Moderated What's wrong with porn?

[fuelair]

You're correct, of course, my mistake. Let's try:

"The attempted or actual solicitation or obtaining (or facilitation thereof) by a person from another/others, or the creation, generation, production, promotion, advertizing, storage, handling, distribution, display, sale or provision (or facilitation therof) by a person to another/others of verbal or visual expressions of pre-pubescent persons, the nature and composition of which, either wholly or partially, is clearly intended, or will or is likely to appeal, to the prurient nature of certain people of the appropriate gender(s). For the avoidance of doubt verbal or visual expressions of pre-pubescent persons in combination with pubescent persons involving deliberate, non-incidental physical skin-to-skin contact of or clear and specific focus on genitalia or anal areas shall be deemed to constitute child pornography."

Which or what is/are the "appropriate" gender(s) and what is the basis of such determination? And, which people are "certain"? And, define, please, "clearly intended" in some way that actually can be proved, not guessed at - and is not so general that any elected prosecutor can use it against parents perfectly fine photos intended only to embarass the child when he/she grows older. And, may I assume (and you may wish to enlighten me/us) you don't mean by "clear and specific focus on genitalia or anal areas" that the photographer is using a high quality camera properly but refer to close ups of those areas - in which case you should certainly include the mouth area also - but with a proviso distiguishing such from a portrait /head and shoulders shot?

 

[fuelair]

There is a vast array of evidence from actual prosecuted cases of what actually does appeal to prurient nature. Reference to such evidence is a sound basis for determining whether something else will or is likely to appeal.

Re: your array of evidence, do you refer to evidence each piece of which was tested on known child molesters/pedophiles to determine arousal/non-arousal OR do you mean evidence that was simply produced in cases a local prosecuter happened to win - remembering that winning is convincing a jury, not proving in a scientific way.

 

[quadraginta]

Yay! We can stop now. We have come full circle.

So you can't.

No such luck.

 

[Polaris]

There seems to be less crimes to children and women in countries where porn is banned or controlled.

I'm sorry but you owe me $15 for a new BS detector, as mine just exploded. Can you back that up with anything at all?

 

[Southwind17]

Which or what is/are the "appropriate" gender(s) and what is the basis of such determination?

This is included simply to acknowledge that in the context of what I am seeking to define the term "average person" sometimes needs to differentiate between male and female according to the nature of the material. However, now that the term "the average person" has been replaced with "certain people" the words "of the appropriate gender(s)" can safely be omitted.

And, which people are "certain"?

This can safely be replaced with "some".

And, define, please, "clearly intended" in some way that actually can be proved, not guessed at - and is not so general that any elected prosecutor can use it against parents perfectly fine photos intended only to embarass the child when he/she grows older.

Remembering that the burden of proof will be on the prosecution, "clearly intended" is to cover the obvious, failing which "will or is likely to appeal" will apply. I have justified this wording previously, thus:

There is a vast array of evidence from actual prosecuted cases of what actually does appeal to prurient nature. Reference to such evidence is a sound basis for determining whether something else will or is likely to appeal.

And, may I assume (and you may wish to enlighten me/us) you don't mean by "clear and specific focus on genitalia or anal areas" that the photographer is using a high quality camera properly but refer to close ups of those areas - in which case you should certainly include the mouth area also - but with a proviso distiguishing such from a portrait /head and shoulders shot?

Clearly(!), focus does not relate to photographic lenses as the definition applies equally to verbal expressions. I considered the mouth, but concluded that kissing (I think kissing or licking of non-genitalia is what you're alluding to) is non-sexual.

So, the definition has now been fine-tuned thus:

"The attempted or actual solicitation or obtaining (or facilitation thereof) by a person from another/others, or the creation, generation, production, promotion, advertizing, storage, handling, distribution, display, sale or provision (or facilitation therof) by a person to another/others of verbal or visual expressions of pre-pubescent persons, the nature and composition of which, either wholly or partially, is clearly intended, or will or is likely to appeal, to the prurient nature of some people. For the avoidance of doubt verbal or visual expressions of pre-pubescent persons in combination with pubescent persons involving deliberate, non-incidental physical skin-to-skin contact of or clear and specific focus on genitalia or anal areas shall be deemed to constitute child pornography."

 

[Southwind17]

Re: your array of evidence, do you refer to evidence each piece of which was tested on known child molesters/pedophiles to determine arousal/non-arousal OR do you mean evidence that was simply produced in cases a local prosecuter happened to win - remembering that winning is convincing a jury, not proving in a scientific way.

Neither. Per the definition, simply expressions that, by their very possession by known pedophiles, can be shown to "... appeal, to the prurient nature of some people."

 

[amb]

There seems to be less crimes to children and women in countries where porn is banned or controlled.

Perhaps it's not reported as much. I have seen evidence to the contrary.

 

[Southwind17]

No such luck.

You're more than welcome to leave, whether you've failed to show what I asked or not.

 

[Southwind17]

I've seen no evidence in all of your posts in this thread that you didn't think your position was a foregone conclusion.

Notwithstanding the absurdity of linking a "position" to the concept of "foregone conclusivity", I can't account for your interpretation of what you read, accept, reject and ignore. Montag made a statement of fact that I don't believe can be supported. Please show me where I've made statements of fact that are unsupportable.

I've outlined clearly what would change my mind. What would change your mind?

Conclusive evidence showing that it's unreasonable to suppose there could be causative link.

 

[Southwind17]

What's irritating is that my purpose is simply to illustrate how a legitimate artist can step into the bear trap of virtual child porn.
SW can't seem to grasp that.

No - I couldn't grasp that any tighter. What's arguably irritating is your failure to realize that I appreciate the weaknesses of the current bear trap but that the answer is to simply adapt the bear trap so that it catches only bears, not to remove the bear trap completely. You're advocating a flawed baby and bathwater approach. That's what's arguably irritating.

 

[Southwind17]

I was speaking in a hypothetical way at that moment. In other words, my question to you is, "Why do you find it unreasonable to conclude that there is no harm if there is no demonstrable causation between "viewing porn" and "harm"?"
I'm presenting you the premise, which you have confused by the if. I may as well rephrase it like this: "If indeed there is no evidence between "viewing porn" and "harm" why do you find it unreasonable to conclude that there is no harm"?
(Notice the "if" is still there, but it does not suggest that we're not sure. It's all about how you construct the phrase)
(Another way of constructing the same phrase but without the if ""Given that there is no evidence between "viewing porn" and "harm" why do you find it unreasonable to conclude that there is no harm"?)
So why do you find it unreasonable then, SW?
You did not answer the question after all, which was kind of crucial.

Simple - conclusive studies have not been undertaken. That's what makes "if" so important.

SW, are you sure there is no man-eating invisible dragon in my closet?
Is that then a reasonable posture to take precautions against it?

No - you're absolutely right - I'm not sure. Is it reasonable, though, to suppose that there might be a man-eating invisible dragon in your closet?

Of course you are never "sure" of anything in an irrefutable 100%. I've granted you that perhaps in the future, new studies will prove that there actually is a harm in viewing images of virtual child porn. But until there is no compelling evidence, until we have nothing but evidence that the only thing we have is millions of different reactions depending on the individual personalities of each individual; there is no reason to take any precautions against virtual child porn.
Do you not find this line of thinking reasonable? And if you don't, please explain why.

You really haven't been keeping up or paying attention, have you. I've answered this particular question numerous times. Please read back and try to keep up in future.

Do you understand that your personal disgust with something isn't in itself reason enough to claim that such thing is harmful?. Honestly, do you?

Absolutely not, and I've never stated or deliberately suggested that I do. Do you really believe I have? If so, please show me where.

Sounds like you have seen something different then.

Different from what, exactly?

I think it should apply to everything. Do you not? And if not, why?

You might think that, but I can assure you that you sure don't live by it, otherwise you would have already have died by it, probably through starvation!

 

[Southwind17]

The people and government of the USA.

So who can amend it then?

It's not that I don't like or agree with it, it's that it isn't an answer. Why won't you answer the question?

I have.

As long as it takes.

I can assure you, you haven't!

What has a baby-sitting child molester got to do with drawing a picture? Are you seriously suggesting the above argument is a solid and legitimate argument in favour of your position? Are you truly incapable of seeing how utterly stupid such an argument is, and how deeply flawed?
One might as well ban cars on account of them being used in bank robberies... (actually that's not a complete comparison as the car would actually be directly enabling the crime where as the Lisa Simpson picture wouldn't actually be directly used for the child molestation at all).

Are you actually aware of, let alone familiar with, the concept of causation?

 

[Southwind17]

I gave you the complete frikken dictionary definition of the word. FOURTEEN of them.

And you call that thinking outside the box?!

 

[Southwind17]

Well the "critical" decisions I make every day don't permanently affect the lives of millions upon millions of people in serious and potentially devastating ways, so my standards for decision making aren't quite as robust as a government's.

Notwithstanding your advocation of double standards, these "millions upon millions of people" would be those unjustly indicted for innocently falling foul of VCP laws, right, or have we moved on from the subject matter?

Were I in such a position you can be damn sure "maybe" would not be enough for me.

I'm sorry - what "such a position" are you referring to?

"Hey... maybe there's weapons of mass destruction in Iraq..."

"Hey... maybe OBL was behind 9/11!"

In a population as large as say, the USA, every group is a large absolute number. It's a meaningless distinction.

How so?

There's 400,000 registered child molesters in the USA - that's about 0.1% of the population. I consider that a "tiny minority".

Can't argue with you there. And the "unregistered" child molesters would number how many - approximately?

I couldn't be sure how popular it is worldwide, but I do know for a fact that lolicon is quite popular in Japan. Naturally I would be most familiar with my own country but lolicon (and similar) is banned in my country.

So the simple answer is: "I've absolutely no idea, but given that it's banned it's probably insignificant", right?

Is that really necessary?

Is what really necessary, that you make a wild statement as point of fact in support of an argument and you're asked to back it up? I think so ... I think so.

No, it wouldn't change my opinion. A person is responsible for their own actions. Nothing makes them commit crimes.

I'm astounded. I really am. And I'd be even more astounded (if that's possible) to learn that anybody who's read this isn't equally astounded. You're actually admitting that you take absolutely no precautions against possible crimes affecting you because the perpetrators of crimes are responsible for their actions and nothing makes them commit crimes. I really don't know what more to say ... I'm just ...

Their both examples of criminal activity that is supposedly inspired by partaking or enjoying virtual representations of said same activity.

Can't argue with you there. And the implications of each - do you think we should ... maybe ... differentiate, or shall we just have a single category of "crime" ... a "one-size-fits-all" approach?!

Two year old children can't be child molesters so there's no issue with them being responsible for their own actions, is there?

I could hardly have written that better (actually, I could ... much better ... but you get my drift). Now, read back and see if you can spot where you came off the rails.

Howso?

And that just has to be probably the most ill-considered response. What would be the point in explaining to you?! Come on mods - new nomination feature - PLEASE!

 

[Southwind17]

One of you (I don't recall which) claimed that virtual child pornography involved children. In response to this I presented an example of virtual child pornography, and asked you to demonstrate where exactly the involvement of the child was.
Answering this question is very simple. That neither of you have managed to do so is mind boggling. Here's how an answer might look:
1) You're right, it doesn't involve a child after all, I was wrong, and retract my earlier claim.
OR
2) A child is involved in the following way.........................
Why is this so hard?

I'll allow myself to indulge you one more time (although I know I really shouldn't be wasting my time). I'm not sure if anybody actually claimed that VCP "involves" children. If they did, I'm sure they meant that it involves them in the sense that it portrays children ("involve" can have a very broad range of application). Regardless, if and when I were to claim that VCP "involves" children, I would mean that it's reasonable to suppose that physical, emotional and/or psychological harm could come to children from people who consume VCP. That's what I mean by "involves". Now, please spare us from challenging that penultimate sentence. It's the very basis of my being here for the last thousand or so posts. I'm astounded (yes, again!) you haven't noticed yet.

 

[JFrankA]

Show me.

You know, whenever someone asks for things that have been said in the past, your reply is go look it up, but when someone says it to you, you dismiss the claim as untrue. That's unfair. You should play by your own rules.

Anyway, one thing I can point to is the fact that you believe all female porn actresses do not deserve respect.

I do have a list ready where you have judged me as worthy of ignore. Would anyone like to see it?

ETA: I'll start with this post: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5335736#post5335736

Since I HAVE answered Ivor's post. And since you've decided to put me on ignore, and when someone pointed out that it had been answered, because the answer came from me, you replied that you wanted a "meaningful" answer, I'd consider that judgmental. My answer WAS meaningful and had reasons behind it.

 

[JFrankA]

So, the definition has now been fine-tuned thus:

"The attempted or actual solicitation or obtaining (or facilitation thereof) by a person from another/others, or the creation, generation, production, promotion, advertizing, storage, handling, distribution, display, sale or provision (or facilitation therof) by a person to another/others of verbal or visual expressions of pre-pubescent persons, the nature and composition of which, either wholly or partially, is clearly intended, or will or is likely to appeal, to the prurient nature of some people. For the avoidance of doubt verbal or visual expressions of pre-pubescent persons in combination with pubescent persons involving deliberate, non-incidental physical skin-to-skin contact of or clear and specific focus on genitalia or anal areas shall be deemed to constitute child pornography."

So, according to your definition, if an artist distributes a piece of art of a fully clothed, ten year old boy carrying a baseball bat and glove, is staring at the viewer, but has an obvious erection in his pants, is that porn?

Further, how do you know?

Are you brave enough to stand up to the obvious holes in your "definition"? (Yes, I have other examples where your "definition" has big, gaping holes.)

 

[Southwind17]

What is it that you think you've accomplished with this definition exactly? The laws regarding child pornography exist to prevent a per se legal act that harms children (real children employed in the production of such material).
It's been understood and acknowledged for many pages that you would like to shift the basis of ilegality to the material and not the involvement of children in production. We get that. Perhaps someone has made an objection that I'm unaware of but for most of us, if I may be so presumptious, this defintion serves no purpose.

To be clear, for my position to be potentially tenable it relies on both a workable definition of VCP and a workable definition of applicable criminality. Some people here argue that my position infringes the First Amendment. I've responded to that. Others argue that it's simply not practicable because of the difficulty (impossibility - some!) in defining VCP. I've responded to that. And, of course, as usual some others are clearly just here for a free ride on the back of an otherwise intellectual and worthwhile debate with nothing constructive to contribute. Unfortunately, First Amendment principles in this very Forum mean that one has to accommodate and endure the riff raff element, although the ignore feature does help (BTW - does the First Amendment make mention of some sort of "ignore" feature?!) My positing what I believe could be a workable definition serves to strengthen my argument. Of course, if one isn't prepared to consider the merit in doing so because one holds an unwaivering absolutist view regarding freedom of speech, then there's little point in debating anything that falls outside the realms of the First Amendment. That's why, for example, I openly and honestly sought clarification over your motives here, and, frankly, your response above, so far as I can tell, serves to confirm that, so far as you're concerned, any suggestion that falls outside the stricture of the First Amendment is off limits. Accordingly, I'd much rather you just say so in no uncertain terms and move along instead of purporting to be interested in a debate over notions and ideas that you seem to have absolutely no interest in and are not open to.

 

[JFrankA]

Notwithstanding your advocation of double standards, these "millions upon millions of people" would be those unjustly indicted for innocently falling foul of VCP laws, right, or have we moved on from the subject matter?


I'm sorry - what "such a position" are you referring to?


"Hey... maybe OBL was behind 9/11!"


How so?


Can't argue with you there. And the "unregistered" child molesters would number how many - approximately?


So the simple answer is: "I've absolutely no idea, but given that it's banned it's probably insignificant", right?


Is what really necessary, that you make a wild statement as point of fact in support of an argument and you're asked to back it up? I think so ... I think so.


I'm astounded. I really am. And I'd be even more astounded (if that's possible) to learn that anybody who's read this isn't equally astounded. You're actually admitting that you take absolutely no precautions against possible crimes affecting you because the perpetrators of crimes are responsible for their actions and nothing makes them commit crimes. I really don't know what more to say ... I'm just ...


Can't argue with you there. And the implications of each - do you think we should ... maybe ... differentiate, or shall we just have a single category of "crime" ... a "one-size-fits-all" approach?!


I could hardly have written that better (actually, I could ... much better ... but you get my drift). Now, read back and see if you can spot where you came off the rails.


And that just has to be probably the most ill-considered response. What would be the point in explaining to you?! Come on mods - new nomination feature - PLEASE!

None of these statements are judgmental at all?

 

[JFrankA]

To be clear, for my position to be potentially tenable it relies on both a workable definition of VCP and a workable definition of applicable criminality. Some people here argue that my position infringes the First Amendment. I've responded to that. Others argue that it's simply not practicable because of the difficulty (impossibility - some!) in defining VCP. I've responded to that. And, of course, as usual some others are clearly just here for a free ride on the back of an otherwise intellectual and worthwhile debate with nothing constructive to contribute. Unfortunately, First Amendment principles in this very Forum mean that one has to accommodate and endure the riff raff element, although the ignore feature does help (BTW - does the First Amendment make mention of some sort of "ignore" feature?!)

There is the right to ignore, I am not, nor have I ever denied you that right. I have asked nicely for you to remove me so that we can debate fairly. You refused, that's your right. And in response, I've gotten emotional and sarcastic. I'm sorry. I'm only human. But with the ethics I have, though, I refuse to ignore anyone. No matter how abusive they are being to me. I refuse to take away anyone's voice. Oh, I have come close, but I am proud to say, I have no one on ignore in any forum or on-line game or in real life.

However.

You should realize that it's a two way street. You may choose to ignore whomever you wish, but the consequences are that you are missing out on the conversation, further, in my humble opinion anyway, you look like a coward and a fool.

I stand up to my right to speak. I stand up to anyone else's right to do so too, whether I agree with them or not. I also stand up to your right to ignore me. But that doesn't stop me from my free speech.

You may not hear me, I may not convince you, I don't care. Others will. My voice will be heard by them. That's who I'm reaching out to. Who are you reaching out to?

As I said, when you leave the ball game, make sure you don't leave when the opponent is still at bat.

My positing what I believe could be a workable definition serves to strengthen my argument. Of course, if one isn't prepared to consider the merit in doing so because one holds an unwaivering absolutist view regarding freedom of speech, then there's little point in debating anything that falls outside the realms of the First Amendment. That's why, for example, I openly and honestly sought clarification over your motives here, and, frankly, your response above, so far as I can tell, serves to confirm that, so far as you're concerned, any suggestion that falls outside the stricture of the First Amendment is off limits. Accordingly, I'd much rather you just say so in no uncertain terms and move along instead of purporting to be interested in a debate over notions and ideas that you seem to have absolutely no interest in and are not open to.

And here's the rub. Basically you are saying that since you don't agree with me, I would perfer you to go away.

Too bad. You won't go away. Neither will we. I won't and I'm ignored.