[myq]

Originally Posted by Junkenstein

But if being able to stop the whole boy-lover momvement from feeling free to exist in society with no consequences means hbaving to sacrifice part of my freedom of expression or reading risqué subjects, maybe i'pd sacrifice that. im unsure.

That's the thing. There's no guarantee that sacrificing your freedom WILL result in the other positive consequences you desire. And then you're sacrificing your freedom for nothing. Which you're allowed to do. But if the government MAKES you do it, that's bad.

Originally Posted by Blitzgal

Fewer pedophiles will help fewer kids be molested.

Agreed. But how do we make there be fewer pedophiles?
With respect to what we're talking about here, I feel like we all approximately agree that there will be the same number of pedophilic-minded people, whether they're allowed to look at CGI kid porn or not, it's just a question of whether that would make them act on it more (because it encourages them) or act on it less (because they've been given SOME outlet).

For the record, I'm totally opposed to molesting kids, and totally pro-figuring out what is the best way to get kids molested less.

And I really feel that talking about this MORE is the way to do that. Like, potential outreach to would-be pedophiles, to try and turn them into gold-star pedophiles. Which would require a huge societal shift in how to deal with this issue, because people are very quick to just jump on the judgmental bandwagon (and I'm not saying they're not justified in so doing, just that by washing their hands of it with an "it's wrong" and that's it, it ignores the possibility of what actions could be taken to make the wrong thing happen less frequently).

So sincerely, what will make there be fewer pedophiles?
What makes someone become a pedophile?
(I presume it's some combination of nature and nurture... it's my impression that BEING abused can turn someone into an abuser, though of course there's not a one-to-one correspondence there. But if this is true sometimes even, then stopping abuse will do more than just stop that abuse, but future abuse as well, and maybe eventually no one will want their constitutionally guaranteed kid pr0n.)

Originally Posted by Blitzgal

Myq, I do enjoy debating you because you leave all the emotional name calling out of it even while playing Devil's Advocate. Is this because you're a robot?

IS THAT A NAME YOU ARE CALLING ME? BEEP BOOP. THANK YOU.

Here's one more Satanic advocation:

Regarding things that we (or most of we) believe are wrong, but still defensible under the constitution: racist hate speech.

Does everyone believe the KKK has a right to exist? That they can say whatever they want? That saying "I hate black people" (and more explicit speech about why the races should be kept separate or some should be eliminated) shouldn't make you go to jail?

Now, I don't want there to be a lot of people that feel that way. But I don't want it to be illegal for people to feel that way, or say that they feel that way. Even though I imagine that the more people say things like that, the more they perpetuate the belief among like-minded folks, the more people might be convinced/enlisted to their way of thinking (especially when directed at young, innocent, impressionable types).

I feel like this is another instance where if freedom of speech were sacrificed, we could arguably hope for a greater return in results, utilitarian-style. But I don't feel like many of his here would deem that appropriate.


PS I'm a pretty hard-core utilitarian, so I'm thinking about it. Maybe I'll start a non-governmental (so it's not censorship) "No racism towards kids!" campaign, where we convince racists not to indoctrinate their kids, but to tell them of all the options, and then at 18 decide whether or not they want to be a racist. Maybe at 16 or 17, they get to head out into the world like the Amish kids do for a year, and go crazy, and have sex with lots of other races, and then go from there.