09-21-2003, 11:34 PM
There are wallets made by workers paid a decent wage in decent conditions.
There are wallets made by exploited, beaten, unpaid child labourers in dismal conditions.
It's not the wallets that are the problem.
If you don't like exploiting people who are unable to make decisions for themselves (legally or realistically), then speak against that. Certainly the prepubescent pornography market is a fairly major (and repulsive) instance. The problem is that it exploits people, not that it produces something.
So, in tying the problem to "what kind of porn is acceptable", you're leading the discussion to a blind alley. It doesn't matter what kind of porn it is. It matters what goes into producing it.
Ordinary porn? Sure, if everyone consents to it. Gay porn? Same deal. Fetish porn? Same deal. Bestiality? Why not, since we obviously don't consider animals to have rights. Child porn? You can't get consent from someone legally unable to consent, so obviously not, unless we want to change the age at which contracts can be binding. Considering how the power tends to be distributed in child porn situations, I would *strongly* advise against lowering that age. But once someone can make a decision for themselves, we really can't stop them from doing what they want, in consenting situations.
Or, for that matter, from selling the pictures of it.
Jester
There are wallets made by exploited, beaten, unpaid child labourers in dismal conditions.
It's not the wallets that are the problem.
If you don't like exploiting people who are unable to make decisions for themselves (legally or realistically), then speak against that. Certainly the prepubescent pornography market is a fairly major (and repulsive) instance. The problem is that it exploits people, not that it produces something.
So, in tying the problem to "what kind of porn is acceptable", you're leading the discussion to a blind alley. It doesn't matter what kind of porn it is. It matters what goes into producing it.
Ordinary porn? Sure, if everyone consents to it. Gay porn? Same deal. Fetish porn? Same deal. Bestiality? Why not, since we obviously don't consider animals to have rights. Child porn? You can't get consent from someone legally unable to consent, so obviously not, unless we want to change the age at which contracts can be binding. Considering how the power tends to be distributed in child porn situations, I would *strongly* advise against lowering that age. But once someone can make a decision for themselves, we really can't stop them from doing what they want, in consenting situations.
Or, for that matter, from selling the pictures of it.
Jester