Moderated What's wrong with porn?

[quadraginta]

That is an interesting idea, but the problem with it is that it is about parasites and infections, not enviromental polution. So not really applicable here.

I didn't mean for it to be specifically applicable to smoking. I thought I made that clear. Sorry.

The analogy that your mention of asthma prompted is that sometimes efforts at prevention, no matter how well meant, can ultimately prove to do more harm than good.

If we make laws that restrict the liberties of a few a little bit for the safety of many, with a clear and substantial benefit that is one thing. If we make laws that restrict the liberties of many a substantial amount with only a small benefit for a few that is more problematic.

In the case of child pornography, or for that matter any pornography laws which restrict the liberties of everyone with no demonstrable benefits at all to anyone, and clear and evident damage to innocents then there really shouldn't be a debate about merit.

Yep, go anarchy, the only state of true liberty.

I don't think that one extreme or another are the only options. I suspect that you don't either.

Franklin isn't exactly one of the more prominent anarchists in our history.

 

[Belz...]

Don't worry sugarb - you're not the only one. You've only got to look at those posters here who think that virtual child porn is acceptable!

Yes, just like those idiots who think virtual murder is acceptable. I say, BAN Hollywood!!

 

[ponderingturtle]

I didn't mean for it to be specifically applicable to smoking. I thought I made that clear. Sorry.

The analogy that your mention of asthma prompted is that sometimes efforts at prevention, no matter how well meant, can ultimately prove to do more harm than good.

Not really. Sanitation on the whole has done much more good than harm, so few people die of dissentary in cities now for example. So unless getting asthma is worse than death sanitation is a good thing. But some good things have negative consequences along with their benefits.

I don't think that one extreme or another are the only options. I suspect that you don't either.

Franklin isn't exactly one of the more prominent anarchists in our history.

The thing is that the quote as I remember it is "those who will trade liberty for safety deserve neither" really does promote anarchy. It is an absolutist statement and so only really supports an absolutist position. Now if it was "trade offs between safety and liberty are complex and difficult to strike a ballance the promotes soceity the best". That is a more nuanced position but a rather bad quote.

 

[quadraginta]

Not really. Sanitation on the whole has done much more good than harm, so few people die of dissentary in cities now for example. So unless getting asthma is worse than death sanitation is a good thing. But some good things have negative consequences along with their benefits.

Again, the reduction to extremes is not the only option. It is possible to raise children without bubble wrap and simultaneously keep them from living in diseased squalor. I'd be willing to wager that the increased incidence of asthma in developed countries is not reflected in the population of the few small farm families that remain in those countries.

The thing is that the quote as I remember it is "those who will trade liberty for safety deserve neither" really does promote anarchy. It is an absolutist statement and so only really supports an absolutist position. Now if it was "trade offs between safety and liberty are complex and difficult to strike a ballance the promotes soceity the best". That is a more nuanced position but a rather bad quote.

Here is the full quote,

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Perhaps the nuance you seek is found in this.

 

[I less than three logic]

In answer to that question please allow me to ask you a few, for starters:

1. What is the incidence of shootings in the US compared to the UK?
2. Assuming you know or discover the answer, do you think the difference has anything to do with different fire arm laws?
3. Do you think it's conceivable that certain situations permitted by law for the perceived benefit of some could have serious undesirable side effects on others?
4. Do you think that children should be entitled to receive the benefit of the doubt when it comes to causes of child abuse and molestation?
5. Do you think that a reasonable perceived risk to the safety and wellbeing of minors should be overlooked simply because the actual risk has not been studied and quantified?

As I say - for starters.

Sorry to jump right in, but the obviously flawed logic of 1 and 2 compelled me to respond. They are simple a false analogy. Unless you're claiming the would be child molesters could only molest a child by literally using the disk or other media containing the virtual child porn to do so.

Since I'm here, I might as well offer my opinion on the other points in this list.

3. Absolutely. Pretty much all situations permitted by law could conceivably have serious undesirable side effects on others. In fact, I'm having a hard time coming up with any situations that couldn't lead to some conceivable undesired side effect.

4. This appears to be setting up an appeal to emotion, but I'll answer sure, why not.

5. Doesn't this disagreement exists because you've failed to show MontagK505 or JFrankA there is a reasonable perceived risk. Seems that until you've accomplished that, this question will remain pretty moot.

 

[Southwind17]

Now if it was "trade offs between safety and liberty are complex and difficult to strike a ballance the promotes soceity the best". That is a more nuanced position but a rather bad quote.

Not to mention the spelling!

 

[ponderingturtle]

Again, the reduction to extremes is not the only option. It is possible to raise children without bubble wrap and simultaneously keep them from living in diseased squalor. I'd be willing to wager that the increased incidence of asthma in developed countries is not reflected in the population of the few small farm families that remain in those countries.

Sure, but which one has lower child mortality?

 

[Southwind17]

Sorry to jump right in, but the obviously flawed logic of 1 and 2 compelled me to respond. They are simple a false analogy. Unless you're claiming the would be child molesters could only molest a child by literally using the disk or other media containing the virtual child porn to do so.

I was asked for evidence. Showing a correlation between laws that freely permit the possession of fire arms and the incidence of shootings is evidence that laws that would freely permit the production, distribution and possession of virtual child pornography would lead to a correlation with the incidence of child abuse and molestation. It's certainly not proof, but it's evidence, which is what I was asked to provide. Do you still think that's "obviously flawed logic"?

Doesn't this disagreement exists because you've failed to show MontagK505 or JFrankA there is a reasonable perceived risk. Seems that until you've accomplished that, this question will remain pretty moot.

By which I assume you're in the same camp as them, and don't see a reasonable perceived risk that society's acceptance of virtual child porn will put some children in danger. On what basis do you consider that's an unreasonable perception?

 

[quadraginta]

Sure, but which one has lower child mortality?

Don't know. Do you?

Leaving aside of course the unspoken assumption that mortality is the single, sole yardstick for quality of life overall.

We are perhaps treading too far afield. Are you really that uncertain about the gist of the analogy I was trying to point out? Maybe I did not express it well.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Don't know. Do you?

Leaving aside of course the unspoken assumption that mortality is the single, sole yardstick for quality of life overall.

So you would rather have a child die over one with asthma?

We are perhaps treading too far afield. Are you really that uncertain about the gist of the analogy I was trying to point out? Maybe I did not express it well.

It is a bad analogy

 

[JFrankA]

I was asked for evidence. Showing a correlation between laws that freely permit the possession of fire arms and the incidence of shootings is evidence that laws that would freely permit the production, distribution and possession of virtual child pornography would lead to a correlation with the incidence of child abuse and molestation. It's certainly not proof, but it's evidence, which is what I was asked to provide. Do you still think that's "obviously flawed logic"?

Flawed analogy.

Why do you constant compare porn to murder?

How about this for a correlation. It's been shown that the places where porn is not restricted rape goes down, where porn is restricted rape goes up.

There's your correlation porn vs type of porn. Not porn vs murder.

By which I assume you're in the same camp as them, and don't see a reasonable perceived risk that society's acceptance of virtual child porn will put some children in danger. On what basis do you consider that's an unreasonable perception?

Please, SW, no offense meant but get off your high horse and discuss the topic. If you disagree that's fine, let's talk about it instead of getting emotional. I am trying, and admittingly, I've not been as unemotional as I like.

My stance, again, is simply this: I do not believe that someone who wouldn't molest a child would simply because she/he viewed virtual child porn. Anyone who would molest a child could and would use anything as an excuse to do it.

Also, just because you enjoy the fantasy, doesn't mean you crave the reality, or are resisting the reality. There is a major difference between fantasy and reality and if one can't see or doesn't care about that line, then a picture of a virtual nude child (or whatever) will not make that much more of a difference to that person.

Also, I believe that the person who decides to do the molesting is the one responsible, not the porn. You blame the person, not the item. To blame the item takes responsibility away from the actual perpetrator and that's plain wrong. To use your own style of analogy, do you pit the responsibility of a murder on the advertisers of a gun or a movie in which murder is glorified?

Do you disagree with my above statements and why?

Then I can disagree and explain, or agree and explain, or something in between.

Please.


ETA: corrected my final anaolgy to make more to the point.

 

[JFrankA]

So you would rather have a child die over one with asthma?


It is a bad analogy

I should apologize for derailing the thread with the smoking issue. The point I was trying to make is that the law of not allowing smoking in one's own car with a less than ten year old present is what I call a "baby-sitting" law.

In other words, it makes the government the parent in this case. It doesn't allow for most smokers, such as SugarB, who are very considerate when and where they smoke. This law seems to me to say "all smoking people are bad". (I should mention that this law was proposed by a nine-year-old).

The whole thing about prohibiting smoking in bars and restaurants is something I feel that the owner should decide: if she/he makes it smoking, even sectional smoking, she/he runs a very clear risk of losing a lot of customers, but if it's a small, corner, neighbor bar, she/he may not care. I just think that for that decision, it's the responsibility of the owner of the property to take on the consequences, not to be forced by the government.

Maybe this part of the discussion could be split off from this one?

 

[I less than three logic]

I was asked for evidence. Showing a correlation between laws that freely permit the possession of fire arms and the incidence of shootings is evidence that laws that would freely permit the production, distribution and possession of virtual child pornography would lead to a correlation with the incidence of child abuse and molestation. It's certainly not proof, but it's evidence, which is what I was asked to provide. Do you still think that's "obviously flawed logic"?

Yes, its still obviously a false analogy. You need to physically have a gun to shoot someone with it. Therefore laws that affect one's ability to have that gun in their hands will directly affect the incidence of shootings. This is not the case for child abuse and molestation. One does not need to have the porn to commit molestation. Therefore there is no reason to believe the analogy will hold true and the laws that affect one's ability to access this porn will directly affect incidence of child abuse and molestation.

By which I assume you're in the same camp as them, and don't see a reasonable perceived risk that society's acceptance of virtual child porn will put some children in danger. On what basis do you consider that's an unreasonable perception?

I'm not sure I would go as far as saying it's unreasonable just yet. It just seems that so far is you haven't shown that this perceived danger you see is reasonable. So far I haven't seen any evidence that people that view some act committed virtually go on to actually commit said act.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I should apologize for derailing the thread with the smoking issue. The point I was trying to make is that the law of not allowing smoking in one's own car with a less than ten year old present is what I call a "baby-sitting" law.

In other words, it makes the government the parent in this case. It doesn't allow for most smokers, such as SugarB, who are very considerate when and where they smoke. This law seems to me to say "all smoking people are bad". (I should mention that this law was proposed by a nine-year-old).

The whole thing about prohibiting smoking in bars and restaurants is something I feel that the owner should decide: if she/he makes it smoking, even sectional smoking, she/he runs a very clear risk of losing a lot of customers, but if it's a small, corner, neighbor bar, she/he may not care. I just think that for that decision, it's the responsibility of the owner of the property to take on the consequences, not to be forced by the government.

Maybe this part of the discussion could be split off from this one?

So if there are more smokers than people with asthma most resurants will be smoker only. Why aren't you arguing against the ADA as well. If people wanted cripples in their establisments they would put in the accessability features, it should be their decision.

 

[Southwind17]

Yes, its still obviously a false analogy. You need to physically have a gun to shoot someone with it. Therefore laws that affect one's ability to have that gun in their hands will directly affect the incidence of shootings. This is not the case for child abuse and molestation. One does not need to have the porn to commit molestation. Therefore there is no reason to believe the analogy will hold true and the laws that affect one's ability to access this porn will directly affect incidence of child abuse and molestation.

First, it's not an analogy. I can see why you think it is, but it isn't. It's a straight forward comparison.
If the number of shootings is related to the number of guns in society, and the number of guns in society is determined by gun laws, then it follows that if the number of child molestations in society could be partly related to the availability of virtual child porn in society, the number of child molestations in society is determined partly by child porn laws. I stress "could be", because if I didn't then I'm sure you would(!), but mainly because, in the same way that I can't say for sure whether the prohibition of virtual child porn has led to a reduced number of child molestations I can't say whether gun laws have directly led to shootings. I can, however, put 2 and 2 together and logically come up with 4. But I repeat, this isn't proof, just evidence, as I was asked for.

I'm not sure I would go as far as saying it's unreasonable just yet. It just seems that so far is you haven't shown that this perceived danger you see is reasonable. So far I haven't seen any evidence that people that view some act committed virtually go on to actually commit said act.

That's why it's a perceived risk, because it hasn't been shown to be an actual risk. I'm asking you to apply sense and logic in determining whether, given what you know and don't know, you think its unreasonable to view it as a perceived risk.

 

[RandFan]

First, it's not an analogy. I can see why you think it is, but it isn't. It's a straight forward comparison.
If the number of shootings is related to the number of guns in society, and the number of guns in society is determined by gun laws, then it follows that if the number of child molestations in society could be partly related to the availability of virtual child porn in society, the number of child molestations in society is determined partly by child porn laws. I stress "could be", because if I didn't then I'm sure you would(!), but mainly because, in the same way that I can't say for sure whether the prohibition of virtual child porn has led to a reduced number of child molestations I can't say whether gun laws have directly led to shootings.

We understand the mechanism between guns and shootings. Point of fact we can't have shootings without guns. No such mechanism is in place for virtual porn and child molestation. No such relationship exists between the two.

"Could be"? Child molestations "could be" partly related to the number of ice cream parlors in society. It "could be".

We could speculate about an infinite number of things. To do so isn't good social science. Hell, it isn't even science at all. It's just a guessing game and "could be" isn't a get out of jail free card. You still have to do your homework and you still have to provide the evidence.

That's why it's a perceived risk, because it hasn't been shown to be an actual risk. I'm asking you to apply sense and logic in determining whether, given what you know and don't know, you think its unreasonable to view it as a perceived risk.

Yes but only because there is solid social science to back up that conclusion. See the Meese Report. The evidence and not the contrived conclusions.

Also: Does pornography cause harm to others? The empirical evidence

 

[JFrankA]

So if there are more smokers than people with asthma most resurants will be smoker only. Why aren't you arguing against the ADA as well. If people wanted cripples in their establisments they would put in the accessability features, it should be their decision.

I didn't mean to upset you, Ponderingturtle. Sorry.

But I never said it was a question of who there is more of. I felt it was a question of personal responsibility versus government "baby-sitting" and the fact that I feel that most smokers are more considerate than how they are painted.

As I previously stated, you brought up a point I've never thought of before and I will reconsider my position on this topic.

 

[sugarb]

*snip*
My stance, again, is simply this: I do not believe that someone who wouldn't molest a child would simply because she/he viewed virtual child porn. Anyone who would molest a child could and would use anything as an excuse to do it.

Also, just because you enjoy the fantasy, doesn't mean you crave the reality, or are resisting the reality. There is a major difference between fantasy and reality and if one can't see or doesn't care about that line, then a picture of a virtual nude child (or whatever) will not make that much more of a difference to that person.

Also, I believe that the person who decides to do the molesting is the one responsible, not the porn. You blame the person, not the item. To blame the item takes responsibility away from the actual perpetrator and that's plain wrong. To use your own style of analogy, do you pit the responsibility of a murder on the advertisers of a gun or a movie in which murder is glorified?

Do you disagree with my above statements and why?

Then I can disagree and explain, or agree and explain, or something in between.

Please.


ETA: corrected my final anaolgy to make more to the point.

Hello, JFrankA. I know you directed this to Southwind17, but something about this has been disturbing me, and I think maybe it came to me last night while thinking about it. Virtual child pornography. I'll probably word this poorly, but I hope you can understand what I'm trying to say.

I think that there is a major difference between child molestation and other crimes in that...well, if you rob a bank, you have to leave your home, someone will see you, there will be cameras and witnesses. I like the movie "Gone in Sixty Seconds"...but to steal cars (man, I'd love to have Eleanor) would require me to leave my home, take some pretty high risks. Rape...barring murder, there's still the possibility that an adult victim will "tell", report it to the authorities, whatever...and usually, it also requires leaving one's home or inviting an outsider in (aside from rape of a spouse, of course).

But with children? Children are easily silenced. Children can be kept home if they are bruised. Children are easily intimidated. Children may not even understand that what is happening to them is wrong. Children are, in other words, under someone else's control at pretty much all times. So yes, I think there is a difference. Some sicko can sit at home and view even virtual child porn, and who is to say that there isn't a child in that home, right then? A child that cannot or will not "tell"?

That is the thing about child abuse, and why I think it is so difficult to protect children. It can happen for years, and no one outside the home have a clue. People *in* homes will often even claim to not have known (though I have reservations in believing that).

Yes, it *is* the person who commits the action that is at fault. Of course it is. No one would argue that, I don't think. And I'm still not sure how to word this, but...I think things pose different risk factors, for children (especially very young children) than they do for the rest of us, simply because it is so easy to hide child abuse, or even make a child think it is "normal". Eh, I don't know how to word it better. Do you see what I mean, though?

 

[quixotecoyote]

But with children? Children are easily silenced. Children can be kept home if they are bruised. Children are easily intimidated. Children may not even understand that what is happening to them is wrong. Children are, in other words, under someone else's control at pretty much all times. So yes, I think there is a difference. Some sicko can sit at home and view even virtual child porn, and who is to say that there isn't a child in that home, right then? A child that cannot or will not "tell"?

The way you're writing this, I can't tell if we're imagining a parent viewing virtual child porn or raping their kid. Can you clarify?

 

[sugarb]

The way you're writing this, I can't tell if we're imagining a parent viewing virtual child porn or raping their kid. Can you clarify?

Hello, quixotecoyote. I'm so sorry. I know I'm wording it terribly.

Basically, I'm talking about the mechanisms that prevent people who view things from doing them. At first I didn't see any difference between movies about other things and child pornography. But then I realized that there is a difference. There are less mechanisms in place, for *some* people...I stress some (a slight difference came to mind)...to keep themselves from harming a child. In a private home, it would or could be relatively easy for a parent/family member/visitor/family friend whatever to move from thought to action simply because it could be done in absolute private.

I'm talking about the barriers that exist, normally, between thought and action, and how in some circumstances many of those barriers don't necessarily exist.