This is more of a 2 part question. Should child porn that does not include a real child be illegal? If so, who is being harmed by it?

The other question is; does giving a pedophile access to “imitation” children give them an outlet for their desire, so they won’t try to engage with real children, or does it just reinforce their desire, thus helping them to rationalize their behavior and lead to them being more encouraged to harm real children?

I’ve heard psychologists discuss both sides, but I don’t think we have any real life studies to go off of because the technology is so new.

I’m just curious what the other thought out there are from people who are more liberty minded.

  • MentalEdge@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Right. Because if I knew someone who was one, they’d openly admit that to me. For all you know, I am one. But no. That’s not how this works. If you’re a paedophile with a clear head in modern society, you’d take that fact to the grave. Only if you didn’t trust yourself to never touch a child, is there any reason to out yourself and expose your life to the downsides of being known, in order to get help. But if you’re 100% sure you’ll never act, like you and I can be about never raping someone, why admit to it? With how hated you’d instantly become, there are only downsides.

    And why the fuck would I befriend someone convicted? That’s like saying that to be ok with people who would like to have sex (everyone), I need to be ok with befriending and having around actual known rapists (criminals). People who want to have sex, are not automatically people who can’t stop themselves from taking it.

    As for the option of eliminating one’s libido, thats a really good one. But which part of my comment made you think I believe science can’t help? I said it can’t be cured, I said the therapies we have, work. If eliminating one’s libido helps a person live their life, they should opt for it, paedophile or not. But choosing not to harm others isn’t difficult, unless there’s a lot more wrong with you than your sex drive being directed at children. You and me have no trouble respecting adults of whatever gender were attracted to, why should being a paedophile mean you’re any different?

    You accuse me of not thinking this through… I laugh at you. Your last three paragraphs only work if you assume the condition automatically also makes a person evil and immoral. Yes, those people exist, and they should be locked away and never allowed into society. (again, WTF, a convicted pedo??? WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU?)

    But the condition itself, that one is attracted to children, has nothing to do with a person’s capacity for moral action. One’s mind, does not need to obey one’s biology. You can choose to not eat, even when hungry, because you can understand that eating more than is healthy, is bad. A normal person would stay virgin all their life, if they didn’t find a willing partner, because not raping isn’t difficult.

    Should we shun people who have done evil? ABSOFUCKINGLUTELY! I don’t know which part of my comment made you think I believe otherwise. As for telling people who have suffered because of child rapists, that not all pedos are also rapists… Duh, but that’s also like telling a woman who was raped by a man, that not all men are rapists. She likely wont want to hear it, and should be helped through the trauma in whatever way is best for her. It would also be true. If you left a kid alone with a pedo who has the same moral compass as you and me, you’d never know they were a pedo, because they wouldn’t rape the kid.

    This likely won’t get through to you, because you can’t separate the desires from the person. You can’t imagine someone desiring to do evil, not also being evil. That you can be hungry, without wanting to eat.

    • HappycamperNZ@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Just a heads up - I’ve stopped replying to the person you are debating with. They lack any concept of critical thinking, viewing from two sides, and resort to personal attacks when you don’t agree with them.

      Strongly suspect they were either raised in a strict family values household, and/or were a victim of it themselves.

      • MentalEdge@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I could already sense that in their reply to me, those final three paragraphs were basically a character assassination attempt based on unfounded assumptions.

        But that’s fine. Even when someone denies hearing what you have to say, only the truly stupid wont replay it in their minds at least a few times. I wont waste my efforts too much, but I’ll make my contribution towards hopefully one day getting this person to think.

    • Maharashtra@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Right. Because if I knew someone who was one, they’d openly admit that to me. (…)

      Prisons are full of these.

      Send a letter. Interact with one. Invite him over to your house once he gets released.

      Go on. Walk the walk.

      Prove that you’re more than a cowardly wannabe-dictator who enjoys listening to his own voice more than to common reason.

      Do it.

      • MentalEdge@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Like seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you? You accuse me of not thinking through how these things should be handled, then you suggest… That.

        What the fucking fuck. You’re the one not thinking this through. Clearly you’re not even reading my comments past the first sentence.

        • Maharashtra@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Like seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you?

          What is wrong with you, that you’re defending the worst that mankind has ever spawned and proceed to screams and insults once you’re asked to prove the worthiness of your own philosophy?

          You’re the one not thinking this through.

          Ditto.

          But it’s typical for the likes of you - you always explode once asked to actually “be the change you wanna see in the world”.

          • MentalEdge@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Hey, you exploded first by spouting shit that made no sense if you had actually bothered reading what I had to say.

            I’m just coming down to your level so we can continue to slug it out.

            And what makes you so sure I’m not being the change I want to see? I already explained that if I were, admitting to it is not an option due to the stigma around the condition.

            And the change you’re suggesting I need to engage in to prove myself, is fucking stupid. You’re attacking opinions I don’t even hold, it makes you look the fool.

            • Maharashtra@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Multiplication of comments is the prime proof of emotional approach. Too emotional.

              DO NOT do that.

              • MentalEdge@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Oh, it’s one of my favorite tactics against people who won’t read past the first paragraph.

                By splitting up my arguments into multiple smaller comments, I can circumvent the thick skulls of these people and force more of what I’m saying to get through.

                There’s nothing emotional about it, though I did use that as an excuse to open up a second front. We can close it if you like.

                • Maharashtra@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Your favorites don’t matter. Only the strength of your arguments.

                  And since you’re not ready to back them up with any action, they are weak, a mere static in the Net. As it should be - no pedophile apologist and his ideals deserve to be treated as anything more.

                  Would that be all?

                  • MentalEdge@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    The strength of my arguments don’t mean shit when the person I’m talking to is too narrow-minded to comprehend them.

                    Let alone read them.

      • MentalEdge@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        You didn’t read my comment. I want nothing to do with fucking criminals. Stop suggesting otherwise, you lunatic.

        Stop trying to put words in my mouth. It’s not gonna work, especially if you won’t even read and understand what I am actually trying to say.

        Responding like this, anyone who reads our exchange is gonna look at your responses, and determine you’re the crazy one, because what you are saying makes no fucking sense in response to me if you actually read and understand what I’m saying. Is that what you want?

        • Maharashtra@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          You didn’t read my comment.

          You didn’t read mine. No wonder, given how self-absorbed you are…

          I want nothing to do with fucking criminals.

          Ah, so everything’s fine and dandy with ya, if they aren’t caught and sentenced? Brilliant strategy, milord!

          Now, I give you simple challenge: prove that you’re willing to set an example and coexist with those loathsome deviants you want for the society to embrace.

          If you can’t, if you don’t want to - admit that your ideas aren’t that good.

          • MentalEdge@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I did read yours. What makes you think otherwise?

            If someone who wants to kill, never does it, they shouldn’t be put in prison. They shouldn’t even be hated or feared.

            Someone who gets away with it, should be in prison. Someone who did kill, should be hated and feared.

            I will admit only one thing, that you refuse to understand what I’m actually trying to say.

            I wouldn’t need to prove shit, if you had the capacity to think clearly enough to understand, or even fucking read.

            • Maharashtra@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I did read yours. What makes you think otherwise?

              The fact that you constantly avoid the challenge of proving your convictions true and correct.

              The other explanation is that you’re simply scared of it, or trolling, but I preferred to think you were simply too preoccupied with writing yet another comment. I don’t anymore.

              I wouldn’t need to prove shit

              Uh-huh. You absolutely has to do, since “burden of proof…” and all that.

              But you won’t. Because you realize how weak, irresponsible and “let this be other people’s problem” your train of logic is.

              Fgures.

              • MentalEdge@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Except what you’re asking me to prove I believe, isn’t actually what I believe, because you refuse to even think about what I am actually saying.

                You’ve made assumptions, and because those assumptions are so heinously evil, you won’t even consider what I have to say.

                Because you’re acting based on assumptions, you keep missing when trying to dismantle my argument, because its not my argument you’re attacking, but your imagined idea of what I’m saying.

                So here we are, going in circles, me trying to get through to you, you accusing me of avoiding the point, because I keep trying to force you to see my actual point, instead of the imagined one that you’ve fixated on.

                • Maharashtra@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  If you were honest about your philosophy, you’d seek some way to prove it - and yourself - to be solid, logical and, well, honest.

                  But you’re not. You’re looking for explanations, excuses, ways to divert the discussion, distractions, and finally insults. Like an undereducated AIs guided by inflexible software.

                  There’s no way in hell that you’re going to ever take the responsibility for your choices and suggestions. Because all you have in store is a bunch of idiotic ideas that are supposed to be "other poeople’s burden.

                  Would that be all?

                  • MentalEdge@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    I see you’re a broken record now, attempting yet another character assassination instead of dismantling my argument. Nothing of what I’ve said allows you to draw the conclusions about me that you are presenting. It’s disgraceful.

                    If anything, you’ve made it even more certain that anyone else coming across this exchange, won’t take your side. Good job.

                    You’re the one avoiding the real discussion.

                    I bet that even if I did provide the proof you are asking for, you’d find some way to invalidate it and require more. It’s a classic arguing tactic among the brainless. So many times I’ve backed myself up with salient points, including now, only for them to be utterly ignored.

                    Who cares if you’re wrong? If you keep claiming to be right, at least it feels like there’s still a chance that you are.

                    But there isn’t. You’re wrong.

                    That will be all.