This is the middle of January in Quebec, my ice ain't thin at all. But by all means, try your best here, it'll be fun. Read my following post and and then tell my why I suck so much again.
A)
Acting like? I said exactly what I meant: It's really dumb that we use the same language for this incident that we might for an incident that is 1000x morally more problematic.
Perhaps even dumber -- squealing about this incident as though it was anywhere near the same level of my hypothetical.
Were you doing that? I don't know -- I've seen a lot of people do that based on a headline -- they're non thinking. It's the same people that will squeal "pedophile" when a 16 year old hooks up with a 20 year old consensually the way other people might when a 40 year old abuses an 8 year old. Again, major major difference as anyone with a halfway well calibrated moral compass could tell you.
B)
I'm for law punishing the distribution of sexual content of someone < 18. Hell, I think I'm against it for people over 18 if it is done nonconsensually. Actual punishment is going to vary quite a bit on circumstance, obviously. And there is the scenario where you can be charged for distributing your own child porn as a minor. (which I'm not sure really makes any sense)
Anyway... None of this is germane to the point I was making.
C)
Your slippery slope analogy sucks.
My hypothetical served a purpose -- it was to clearly bypass any possible gray zone, to completely evade any slippery slope logic. In this case, pointing to a pre-pubescent child (10 year old) that couldn't possibly consent to anything -- something
very wrong to almost every person on earth.
D)
Law necessarily can't be as nuanced and subjective as it ideally should be -- we don't have the resources. I think you see that in areas like age of consent and the like. (which are subjective across culture, if not state, not to mention the unevenness of human development across age)
It has to draw hard lines in the sand on matters like this necessarily. (granted, sentencing can to an extent ameliorate this problem)
But we, the people on the sidelines, get to be
better than law this way! We get to think and use nuance and take in subjective information for a given situation that the law (in so much as its an algorithm) cannot.
E)
My effective thesis point was we ought not to talk about this "sexual exploitation of a child" case the way we might a case where a 10 year old and an adult were involved. They ain't all created equal.
Bobert's girlfriend was 17, two weeks shy of her 18th birthday. Two weeks and it's no longer "exploitation of a child" -- two weeks. This was much much more about unconsensually sharing sexual content than child abuse.
Rep. Lauren Boebert's son Tyler casually used the N-word during a sexually charged text exchange tied to his child sexual exploitation case ... according to an arrest affidavit obtained by TMZ.
www.tmz.com
