Posted by MikeT23 on 7/11/2013 12:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 7/11/2013 12:31:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/11/2013 12:25:00 PM (view original):
No, you need to retain information. 

Do you think someone not producing, distributing, purchasing or, in any way, creating more demand for child porn is doing harm to anyone?

So we've added "will not act on any urge to acquire more child porn" to this narrow scenario.

I don't think we've added it.  I believe, ever since tec took the "child porn" path, that everyone has agreed that creating more demand is harmful.    "Acquiring more child porn" would create more demand, no?

"acquiring more child porn," as you agreed, is a possible effect of watching child porn is this narrow scenario.  Saying "no, tec said that wouldn't happen in this scneario" is silly. 

A: "What's wrong with me driving home drunk last night?"
B: "You might have killed yourself or someone else."
A: "But I didn't. So there's nothing wrong with what I did."

Posted by burnsy483 on 7/11/2013 12:40:00 PM (view original):
You think about having sex with women.  You may try to convince a woman to have sex with you.  If she does, it doesn't mean it's rape.

JoePerv thinks about having sex with children.  He may try to convince a child to have sex with him.  If the child does, it's rape.

And if she doesn't agree, I don't rape her.   Because I'm not a rapist. 

I seriously think you're missing the point. 

Posted by burnsy483 on 7/11/2013 12:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/11/2013 12:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 7/11/2013 12:31:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/11/2013 12:25:00 PM (view original):
No, you need to retain information. 

Do you think someone not producing, distributing, purchasing or, in any way, creating more demand for child porn is doing harm to anyone?

So we've added "will not act on any urge to acquire more child porn" to this narrow scenario.

I don't think we've added it.  I believe, ever since tec took the "child porn" path, that everyone has agreed that creating more demand is harmful.    "Acquiring more child porn" would create more demand, no?

"acquiring more child porn," as you agreed, is a possible effect of watching child porn is this narrow scenario.  Saying "no, tec said that wouldn't happen in this scneario" is silly. 

A: "What's wrong with me driving home drunk last night?"
B: "You might have killed yourself or someone else."
A: "But I didn't. So there's nothing wrong with what I did."

It's the scenario we're dealing with. 

Have you ever tried something once but never again?

"While the situation may be different, the thought is the same.   We think about having sex with that woman.   We don't think about raping either of them.    Because we're not rapists."

The thought process may be the same, but in the case of JoePerv, he's thinking about raping the child.  Because you cannot have sex with a child without raping them.

Yeah, you're missing the point. 

JoePerv is thinking about raping children whether he's driving past the playground or watching child porn.   A trigger is a trigger.

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/11/2013 12:50:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 7/11/2013 12:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/11/2013 12:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 7/11/2013 12:31:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/11/2013 12:25:00 PM (view original):
No, you need to retain information. 

Do you think someone not producing, distributing, purchasing or, in any way, creating more demand for child porn is doing harm to anyone?

So we've added "will not act on any urge to acquire more child porn" to this narrow scenario.

I don't think we've added it.  I believe, ever since tec took the "child porn" path, that everyone has agreed that creating more demand is harmful.    "Acquiring more child porn" would create more demand, no?

"acquiring more child porn," as you agreed, is a possible effect of watching child porn is this narrow scenario.  Saying "no, tec said that wouldn't happen in this scneario" is silly. 

A: "What's wrong with me driving home drunk last night?"
B: "You might have killed yourself or someone else."
A: "But I didn't. So there's nothing wrong with what I did."

It's the scenario we're dealing with. 

Have you ever tried something once but never again?

Sure.

What's wrong with me snorting cocaine if I find it in the trash can, use it by myself in my house, I don't get hurt, and if I don't ever do it again?  It's a stupid scenario.  There's nothing potentially wrong with doing anything if you take out all the possible bad things that can happen.

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/11/2013 12:57:00 PM (view original):
Yeah, you're missing the point. 

JoePerv is thinking about raping children whether he's driving past the playground or watching child porn.   A trigger is a trigger.

OK.  I'd argue him watching child porn may be more of a trigger, since it's actual sex you're watching rather than someone fully clothed.  You think I'm wrong.  Fine.

Posted by burnsy483 on 7/11/2013 1:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/11/2013 12:57:00 PM (view original):
Yeah, you're missing the point. 

JoePerv is thinking about raping children whether he's driving past the playground or watching child porn.   A trigger is a trigger.

OK.  I'd argue him watching child porn may be more of a trigger, since it's actual sex you're watching rather than someone fully clothed.  You think I'm wrong.  Fine.

It may be less of a trigger.  People get excited over different things. 

Posted by burnsy483 on 7/11/2013 1:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/11/2013 12:50:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 7/11/2013 12:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/11/2013 12:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 7/11/2013 12:31:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/11/2013 12:25:00 PM (view original):
No, you need to retain information. 

Do you think someone not producing, distributing, purchasing or, in any way, creating more demand for child porn is doing harm to anyone?

So we've added "will not act on any urge to acquire more child porn" to this narrow scenario.

I don't think we've added it.  I believe, ever since tec took the "child porn" path, that everyone has agreed that creating more demand is harmful.    "Acquiring more child porn" would create more demand, no?

"acquiring more child porn," as you agreed, is a possible effect of watching child porn is this narrow scenario.  Saying "no, tec said that wouldn't happen in this scneario" is silly. 

A: "What's wrong with me driving home drunk last night?"
B: "You might have killed yourself or someone else."
A: "But I didn't. So there's nothing wrong with what I did."

It's the scenario we're dealing with. 

Have you ever tried something once but never again?

Sure.

What's wrong with me snorting cocaine if I find it in the trash can, use it by myself in my house, I don't get hurt, and if I don't ever do it again?  It's a stupid scenario.  There's nothing potentially wrong with doing anything if you take out all the possible bad things that can happen.

So, in this very narrow scenario, you'd be for the legaization of possession of child porn?

Hahaha. No. Unless nobody the child knows knows that the child was in child porn.  Including the child, he repressed the memory.  And the repressing doesn't effect him negatively in any way moving forward.  This way he doesn't know growing up that there is video of himself being raped as an 8 year old.  And of course, nobody he knows ever sees the video or hears about it.  And as you said, the person who sees the video never creates any demand for additional child porn, and never acts on his desires to have sex with children.  In this scenario, sure it's fine.

It's fine in the same way where I can murder someone who turns out was homeless, had no family, was going to kill himself later that day anyway, and nobody found out about it.  It's just fine and dandy.

So you don't suscribe to BL's Big 3 requirements for legalization?

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/11/2013 1:17:00 PM (view original):
So you don't suscribe to BL's Big 3 requirements for legalization?

I think they're pretty good reasons.  There are issues with watching child porn (harms someone...unless we're back to "but what if nothing bad will happen" which means we can allow murder in some cases).

FWIW, we've done a good job of forgetting "equality" when it comes to SSM. 

Already covered. 

So mike, you think the guy watching child porn:

Is being made happy by the porn
Isn't affecting anyone else
Isn't harming anyone (side note, seems like 2 & 3 are the same)

Why then do you think is possession still illegal?

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/11/2013 12:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 7/11/2013 12:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/11/2013 12:25:00 PM (view original):
No, you need to retain information. 

Do you think someone not producing, distributing, purchasing or, in any way, creating more demand for child porn is doing harm to anyone?

No, not in that very narrow instance. Do you?

So, since it meets your Big 3, "Makes people happy", "More personal freedom" and "Doesn't affect anyone else", you'd be fine with legalizing the possession of child porn, in this very narrow case, of course?

I'll need an answer.