Nocilol

[FishFishRevolution]

And I probably am very familiar with all the rules and regulations of CT and FFR.

[FishFishRevolution]

Like not to double (or triple) post in a CT thread.

But I'm making a point.

[Wlfwnd91]

I'll add one more thing to this conversation, since, as FishFish said, all the valid points have been beaten to death, so I'll simply use an example from my own life and mind to support the pro-loli side.

I have a good 5 serial killer books (In the process of getting more), I've read through them all. I go to gore websites on a regular basis and I look at pictures of people who have been murdered, have committed suicide, or have simply died accidentally. I watch videos of people being slaughtered in some of the most gruesome ways you can imagine. I have a strong fascination with these sorts of things, however that does not mean that I wish to act upon what I have seen or read. Is it not possible to be the same way with some and loli? That they simply have an interest in loli, though it may be sexual interest, it's only interest nonetheless and it doesn't mean they support the act of CP, and it also doesn't mean that they'll act on it.

EDIT: Rofl @ Fishfishrevolution

[Kilroy_x]

Originally Posted by devonin

But outside the defintion in terms of government, you are saying "We think child porn is disgusting criminal behavior, but if it's a cartoon, it's peachy keen" And I just don't agree, whereas you do.

Yes. I'm fairly convinced that the reason for this is because my sense of truth doesn't require congruence with my sense of taste. I'm also fairly sure your sense of truth is quite reliant on its taste.

So if I could prove that a child was sufficiently intelligent, reasonable and self-aware to know what they were agreeing to, and the porn was in no way abusive, you would conditionally be okay with porn containing a minor?

Yes. Is that blunt enough to offend your sensibilities?

I dunno, I'd consider someone becoming sexually aroused, masturbating, and ejaculating while looking at pictures of young children to be a "result"

Ok. How can an action with a result whch only effects the individual who undertook the action- be wrong?

Er...no, that would be absurd.

That would hardly rule it out as a potential argument.

If I -don't- like the felings of having sex with little kids, or murdering people I should seek help?!

That too. Before this though, you should seek help if you don't enjoy thinking about having sex with little kids, thinking about murdering people, or if you find yourself seriosuly plotting either.

I mean to say that just as many things about someone's 'private innards' are deemed inappropriate (A desire to murder people, an obsession with their own suicide and death, and so on) I think that being sexually aroused by little kids is also inappropriate behavior. Yes that's subjective, yes that's societal, but this entire discussion centres around a subjective societal construction anyway.

Do you really think I need introduction to an opinion so common? What I mean to say; what you need introduction to; is that you're a cannibal, and if you find a mans innards in poor taste perhaps you shouldn't have consumed them in the first place. Your subjective societal construction has no right to intrude in the places you would like it to. Let society be the business of society, let no man or artist be critiqued by their own creation- before it even leaves them!

As I said, potentially several pages ago: For a large segment of the forum population, this whole discussion is a non issue. If you, personally, subjectively think that the -only- thing wrong with child porn as opposed to adult pornography is that children aren't able to make an intelligent reasoned decision to participate, then this whole discussion is moot, because obviously you won't see anything wrong with something that removes that sole objection.

Oh, but I have yet to even identify alternative ways of thinking! How can I be sure I'm right when no one has articulated their arguments thoroughly enough to entice me yet? And suppose I am right, then perhaps my assessment of you is right as well? No, of course you would dismiss my perspective as merely subjective when its truth would be too heavy to bear. There is a crucial difference to be found between my subjectivity and yours- mine does not lead to death, misery, suffering. And conveniently and congruently enough, when I remove these things from wherever they may lay- what remains is no longer evil!

Subjective valuations may have no basis but unto themselves, but their affects have effects unto others- this, to be the testament of my life.

There also appears to me to be no way to convince such a person that there is something intrinsically wrong with children in an overtly sexual context because if you don't believe that something can be intrinsically right or wrong, there is no way to provide you proof that you will accept.

Such an antiquated way of addressing reality. The subjectivity of a value is not its death. If everyone held the same values, we could just as easily assume this perfect unanimity was functionally equivalent to objectivity in values. However we don't even need to go this far. We need only do two things:

1. Identify values, and change them if need be.
2. Identify the functions of our values, and their desirability.

Our affects are to be subservient to their effects. Why? Because the effects tend to effect- our affects!

[Cavernio]

Devonin: "There also appears to me to be no way to convince such a person that there is something intrinsically wrong with children in an overtly sexual context because if you don't believe that something can be intrinsically right or wrong, there is no way to provide you proof that you will accept."

I agree with you here. But what then happens when 2 people who believe in intrinsic right or wrong have 2 differing opinions of what's right and wrong though? Do you believe that everyone's intrinsic morality is the same?

[devonin]

If you believe that there -is- such a thing as being intrinsically right or wrong, then you could at least potentially be convinced that your current view on a given subject isn't the correct one...if you don't believe that something can be intrinsically right or wrong, then an argument for something being intrinsically wrong, no matter how it is set up, won't compel you to change your mind, since it is asking you to accept both the argument for -why- it is right/wrong -AND- accept that something even -can- be intrinsically that way.

[Kilroy_x]

You really don't get it, do you? The "wrongness" of something doesn't need to be contained in it. Something can be wrong simply because I don't want it! Does a persons desire have so sort of higher justification? Probably not, but the better answer is: who cares?

Ultimately, the grand morality seen in this way is just the interaction between all moralities. When a person is killed who did not want to be killed, this is an infringement upon their individual morality. When a person knows of this death while considering murder immoral this infringes upon him as well, perhaps. We can assume that the vast majority of people don't like murder, so this is our frame of reference for tools in moral calculation. Oh, but we run into excesses of problems when we give peoples emotions sovereign rights as well as their existence, so perhaps we should only treat things as immoral when they have direct effect on something tangible and coherent owned by the person: their body or their property.

To repeat the question: How can an aspect of morality which creates no direct interactions with other moralities (which is to say with other people), infringe upon anything tangible or coherent in a way that would make an action criminal?

[Cavernio]

You're not making any sense to me. If you thought something were intrinsically right or wrong, then why would you be convinced otherwise? You would just KNOW whether it's right or wrong, based on feelings etc. and all discussion around it wouldn't matter. That's, like, the definition of intrinsic morality I thought.
To address the second part of your statment, I agree that it is impossible to convince someone who doesn't believe in instrinsic morality that an issue is simply right or wrong, however, again, in an argument based purely on intrinsic belief, there would be no discussion to support WHY it is intrinsically wrong; it just would be.

Errrrm, I'm not making sense to myself now anymore. If what I said were the case, then this entire discussion would be moot because there's an underlying general consensus that harming children is wrong, no matter what the pleasure you get from it, there's still the belief that hurting others is bad, and that's pretty intrinsic, isn't it?

Bah, I just confuzzled myself.

[Cavernio]

Kilroy_x: If it weren't for our emotions, existence wouldn't matter and there'd be no issue of morality at all!
I mean, in this particular topic, someone being sexually aroused by an actual child itself has little negative effect on the child's body; the negative effect is on the child's emotions and mind. Orgasm itself, although accompanied by the body's reactions, is very much intangible.

[Kilroy_x]

Originally Posted by Cavernio

Kilroy_x: If it weren't for our emotions, existence wouldn't matter and there'd be no issue of morality at all!

Well, maybe.

I mean, in this particular topic, someone being sexually aroused by an actual child itself has little negative effect on the child's body; the negative effect is on the child's emotions and mind.

Hmm. Good point. Perhaps then the issue is whether there is something wrong about letting a person consent to something that will hurt them when they aren't conscious enough to give informed consent. Or maybe the issue is whether consent is something neccessary at all. In this case, the physical act of taking the child to do something which will cause them emotional harm is the key to the immorality of the emotional harm.

I'm sure we can all agree though that even under this criticism, molestation is still very much wrong.

Orgasm itself, although accompanied by the body's reactions, is very much intangible.

Its causes are not, however.

Anyways, Nietzsche and perspectivism are stupid, but I don't see any reason not to try and use tools when I come across them.

[devonin]

You'd appeal to a moral toolset you think is stupid because in this particular case it supports the point you want to make?

[Kilroy_x]

It's not stupid because it's wrong, it's stupid because Nietzsche puts prose before point, and because perspectivism ultimately seems somewhat of a dead-end in terms of philosophy. But then again, what isn't a dead end in philosophy? As far as I can go is good enough for me.

[Nezeru]

Answering this from my moral perspective, I say that lolicon that depicts actual acts of sex is just wrong, but artistic drawings (that do not involve sex) are fine. Just my opinion...mostly because I think the former is just disgusting.

[Kilroy_x]

Originally Posted by Nezeru

Just my opinion...mostly because I think the former is just disgusting.

Basing your morality on your taste is somewhat- in poor taste.

[devonin]

Doing otherwise is, for most people, a lot more difficult than you seem to give credit for. being in genuine moral support of something you personally find disgusting is not an easy stance for most people to take.

[Kilroy_x]

Oh believe me, I recognize the difficulty. I wasn't born with my current mindest, you know. Actually I'm sure most commentators would class me as having a disposition of rather poor origin in this regard, if they knew the truth about me.

Anyways, Nietzsche is probably rolling over in his grave right now. He would undoubtedly class me as more dead than alive because of this mindset of mine. But it's not that I don't believe in the use of emotion in determining the backdrop of a morality, just that I think your emotions should end where another person begins; well, after a fashion. A jungle may be a fine representation of life in all it's splendid chaos and violence, but I'd rather live in a garden and have my plants trimmed occasionally to prevent certain unpleasentness. And a plant that can trim itself! What a marvolous thing that is.

[Nezeru]

Oh, there are quite a few things I find disgusting that are, nevertheless, morally just fine by me. My particular objection with lolicon that depicts sex is that the artist (or the viewer) enjoys (or feels like depicting) something that I (and most people, at least people I know) find very, very wrong. I misspoke when I said that I found it morally objectionable BECAUSE it is disgusting.

[Cavernio]

The only thing you added in your reiteration Nezeru, is that most people you know also find it wrong, (which leads into the cultural position about where morality comes from which has hardly been touched in my glance over of this thread.) No, not everything disgusting is wrong, however you've still not said WHY it's wrong, and still the only thing you've given to say that it's wrong is that it's disgusting.
Nor is the opposite of the logic argument set. It is not clear that everything that is wrong will be disgusting. Embezzlement of corporate funds is also something wrong which can harm thousands, however, do you get that same feeling of disgust from it? I would call my feelings towards that anger and outrage, but not disgust, although this could just be me.

The 'it just feels wrong' argument is the same argument that people have against homosexuality, and I think most people on this forum are alright with that. The major difference between this and the child porn argument (not just lolicon) is that there's no consensus with children. It could also be argued that more people think and feel that anything sexual with children is wrong, however, it's a weak argument in that people can change their minds and opinions. As an example, I'm pretty sure that now compared to 20 years ago, there's a lot more people who're ok with homosexuality.

Let's pretend we live in a culture where having sex with children is a norm. Along with this particular aspect of the society, discussion of sex is wide open for all ages so kids'll know about sex from a very, very young age. Also, when it's hot out, people of all ages walk around naked...sexual areas aren't supposed to be hidden. If you were to grow up in this culture, would you still say child porn's wrong? I don't think you would. There wouldn't be anything consensual about it, but besides physical harm of the child during acts of sex, (another point to raise), there'd be little reason for the child to not be alright with it. As I said before, I think the main harm of cp is that it mentally and emotionally hurts the child, but in such a culture, the child would not get emotionally hurt. They might even lord it over other kids when they get more sexual attention just like they do with any attention from adults.

Now, a good counter-argument to this example is that the scenario I just made is NOT the case, and would likely never BE the case anywhere, and this is an indication that it is not possible for most people to not have the 'wrong' feeling of sexuality with kids. The only thing I can think of to say to that is, from what I hear of ancient greek culture, young male boys were the fashionable/common taste for high-class men to engage in sex with, but this in no way says the boys were alright with it. In fact, it seems to reek of
people in power being able to do whatever the hell they want to do.

Ah, so much more to say, and I'm not even really discussing lolicon more as cp!

What about fake depictions of rape? Are those, generally, legal? I think they are. Do you think they're morally alright? For those of you who aren't turned on by lolicon, are you turned on by that? Is your stance different for both of these things, or is it the same?

[Kilroy_x]

Originally Posted by Cavernio

Now, a good counter-argument to this example is that the scenario I just made is NOT the case, and would likely never BE the case anywhere

Actually, there are a number of primitive cultures with, if not identical, at least very similar thoughts and feelings on child sexuality.

The only thing I can think of to say to that is, from what I hear of ancient greek culture, young male boys were the fashionable/common taste for high-class men to engage in sex with, but this in no way says the boys were alright with it. In fact, it seems to reek of
people in power being able to do whatever the hell they want to do.

I think this might be a false assessment of ancient greece.

What about fake depictions of rape? Are those, generally, legal?

Yes.

Do you think they're morally alright?

Yes. Tolerable, anyways.

Is your stance different for both of these things, or is it the same?

Much the same.

[Cavernio]

Yeah, the only assessment I'm basing on ancient greece is from a CBC radio program that I only listened to half of

Name some of those cultures with those beliefs I listed.