equipment installed in every single nook and cranny in his house!
This shouldn't be a problem if he has nothing to hide.
Now we just need to get rid of it permanently, get rid of the TSA, get rid of the Patriot Act, get rid of the concept of free speech zones, drastically change our current two party system, get rid of any and all warrantless wiretapping/surveillance, get rid of any unconstitutional laws, get rid of this "for the children" mentality that encourages censorship, and probably many other things, as well.
"In order to get rid of terrorism, we, the government, need to execute every citizen and person on the planet. Anyone who opposes this is clearly a terrorist and/or supports the rights of terrorists!"
It is a natural instinct in the majority of humans to see something bad happening to a child as more tragic than that exact same bad thing happening to an adult.
I suspect this might be why a majority of humans seem like they'd be perfect to participate in the Salem witch trials (only, instead of witches, the pedophile boogeyman). I'm not sure that they have to be that way, either. They probably just don't want to change.
"I'm not defending child, but I don't think that we should ban the internet because a few people might use it to distribute child porn. That would cause far too much collateral damage." "Aha! You said, 'I'm not defending child porn, but.' Therefore, your arguments are invalidated." "Wow! That's absolutely genius and not completely irrelevant at all! Yes, ban the internet on some burn the witches crusade!"
Does that qualify? The person's statement did start with that, after all.
Then our dispute boils down to mere preferences. How do you propose to convince me that we shouldn't allow abortion if you can't remove them without killing them (if that's what you meant to imply)?
I... really can't find myself caring. Is it legal? Are the children actually being sexually abused? If both of those answers turn out to be "no," then I really don't care.
Again, the fact that some people masturbate to a picture/video simply does not concern me.
I don't need to be able to read minds to have a good idea what they're thinking
You do if you make the assumption that they don't care about anyone merely because they think "for the children" arguments are pure idiocy.
How do you propose to help protect people from rape?
First of all, I'll tell you what I would not do: censor everything in some vain attempt to burn the pedophile boogeyman, circumvent due process, throw people in prison based on mere accusations, or get up in arms about clothed pictures of children merely because someone might be masturbating to them somewhere. There's probably a few more, but I think you get the idea.
How do we protect people from rape now? From what I see, there's not a whole lot we can do beyond what we're doing now (unless I'm missing something). And censorship of everything because some people think that pictures might make people go out and rape others is unacceptable to me (just like how some people say that video games cause violence). I simply don't see how we could do much more than we're doing now without infringing upon civil rights.
But if the anti-censorship extremists aren't going to take the time to pony up real, honest arguments, then other people will rationally regard them as assholes.
"Rationally"? Whatever you agree with is rational?
If someone were to suggest to me that we should get rid of copyright infringement by shooting everyone, I would call them imbeciles. If they then suggested that I'm an "asshole" because I do not have another solution to get rid of copyright infringement, I would again call them imbeciles. The fact that I don't have another solution doesn't mean that whatever solution you propose is a good thing (just thought that needed to be said), nor does it mean that I can't voice my concerns about your solution. It doesn't even mean that I don't care about others (assumption, guilt by association, etc).
I said nothing about banning technologies.
I didn't say that you did say anything about that. It was a general statement that I'm against such a mentality.
But so far you haven't said anything that separates you from the others that I had in mind.
Because you seem to like to characterize everyone who disagrees with you on this issue as some sort of person who doesn't care for others. Why? Again: how did you reached such a conclusion merely from the fact that they (and I) am against censorship? Are you saying that you know what's in our minds better than we do?
There is also an objective element. How about acknowledging the objective side of 'decency' also, instead of always blowing it off as subjective?
Slashdot Mirror
But it sounded as if he was saying that many people have been caught. I'm going to need a citation for that.
At most, I've seen them pretend to be children or perhaps even set up honey pots.
You rememebr that site mentioned on /. that showed eveything you've ever torrented (to some degree of accuracy)?
Well, if that's how accurate their tools are, then no one has anything to fear (not that such a thing would be useful to the police in this situation anyway).
Spoken like someone who's never seen a pediatric traumatic brain injury case
He's surely defeated now. If he was in a different situation (if he had seen that), then he'd change his mind. His argument is invalid!
Given the amount of people who are regularly busted for KP clearly based on tracking of their internet usage
Oh? By tracking their internet usage? Is this true?
I'd rather have none of it be illegal.
Soon after this article, a few articles such as this showed up. And these describe perfectly the "for the children" pro-censorship mentality that I was talking about (anyone who disagrees must be a pedophile).
But this is for the children, so I must be a pedophile for disagreeing with him.
Anyone is now free to examine that your position is much closer to that of psychological egoism
They are? That doesn't sound like my belief at all. I wouldn't make any such assumptions about another person's reasons for helping another person.
Unlike some people, I don't try to pretend to be a mind reader. What were you even talking about?
Well, you can attempt to backtrack if you like, but "appeal to popularity" is also known formally as Bandwagon fallacy. See what I mean that you don't know what you're talking about?
What? I told you that I didn't use the appeal to popularity fallacy. If you're such an expert, shouldn't you have been able to decipher that I meant that I didn't use the bandwagon fallacy?
Because I didn't. You just, yet again, misinterpreted me. In that second comment, I never specifically said that you yourself used appeal to popularity (but since you're only attacking my word usage now, I'll tell you that I mean "bandwagon fallacy").
here ya go, champ, this should help:
It didn't. Because after the first comment, you actually described what you were talking about.
Unfortunately, your claim of moral relativism isn't upheld by your statements.
Really? Meta-ethical relativism sounds like it describes my beliefs quite accurately. Are you so sure?
Regardless of what you'd call it, you now know what I believe, yes? Certainly not moral universalism.
The fact that you think that indicates your lack of intellect.
The fact that you think that indicates your lack of intellect. Aha!
It has nothing to do with popularity, nor what the majority of people believe.
"If a broad population would not wish to see their own children, if not explicitly exploited, even merely suggestably exploited, then its an indicator that it is very likely unethical."
Sorry, but the way you worded that made it sound like it does have to do with popularity.
By the way, I reject your tests. As a moral relativist, I believe all morals are subjective. As such, I believe that someone can think that they can do something and have it be a "good" thing, while if someone else does it, it's "evil." I'm sure people might not agree with them, but that's irrelevant to me.
It is NOT Bandwagon fallacy
Actually, in the second comment, I never claimed that it was (I only mentioned it as a mindset that I disagree with). It was only after you explained that you did not mean it in an objective way that I realized it was not quite the appeal to popularity fallacy.
Sounds like what you are saying is it is morally acceptable to you ( "you don't care") that pornographic images of children exist so long as no child was physically harmed. You haven't thought this out properly.
I haven't thought it out properly? An interesting assertion to make. How do you know I have thought it out, but just disagree with you? Shocking, I know.
But there is no Bandwagon fallacy, thus, again, your argument is a strawman.
Looks like you just misinterpreted my second comment to me.
morally acceptable to you
Since I said that I didn't care, technically I'd be apathetic. Not accepting and not opposing.
By what you have said, you are perfectly ok with peep holes in bathrooms for the purpose of photographing children so long as no child gets hurt, and since they are unaware, they are not hurt.
I fail to see how that's relevant to commercials and the like where all parties know of the footage and are consenting.
As for my personal feelings? I don't really care about such things, either.
The reason is that while he may be claiming not to harm children, he is viewing material where children were (psychologically) harmed during the production of the material. Maybe he's not raping little girls, but he is providing demand, and the suppliers are harming children.
I'd say that's the fault of the suppliers (the people I think we should go after).
In any case, did he actually view material where children were being psychologically harmed? It looked like he just frequented the subreddits that were banned (and those didn't contain actual illegal child porn).
I never said much about reddit.
I'm simply replying to people who seem to be on pedophile witch hunts because some people are looking at images.
they don't want their site to be a pedo hangout
Then people shouldn't visit that portion of the website (not to mention the fact that there probably aren't that many pedophiles anyway).
Firstly, it is not an appeal to popularity, or bandwagon fallacy, as its usually called. It is an ethical test known as ethical universalization, and it is not definitive, but is a very strong indicator.
Alright, not definitive.
But a very strong indicator? I disagree entirely. When someone claims that a majority of people believe something, the only thing I conclude from that is that a majority of people believe something. I don't conclude that something is true (appeal to popularity), that it's more likely (only in certain people's opinions), or anything such as that. It either is or it isn't, and a majority believing something isn't going to make it more likely to be true.
Frankly, I don't even care what a majority of people believe, and I don't believe in absolute morals.
Secondly, this dialogue is pointless unless you can accept that the exploitation is there whether or not there is someone masterbating to it.
I think you might have ignored me when I said things such as, "Are they being held against their will, raped, or is anyone doing anything that could hurt them? If not, then no."
I fail to see how being in provocative commercials equates to any of those if they're not doing it against their will. Chances are, they don't even understand it. I simply don't care (which I've said multiple times).
It is relevant
No, it isn't. What I would or would not do if I was in another situation than I am now is irrelevant to whether or not my current arguments are wrong.
Would you be offended if someone looked at your children in a sexual way if you were someone who didn't care about that kind of thing? I can create many scenarios where your viewpoint is different from how it is now, but that wouldn't make you wrong.
even merely suggestably exploited, then its an indicator that it is very likely unethical.
Right. Because appeal to popularity is a nice way to prove something.
We are not talking about "thought crime,"
It looks like you are. Some people masturbate to some picture/video, and apparently they need to be stopped. We must save the children in their thoughts!
Its not a particularly difficult question to answer... allow me to rephrase.
It is a difficult question to answer when you don't have children. If I had children, and I didn't change from how I am now, no.
Would you like it if your own child (or if you are childless, then substitute a little sister, or a baby niece, or what have you) were sexually exploited, even if only in a suggestable sense?
"If I had children, and I didn't change from how I am now, no. "
Do you take any issue whatsoever with the sexualization of fully clothed minors?
Are they being held against their will, raped, or is anyone doing anything that could hurt them? If not, then no.
but it won't excuse you from any damages caused by your doing so
Or, more specifically, it won't excuse the people who actually stampeded over other people trying to 'save' themselves.
That is interesting. So if a pedophile had pictures or video of your children fully clothed, and used these images as props for sexual arousal, you just wouldn't care.
I don't know, and I don't think it's relevant. Banning things because you don't like them is not, I feel, a good solution.
Besides, whether or not you know it, it likely happens. I'm not a fan of thoughtcrime (as you seem to be), and I, at least right now, don't really care what person fantasies they have.
Who raised you?
Irrelevant. Difficult to believe that someone can disagree with what may or may not be the norm, isn't it?
I demand 24/7 surveillance over your yard
Just his yard!? Are you mad!? He could be raping children in his bathroom! We need surveillance equipment installed in every single nook and cranny in his house!
This shouldn't be a problem if he has nothing to hide.
Temporarily.
Now we just need to get rid of it permanently, get rid of the TSA, get rid of the Patriot Act, get rid of the concept of free speech zones, drastically change our current two party system, get rid of any and all warrantless wiretapping/surveillance, get rid of any unconstitutional laws, get rid of this "for the children" mentality that encourages censorship, and probably many other things, as well.
"In order to get rid of terrorism, we, the government, need to execute every citizen and person on the planet. Anyone who opposes this is clearly a terrorist and/or supports the rights of terrorists!"
That logic is simply undeniable.
Not once in your comment did you claim to be super mega ultra anti-child porn. What are you, some sort of pedophile?
It is a natural instinct in the majority of humans to see something bad happening to a child as more tragic than that exact same bad thing happening to an adult.
I suspect this might be why a majority of humans seem like they'd be perfect to participate in the Salem witch trials (only, instead of witches, the pedophile boogeyman). I'm not sure that they have to be that way, either. They probably just don't want to change.
"I'm not defending child, but I don't think that we should ban the internet because a few people might use it to distribute child porn. That would cause far too much collateral damage."
"Aha! You said, 'I'm not defending child porn, but.' Therefore, your arguments are invalidated."
"Wow! That's absolutely genius and not completely irrelevant at all! Yes, ban the internet on some burn the witches crusade!"
Does that qualify? The person's statement did start with that, after all.
I'd like that some could explain me again how the free distribution of CP damanges the CP industry
I don't think it damages them. I think it makes it more difficult for them to profit (which I think also applies to copyright infringement).
Then our dispute boils down to mere preferences. How do you propose to convince me that we shouldn't allow abortion if you can't remove them without killing them (if that's what you meant to imply)?
I... really can't find myself caring. Is it legal? Are the children actually being sexually abused? If both of those answers turn out to be "no," then I really don't care.
Again, the fact that some people masturbate to a picture/video simply does not concern me.
I don't need to be able to read minds to have a good idea what they're thinking
You do if you make the assumption that they don't care about anyone merely because they think "for the children" arguments are pure idiocy.
How do you propose to help protect people from rape?
First of all, I'll tell you what I would not do: censor everything in some vain attempt to burn the pedophile boogeyman, circumvent due process, throw people in prison based on mere accusations, or get up in arms about clothed pictures of children merely because someone might be masturbating to them somewhere. There's probably a few more, but I think you get the idea.
How do we protect people from rape now? From what I see, there's not a whole lot we can do beyond what we're doing now (unless I'm missing something). And censorship of everything because some people think that pictures might make people go out and rape others is unacceptable to me (just like how some people say that video games cause violence). I simply don't see how we could do much more than we're doing now without infringing upon civil rights.
But if the anti-censorship extremists aren't going to take the time to pony up real, honest arguments, then other people will rationally regard them as assholes.
"Rationally"? Whatever you agree with is rational?
If someone were to suggest to me that we should get rid of copyright infringement by shooting everyone, I would call them imbeciles. If they then suggested that I'm an "asshole" because I do not have another solution to get rid of copyright infringement, I would again call them imbeciles. The fact that I don't have another solution doesn't mean that whatever solution you propose is a good thing (just thought that needed to be said), nor does it mean that I can't voice my concerns about your solution. It doesn't even mean that I don't care about others (assumption, guilt by association, etc).
I said nothing about banning technologies.
I didn't say that you did say anything about that. It was a general statement that I'm against such a mentality.
But so far you haven't said anything that separates you from the others that I had in mind.
Because you seem to like to characterize everyone who disagrees with you on this issue as some sort of person who doesn't care for others. Why? Again: how did you reached such a conclusion merely from the fact that they (and I) am against censorship? Are you saying that you know what's in our minds better than we do?
There is also an objective element. How about acknowledging the objective side of 'decency' also, instead of always blowing it off as subjective?
Where is the "objective element"?