Your argument is complete non-sense.
Is this an improvement on 'bullshit' which is how you referred to my previous post, or do you take the two to mean the same. It seems that you frequently use the term 'bullshit' in reply to posts that you disagree with. Perhaps you should extend your vocabulary to avoid seeming so repetative. Here are a few alternative words for you to use: poppycock, tommyrot, balderdash, tripe, drivel, claptrap, bunkum, twaddle, asinine, codswallop, piffle, havers, and gibberish. If you feel uncomfortable not being crude you could always try one of the following: crap, bollocks, rubbish and trash. Anyway, now that we have established a theme for your posts let us go on and examine the on I am replying to in particular.
The most notable thing about your post is that it completely ignores the question at hand. The question was how could I justify punishing people for posession of child pornography given the premise that theory I presented on the effects of child pornography was valid. When a question takes the form given premise P how do you get conclusion Q then P is taken as a given. Criticising the answer to such a question by saying 'yes but P is not true' is not a substantial form of criticism. Now it is understandable that in reading a post in a thread a person might not fully grab the context of the thread in which the post is made. However you have no such excuse, because you set the question in the previous post.
However let us set your appalling lack of manners aside, instead let us look at the substance of your argument.
Drinking then driving makes EVERYONE -- anyone who does it -- a poorer driver, thus necessarily increasing the likelihood of resultant deaths for everyone who drives while drunk.
And my argument is masturbating to child pornography leads to a change in brain state that makes everyone who does it more likely to go on to actual child molestation. It may be only a small minority that go on to commit such acts, similarly only a small minority of drink drivers will actually go on to have accidents that kill or maim innocent bystanders. In each case the act is prohibited not because of the particular actual consequences, but because of the potential consequences that may occur. The law is used proactively to minimise the risk of potential consequences, and not merely to punish retroactively for actual consequences.
Not the same for child pornography, and even for cases where it is so, looking at child porn isn't what causes molestation.
I haven't claimed looking at child pornography is the cause of child molestation. What I have claimed is that masturbation with child pornography as a stimulus may be a contributory factor to child molestation. You're setting up a straw man here.
Looking at child pornography does not make one a child molester.
Correct, one may look at child pornography in the course of research, by accident, or as a sexual stimulus. It is the third of these possibilities that is of interest here, and doing that makes one a pedophile. The question at hand is does allowing pedophiles access to child pornography increase the risk of child molestation, and if it does is it better to restrict that freedom or to endure a higher incidence of child molestation.
Child molesters look at child porn. Just because every child molester has looked at child-porn doesn't mean that every -- or even many -- who look at child porn will or are in any way likely to molest children.
Not only have you set up a straw man, you have resorted to outright misrepresentation to do so. In my original post I stated, "This is not to say that every man who looks at child pornography will go on to physically abuse children, but but it does increase the likelyhood that he will." Did you actually read the post before responding to it? So now you go on to knock down your straw man.
This is simple logic. A->B != B->A. Just because all people who molest children look at child porn does not mean that all people who look at child porn molest children. Basic logic, which should have been taught in high school math.
Simple deductive logic, aplied to a straw man. No one has claimed that all people who look at child porn molest children. What has been claimed is that your claim that "fantasizing about having sex with children is harmless," because in at least some cases such fantasising is a precursor to the actual act, and that indulging in such fantasies may prevent child molestation occurring. You were given an argument that used inductive logic to demonstrate that your claim was highly probably false. Perhaps you should have payed more attention to the poor teacher that was trying to teach you logic.
"Political satire became obsolete when Henry Kissinger was awarded the Nobel Prize", - Tom Lehrer
[ Parent ]