10 Cups of Crazy!
I'm watching this whole child pornography special on CNN right now, and it's pretty interesting. (Haha, I just realized that I'm always very intrigued by discussions on child pornography. Read into that what you will.) Anyway, they started talking about this kid who I guess was like the all-time champion of child pornography named Justin Berry. I
( Read more... )
But anyway, I'm not going to get into another 75 post fight with you about this. Let's just agree to disagree.
"It should be that if you want to be nude and pose however you like in pictures, well, do it."
Um. Sure. If you're an adult. (And now here comes the argument about how the age of majority is an "arbitrary" distinction.) But children cannot make these decisions for themselves. I would at least hope you could agree to that. Because by your logic, if children can consent to having pornographic pictures of themselves taken, then they can consent to pretty much anything.
And I assume you've never seen these pictures. That's good. Because I asked my mom about it and she actually has a child porn case right now. She said that when you see the pictures, they are clearly abuse, not simply "nudity."
"What is that? Is there some sort of mathematical or biological test that can be done to show such inappropriateness? Of course not."
I know that there is no litmus test to determine what is pornography unless it's obvious. In most cases it IS obvious.
In law, intent has to be proven, the intent has to be to victimize. That's what you're missing. Laws are not logical like mathematical equations. Our legal code does its best to mirror our collective moral conscience. Things that are illegal because they're immoral don't need an a+b=c logic. By your reasoning, murder shouldn't be illegal. I mean, you can't say murder is wrong without appealing to some ethereal moral code. What's the logic behind outlawing murder? (And by extension, abortion?) You can't appeal to logical reasoning, you appeal to moral. Morality by definition is illogical.
Here's my best attempt at making the "logical" case against child pornography and murder: we have laws to protect ourselves. We do not want to be murdered. We do not want to be exploited. Therefore, murder and child pornography are illegal.
It's about exploitation. It's about abuse. And the next step for child pornographers is physical abuse. Even Justin Berry who supposedly made the decision to distribute his pictures on the internet now acknowledges that he was being exploited by these men.
And I would suggest that it's very much American to protect children preemptively.
Reply
I just don't know how to argue with this. You call out the arbitrary age response, but then your whole backing up of your opinion is: "But children cannot make these decisions for themselves. I would at least hope you could agree to that." And then add on the "if children can consent to having pornographic pictures of themselves taken, then they can consent to pretty much anything."
And if you're trying to draw out the age of consent relationships thing, well, I'm all right with that too. As long as it's consensual. Biologically you can be ready to procreate at 10. In many other cultures teenagers are married and responsible. Psychologically I'm sure there are some 13-year-olds that are better equipped to handle relationships than some 33-year-olds. To borrow from typical pro-homosexual relationships arguments, many adolescent animals in nature participate in relationships.
I even think the Mary Kay Letourneau story is kind of romantic in a way. Here's a couple that gets together against society's norms, Letourneau has to go to prison because of it for seven years, and then in the end they get married. Very Shakespearean. Only with a happy ending. I'd love to see someone try to develop it into a movie sympathetic to their plight.
As far as any abuse or rape going on, of course those should be prosecuted. And I'm sure 99% of these cases of child pornography are or turn into abuse or rape, and anyone that abuses anyone should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law (which I actually think should be increased). I've known too many women who have been abused and have done nothing about it. It's pretty sad. But I'm still for defending that 1% that have a consensual relationship with a minor when it comes to nude photos, or even sexual relations.
And before you say that kids aren't ready for these things, consider that many are in fact participating in these things -- with each other. Now, if there is no legal problem with two 13-year-olds getting it on consensually, then there's no reason to create one for a combination of 13 and any other number above 18. It's just society saying, "Oh, well they should know better."
If/when I'm a parent I certainly won't encourage sexual relations so early, but I think it should be the parent that guides them through these situations. Teaches them that these things are bad to do (if they think they are) and then if the kid chooses to do it on their own, well, at least have it be legal.
Yes, yes, the law is based on morality. But they can certainly use logic. Or, at least the logic that no one's freewill should be infringed upon. From my response to Tina:
Reply
My rule simply becomes: do whatever you like, so long as it doesn't force anyone else do something that they don't want to do. It allows me to take stances against murder (and abortion -- again, another terrible tangent to pursue), against stealing, for assisted suicide, for legal recreational drug use, and for gay, incestuous, and/or polygamous relationships.
Where do you draw your line and why? Have you ever really thought about it? I bet you haven't, because most people who aren't directly involved in things don't take the time to think them through. Mom and Dad said those things were bad, TV and peers reaffirmed, so who cares if they're right, doesn't affect you.
But not me, you see, because I'm a freedom fighter! I'll stand up for every poor defenseless minority that needs our help! I'm here to help our brothers, and sisters, and... well, help them marry if they like, 'cause that's what I like to do, help people. No, no, no, I don't do it for the accolades or the money, but just because, I want to help.
I think it's funny that you equated child pornography to murder like the guy who said a webcam is as dangerous as a gun. Haha. Yes, laws are here to protect us, but they should never be made to protect us from ourselves. If there's anything I want to do to myself -- drugs, suicide, sex with a man -- I should be allowed to do it. Those are the kinds of laws I think need changing. The abuse and rape laws are there to protect children. If they are being forced to pose nude, prosecute for abuse, but if they're consenting, it shouldn't be illegal.
But, yeah, you're right about America and preemptive laws, but my closing line last time was mostly a joke. And I would even take it a step further and say that it's an American liberal thing to do (of course, conservative Texas did just start some "stake out the drunks" law which seemed rather stupid -- so disappointed in Texas).
I hope you don't turn this into a 75-comment post -- as I think my rambling here has pretty much covered all bases -- that is, unless you want to talk about Snakes on a Plane! What a trailer, right?!
Reply
Leave a comment