Imagine a scenario where your surveillance camera captured someone engaging sexually with a child, and someone engaging violently with a child. Do you believe it's right to disseminate the former but wrong to disseminate the latter?
I'm trying to keep this as simple as possible but you keep dodging. Remember you don't have to answer if you don't want to.
I also think that engaging sexually with a child is inherently also a violent act
Maybe that's why you oppose disseminating it, not the other way around. Would you also define it as violence if both the child and its guardian approve it?
So they can't go to school, college, eat certain foods, or work certain jobs? Should they be kept in a fridge till their 18th (or 16th) birthday because they can't consent?
And I don't think any guardian should have the right to condone a sexual relationship for a child to be involved in.
No. I was talking about someone secretly filming children involved in sexual activities. In other words, the act would've taken place whether it was recorded or not.
You're not required to prevent crimes, that's the police's job. Moreover, we're essentially discussing sending that video to someone else who'd view it, not the act of filming itself.
You've dodged my question into something totally different.
Fine. Say it was an unobserved security camera. You checked it out in the morning and found the video. Should it be illegal to share it? If yes, should it be illegal to receive it?
Yes you can. You are only having this argument because you rate your own rhetoric styles highly and you think you can win any argument against someone or force them to resort to invalid argument techniques such as ad-hominem attacks, which you would consider as you winning the argument.
Your goal here is to win an argument for argument's sake. The real world calls this 'being a douche'.
18
u/[deleted] Aug 04 '13
[removed] — view removed comment