New York rules its cool to look at kiddie porn

[cardine]

That's not why I think genocide is immoral. I think it's immoral because violence against innocent people is wrong.

And why do you think killing innocent people is wrong? Killing people (for any reason) caries a risk, whether that be of you getting killed instead, or somebody killing you in retaliation, or killing your kids in retaliation, etc. So it would only be advantageous for humans to believe killing is moral if there was a very good reason to do so (that outweighted all of those risks). So it was the fact that your ancestors (who had that belief) were able to more successfully reproduce which has led you to believe that killing innocent people is wrong.

So your belief has nothing to do with whether killing innocent people is actually wrong or not. It has everything to do with a built-in bias you were born with because being born with that bias has helped your genetic code survive and reproduce up until this point.

I loved your post up until this point. Our morality isn't arbitrary, it is as you said, a result of our successful evolution. Our (broad) morality serves a purpose.

Of course, I don't mean the moralizing in this thread. In this thread you have guys who want to protect the innocent (children) by attacking what may be innocent adults.

But then, I am pretty sure most of us posting wouldn't be the ones reproducing in the wild anyway.

I think I did a poor job phrasing the last part of my post. I meant that if you look at what is truly right or wrong (if such absolute morality really did exist), our current morality would not correlate in any way shape or form. Our morality was definitely not arbitrarily created, but it is arbitrary compared to 'real' morality, if there were such a thing.

 

[SUP3RNOVA]

And why do you think killing innocent people is wrong?

Because they don't deserve to be killed.

You can call it evolutionary bias, but it's a bias towards greater morality (as far as we can comprehend the idea). It's hard to say absolute morality exists just because we don't understand the true fabric of reality to begin with. But within the context of our species, I would say that an absolute morality does exist.

 

[MSTeacher]

lol libertarians

 

[guerilla]

Agree with some of the above. However, you suggest that anarchy is a good replacement for a government.

Yes, I suggest that peace is better than violence. I know it is radical.

Yet, it hasn't been able to ever exist.

And before we went to the moon, we had never been to the moon.

Your point is?

Look, I know it is hard for you to imagine, but there is a future ahead for mankind. If you told people in the 1500s about secular democracy they would have thought you're crazy. If you told people in the 1800s about cellphones, they would have thought you were crazy.

If you told people in 400 AD that women would work, raise families independently and own property, they would have called you an idiot.

I see the survival of man as the inevitable improvement towards consistent ethics. Apparently only a handful of us are aware that the future is not going to be like the past...

You think we'd all be better with all the power in the hands of a few corporations whose sole purpose is profit?

Corporations are created by state legal charter. They wouldn't exist in a free market.

Also, the sole purpose of every human action is profit.

Then those few corporations would eventually consolidate to form a monopoly. With the establishment of a monopoly, the free market system of governance will come to an end.

Monopolies are created by the state. Free markets don't limit competition.

Please learn some economics.

Maybe when you stop rejecting everything that's doesn't fit your construct, you'll see how it can't work in the real life.

Or maybe I have some idea of what I am talking about, and you don't. That is also a possibility, and based on your posts, a likely one.

Understand that it is OK for all humans to be wrong sometimes.

Humans are wrong all of the time. I am wrong all of the time. No one is saying otherwise.

Edit: Do you think Sharia law is a great replacement for the government? Clear it up for all of us. No clever response please

Sharia law is islamic common law. I think it is much better than (western democratic) government in a lot of cases, and worse in others. How much do you actually know about Sharia?

False. You live in a developed country. You haven't seen people dieing off diseases and hunger (for lack of financial help). You haven't seen people dieing off violence. Much worse stuff I don't want to mention here for now

How do you know where I have traveled, and how I have lived?

People in poor countries don't need financial help. They need markets.

Way too obvious. Who doesn't know lol

Don't make accusations and then play games with answers.

Tell us what it is I am selling here. Don't be shy, you weren't shy accusing me of doing it.

False. It is apparent that you refuse to be challenged.

What do you think it is that you are doing?

You may not be psychologically ready to realize it.

I think it is hilarious you think you can psychoanalyze me based on forum posts. And you think I am deluded. lol

instead of focusing on making something useful out of the topic.

I have added a ton of content to this topic. You have added none except the opportunistic personal attacks on me. Do you really think you're going to lecture me on who creates more useful content on Wickedfire? lol

I'm sure many others can term it better than myself but I see your medical issues or young age envious ideological (or religious) influences to be the reason behind this kind of reasoning you have. See what I mean?

Finally, we have something in common! I have no idea what you are talking about, and I don't think you know what you're talking about either.

You wanted to call me a peasant. I know this from experience because you like to call others peasants and retards when you get too depressed and can't make any sense.

I haven't been depressed in a long time. My life is great and I am coming off the best year of my life yet.

I call you a peasant because it is funny. It's made even funnier that you can't understand the joke.

True. I won't. Lets just say I'm an ordinary internet marketer. I do share almost anything privately with friends all the time.

HAHAHA. What a hypocrite. You judge other people you don't know, but won't allow yourself to be judged in return. That's hilariously predictable.

So it is your subjective opinion that I'm a peasant in terms of state of my mind.

You are definitely a peasant.

I'd say you are a peasant in terms of making sense. You are a peasant in terms of taking criticism. And in terms of consistency too but mate, I don't know whether you are a peasant financially or not.

LOL, I am sure you have many lac rupees and many more goats than me.

Keep believing that if that helps reduce your stress, lol. I am not bothered.

I wake up with a view of three snow capped mountains every day, surrounded by people I love, doing work that I find meaningful, and feeling incredibly lucky to be alive.

What little stress I might have, I come on WF to blow off in STS.

 

[medicalhumor]

I don't have the time to jump in on this topic cause I have too much shit to do, but aside from your positions guerilla, you've been nothing but a condescending dick in this thread, which is surprising since I really have had a lot of respect for you and your posts in the past.
Anyone sharing a different view from yours, you seem happy enough to degrade them.
I really am taken aback by your treatment of other members here.
I'm sure you don't give a damn about my observations, I just expected more professionalism from you for some reason. I hope I have it wrong.
Not here to flame, just to express my disappointment.

Carry on

 

[guerilla]

That's the problem though people point out a different viewpoint and you ALWAYS say no your wrong or prove it or define it even though they already have. . .

Let's assume this is true. I don't always do it.

You do not point out contradictions you state your opinion.

I am pretty sure I point out contradictions a lot.

You are on a high horse because you refuse to except anything that you don't agree with that just a fact bro no personalization intended.

Why would I accept something I don't agree with?

We can't prove you wrong because of your unwillingness to except an alternate conclusion than the one you already formed.

If someone lays out a logical case, it's impossible for me to deny it.

People don't lay out logical trains of reasoning.

It's like complaining that Michael Jordan wins so many basketball games when the answer is for the other team to score some points. Not saying I am Jordan, just making a point. Whining about me personally isn't a winning argument. I am asking you guys to make winning arguments, but you insist on whining about me personally.

You have no idea how frustrating that is.

Lukep has changed my mind on several things and has expanded my view on politics among other things. I've grow on this forum on a personal level I don't see yourself being able to say the same, but then again I don't monitor every one of your post.

You also don't know me.

You know why I don't post personally about you? First, because I don't know you, and second because it has nothing to do with being wrong or right.

I have already stated my claim that yes view kiddie porn is illegal, that is why this story was written to show that New York has taken a different stance one the issue and you then asked why is it wrong if it doesn't infringe on other peoples rights (which it does the childs right to privacy but you don't think kids have rights or something not sure how you don't get this). . .

I know kiddie porn is illegal, and in some cases, viewing kiddie porn is illegal. Legality isn't the same as right and wrong. It is illegal to smoke a joint in your own home, do you really think that it is wrong for people to smoke pot?

You asserted above that looking at a photo violates a child's right to privacy, but then following that reasoning, looking at anyone's photo violates their right to privacy. Looking in any window is violating someone's right to privacy.

Do you believe that? If not, the I have just pointed out a contradiction in your argument.

warning didn't proof not even a glance over tl:dr

If you're too lazy to post in a manner in which you can be understood, don't get butthurt later when I stop replying. I am happy to reply to you if you can be understood, but the onus is on you to post clearly in English. ok?

 

[Moxie]

@Moxie, talking about me again? Looks like I am still winning.

Guys like you and Moxie are necessary. I don't begrudge your existence. you're part of the game, like the backboard in basketball or the heckler behind the home team bench.

What others view as non-serious everyday life encounters, people with Asperger's can instead view them as serious black and white games to be won or lost. What others might see as sarcasm, joking around, or someone just stating their opinion - those with Asperger's can view it as being heckled.

It wouldn't surprise me if 80% of the people on this forum including myself have at least a tiny mental "issue" of some sort.

 

[cardine]

It wouldn't surprise me if 80% of the people on this forum including myself have at least a tiny mental "issue" of some sort.

Mental disorders like these aren't black and white. There are shades of gray, so you can have tendencies of aspergers or ocd without actually having it. Just usually you aren't diagnosed with having a disorder unless it is impacting your ability to function.

So I'm sure that almost all of us have tendencies towards various different mental disorders even if it isn't a big enough of a deal to be diagnosed.

 

[Moxie]

Mental disorders like these aren't black and white. There are shades of gray, so you can have tendencies of aspergers or ocd without actually having it. Just usually you aren't diagnosed with having a disorder unless it is impacting your ability to function.

So I'm sure that almost all of us have tendencies towards various different mental disorders even if it isn't a big enough of a deal to be diagnosed.

Yeah, that's why I said tiny mental issues. I was talking about symptoms of, not necessarily enough for a full diagnosis. High-functioning autism is an actual diagnosis, and there are also high-functioning alcoholics, etc.

 

[guerilla]

^ applying it consistently is not a problem. . . the fact that he presents certain behaviors as those of a libertarian (such "looking" at child porn) are in fact not consistant with libertarian beliefs.

I never claimed libertarians look at child porn. I said that libertarians don't oppose action which is voluntary and consensual.

I hate it when you guys lie about what I said. It's right in this thread for crissakes.

But can the individual choose to resolve the conflict himself?

I don't see why not, but I don't see most people pursuing justice on their own for the following reasons.

1. It is dangerous.
2. It is expensive
3. It is hard to be comprehensive.
4. It may require expertise.

and so on.

An agent who is skilled at this is probably going to outperform a layman at the task. It's why we employ all manner of specialists in a complex economy.

"Relating to, based on, or agreeable to reason."

Then you need to define reason (since that looks like a definition for "reasonable" not rational).

See, I agree that rationality is based on reason, but I also believe that reason is subjective. I think you might want to consider that unless you're saying that there is only one right way to think, or that everyone thinks the same because I think the opposite position implies one, if not both of those two.

What I'm saying is that there are millions of cases of people handling conflict resolution themselves irrationally.

How so? What do they do that is irrational?

A rational society would be based on the premise that most humans would be able to resolve their own conflicts rationally.

See, I am going to have an issue with this, because all human behavior is rational. If people were irrational, they would be like lemmings. It's another a priori that man acts with purpose. In fact, in discourse, for you to argue that people are irrational would be a performative contradiction, because you would be saying you're irrational when you say people are irrational.

This is where logic really helps tidy up some concepts.

It would kind of depend on what we mean by overwhelmed. I'm constantly feeling emotions all day, but typically they don't lead to irrational action from me.

Do you believe you're exceptional in this regard?

Isn't that how things currently exist? Unless they're an extremely notorious killer.

Normally you need a security clearance to get status in another country. There are of course exceptions, but the norm is that you have to prove the cops don't want you back home. I don't see why this would be much different.

I do still think that the more we use science to deduce truths, the less we use philosophy. But saying that is a leap of faith in saying that reality is purely scientific.

They actually cover different domains, just like reality is objective but values are subjective.

If you use the right tool for the right job, you have a shot at getting a useful answer. If you use the wrong tool, you're screwed.

We'll have to wait for advances in neuroscience to definitively say that. It's still a fresh field that's incredibly complex.

That's more Cardine's area of expertise than mine.

 

[guerilla]

I'm staying away from this topic for three reasons:

I should be as smart as you sometimes. Or as disciplined. Maybe both.

1. guerilla has done a fantastic job, and any contribution of mine would only dilute the power of his.

The fact I am having a productive civil discussion with Super, and I think I had one with southbound is positive.

 

[SUP3RNOVA]

I don't see why not, but I don't see most people pursuing justice on their own for the following reasons.

1. It is dangerous.
2. It is expensive
3. It is hard to be comprehensive.
4. It may require expertise.

and so on.

An agent who is skilled at this is probably going to outperform a layman at the task. It's why we employ all manner of specialists in a complex economy.

Ok, so people have the ability to handle their own disputes. What if I make a racially discriminate statement to a black person and they decide that they want to resolve the conflict by killing me?

Then you need to define reason (since that looks like a definition for "reasonable" not rational).

Traditional explanations of reason are "something that can be justified", which begs the question of what is just. Eventually I think reason boils down to a justification based on evidence.

How so? What do they do that is irrational?

Would you like me to find specific cases of people murdering over something completely nonsensical? Aside from your everyday dope dealer killing over a non-paid $20, the holocaust comes to mind.

See, I am going to have an issue with this, because all human behavior is rational.

Subjectively, to themselves, yes. But somebody who believes the world is flat or 6,000 years old is still wrong (and irrational).

If people were irrational, they would be like lemmings.

Most people are like lemmings.

Do you believe you're exceptional in this regard?

Yes.

just like reality is objective but values are subjective.

I think this is an argument that not only would take too long to resolve, but doesn't have enough evidence behind it to come to an accurate resolution.

While someone can truly believe that 2+2=5, we know that isn't true. We can objectively prove that the value of 2+2=4.

 

[guerilla]

Ok, so people have the ability to handle their own disputes. What if I make a racially discriminate statement to a black person and they decide that they want to resolve the conflict by killing me?

You didn't violate their property. They really don't have an excuse to use violence against you, but that would also depend on the norms and interpretations of your local community.

If it is ok for people to kill others for insults, you can be pretty sure people will be very careful about insulting someone in a community.

Traditional explanations of reason are something like "something that can be justified", which begs the question of what is just. Eventually I think reason boils down to a justification based on evidence.

Right, but without values, you can't even begin a justification.

You're right about begging the question. A lot of language is super sloppy and then people get even sloppier using those words.

Would you like me to find specific cases of people murdering over something completely nonsensical?

Nonsensical to you. To your values.

There is no way to escape subjectivism. Trust me, the Marxists have been trying for 100 years.

Aside from your everyday dope dealer killing over a non-paid $20, the holocaust comes to mind.

There was a lot of anti-semitism in Europe and America around that time. The prevailing wisdom was that Jews were bad. And people acted consistent with those views.

You can apply the same perspective to slavery, the pre-sexual revolution period, etc.

Subjectively, to themselves, yes. But somebody who believes the world is flat or 6,000 years old is still wrong (and irrational).

They are wrong.

But if they act consistently with their beliefs, then they are acting rationally.

Rational action is related to knowledge and values, it isn't related to objective truth, except where objective truth is knowledge the actor possesses.

Example

You don't know about gravity. So you jump out of a window to see if you can fly. That's rational.

You do know about gravity, so you don't jump out of a window to see if you can fly. That's rational.

Most people are like lemmings.

I hear that.

Yes.

I was just chatting with a friend. His views are close to mine, and he is one of a handful of people outside the libertarian community that I can talk economics and philosophy with. He said that people think he is arrogant (gee, I wonder what that is like) and I told him, "You know the story of Galileo? We're Galileo."

Maybe you're Galileo too. Most days, I am convinced there is more than one human species, and that our physical similarities don't always reflect our intellectual capabilities.

I think this is an argument that not only would take too long to resolve, but doesn't have enough evidence behind it to come to an accurate resolution.

Not sure I understand this.

While someone can truly believe that 2+2=5, we know that isn't true. We can objectively prove that the value of 2+2=4.

Absolutely. Values aren't facts. They aren't interchangeable.

2 + 2 = 4 is objectively true.

But someone may not know it. They may not understand it. They may not trust the source they heard it from. They might forget it.

That fact, even if known, only contributes to the formation of values, it doesn't constitute a value in itself.

Something you will probably notice if you haven't already, is that many people don't value knowledge or the truth. That's actually an evolutionary bias IMO. It's obviously a very dangerous bias politically and economically as we start to build our first global information society. We're really not designed for the world we're constructing.

I still need to watch that video.

 

[jonas33h]

I never claimed libertarians look at child porn. I said that libertarians don't oppose action which is voluntary and consensual.

I hate it when you guys lie about what I said. It's right in this thread for crissakes.

Child porn is neither voluntary or consenual so you should agree that this is insane that new york would take such a stan, yet you don't. . . .

 

[jonas33h]

guerilla;1745034

Why would I accept something I don't agree with?
You wont that's the problem


If someone lays out a logical case, it's impossible for me to deny it.
It is possible when you are being subjective, which a lot of times you are.

People don't lay out logical trains of reasoning.
So you agree you do not lay out logical train of reasoning.

It's like complaining that Michael Jordan wins so many basketball games when the answer is for the other team to score some points. Not saying I am Jordan, just making a point. Whining about me personally isn't a winning argument. I am asking you guys to make winning arguments, but you insist on whining about me personally.

No you just dismiss them as subjective when that is what you are doing.

You have no idea how frustrating that is.

trust me you are very frustrating because overall you can make sense, until you decide to not admit your error in logic.
You also don't know me.

correct.

You know why I don't post personally about you? First, because I don't know you, and second because it has nothing to do with being wrong or right.




I know kiddie porn is illegal, and in some cases, viewing kiddie porn is illegal. Legality isn't the same as right and wrong. It is illegal to smoke a joint in your own home, do you really think that it is wrong for people to smoke pot?

Seriously, because in previous post you have stated that there is nothing illegal about "just viewing" child porn". No smoking pot does not invade someone else privacy. I don't care bout what people do as long as it does not infringe on others rights.

You asserted above that looking at a photo violates a child's right to privacy, but then following that reasoning, looking at anyone's photo violates their right to privacy. Looking in any window is violating someone's right to privacy.

No, I asserted that taking a photo of a naked child or a photo of a child engaged in pornography as an invasion of their rights (do you not know what child porn is?) So, if someone willingly allows to have there photo taken and published like a model for instance no invasion has taken place. Spying on someone in there home is an invasion of there rights. . . peeping tom. . . do you seriously not know this?

You are one fucked up person if you do not know that kiddie porn is a violation of a child. . . that is all I have been arguing this whole time so you are fucked up or you would have agreed with me the whole time. I never argued anything this whole time accept that kiddie porn violates a person making it morally and legally wrong, you have taken the opposite stance. . . ..

Do you believe that? If not, the I have just pointed out a contradiction in your argument.

Yes I believe that molestation of a child is wrong and that I have not contradicted my self, yet you have because you claim to be for not violating peoples right unless they are a child.


If you're too lazy to post in a manner in which you can be understood, don't get butthurt later when I stop replying. I am happy to reply to you if you can be understood, but the onus is on you to post clearly in English.
ok?

Don't accuse me of personally attacking you when you are the one making contradictions and being a hypocrite. . . I only get butt hurt after fucking my gay lover. . . I could care less if you understand my statements or not.
[/QUOTE]

 

[guerilla]

Child porn is neither voluntary or consenual so you should agree that this is insane that new york would take such a stan, yet you don't. . . .

Why would I agree that it is insane that NY takes this stand?

I'll go back to my first post in this thread.

What is criminal about looking at something?

 

[jonas33h]

Looking at nude photos of a child is criminal, unless you don't value children than no nothign it wrong with it. I didn't say looking at TV's was criminal I sad looking at nude children was if you can' figure that out that's on you

 

[jonas33h]

you are subsitutin child porn with the world "something" but the argument is. . .is it criminal to view child porn, yes, yes it is wrong to view child porn, if you were a libertarian you would understand that forcing children into pornography is wrong. The argument does not go outside of child pornography. .. . I am not arguing that viewing images of cereal or flowers or nature is wrong I am arguing child pornography as wrong/criminal/immoral. . . nothing else nothing more. Consenting adult porn is not criminal child porn is. . . that is the argument do you still not understand that?

 

[guerilla]

Why would I accept something I don't agree with?
You wont that's the problem

Ok, let's try again.

Do you accept things you don't agree with?

If someone lays out a logical case, it's impossible for me to deny it.
It is possible when you are being subjective, which a lot of times you are.

Logic is logic bro. You show me one case where someone laid out a logical train of reasoning and I denied it. It's possible because I'm not perfect, but I really doubt it's something I do, or have done with regularity.

Anyway, just back up your posts.

It's like complaining that Michael Jordan wins so many basketball games when the answer is for the other team to score some points. Not saying I am Jordan, just making a point. Whining about me personally isn't a winning argument. I am asking you guys to make winning arguments, but you insist on whining about me personally.

No you just dismiss them as subjective when that is what you are doing.

Opinions are subjective, facts are not. What facts do you have? I've been asking for facts since my first post to this thread. What are the facts.

No one wants to talk about facts, they want to cuckoo about how bad kiddie porn is, or how the judges made a mistake, or how we should shoot the penis off of people who look at kiddie porn.

Those are opinions. Just give me one fact. Tell me what is criminal about looking at something. Explain the facts that make it a crime. Please.

trust me you are very frustrating because overall you can make sense, until you decide to not admit your error in logic.

If there is an error in my logic, it should be really easy for you to demonstrate that. Logic is like math. I shouldn't be able to bullshit you guys that 1 + 1 = 3.

And yet, you claim I am making logical errors without ever detailing them.

That's like telling someone they are doing math wrong without ever showing the equation. It is nonsense.

I know kiddie porn is illegal, and in some cases, viewing kiddie porn is illegal. Legality isn't the same as right and wrong. It is illegal to smoke a joint in your own home, do you really think that it is wrong for people to smoke pot?

Seriously, because in previous post you have stated that there is nothing illegal about "just viewing" child porn".

If I said illegal, I misspoke. I obviously meant criminal because that has been my argument since the beginning. I can't be bothered to go back and see if I made this mistake, but I will take you at your word.

Btw, this ^^ basically blows away your case that I won't ever admit I was wrong.

You asserted above that looking at a photo violates a child's right to privacy, but then following that reasoning, looking at anyone's photo violates their right to privacy. Looking in any window is violating someone's right to privacy.

No, I asserted that taking a photo of a naked child or a photo of a child engaged in pornography as an invasion of their rights (do you not know what child porn is?) So, if someone willingly allows to have there photo taken and published like a model for instance no invasion has taken place. Spying on someone in there home is an invasion of there rights. . . peeping tom. . . do you seriously not know this?

You are one fucked up person if you do not know that kiddie porn is a violation of a child. . . that is all I have been arguing this whole time so you are fucked up or you would have agreed with me the whole time. I never argued anything this whole time accept that kiddie porn violates a person making it morally and legally wrong, you have taken the opposite stance. . .

So basically, you have no response for the hypocrisy of claiming that looking at kiddie porn is a violation of rights, but looking at any other porn or photo is not.

That's basically it in a nutshell. You've reached a conclusion you're not consistent with, and attacking me doesn't improve that conclusion.

This is what I mean by logic.

This is what I meant when I asked, what was illegal about looking at something.

I don't ask the question to be an ass, I ask the question to understand your reasoning for your position. In your case, it is a violation of someone's rights when you look at a picture, unless they are a model, but of course, you can't always know if they are a model, or not, or they consented or not, so....

Do you believe that? If not, the I have just pointed out a contradiction in your argument.

Yes I believe that molestation of a child is wrong and that I have not contradicted my self, yet you have because you claim to be for not violating peoples right unless they are a child.

So now looking at kiddie porn is the same as molesting a child?

You're getting very close to that line where your "speed typing" makes it hard to understand you, and lowers the utility of a discussion with you.

Don't accuse me of personally attacking you when you are the one making contradictions and being a hypocrite. . . I only get butt hurt after fucking my gay lover. . . I could care less if you understand my statements or not.

[/QUOTE]
You haven't demonstrated one contradiction.

I wish you would, then I could correct my position.

You just keep asserting I am wrong. That's an opinion, and for the umpteenth time, opinions aren't facts. You couldn't pull this routine in a court, where you just keep saying, "this guy is wrong, this guy is bad, this guy believes wrong stuff".

No decent judge would allow it. They'd ask you for the facts of the matter.

And you'd have to substantiate some of the things you're saying or it would get stricken from the record.

PS, if you don't care if I respond, don't cry later that I am putting you on my ignore list. I do have better things to do than talk to people who don't care about the discussion.

 

[guerilla]

Looking at nude photos of a child is criminal

I am asking why it is criminal.

unless you don't value children than no nothign it wrong with it.

I'm not saying nothing is wrong with it. I am asking what the "crime" is.

When you look at a picture who is harmed?

I didn't say looking at TV's was criminal I sad looking at nude children was if you can' figure that out that's on you

I understood that.