Ouch. I suppose I wasn't expecting little reaction, so it's my fault I made it at a time when I couldn't respond to it frequently. I stand by my opinion steadfast - nobody's convinced me there was any danger to the children. I remain of the opinion that people who are upset aren't applying logic, but I do understand that they are strongly urged to ignore logic and not view the case objectively, as oanst puts it.
I'm not at all saying child pornography is alright. Obviously looking at it is wrong in that it creates demand which is going to increase supply, increasing the amount of child molestation. I will make a counter-assertion and say that viewing pornographic material
does decrease sexual urges - a lot of corner shop owners are against supplying top-shelf magazines, but do so because it's an alternative to perverts raping people at night.
I don't download any sadist pornography, but I will admit I was not aware of the nature of child pornography, and I'm not ashamed of that. However, if that's what all child pornography is like, then it doesn't logically follow that he is attracted to the sadist parts. He could be repulsed by those bits. The only thing that can be reasoned is that he is attracted to children. I'd love to refer to statistical data here or theoretical examples, but that won't work, so I'll be frank: I am strongly attracted to certain people in my life, but I have enough free will to resist taking advantage of them. Everyone is assuming that Paul Reeve does not, and yet he's never been accused of sexually abusing a child. In my mind, that demonstrates consideration restraint, even
if he is frequently attracted to children, and it's not reasonable to assume that he is attracted to
all children.
Onto Havoc's point about the nature of paedophilia. I'm not a psychiatrist, and I don't believe anyone here is, but as I biologist I know that any continuous characteristic of a population will be distributed in a bell-shaped curve; additionally, as people mature, their sexual tastes change (I'm not talking about orientation) - as they grow older, they are attracted to older-looking people. It follows that there will be a small proportion of any population will be attracted to unusually youthful features, and that means children. They don't have any choice about what they're attracted to. Knowing that, it is impossible for me to view them as subhuman.
:
|
Maybe I've taken your post wrong, but what is supposed to be understood about watching the rape of an innocent child?
|
I don't mean understanding as in justifying an action as ethically acceptable, I mean understanding as in knowing why something [bad] happens/is. In that instance I was refering to people who aren't psychiatrists or psychologists trying to pass judgement on a mental condition they don't understand fully.
:
|
I felt that way Max's post was worded lead me to believe that he was saying that we shouldn't be scared and judgemental becuase we don't understand. My point was that whether we understand it or not, child rape is what it is...an act of sick, perverted violence...and therefore the arrousal of watching such an act is sick.
|
That is exactly what I was saying. I know I can't expect everyone to apply Vulcan logic to everything, but to me being offended by something without closely justifying the reasons why is just so immature and unreasonable. With regards to what I said above, it is understandable that people
are aroused by children, but obviously inexcusable that they would violate childrens' rights to security.
I'm exhausted. I'll have to respond to anything that comes later in the thread later. Thanks everyone for the stimulation and expansion of this topic. Everyone is contributing much more wisely and intelligently than I feared.
