Instigator / Pro
21
1309
rating
269
debates
40.71%
won
Topic
#3633
Should children have the right to watch porn?
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 3 votes and with 12 points ahead, the winner is...
Best.Korea
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Two weeks
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- Six months
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
9
1553
rating
9
debates
72.22%
won
Description
I wonder if activists for childrens rights should include this right in their currently poor list of rights.
Well, the topic is clear enough and I dont think I have to add anything in description.
Round 1
I wont write much in round one.
My basic stance is:
1) children like to watch porn
2) most of the children have touched themselves
3) most of the children have sexual feelings
4) porn doesnt cause too much harm
5) some children will watch porn anyway even if they are punished for watching it
6) adults are allowed to watch porn, so I dont see why children dont have the same right
Their Case
1) children like to watch porn
Serial killers like to kill people, but it does not mean they have the right to do so. I do not want to crush my hand with a hammer, but I have the right to do this as well. Wants have nothing to do with what we consider a right, and the fact that someone likes something is completely irrelevant.
2) most of the children have touched themselves3) most of the children have sexual feelings
Again, I see no relevance to rights here.
4) porn doesnt cause too much harm
But it does cause harm, so I will take this as conceded for now. Also this is irrelevant. Stealing a penny is going to do little to no harm, but I do not have the right to do this.
5) some children will watch porn anyway even if they are punished for watching it
What relevance does this have? Serial killers still commit murder even when the death penalty exists, but this does not mean that we should give a right to murder because even if punishment is not 100% effective murder is still bad.
My opponent simply has not met the burden of proof because nothing that has been said talks to what and what should not be considered a right.
My case
Porn often leads to addiction [1], and in the end this does not give someone freedom it takes it away. "Today, pornograhy is being watched by younger (and more impressionable) citizens than ever. Too many risk becoming addicted later in their lives. Those who do will have chosen licentiousness over the true liberty that would allow them to experience the full palette of civic freedoms. Is there anything else more worth living for? After all, the goal of education ought to be to help our youth make sense of the truly valuable freedoms that are their birthright and to teach them to orient their liberty toward justice." [2]
There is a difference between a legal affordance, and a right. You are theoretically allowed to do anything as long as there is no law against it, but this does not mean that all of those things are rights. Rights are the liberties which should not be taken away under any circumstances by a higher power.
"Liberty is the freedom to do only good; licentiousness is the freedom to do what is evil. That is why we have laws lest we become a lawless society. Our Constitution wasn’t written to guarantee licentiousness, but liberty. Free speech wasn’t written to guarantee freedom to use all manner of profanity, vulgarity or violence. It was written to guarantee freedom for people to voice their opinion." [3]
Round 2
"Serial killers like to kill people, but it does not mean they have the right to do so."
Cars kill people. You dont ban cars. Smoking kills people. You dont ban smoking. Electricity kills people. You dont ban electricity. So basically, why do you imply that killing is bad while at the same time giving support to things that kill people?
"I do not want to crush my hand with a hammer, but I have the right to do this as well."
If you have the right to hurt yourself and others, surely children can have the right to watch porn.
"Wants have nothing to do with what we consider a right, and the fact that someone likes something is completely irrelevant."
Then surely you could explain to us what is relevant then? Only those rights that you desire?
And you dont see childs desires to be relevant to their rights? But you see yours! In the same way you discard childs desires, I discard yours.
"But it does cause harm, so I will take this as conceded for now."
Cars cause harm. Meat causes harm. Internet causes harm. If you think you can ban things because they cause harm, then either ban everything either change your inconsistent logic.
"Also this is irrelevant. Stealing a penny is going to do little to no harm, but I do not have the right to do this."
And why not? Why dont you have the right to steal it if it causes little harm? Cars cause much more harm, yet people are allowed to drive cars.
"What relevance does this have? Serial killers still commit murder even when the death penalty exists, but this does not mean that we should give a right to murder because even if punishment is not 100% effective murder is still bad."
Except that you dont think murder is bad, which is proven in previous arguments.
Of course, you fail to connect the dots. You cant say that one type of harm is bad, but the other type of harm is okay just because you like it.
"nothing that has been said talks to what and what should not be considered a right."
Well, do I need to repeat it a 100 times?
Children like it and it doesnt cause too much harm. This was the basis for all other rights in history.
"Porn often leads to addiction [1], and in the end this does not give someone freedom it takes it away."
Everything can cause addiction. Many things destroy freedom. Cars destroy freedom when they kill people. Internet causes addiction. Smoking destroys freedom and causes addiction. Electricity destroys freedom for all those killed by it. Meat destroys freedom and causes addiction.
Maybe work on your logic so its actually applicable and not inconsistent.
"true liberty that would allow them to experience the full palette of civic freedoms."
Liberty that allows to experience freedom? Are you even reading what you write?
Also, we have already proven that these freedoms are destroyed in every society and the only way for you to apply freedom would be to ban everything that destroys it which would limit your society to a tribe without cars or electricity.
"truly valuable freedoms that are their birthright and to teach them to orient their liberty toward justice." There is no justice in your society. You dont want justice. I dont see why are you lying. You allow one type of harm, but ban the other. That is not justice. Unless your definition of justice is "only those things I like".
"Rights are the liberties which should not be taken away under any circumstances by a higher power."
By this, nobody has any rights. Rights are taken away every day in every country. So maybe think of some other definition that doesnt exclude entire human race.
"Liberty is the freedom to do only good"
Yeah, then turn off your electricity. Its harmful.
"That is why we have laws lest we become a lawless society."
Nice circular reasoning. So we should have porn otherwise we become a pornless society.
See? I can make those circles too.
"Our Constitution wasn’t written to guarantee licentiousness, but liberty."
Sorry, what constitution is that? USA? Did you just assume that I am from USA? Well, I have never been so insulted in my life.
Also, your constitution doesnt guarantee liberty. This is proven by 30000 deaths from cars alone. You destroy liberty. So maybe work on that.
"Free speech wasn’t written to guarantee freedom to use all manner of profanity, vulgarity or violence.
It was written to guarantee freedom for people to voice their opinion."
If you sext a 10 year old girl, you go to prison. If you just say to an 8 year old girl that you would like to see her naked and masturbating, you go to prison. Where is this freedom of speech you are talking about?
Cars kill people. You dont ban cars. Smoking kills people. You dont ban smoking. Electricity kills people. You dont ban electricity. So basically, why do you imply that killing is bad while at the same time giving support to things that kill people?No, bad drivers kill people which is why we try to implement traffic laws and prosecute drunk drivers.
Smoking might be bad and there is no ban against it, but there is no codified right to smoking either.
Same point on electricity, but also how many people does electricity actually kill a year? Not that many.
Killing people is bad and I support things that kill people because I am not an idealist and I understand that without things like electricity far more would actually be harmed, but my ideology is irrelevant to the resolution and this is simply an ad-hominem attack.
If you have the right to hurt yourself and others, surely children can have the right to watch porn.
Conceded - I have no right to hurt myself.
Then surely you could explain to us what is relevant then? Only those rights that you desire?And you dont see childs desires to be relevant to their rights? But you see yours! In the same way you discard childs desires, I discard yours.
Refer to my point on civic freedoms.
Cars cause harm. Meat causes harm. Internet causes harm. If you think you can ban things because they cause harm, then either ban everything either change your inconsistent logic.
There is no codified right to these things so yes, we can ban them if we want to. In reality these things a beneficial in a relative sense, but these modern systems protect people far more which is why death rates have gone down dramatically since that dark ages.
And why not? Why dont you have the right to steal it if it causes little harm? Cars cause much more harm, yet people are allowed to drive cars.
I would be interested to see your source that says cars cause more harm than stealing a penny. To me it seems like cars enable an entire economic systems that sustains billions of people and has improved life expectance from thirty to eighty.
Except that you dont think murder is bad, which is proven in previous arguments.Of course, you fail to connect the dots. You cant say that one type of harm is bad, but the other type of harm is okay just because you like it.
Well, do I need to repeat it a 100 times?Children like it and it doesnt cause too much harm. This was the basis for all other rights in history.
Wrong. John Locke laid out the foundation for our modern day of rights through the lens of civic liberties. Throughout history there was a separation of rights from licentiousness.
Everything can cause addiction. Many things destroy freedom. Cars destroy freedom when they kill people. Internet causes addiction. Smoking destroys freedom and causes addiction. Electricity destroys freedom for all those killed by it. Meat destroys freedom and causes addiction.Maybe work on your logic so its actually applicable and not inconsistent.
Cars enable economic systems, as does the internet, electricity, and meat. Again, none of these things are codified rights in the first place.
Liberty that allows to experience freedom? Are you even reading what you write?Also, we have already proven that these freedoms are destroyed in every society and the only way for you to apply freedom would be to ban everything that destroys it which would limit your society to a tribe without cars or electricity.
I do read what I write as a matter of fact, and in fact freedom does not equal liberty. Liberty does not include licentiousness and is ensured by rights, whereas freedom includes whatever you can do and is ensured by nothing.
I have already responded to the point on cars and electricity. There is no codified right to these things, and they are actually beneficial to society which is why we allow them to exist.
"Rights are the liberties which should not be taken away under any circumstances by a higher power."By this, nobody has any rights. Rights are taken away every day in every country. So maybe think of some other definition that doesnt exclude entire human race.
I said should not be taken away, not can not be taken away.
"Liberty is the freedom to do only good"Yeah, then turn off your electricity. Its harmful.
AD HOMINEM and electricity is good
"Liberty is the freedom to do only good; licentiousness is the freedom to do what is evil. That is why we have laws lest we become a lawless society."Nice circular reasoning. So we should have porn otherwise we become a pornless society.See? I can make those circles too.
A lawless society is bad, a pornless society is good. This is not circular logic. Not having laws creates a lawless society by definition.
"Our Constitution wasn’t written to guarantee licentiousness, but liberty."
Sorry, what constitution is that? USA? Did you just assume that I am from USA? Well, I have never been so insulted in my life.Also, your constitution doesnt guarantee liberty. This is proven by 30000 deaths from cars alone. You destroy liberty. So maybe work on that.
Our can refer to MY country, but also the USA is the most relevant considering the concept of a right and history.
"Free speech wasn’t written to guarantee freedom to use all manner of profanity, vulgarity or violence.It was written to guarantee freedom for people to voice their opinion."If you sext a 10 year old girl, you go to prison. If you just say to an 8 year old girl that you would like to see her naked and masturbating, you go to prison. Where is this freedom of speech you are talking about?
As I said, not profanity, vulgarity, or violence. Civic opinions.
Round 3
No, bad drivers kill people which is why we try to implement traffic laws and prosecute drunk drivers.
There wouldnt be bad drivers if there were no cars. So your argument falls apart.
"Smoking might be bad and there is no ban against it, but there is no codified right to smoking either."
Well, it seems you dont understand the simple logic I used. If smoking destoys life, it destroys rights too. So the codified rights are violated. If it destroys rights, how can it be allowed and not punished by others? But children are punished when they watch porn?
Also, you dont seem to understand what rights are. I usually dont like explaining simple things. But the most simple definition that you might be able to understand is "rights are something that a person can do without being punished".
Of course, I already know you wont understand this simple definition.
But lets assume you understood it. So basically, people have a right to smoke. Even tho its harmful, they are not punished by society.
"Same point on electricity, but also how many people does electricity actually kill a year? Not that many."
Not that many? Did you just say its okay to kill people just because you dont kill too many?
"Killing people is bad and I support things that kill people"
Yeah, we know that.
"because I am not an idealist and I understand that without things like electricity far more would actually be harmed"
How would you be harmed if you didnt have electrucity in your house? Would you die? No. So your argument fails.
"but my ideology is irrelevant to the resolution and this is simply an ad-hominem attack."
So you are saying just because your logic is inconsistent and full of fallacies, that it should be still accepted by others or otherwise you will feel attacked? Please, tell me more.
"Refer to my point on civic freedoms."
I dont see the point of reading again the point that is proven to be inconsistent.
"There is no codified right to these things so yes, we can ban them(cars) if we want to."
You seem to be confusing the rights written on the paper with those you actually have. "We can" doesnt mean anything. Either you do ban them, either you dont. So far you didnt, and that has violated the rights of millions of people who died because of your fancy cars.
"In reality these things a beneficial in a relative sense, but these modern systems protect people far more which is why death rates have gone down dramatically since that dark ages."
So basically, since today you killed less people than you killed yesterday, you are a good person? Yeah, you are not making any sense at this point.
"I would be interested to see your source that says cars cause more harm than stealing a penny. To me it seems like cars enable an entire economic systems that sustains billions of people and has improved life expectance from thirty to eighty."
Sorry, what do cars enable? Your car only serves you so that you can go to work. You can go to work on a scooter too. There is no difference. In your argument, you assumed that there is no better alternative for cars. So please, tell me, what is the role of your car? And why that role cannot be done by a scooter or a bus or a train on a fenced railway that is thousand times safer?
If your car doesnt contribute to increase of life expectancy, and doesnt contribute to your work, in a way that cannot be replaced by any safer means, then your car is harmful and to remain consistent in your logic you need to get rid of it along with 99% of all other cars in your country.
Also, your claim that cars enabled medicine doesnt seem to have any logical support. The delivery of a medicine doesnt require cars. Production of medicine doesnt require cars. Your correlation between cars and medicine doesnt seem to prove any causation of one by the other. Especially since most people dont produce medicine, so their cars play no role in medicine and hence play no positive role in life expectancy. However, when a 5 year old girl gets crushed by a car because people like you think all cars are awesome, and then when you want to come to me to educate me about what is harmful, how can you expect from me to listen to you when you literally justified murder?
"Wrong. John Locke laid out the foundation for our modern day of rights through the lens of civic liberties."
Yeah, he did that on a basis of what he liked and wanted. Maybe I need to explain again? Also, its already proven you dont respect those rights and that those rights are unachivable and contradicting. Maybe actually come up with something better than fairy tales that you yourself fail to belive in.
"Throughout history there was a separation of rights from licentiousness."
No. We just proved that you and your society violate rights of others whenever you like to do that.
I understand that lying might help you in life, but it wont help you much here.
"Cars enable economic systems, as does the internet, electricity, and meat."
Sorry, are you joking? I already explained to you about cars. And no, electricity in your house doesnt enable any enonomic system. Economy would work even if 80% of people didnt have cars or electricity in their homes. Electricity in your house doesnt increase your life expectancy in any way, nor does it make you work better. Just because you confuse scientific development with consumption, that doesnt mean one leads to another. Its not the cars that allowed scientific development. Its the scientific development that allowed cars. Its not electricity in your house that allowed medicine. Science allowed medicine just like science allowed electricity in your house.
So, now I have to explain about the meat too? I thought at least this one you will be able to understand, but no. Meat allows economy and medicine? Meat does exactly the opposite. It harms health, and it harms economy, and it harms the animals. I dont see how could you not know this. Have you ever seen the price of meat and compared it to price of vegetables and fruits? Like, I understand its difficult to be educated if you live in america, but that doesnt mean you shouldnt try.
Again, you violate the rights of others when you see fit, proving my point.
"Again, none of these things are codified rights in the first place."
Again, mistaking codified rights for rights.
"I do read what I write as a matter of fact, and in fact freedom does not equal liberty."
Yeah, apparently you dont understand the difference yourself,
as proven here:
"Liberty does not include licentiousness and is ensured by rights, whereas freedom includes whatever you can do and is ensured by nothing."
Liberty is not ensured in your society. We have already proven that. You violate the rights of others.
Also, liberty does include your personal preference since you violate it every time you like.
"There is no codified right to these things, and they are actually beneficial to society which is why we allow them to exist."
Codified rights dont exist. You either have rights, either dont. It doesnt matter if it says on a piece of paper that you have rights, if you dont actually have them.
Also, cars kill many people every year. How is that beneficial? I already explained why they are harmful and not needed.
"I said(rights) should not be taken away, not can not be taken away."
Yes, and that contradicts to you saying that harmful things should be allowed when they violate rights.
"AD HOMINEM and electricity is good"
You didnt explain how is electricity in your house not harmful, as it can literally kill you or children.
Also, you didnt explain how electricity in your house increases anyones life expectancy by even 1 second. So if it doesnt increase life expectancy and could kill you, its harmful. So turn it off.
"A lawless society is bad, a pornless society is good."
Yeah, except that just as you correlated cars to life expectancy, I can correlate porn to it and say that because of porn people have increased their life expectancy.
Its obvious that using correlations is unreliable. So maybe spend more time educating yourself and use actual logic.
"This is not circular logic. Not having laws creates a lawless society by definition."
If I say that bird is a bird, its circular logic. Its the same thing as saying lawless society has no laws. Its just repeating same thing twice.
"Our can refer to MY country, but also the USA is the most relevant considering the concept of a right and history."
Yeah, I dont know what history and rights are you talking about. Your country killed over 100 million people, imprisoned a good amount of its population, sent children to prisons, forced children to take harmful substances, allowed and encouraged corporal punishment of children, encouraged forced circumcision, imprisoned and raped pedophiles for having consensual sex with children, created hell in prisons, encouraged bullying in schools, allowed harming of children by society and by parents, encouraged lies such as religious ones, killed billions of animals for meat and on the roads, forced children to consume meat, violated the will of many children by telling them what they are not allowed to do with their own bodies, spent billions on propaganda to encourage hate, forced the children to live in terrible conditions that ruined their mental, dental and overall health, forced children to consume harmful food that ruins their teeth and health, promoted the use of force against children...
I would write more, but at this point my hand starts to hurt
"As I said, not profanity, vulgarity, or violence. Civic opinions"
If a man thinks an 8 year old girl is sexy, thats his opinion. If he has no right to say it to her, he has no freedom of speech.
You cant limit the freedom of speech, because when you limit speech, there is no freedom of speech anymore. So dont pretend that you have freedom. Its not convincing at this point.
Forfeited
Round 4
Umm you forfeit? Thats not fair...
Forfeited
Round 5
You are basically saying I am not good enough for you to even talk to me. This is probably because of my muslim origin. I cant seem to get rid of it. Every time I read quran, I find in it the torture methods Allah will use on unbelievers. Its literally in every chapter of Quran. So I fully understand that you dont want to have anything to do with me. In fact, I think its fully justified and I think that you have won this debate. If I could vote, I would vote for you. Personally, I dont like when people vote for me because it makes me feel like I am a dog seeking their attention and approval.
Forfeited
I literally have no idea how I won this debate. This was one of those I was certain I would lose before it even started.
Also, I have no idea why my opponent forfeited. The only thing he needed to do was to keep repeating it was harmful and voters would buy it and vote for him.
Children do have the right, as well they have the right of choosing to starve oneself or slice oneself in the wrist. Still, most children choose to not use these rights due to external reasons.
animalstic approach ,as we are humans we dont ,
Yeah, he seems angry. Probably his wife cheating on him.
I see another has called you out for your sick pedophilia fascination.
Your nice words cannot change my mind.
Best.Korea. You are an evil human being. If you think it is okay for a grown man or woman to do anything sexually to a child, you are disgusting. You are evil. You are vile. You are foul. You are loathsome. You are sick. You are one of the worst human beings I have ever encountered on this site and I think you should be banned. Stop talking because you keep proving how terrible of a person you are.
You are not making any sense now. But 10 comments ago you claimed its okay to crush little girls to death, so maybe work on that logical problems you have.
Your psychological projection, while amusing, is also boring not to mention sophomorically banal.
You ARE the poster child for the Dunning Kruger Effect.
Adieu
I thought you were done, but you seem to be still talking. And still nothing logical comes out of your dirty american mouth. Its like you cant even do basic reasoning.
I didn't lose the argument, you did.
Corresponding with you is like beating a dead horse. That dead horse will never get up and drink from the trough. That is why I am done with you and your idiocy.
">> Maybe you should get a dictionary"
Maybe you should go back to school. But I doubt it will help.
"equivalency," - e.g., "The relationship that holds for two propositions that are either both true or both false, so that the affirmation of one and the denial of the other results in contradiction.""
Yeah, now you pretty much totally failed. Banning cars and allowing pedophilia does not result in contradiction, since pedophilia does much less harm. Only allowing cars and banning pedophilia results in contradiction, as I have shown. So no equivalency. Hence, no false equivalency.
"When you are comparing things as if they are equal in effect in order to substantiate your so-called position, you are equating them."
I never said that cars and pedophilia are equal in effect. In fact, I have in the previous comment clearly stated that cars are much worse. So banning things that do little harm while allowing things that do great harm is a contradiction if your arguments are based on harm. I dont see what you fail to understand. There is no false equivalency here. I dont think you even know what false equivalency is. And no, you cant just name things false without providing reasons. But so far you are acting like an average american, so its fine.
"NO!!! That is NOT my argument."
It literally is your argument. You justify cars. They crush children to death. Hence, you justify crushing children to death to allow cars. But pedophilia is bad because you dont like it. So do you think a little girl can satisfy herself without an adult? How is a little girl supposed to get pleasure?
"I've already given it and in great detail. You're just not equipped to grasp the truth of it."
What great detail? Are you drunk? You just lied about false equivalency for 50 times. What a great detail.
"Cars and meat have absolutely NOTHING to do with pedophilia you clown."
Cars and meat are much worse and cause much more damage. Your position was that pedophilia is bad because it causes damage. Since cars cause much more damage, to remain consistent your position must say that cars are bad too.
At this point, I am explaining things to you as if you were a toddler. But you still fail to understand.
"I'm done with you. I've ran out of patience dealing with your perversions. You're sick and need to seek counseling"
Oh yes, the typical american joe response when he loses an argument.
TWS: "False equivalency fallacy. "
BK: Well, maybe you need an eyes check. I never said harm that comes from cars is equal to harm that comes from pedophilia.
>> Maybe you should get a dictionary and look up "equivalency," - e.g., "The relationship that holds for two propositions that are either both true or both false, so that the affirmation of one and the denial of the other results in contradiction."
When you are comparing things as if they are equal in effect in order to substantiate your so-called position, you are equating them.
BK: Your argument is that harm is justified when a little girl gets crushed by a car,
>>NO!!! That is NOT my argument. That is YOUR strawman argument.
BK: So what is your argument exactly?
>> I've already given it and in great detail. You're just not equipped to grasp the truth of it.
BK: As far as I can see, you ran out of arguments. You didn't prove that cars or meat are not harmful.
Cars and meat have absolutely NOTHING to do with pedophilia you clown.
I'm done with you. I've ran out of patience dealing with your perversions. You're sick and need to seek counseling.
"False equivalency fallacy. "
Well, maybe you need an eyes check. I never said harm that comes from cars is equal to harm that comes from pedophilia. In fact, I consistently claimed that cars are much worse. You failed to prove that they are not. Well, you didnt even try, to be precise. Like really, you had 0 valid arguments.
Also, you failed to prove that harm which comes from cars is justified. If its not justified and hurts children, why are you approving it? Why dont you ban cars, meat...ect. Do you think its okay to hurt children for your pleasure?
Your argument is that harm is justified when a little girl gets crushed by a car, but when an adult man sexually pleases a little girl thats not justified?
Its obvious that being crushed by a car is worse.
So what is your argument exactly? As far as I can see, you ran out of arguments. You didnt prove that cars or meat are not harmful. I mean, you couldnt prove that even if you wanted. Then you implied its better for a little girl to be crushed to death by a car than to be sexually pleased by an adult. An obvious nonsense, considering that pain from being crushed is much greater. Also, do I need to even mention that if a pedophile doesnt have real sex with a child, but for example just gives her oral and masturbation, its obvious that it causes no physical pain. And if a little girl wants it, then certainly you have no right to judge such a relationship. Especially considering that you claimed how its okay to crush little girls to death.
Also, you didnt explain why harm from pedophilia is greater than harm from cars, meat...ect. So you never had an argument to begin with. I consider you just an average american who thinks he can do so many bad things while pretending to be a good guy. Naturally, considering that you are an american, it was expected that you wont even understand my arguments. Americans dont have lots of education. Most of them still think angels are real.
You are an uneducated incompetent fool.
You simply could not argue your way out of a wet paper bag.
You are indisputably proven wrong herein where your position on pedophilia is concerned.
"False equivalency fallacy. A little girl being sexually abused will live where she would not if crushed by a car."
So cars are more harmful and need to be banned. Unless you claim you would rather have a little girl be crushed by a car than pleased by an adult.
Are you saying its okay to crush a little girl to death then? It seems like the more you talk, the less sense you make. Like most of US presidents!
"Eating meat and all the other nonsensical (illogical) nonsense you espoused is [NOT] on par with pedophilia and sexual abuse of a child/minor."
Eating meat kills you by shortening your life. It also kills animals. It hurts health in general making the damage unfixable.
Cars kill 30000 people every year in your country. How many people did pedophiles kill?
//"Your lists of so-called harms to children are not harms on par with sexual abuse by a pedophile and child traffickers in pedophilia."//
BK: They are.
>> No, they are NOT!!!!
BK: Unless you claim that a little girl being pleased by an adult is worse than little girl being crushed by a car. I know America is uneducated, but this is just too low
>> False equivalency fallacy. A little girl being sexually abused will live where she would not if crushed by a car. Illogical ignoramus Mr. Dunning Kruger Effect.
//"It's called academia, professional experience and personal research for a reason."//
BK: Yeah, and I am a hero of the Socialist labor and an honored member of the order of Marx and Lenin.
>> Immature ignorant sophomorically banal intellectual coward retort.
"Your lists of so-called harms to children are not harms on par with sexual abuse by a pedophile and child traffickers in pedophilia."
They are. They cause death and great suffering. So does your entire society. Unless you claim that a little girl being pleased by an adult is worse than little girl being crushed by a car. I know America is uneducated, but this is just too low
"It's called academia, professional experience and personal research for a reason."
Yeah, and I am a hero of the Socialist labor and an honored member of the order of Marx and Lenin.
CORRECTION - "Define hurting children on par with pedophilia. Eating meat and all the other nonsensical (illogical) nonsense you espoused is [NOT] on par with pedophilia and sexual abuse of a child/minor."
//"Also says the guy who doesn't know who he is talking to."//
BK: Well, unless you are a president of the USA, I am not amused.
>> LOL!!! Says the guy who STILL doesn't know who he is talking to. Since you're operating on one dimensional thinking, let me enlighten you. If and when you know not who your opponent is personally or have been given enough experience engaging with to understand a small measure of their way of thinking and debate/discussion style, you simply DO NOT KNOW who you are talking to. Which makes you wholeheartedly an arrogant narcist to think you know more than the other when you cannot even present a cogent argument yourself. Let alone a grammatically correct one.
//"those who act on their urges consume child porn, purchase a child for sex, or otherwise take advantage of the vulnerabilities of children."//
BK: Its interesting when a pedophile does something to a child, its "taking advantage of", "horrible", "blablabla". But when your society hurts children, its "false equivalency", "doesnt count", "doesnt matter"... Maybe actually create a good society that doesnt hurt children, and someone might believe that you actually care for children.
Define hurting children on par with pedophilia. Eating meat and all the other nonsensical (illogical) nonsense you espoused is on par with pedophilia and sexual abuse of a child/minor.
//"they just get killed"//
BK: Yeah, thats appropriate punishment for harmless crimes
Sexually abusing a child is NOT a "harmless crime"!!!
//"because inmates have a code of ethics that leads them to disdain such harm being done to a child."//
BK: What harm? And also, since I listed so many ways in which your society hurts children, its not even possible for you to jusify yourself and condemn pedophiles at the same. But you are probably one of those "when I do it, its okay" guys.
Your lists of so-called harms to children are not harms on par with sexual abuse by a pedophile and child traffickers in pedophilia.
//"No child allows an adult to "touch them" down there."//
BK: Did you question all the children in the world? It seems like you have great knowledge(not really).
Yeah, I do have great knowledge. LOL!! It's called academia, professional experience and personal research for a reason.
//"That is NOT my argument. This is nothing short of a strawman argument."//
BK: Its not your argument? Then why did you use it? You do understand that if you say that something is bad because its harmful, logical conclusion is that everything that is harmful is bad. Unless your logic is inconsistent. But of course you fail to understand this. Also, being an american is not an excuse. You should work to overcome that.
No, it's not my argument. You are creating words and putting them in my mouth and acting like I said them. Hence the essence of a strawman argument.
I did not use any of the arguments that you claimed, word for word, and I challenge you to quote me by comment # and "quote" word for word that = what you claim I said as you presented them, exactly, word for word.
My being an American has absolutely nothing to do with the truth behind the science defining pedophilia and the social and psychological harm it does to children.
You're living in an idiocracy that supports pedophilia. Makes you a sicko and a criminal.
"Also says the guy who doesn't know who he is talking to."
Well, unless you are a president of the USA, I am not amused.
"those who act on their urges consume child porn, purchase a child for sex, or otherwise take advantage of the vulnerabilities of children."
Its interesting when a pedophile does something to a child, its "taking advantage of", "horrible", "blablabla". But when your society hurts children, its "false equivalency", "doesnt count", "doesnt matter"... Maybe actually create a good society that doesnt hurt children, and someone might believe that you actually care for children.
"they just get killed"
Yeah, thats appropriate punishment for harmless crimes
"because inmates have a code of ethics that leads them to disdain such harm being done to a child."
What harm? And also, since I listed so many ways in which your society hurts children, its not even possible for you to jusify yourself and condemn pedophiles at the same. But you are probably one of those "when I do it, its okay" guys.
"No child allows an adult to "touch them" down there."
Did you question all the children in the world? It seems like you have great knowledge(not really).
"That is NOT my argument. This is nothing short of a strawman argument."
Its not your argument? Then why did you use it? You do understand that if you say that something is bad because its harmful, logical conclusion is that everything that is harmful is bad. Unless your logic is inconsistent. But of course you fail to understand this. Also, being an american is not an excuse. You should work to overcome that.
B.K: To put your argument simply:
>> That is NOT my argument. This is nothing short of a strawman argument.
B.K: So child crossing the road is bad, since it fullfils all of the above.
>> False equivalency fallacy to pedophilia and sexual relations with a child.
B.K: So is child eating meat.
>> False equivalency fallacy to pedophilia and sexual relations with a child.
B.K: So is spanking children.
>> False equivalency fallacy to pedophilia and sexual relations with a child.
B.K: So is circumcision. (...)
>> All of which are False equivalency fallacies to pedophilia and sexual relations with a child.
B.K: It is also wrong for you to own a gun.
>> False equivalency fallacy to pedophilia and sexual relations with a child. Also, an implicit red herring fallacy as well.
B.K: (...) This is if we apply your logic on children as a group.
>> That's not my logic, that's your strawman fallacy. And a rather asinine one at that.
B.K: If we applied it individually to children, even school in some cases proves to be harmful and fullfils all your conditions.
I could think of more things that your logic applies to, and I could probably find even more contradictions, but I think this is enough for now.
>> Not my conditions, your strawman fallacy. Delusions of grandeur on your part. Pure fiction. You do not deserve to use the word "logic" in any sentence, as you clearly demonstrate you lack any conceptual idea of what that term means let alone how to apply it correctly.
B.K: You wonder why I make debates about pedophilia, but I wonder why people hate pedophiles so much. I mean, sending them to prison, raping them and beating them for the rest of their lives sounds a bit too much. Especially if a pedophile didnt even have sex with a little girl but just tickled her down there or allowed her to touch him.
>> Pedophilia is not only a mental disorder, but also a heinous crime. That's why they get sent to prison. No one really rapes a pedophile, they just get killed because inmates have a code of ethics that leads them to disdain such harm being done to a child. No child allows an adult to "touch them" down there.
B.K: I dont care that much if you hate pedophiles, but at least dont lie claiming its because they hurt children.
Its obviously not because of that.
>> They do hurt children, mentally and physically. That is a factual foregone conclusion that cannot be refuted. When children are scared for life, it alters their life to the point of changing any possible measure of who it would have been they could have become but for the sexual abuse by a pedophile.
COMMENT TWO
TWS: "Your entire argument is set upon one false equivalency after another"
B.K: No. You fail to understand logic.
>> LOL!!! Says the guy presenting zero logic. Also says the guy who doesn't know who he is talking to.
B.K: Thats why you allow harm and condemn it at the same time just because in one case you like and in the other case you dont.
>> You have no basis in fact to claim with absolution that "you (I) allow harm and condemn it at the same time..." This makes no sense on its face. What evidence do you have that affirms that "I" allow harm, what harm, to who is harmed, and how are they harmed whilst simultaneously condemning it!?! Let me help you... you have ZERO evidence. Talk about no logic here.
B.K: So you want to judge pedophiles for what exactly?
>> Asks the guy who claims I fail to understand logic. LOL! The answer is within the question, FCS!
B.K: Even if you proved they cause harm, you cause it too!
>> If a pedophile creep is destroying the innocence of a child 3,000 miles away on the opposite coast, how am I causing it too! Again, says the guy claiming I do not understand logic. There is NO logic to this patently absurd statement.
B.K: So whats the difference between you and them?
>> They [are] a pedophile, I am not. I am a law-abiding citizen who would just as soon castrate a pedophile if I ever caught one in the act than exhibit the bystander effect (e.g., rape and murder of Kitty Genovese).
B.K: You do it when you like it, they do it when they like it.
>> I am not a pedophile you degenerate.
B.K: But lets not forget that its not been proven that pedophilia is harmful and exactly what sexual approaches are harmful to children and what are not.
>> Yes, it has been proven.
"Pedophilia fuels child sexual abuse and child trafficking when those who act on their urges consume child porn, purchase a child for sex, or otherwise take advantage of the vulnerabilities of children. Pedophilia and a sexually-immoral nation have increased the demand for children to an extent of up to 300,000 Americans under 18 are lured into the commercial sex trade every year. These victims are forced to have sex an average of 5.4 times a day.
According to the CDC:
Child sexual abuse is a significant but preventable public health problem. Many children wait to report or never report child sexual abuse. Although estimates vary across studies, the data shows about 1 in 4 girls and 1 in 13 boys experience child sexual abuse at some point in childhood."
- https://boundlessgoodproject.org/pedophilia-and-child-sexual-abuse/
B.K: Now you say: children dont have cognitive ability to have sex with adults without harming themselves or the others without fully appreciating the consequences of their actions.
>> That is 100% correct. Children no more understand the ramifications of sexual activities with adults let alone amongst themselves than they do in sticking a screwdriver into an electrical socket or picking up a gun for fun and it goes off, killing their sibling or friend.
COMMENT ONE
"Your entire argument is set upon one false equivalency after another"
No. You fail to understand logic.
Thats why you allow harm and condemn it at the same time just because in one case you like and in the other case you dont. So you want to judge pedophiles for what exactly? Even if you proved they cause harm, you cause it too! So whats the difference between you and them? You do it when you like it, they do it when they like it. But lets not forget that its not been proven that pedophilia is harmful and exactly what sexual approaches are harmful to children and what are not.
Now you say: children dont have cognitive ability to have sex with adults without harming themselves or the others without fully appreciating the consequences of their actions.
To put your argument simply:
Action is wrong to be done to a child if:
1) it harms children or others
2) if children dont understand the consequences of their action
3) if children dont have cognitive ability to do the action without 1) and 2).
So child crossing the road is bad, since it fullfils all of the above. So is child eating meat. So is spanking children. So is circumcision. So is religious brainwashing. So is children using internet. So is children driving in cars as passangers. So are any punishments children experience. So is teaching children anything other than 100% truth. So is teasing children. So is wrong for you to drive a car considering you might hit a child and fullfil all 3 conditions above. It is also wrong for you to own a gun. Giving children bad food also fullfils the 3 conditions totally. This is if we apply your logic on children as a group. If we applied it individually to children, even school in some cases proves to be harmful and fullfils all your conditions.
I could think of more things that your logic applies to, and I could probably find even more contradictions, but I think this is enough for now.
You wonder why I make debates about pedophilia, but I wonder why people hate pedophiles so much. I mean, sending them to prison, raping them and beating them for the rest of their lives sounds a bit too much. Especially if a pedophile didnt even have sex with a little girl but just tickled her down there or allowed her to touch him.
I dont care that much if you hate pedophiles, but at least dont lie claiming its because they hurt children.
Its obviously not because of that.
Good counter points from the Con side on the serial killer and hitting the hand with the hammer.
Would you support certain 12 year olds being coal miners then? would you trust a 13 year old being your delivery driver? come on. It doesn't even matter if they're capable of such a thing, they should be focusing on beings kids and getting an education, instead of coming into adulthood so early. I cant imagine such a thing is good for ones mental health.
Your entire argument is set upon one false equivalency fallacy after another. I mean really, talk about inconsistencies and illogical reasoning to substantiate pedophilia. That is where you are going with all these children and porn, consent, etc. debates are you not!?!
The reason why children are not allowed to drive, own guns, watch porn, have sex with adults, etc. is they lack the cognitive ability to do such things without harming themselves or others without fully appreciating the consequences of their actions.
"There is no magical switch at 18 where someone becomes a person."
> The issue has nothing to do with personhood and everything to do with cognitive abilities.
You didnt present reason why children arent allowed to drive, own guns...ect.
I am pretty sure any reason you could come up with would be inconsistent and contradicting, or inaplicable to porn and sex.
Of course you can not just appoint any random child to any random position but this is also true for adults. These things should be decided based on skill rather than arbitrary limits. I agree with you Best.Korea's assertion is baffling.
These are called Privileges(except for the gun one, that is disputed). You can't just appoint any kid to be a truck driver or a pilot or a power plant manager. They have to be crazy talented to even pass the interview.
Either way, the fact Best.Korea stresses on kids being able to have sex and watch other people having sex on par with food and water almost, it is baffling.
If a child is ever in the position of running hydroelectric dam or nuclear plant he is probably capable of doing so, and plus he would still be forced to follow regulations just like anyone else. If a child can get a pilots license and their CDL they should absolutely be able to drive and fly. No one has the right to kill people, but again why should those under 18 not be allowed to responsibly keep and bear arms? There is no magical switch at 18 where someone becomes a person.
What is next? Children having rights to run hydrolyctic dams and nuclear plants? Children having the right to drive 18-wheeler trucks and aero biplanes? Children having rights to wield guns and kill people?
You are the first one I know to demand for such right, and you probably isn't even a child!
Everyone under 18. So yes, toddlers too.
What age are we talking about here? Toddlers? Teenagers?
When you limit your own rights just to food, water and school, maybe you will have the right to tell children that they should only have those rights and nothing else.
Children rights activists should be fighting for education, water, food, etc, and not this. Technically Children do have the right to watch porn, they can access it.