[snakeanus]

> Thoughtcrime? No, viewing or possessing CP is an actual crime.

Who is the victim in this case? This is the definition of a thought/victimless crime.

> the child/children in the pictures they're viewing.

How so? They are not affected in any way.

> but unquestionably morally reprehensible

I will have to question that.

> How could that ever be considered 'not wrong'?

There is no victim nor is anybody harmed by possession nor viewing. Thus it is not wrong.

> How do you protect children from paedophiles

* from child rapists

Just like not every straight/homosexual person is a rapist, not every paedophile is a rapist.

[synicalx]

Ok this is ridiculous, only on HN could we see child pornography being defended as a victimless crime.

First of all, no child should be exploited in that way. Period. Not up for debate. Whether or not they feel victimised at the time by what has happened to them is irrelevant. So by viewing or obtaining CP, one is supporting and proliferating that material.

> I will have to question that.

Question all you want, I don't think you'll find any other sane rational person who thinks watching videos of children being raped is totally fine.

> There is no victim nor is anybody harmed by possession nor viewing. Thus it is not wrong.

Here it is again 'CP isn't wrong'. Yes it is, I don't see how you can think it's not.

> Just like not every straight/homosexual person is a rapist, not every paedophile is a rapist.

Really? Every paedophile is a paedophile. It's not a kink, it's not a fetish, it's not a sexuality, it's a mental health problem and one that can potentially have horrific outcomes if the resultant behaviours are welcomed and encouraged.

I'm not responding any more after this, because frankly if you think being a paedophile is totally fine then you need to get help.

[dang]

We've asked you before not to make things up about HN to score points in an argument. This one was absurd, and a nasty thing to say about a community you belong to.

You've broken the HN guidelines here by resorting to personal attack. You've been breaking them elsewhere too. Someone else being wrong doesn't give you license to break the rules and make this place even worse, so please read https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and clean up your act.

[snakeanus]

> only on HN could we see child pornography being defended as a victimless crime.

No, not really. I have seen it being defended in multiple places over the years. Mostly places where there are many STEM people and can't bear the thought of certain numbers being illegal.

> First of all, no child should be exploited in that way. Period. Not up for debate.

Exploited in what way? Remember, even a 17 year old taking a picture to show it to his/hers gf/bf is considered CP in every country that I know of. Who is exploited in this case?

> Whether or not they feel victimised at the time by what has happened to them is irrelevant.

If they are a young child then I will agree. If they are a teen then no. I fail to see how this is relevant to the discussion however. We are not talking about the production of CP, we are talking about the consumption and distribution of it.

> So by viewing or obtaining CP, one is supporting and proliferating that material.

How did you deduce that from the previous sentence exactly? In any case, I fail to see how "by viewing or obtaining CP, one is supporting and proliferating that material".

> Here it is again 'CP isn't wrong'. Yes it is, I don't see how you can think it's not.

Viewing or distributing CP isn't wrong because nobody is harmed. I don't see how you can think that it is wrong.

> Every paedophile is a paedophile

Sure? Just like every straight person is straight. That being said not every paedophile is a rapist as neither is every straight person.

> it's a mental health problem

They said the same about homosexuality a while ago. Look what happened to Turing for example, a great mind put to death because he did things that even though they harmed nobody it offended some people in power who considered them gross.

> because frankly if you think being a paedophile is totally fine then you need to get help.

If you think that we should arrest people who have done no harm on another human being directly or indirectly then you are a monster and you should get help.

[etplayer]

>Here it is again 'CP isn't wrong'. Yes it is, I don't see how you can think it's not.

You haven't defined any criteria for 'wrong'; the person you are replying to is taking issue with the fact that the harm principle (a commonly accepted ideal of what is 'wrong' in individualist society) does not apply to any given instance of viewing or possessing child pornography. You have to define your criteria for 'wrong' rather than simply assert it. By defining criteria, only then can you be refuted in any meaningful sense, rather than a rally of "it's wrong" and "no it isn't wrong".

So if you say that it is wrong, please back up your meta-ethical position.

>It's not a kink, it's not a fetish, it's not a sexuality

Pedophilia is a fetish; it may be other things too, but it is a fetish for children, this is even in the 'plain' sense of the word fetish, which is to concentrate on a particular aspect above all else. The pedophile, rather than fetishising say "normal" features like breath, fetishises extreme youth.

>being a paedophile is totally fine then you need to get help

Nowhere did the poster say this.