Moderated What's wrong with porn?

[RandFan]

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.

I never claimed to fully understand and appreciate your position. I noted something you said and responded to it. I deal with it all of the time. If someone needs to be caught up I direct them to a particular post or restate my argument. It's really not that big of a deal.

I suspect there is little substance to your position and you would rather not have to argue the point. I'm sorry but if you have a legitimate and reasonable argument then you should be able to make it.

 

[RandFan]

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)."

?????

"Behave"? How are we to behave when it comes to child porn? What is your prescription?

You don't want to talk about laws. You don't want to hear why fear alone is an inapropriate basis for legislation. You don't want to hear about libertarian arguments against freedom and constiutional prohibition about prior restraint. You told me to take those issues to another thread.

So what the hell is your point? A.) I should live in fear of dark alleys or B.) I should take reasonable precations in potentialy dangerous situations.

If your answer is "B" then pray tell us what reasonable precautions society should take against virtual child porn? What the hell do you want to do about it?

I reject that virtual porn is a "reasonably percieved risk". Further I don't think the term has any real meaning. I think it could be used in self defense cases or some torts but asserting that virtual porn is a risk, percieved or otherwise doesn't make it so. We know that people are killed in dark alleys. There is precedent for that. What precedent do you have that virtual porn is harmful?

BTW - there are countless laws whose premise is derived from perceived risks.

Sounds like an empirical claim to me. If there are so many then surely you can name one.

I call BS.

 

[Southwind17]

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

You mean like asserting something doesn't necessarily make it true? See how that works? But the purpose of highlighting was to emphasize the significance of the word, which seems to be going over your head.

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.

Did you even read the dark alley example (you haven't mentioned it)? Would you care to comment on the principle that that demonstrates rather than introducing your own unrelated scenarios?

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

Have you even attempted to extend the principle demonstrated in the dark alley example (assuming you even read it - you haven't mentioned it)? I'm astounded that I'm being asked to spoon feed you on this.

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?

"Legislation"? Of course. Legislation already exists for child porn. I'm arguing for its retention and extension to virtual child porn (if it doesn't already).

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

"Get real"! Isn't legislation real?! Yes - virtual child porn should most definitely be criminalised in my mind. How would you describe the tangible benefit to society of permitting virtual child porn, by which I mean without reverting to whinging about freedoms? Do you not accept that it's reasonable to suppose that there could be a causal link between virtual child porn and child abuse? If not why not? If so, on what grounds do you consider such possibility should be completely ignored in favour of allowing a minority of people to view images of virtual child abuse, given what's at stake?

 

[TokenMac]

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.

I see what you are saying but it still doesn't make sense. If I was to take you analogy a step further then by your logic it would be reasonable to make it law that any dark alley should be lit to appease me.

Also when you think about the first part of my last post you could really replace "perceived risk" with irrational fear, and irrational fears have no place in the law books.

and yes I know there are already laws that can be said to be based on it but, just be cause they exist doesn't make them right.

 

[RandFan]

You mean like asserting something doesn't necessarily make it true? See how that works? But the purpose of highlighting was to emphasize the significance of the word, which seems to be going over your head.

Not the same thing. My statement is axiomatic. It is trivially true and easily to prove.

I assert that leprechauns are real.

Did you even read the dark alley example (you haven't mentioned it)? Would you care to comment on the principle that that demonstrates rather than introducing your own unrelated scenarios?

See post 1302. Dark alleys are a known risk. We know that people are killed and harmed in them to some extent. We know what the relationship is because it is empirical. Your example is flawed. You will need to find an example where there is no evidence of harm. If you ask me to provide examples of people being harmed in dark alleys I could find that. If I ask you for evidence of people harmed by virtual porn your answer would be.....?

"Legislation"? Of course. Legislation already exists for child porn. I'm arguing for its retention and extension to virtual child porn (if it doesn't already).

"Get real"! Isn't legislation real?! Yes - virtual child porn should most definitely be criminalised in my mind. How would you describe the tangible benefit to society of permitting virtual child porn, by which I mean without reverting to whinging about freedoms? Do you not accept that it's reasonable to suppose that there could be a causal link between virtual child porn and child abuse? If not why not? If so, on what grounds do you consider such possibility should be completely ignored in favour of allowing a minority of people to view images of virtual child abuse, given what's at stake?

If you want to extend the laws to virtual porn then why did you tell me to take my arguments about ethics to another thread? You are not making sense.

I find the notion highly suspect that it is reasonable to suppose that there COULD be a causal link. Legislation and jurisprudence doesn't work by guessing, supposing, speculating, etc., etc.. The claim of link is for you to make. I don't think it exists and it is very difficult and sometimes impossible to prove a negative. I'm not whining about freedom. It's central to modern liberal democracy, ethics and justice. If you don't live in a modern liberal democracy or you are from an Islamic culture or something akin to that and you think women should not be allowed outside of the house or show their faces to men because there is a reasonable perceived risk that they will be raped then I get your view that freedom isn't an appropriate consideration.

Freedom is damn important to me. I'll not give it up for appeals to emotion such as fear. We could add to your list. We could prohibit mothers from working so they could spend full time with their children. We could prohibit children from swimming. No perceived threat there. That's a very real threat. Children die from swimming every year.

Look, just because you and I find virtual porn abhorrent doesn't mean that there is harm. And reasonable perceived harm (if such a thing exists) has not been established. You only assert that it exists.

 

[Southwind17]

I never claimed to fully understand and appreciate your position. I noted something you said and responded to it. I deal with it all of the time. If someone needs to be caught up I direct them to a particular post or restate my argument. It's really not that big of a deal.

I suspect there is little substance to your position and you would rather not have to argue the point. I'm sorry but if you have a legitimate and reasonable argument then you should be able to make it.

You've made a huge assumption here in thinking that I'm alluding to you personally. In fact I'm not.

 

[Southwind17]

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.

1. Context? You have a vivid imagination.
2. "Guest", I think you mean. If you're prone to allowing your emotions to influence your reasoning and judgement how can you validly claim that they haven't. get it?
3. Ah, now we're presented with the support for "no" - thanks. But it wasn't a personal attack (that seems somewhat emotive language!) and baseless. I've seen it before, and like the adage that some people here seem to like in relation to porn: I don't know how to define it but I know it when I see it!
4. Fair enough, but a reasoned assertion. Again, so what?
5. And so you'd prefer. Understandable.
6. I'm still waiting.

See post 1302

I see absolutely nothing in Post #1302 that even remotely purports to answer this:

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

in response to this (yet another) straw man argument:

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.

This habit of yours of dodging the tricky issues and electing to introduce straw men, different contexts and scenarios that sit comfortably with your mindset is quite unbreakable, it seems.

"Behave"? How are we to behave when it comes to child porn? What is your prescription?
You don't want to talk about laws. You don't want to hear why fear alone is an inapropriate basis for legislation. You don't want to hear about libertarian arguments against freedom and constiutional prohibition about prior restraint. You told me to take those issues to another thread.
So what the hell is your point? A.) I should live in fear of dark alleys or B.) I should take reasonable precations in potentialy dangerous situations.
If your answer is "B" then pray tell us what reasonable precautions society should take against virtual child porn? What the hell do you want to do about it?

Perhaps the title of the OP, which I'll remind you I started, might give you a clue. I'm more interested in discussing what, if anything, is wrong with porn per se, and I'm particularly interested in debating the subset of virtual child porn that we've got onto. I'm not necessarily seeking the answer to particular problems, which you seem to think is my primary motive here.

Now, having stated that, I do believe that virtual child porn should be criminalised (where it isn't already) based on the reasoning that I've set out herein.

I reject that virtual porn is a "reasonably percieved risk". Further I don't think the term has any real meaning.

That's interesting. You're prepared to draw a related conclusion about something that you don't think has any real meaning. That sure smells of illogic at best; bias at worst.

I think it could be used in self defense cases or some torts but asserting that virtual porn is a risk, percieved or otherwise doesn't make it so.

This "asserting doesn't make it" shield of yours grows larger by the minute. I believe that virtual child porn poses a reasonably perceived causative risk to children. You don't. get over it.

We know that people are killed in dark alleys. There is precedent for that. What precedent do you have that virtual porn is harmful?

Straw man - again. The dark alley example was used to explain the concept of "reasonably perceived risk" - no other reason. Precedent is not a prerequisite to reasonably perceiving a risk. Believe it or not, reason is all that's needed (and, BTW, if it was a plain vanilla perceived risk (instead of a reasoanably perceived risk), absolutely nothing is a prerequisite - perception is in the mind of the beholder!).

Sounds like an empirical claim to me. If there are so many then surely you can name one.

The ban on people taking a 250ml bottle of mineral water on a civil aircraft.

I call BS.

That's constructive.

I see what you are saying but it still doesn't make sense. If I was to take you analogy a step further then by your logic it would be reasonable to make it law that any dark alley should be lit to appease me.

As I've clarified above, it isn't an analogy. But incidentally, if it was, then what you say in apparent jest is actually correct. Why do you think most public places are lit at night, for example, and how many additional lawsuits for muggings, etc. do you think there would be against Government authorities and agencies if such public places were not lit at night?

Also when you think about the first part of my last post you could really replace "perceived risk" with irrational fear, and irrational fears have no place in the law books.

Perhaps you could, and maybe they don't. Regardless, I've consistently and very deliberately qualified my use of the term "perceived risk" with "reasonable" and "reasonably".

and yes I know there are already laws that can be said to be based on it but, just be cause they exist doesn't make them right.

I agree, and it doesn't necessarily make them wrong either. Each should be judged on its merits. What such laws do prove, however, is that reasonably perceived risk is a criterion applied in determining many laws, which was my intended point.

See post 1302. Dark alleys are a known risk.

No they're not - they're a reasonably perceived risk. How can a dark alley possibly be a known risk if nobody is hiding down it? Get it?

We know that people are killed and harmed in them to some extent. We know what the relationship is because it is empirical. [emphasis added]

You're making the mistake of translating the relationship between limited occurrences in certain environments into a real and present risk in all such environments. This is arguably demonstrable of the principle of the straw man fallacy - your favourite.

If I ask you for evidence of people harmed by virtual porn your answer would be.....?

It would be "see above".

If you want to extend the laws to virtual porn then why did you tell me to take my arguments about ethics to another thread? You are not making sense.

Because your arguments seemed incidental to the heart of the matter, which concerns whether virtual child porn is "wrong". How such wrongdoing is checked is secondary, but I'm happy to debate it, provided we don't get side-tracked into the wonderful "First Amendment" and such like. To my mind that's a whole different debate about a principle that cuts across just about every facet of freedom and law.

I find the notion highly suspect that it is reasonable to suppose that there COULD be a causal link. Legislation and jurisprudence doesn't work by guessing, supposing, speculating, etc., etc.

I notice you left the word "reasoning" out of that latter list. This is an example of what I've criticised you for earlier - seeking to introduce your own contexts, scenarios and terminology to fit your argument. It's the ubiquitous straw man again.

The claim of link is for you to make.

"Reasonable supposition", would be the correct terminology.

I don't think it exists and it is very difficult and sometimes impossible to prove a negative.

Fair comment, although I can't be sure, of course, whether you've applied sufficient reasoning to the matter.

I'm not whining about freedom. It's central to modern liberal democracy, ethics and justice.

That's as maybe. It's still incidental to the heart of this debate, so far as I'm concerned.

If you don't live in a modern liberal democracy or you are from an Islamic culture or something akin to that and you think women should not be allowed outside of the house or show their faces to men because there is a reasonable perceived risk that they will be raped then I get your view that freedom isn't an appropriate consideration [emphasis added].

Straw man (I might start abbreviating that to SM, to save typing. Alternatively, we could just take it as a given!). Just as well I don't reasonably perceive such a risk then, eh!

Freedom is damn important to me. I'll not give it up for appeals to emotion such as fear. We could add to your list. We could prohibit mothers from working so they could spend full time with their children. We could prohibit children from swimming. No perceived threat there. That's a very real threat. Children die from swimming every year.

SM. "Reasonable" risk?!

Look, just because you and I find virtual porn abhorrent doesn't mean that there is harm. And reasonable perceived harm (if such a thing exists) has not been established. You only assert that it exists.

"Reasonable perceived harm" pertains to a possible causal relationship. By its very nature it doesn't "exist". Regardless, I don't assert anything. I repeat (in different words but having the same intended menaing): I consider it reasonable to suppose that there could be a causal link between virtual child porn and child molestation, to a degree. I also repeat (in possibly slightly different words from before): Given this reasoned supposition it seems sensible to look at the respective cost and benefit to society of criminalising virtual child porn, and if the benefit outweighs the cost to introduce appropriate legislation banning virtual child porn.

 

[Toke]

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

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.

Lets try again
1) You have so far advocated and /or defended a ban on "virtual child porn".
It includes quite a lot, from manga to family pictures to assorted grafics programs. The example so far is of a rubber legislation banning whatever the da wants.

2) Support as in a rational reason for it.

You have not been able to support your notion that there is a correlation between child abuse and "virtual child porn"
It have been shown that there are very serious consequences for people caught by this ban.

So in total you advocate a law that will hurt people without benefiting anybody.
Your weaving is to cover for wanting legislation based on your personal sensibilities.

 

[JFrankA]

"Reasonable perceived harm" pertains to a possible causal relationship. By its very nature it doesn't "exist". Regardless, I don't assert anything. I repeat (in different words but having the same intended menaing): I consider it reasonable to suppose that there could be a causal link between virtual child porn and child molestation, to a degree. I also repeat (in possibly slightly different words from before): Given this reasoned supposition it seems sensible to look at the respective cost and benefit to society of criminalising virtual child porn, and if the benefit outweighs the cost to introduce appropriate legislation banning virtual child porn.

The point is that you haven't shown any "reasonable risk". None. You compare it to a dark alley, or murder.

I have continuously challenged you with why it ISN'T a "reasonable risk" and yet you don't respond.

Again: Since it's been proven that the more porn is restricted, there is more rape, and when porn isn't restricted there is less rape, wouldn't the correlation be if there was less restriction on virtual child porn, there could possibly be less child molestation?

That is comparing porn to porn. You compare porn to killings. Indeed, for someone who says that they enjoy porn, and not "marshmallow porn" but the more "heavy stuff", you make porn sound like something lethal and damaging.

Is that what you believe?

 

[JFrankA]

I have another question for you, SW.

Why is porn more powerful than, let's say, a murder movie such as the Saw series?

If porn can drive someone to molest a child, why can't a murder movie drive a person to kill?

 

[Southwind17]

Lets try again
1) You have so far advocated and /or defended a ban on "virtual child porn".

Correct.

It includes quite a lot, from manga to family pictures to assorted grafics programs. The example so far is of a rubber legislation banning whatever the da wants.

Incorrect. You need to go back and look at the definitions of "porn", particularly that which I have used (essentially "more or less sexually explicit images intended to sexually arouse").

2) Support as in a rational reason for it.
You have not been able to support your notion that there is a correlation between child abuse and "virtual child porn"

That isn't my "notion". See last few posts for clarification.

It have been shown that there are very serious consequences for people caught by this ban.

Please clarify what you mean (people caught by this ban?).

So in total you advocate a law that will hurt people without benefiting anybody.

Your weaving is to cover for wanting legislation based on your personal sensibilities.

There see. I figured you were probably on a completely different page!

 

[Toke]

SW,
It must be depressing for you that nobody here seem to understand all those clear and concise posts of yours.

 

[JFrankA]

Incorrect. You need to go back and look at the definitions of "porn", particularly that which I have used (essentially "more or less sexually explicit images intended to sexually arouse").

Now you are contradicting yourself. When I asked what if the virtual child sex scene wasn't meant to arouse but meant to bring out another emotion, such as anger, you responded with:

Actually, I did consider the possible justifications for including child sex into such a story, and felt that, yes, if incidental, it could have some validity, exactly in the way that you describe it here. But then, I thought that that was totally unnecessary, and that exactly the same plot, story line and message could be conveyed perfectly adequately, if not better, other than resorting to the super-hero rescuing a sexually abused child. Didn't think of that, didja? What does that say about you (I don't wonder!)?!

So are you restricting it to your definition "intended to arouse" or not? If you are, how do you justify your previous statement above? If you are, how do you KNOW that all virtual child sex scenes are always "intended to arouse"?

Please clarify what you mean (people caught by this ban?).

The guy who collected Manga, who never had any real life child porn, who never ever molested a child, for one.

There see. I figured you were probably on a completely different page!

I am going to try to say this without meaning any insult, but please stop using that ploy. It's getting old and it's not helping the conversation.

 

[MontagK505]

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.

sugarb,

Consider this:

Pedophiles as a psychiatric class are defined as people (almost always men) who are sexually obsessed with children. Because of this obsession, they inevitably get caught. Avoiding children seems to be the only known reliable way to prevent this.

There is no reason to believe the existence of virtual kiddie porn would be likely to change the behavior of this class of person.

In the majority of child molestation cases the attacker is not a classic pedophile but a person known to the child either as family member or friend of the family. In this case the victim is usually the specific target of a specific individual.

It's not reasonable to assume a man who has a sexual fixation on his little niece is likely have his behavior altered by the availability of virtual child porn.

The idea of treating virtual child porn the same as actual child porn results in court decisions that could allow someone possessing a comic book to receive a worse prison sentence than if an actual child had been molested.

Most people find drawings of children in explicit sexual situations distasteful (I certainly do) Some people find the mere nude of a adolesent or pre-adolescent distasteful (I don't) That doesn't mean the esthetic views of such materials should be made a matter of law.

 

[JFrankA]

sugarb,

Consider this:

Pedophiles as a psychiatric class are defined as people (almost always men) who are sexually obsessed with children. Because of this obsession, they inevitably get caught. Avoiding children seems to be the only known reliable way to prevent this.

There is no reason to believe the existence of virtual kiddie porn would be likely to change the behavior of this class of person.

In the majority of child molestation cases the attacker is not a classic pedophile but a person known to the child either as family member or friend of the family. In this case the victim is usually the specific target of a specific individual.

It's not reasonable to assume a man who has a sexual fixation on his little niece is likely have his behavior altered by the availability of virtual child porn.

The idea of treating virtual child porn the same as actual child porn results in court decisions that could allow someone possessing a comic book to receive a worse prison sentence than if an actual child had been molested.

Most people find drawings of children in explicit sexual situations distasteful (I certainly do) Some people find the mere nude of a adolesent or pre-adolescent distasteful (I don't) That doesn't mean the esthetic views of such materials should be made a matter of law.

Very nicely put. ...I'm too verbose for my own good...

 

[Southwind17]

SW,
It must be depressing for you that nobody here seem to understand all those clear and concise posts of yours.

Two huge assumptions there. Par for the course, I suppose.

May I make a constructive suggestion Toke. Why don't you read over your posts in this thread and consider what contribution you've made. Now that might be depressing.

 

[Southwind17]

sugarb,

Consider this:

Pedophiles as a psychiatric class are defined as people (almost always men) who are sexually obsessed with children. Because of this obsession, they inevitably get caught. Avoiding children seems to be the only known reliable way to prevent this.

There is no reason to believe the existence of virtual kiddie porn would be likely to change the behavior of this class of person.

Has somebody stated there is (paying attention to the words you've chosen here)?

In the majority of child molestation cases the attacker is not a classic pedophile but a person known to the child either as family member or friend of the family. In this case the victim is usually the specific target of a specific individual.

So what you just wrote before this is completely irrelevant then.

It's not reasonable to assume a man who has a sexual fixation on his little niece is likely have his behavior altered by the availability of virtual child porn.

Has somebody stated it is (paying attention to the words you've chosen here)?

The idea of treating virtual child porn the same as actual child porn results in court decisions that could allow someone possessing a comic book to receive a worse prison sentence than if an actual child had been molested.

On what empirical basis?

Most people find drawings of children in explicit sexual situations distasteful (I certainly do) Some people find the mere nude of a adolesent or pre-adolescent distasteful (I don't) That doesn't mean the esthetic views of such materials should be made a matter of law.

Has somebody stated it should, in the context that you've described it here?

 

[RandFan]

1. Context? You have a vivid imagination.
2. "Guest", I think you mean. If you're prone to allowing your emotions to influence your reasoning and judgement how can you validly claim that they haven't. get it?
3. Ah, now we're presented with the support for "no" - thanks. But it wasn't a personal attack (that seems somewhat emotive language!) and baseless. I've seen it before, and like the adage that some people here seem to like in relation to porn: I don't know how to define it but I know it when I see it!
4. Fair enough, but a reasoned assertion. Again, so what?
5. And so you'd prefer. Understandable.
6. I'm still waiting.

No. I'm not emotional. It was an attack against me. It can't get any more personal. Asserting than an assertion is reasoned doesn't make it so. I've addressed your point.

I see absolutely nothing in Post #1302 that even remotely purports to answer this:

Then you are being obtuse. I addressed it directly.

This habit of yours of dodging the tricky issues and electing to introduce straw men, different contexts and scenarios that sit comfortably with your mindset is quite unbreakable, it seems.

there is no straw man. Again, asserting something doesn't make it so.

This "asserting doesn't make it" shield of yours grows larger by the minute. I believe that virtual child porn poses a reasonably perceived causative risk to children. You don't. get over it.

Some people believe that Sylvia Brown can talk to the dead. What you believe is of little importance.

Straw man - again. The dark alley example was used to explain the concept of "reasonably perceived risk" - no other reason.

And it fails misserably. People have died walking into dark alleys. We have a basis to believe that there is a statistical probability of risk. None exists for virtual porn.

{I'm going to snip much of your response as a lot of it is redundant. If there is a particular point you want me to address then let me know.}

"Reasonable perceived harm" pertains to a possible causal relationship.

Also known as speculation. Women could be raped leaving their homes alone and showing their faces. There could be a causal link. So let's take away the freedom of women. BTW: You didn't address my freedom of women issue before. It's NOT a straw man and asserting that it is won't make it so.

Because your arguments seemed incidental to the heart of the matter, which concerns whether virtual child porn is "wrong". How such wrongdoing is checked is secondary, but I'm happy to debate it, provided we don't get side-tracked into the wonderful "First Amendment" and such like. To my mind that's a whole different debate about a principle that cuts across just about every facet of freedom and law.

How is virtual porn wrong? Just because you find something abhorent doesn't make it wrong. Millions of Muslims believe that it's wrong for a woman to expose her hair. Unlike your alley example this one is a valid comparison as there is a perception of risk/harm/danger/etc. Some might argue that the perception is reasonable.

I consider it reasonable to suppose that there could be a causal link between virtual child porn and child molestation, to a degree.

Asserting that it is reasonable doesn't make it reasonable. Your proposition is weasely. You put in so many qualifiers as to render your position meaninless.

I consider it reasonable to suppose that there could be a causal link between Sylvia Browne and dead people. Hardly a reason to act on such a propositon.

Could be a link isn't a basis for legislation. There could be dead people.

 

[Southwind17]

Asserting than an assertion is reasoned doesn't make it so.

It does if it's reasoned, which it is. QED

Then you are being obtuse. I addressed it directly.

Then you're being forgetful. There is absolutely no allusion, let alone reference, to Napolean Bonaparte in Post #1302. It is, may I remind you, this rather fanciful application of logic that we await your explanation of:

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.

there is no straw man. Again, asserting something doesn't make it so.

Yes - again ...

Some people believe that Sylvia Brown can talk to the dead. What you believe is of little importance.

Your dedicating much time and effort contesting my position would seem to belie that view.

And it fails misserably. People have died walking into dark alleys. We have a basis to believe that there is a statistical probability of risk. None exists for virtual porn.

And still, you show no vital signs of grasping the concept of "reasonably perceived risk".

{I'm going to snip much of your response as a lot of it is redundant. If there is a particular point you want me to address then let me know.}

I don't particularly want you to "address" any points. Your ubiquitous straw man and other flawed reasoning and approach render your responses largely irrelevant anyhow.

Also known as speculation. Women could be raped leaving their homes alone and showing their faces. There could be a causal link. So let's take away the freedom of women. BTW: You didn't address my freedom of women issue before. It's NOT a straw man and asserting that it is won't make it so.

I did address it, actually, thus:

Just as well I don't reasonably perceive such a risk then, eh!

So, you see, it is a straw man, because the example you cite is not a reasonably perceived risk. Do you see good reason in such Islamic practice? If not, why did you choose that particular example?

How is virtual porn wrong? Just because you find something abhorent doesn't make it wrong.

Please show me where I have indicated my personal abhorrence of something as my justification for claiming it's wrong. While you're wasting your time doing that would you like me to remind you of those posts that set out my reasoned justification?

Asserting that it is reasonable doesn't make it reasonable. Your proposition is weasely. You put in so many qualifiers as to render your position meaninless.

You wouldn't be prepared to seek to support these assertions(!) with some objective evidence, would you, just in case there's the possibility of a prospect that you're remotely interested in reverting to a meaningful debate.

I consider it reasonable to suppose that there could be a causal link between Sylvia Browne and dead people. Hardly a reason to act on such a propositon.

Notwithstanding the vagueness of the causal link to which you allude, please do let us in on your reasoning (I can't wait to hear this, although I do have a sneaky suspicion I'm going to feel short changed afterwards).

Could be a link isn't a basis for legislation.

I agree, and for the last time: "reasonable to suppose" is very, very different from "could be".

 

[quixotecoyote]

There could be dead people.

I'm fairly certain there are quite a few of them.