It's interesting how when you rearrange a phrase like "cool minded and logical" to "Cool and Openminded" it means something entirely different, isn't it? Does it just make you feel better about your stance, or do you actually think they mean the same thing?
(I did misread and then misquote, I edited it now)
I wonder if the children who are molested this way, feel any better about people who "simply possess" photos and videos of them being abused, as opposed to people buying it. Maybe they are happier that some folks only have copies of their torture? It would cause them less grief?
I don't know, I wasn't abused as a child. But I'm pretty sure they don't "know" who possesses such material generally, so I don't think they are harmed by it. But it's not relevant to the point I was making. Neither I nor Vitalik is advocating for child pornography, but the author of this post said he was. And then you twist the words of the guy who points this out. Because child pornography is bad, does that mean it's ok to lie about what people say about it?
I cannot be "cool minded and logical" discussing possession of images of tortured children as some lofty debate, saying that's better than doing heroin.
To me it is a very serious issue. I cry for these boys and girls. These are real souls who have suffered tremendously.
Someone doing a drug, is making that choice to put that in their body. These children have no choice. They have no one to be their voices. I am sad I have to even say it, for it should be well understood, there is nothing more evil than raping a child. Trading photos and videos of that evil act around, is totally inexcusable.
Logical discussions about this should only come to one conclusion, that it is wrong for the child porno to even exist. It exists because someone did the act while someone else videoed it, or the person doing the act videoed himself or herself while doing the act.
Logical discussions also should only come to the conclusion that 2+2=4.
But who is denying that 2+2=4? Who is denying that child porn shouldn't exist?
People like you should better cool down your mind before insulting people for things they didn't say.
Yes, it's better to let emotional responses take over when debating serious issues of this type, distort statements made by anyone who dares to mention the subject, attack people's character for daring to use logic in their arguments, etc. Reasoned argument is overrated anyways, and most people are no good at it, so it's hardly fair. This will lead to a better world and you'll stop child porn in no time. /end sarcasm
And since it's clear you didn't understand his point about heroin, I don't think it was about what damage it does to the taker (I haven't read a lot of Vitalik's writing, but what little I have would strongly argue against that). I'm reasonably sure without further investigation that he's referring to dangers to others that are posed by drug users who don't take proper care to ensure they don't harm others when in an impaired state (e.g. similar to drunk driving).
Possession of child porn obviously means that someone took pictures of whatever act was being photographed. That act of child rape is the source of the photos. Possessing those photos means that you are OK with what happened to that child. Defending someone for "simply possessing the the material" is saying that that the process that the photos came from is OK.
The photos, or videos can't exist without the criminal sex act with a child that the photos or video came from. That's what's wrong with simply possessing the material.
This logic is not only deeply flawed, the flaw was already discussed in other comments by some other poster, but I'll reiterate it here.
A TV news station has video of murdered people (and maybe even videos of them being murdered). This doesn't mean that simple possession of that video is saying that the process that those videos came from is OK.
It's interesting how when you rearrange a phrase like "cool minded and logical" to "Cool and Openminded" it means something entirely different, isn't it? Does it just make you feel better about your stance, or do you actually think they mean the same thing?
(I did misread and then misquote, I edited it now)
I wonder if the children who are molested this way, feel any better about people who "simply possess" photos and videos of them being abused, as opposed to people buying it. Maybe they are happier that some folks only have copies of their torture? It would cause them less grief?
I don't know, I wasn't abused as a child. But I'm pretty sure they don't "know" who possesses such material generally, so I don't think they are harmed by it. But it's not relevant to the point I was making. Neither I nor Vitalik is advocating for child pornography, but the author of this post said he was. And then you twist the words of the guy who points this out. Because child pornography is bad, does that mean it's ok to lie about what people say about it?
I cannot be "cool minded and logical" discussing possession of images of tortured children as some lofty debate, saying that's better than doing heroin.
To me it is a very serious issue. I cry for these boys and girls. These are real souls who have suffered tremendously.
Someone doing a drug, is making that choice to put that in their body. These children have no choice. They have no one to be their voices. I am sad I have to even say it, for it should be well understood, there is nothing more evil than raping a child. Trading photos and videos of that evil act around, is totally inexcusable.
Logical discussions about this should only come to one conclusion, that it is wrong for the child porno to even exist. It exists because someone did the act while someone else videoed it, or the person doing the act videoed himself or herself while doing the act.
Logical discussions also should only come to the conclusion that 2+2=4.
But who is denying that 2+2=4? Who is denying that child porn shouldn't exist?
People like you should better cool down your mind before insulting people for things they didn't say.
Yes, it's better to let emotional responses take over when debating serious issues of this type, distort statements made by anyone who dares to mention the subject, attack people's character for daring to use logic in their arguments, etc. Reasoned argument is overrated anyways, and most people are no good at it, so it's hardly fair. This will lead to a better world and you'll stop child porn in no time. /end sarcasm
This post is currently hidden due to the author's low reputation or low post rating.
And since it's clear you didn't understand his point about heroin, I don't think it was about what damage it does to the taker (I haven't read a lot of Vitalik's writing, but what little I have would strongly argue against that). I'm reasonably sure without further investigation that he's referring to dangers to others that are posed by drug users who don't take proper care to ensure they don't harm others when in an impaired state (e.g. similar to drunk driving).
Possession of child porn obviously means that someone took pictures of whatever act was being photographed. That act of child rape is the source of the photos. Possessing those photos means that you are OK with what happened to that child. Defending someone for "simply possessing the the material" is saying that that the process that the photos came from is OK.
The photos, or videos can't exist without the criminal sex act with a child that the photos or video came from. That's what's wrong with simply possessing the material.
This logic is not only deeply flawed, the flaw was already discussed in other comments by some other poster, but I'll reiterate it here.
A TV news station has video of murdered people (and maybe even videos of them being murdered). This doesn't mean that simple possession of that video is saying that the process that those videos came from is OK.
Good that you downvoted this post. Titusfrost is doing all sorts of.. how do you call that?.. trash reporting.