Search Results
6/17/2025, 7:48:15 AM
>>101282605
>Explain the importance of sexual expression for people who are sexually repressed.
People are not owed a particular sexual expression, but they should acknowledge when one is immoral.
Involuntary celibates are not morally owed a gf in the same way pedophiles are not morally owed the ability to jerk it to kids.
Being gay is not necessarily immoral btw. Gay people are adults that can consent.
>Quantify the moral harm caused by watching pornography by comparing it to the moral harm of a tangible action
I've been relying on two:
1. It reinforces the paraphilia, which can damage your brain, similar to how excessive porn can do the same.
2. It violates the principle that humans ought to be treated as an "end" and never a "means", such as a means to sexual gratification. People aren't sacks of meat, theyre living breathing things with consciousness.
2.1. Furthermore, children wouldnt be able to consent in the first place, which make this violation especially egregious.
If you're interested, my second point is inspired from Kant's 'categorical imperative'. That's where I'm getting it.
>Demonstrate the heightened chance of real-life pedophilic activities after consuming lolicon.
Most offending pedophiles probably engaged in pedophilic fantasies beforehand. Non-offending pedophiles would seem to be more likely to repress those fantasies, for fear of acting on them. Inb4 no stats. I consider this a common sense conclusion, which shouldn't need exact numbers.
>Weigh the interests of pedophiles vs. the interests of victims with respect to how lolicon affects both groups
Ok, here is what I came up with. I understood this as a pros-and-cons listing.
Pedos (immoral-thoughts path):
> +/- Fulfilled only insofar as masturbation can take them.
> - Will at times value kids (even in depictions) as less than human, just objects for gratification.
> - Possibility of offending is always a valid imagination.
Pedos (moral-thoughts path):
> - Sexually frustrated.
> + Respects people and children as humans.
> + Less likely to even consider the possibility of offending, due to moral guidelines discouraging it.
Kids (under threat of pedo fantasies):
> - Made to be viewed as sexual, even if just in illustrated depictions such as loli
> +/- Assault unlikely, but the pipeline of thoughts -> action is enabled.
Kids (under inherent moral appreciation)
> + Always viewed as human, always appreciated as humans needing protection due to their lack of consent.
> + Assault unlikely due to a moral framework limiting them from being sexualized in the first place.
Inb4 priests - being in church is not a replacement for strong personal morals, which is what I'm arguing for. Besides, I've heard their abuse stats are less than public school teachers in the first place. Not that that justifies it at all.
>Explain the importance of sexual expression for people who are sexually repressed.
People are not owed a particular sexual expression, but they should acknowledge when one is immoral.
Involuntary celibates are not morally owed a gf in the same way pedophiles are not morally owed the ability to jerk it to kids.
Being gay is not necessarily immoral btw. Gay people are adults that can consent.
>Quantify the moral harm caused by watching pornography by comparing it to the moral harm of a tangible action
I've been relying on two:
1. It reinforces the paraphilia, which can damage your brain, similar to how excessive porn can do the same.
2. It violates the principle that humans ought to be treated as an "end" and never a "means", such as a means to sexual gratification. People aren't sacks of meat, theyre living breathing things with consciousness.
2.1. Furthermore, children wouldnt be able to consent in the first place, which make this violation especially egregious.
If you're interested, my second point is inspired from Kant's 'categorical imperative'. That's where I'm getting it.
>Demonstrate the heightened chance of real-life pedophilic activities after consuming lolicon.
Most offending pedophiles probably engaged in pedophilic fantasies beforehand. Non-offending pedophiles would seem to be more likely to repress those fantasies, for fear of acting on them. Inb4 no stats. I consider this a common sense conclusion, which shouldn't need exact numbers.
>Weigh the interests of pedophiles vs. the interests of victims with respect to how lolicon affects both groups
Ok, here is what I came up with. I understood this as a pros-and-cons listing.
Pedos (immoral-thoughts path):
> +/- Fulfilled only insofar as masturbation can take them.
> - Will at times value kids (even in depictions) as less than human, just objects for gratification.
> - Possibility of offending is always a valid imagination.
Pedos (moral-thoughts path):
> - Sexually frustrated.
> + Respects people and children as humans.
> + Less likely to even consider the possibility of offending, due to moral guidelines discouraging it.
Kids (under threat of pedo fantasies):
> - Made to be viewed as sexual, even if just in illustrated depictions such as loli
> +/- Assault unlikely, but the pipeline of thoughts -> action is enabled.
Kids (under inherent moral appreciation)
> + Always viewed as human, always appreciated as humans needing protection due to their lack of consent.
> + Assault unlikely due to a moral framework limiting them from being sexualized in the first place.
Inb4 priests - being in church is not a replacement for strong personal morals, which is what I'm arguing for. Besides, I've heard their abuse stats are less than public school teachers in the first place. Not that that justifies it at all.
Page 1