Post your most controversial opinions here!

Lockstep

Wacker wrote: »

Well, on that note, I'll elaborate on my original post. I think pornographic pictures docotored to look like children should be legal due to what is called the 'harm principle.' I think it was John Stuart Mill who devised it, and it is widely accepted these days. While the notion of child pornography is abhorrent to any right-thinking people, no real harm was done to anyone in th making of such images, and thus I can't see a good reason to make them illegal. Of course, I would not want to see them widely distributed, so maail-order only or something.

It's nice to see someone else with knowledge of Mill.
He devised a lot of what we use today-Harm principle, Liberty principle etc.

He also had some pretty outlandish views on things like only the educated being allowed to vote.


Anyway, I agree with what you write. I know the most common argument against doctored porn is that it gives the paedos ideas and makes them hornier, increasingg the liklihood of them abusing.

Codswallop IMHO. If that was the case, porn makes men want to abuse women and countries where porn is banned like Taliban Afghanistan hardly have the best womens rights records.

Jimbo

kickoutthejams wrote: »

It's nice to see someone else with knowledge of Mill.
He devised a lot of what we use today-Harm principle, Liberty principle etc.

He also had some pretty outlandish views on things like only the educated being allowed to vote.


Anyway, I agree with what you write. I know the most common argument against doctored porn is that it gives the paedos ideas and makes them hornier, increasingg the liklihood of them abusing.

Codswallop IMHO. If that was the case, porn makes men want to abuse women and countries where porn is banned like Taliban Afghanistan hardly have the best womens rights records.

If your into that kind of thing, it shouldn't be encouraged.
Only fuelling the flames

Lockstep

jimbo78 wrote: »

If your into that kind of thing, it shouldn't be encouraged.
Only fuelling the flames

Like I said, same argument used against porn in general.

Doesn't really apply.

pickarooney

A lot of people get off on seeing people die. Films with murder scenes would have the same effect on them as faked kinderporn on Peter Phyles.

Dudess

Wacker wrote: »

Well, on that note, I'll elaborate on my original post. I think pornographic pictures docotored to look like children should be legal due to what is called the 'harm principle.' I think it was John Stuart Mill who devised it, and it is widely accepted these days. While the notion of child pornography is abhorrent to any right-thinking people, no real harm was done to anyone in th making of such images, and thus I can't see a good reason to make them illegal. Of course, I would not want to see them widely distributed, so maail-order only or something.

Well your opening post sufficed because it was clearly not written simply to shock and offend people.

Wacker

Dudess wrote: »

Well your opening post sufficed because it was clearly not written simply to shock and offend people.

Yes it was! I try to shock people by being reasonable.

Dudess

Hmmm... I suppose being reasonable is quite shocking on AH...

pebbles21

asian muslims infact anyone who looks remotely like a paki/middle eastern/indian should not be allowed to work in any airport security whatsoever!

stovelid

pebbles21 wrote: »

asian muslims infact anyone who looks remotely like a paki/middle eastern/indian should not be allowed to work in any airport security whatsoever!

You obviously meant to say 'Pakistani' didn't you?

Giblet

That's it, I'm closing this thread.