I've read some debates held between MPs in Hansard. I can't speak for any sizable portion, but what I did see on the topics I was interested in is a shockingly low form of discussion abound with fallacies, name-calling, and soliciting the opinions of unqualified individuals to inform the law.
Sure, they may run circles around you or me when it comes to debating some aspects of policy. But not around someone who's invested time and energy into a specific topic, which I think ought to be the bar for whether we consider these people 'well educated' and 'intelligent' when they are running the country supposedly on my behalf(!).
Yeah, it doesn't make sense to me. Consider this from the developer's point of view, and every single developer will tell you they'd rather make Javascript and some HTML rather than GTK application in C, especially when it'll work on every platform except maybe Plan 9.
Generally you get some explanation with peer review, to revise and submit. It's a process of revisions and improvements. As far as I've read, not only did the authors not receive any such actionable feedback, but actually a demand to retract. In her shoes, I would think many of us would want to know who is the one behind a decision like that. Someone is putting a roadblock in the standard process and normal execution of my job.
>If you get off to sexually abusing a child, that is pedophilia, so essentially all CSA crimes are committed by pedophiles.
The data seems to contradict this. "Estimates of preferential attraction for children among those who offend are often in the ballpark of 25% to 50%"[0]. Granted, this is talking about preferential attraction, but estimates on the percentage of men with non-preferential attraction factor in at a much higher percentage of the population than pedophiles (and others we assume are preferentially attracted). Other than this, it still seems to leave a segment of child abusers who do not enjoy their actions sexually, but for other reasons (say, power).
>This hasn't been shown to be true.
To some degree (and I suspect, to a similar degree to pedophiles) it has, see my comment here[1]. Exposure to pornography is usually shown to trigger or at least intensify feelings of sexual agression, either physical or verbal, even in non-experimental studies.
> the consumption of CP has been shown to create the urge to engage in pedophilic acts in pedophiles.
Is this true of all pedophiles generally based on a sample of the pedophile population, or those recruited to take part in such a study after being convicted of child abuse (contact or non-contact) offences? I can very easily see the fact they've been convicted as being a huge confounder here.
Just to be clear, I'm not arguing that CP should be legal; I just think that on the basis of the available evidence, I can't see any reason to illegalize fictional representations. I think the alcohol and regular porn comparison holds quite well. The longitudinal study data which contradicts the theory that increased availability of porn does not lead to higher rates of rape is simply unavailable for child porn, perhaps with one exception, though[2]. The link between inebriation and likelihood of sex crimes is to my knowledge undisputed, though.
>For your second question: there is a fair amount of research into the effects of visual and audiovisual stimuli on pedophiles and other sex offenders.
I'm more just curious because I haven't seen anything (other than from the authors I've cited) on the effects of fictional (and in particular highly stylized) material on regular people, or even pedophiles specifically. Gary Young's book on The Gamer's Dilemma from 2010 or so also concludes there is no evidence for fictional material having these effects.
What do you mean by "stimulate demand"? For example, it would not surprise me at all that pedophiles find certain depictions arousing, but that still wouldn't be any reason to illegalize it, unless we are to go about banning everything that pedophiles also find arousing (which is a bridge I suspect many would not want to cross). Of course pedophiles are aroused, but are non-pedophilic individuals also aroused? The study on Japanese fans of lolicon manga does not so neatly indicate pedophilia as an appropriate category for their attractions, nor does it explain why they are so defensive against real depictions.
With fictional material, from what I can gather, there's something else at play which does not fit into the commonly held notion that fiction is always (or even most of the time) a substitute for the real deal.
To my mind, the difficult questions are: if the material is arousing to pedophiles, what does that arousal indicate in the risk of an offence (obtaining real CP or otherwise)? Do the effects persist? What is the persistent effect post-orgasm? Are stylized or fictional depicitions sufficient to arouse an interest in the real thing? Is it appropriate or desirable to prosecute or produce policy based on the tastes of pedophiles, especially given that the majority or a high percentage of CSA crimes are not perpetrated by pedophiles?
I've tried quite hard to find material on specifically lolicon manga or fanfiction, and a study among either pedophiles or others. If it does exist, I'd be very interested to see it, and I would have expected it to crop up in the arguments I've had so far. Especially, a study among those who are not already convicted for a crime (contact offence or otherwise). Those results would only, at best, tell us about criminals, and pedophile criminals with NC/C offences are almost reputable for showing lower impulse control.
To put it another way: access to regular porn may inflame the desires of a rapist, and they may even make him more likely to committ an offence; is this sufficient to illegalize porn for everybody? Alcohol may have the same effect, and the question still applies.
To say that fanfic of fictional characters is merely "thinly disguised CP" not only does a disservice and insult to actual victims of child abuse, but the materials which some such victims use to relieve trauma. The conflation of fiction and reality must end if we are to do right by victims of child abuse and the harmless consumers of such content.
Would you care to point to any of this research? Specifically the link between viewing simulated pornography and appetite for consuming real-world material, or abusing children. Further, is there any evidence that the majority of people who read simulated depictions (like underage Harry Potter fanfic) are pedophiles? Does the link similarly exist for other forms of pornography? How does fanfiction or erotica compare to visual artwork in this regard?
There's ethnographic evidence (see Patrick Galbraith, Mark McLelland, Suzanne Ost) of such fans from Japan that the assumption they are pedophiles, or that they carry over their desires from "2D" to "3D" is dubious at best. The English government, when banning virtual depictions of fictional characters, admitted they had no evidence on its effects, mode of usage, or popularity among any particular group.
Women do purchase more conventional sex toys than men do, however. This suggests that women, even when they can get sex, are not as satisfied. If we go with the idea that dildos/fleshlights are not necessarily objectifying, it still leads to the conclusion that both men and women are dissatisfied, but they deal with it in different ways, with some men buying sex robots. An alternative hypothesis is that women on the whole simply don't objectify as much, and would not be in the market for sexbots. Yet another hypothesis is that these women feel as though the technology for male sexbots is not good enough yet (and an associate hypothesis for that would be that women look for other features in sex which cannot be so readily emulated by a robot).
I do think male objectification is widespread, but it differs in quality and scale. If male objectification is big, then female objectification is huge. The hypothesis relating to sex robots supports that, but I'm willing to accept it is only one of many.
It probably is also an expressway for the objectification of men, but it seems to be used (currently) for women - arguably the objectification of women is much more widespread with modern porn and tech than it is for men. Look at the number of female sex robots on the market versus male sex bots (and no, dildos/fleshlights emulating a single body part such as a penis or vulva by any reasonable argument is not the same kind of objectification of a whole body sex toy), or the amount of porn focusing on the female body versus the male body, nudes of female celebrities leaked versus male celebrities, pornographic deepfakes of women versus deepfakes of men, etc.
Objectification in media is common to both sexes. That does not mean to the same degree or in the same quality. (I'm making no comment as to the harm or benefit of objectification[0] here, and I don't buy the idea that programmable sex toys are a form of objectification).
>This is simply a convoluted fantasy. Marx’ own words prove you wrong.
Please, for the love of God, read Marx. Actually read Marx and understand the context he was writing in. Talk to any Marx scholar or go to any encyclopedia of philosophy. Ask a political science professor, or even just read Wikipedia. But don't misrepresent someone's thought because you don't understand it.
>The state will control all property, any property an individual possesses will be exclusively granted by the state, and no person will possess any property in excess of their basic needs.
The part you quoted does not actually claim this. When Marx talks about "appropriation that is made for [...] of human life", if you read his Critique of the Gotha Program, he specifically explicates on this: products of society to fund education systems, healthcare, expansion of production, funds for those who are physically unable to work, and protection against natural disaster. This is exactly how taxes work today. Furthermore, Marx clearly says "all instruments of production". This does not include, as you falsely claim, "all property, any property".
What you are claiming is that because Marx talks about appropriation of surplus, then he must therefore be talking about all labour. This is false and not backed up with any quote you have shown. Marx is talking no more about taking away your toothbrush or laptop as much as a Western European state today takes them away through taxes.
Don't just believe me. Do your own research. Read more than the Manifesto (since this seems to be your only source, it's worth noting that Marx changed his views significantly afterwards, and with the publication of Capital). If you want a short read as to why you're wrong, where Marx specifically responds to people who want "equality of outcome", where he specifically explicates what he means by "instruments of production", read Critique of the Gotha Program. Consult a scholar on Marx.
This has to be one of the most unproductive conversations I've had on HN, in which you quote one propaganda document written years before Marx had published anything serious, in which all Marxologists and philosophers agree his views and philosophy had changed. Read, and don't stop reading.
I'm starting to think we're talking past each other. Abolition of private property, in the sense Marx (and the philosophical tradition of the time) meant it, is specifically either land for rent, or large-scale productive capacity. It does not refer to your house, laptop or toothbrush. Nowhere does Marx claim that under a Communist society, each would be allotted a certain amount invariably. I quoted the most respected freely available encyclopedia of philosophy on this matter.
Marx does not, and never has, promoted one outcome for everybody, in the same way that capitalism does not promote one outcome for everybody just because everyone has the right to acquire property.
>This is an absurdly revisionist view, that can be falsified simply by reading his work.
Cite some, then. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy actually makes quite a point about Marx on this[0]. There is no "equality of outcomes" in Marx, or as I cited earlier, Lenin. Marx repeatedly and ferociously argued against these abstract notions such as "fairness", the equality of wages, and other things you associate with him.
>The nice sounding quotes about dismantling class structure don’t stand up to even passing scrutiny.
Why not?
>These ideas are not compatible with a free society
It's ironic that before approximately the middle of the 20th century, there was hardly a single philosopher who argued that "free society" or "freedom" should be understood as private property (state-protected large scale means of production). Seriously - look at almost any major modernist or pre-modern philosopher concerned with political philosophy, from Rawls and Sen today, to Nietzche, Marx, Proudhon, Rousseau, Stirner and perhaps even Hegel in the past.
These figures were arguing for free society, and precisely from the same premises of self-actualization that Marx was.
[0] "Hence with the possible exception of Barbeuf (1796), no prominent author or movement has demanded strict equality. Since egalitarianism has come to be widely associated with the demand for economic equality, and this in turn with communistic or socialistic ideas, it is important to stress that neither communism nor socialism — despite their protest against poverty and exploitation and their demand for social security for all citizens — calls for absolute economic equality. The orthodox Marxist view of economic equality was expounded in the Critique of the Gotha Program (1875). Marx here rejects the idea of legal equality, on three grounds. In the first place, he indicates, equality draws on a merely limited number of morally relevant vantages and neglects others, thus having unequal effects; right can never be higher than the economic structure and cultural development of the society it conditions. In the second place, theories of justice have concentrated excessively on distribution instead of the basic questions of production. In the third place, a future communist society needs no law and no justice, since social conflicts will have vanished."
>“We recognise people are unequal, but we will ensure that their economic outcomes are”.
That's not the message at all. Marx makes no mention of equality of outcomes, and in fact, he is known to be one of the first socialists to speak against the abstract idea of "equality". The class system, determined by ownership and control of large scale productive capacity in society, is founded on (but, supports in turn) the notion of private property. For Marx, alienation was not a by-product of class inequality, or even the class system, at least not directly - it was a result of the nature of the capitalist production process in which people do not see themselves in the goods they make at another's direction.
>According to that theory, anybody with capital is in the upper class.
This is the problem with strict definitions of "capital" and "upper class". You end up saying that most people in our society are capitalists, which while it may be terminologically true, it misses the point of the critique, which appears to apply whether people are termed capitalists or proletarians. Most people are wage labourers - the fact that they may also own some mostly immobile capital, stocks and shares in public companies does not make them capitalists, any more than fur makes a wolf. This is because capital is about the production process: its appropriation of the product of labour at the end of the day, its extraction of surplus-value (or, if you don't care for Marx's value theory, UE-exploitation and domination) and its totalization in society.
The majority of people may have some kind of capital (do they?), yet given they can't live from it, it still rings strikingly true to say that a proletarian is defined by being only the possessor of his capacity to labour.
"Classes" to the person writing means ownership and control of major productive capacity in society - i.e. the Marxist concept. It does not refer to people with different wage levels, different skills, or people with physical differences. Considered as that, the quote is not contradictory at all.
What gave you the impression I was talking about equality of sporting ability, or even equality of wages? I'm not talking about either of those, and neither is the article. Equality clearly (and charitably) does not mean absolute sameness.
No philosopher, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy notes, except Barbeuf (in the year 1796) has ever demanded "strict equality".
"Inequality" here clearly does not refer to the idea that diversity of skills or circumstance (circumstance considered above a certain baseline) should be eradicated[0] - of course, they cannot be, as you point out. However, both warlordism and human sacrifice also had their uses within the societies that used them (or they would not have emerged as cultural phenomena). The fact of a positive (such as literature or art) obviously does not outweigh whatever negatives there may be - after all, it is possible to create an artistic threatening letter, or artistic child pornography. But we are justified in prohibiting both of these regardless of their artistic merit.
People having different qualities and experiences is a positive. That inequality is generally agreed upon to be good. People living in poverty in first world nations which hosts billionaires is generally agreed upon to be bad.
[0] If you don't believe me, here is a quote from a famous Russian who advocated against inequality, dated 1914. Your objection was replied to more than one hundred years ago: "It goes without saying that in this respect men are not equal. No sensible person and no socialist forgets this. But this kind of equality has nothing whatever to do with socialism. [...] he would find there a special section explaining the absurdity of imagining that economic equality means anything else than the abolition of classes."
A great many things that were facts of existence (such as warlordism and human sacrifice) no longer are, at least partially, I think, because people go as far as to apply those labels, in order to change them. Recognition of what is and isn't does not go as far as what will be or could be.