Castel Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 Should we throw him in jail? I don't think so. But the crimes are different. Child porn is explicitly a criminal act from beginning to end; the production and possession. Wearing Nikes is not criminal. Yes, when discussing what should be it's best to appeal to what already is, because it's not like that was what was being debated. Now, should we do more to end sweat shops and slave labor? Absolutely. And we do fight against sweatshops. Aren't they illegal here in the U.S.? Americans protest companies like Nike, and Gap and all the others for those reasons all the time. The question is: why are you complicit in one case and not another? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fallen Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 Yes, when discussing what should be it's best to appeal to what already is, because it's not like that was what was being debated. The question is: why are you complicit in one case and not another? I think I answered the question. Slave labor should and already is illegal. Can we enforce it everywhere and all the time? No. Just like we can't do it with child porn. Why is it okay to use Vicadin, but not marijuana? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Castel Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 I think I answered the question. Slave labor should and already is illegal. Can we enforce it everywhere and all the time? No. Just like we can't do it with child porn. Why is it okay to use Vicadin, but not marijuana? It's not about whether it's illegal! It's about why creating demand for it doesn't make you as complicit as creating demand for other, more reviled forms of illegal or immoral activity. The OP was fine condemning one activity and those complicit in, where is the line? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Freypie Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 I don't think the question is only the one of complicity, it's also the one of putting children at risk by not doing all they can to refrain their dangerous ill sexual desires.I mean you have people, who consume something potentially increasing their desire for childs, and likelyhood of becoming sexual predators at some point.Of course the problem is in the "potentially", and it's why I think only scientifical studies on their behaviour with or without porn (and consumption with or without the threat of punishment), can say if punishing consumers is justified or not.And by the way it's the same problem with consuming hard drugs that may increase your likelyhood of becoming a dangerous madman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fallen Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 It's not about whether it's illegal! It's about why creating demand for it doesn't make you as complicit as creating demand for other, more reviled forms of illegal or immoral activity. The OP was fine condemning one activity and those complicit in, where is the line? So what about food or gas or Cuban cigars that are made with slave labor or under less than stellar conditions? ETA: I have to run for now. Will respond later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Castel Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 So what about food or gas or Cuban cigars that are made with slave labor or under less than stellar conditions? That's what I'm asking you? What separates certain goods from making their consumers complicit as we claim pornography does? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry of the Lawn Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 That's what I'm asking you? What separates certain goods from making their consumers complicit as we claim pornography does?You have to draw a line somewhere. You can draw a causal chain from the plastic packaging of a snickers bar to the West's tolerance of Saudi Arabian oil, or from watching Chinatown to complicity in Roman Polanski's pederasty. Downloading or watching child p0rn links the viewer so closely to a crime that, for whatever reason is almost a universal tabboo, and likely perpetuates the behaviour (actually I'd have.to.check.but.Im.pretty sure that most people that sexually abuse.children were.abused.themselves?)Is it arbitrary to punish the guy watching child p0rn but not the guy wearing Nikes? Probably, but like you said, consistency is impossible, and IMO not necessarily desireable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fallen Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 That's what I'm asking you? What separates certain goods from making their consumers complicit as we claim pornography does?What stands out to me is the fact that both parties, the producer and consumer, are acting with the intent of being malicious. You can't say that about the individual who buys a pair of Nike sneakers.Furthermore, there should be different levels to similar behavior. Murder and manslaughter both end in someone's death, yet they're treated differently.I don't buy the argument that possessing child porn is the same as possessing Nike sneakers or a stolen diamond. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigFatCoward Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 how about we pull together all existing child pornography in the world,and it is ok to possess that. anything else you get the book thrown at you for possessing, and for producing you get a whole pile of books thrown at you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alarich Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 So imagine you were abused as a child and now it should be ok for some sicko to get off to these pictures that were taken against your will in what was probably the most traumatizing event in your life? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Castel Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 What stands out to me is the fact that both parties, the producer and consumer, are acting with the intent of being malicious. You can't say that about the individual who buys a pair of Nike sneakers.Furthermore, there should be different levels to similar behavior. Murder and manslaughter both end in someone's death, yet they're treated differently.I don't buy the argument that possessing child porn is the same as possessing Nike sneakers or a stolen diamond.They don't have to be the same in every respect, just of a close enough type that some distinction has to be made or your philosophy is inconsistent. Though I don't know if "intentionally acting with the intent of being malicious" here counts. I know what you're saying, and I don't want to be pedantic but that clearly doesn't seem to be the reason unless the person is a sadist, which is not really a problem for us either. So I assume that you mean that they're knowingly placing their own pleasure above the harm their support causes. I would agree that it's much clearer to the person consuming pornography that his work is illegal/bad than it is to the person buying Nikes but, if that is the meaningful difference I suspect that you'll find a lot of Nike users uncaring even if the issue was brought up in a way they couldn't avoid. For the other differences we need information that I simply don't have at hand, for example; how much child pornography is produced and how much it makes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alarich Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 I mean hey, you were only 6 at the time and your parents consented to have those pictures taken, so I guess it's bad luck for little Jimmy to have these photos traded and used as wanking material for the rest of his life. Just keep them circulating to make sure he'll never forget that greatest time of his life that he was having. Yeah, but child pornography is just like wearing sneakers. I don't think so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Castel Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 Yeah, but child pornography is just like wearing sneakers. I don't think so. Don't be dumb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cold Crashing Waves Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 Death is a suitable punishment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alarich Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 Don't be dumb. as in: it's the same? or as in: it's inconsistent? or what? ETA: your own quote They don't have to be the same in every respect, just of a close enough type that some distinction has to be made or your philosophy is inconsistent. Do you believe that these two are "of a close enough type"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Castel Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 as in: it's the same? or as in: it's inconsistent? or what? ETA: your own quote Do you believe that these two are "of a close enough type"? If you claim that people are complicit in acts that bring harm to others if they purchase the fruits of those acts, sure, for the purposes of the discussion they're close enough that you need to elaborate on why X doesn't count while Y does. Which is what the person making the claim did. It's all about framing, not making your net too big. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alarich Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 As a consumer you are always complicit. Doesn't mean we can't distinguish between not getting an education or minimum wage and getting gang raped on camera. Why is that so hard to see? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alarich Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 Also there is maybe a difference in consuming a product, where through marketing and distance (ETA: and willful ignorance) you don't see the harm you are causing and consuming something were harming a child is the actual product? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Castel Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 As a consumer you are always complicit. Doesn't mean we can't distinguish between not getting an education or minimum wage and getting gang raped on camera. Why is that so hard to see? It's not hard to see that people clearly act in a certain way. It's always best to have justifications for that though. Also there is maybe a difference in consuming a product, where through marketing and distance (ETA: and willful ignorance) you don't see the harm you are causing and consuming something were harming a child is the actual product? Did you just read my post and paraphrase it in your own words without proper attribution :P So I assume that you mean that they're knowingly placing their own pleasure above the harm their support causes. I would agree that it's much clearer to the person consuming pornography that his work is illegal/bad than it is to the person buying Nikes Of course, how wilfully ignorant you get to be is another question..for another thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guy Kilmore Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 Nike/Slave analogy fails with me as well because there is nothing inherently abnormal/dangerous in buying and wearing Nike shoes. Watching Child Pornography is a part of the aberrant behavior associated with pedophilia. It becomes collected, horded, and a defining factor in who that person is, it is an obsession and a validating force. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.