Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Court OKs child porn prosecution of minors distributing pictures of themselves

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 315 posts

Re: Court OKs child porn prosecution of minors distributing pictures of themselves

#201

Post by waqf »

aiyodev wrote: post #165
waqf wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I cannot understand why Americans say "we" in statements like this. I'm not out of mine (at least not with respect to this issue) and you're quite likely not out of yours. It's not noble to take responsibility for things when you have no control over them and thus won't be able to fix them.

It's "we" as in "we the people". "We" are doing this because our elected representatives appointed the people who made the decision. "We" collectively bear the responsibility for what our government does. But there's a difference between responsibility and guilt. Unless we voted for someone and knew this would be the consequence, we shouldn't feel guilty.

I know, but I disagree and, moreover, I consider that a harmful belief. The problem isn't that not every citizen of a democracy will agree with the majority preference (I think people understand that caveat), it's that even the majority preference of the population on a single issue is, for many reasons, likely not what gets through the political process.

The "we" wording sweeps all these limitations of democracy comprehensively under the rug: it diverts blame onto the people when it should rightly be directed at the existing political order.

Re: Court OKs child porn prosecution of minors distributing pictures of themselves

#202

Post by gh02t »

wildmusings wrote: post #159
gh02t wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Singer is definitively pro-abortion, for basically the reasons I mentioned. It's not terribly nuanced, it follows pretty directly from his basic ideas. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer#Abortion.2C_eutha... I'm not super expert about it either (at best a casual armchair philosopher), but from what I know Singers philosophy isn't specifically about suffering, it's about weighing interests . He assumes that th…

Just to clarify, Singer believes that you should be allowed to kill babies for years after birth.

Yeah that's exactly what I was getting at. I couldn't remember if he had taken it that far but I thought I recalled reading that.

Re: Court OKs child porn prosecution of minors distributing pictures of themselves

#203

Post by ajmurmann »

wildmusings wrote: post #159
gh02t wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Singer is definitively pro-abortion, for basically the reasons I mentioned. It's not terribly nuanced, it follows pretty directly from his basic ideas. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer#Abortion.2C_eutha... I'm not super expert about it either (at best a casual armchair philosopher), but from what I know Singers philosophy isn't specifically about suffering, it's about weighing interests . He assumes that th…

Just to clarify, Singer believes that you should be allowed to kill babies for years after birth.

More shocking than that you would even be allowed to die when you are ill and suffering too much. You know like we do with our pets because we love them and don't want them to suffer.

Re: Court OKs child porn prosecution of minors distributing pictures of themselves

#204

Post by wildmusings »

ajmurmann wrote: post #195
wildmusings wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you like Peter Singer's approach so much, then you agree with him that one should be allowed to "abort" babies for a long time after birth as well? No? I guess it's not so easy after all.

Actually I do agree with that as well. Where I'm much more of a bigot is when it comes to the much more obvious issue of how we treat animals. I was a vegetarian for several years but have up on it because I didn't believe it was making a difference. If we had a vote though to ban animal slaughter and especially factory farming I'd vote for it in a heartbeat.

No post body was provided.

Re: Court OKs child porn prosecution of minors distributing pictures of themselves

#205

Post by gh02t »

deorder wrote: post #182
wildmusings wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just to clarify, Singer believes that you should be allowed to kill babies for years after birth.

I discovered last year that people are actually promoting this. I've been attacked by people because I do not agree with late-term (for no medical reason) and after-birth abortion: http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_natur... It is almost in the same line of thinking that infants are not capable of feeling pain and why some operations on them were done without anesthesia: http://www.nytimes.com/198…

Yep, there's also Antinatalism, which is the belief that having children is immoral. There are a few different strains, but greatly oversimplifying my favorite is that suffering in life outweighs pleasure, so bringing a new life into existence increases the net amount of suffering and is thus immoral.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinatalism

Re: Court OKs child porn prosecution of minors distributing pictures of themselves

#206

Post by AnthonyMouse »

Iv wrote: post #122
sillysaurus3 wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is hard to do in practice. I've heard someone vehemently defend a relationship they had at 14 with an older fellow. They categorized it as a positive experience that helped them discover themselves. It may have even been 13; I forget. Was it a crime? It might. be tempting to say no, but laws do exist as a deterrent.

The idea that informed consent is a characteristic that magically appears in full at 18 or 20 is ridiculous. Obviously some people acquire it earlier. Some much later. Problem is, judges and police have yet to design an objective maturity test, so instead they use an age threshold, easy to test, objective but arbitrary. Like the map is not the territory, the law is not a perfect match to our moral landscape. It works…

> Problem is, judges and police have yet to design an objective maturity test, so instead they use an age threshold, easy to test, objective but arbitrary.

There are traditionally two ways to do that and still make sure people who go to prison actually deserve it. The first is to draw the line high and rely on prosecutors to sensibly exercise their discretion, the second is to draw the line low enough that you don't find innocent people on the wrong side of it.

But prosecutors have repeatedly demonstrated a failure to exercise sensible discretion, leaving the second option as the only viable alternative.

Re: Court OKs child porn prosecution of minors distributing pictures of themselves

#207

Post by [deleted] »

ajmurmann wrote: post #203
wildmusings wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just to clarify, Singer believes that you should be allowed to kill babies for years after birth.

More shocking than that you would even be allowed to die when you are ill and suffering too much. You know like we do with our pets because we love them and don't want them to suffer.

[deleted]

Re: Court OKs child porn prosecution of minors distributing pictures of themselves

#208

Post by ajmurmann »

wildmusings wrote: post #204
ajmurmann wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually I do agree with that as well. Where I'm much more of a bigot is when it comes to the much more obvious issue of how we treat animals. I was a vegetarian for several years but have up on it because I didn't believe it was making a difference. If we had a vote though to ban animal slaughter and especially factory farming I'd vote for it in a heartbeat.

Quoted post unavailable.

It depends on the circumstances. We don't kill animals because we are hungry. We kill animals because we want more enjoyment from food. If you are somewhere starving and it's you it the rabbit, go for it. That's not the common situation though.

Euthanasia is a much more complicated topic and I find it bewildering that we are focusing on this discussion on babies. I assume it's out of some notion of protecting the adorable innocence. I think it's important with these topics to try to keep emotions out of it because they just reflect biases we have built in due to evolution. Evolution of course is not your friend. Especially not after you've procreated.

Re: Court OKs child porn prosecution of minors distributing pictures of themselves

#209

Post by mrsteveman1 »

21 wrote: post #30

What other things that you can do to yourself are illegal? Suicide. Abortion in some places. What if I cut a piece of my body and eat it, is that cannibalism?

> What if I cut a piece of my body and eat it, is that cannibalism?

I think at that point, you're likely to be involuntarily committed anyway :)

Re: Court OKs child porn prosecution of minors distributing pictures of themselves

#210

Post by aiyodev »

waqf wrote: post #201
aiyodev wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's "we" as in "we the people". "We" are doing this because our elected representatives appointed the people who made the decision. "We" collectively bear the responsibility for what our government does. But there's a difference between responsibility and guilt. Unless we voted for someone and knew this would be the consequence, we shouldn't feel guilty.

I know, but I disagree and, moreover, I consider that a harmful belief. The problem isn't that not every citizen of a democracy will agree with the majority preference (I think people understand that caveat), it's that even the majority preference of the population on a single issue is, for many reasons, likely not what gets through the political process. The "we" wording sweeps all these limitations of democracy com…

The people in the "existing political order" are put there by the public who ultimately has the responsibility for creating good government. Again, responsibility is not the same as guilt.
Post reply on HN