Every year, rhinos in Africa are threatened by poachers in Africa who want their horns for the black market in China. Every person who buys rhino horn in Africa, every person who is in a position to fight the unnecessary consumption of endangered animals and doesn't, is complicit in the destruction of their species.

You don't get a pass because you aren't the one who actually killed the rhinos, or abused the children. Those rhinos wouldn't have gotten killed, those children wouldn't have gotten abused, if the demand weren't there. You don't get a pass because you "needed" rhino horn, or because you have a non-standard sexuality.

The only socially-acceptable response to your needs is to not contribute to the exploitation of others.

The rhino equivilent would be if you wanted to use rhino horn but because you know it would be wrong to, you never do use it. Not only are you not the one shooting the rhino, you're not creating demand for shooting rhinos either.

The pigeon makes reference to a child gymnast, then there's the comment about hitting on a teen boy. Humans, generally, first learn about physical desire and sexuality in their adolescence (specifically during and following puberty). Sexual attraction for individuals with the characteristics we initially found attractive, never really leave our psyche. This puts most humans in the category of "paedophiles" in the sense that the attraction is there, albeit small. It's such a culturally understood concept that I'm surprised when it has to be explained.

> The rhino equivilent would be if you wanted to use rhino horn but because you know it would be wrong to, you never do use it.

I would argue that both of these things are wrong, though not as wrong as actually acting on the desires. I don't think there should be any legal consequences for the thoughts in your head, but the social stigma and pressure to change those thoughts is very much needed and is a useful social tool for protecting vulnerable classes.

Let's introduce another analogy. Racism is wrong, if you think racist thoughts, even if you never act on them, then you are contributing to the denigration and subjugation of people of color. The only socially-acceptable response to having racist thoughts is to work to change those thoughts.

Paedophilia may be sexuality, and yes, it was wrong to demonize homosexuality, but unless you're arguing that one day we'll look at paedophilia the same way, then you can't put them in the same boat morally.

Celibacy is an acceptable response to paedophilic sexuality, but a better one is to stop being a paedophile. Sex therapists exist, it is something you can work on. It's worth it to at least try.

How so? I sometimes think racist (and sexist, and...) thoughts, but I know they are wrong, so I don't act on them. How am I contributing to the oppression of people of the ethnicity I have racist thoughts against?

(Incidentally I think "people of color" is a pretty racist term, since it lumps all non-white ethnicities together.)

>Paedophilia may be sexuality, and yes, it was wrong to demonize homosexuality, but unless you're arguing that one day we'll look at paedophilia the same way, then you can't put them in the same boat morally.

Well I do argue that. Just as homosexual rape is a crime (although often treated as a joke, c.f. prison rape), child rape is a crime. No matter the sexual orientation of the perpetrator.

>but a better one is to stop being a paedophile

Since when can sexual orientation be changed? According to Wikipedia:

There is no evidence that pedophilia can be cured. Instead, most therapies focus on helping the pedophile refrain from acting on their desires

So do I. Whenever I do, I work to try to understand where the thought came from, and how, if millions of people also had that same thought, what the consequences for minorities would be. I feel it's my obligation to understand the deeper psychological dynamics at play.

One's thoughts can't be controlled like one's hands can be, but that doesn't mean you can't work on them.

> (Incidentally I think "people of color" is a pretty racist term, since it lumps all non-white ethnicities together.)

More racist or less racist than the n-word? And why would lumping them together be racist? Terms by themselves are not racist, it's how you use them that matters.

> Well I do argue that. Just as homosexual rape is a crime (although often treated as a joke, c.f. prison rape), child rape is a crime. No matter the sexual orientation of the perpetrator.

Still waiting on the argument that we'll one day be as accepting of paedophilic sexuality as we are of homosexuality. Yes rape is a crime, but criminality is not the point of contention here, morals are. You and others seem to be arguing that morality is not useful as a social tool, that one should not feel bad about thoughts that one has that could exacerbate social problems. That we should draw the line at legal consequences for actions and treat the mind as sacrosanct. I very much disagree, racism has taught us that the law can itself be used to perpetuate evils.

> Since when can sexual orientation be changed? According to Wikipedia:

Thanks for the pointer to Wikipedia. (not being snide, I didn't do my research before opening up my mouth this time) It still looks like an active area of research and I'm hopeful that new therapies will emerge in the future.

I do think sexuality is at least somewhat malleable. I could never see myself becoming homosexual, but I can easily see how I could have been or could in the future become bisexual. I would be adding a new sexuality on top of my old one, figuring out a new way to have that experience.

I fail to believe paedophilia is the only mode of sexuality that's open to most or even a significant fraction of paedophiles.

I won't go into a long story but TLDR: I thought of myself as gay from puberty until a couple of years ago, I am now entirely bisexual. I don't know if the side of me that is attracted to women (I'm a guy) didn't exist a decade ago and my sexuality changed, or if it did exist and I just didn't know how to access it. But it certainly was a definitive change, previously there just wasn't any sexual feeling towards women in my head, ever. Despite this personal experience of sexuality being malleable in at least some form, I am still entirely confident that homosexuality (including the gay side of bisexuality) cannot, at least with our current scientific knowledge [0] be purposefully changed, and while I'm lucky enough not to have a personal anecdote about paedophilia, everything I've read up on the subject makes me believe the same goes for that.

[0] I say current scientific knowledge because who knows, maybe in X years/decades/centuries we'll fully understand the human brain and be able to modify it as precisely as you can modify a computer program. Setting aside the fact that this advance in science/technology would probably do far more to scare me in terms of how it could be used negatively vs. benefits such as removing the attraction to children from paedophiles, since we are no where near being able to do this we might as well keep the debate within the frame of what we actually can achieve in the foreseeable future.

> I fail to believe paedophilia is the only mode of sexuality that's open to most or even a significant fraction of paedophiles.

It's known that there are paedophiles who no matter how hard they try, and get supported with therapy/etc., never find themselves attracted to adults. It's also known that there are paedophiles who find adults as attractive as children, or also attractive but more/less so than children. It's very hard for anyone to find out how many of each because paedophiles in general often prefer not to talk about their condition, even to medical professionals, and especially paedophiles who can be happy in adult relationships probably don't have much motivation to think about fixing their attraction to kids, since they can have a sexually-fulfilling life without them.

(Incidentally, my gay->bi sexuality is why I find the subject of paedophilia from a medical point of view fascinating, since it does seem that they are very similar things biologically, just not culturally. And no, I don't mean that because they are similar biologically that they should be similar culturally, I fully approve of saying homosexual relationships are good and adult/child sex relationships are bad.)

Someone who reads sick fiction and or looks at man made images is hardly harming anyone. I mean Vorarephilia is also a thing, and they can get off watching monster movies. But, there are very few actual cannibals out there.

At best you could make a comment based on reproductive success in our culture. But, I have trouble going from there to paying to lock people up.

I agree. That's why I said that people shouldn't be subjected to legal consequences for their thoughts. They should definitely not be morally absolved.

> Having violent thoughts about people is very common, acting on them far less so.

I would argue that a person that looks at paedophilic content is arguably being violent themselves. If you went to a ancient Roman gladiator arena and eagerly watched the bloodsport, or to a current-day dogfighting event as a spectator, then you are participating in the violence, even if you aren't actually conducting any of it. What separates bloodsport from horror movies is that in movies, nobody is actually getting hurt.

There is definitely a relative aspect to right and wrong, and we all have ways in which we are wrong. It's important to recognize what is wrong and what is right, and to work to become more right over time.

Now, extend that to fringe Anime and there is now sick content that's was not harmful to create. I don't see how your suggesting there is an actual difference between movie types assuming all actors are adults and blood was faked etc.

Fake content isolates negative aspects of experience and presents it in a comforting bubble where you don't have to contemplate all of the nasty context surrounding the portrayal if it were real. As content acquires more reality that bubble is progressively burst.

I've watched lots of questionable content over the years, but the things I've seen that have left the nastiest impressions were always real or based on the real. The audio of the Jonestown massacre was among the most horrifying things I've ever came across.

If you're watching real content of real kids really getting abused, that's probably one of the worst things you could ever do short of actually doing what was in the video. But the difference between enjoying that and the less graphic is one of degree and not kind.

Can you make an argument that easily accessible kiddie porn is going to reduce child violence? Even if you could, I would hesitate to make even the fake stuff legal unless the science was very conclusive. I'd argue that with kiddie porn, the default should fall on 'no' and not 'yes'.

That said, it's really difficult to draw a line here. Content creators are going to find ways around any laws we pass. That's why we need a moral component, so that we can enforce these things not just legally, but also socially.

Sure, it's easy to make a counter argument along the lines of "Making things taboo adds to their appeal. Supervised underage drinking seems to have a long term positive impact." However, that's also meaningless unless you study the issue.

I really don't know, but I also accept I don't know.

PS: This is one of those issue people don't approach rationally. It's as if gathering evidence is already admitting you might be wrong.

That's a false dichotomy. We cannot have perfect knowledge about everything that could possibly help or harm society. We need to retain the ability to act in its absence.

> I really don't know, but I also accept I don't know.

Not all things should be treated this way, but in the case of kiddie porn, I'd argue that defaulting to the stance that all conduct in this space being morally wrong, perhaps even criminal, is justified.

It's tempting to want an ideological framework that preserves sanctity of thought so that we don't have to consider that we, ourselves might be morally wrong on occasion, but the world doesn't work that way. The mere fact that millions of people want something is enough to create a market in violence and suffering. Whether it's children, rhinos, or slaves. (I use market in a non-economic sense here, any venue for satisfying a desire is a market)

However, as something to consider. There is a very long history of things people assume without evidence being wrong. Abstractly, unsupported ideas are random in nature and the number of true ideas are vastly outnumbered by the number of wrong ideas. So, IMO the default assumption for unsupported ideas should be they are false.

Anyway, nice chatting with you.

A peasant picks up a rock and due to a local legend decides it prevents tiger attacks. So, they carry it around for the rest of their lives. Not a big deal right?

Well, what if they have their tiger rock, hippo rock, fire rick, snake rock, cancer rock, martian rock, ... Until they are not willing to leave the house without 150 pounds of rocks in a backpack.

Individually each issue may have been tiny. But, each and every one of them are also a drain. Also, they may get eaten because they falsely assume they are safe when in imminent danger. Or in this case you might assume your fighting when in fact your just making things worse.

So, even if the cost is low and it might be true, avoiding wrong ideas is still valuable.

PS: As to actual direct harm, sure shoot em. But, that's really not what I have been talking about.

Of course that hinges on the fact that you accept that morality is a cultural construct and not absolute, which is a philosophical rabbit hole.

You've implied that there are perfectly normal people who choose a career in child abuse for the money.

This subject is yet another instance of society's moral panic "war on X", collateral damage be damned. I mean, who cares about the absurdity of persecuting possession of information, those people are fucking revolting!

Somewhat unrelated (I'm not trying to set up a straw man here), I believe that it's more consistent to believe that society finds paedophilia to be disgusting and that due to their disgust that paedophiles should be jailed. I believe that this is due to the conflation of thoughts with actions, and the belief that someone with those thoughts will always be prone to action. It's a somewhat risky viewpoint to espouse that "paedophilia in and of itself should not be illegal, abuse of a victim should" given the fervor of the people against paedophilia, but I think it is more congruent with a living in a free society. It's a shame that anyone suggesting nuance there is usually then associated with paedophiles in the mind of the person hearing the argument.

There is abuse of children, then there's the act of making recordings of it for others to consume. The latter certainly functions on a demand curve, as it takes more work to produce something than it is to just do it.

> How does this argument explain the illegality of drawings depicting underage sex with none of the depictions being based on a real-life individual?

There probably isn't much rationality to it. Legislation is more of a political process than a rational one.

> I believe that it's more consistent to believe that society finds paedophilia to be disgusting and that due to their disgust that paedophiles should be jailed.

I would agree with that assessment. But there's also a shocking amount of truly, unbearably horrific content in the world. Disgust may not be the most rational basis to make something illegal on, but it's better than nothing. Laws are intended to be iterated on over time, a more nuanced view will eventually prevail, though it might take decades.

> It's a somewhat risky viewpoint to espouse that "paedophilia in and of itself should not be illegal, abuse of a victim should" given the fervor of the people against paedophilia, but I think it is more congruent with a living in a free society.

Paedophilia is not illegal. It's child abuse and possession of child pornography that's illegal. You can't convict someone of being a paedophile, there's no law against it.

With the Rhino argument, the entire reason for the act occurring is economic (kill rhino, collect horn, get paid). For paedos, the act occurs because they want to do it. Being able to gain social standing or affirmation is secondary. People record child pornography for posterity without distributing it.

> There probably isn't much rationality to it. Legislation is more of a political process than a rational one.

Agreed, and that is the thesis of my argument.

> I would agree with that assessment. But there's also a shocking amount of truly, unbearably horrific content in the world. Disgust may not be the most rational basis to make something illegal on, but it's better than nothing. Laws are intended to be iterated on over time, a more nuanced view will eventually prevail, though it might take decades.

Disgust is not a reasonable basis for making something illegal. At a bare minimum, I believe that the first amendment rights of people drawing depictions of child abuse are being violated. But it's "icky" and not politically viable to defend, so nobody defends them.

> Paedophilia is not illegal. It's child abuse and possession of child pornography that's illegal. You can't convict someone of being a paedophile, there's no law against it.

Possession of something that depicts, but is not, child pornography is also illegal (and to your point, irrational to make illegal).

At the risk of losing my footing to try to make a point, I think it's somewhat similar if someone said "Being homosexual isn't illegal but engaging in any act whatsoever, whether it victimizes anyone or not, is." We've already ruled that sodomy laws violate people's constitutional rights. I'm not saying that paedophiles should have the right to express their affinity with children (they cannot consent), but removing all outlets for it smacks of trying to pray the gay away.

I think our nation would be far more sane if we decriminalized mere possession of child pornography, as disgusting as it is. I would rather have my fifth amendment right not to decrypt a drive than catch people that have not directly (and I would argue also not indirectly) harmed anyone by viewing images.

Doesn't matter, this material leaks out into the world and becomes part of sharing networks. In these networks, paedophiles can live and participate in a world in which these thoughts and this behavior is OK. With social validation eventually comes boldness and the willingness and desire to create ones own content.

Do you have a hobby? I like food. I like talking about food, cooking food, I take pleasure in being able to discern subtle flavorings in dishes and having an appreciation for real Chinese food as opposed to bland American Chinese shit.

All of that time and effort I put into food, there are vast numbers of paedophiles that do this for videos of children being abused. Without the moral stigma, these people will get bolder and bolder, and before you know it, there's a paedophile political lobby just like the gun and homosexual rights lobby.

Is this a world you want to live in? Countenanced with this, is disgust as a source for the political capital to fight paedophilia really such a bad thing? Do you really want to grant legitimacy to that way of life? Because that's where your line of thought goes.

Yes, it's awful that if you are wired that way, you're pretty much fucked and that's terrible and I feel bad for you. But it's really, really morally fucked up and repugnant and wrong to allow yourself the inner freedom to explore your sexuality on these networks if that's the case. You deserve to be locked up and shamed if you give in to your urges.

There's no easy way through this.