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 who didn't want it discussed were probably underrerepresented.

How my reputation went from -13 to -40 overnight is intriguing. It had been quite stable, and I made a few posts yesterday that were not especially controversial. I speculate that the tapped-out Viliam-Bur in his review of my posts downvoted them all. I guess that's fine, but maybe considered at a meta level gives one individual more power than is ideal? It is of course just speculation. I'm interested in alternative hypotheses.

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 be appropriate to repost that topic in the Open thread (I have the text of my original post). Such a person would also want to make sure that would not be considered hostile behavior, in the absence of knowing the actual reasons it was removed. I also don't know what is supposed to happen here when half a community thinks something shouldn't be discussed and the other half is OK with it.

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 from looking through people's private computer files and sending them to prison for years based on what's there. Another is avoiding the anxiety a lot of people feel constantly wondering if some download they made might have a bad image in it that they're not aware of, or there's something in the background of a shot they didn't notice, etc.

In contrast, the good of reducing demand is a long, tenuous, and indirect chain.

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 "those who can use tracks-covering services reliably" and "those who can't", we could argue that the first group is already consuming its fill of child porn and the second group would be as uncertain in covering financial dealings as they are in covering downloads today.

But to my knowledge, making a video of it which a person uploads or sells is not an additional crime, and possession is not a crime. Consider real, existing video of hostages being executed. People watching them creates the demand for their creation, but we don't even think about banning possession of such things.

I don't think legalizing one harmful thing because other harmful things are legal is a good argument.

That's fair enough, but we can also consult our intuitions about how we'd like to handle that case. Would you with enthusiasm support efforts to make possession of such videos illegal? My reaction is, "Let's not go there, and just let people possess those videos."

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 made one more post in the open thread titled "Assertion: Child porn availability does not increase child sex abuse". I have responded to comments in all of these threads. My current plan, in response to community concerns, is to reply in these threads but not open any new ones. (I note that because of my low karma, I can't see the results of the poll, a side effect of the entirely reasonably restriction that I can't vote in it.)

The topic of child porn is one of the most socially toxic subjects out there, and even being peripherally associated with it can be a life-ending event. Careers have been destroyed, men have been unmade, and Bad Stuff Has Happened in the name of this topic.

For possession this is most assuredly so. Conceivably it's so for arguing in favor of looser restrictions on it. It's hard for me to believe that it is so for arguing against such changes or for being a contributor on the same forum where it is discussed. If anyone has such cases, I'd love to hear about them -- by private message is fine.

Your goal is to discuss these topics.

I have raised two specific cases where facts aren't clear and there are issues of different kinds of evidence to weigh in reaching a factual determination under conditions of uncertainty. Others have characterized this as my dressing up my concern for the topic in the guise of rationality. I disagree, and suggest that the reason may be mind-killer reactions -- but on your side only. It's hard to tell if they are representative opinions. There are many, many other ways I could have discussed this topic not related to rationality, and I didn't, and wouldn't.

Our goal is to spread rationality.

It would seem that your goal would be advanced by seeing how rationality considerations apply to any area of human endeavor, especially where they have not been widely discussed before. If rationality considerations could apply to the debate on incarceration policies for drug offenders, for instance, it would advance the goals of LW to discuss them. If this isn't true for celibate pedophilia, it is only because it is a taboo topic. That may be a sufficient reason, but I think it's worth being clear about that.