12 ms·

1) Are you advancing the argument that abuse of children is an economic response to demand, and not that the perpetrator wanted to do it in the first place? 2)

• vinceguidry 10y ago
  > Are you advancing the argument that abuse of children is an economic response to demand, and not that the perpetrator wanted to do it in the first place? There is abuse of children, then there's the act of making recordings of it for others to consume. The latter certainly functions on a demand curve, as it takes more work to produce something than it is to just do it. > How does this argument explain the illegality of drawings depicting underage sex with none of the depictions being based on a real-life individual? There probably isn't much rationality to it. Legislation is more of a political process than a rational one. > I believe that it's more consistent to believe that society finds paedophilia to be disgusting and that due to their disgust that paedophiles should be jailed. I would agree with that assessment. But there's also a shocking amount of truly, unbearably horrific content in the world. Disgust may not be the most rational basis to make something illegal on, but it's better than nothing. Laws are intended to be iterated on over time, a more nuanced view will eventually prevail, though it might take decades. > It's a somewhat risky viewpoint to espouse that "paedophilia in and of itself should not be illegal, abuse of a victim should" given the fervor of the people against paedophilia, but I think it is more congruent with a living in a free society. Paedophilia is not illegal. It's child abuse and possession of child pornography that's illegal. You can't convict someone of being a paedophile, there's no law against it.
  • Programmatic 10y ago
    > There is abuse of children, then there's the act of making recordings of it for others to consume. The latter certainly functions on a demand curve, as it takes more work to produce something than it is to just do it. With the Rhino argument, the entire reason for the act occurring is economic (kill rhino, collect horn, get paid). For paedos, the act occurs because they want to do it. Being able to gain social standing or affirmation is secondary. People record child pornography for posterity without distributing it. > There probably isn't much rationality to it. Legislation is more of a political process than a rational one. Agreed, and that is the thesis of my argument. > I would agree with that assessment. But there's also a shocking amount of truly, unbearably horrific content in the world. Disgust may not be the most rational basis to make something illegal on, but it's better than nothing. Laws are intended to be iterated on over time, a more nuanced view will eventually prevail, though it might take decades. Disgust is not a reasonable basis for making something illegal. At a bare minimum, I believe that the first amendment rights of people drawing depictions of child abuse are being violated. But it's "icky" and not politically viable to defend, so nobody defends them. > Paedophilia is not illegal. It's child abuse and possession of child pornography that's illegal. You can't convict someone of being a paedophile, there's no law against it. Possession of something that depicts, but is not, child pornography is also illegal (and to your point, irrational to make illegal). At the risk of losing my footing to try to make a point, I think it's somewhat similar if someone said "Being homosexual isn't illegal but engaging in any act whatsoever, whether it victimizes anyone or not, is." We've already ruled that sodomy laws violate people's constitutional rights. I'm not saying that paedophiles should have the right to express their affinity with children (they cannot consent), but removing all outlets for it smacks of trying to pray the gay away. I think our nation would be far more sane if we decriminalized mere possession of child pornography, as disgusting as it is. I would rather have my fifth amendment right not to decrypt a drive than catch people that have not directly (and I would argue also not indirectly) harmed anyone by viewing images.
    • vinceguidry 10y ago
      > People record child pornography for posterity without distributing it. Doesn't matter, this material leaks out into the world and becomes part of sharing networks. In these networks, paedophiles can live and participate in a world in which these thoughts and this behavior is OK. With social validation eventually comes boldness and the willingness and desire to create ones own content. Do you have a hobby? I like food. I like talking about food, cooking food, I take pleasure in being able to discern subtle flavorings in dishes and having an appreciation for real Chinese food as opposed to bland American Chinese shit. All of that time and effort I put into food, there are vast numbers of paedophiles that do this for videos of children being abused. Without the moral stigma, these people will get bolder and bolder, and before you know it, there's a paedophile political lobby just like the gun and homosexual rights lobby. Is this a world you want to live in? Countenanced with this, is disgust as a source for the political capital to fight paedophilia really such a bad thing? Do you really want to grant legitimacy to that way of life? Because that's where your line of thought goes. Yes, it's awful that if you are wired that way, you're pretty much fucked and that's terrible and I feel bad for you. But it's really, really morally fucked up and repugnant and wrong to allow yourself the inner freedom to explore your sexuality on these networks if that's the case. You deserve to be locked up and shamed if you give in to your urges. There's no easy way through this.