Dan~
This is an insightful and dangerous point.
The figure is for the proportion of illegal child abuse content on websites. It wouldn’t surprise me at all if you could trace 50% of all such online material to America, it does have the largest internet use in the world and the biggest industry, or so I’m told. It proves little about American culture, but a lot about the American internet industry.
I was worried this was bad math, as in:
America has so much webspace, so it becomes the main producer of all internet porno, but this is a question of mass. Some other nations in and of themselves have a higher porn percentage than USA does, not all but some, I figure…
Almost as dangerous as the logic-paralyzing & stupefying urges that strike during puberty.
Wisdom is quantifyable & requires experience. It is a form of “maturity”.
The entire “kids shouldn’t fuck” concept is “suppressive” in the eyes of postmodern hedonism…
Perhaps these decaying morals are just a sign of an even deeper issue, a shifting of world view and human priorities. The complete death of human spirituality. The foundations of western society, the foundations of morality, the religion has fallen. Now there is spiritual and moral anarchy?
no, the best mass is at vatican.com
-Imp
wholesale & bulk distributer of puns, thanks again.
Some stats regarding UK child abuse. It is more than 2%
statistics.gov.uk/STATBASE/s … ?vlnk=5952
Yet another person who didn’t read the article. The stats were for the percentage of material portraying child abuse held on the websites of different countries, which as I said doesn’t bear any necessary connection to the abuse in those countries…
Right, I did not read the article as the implication was that child abuse is 51% in the USA. Also, I did not see you mention " which as I said doesn’t bear any necessary connection to the abuse in those countries…"
One thing I forgot to tell you about bestiality:
Animal fetish can sometimes be a sign of spiritual therianthropy.
Hello Aspacia,
Apologies for taking so long to reply.
All of which is neatly irrelevent to the point at issue. The points at issue are not whether NAMBLA or the PNVD are right to call for a change in the law, since I’m pretty sure we all agree that they are not, and that such a change in the law would be the wrong decision for various reasons, including the ones you outline. The point at issue is whether or not NAMBLA/PNVD should be allowed to campaign for a change in the law.
Given we generally agree that free speech is a good thing, it would seem that there would have to be a good reason if free speech is to be inhibited. Clearly there are some very good reasons why this might be required (the old “shouting ‘fire’ in a movie theatre” example comes to mind). But given that there is no reason whatsoever to think that NAMBLA or the PNVD will ever gain any legislative power, and the very act of the campaigning does not make child abuse any more likely, it would seem that we are not justified in violating their right to free speech on “protection from harm” grounds.
Yes, that is indeed the point, and I think we’d all agree that defamation of character and incitement to commit violence all ought to be prohibited. We’re not going to find an argument there.
But I cannot see how we can class NAMBLA or the PNVD’s claims as “harmful” without also classing many other claims as harmful. I don’t doubt that enticing children to have sex at a young age is harmful, but that is not what either organisation is doing, is it? If you have a press release or anything from them where they explicitly entice young children, I’d like to see it.
I don’t doubt that NAMBLA is wrong when it says that there is no damage involved in young-age sexual relationships. But that is merely a false premise in their argument, and false premises crop up in all sorts of arguments in the public sphere. What matters is whether or not the act of NAMBLA asserting their false premises makes it more likely that child molestation will take place. Have you any evidence to suggest that?
They’re not promoting harmful behaviour. Where do they implore their readers to molest children?