Pedophilia - The Next Taboo To Fall?

[Spartacus]

Generally in those situations I don't find that rational arguments convince them either. It is almost impossible to argue ethics in logical terms. What for instance is illogical about what the Hutu majority did to the ruling class Tutsi minority? We are only left with moral distaste.

There are certainly people on the far side of the issue who will never be convinced, but there are also people who see purely irrational taboos as things to be debunked and discarded. I don't see how it hurts to have rational argumentation in your back pocket.

Unfortunately, not everyone holds to Chesterton's dictum that you need to be able to explain why a fence was constructed before you can tear it down.

[Mountain Man]

Err, your source didn't contradict the premise.

Yes they did. Both sources talked about how regularly viewing pornography changes one's perceptions of "normal" sexual activity and how increasingly greater stimulation is needed over time, and you have not presented one shred of evidence showing otherwise.

And the fact that you even think this "thought experiment" is worth entertaining shows what a morally sick mind you have.

[Cow Poke]

Thanks for bringing up this subject seer and exposing some of these creeps for who they really are. There is nothing defensible about the idea of publishing child porn. These people are rotten to their core for even allowing the idea. Starlight I would have expected, but I thought that Jaecp was better than this.

That!

[Sparko]

show me that there is a "big debate" about this between researchers and psychologists.

[seer]

There are certainly people on the far side of the issue who will never be convinced, but there are also people who see purely irrational taboos as things to be debunked and discarded. I don't see how it hurts to have rational argumentation in your back pocket.

Unfortunately, not everyone holds to Chesterton's dictum that you need to be able to explain why a fence was constructed before you can tear it down.

Then they are irrational for tearing down the fence without knowing why it was built in the first place. But again, I don't see how "logic" plays into this argument. If you mean "reasonable" OK, but even there you need to share some ethical ground with the person you are debating to even get off the ground. And I don't think that any amount of logic could bridge that gap with out shared values.

[Jedidiah]

. . . It just doesn't work all that well and I say that as someone whose got 15 credit hours of marketing coursework in his Psych degree

If you actually have this training, rather than just claiming it, I illustrates the depravity of most of the psych field. I say this as one who completed the work for a degree with a psych major.

[Jedidiah]

Because this is something I just have examples for off the top of my head for things that I don't actually need to support because the research just isnt there. Studies involving pedophiles almost never get funded and if not for them then who is using porn to suppress sexual desires? Thats not a thing that would get studied hence we're in uncharted territory and, HENCE, thought experiment.



Hmm? What kind of a response is that?

There are plenty of studies showing that pornography does not wean people from evil behavior. Child pornography is just one more example of that. Your so called thought experiment has been completely shot down. And not just by moralization.

[Jedidiah]

There are certainly people on the far side of the issue who will never be convinced, but there are also people who see purely irrational taboos as things to be debunked and discarded. I don't see how it hurts to have rational argumentation in your back pocket.

Unfortunately, not everyone holds to Chesterton's dictum that you need to be able to explain why a fence was constructed before you can tear it down.

The problem here is that there has not been one rational argument on the pro side, and all the anti arguments have been ignored.

[Roy]

Look, Dr. Clown College, ...

People with valid arguments don't need insults

[Cow Poke]

People with valid arguments don't need insults

or profanity

[KingsGambit]

In a vacuum, some pedophiles might be satisfied by having child porn available. But the situation doesn't exist in a vacuum. Having that stuff openly available opens another Pandora's box of consequences, not the least of which is the very act of creating it requires abuse.

[Cow Poke]

When I was a kid, I had a running buddy who had an uncle who had a whole stash of Playboy magazines in his basement. (he actually had a "caged in" area in his basement where he supposedly kept his tools, but all these magazines were piled in there) Greg showed them to me, and, wow... I thought that was amazing! I took one home, and within just a few weeks my Mom found it while changing my bedding. She could have screamed and yelled and pitched a fit, but she very calmly (scaringly calm) sat down with me and explained that "those girls are somebody's daughter, or sister, or...." One of "those" talks. "How would you feel if you opened one of these magazines and saw your sister, or one of your neighbors, or your friend at school...." "If your father had a bunch of these and spent his time looking at them, what does that say about how he values your mother?"

The whole time she was talking to me, she was turning pages in that magazine and making me look at it. That was without a doubt the single most uncomfortable time in my life with my Mom.

Years later, when I found out from one of my younger sisters that she had been sexually abused by one of my older brothers, I had a long talk with my mom about it, and about "our little sit-down". My older brother had gotten into porn, but it didn't stop with porn -- it continued to him violating two of my five younger sisters.

So, I admit, this topic is a little raw and quite a bit personal to me. Porn is NOT the answer.

By the way, in that subsequent talk, I found out that my Mom did, in fact, yell and scream and was very upset, but she called our Pastor for counsel, and he's the one who told her "you need to be 'prayed up' and have a calm discussion with your son, explaining why.......".

(yelling and screaming I could have handled!)

[Mountain Man]

People with valid arguments don't need insults

Not all insults are an example of the ad hominem fallacy, which is obviously what you're implying. That's the real ad hominem fallacy.

But I do love how you zeroed in on the insult while ignoring the substance of my remark. Here's the complete sentence: "Look, Dr. Clown College, when real-world research directly contradicts the premise of your 'thought experiment' then it's not even worth discussing."

[Roy]

Not all insults are an example of the ad hominem fallacy, which is obviously what you're implying.

No, it isn't. Also, insults and the ad hominem fallacy are different things.

Stating that the arguments of people who use insults are wrong would technically an example of ad hominem, but that wasn't what I said and I doubt it was what you meant.

But I do love how you zeroed in on the insult while ignoring the substance of my remark.

Your use of an insult suggested that your remark wouldn't have any substance worth reading.

[Sparko]

By the way, in that subsequent talk, I found out that my Mom did, in fact, yell and scream and was very upset, but she called our Pastor for counsel, and he's the one who told her "you need to be 'prayed up' and have a calm discussion with your son, explaining why.......".

(yelling and screaming I could have handled!)

my mom used to have those long calm talks with me when I did something wrong, explaining why it was wrong and all that. I would squirm and say, "just spank me already!"