JoshElders
-119
1
47
JoshElders has not written any posts yet.
JoshElders has not written any posts yet.
That's very interesting. At what point can one start talking about implications of a poll without it being a spoiler?
I don't know the actual reasons why my original Discussion post "Assertion: a large proportion of pedophiles are celibate" was deleted -- I figure the community has its methods of operation and assume it was all done according to regulations. I am aware of reasons that were given in this thread for wanting it removed -- though I don't know the relationship of those reasons to why it was actually removed.
Survey results suggest considerable support in the community for discussing the topic in the Open Thread. A reasonable person might think it would... (read more)
Sometimes a sample is also a population. We might not be able to generalize to all nations, but knowing the effect on the US would be very interesting in and of itself.
Other times it seems reasonable to draw conclusions without a sample, if we expect little variability in the population on the measure in question. For instance, if Obamacare has been in effect in Massachusetts for a few years, you don't say "n=1" and that the results have no bearing on what will happen in other states. You might argue that there are reasons it won't apply due to differing conditions, but few would say that it is as irrelevant as "n=1" would imply.
I believe that they did look at crimes like murder and assault as a control for sex crimes in at least some cases.
I did hear of a study once (no, I don't have a citation) tracking US sex crime rates in relation to when the internet (broadband?) became widely available in different parts of the country, finding some tendency for rape to go down after the internet was available.
In any case, those are all helpful ideas for professional sex researchers but go beyond my competence.
Other reputable organizations like the ACLU also support decriminalization without thinking about issues of increased demand.
The sounds like you want to think about the issue of increased demand because you already made up your mind about the issue.
I have no idea how your comment relates to anything I said.
I think the ACLU positions is that even if there is increased demand and thus more production the harm that it causes doesn't outweigh the good of legalisation. Arguing such a position however needs analysis of the good that you create.
I think that's a fair summary of their position. I (and I think they) would defend the good of legalization as keeping the government... (read more)
Virtual child porn might well crowd out a market for real porn.
This speculation seems unfounded, considering this has not happened in adult porn.
The production of real adult porn is as legal as virtual adult porn. Since the production of real child porn would remain illegal, one might expect a difference.
It should still be possible to follow the money to the producers. One could consider making the purchase of such material illegal but not its possession.
No. Cryptography and covering your tracks by using anonymization services is trivial.
These methods are available in today's environment too where child porn possession is illegal. There are still a lot of convictions. If we divide the world into... (read more)
You can run an experiment in a single large nation, such as the US. Policies are set at the national level in any case.
Thanks for the explanation. I was formulating a reply shortly after he made the post. At the time, Richard's post had a -4 karma, so I was actually prohibited from doing so (with my lowly karma ranking). I guess that is the system working as it should. As a newcomer in a situation where most reactions have been negative and none that I recall has moved beyond "grudging tolerance" to "friendly tolerance", it's easy to assume that any given opinion might be shared by lots of others.
The substantive posts I brought up are about matters of fact under conditions of great uncertainty -- for instance, drawing conclusions about a largely invisible group. I brought up the ideas of "civil rights", "taboo", etc. only in response to people saying it shouldn't be discussed here -- that wasn't my idea. And it looks like the predominant view among the regulars is that it isn't irrelevant to the mission of rationality, it isn't off topic, and that I am making cogent arguments. It's to be downplayed because it's too hot to handle, due to the expected reactions (quite possibly very much at odds with rationality) of the general reading public. I think there's considerable benefit on being clear about that.
It seems we have one key difference. Some of you believe that having this topic discussed in the open thread risks serious damage to LW because of the danger of a poor reputation. I am not convinced of this.
If it is not true, then I don't think anyone has suggested any other reason for harm. If this is true, then my participation may have been harmful, though the marginal harm from a little more discussion seems very small.
So far I made one post in the discussion thread suggesting some pedophiles do not molest children. Following advice there, I made my next post in the open thread, which is this current post. I... (read more)
You raise interesting points. One could hypothesize that the downvoting of the original article was due to its placement in the prominent Discussion thread, and seeing it in the open thread people would have not objected to it there. It seems an unlikely interpretation of the bulk of the votes, I agree. The serious downvoting of the original article does weigh heavily on this.
I think those who answered the poll were probably a biased sample in a serious way. Who read it? People who were interested in discussing this topic, and people who were not AND who were still motivated enough to be here to continue arguing for not discussing it. Those... (read more)