this post was submitted on 17 Aug 2023
-3 points (44.4% liked)

libertarianism

393 readers
1 users here now

About us

An open, user owned community for the general disscussion of the libertarian philosophy.

Most people live their own lives by that code of ethics. Libertarians believe that that code should be applied consistently, even to the actions of governments, which should be restricted to protecting people from violations of their rights. Governments should not use their powers to censor speech, conscript the young, prohibit voluntary exchanges, steal or “redistribute” property, or interfere in the lives of individuals who are otherwise minding their own business.

Source: https://www.libertarianism.org/essays/what-is-libertarianism

Rules

1. Stay on topicWe are a libertarian community. There are no restrictions regarding different stances on the political spectrum, but all posts should be related to the philosophy of libertarianism.

2. Be polite to others and respects each others opinions.Be polite to others and respects each others opinions. We don't want any form of gatekeeping or circlejerk culture here.

3. Stay constructive and informationalIn general, all types of contributions are allowed, but the relevance to this community must always be evident and presented openly by the contributor. Posts that do not meet these requirements will be removed after a public warning. Also remember to cite you sources!

4. Use self-moderation measures first before reporting.This community is fundamentally built upon freedom of speech. Since everyone understands libertarianism differently and we do not want to exclude any kind of content a priori, we appeal to the individual users to block/mute posts or users who do not meet their requirements. Please bear this in mind when filing a report

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

This is more of a 2 part question. Should child porn that does not include a real child be illegal? If so, who is being harmed by it?

The other question is; does giving a pedophile access to "imitation" children give them an outlet for their desire, so they won't try to engage with real children, or does it just reinforce their desire, thus helping them to rationalize their behavior and lead to them being more encouraged to harm real children?

I've heard psychologists discuss both sides, but I don't think we have any real life studies to go off of because the technology is so new.

I'm just curious what the other thought out there are from people who are more liberty minded.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] jesterraiin@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

There's nothing trollish, undereducated or blind about opposing the idea of "cutting some slack" to the most twisted and dangerous elements that is trying to invade the society.

On the other hand, an attempt to compare gays/women to pedophiles certainly does warrant raising a brow.

If you're planning to continue with apples & oranges tactic, you may as well stop now - I won't waste time on manipulations that are meant to support pedophilia apologetics.

[–] EyeofHorus@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Y'all seem to have reached an impasse here in the realm of pure morality, so lets try something a little more grounded (and surely less controversial!) Political application. I won't even slippery slope, I promise.

Lets suppose your favored political party has gained power (however briefly) and is able to push through legislation banning the consumption of any media depicting an immature person in a sexual context, regardless of whether it involved an actual child.

What would enforcement look like? You can't simply follow the traffickers or CPS reports, as criminals could simply create the media for themselves on a private harddrive (say by drawing a picture or writing erotica) so law enforcement would need some way to investigate any citizen's home and private spaces for potential contraband.

Do you think that there is a government currently on this planet clear enough of corrupted elements to avoid abusing this power to target their own political enemies?

[–] HappycamperNZ@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Good way to move to a more productive area of discussion, but sounds like they just want to block you.

[–] elbarto777@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Fuuuuck, what am I doing here. Again, I really am not trying to defend pedophilia, but your stance is just based on being pedantic and arrogant.

"The most evil." Right. If you think someone having pedophile tendencies is the most evil someone can be or do....... you know nothing about the world.

Good discussion, though. I wouldn't want to be friends with a pedophile, much less being in their shoes. But adults fucking dolls, you know, those made out of plastic and rubber, shouldn't be regulated by people like you.

[–] HappycamperNZ@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Im feeling disgusting defending this as well, but need to remember that working to avoid harm and critically analyzing two sides means thinking through the eyes of the other party. Im just happy ours is a philosophical discussion.

To counter the other person, whats more evil - fucking a kid or a small sex doll dressed as one? If my wife pulled out her old high-school uniform and fucked me its perfectly ok, but when she got it at 15 it wouldn't be. Fucking a sex doll is ok, but its illegal if they pretend its underage (pretty sure no one keeps one around for 18 years). The arguement is literally do we allow someone to fuck a piece of silicon that resembles a kid in their own home where we would have no idea and couldn't stop them anyway, or just tell them to "hold it in" until they find another way?

[–] elbarto777@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Fucking a sex doll is ok, but its illegal if they pretend its underage

Where is this illegal? And if it's not illegal everywhere, then do the places in which they make it illegal have real, universal merit to do so?

(pretty sure no one keeps one around for 18 years).

Of all your arguments, this is the most puzzling all things considered. So, if you fuck a doll of a middle-aged woman that was made 4 years ago, are you committing a crime because the doll is technically 4 years old?

[–] HappycamperNZ@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Sorry to first one, typo. Should have been a question, not a statement.

The point with the last is that silicon isn't a person - you can't say "this one is ok but this one isnt".

[–] elbarto777@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Ah, sorry. We don't disagree, then.

If someone fucks a fleshlight, some religious people might see it as immoral, but in the end, they're just fucking an object.

Give the fleshlight the shape of a doll, and then the same people who didn't have a problem before, all of a sudden they do. Why? I surely don't want my fleshlights to look like kids, but I won't judge anybody who do - and never harms actual kids in any way.

(Can companies make sex dolls that look like Margot Robbie already, please?)

[–] HappycamperNZ@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Id like one that looks like a cardio bunny... especially if they can spot me as well. Double bonus.