Moderated What's wrong with porn?

[sugarb]

Just out of curiosity. Does anyone else know what this means?

Is that like a con artist reasonably introduces a perceived benefit?

I wouldn't speak for Southwind17, but I took it to mean that one could reasonably demonstrate that there is the potential for real harm to come from child pornography (virtual or otherwise). But I may be wrong. Just unfamiliar phrasing.

In other words, the perceived risk is not unreasonable.

If that is what is meant, then our next step would be to explain *why* the perceived risk is reasonable. That's kind of what I was trying to get at regarding children being the perfect victims, and someone viewing even "virtual" child pornography in a home with a child. I don't think it would be unreasonable to say that the child in that home is at a higher risk than a child in a home where no child pornography of any kind is viewed.

But...I may have misunderstood. It's been a long day, just got home about an hour ago from another nursing home visit, and my mind isn't what it should be. Everyone have a good night. I think I'm down for the count Nite all.

 

[Southwind17]

There was a popular saying when my kids were in elementary school. It was said when anyone would make some obviously outrageous claim. "It could happen".
Jimmy: My dad met the Queen of England.
Billy: Your dad is in prison.
Jimmy: It could happen.
"Percieved" possibility.

I've taught my kids to be a little bit more discerning. I discourage them from making "obviously outrageous claims", and in relation to the tempered claims that they do make the term we use is "reasonably" perceived possibility. See how that works?

 

[Southwind17]

Good lord. Even your one-liners have turned incoherent!

You (continue to) speak for yourself!

 

[Southwind17]

The speed? I've never had that complaint before.

Not a complaint - just an observation of behaviour symptomatic of ill-consideration.

I'm not imune to emotional response. This isn't one of those times.

Now what fallacy does this commit, I wonder.

What world do you live in where you get to just demand that I respond to the points you deem necassary for me to respond to? If you've got specific points you would like me to address then you could be polite and restate them or tell me which posts they are. That's what other considerate posters do.

Oh here we go - the "pay an old timer some respect and I'll give you the benefit of my infinite wisdom" routine!

If you've got a problem with any of my posts I suggest you notify a moderator.

My emotional imunity threshold sits way higher than that.

Asserting something doesn't make it true.

You don't say! Did I say? If so, show me where.

You did not respond to the points I made directly in response to you.

Oh ... I'm sorry ... I thought we were waiting for you!

 

[Southwind17]

I addressed your points ...

You clearly saw fit to completely refrain from commenting on all of the fundamental points raised in Post #1231, electing to focus on the incidental and generic "First Amendment" principles and such like in your next post. Perhaps you'd be prepared to indulge me by backtracking to there, for starters, if that's not asking too much. Please?

 

[Toke]

Just out of curiosity. Does anyone else know what this means?

Is that like a con artist reasonably introduces a perceived benefit?

To me it reads as incoherent rhetorical weaving.
It does not seem like a clear answer will be forthcoming.

 

[JFrankA]

To me it reads as incoherent rhetorical weaving.
It does not seem like a clear answer will be forthcoming.

Toke, he hasn't answered with anything but his own personal opinions being the right idea with no back up.

And when you disagree with him, he resorts to insults, appeals to emotions, accusations of logic fallacies (which he himself is using) and claims that we haven't read his posts.

I don't think he's going to understand. And it's sad because he said he wanted to be challenged, but every time he is challenged, he runs away and hides behind what I've said above.

Sorry, SW, I don't mean to be mean or insulting, but honestly, that's all I'm seeing from you.

 

[Southwind17]

Just out of curiosity. Does anyone else know what this means?

I think it means that he wants it to be accepted as a risk, but he can't demonstrate any evidence for it, so he handwaves the lack of evidence by saying it's reasonable to perceive it as a risk regardless of evidence.

Yeah he confused me with that one too. I always thought a "perceived risk" was when something that seems risky but in reality it isn't or there is no proof that it is.
So I don't see how perceived risk could be at the base of any law that can be called fair.

TokenMac's pretty much got it, at least the first part:

You walk down a dark alleyway at night. You reasonably perceive a threat (meaning what? Through reasoning, i.e. assimilating your experience and what you know, dark alleys can be threatening places). So you prepare yourself, or you elect to take a different route. You walk through the alleyway, hand on pepper spray, but you make it to the other end unharmed. Conclusion: you reasonably perceived a threat, but in reality there was no threat, which you only deduced after the event, when all of the pertinent information about the alleyway came to light. The point is, you took appropriate action based on a reasonably possible threat (risk) that you hadn't validated. Why? Because it makes perfect sense to behave in a precautionary manner when a reasonably perceived risk exists. In this situation above would you adopt the attitude: "I can't be certain there's a real risk here, so I'll pay no attention to it and blithely stroll down the alley whistling a merry song. If a risk raises its ugly head I'll deal with it then (er ... I think I brought my pepper spray)."

Now, either replace "threat" with "risk" above, or, if your minds will allow, consider some alternative scenarios, such as child porn, for example.

BTW - there are countless laws whose premise is derived from perceived risks. And as for "lack of evidence", well quixotecoyote's laziness never ceases to surface. Like Toke, you clearly couldn't be bothered to read anything longer than a couple of lines, it seems.

 

[Southwind17]

If that is what is meant, then our next step would be to explain *why* the perceived risk is reasonable. That's kind of what I was trying to get at regarding children being the perfect victims, and someone viewing even "virtual" child pornography in a home with a child. I don't think it would be unreasonable to say that the child in that home is at a higher risk than a child in a home where no child pornography of any kind is viewed.

Except for what I wrote earlier, maybe?:

And don't forget this: Why do people, generally, watch or read porn - any type of porn? They watch or read it because of what porn is designed to do - sexually arouse. And what do most people do who have actively sought and achieved sexual arousal? They then seek relief. And how does one relieve oneself? Either with a "partner" (if available) or otherwise alone. And which of those two options would most people naturally prefer? And isn't it the case that many people sometimes allow their objectivity and judgement to be influenced when sexually aroused (ask Bill Clinton, if you're not sure).

Especially if we happen to be talking about somebody who already has a pre-disposition towards child molestation. Don't you think the need for sexual relief preciptated by viewing child porn could reasonably cause such a person to act without complete objectivity and moral judgement? Don't you think it's reasonable to suppose that I person who happens to be pre-disposed to child molestation could easily be pushed "over the edge" from viewing legitimately produced, distributed and possessed child porn?

 

[Southwind17]

To me it reads as incoherent rhetorical weaving.

Why am I not surprised to learn this about you?!

 

[Toke]

Why am I not surprised to learn this about you?!

Maybe because it is not the first time in this tread I have asked you for a clear answer and gotten a lengthy weave about how whatever you perceive happen to be reasonable.

 

[Southwind17]

Maybe because it is not the first time in this tread I have asked you for a clear answer and gotten a lengthy weave about how whatever you perceive happen to be reasonable.

Oh ... that would include this, for example, would it:

I take it that you have no support whatsoever for a ban, except for your "feel" for what works.

To which I responded thus:

We need clarification here, because of how you confusingly worded your previous post:

1. Banning what, exactly?
2. What, exactly, do you mean by "support" - personal support or rationale/evidence in the way of supporting a case for banning?

If you happen to be alluding to banning virtual child porn I believe I've stated my case sufficiently above.

To which I'm awaiting your considered response. No rush though - whenever it suits you.

 

[Southwind17]

I find it amusing when late-comers to threads waltz in without making any effort to read enough of the thread to fully understand and appreciate posters' positions and then proceed to claim to fully understand and appreciate such posters' positions. Personally, I think I'd have to class that as quasi-trolling - "quasi" in the sense that such people usually don't realise that that's what it amounts to, preferring to purport to be smart instead but invariably showing themselves to be lazy, inconsiderate bufoons.

 

[RandFan]

If that is what is meant, then our next step would be to explain *why* the perceived risk is reasonable.

No. I don't need to be rude but the "why" isn't important. It's a self defeating proposition. I can argue why it is reasonable that I "percieve" that I'm Napolean Bonaparte but it's a non starter. I'm still not going to get to rule France.

 

[RandFan]

1. Not a complaint - just an observation of behaviour symptomatic of ill-consideration.
2. Now what fallacy does this commit, I wonder.
3. Oh here we go - the "pay an old timer some respect and I'll give you the benefit of my infinite wisdom" routine!
4. My emotional imunity threshold sits way higher than that.
5. You don't say! Did I say? If so, show me where.
6. Oh ... I'm sorry ... I thought we were waiting for you!

1. IOW a complaint.
2. None.
3. No
4. Then don't bring it up.
5. See the sentance that preceded my claim.
6. Rhetorical.

 

[Southwind17]

No. I don't need to be rude but the "why" isn't important. It's a self defeating proposition. I can argue why it is reasonable that I "percieve" that I'm Napolean Bonaparte but it's a non starter. I'm still not going to get to rule France.

On what possible basis could your reasonable perception transpire to be true? Contrast what you've written with the dark alley example.

 

[Southwind17]

1. IOW a complaint.
2. None.
3. No
4. Then don't bring it up.
5. See the sentance that preceded my claim.
6. Rhetorical.

1. An observation is a complaint?
2. I can direct you to one, if you like.
3. Sound response.
4. Bring what up?!
5. Yes. So what?
6. No - I'm serious!

 

[RandFan]

And think about this: In a situation where there is a reasonably perceived risk (ice cream parlors?! ) that something permitted by law for the benefit of a particular segment of society (probably a very small minority) could put many children at risk of molestation, does it not make sense to deprive that segment of what they would, admittedly, argue is a "right" in order to mitigate or eliminate that reasonably perceived risk? Is a cost-benefit analysis not the right approach, even if a relationship hasn't been identified between child porn and consequential child molestation (provided, of course, that definitive studies haven't been undertaken)?

Highliting "reasonable" doesn't make whatever you are saying reasonable, significant or true.

There is little substance to your post. There's nothing here for me to rebut or respond to.

Reasonably perceived risk is at best a legal grounds for self defence and some other intuitevly based action such as anticipatory breach of contract. Beyond that, your use of it is as best I can tell absurd nonsense.

Can you at least explain what the sam hell you mean by "reasonably percieved risk" as it applies to virtual porn?

Again, does it not make sense to give children the benefit of any reasonable doubt until such time as that doubt can be eliminated one way or the other?

Let's assume for the sake of argument that we should give children the benefit of any "reasonable" doubt (whatever the hell that means). What actions do you propose? Legislation?

Come on. Get real. What's the point of the discussion? Fear mongering? Do you want to see something done to restrict virtual porn?

 

[RandFan]

1. An observation is a complaint?
2. I can direct you to one, if you like.
3. Sound response.
4. Bring what up?!
5. Yes. So what?
6. No - I'm serious!

1. In this case yes (context).
2. Be my guess.
3. Your claim is a personal attack and baseless. It's ad hominem.
4. Complainging about what I wrote and telling me to start a new thread.
5. IT WAS AN ASSERTION.
6. It's still rhetorical and
7. You've still not responded to my points.

 

[RandFan]

On what possible basis could your reasonable perception transpire to be true? Contrast what you've written with the dark alley example.

See post 1302