Gaiman does a reasonable job with this argument, but in my mind fails to address the most pernicious thought in the letter:
The question, for me, is even if we only save ONE child from rape or attempted rape, or even just lots of uncomfortable hugs from Creepy Uncle Dave, is that not worth leaving a couple naked bodies out of a comic?
This kind of argument comes up all the time in mostly unsupportable "save the children" heart string--tugging arguments (and others), and it is a dangerous and nasty kind of argument that should always be addressed.
"If we only save ONE child, shouldn't we do X?" is equivalent to "let's just assume that even the tiniest positive outcome has more value than any possible negative ones." This isn't really an argument at all; it's a premise concerning the relative values of various outcomes, masquerading as an argument. Moreover, it's stated in a way intended to shame anyone who disagrees with it.
"Even if we only save ONE child", "even if we only stop ONE terrorist", and their ilk smack of dishonesty and intellectual laziness. Sound public policies require careful consideration; arguments such as these are mental roadblocks, nothing more.
Indeed. It is of course entirely possible to prevent all crime by locking everyone up in solitary confinement at birth. This would save not just ONE child, but all of them, from rape or attempted rape etc., so surely this must be worth it?
> The question, for me, is even if we only save ONE child from rape or attempted rape, or even just lots of uncomfortable hugs from Creepy Uncle Dave, is that not worth leaving a couple naked bodies out of a comic?
And on the other hand, what if leaving these naked bodies in a comic saves TWO children? Would you trade one for two to satisfy your dislike of pictures on paper?
...and that's why the (fallacious) argument works, because the next step is to put a "price" on misery, and very few people, mostly involved in aviation or insurance, are willing to do that.
So, the person crying out for reason feels ashamed, and the person asking for a ridiculous zero-tolerance solution feels righteous. Again.
Not really, the premise in this instance is that saving the life of one child is a positive worth more than the negative of many people being threatened by allegations of producing and consuming paedophilic material (some of whom many not be paedophiles). In this instance there's the accompanying assumption that a child's life is worth more than numerous innocent adults' freedom, which you're of course free to argue against - "if MANY adults are deprived of their freedom for something UNCERTAIN TO ACTUALLY WORK".
Obviously these perfectly reasonable rhetorical devices also assume that law is framed in terms of utilitarianism rather than inviolable principles[1], and unlike Gaiman assumes that one can do so because those enforcing the law are capable of using enough discretion to determine whether the sentence does more damages than the alleged crime. Either way, I don't think Gaiman's "they used to ban X and even Y on similar grounds, and look where that got us" is a more sophisticated argument.
[1]I think even people defending "icky" things on the basis of "inviolable" rights or principles have a threshold of "ickiness" where it starts conflicting with other inviolable principles they believe in. Presumably most of those who defend objectionable fantasy on the grounds of freedom of speech and expression don't consider the principle so inviolable it cannot be curtailed it when Creepy Uncle Dave moves into teen chatrooms to freely voice his opinion that teens should freely express themselves on webcam for him
I like how you dismiss the argument as invalid. I want to read more about this kind of reasoning, and I found this site: http://www.logicalfallacies.info/
The question, for me, is even if we only save ONE child from rape or attempted rape, or even just lots of uncomfortable hugs from Creepy Uncle Dave, is that not worth leaving a couple naked bodies out of a comic?
This kind of argument comes up all the time in mostly unsupportable "save the children" heart string--tugging arguments (and others), and it is a dangerous and nasty kind of argument that should always be addressed.
"If we only save ONE child, shouldn't we do X?" is equivalent to "let's just assume that even the tiniest positive outcome has more value than any possible negative ones." This isn't really an argument at all; it's a premise concerning the relative values of various outcomes, masquerading as an argument. Moreover, it's stated in a way intended to shame anyone who disagrees with it.
"Even if we only save ONE child", "even if we only stop ONE terrorist", and their ilk smack of dishonesty and intellectual laziness. Sound public policies require careful consideration; arguments such as these are mental roadblocks, nothing more.