Moderated What's wrong with porn?

[Southwind17]

If you really don't want to discuss or debate then just say so.

Nonsensical. Feel free to disappear without trace.

 

[Southwind17]

I did in a later post, but I'm glad you admit that this definition you are defending is based upon your opinion.

If you want people to treat you like an adult JFrankA you're gonna have to start behaving like one.

Here is what I'm talking about:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but basically what you are saying, (since you've never seen Manga), is that even though it could be "legitimate", it would be much better story if it wasn't in there at all. That's why I said "I've been doing that over and over in this thread. The first time I did, long ago, your reply was basically you think it could've been done better if it wasn't shown."

Look - laws are invariably a compromise. Generally speaking, they are necessary to protect the majority from the minority, such as murderers and rapists. Societal living requires that one acknowledges and accepts such compromises in the interest of what such laws derive in the greater good. If the application of a law can be defined in terms that are absolutely categorical such that a clear line can be drawn between right and wrong, then great. Otherwise, the line has to be drawn in the best possible place under the circumstances. If that means that a small minority are prejudiced in the interests of the vast majority then so be it. That's just one of countless compromises that democratic, societal existence necessarily requires. What would you prefer - absolute freedom (anarchy) or a reasonable compromise?

"your option of what the definition should be." "Correct" Whatever.

It's a proposal JFrankA. Nothing more; nothing less. If you don't like it then you're free to say why. That's all.

According to me. According to someone else they could have a very different opinion......

No. It falls outside the definition by any reasonable application of such definition. If you're suggesting that judges could act unreasonably to twist the application to suit their own purposes than that's no different from any other law. As I wrote earlier, that's a whole different generic problem, the debating of which is the subject of a whole separate thread.

That's fair.

Thank you.

never mind......

If you say so.

We both are but......

You're free to leave.

Neither are we. So I propose that both of us stop saying "you don't get it, look back". Either we have to repeat, reinterate, back post and/or clarify or not.

Again, you're free to leave.

Yes! Look, everyone on this thread agrees that if it's the law, we should obey it. No one is saying "disobey the law because I don't agree with it", we are saying "we don't agree with it because...." Most of us are disputing the law, questioning it's reasons and giving opinions....

So what, exactly, are your objections to a law based on the definition and context per my proposed definition of VCP?

It's a very valid point! With your definition, SOMEONE has to make the decision as to whether the media in question had the intention to arouse or not. Who gets to decide that? Why?

"... is clearly intended, or will or is likely to appeal, to the prurient nature of some people." Who decides? Whoever is presiding over the case, by reference to case precedence, if necessary. Why? Because that's the way the judicial system works.

Thank you, but it's more than just gathering my thoughts. A lot of what is considered porn by some people isn't by others. there's a lot to consider.

I believe you were going to summarize your position. Please proceed to.

Well, my definition will be based on my opinion just as your definition is based upon yours.

If you want to posit an alternative definition and legal context please go ahead. I'd hardly like nothing more.

Who gets to decide that? Who is the judge? Do you lock a bunch of molesters in a room, have them see a piece of media and ask them "on a scale of one to ten how aroused are you?"

As I wrote above, whosoever is presiding over the case, by reference to case precedence, if necessary. This is normal legal process.

ETA(again) Found what I was talking about in post #1839

Yes, that's what I wrote, and I stand by it. What's your point?

Depends on who you ask, doesn't it? Some people would say yes, some would say no.

It comes down to whosoever is presiding over the case. But let's seek to test the definition, JFrankA - what would you say, and why?

Again, who gets to judge? It's your definition, you tell me who decides the intent of the creator of the proposed VCP?

Again, whosoever is presiding over the case. "... is clearly intended, or will or is likely to appeal, to the prurient nature of some people.", by reference to case precedence, as necessary.

 

[Southwind17]

Evidence?

Evidence?! Dreamer.

 

[Southwind17]

Just found this law article about why virtual child porn was part of the first admendment before it was overtuned later. It states pretty much what most of us was saying:
http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/dltr/articles/2002dltr0019.html

And it reads "pretty much [as though] most of [you have written it]". Hence it does not alter my position one iota.

 

[Southwind17]

"Some" is still vague, not specific enough to be part of a legal definition.

"Some" means more than "none". I can't think of anything less vague!

If determination of intent is decided by case precedence then what was the case precedence based on, a previous determination of intent? And how was that determination of intent decided? By case precedence?

Case precedence has been standard western judicial practice for many, many years. If you're questioning the validity of case precedence as a sound judicial principle that's a whole different thread. Feel free to start it.

 

[Southwind17]

Alcohol is usually very appealing!!!!

Well, JFrankA, if nothing else this is certainly something we are in agreement on, which is why I've indulged myself with more of it today! Ironically, Eid, a Muslim religious holiday, is the very prompt for my indulgence

 

[Southwind17]

Not for me. I have other ways of dealing with tension.

Who said anything about tension? I need no excuse!

A long time ago I got drunk on brew 102. My first and only time. The next morning cured me of that forever.

You have no stamina! As they say: if at first you don't succeed ...

 

[Southwind17]

Back on subject:
I've seen Japanese Animated porn (2D) and low quality 3D, and I must admit I don't understand it's appeal. It must be a cultural aesthetic that I fail to understand.
I've read magazine articles that claim a large percentage of Japanese “Salary-men” live such emotionally impoverished lives, that reading Manga is a major outlet for their frustrations. Add to that the Japanese justice system which hammers the hell out of the average citizen if he actually does anything out of line. I don't imagine pedophiles have a very good time in a Japanese prison.
Some of their main-stream animation is quite good. I just watched “Appleseed Exmachina” which is very high quality 3D. It would be nice to see more skin especially the “Deunan Knute” or “Hitomi” characters. The problem is, this style of animation is expensive and if you spice it up too much, you lose your PG-13 rating and some of your potential US audience.
I don't see this as a substitute for actual porn anytime soon.

Nice post - seriously.

 

[Southwind17]

I contend that anyone who responded to this thread with anything other than the word "nothing" is severely misguided and/or wasting their time. I realise this now includes me.

Since when did "I contend that anyone who responded to this thread with anything other than the word "nothing" is severely misguided and/or wasting their time. I realise this now includes me." = "nothing"?!

 

[Southwind17]

Southwind, he's asking for clarification, and instead of answering him you dodge his question as if you didn't need to answer. Seriously, the message that this sends is NOT that Frank doesn't get it, but that instead you'd rather not answer. You may not care about your credibility in this thread, but I can tell you that, from my point of view, this kind of behaviour hurts it.

Well then perhaps you should help JFrankA with his comprehension. Feel free to PM him in a coaching capacity and/or act as a proxy mouth piece.

 

[Eddie Dane]

Nonsensical. Feel free to disappear without trace.

I'm curious, do you get some kind of psychological reward from displaying your unpleasant personal qualities?

Is it a fetish?

 

[RandFan]

Nonsensical. Feel free to disappear without trace.

Why don't you respond to posts in an honest fashion?

You said that statistics and probability have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with each other. Do you now admit that your statement is demonstrably wrong? This isn't simply semantics. You have challenged a premise based on my use of the term "statistical likelihood". You say there are other ways to get probability. I've asked you questions to give you an opportunity to explain yourself and instead of answering the questions or simply admitting you were wrong you've acted evasively.

Poor form.

 

[RandFan]

{deleted}

 

[RandFan]

Southwind, have you read the article linked by JFrankA

Just found this law article about why virtual child porn was part of the first admendment before it was overtuned later. It states pretty much what most of us was saying:

http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/dltr/articles/2002dltr0019.html

and I posted here.

 

[Belz...]

If you want people me to treat you like an adult JFrankA you're gonna have to start behaving like one I want you to.

Fixed that for you.

Well then perhaps you should help JFrankA with his comprehension. Feel free to PM him in a coaching capacity and/or act as a proxy mouth piece.

Sigh. Your attitude doesn't really command much respect, Wind.

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

Case precedence has been standard western judicial practice for many, many years. If you're questioning the validity of case precedence as a sound judicial principle that's a whole different thread. Feel free to start it.

Citing "case precedence" [sic] in law seems to be a rote principle of yours that you have used repeatedly as a crutch to your assertions in this thread. Why should a response to it be taken to another?

There is a great deal of precedent in law for the overturning of precedents. This is in fact how laws adapt to changing circumstances rather than becoming moribund, irrelevant, and outright dysfunctional. This is how laws grow and change to reflect a culture's enlightenment over superstition and bigotry. Precedents such as those condoning chattel slavery or the disenfranchisement of citizens based on gender,ethnicity, or wealth have routinely been overturned by enlightened cultures for exactly these sorts of reasons. Do you discount only the precedent of discarding precedents out of the ones you seem so fond of?

Examples specific to this discussion are to be found in the precedents overturned by the Supreme Court in the cases cited upthread, establishing yet a new precedent which has resulted in Congress's recent convoluted attempts to craft a law which would somehow survive constitutional scrutiny.

Your failure to address these recent and significant precedents in particular is telling, but not surprising.

Your apparent evasion of the well known principle that even precedent can be malleable in law is not surprising either.

 

[Toke]

Why don't you respond to posts in an honest fashion?

You said that statistics and probability have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with each other. Do you now admit that your statement is demonstrably wrong? This isn't simply semantics. You have challenged a premise based on my use of the term "statistical likelihood". You say there are other ways to get probability. I've asked you questions to give you an opportunity to explain yourself and instead of answering the questions or simply admitting you were wrong you've acted evasively.

Poor form.

(My bolding)

A more firmamental way.

 

[RandFan]

(My bolding)

A more firmamental way.

Agreed. Thank you.

 

[ZirconBlue]

If you really don't want to discuss or debate then just say so.

I think the sum of his posts so far say exactly that.

 

[Southwind17]

Why don't you respond to posts in an honest fashion?

If you guys really want this thread to go down a semantics blind alley just say so.

Your call RandFan.