New York rules its cool to look at kiddie porn

[guerilla]

True, but wouldn't you agree that there are objective things happening outside of all of us, such as the rising of the sun each day?

The sun rising is independent of us though. We have to develop a psychological frame to understand how the sun rising or not matters to us.

You might think the sun rising is the best time to get up. I might like to sleep in until noon. You might think that the sun will help your body manufacture vitamin D in your skin, I might choose to supplement.

Just because reality is objective, doesn't mean we don't relate to it subjectively.

A person can believe the sun didn't rise this morning but that wouldn't really make it so, right?

It would make it so for him. And that's another thing about perception, again back to mattseh and UG. What they perceive is not what other people perceive, and because UG so enjoys the popularity logical fallacy, just because a lot of people have a similar perception, also doesn't make something "true".

What makes you put morality in the "subjective" category instead of the "objective" one?

All values are subjective. Values are not facts. Your values can be based on (informed by) facts, but are not themselves facts.

You're a lawyer. You understand the difference between these two phrases.

1. A man crossed the street with the light.

2. A man stupidly crossed the street with the light like a retard.

The first statement is value free, the second is value laden.

Another good example is when UG commits a logical fallacy.

Since we already have an accepted legal standard that is supported by the vast majority of the populace

Fact: A lot of people accept X.

Value: Because a lot of people accept X, X is true.

Obviously by his rationale, blacks should have been slaves because a lot of people believed that.

 

[guerilla]

If incarceration is stupid, what do you propose as the more intelligent alternative?

Compensation.

Why would you make the victims pay to lock up a criminal? That's adding insult to injury IMO.

 

[cardine]

Compensation.

Why would you make the victims pay to lock up a criminal? That's adding insult to injury IMO.

If the criminal doesn't have enough money to pay the victim would you be in favor of labor camps (taking the place of jails) until the debt has been paid?

What would you do if the person didn't have enough money and was mentally incapable of doing work to repay the debt?

Also what would you do if the criminal refuses to pay the debt?

(not asking these questions because I disagree with you; I actually think this is a pretty good idea and am curious how you would handle the different issues that might arise).

 

[SkyFire]

Adult porn is legal and they consented to the act, so your analogy is irrelevant. It seems like you're missing the point.

Bullshit. It's not legal everywhere, and in the places it's not, by your illogical reasoning,, anyone accidentally viewing it would be guilty of a crime.

You are arguing to make incidental observation illegal. That's just silly.

Another extension of this, would be every video on youtube that infringes on copyright. The reason individual viewers of copyright material online are not targeted is because simply viewing a pirated or infringing work is not in and of itself illegal. It's illegal to -possess-, and a browser cache does not constitute possession because you have no control over what ends up in there.

 

[kingofsp]

Jewish Population of the United States, by State (2011)

nuff said.

lol jewpop

 

[guerilla]

If the criminal doesn't have enough money to pay the victim would you be in favor of labor camps (taking the place of jails) until the debt has been paid?

That's up to the injured party to decide. Some injured parties may settle for less. They may even forgive the accused.

Also what would you do if the criminal refuses to pay the debt?

In a rational society, people who didn't make good when they caused harm would be isolated. People would stop dealing with them, insurance companies wouldn't cover them, banks wouldn't work with them.

The odd business that might operate for such "outlaws" (outside the law) would charge a premium (because that firm might also have to be outlaw), and so one way or another, doing ill would be expensive.

 

[MediaBuysEyez]

The sun rising is independent of us though. We have to develop a psychological frame to understand how the sun rising or not matters to us.

We may all have different subjective perceptions about objective events, such as the sun rising each day, but, regardless of what those perceptions are, there are definite objective laws we are all bound by.

You might think the sun rising is the best time to get up. I might like to sleep in until noon. You might think that the sun will help your body manufacture vitamin D in your skin, I might choose to supplement.

Just because reality is objective, doesn't mean we don't relate to it subjectively.

It would make it so for him. And that's another thing about perception, again back to mattseh and UG. What they perceive is not what other people perceive, and because UG so enjoys the popularity logical fallacy, just because a lot of people have a similar perception, also doesn't make something "true".

All values are subjective. Values are not facts. Your values can be based on (informed by) facts, but are not themselves facts.

I'm sure we could argue over the existence of an objective morality for weeks. The main disconnect on this issue is that people appeal to different sources for the moral values they hold. It seems your source is your subjective views on the world, but I'm not entirely sure about that. For those who believe in a higher power, such as Christians/Jews/Muslims, that higher power is the source of what's right/wrong (the objective reality). You (and others on this forum) may feel the need to ridicule someone's belief in God but, as you stated earlier, trying to discount that belief is impossible to do.

I agree that we all have an independent/subjective view of objective events. However, there are objective consequences to the actions we take that we cannot avoid. When you act on a subjective belief and get a particular result you learn about the objective reality around you. This happens from the earliest stages of life. Depending on your subjective views of life you can choose to embrace or ignore the result, but it doesn't lessen its existence any less.

 

[guerilla]

We may all have different subjective perceptions about objective events, such as the sun rising each day, but, regardless of what those perceptions are, there are definite objective laws we are all bound by.

Absolutely.

I'm sure we could argue over the existence of an objective morality for weeks.

David Hume did it about 250 years ago. We can just read him.

You (and others on this forum) may feel the need to ridicule someone's belief in God but, as you stated earlier, trying to discount that belief is impossible to do.

I don't ridicule anyone's religious beliefs.

I agree that we all have an independent/subjective view of objective events. However, there are objective consequences to the actions we take that we cannot avoid. When you act on a subjective belief and get a particular result you learn about the objective reality around you. This happens from the earliest stages of life. Depending on your subjective views of life you can choose to embrace or ignore the result, but it doesn't lessen its existence any less.

Not arguing any of that.

 

[Unarmed Gunman]

Guerilla, you've spent a monumental amount of time in this thread defending child porn. Just pointing that out. Carry on...

 

[turbolapp]

Guerilla, you've spent a monumental amount of time in this thread defending child porn. Just pointing that out. Carry on...

I don't think it's fair to get personal here, especially with something like this. Guerilla has some thought provoking ideas on the subject.

And I say this coming from a pretty staunch position on child pornography. (One of the least gray areas out there for me) so let's keep this strictly debatable plz.

 

[clyde]

Also, Keynes was a shitty economist.

If you say so.

I don't care to win this argument but care enough to just post this.

I'm outtie.

 

[jacky8]

So now child porn is OK with gay webmasters? What next?

 

[jonas33h]

Just because you don't like kiddie porn, doesn't make hosting it or viewing it a crime. It's not a criminal act if I do things you don't like. There is no harm except your butthurt feelings, which doesn't constitute a tort.

Umm. . . as per our current legal system yes hosting porn is illegal and viewing it is illegal. This law is in place to say accidental viewing is illegal hence only if you save, print, etc and prove you meant to view it.


I think UG is right but not articulating his point strong enough. . . I find it hard to believe that a guy who has "accidently" stumbled across kiddie porn more times than legal porn with search results such as "I want to fuck a 3 yr old tonight" is not doing something illegal whether the sick fuck clicks right-click or not. I find it laughable that our legal system can't use common sense if someone has more images of child porn in his cache than legal porn it wasn't an accident. . . .

 

[jonas33h]

That's up to the injured party to decide. Some injured parties may settle for less. They may even forgive the accused.


In a rational society, people who didn't make good when they caused harm would be isolated. People would stop dealing with them, insurance companies wouldn't cover them, banks wouldn't work with them.

The odd business that might operate for such "outlaws" (outside the law) would charge a premium (because that firm might also have to be outlaw), and so one way or another, doing ill would be expensive.

Background info on you (let me know if I'm right): you believe in anarchy right ? Anarchy doesn't have any laws or order right?


If that is the case if you were to abuse my child, I do not want monetary compensation (no amount of money in the world would suffice). So if you don't approve of incarcerating people (i don't either for the reason you mentioned) I would elect to take full responsibility for said person and have them chained up so I can brutalize them as I please or kill them. . . by your standards this should be acceptable since there are no laws in your anarchy right ?

 

[jonas33h]

If you say so.

I don't care to win this argument but care enough to just post this.

I'm outtie.

Not a shitty economist a FUCKING shitty economist no sarcasm every socialist liberal assfuck likes this guy and his stupid ideas.

 

[jonas33h]

I don't think it's fair to get personal here, especially with something like this. Guerilla has some thought provoking ideas on the subject.

And I say this coming from a pretty staunch position on child pornography. (One of the least gray areas out there for me) so let's keep this strictly debatable plz.

less than thought provoking. . . his ideas are only good in theory but due to human behavior can never become accomplish making it foolish to argue that they are sane ideas.





but still no need to make it personal

 

[jonas33h]

oh and someone should have informed birdman of new yorks kiddie porn loop hole so that he could have been a just and moral man that only accidently jerked to that shit. . .

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nba-b...ion-internet-child-pornography-021843585.html
https://www.google.com/search?q=Chr...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

 

[faceblogger]

I am sure all american penises are programmed so that they wont turn on for a under 18 year old girl. (Will start exactly from her 18th birthday)

 

[jonas33h]

^ that's not the point. the Point is society has picked people to meet together to determine what is illegal and what is not and if you break the laws that have been established. .. . tough fucking shit bro.


example: is weed a crime? not if you ask me, but if you ask the police officer arresting your ass I would go with his version over mine any day of the week.

If you don't like the current legal status of something you disagree with become one of those elected officials and change it

 

[guerilla]

Background info on you (let me know if I'm right): you believe in anarchy right ? Anarchy doesn't have any laws or order right?

Anarchy means no rulers, not no rules.