On Fri, 16 May 2008 21:47:49 +0100, Alex Heney
wrote:
>>How on Earth is it in any way dishonest? You stated that most people
>>do not share my belief that photos of harmful acts are not themselves
>>harmful. I disagreed with that statement and gave my reasons.
>No you didn't.
>You argued that *looking at* images of harmful acts is not harmful.
>Which is very different to arguing that the photos are not harmful.
We were only talking about people who look at the images, not the
people who take the images.
>And of course, it goes without saying that we are only talking about a
>subset of harmful acts. Namely (and I know you don't accept this to be
>true of any significant number of images anyhow) those where the
>harmful act occurred at least in part *in order to* create the photos.
You did not in any way qualify your statement. And the qualification
you have just made would include many terrorist acts. So do you
believe that people who download images of beheadings are a greater
risk of beheading people than those who do not?
>I am firmly of the belief that *enough* of them are created to satisfy
>the market for them, that it is reasonable to say the existence of the
>images is harmful.
>And I think that is very likely the way the majority of people think
>about them - except that most people probably think that almost all of
>them are created because people want them. I accept that a large
>proportion are created as a by-product of acts that would have taken
>place anyhow. I just don't believe it is as high a proportion as you
>do.
I know you have that belief. What I do not know is what you base that
belief on, other than a need to rationalise your other beliefs. Try
looking at the facts rather than using imagination. Of all the
.ographers who have been caught, only an insignificant number (2
IIUC) were abusing children in order to produce the photographs. What
would be the point in doing so unless you can make money from them?
And selling such .ography is really not an option because there is
no way of doing so without getting caught PDQ.
Think of legal .ography produced by people for the use of
themselves and friends rather than being made for sale. Some of the
acts may be varied for the camera, but they would not abstain from
having . if the camera were unavailable.
Or think of holiday snaps - the number of people going on holiday
would not change significantly if they could not take photographs,
only a very small number of activities & excursions during the holiday
that are carried out mainly to get a particular shot would not occur.
>>I really do get annoyed when you say things that you don't mean and
>>then protest that it is *my* fault that I have misunderstood you
>I don't do that.
>I say things I do mean, and then get annoyed when you twist and
>distort the obvious meaning of what I have said, in order to make a
>point - dishonestly IMV.
I comment only on my honest understanding of your position.
--
Cynic
|