The Internet

[UChessmaster]

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013...n_4286730.html

So china is saying kid blow up dolls, or whatever they call, people on my facebook are grossed out and stuff, I feel weird for not actually seeing the problem, can anyone enlighten me?

[Abdula]

Just wow. Well that is certainly the most disturbing thing I have seen so far this month. UC the problem would be that this caters to and encourages what most people would describe as unhealthy fantasies and I would think most would wonder how long it would take before someone gets tired of their doll and decides to get a flesh and blood substitute.

I wouldn't know but I don't think people who have sex with dolls are the most mentally stable people to begin with.

[shinta|hikari]

Yawn. 3dpd.

[Buffalobiian]

Unless there is data or proof that shows such tendencies to "tire of dolls and move onto the real thing", such good shouldn't be restricted since no harm is done in and of itself as far as I can see.

This reminds me of a few years ago where Australia (South Australia?) amended laws such that actor/actresses in pornographic films must not be below the age of consent, nor appear to be below the age of consent. If you look too young, or your flat boobs suggest you might not have finished puberty - you're a kid not a woman and can't be in porn.

I think it's very important in law to properly evaluate things based on what is true, not what we think is true or what we fear.

[UChessmaster]

Unless there is data or proof that shows such tendencies to "tire of dolls and move onto the real thing", such good shouldn't be restricted since no harm is done in and of itself as far as I can see.

THANK YOU! that`s exactly my point, you could argue that it will lead to the real thing, I could argue that it could be the best coping mechanism, EVER.

[Animeniax]

I put this right up there with casting Natalie Portman as the love interest for Thor.

So what some of you are saying is that child porn is ok, as long as actual children aren't used to make that porn. A child-like sex toy as a coping mechanism?? I think severe beatings and electro-shock therapy make more sense to control those feelings.

[Buffalobiian]

So what some of you are saying is that child porn is ok, as long as actual children aren't used to make that porn.

Yes, assuming that there is no true, proven risk to actual child harm.

Just because I don't like something isn't enough to make it a law and ban other people from doing what they like. To infringe on that you need to have a better reason like public safety. Not fear for public safety, but actual risk.

You guys live in America right? You'll have to start with banning guns before you move onto child sex dolls.

The evidence there is quite a bit stronger. Thing is, so are the lobbyists - which is what matters ultimately.

[Kraco]

A person who would buy and own such a doll must be a real no life king who never gets visitors. It would be an instant end to all social life if somebody sees such a thing lying on the bed. I also wouldn't want to go to the customs and open the box in front of the official, regardless of whether it's illegal or not. But I guess there are people who wouldn't care.

[Animeniax]

Yes, assuming that there is no true, proven risk to actual child harm.

Just because I don't like something isn't enough to make it a law and ban other people from doing what they like. To infringe on that you need to have a better reason like public safety. Not fear for public safety, but actual risk.

You guys live in America right? You'll have to start with banning guns before you move onto child sex dolls.

The evidence there is quite a bit stronger. Thing is, so are the lobbyists - which is what matters ultimately.

Guns have an actual legitimate purpose, they are just unfortunately used for criminal activities, but that could be said of anything that is misused like knives or medicine. Child-like sex dolls have only one purpose, and that isn't to give pedophiles an outlet so they won't act out their urges on real children.

[Buffalobiian]

Child-like sex dolls have only one purpose, and that isn't to give pedophiles an outlet so they won't act out their urges on real children.

Let's not talk about purpose. That idealises things, because anyone can make up a "purpose" or talk about how much potential something has to be good/bad. What you want to talk about is solid statistics. For every 10'000 guns you have in circulation, how many lives are saved because they "shot" the perpetrator? And for that 10'000 guns in circulation, how many people are killed when they should not have been? In clinical papers, these are called Number Needed to Treat and Number Needed to Harm.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_needed_to_treat

You mentioned medicines. If a medication causes more harm than good, it's not used.

I must iterate as I've said before that data behind sex dolls is lacking. I'm not going to argue that they decrease child abuse because they're an alternative outlet. That data is lacking too. What I will argue, is that given we know pretty much nothing about any of this, on what basis do we have to outlaw this? Should society start passing bills based on fear and speculation?

I think not.


--------------------


The word paedophile has become a taboo word, and I think some people think the word implies more than it means. Paedophiles are not criminals. Sex offenders are criminals. F1 drivers are not by default traffic offenders.

[shinta|hikari]

Claps hands.

[Animeniax]

Let's not talk about purpose. That idealises things, because anyone can make up a "purpose" or talk about how much potential something has to be good/bad. What you want to talk about is solid statistics. For every 10'000 guns you have in circulation, how many lives are saved because they "shot" the perpetrator? And for that 10'000 guns in circulation, how many people are killed when they should not have been? In clinical papers, these are called Number Needed to Treat and Number Needed to Harm.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_needed_to_treat

You mentioned medicines. If a medication causes more harm than good, it's not used.

I must iterate as I've said before that data behind sex dolls is lacking. I'm not going to argue that they decrease child abuse because they're an alternative outlet. That data is lacking too. What I will argue, is that given we know pretty much nothing about any of this, on what basis do we have to outlaw this? Should society start passing bills based on fear and speculation?

I think not.


--------------------


The word paedophile has become a taboo word, and I think some people think the word implies more than it means. Paedophiles are not criminals. Sex offenders are criminals. F1 drivers are not by default traffic offenders.

Yes but what is a crime? It is an act that is statutorily defined as being against the law because it violates our sense of morality and justice. That doesn't give enough weight to the moral and societal wrongness of an act, just in some cases it's clearly defined as wrong, either through obviousness (murder, rape, theft) or through historical evidence of its negative influence on society. I don't think we want to wait for historical evidence in this case, as that would mean a lot of innocent lives ruined. Pedophilia for all intents is criminal because sex with children is almost universally prohibited by law. In your example, if an F1 driver drove 180mph on city road ways outside the confines of a race venue, he would be charged with a crime.

[shinta|hikari]

You missed his point entirely.

To follow the example provided, pedophilia does not even involve driving the race car. It ends at the point of wanting to drive the race car very fast. Sexual assault and statutory rape are crimes and equate to speeding on city roads.

I get the desire to kill certain people all the time but that doesn't mean I ever will.

I think masturbating using loli sex dolls equates to driving the race car in the race circuit. LOL @ this analogy.

[Animeniax]

It's a bad example in the first place. You can't equate pedophilia to traffic offenses, it's apples and oranges in their potential for harm and unrelated. An F1 driver isn't a traffic offender period until he commits a moving violation. There is a reason race cars aren't street legal, as they are meant to be confined to a race track. You may as well say that any person driving a motor vehicle is a potential traffic offender.

There are different classes of crime that are defined as such simply because society sees them as detrimental to the public good. These are typically labelled as vice crimes. Pedophilia, while not legally a crime, has a societal stigma against it and rightfully so. It may not be illegal because it is not an act, but society deems it harmful to the public good and therefore should control manifestations that encourage the act. You know, gross shit like these loli dolls.

[shinta|hikari]

Pedophilia for all intents is criminal because sex with children is almost universally prohibited by law.

Pedophilia, while not legally a crime, has a societal stigma against it and rightfully so. It may not be illegal because it is not an act, but society deems it harmful to the public good and therefore should control manifestations that encourage the act.

I just clarified it. Because you said that something that is "not legally a crime" and "not illegal because it is not an act" is "for all intents criminal."

[Animeniax]

I just clarified it. Because you said that something that is "not legally a crime" and "not illegal because it is not an act" is "for all intents criminal."

For all intents, but not in fact. Doesn't change that it is squarely in the category of "should be".

[shinta|hikari]

But you can't get jailed for being a pedophile, so "for all intents" is inaccurate.

I can argue about this all day, but I remembered it was you.

I'll leave it to Buff if he thinks this is even worth discussing.

[Edort4]

Discussing pedophilia here is like discussing weapon bans in a NRA meeting :P Just joking... offenses come later

Im against banning things that dont harm others or that are clearly potential of doing so... this threads close to the limit. I wouldnt recommend this and speak clearly (and loudly) about how much I despise this and anyone who uses it but I wouldnt ban it. Unless serious studies show an incremental threat effect on the scum using this.

@Animeniax You can coat it like you want it but that is plain dictatorship. And Heinlein had quite a bit of those "ideas" in all of his books.

[Animeniax]

But you can't get jailed for being a pedophile, so "for all intents" is inaccurate.

I can argue about this all day, but I remembered it was you.

I'll leave it to Buff if he thinks this is even worth discussing.

Me being one of the guys who make and support policy and law because I represent what the vast majority in society consider proper and right, so little counter-culture kids like you can do it in secret and feel like it's not perverse. Keep telling yourself that.

Personally I like the idea of moon culture according to Heinlein. Those who can't abide with the majority get pushed out the airlock.

Discussing pedophilia here is like discussing weapon bans in a NRA meeting :P Just joking... offenses come later

What does that say about some of the weirdos here? I think the mods should consider the appropriateness of some of the avatars/sigs.

Im against banning things that dont harm others or that are clearly potential of doing so... this threads close to the limit. I wouldnt recommend this and speak clearly (and loudly) about how much I despise this and anyone who uses it but I wouldnt ban it. Unless serious studies show an incremental threat effect on the scum using this.

The problem is the difficulty in quantifying/qualifying the harm done while trying to establish causation.

[Buffalobiian]

edit: Animeniax: I am addressing your concerns about sig appropriateness in another thread. (Click here to be redirected.)

----------

Instead of writing a messy, multi-quote rebuttal I'll try to keep this short and to the point.

Yes but what is a crime? It is an act that is statutorily defined as being against the law because it violates our sense of morality and justice. That doesn't give enough weight to the moral and societal wrongness of an act, just in some cases it's clearly defined as wrong, either through obviousness (murder, rape, theft) or through historical evidence of its negative influence on society.

The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights has a few things most Western countries agree that each individual human is entitled to simply for existing and being a human being. It is largely put in place to prevent oppression of individuals and groups - even minorities.

Amongst those things are Freedom of Thought and Freedom of Opinion. To prosecute someone for having thoughts about child sex violates these rights.

Article #9 states "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile."

That said, the rights of one individual will at times conflict with those of another. [Example: Freedom of Speech (threats) vs Freedom from Fear (to not feel threatenned).]

So what justification does the law have to prosecute, punish or even execute individuals? What makes a reason arbitrary and what makes it justifiable?

Do not dismiss the crimes: murder, rape and theft as "obvious" without thinking. They are crimes because such acts cause significant, proven harm to victims.

Other acts are criminalised because the risk for harm has been established. Smoking restrictions and speed limits are such examples.

Let's remember that our original discussion was not even about outlawing paedophilia itself, but banning the sale of loli-sex dolls. My interpretation of your quote below, Animaniax, is that neither has the harm been quantified nor has the causation been established.

The problem is the difficulty in quantifying/qualifying the harm done while trying to establish causation.

Paedophilia and such topics cause a knee-jerk reaction within the general public because everyone gets touchy once child safety is involved and the vast majority have no interest in the rights of paedophiles. Do not forget that they too are humans. Don't oppress them without a good reason.