• 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?

Ivor the Engineer said:
I've only occasionally been reading this thread, so perhaps this question has already been asked and answered, but I'll ask it anyway:

You have young children and require the services of a babysitter on a regular basis. You have a choice of two young looking 17-year old girls: one with a similar aged boyfriend who plays football, the other with a boyfriend much older than her who looks at virtual child porn.

Which one do you choose and why?
Click to expand...

JFrankA said:
I don't know. Which girl is better qualified?
Click to expand...

I was very serious in my answer. It is full of meaning. Care to discuss?
 
:rolleyes:
Southwind17 said:
:confused: You wrote this:

To which I responded:

Where's the BS in that, and what part of "not possible" don't you think constitutes a foregone conclusion?
Click to expand...

There was nothing in that statement that indicated you were even trying to understand the point I was trying to make. (What parameters keeps an artist from keeping his fantasy from being interpreted by moral prigs as child porn was the actual point.)

Instead you retreat into your endless semantic quibbling just to score points.

BTW You also made the statement you weren't going to waste time on this.
Just can't resist temptation can you?:rolleyes:
 
Ivor the Engineer said:
You have young children and require the services of a babysitter on a regular basis. You have a choice of two young looking 17-year old girls: one with a similar aged boyfriend who plays football, the other with a boyfriend much older than her who looks at virtual child porn.

Which one do you choose and why?
Click to expand...
I honestly hadn't seen that. I would choose the one that doesn't watch child porn. It seems the prudent thing to do.

If I had to stay in a remote hostel and I had a choice between two roommates. One who looks at SM porn and one who didn't I would take the one who didn't look at SM porn.

I think Igor you have hit beautifully on the problem. We shold not regulate based on intuition. Legal philosophy is about removing perceptions and assumptions.

We need more than speculation before we infringe speech.
 
MontagK505 said:
There was nothing in that statement that indicated you were even trying to understand the point I was trying to make. (What parameters keeps an artist from keeping his fantasy from being interpreted by moral prigs as child porn was the actual point.)
Click to expand...
Well you certainly saw fit to to make this point:
MontagK505 said:
(Hint: with esthetics it's not possible to create such parameters)
Click to expand...
And now I'm challenging it you're wishing you'd not made it. You made your bed ... you gotta lie in it now son!
MontagK505 said:
BTW You also made the statement you weren't going to waste time on this.
Just can't resist temptation can you?
Click to expand...
I certainly can't resist temptation to repeatedly discredit your arguments, that's true. I suppose it's because you make it so enticing and rewarding, with next to no effort. Opportunities like that don't come along every 5 minutes (unless you're on line, of course).
 
RandFan said:
I honestly hadn't seen that. I would choose the one that doesn't watch child porn. It seems the prudent thing to do.

If I had to stay in a remote hostel and I had a choice between two roommates. One who looks at SM porn and one who didn't I would take the one who didn't look at SM porn.

I think Igor you have hit beautifully on the problem. We shold not regulate based on intuition. Legal philosophy is about removing perceptions and assumptions.

We need more than speculation before we infringe speech.
Click to expand...

This is a clear example of the difference between a personal choice and what you would have the law do to others.
 
Southwind17 said:
Well you certainly saw fit to to make this point:

And now I'm challenging it you're wishing you'd not made it. You made your bed ... you gotta lie in it now son!

I certainly can't resist temptation to repeatedly discredit your arguments, that's true. I suppose it's because you make it so enticing and rewarding, with next to no effort. Opportunities like that don't come along every 5 minutes (unless you're on line, of course).
Click to expand...

Still wasting time I see.

PS I still havent seen any "parameters" yet .
 
Southwind17 said:
No it's not.
Click to expand...
This is just automatic gainsaying. It's also dishonest as you know that it is an opinion. You've no way to establish it as true.

Please note the words "posit" and "believe". These are indicitive that it is an opinion.
 
Southwind17 said:
"It seems the prudent thing to do". Using what rationale - intuition?!
Click to expand...
I said as much. Yes, of course. But I would not want to make laws based on personal intuition or preferences. Modern liberal democracy has moved us beyond simply relying on intuition. That is why we have legal philosophy in the first place.
 
Southwind17 said:
No it's not.
No it's not because I don't.
Yes I have.
No they're not.
Click to expand...
So, if I understand you. This thread has simply been a game? You are not serious? Or is it that you have decided not to respond to me in an honest fashion?
 
Last edited:
RandFan said:
I said as much. Yes, of course.
Click to expand...
"Of course". So you consider, of course, that "intuition" is a sound basis for concluding that it's reasonable to suppose that there could be a causative link between the boyfriend watching child porn and molesting your kid? You're not suggesting that that's an unreasonable supposition, are you?
 
Southwind17 said:
"Of course". So you consider, of course, that "intuition" is a sound basis for concluding that it's reasonable to suppose that there could be a causative link between the boyfriend watching child porn and molesting your kid?
Click to expand...

I don't remember RandFan saying that. He said he would choose the other person to babysit, not that he thought that the child-porn watcher would molest his kid. The two things are not the same.
 
RandFan said:
So, if I understand you. This thread has simply been a game? You are not serious? Or is it that you have decided not to respond to me in an honest fashion?
Click to expand...
I don't recall asking you these loaded questions when you decided to adopt a principled contrary stance. What makes you think I should answer them? Perhaps you should answer them first as though I had asked them of you!
 
Matthew Best said:
I don't remember RandFan saying that. He said he would choose the other person to babysit, not that he thought that the child-porn watcher would molest his kid. The two things are not the same.
Click to expand...
Well let's just await his reasoning then, eh!
 
Matthew Best said:
But you didn't await his reasoning, or even ask him what his reasoning was. You just put words into his mouth. That is not an honest way of debating.
Click to expand...
I don't think anybody could possibly put words into RandFan's mouth! But let's just continue to await his response eh!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom