Many people on this board have made the claim that a person who watches a recording of someone having their rights violated, is himself violating that person’s rights. That is a positive claim and so the burden of proof to justify that claim rests with its advocates.
…
I eagerly await a proof of Point 6. If it is logically tenable then no further discussion is necessary. Further outbursts of emotionalism and ad hominem will be ignored. Thank you.
No one here made such a claim. Any claim anyone here has made had to do specifically with child pornography, not with recordings of violations of rights in general.
You are still making up things to rationalize your floating abstraction.
Also, criticizing your methods of arguing is not ad hominem, and passing moral judgement on pedophiles is not emotionalism.
So a person downloading a song for free off of the internet isn’t paying anything either. So by your reasoning that isn’t a crime either.
Your analogy is beyond nonsensical.
I think it’s becoming clear that you’re incapable of providing a logical argument in favor of your position. I’m not going to waste any more time respondng to posts like this.
This logic is spurious. The moral principle in IP theft is refusal to recognize (and treat appropriately) he who created a value. The question of the thread is of a different kind.
Ok, let me put it another way.
A Band is performing a live concert. Without their permission and without their consent someone records the concert. You then download it for free and watch it. Are you guilty of violating the bands right to property or not?
Actually, let me rephrase that. The band is being forced at gunpoint to perform…
No one here made such a claim. Any claim anyone here has made had to do specifically with child pornography, not with recordings of violations of rights in general.
You are still making up things to rationalize your floating abstraction.
What makes child molestation different from “violations of rights in general”?
What is the difference between watching a video of any other rights violation and watching a video of child molestation?
The content of the video, of course. One of them might contain any rights violation in general, the other one necessarily contains the video of a child being abused. I don’t understand why you would ask such an obvious question.
The act of watching the video of a child being molested itself, without further context being provided, is not necessarily a crime. (The viewer could be a Police officer trying to find the child, etc.)
This logic is spurious. The moral principle in IP theft is refusal to recognize (and treat appropriately) he who created a value. The question of the thread is of a different kind.
I do not see any difference, morally, whatsoever between pirating movies and downloading (for free) videos of CP. If you are paying for it, then you are supporting the criminals, however if you got it for free, you do not provide the criminal with any benefit in return for the video. You are, in both cases, simply in possession of the product of a rights violation. In the case of pirated movies, possessing the product of a theft from a movie maker, in the case of CP, possessing the product of a violation of a child’s rights.
Further, anyone asserting that someone who downloads CP is automatically then deterministically guaranteed to become a child predator, please provide some sort of scientific psychological proof of this claim, I do not see how it is logical.
The content of the video, of course. One of them might contain any rights violation in general, the other one necessarily contains the video of a child being abused. I don’t understand why you would ask such an obvious question.
The act of watching the video of a child being molested itself, without further context being provided, is not necessarily a crime. (The viewer could be a Police officer trying to find the child, etc.)
Under what context should watching a video of child molestation be considered a crime? Why should it be a crime? Whose rights are being violated, by whom, and how?
What is your position?
You are, in both cases, simply in possession of the product of a rights violation.
The two situation are not analogous. In the case of pirated IP, possession is the rights violation. Possessing CP is simply having a recording of the rights violation.
Under what context should watching a video of child molestation be considered a crime? Why should it be a crime? Whose rights are being violated, by whom, and how?
What is your position?
Under what context should downloading a pirated video be considered a crime? Why should it be a crime? Whose rights are being violated, by whom and how?
Under what context should downloading a pirated video be considered a crime? Why should it be a crime? Whose rights are being violated, by whom and how?
Piracy is a completely separate issue and has nothing to do with the topic we’re discussing.
Under what context should watching a video of child molestation be considered a crime? Why should it be a crime? Whose rights are being violated, by whom, and how?
What is your position?
When someone is in possession of child pornography, for sexual gratification, they are guilty of violating the rights of the child.
Children have the right to their own bodies and sexuality, just like adults. The difference is that children aren’t qualified to exercise those rights, in the context of pornographic images or sex. Obviously, forcing an adult to give up images of themselves would be a crime in itself, and so would stealing those images, if said adult made them for personal use or intends to sell them for money. Trading (or exchanging, or accepting) videos of me, engaged in a sexual act, without my consent, is in itself a violation of my right to property.
Violating the same rights, when it comes to a child, is of course a far greater crime, since it affects the child more than it would affect an adult if his property rights were violated. A sexually abused child is psychologically scarred for life, so the penalties should be somewhere between the penalty for rape and the penalty for murder.
The two situation are not analogous. In the case of pirated IP, possession is the rights violation. Possessing CP is simply having a recording of the rights violation.
What if the video is a guy with a video camera taping the movie at the movie theater?
I don’t see how the two issues are different, a digital copy of a movie could be considered a ‘recording of a rights violation.’
The two situation are not analogous. In the case of pirated IP, possession is the rights violation. Possessing CP is simply having a recording of the rights violation.
You are suggesting that Spielberg has more of a right to his movies than a child has to pornographic materials that were created with him as the main attraction.
What if the video is a guy with a video camera taping the movie at the movie theater?
I don’t see how the two issues are different, a digital copy of a movie could be considered a ‘recording of a rights violation.’
There is a difference, it’s important, and I could explain it, but I’m not going to. There are plenty of in-depth threads on this site about Piracy and IP. Please read them at your own conveniance.
The topic of this thread should be confined to “child pornography.” Introducing an unrelated issue will only further muddy the discussion.
You are suggesting that Spielberg has more of a right to his movies than a child has to pornographic materials that were created with him as the main attraction.
Spielberg has a right to his movies because he has a copyright. It’s Intellectual Property. It has nothing to do with the issue at hand.
Stop trying to squirm your way out of not justifying your position. Make your case or not. Step by step, logically connect your argument starting from the right to life right and ending with your case against CP.
I will only waste so much of my time on obfuscations and trivialities.
Piracy is a completely separate issue and has nothing to do with the topic we’re discussing.
Wrong we are speaking of law.
Piracy is illegal because it violates rights, the right of property. It violates that right regardless of if you are the person burning the video or music for the first, the hundredth or the millionth time.
A child that has been forced to perform sexual acts which are then photographed or videoed is having his/her right to life violated. And regardless of whether you are downloading the image for the first or the thousandth time that image still robs the child of his/her right to life.
I find it amazing that you recognize that a musician or artist who’s work is stolen from him is having his rights violated each and every time the proceeds of his effort (music or movie) is downloaded but you can not recognize that a victim of a physical crime is having his/her right to life violated by the existence of the proceeds of their rape.
If a person who is being forced has no right to stop the product of that abuse, how can you morally claim a person has any right to anything that is taken from them?
Spielberg has a right to his movies because he has a copyright. It’s Intellectual Property. It has nothing to do with the issue at hand.
Stop trying to squirm your way out of not justifying your position. Make your case or not. Step by step, logically connect your argument starting from the right to life right and ending with your case against CP.
I will only waste so much of my time on obfuscations and trivialities.
End of conversation. You either lack the ability to understand complex abstractions, or you haven’t read my last two posts at all. Either way, it would be pointless to try and explain any further. Read Rand and Peikoff’s work on Epistemology and get back to us.
Because the child has been robbed of his free will, his life, his ability to control the way he has been forced to act.
The video and pictures of are a continuation of that theft regardless of if they have been pirated once or a thousand times, and everyone who downloads that violation for the purpose of sexual perversion, satisfaction or enjoyment is continuing to pirate that child’s right to life.