Bloody Libertarians, Imagine the Mess if they Ran Government

adouglasmhor

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

Not necessarily. I should have thought that such images could be generated artificially.

I believe many of the sick sad twisted objects who enjoy those things want the "real" thing. But I take your point on the artificial stuff. It is still classified as illegal kiddy !!!!!! here though.

Sir_Humphrey

adouglasmhor wrote: »

I believe many of the sick sad twisted objects who enjoy those things want the "real" thing. But I take your point on the artificial stuff. It is still classified as illegal kiddy !!!!!! here though.

Exactly. Looking at a drawing of imaginary child abuse is sick and twisted but in itself does no-one else any direct harm, so ought to be acceptable behaviour under the libertarian criterion.

Not quite what libertarians have in mind I suspect.

Generali

lemonjelly wrote: »

I see the point you make generali. Problem is, we're social creatures, not a collection of individuals. As a society, almost everything we do will impact on others in one way or another.

Libertarianism is (imo) far too simplistic & narrow minded in viewing who we are & what we do.

There will never be a Libertarian society any more than there will be a purely Communist society. As an ideology used as a policy 'sniff test' it works well for me.

adouglasmhor

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

Exactly. Looking at a drawing of imaginary child abuse is sick and twisted but in itself does no-one else any direct harm, so ought to be acceptable behaviour under the libertarian criterion.

Not quite what libertarians have in mind I suspect.

When judging other's behaviour I tend to use the question "Is it Safe, Sane and Consensual", I suspect it would fail that and I am not a libertarian on that issue. What a surprise as a human being I am fallible and complex. Not going to beat myself up over that either.

Generali

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

Exactly. Looking at a drawing of imaginary child abuse is sick and twisted but in itself does no-one else any direct harm, so ought to be acceptable behaviour under the libertarian criterion.

Not quite what libertarians have in mind I suspect.

A while before I left the UK, someone was prosecuted for changing images of adults having consensual sex to make it appear that one of them was a child.

He was found guilty and I was troubled by it TBH. I still can't decide if this law is good or bad (I write as a father of 2 young kids). Pragmatically it's hard to see what he's done wrong (who's been harmed?) but still it doesn't feel right at all.

Still, you have to be a hardened ideologue(sp?) to believe that a political belief system can give a simple answer to all questions at all times.

lemonjelly

adouglasmhor wrote: »

How would kiddie !!!!!! be made without it being imposed on others, in the sense that every piece of kiddy !!!!!! means a child has been abused and victimised. What a stupid counter to try.

I feel you have a very narrow imagination. We are not simply talking about photo's of abuse.

Titilating images can be taken - purely for example of children at play, without childrens or parents consent.

Fantasies. Stories (written media), manga style artistry, & as stated above altered images.

I was actually trying an extreme example to highlight a flaw in libertarianism.

Sir_Humphrey

Generali wrote: »

Still, you have to be a hardened ideologue(sp?) to believe that a political belief system can give a simple answer to all questions at all times.

Absolutely. That is why I do not consider myself an ideologue. Sadly, a lot of right-libertarians seem to be quite like that.

The reason it does not feel right is because there are wider implications of allowing such behaviour. Although we are dealing with an extreme example of bad behaviour, a lot of other behaviour which has no immediately obvious ill effects to others in fact does if people would only think about it enough.

If human beings were wiser more enlightened beings, then libertarianism could well work. Sadly, a lot of libertarian advocates (I do not count you amongst them) just see an ideology that can be used to justify their own selfish and unethical behaviour.

lostinrates

lemonjelly wrote: »

I feel you have a very narrow imagination. We are not simply talking about photo's of abuse.

Titilating images can be taken - purely for example of children at play, without childrens or parents consent.

Fantasies. Stories (written media), manga style artistry, & as stated above altered images.

I was actually trying an extreme example to highlight a flaw in libertarianism.

LJ, this is prt of what worries me so much: this phtos thing. Children playing, to most people, is beautiful and harmless.....but humans are beguiled by the ...unseen ..the forbiden. I do not believe in any way shape or form child !!!!!! should be legal, I believe the phtoos issue has gine very, very ,much to far, and than in effort to protect ourselves we are actually endangering ourselves.

True story: I let some foot guy take pictures of my feet in various shoes. I got to keep the shoes. I was fully dressed....the photos including my (bare) legs in the shoes nothing more. what he did with the photos in none of my business..if I had been under the age society deems appropriate for handling complex emotional pressures the same act would have been....because there was a cognizance in the room. Pictures from a shoe makers website....same thing, no emotional pressure...in my mind are ''clean'', but not sanitised.. Its something that I just don't ''get''...a case where my sense of empathy justcan't function.

Is it always a comfortable comprimise with one's own morality? Of course.

edit: imo there is a huge chance we are all wrong: I believe our species best hope is diversity (link to darwin dicussion on other thread...:)) that is why I feel choice is our best hope. Because I might be wrong....if the people who believe in ''control'' are right we might all be the wrong coloured peppered moths.

adouglasmhor

lemonjelly wrote: »

I feel you have a very narrow imagination. We are not simply talking about photo's of abuse.

Titilating images can be taken - purely for example of children at play, without childrens or parents consent.

Fantasies. Stories (written media), manga style artistry, & as stated above altered images.

I was actually trying an extreme example to highlight a flaw in libertarianism.

I have seen some dodgy manga stuff, I can't see why even though it disturbs me it is classed as !!!!!!. Some of it is still openly on sale in bookshops, the characters are stylised kids with adult body features not real.
My BDSM activities are often illegal to photograph as the law stands now. Even though done between consenting adults. (I am the sub BTW).

ninky_2

i came out left social moderate.

left 4.21
libertarian 0.81