rationalskepticism.org

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:

[Reveal] Spoiler:

The_Metatron wrote:

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:Torture has a pretty distinct definition. I don't think the south Vietnam air force's napalm attacks on occupied territories fit it. Like, at all. They're assaults and acts of war. I'm sure the pain of the burns was torturous. No one was torturing her (by which I mean Napalm Girl) though. There are no tortured girls in this scenario. There is a girl who was collateral damage in a war she had no responsibility in.

Even if seeing a little girl suffering from severe burns gets you hard, I won't kill you for it.

Well then, that really narrows things down, eh?

Do you imagine that it matters the mechanism by which the girl loses the skin from her back for the sexual gratification of some imaginary sadistic pedophile?

Maybe. I don't know.

She didn't lose the skin on her back for anyone's sexual gratification. She lost the skin on her back because she was a victim of a napalm attack by the south Vietnam air force. That's who's responsible. That would have happened even if paedophiles didn't exist, even if we rounded them all up and killed them. Some creep with no responsibility in the attack getting off on the fact kids are suffering as a result of it doesn't make matters any worse for the children suffering as a result of a napalm attack.

People can't control what turns them on. Taking pleasure in someone else's suffering doesn't make you responsible for that suffering (unless you in fact the cause of it.)

I'm not going to condemn anyone to death for what gets them off unless they're forcing it on others.