• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Moderated What's wrong with porn?

MontagK505 said:
One of the things I was taught in psychotherapy, is you can't change without becoming aware. Too many of the moral ideas that are applied to the subject of porn / sex are variations of: “thought-crime is death”. If we were taught instead not to be afraid of our own thoughts most of this porn debate would disappear.

Just a thought.
Click to expand...

Agreed.
 
I see there haven't been any meaningful responses to Ivor's Post #1814 yet. I assume y'all appreciate that my answer and justification goes without saying! I don't think anybody else's here does, though (sugarb possibly excepted).
 
Southwind17 said:
I see there haven't been any meaningful responses to Ivor's Post #1814 yet. I assume y'all appreciate that my answer and justification goes without saying! I don't think anybody else's here does, though (sugarb possibly excepted).
Click to expand...

*facepalm*
 
Southwind17 said:
I see there haven't been any meaningful responses to Ivor's Post #1814 yet. I assume y'all appreciate that my answer and justification goes without saying! I don't think anybody else's here does, though (sugarb possibly excepted).
Click to expand...


I haven't seen any response from you to this post yet.

quadraginta said:
Southwind17 said:
And quite rightly so, in principle. The cost/benefit analysis, real or perceived, for child porn yields a unique and completely different result than that for violent movies targeted at adults.
Click to expand...


Could you explain the differences between a real cost/benefit analysis and a perceived one? I don't want to make assumptions that might be less than charitable.

Could you explain in more detail how either (or both) result in different results for these two subjects in particular, and what input data is used for such analysis and such results?
Click to expand...

I assume that's because you have no response of substance, and your pretentious sounding statement about "analysis" is merely the content free bat guano it appears to be.

Nothing new here.
 
quadraginta said:
You ask yourself a good question here.
What is your evidence? You haven't offered any yet.
I have to assume you have none.
There's every reason.
Click to expand...
I've provided both sound and logical reasoning and justification. That's evidence enough for me.
 
quadraginta said:
I haven't seen any response from you to this post yet.
Click to expand...
Do I really need to explain to you the difference between "perceived" and "real" (I thought we'd clarified this earlier). At a very basic level(!) "perceived" means recognized but unproven and falsifiable; "real" means actual. Let me know when you've grasped this then maybe we can progress.

My Post #1839 covers much of the cost issue (plus a multitude of other posts). It's for people of your mindset to identify and justify the benefit(s). The only justification I've seen here is along the lines of it keeping the occasional Japanese comic collector from false accusation. Big picture stuff - to be sure!

Now, your response to Ivor's post would be ...?
 
Southwind17 said:
I've provided both sound and logical reasoning and justification. That's evidence enough for me.
Click to expand...

I've heard "sound and logical reasoning and justification" as evidence of the existence of god.

For someone who calls himself a "skeptic" you really do not sound like one....



Would someone please tell him that someone DID answer Ivor? :)
 
Last edited:
gumboot said:
It's because I am "obsessed" with it apparently. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Well you do seem to like to bring it into discussion when it has absolutely no relevance, such as in response to this, for example:
Southwind17 said:
Of course, anybody involved in the production of rape portrayal porn will tend to defend any suggestion that they are anything other than a fine upstanding citizen with a worthy and respectful vocation. The truth, of course, is the exact opposite. As I wrote earlier, there's every type of person imaginable on the planet, whether it be those who dig, those with guns, worthless scum or otherwise.
Click to expand...
 
SkeptiChick said:
No, I'm not ignoring the obscenity aspect. In fact, I addressed it in a previous post. I'll even quote it for you:
Click to expand...
SkeptiChick said:
Personally, I have a huge problem with obscenity laws in general. I feel that it is completely and utterly ridiculous for the government to dictate what is "decent" and what is "obscene". These are subjective and personal moral judgements made largely about subjects that are incapable of causing harm in and of themselves. I feel that the law should only step in when harm is demonstrable. When it comes to virtual child porn... Yes, I find the stuff disgusting, and horrific, and nauseating, and distasteful, and offensive, and obscene. But it harms no one. So I will defend the right to create it, to distribute it, and to own it.
Click to expand...
I find this interesting. First, why do you not consider something "offensive" to be "harmful", or do you just mean "physical" harm and you're ignoring emotional and psychological harm? Second, what is it, exactly, that causes you to consider VCP "disgusting, horrific, nauseating, distasteful, offensive and obscene"? I'm sure you could come up with some tangible explanations and justification, if you wanted to and tried. Somehow, though, I'm expecting a wishy washy "Dunno - just me, I suppose"-type of answer.
 
Well, he asked "What's wrong with porn?"

And we have his answer: Anything that he sees as bad using "sound and logical reasoning and justification" is bad and should be banned. Of course, "marshmallow porn" is too tame and not worth talking about.

Further, women actresses do not deserve respect.

And anyone who defends the porn he doesn't like should be ignored and not worthy of his attention.

....I think we have his answer.... :D

ETA: Oh, and since Southwind17 is ignoring me, I can freely do this: *stands behind Southwind17, puts up two fingers over his head as if they are rabbit ears* :D
 
Last edited:
SkeptiChick said:
Exactly my point. It's the same argument that sugarb is making.
Click to expand...
Virtual child porn is a subset of general porn therefore it must be treated the same? Petty theft is a subset of general theft ...

SkeptiChick said:
Except that it's relevant to the arguments of the people she's arguing against, and she's failing to address it. So yeah, she's ignoring it.
Click to expand...
And she's entitled to. The arguments to which you refer are not directly contesting sugarb's argument.

SkeptiChick said:
Or are you engaging in some sort of personal attack instead of actually addressing the argument?
Click to expand...
I'm indirectly addressing your arguments by trying to point out to you that your arguments are largely fallacious. The problem is while you're more than keen to point out other people's fallacious arguments you're blind to your own.

SkeptiChick said:
Now you're making an argument from generalization. Just because I disagree with one law does not mean I disagree with them all.
Click to expand...
This has nothing to do with disagreeing with laws but everything to do with you not recognizing and/or accepting the concept of civilized society having to charge a subscription fee.
 
daSkeptic said:
No, I meant it exactly as I wrote it. Sugarb's argument seemed to be the following:
  1. Real child porn (A) and virtual child porn (B) are both subsets of all child porn (C).
  2. Real child porn (A) is bad, therefore all child porn (C) is also bad.
This is fallacious. Just because some members of a set have a certain characteristic does not necessarily mean all members of the set also have that characteristic.
Click to expand...
Ah, in that case I agree with you.

daSkeptic said:
However, having had a chance to see further arguments, I think Sugarb's position is more like the following:
  1. Real child porn and virtual child porn are both subsets of all child porn.
  2. All child porn is bad, therefore virtual child porn is also bad.
This is logically sound, however, the truth of the premise in clause 2 is being assumed. That is what I see people here arguing against.
Click to expand...
And I agree with your analysis here too. I also agree with sugarb, subject to a suitable definition of "child porn".

That's a lot of agreeing, for me!
 
gumboot said:
I purposefully chose a sexual activiting involving Lisa Simpson because there was a recent case in Australia of someone being prosecuted for child pornography for such images. As you say - we know such images exist.
In place of "Lisa Simpson" it could be any fiction pictorial representation (say a My Little Pony?) and in place of activities with a cucumber any other explicit sexual activity could be used.
I'd still like to hear anyone's argument for how this type of image involves a child.
Click to expand...
Well, by your limited definition of "involves" it doesn't. But as soon as youone thinks outside the box ...
 
Southwind17 said:
Do I really need to explain to you the difference between "perceived" and "real"

<snip>
Click to expand...


No. You need to explain what you mean by a "perceived" cost/benefit analysis and a "real" one. The adjectives bear no commonly accepted useful relationship with the term you applied them to. What difference were you trying to suggest between the two?

If you can succeed in this then go on to the following questions in the same post. The ones you're dodging the hardest.

Cost/benefit analysis requires data to analyze. What data have you used for input for these analyses? What are the data sources? How did you verify them? What algorithms did you apply to generate your results? How did you define your criteria for data selection?

What were your results? You say that they differed. How, exactly, did they differ? Keep in mind, we're not talking about the results of your pontifications and opinions, we're talking about the results of your "cost/benefit analysis".

Numbers. Backed up by data. Data with sources. Accompanied by your methodology so that we can properly evaluate your results. Put up or admit you're just tossing out big, important sounding words without any substance behind them.

If you don't have any such analysis let me help you. We've provided the links to the first steps you need in research about the actual, "real" cost of misused pornography laws. "Real" people with "real" damage done to them by zealots and political opportunists. Dollars and cents damage, as well as social, career, and family damage. There is lots more data where that came from.

You have not provided any proof of any of the alleged "benefits" of such laws, only vague supposition, appeals to emotion, and shotgun style ad hominem attacks in the general direction of anyone who challenges your assertions.

Pony up. Lets see these "cost/benefit analyses" you've done.

"Real" or "perceived".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom