[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / bant / biz / c / can / cgl / ck / cm / co / cock / d / diy / e / fa / fap / fit / fitlit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mlpol / mo / mtv / mu / n / news / o / out / outsoc / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / spa / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vint / vip / vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y ] [Search | Extra juicy! | Home]

Is it morally wrong for an adult to chat on the internet with

This is a blue board which means that it's for everybody (Safe For Work content only). If you see any adult content, please report it.

Thread replies: 23
Thread images: 5

File: Krökdig.jpg (205KB, 625x414px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
Krökdig.jpg
205KB, 625x414px
Is it morally wrong for an adult to chat on the internet with a minor (a person under the age of consent) about sex and/or sexual fantasies?
>>
>>292418
>God created sex
stopped reading there
>>
>>292407
It certainly is illegal in many countries and thus generally a bad idea.
>>
>>292488
I did not ask if it was legal or a good idea.

Lets try to determine if it is immoral or not to do this.

>>292418
Prefferably, I'd like to see non-religous moral arguments. Pointing at religous laws or texts is an easy way out of making a philosophical argument.
>>
File: 1444590854273.png (196KB, 600x600px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1444590854273.png
196KB, 600x600px
Do you like soya milk?
>>
>>292536
aa a you are the english pmf
>>
>>292508
>Lets try to determine if it is immoral or not to do this.
Very well then.

(A) It is commonly believed that being subject to sexual content before having reached an age of sexual maturity is harmful for development.

(B) Thus confronting minors with your sexual fantasies is a form of abuse that causes them harm for your own pleasure (or whatever the reason you feel you need to do this).

(C) It is thus immoral.


Usually, people try to question (A), since it all relies on that premise. However, there is evidence that (A) is true, so even you happen to think otherwise, you can't be certain whether (A) isn't true, thus refraining from it would certainly keep minors from harm, and thus the reasoning still holds.
>>
>>292573
Thanks for making an argument. I don't see any immediate flaws, but I do see something fishy, although I can't point it out.

Wouldn't your argument apply to porn on TV/internet as well? Or anything that could be argued to be harmful for development (violence/gore, politics, reality shows, whatever).
>>
File: 1399919987529.png (103KB, 228x170px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1399919987529.png
103KB, 228x170px
>>292429
>>
>>292597
>Wouldn't your argument apply to porn on TV/internet as well?
It would.

However, it is still the parents responsibility to make sure that kids aren't subject to that. TV is also usually regulated to some degree, e.g. not to show certain times of content before a certain time or only on certain channels.

If anything, kids are subject to porn on the internet or TV by accident or because they've looked for it rather than being willingly subjected by someone's immoral intent.
>>
>>292407
I think "minor" is the issue here.
Is talking to a 16 year old dude about the girl he banged last night immoral? Probably not.
Is talking to a 7 year old girl about your dick immoral? Probably.
>>
What this got to do with /his/? Dude go back to /b/
>>
>>292634
Morality, which is a subset of philosophy,

>>292619
Do you base this difference on the difference in brain development, which >>292573
speaks of?

>>292610
Could someone argue that the adult is not forcing the minor to participate in the conversation (the minor can end the chat at will) and thus does not break the non-agression principle? Does that change anything?
>>
>>292669
>Do you base this difference on the difference in brain development
That and just commonly held Western mores.
If you talked up some kiddie on omegle OP, don't worry, nobody gives a shit.
>>
>>292669
>Could someone argue that the adult is not forcing the minor to participate in the conversation (the minor can end the chat at will) and thus does not break the non-agression principle? Does that change anything?
I don't think so, because the minor is not yet able to judge the content of the topic in its entirety. If the minor were capable, then the restriction that excludes minors wouldn't apply in the first place. That is what makes it abuse.
>>
>>292672
I don't worry at all, I only use tinder which has a 18+ age limit.

The reason for my question is that my and my girlfriend discussed something that swedish state television did, they created a fake facebook account, and a fake profile on another site, pretending to be a 14 year old girl (age of conscent is 15). They then lured men into talking to "her" and they often resulted in erotic conversations. "Scandal", proposes our state television.

We both agreed that state television did something immoral when they baited.
She also argued that the men did something immoral, thinking they spoke to a 14 year old, while I wasn't so sure. Illegal, perhaps (but a crime done under crime provocation is not a crime in my country). But immoral, I wasn't so sure about. I then challenged her to explain the principle behind her morals, which she failed to do.
>>
>>292679
Okay, thanks for your argument and answering my questions. I have no further questions right now that I can think of.
>>
>>292703
Well, personally I think it's of course not a big deal since it was all pretend, but I suppose it depends how erotic we are talking.
In those bait conversations, did the "girl" started to talk about sex and such, or were the men initially interested in sex?
In any case, shitty thing to do, really. Talking about sex with a 14 year old must be the most boring shit anyway.
>>
>>292719
>Talking about sex with a 14 year old must be the most boring shit anyway.
That depends. Most 14 year olds probably have a more active sex life than most people on 4chan.
>>
>>292732
Well, I wouldn't talk about sex with your average 4channer, either.
Maybe with some of the fags from /k/, they're into the kinkiest shit.
>>
File: 1407486304444.png (546KB, 2424x3424px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1407486304444.png
546KB, 2424x3424px
>>292751
>Maybe with some of the fags from /k/, they're into the kinkiest shit.
Lewd.
>>
>>292762
>>
>>292407
You have to ask why. Why would anyone go to minors and talk to them about sexual fantasies outside of a research or education position? I can't think of a good reason for it. Its grooming.
Thread posts: 23
Thread images: 5


[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / bant / biz / c / can / cgl / ck / cm / co / cock / d / diy / e / fa / fap / fit / fitlit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mlpol / mo / mtv / mu / n / news / o / out / outsoc / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / spa / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vint / vip / vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y] [Search | Top | Home]
Please support this website by donating Bitcoins to 16mKtbZiwW52BLkibtCr8jUg2KVUMTxVQ5
If a post contains copyrighted or illegal content, please click on that post's [Report] button and fill out a post removal request
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows an archive of their content. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.