Moderated What's wrong with porn?

[RandFan]

Is there any point at which you do not believe it is okay for freedom to be denied to a whole society solely on the basis of a potential for some individual to act badly?

Would you provide an example?

Can you explain how to determine when such a point is reached? When it is transgressed?

What do you mean by "any point" in the context of something as broad and diverse as freedom? "Any point" measured on what particular scale, exactly?

Quadraginta asks a fair question and one that isn't difficult to answer. Do you think fundamental rights should ever be given consideration? That's a yes or no question.

You then could have given any example. It was left up to you. There are many such rights. You could have picked any. Freedom against self incrimination would be a good one. Freedom from illegal search and seizure. Freedom of speech would be one that would seem apropos.

As to "any point" this is the crux of the discussion and a very fair point to ask. Are you simply being arbitrary? We have our basis for deciding. What is yours? It's not up to us to decide your mode of judgment. If you have a reasonable one it would seem that you could tell us.

o you see how it pays to think carefully about what you're asking somebody instead of adopting a position and simply shooting in the dark?! Now, how about you stop, engage brain, duly consider then reword your questions (if you still have any by that time).

This is simply patronizing and personal.

 

[RandFan]

BTW: It should be noted that you do not hold freedom from illegal search and seizure as sacrosanct. So long as the police can find evidence conclusively demonstrating guilt then there is no need to toss the evidence even if it is obtained illegally.

So yeah, I have no idea what your foundation for freedom is or even if it exists. It would seem (I said seem) that you would prefer a society from the Iron Age over that of modern western liberal democracy.

I concede that is a dichotomy so I would happily accept a middle ground. Could you explain that middle ground? Is there a society that exists today that you think is an exemplar of your ideal?

 

[sugarb]

VCP is illegal in this country. Even if no "real" person is harmed, as it would seem. Basically, what is being argued is that VCP is a "victimless crime". Correct? That is the position that has been taking. No "real" child is harmed! So it is a "victimless crime".

But if we look at other laws that have been enacted, we would see that this is really nothing all that unique. Buying a gun is a victimless crime, until you shoot someone with it NOT in self defense.

If I have a sinus problem, I just want to go to the store and buy some otc medicine to alleviate the symptoms, so that I can more comfortably go through my days. But now? Well, it's locked up (that which is most effective), my purchase will be tracked, and if I buy too much sinus medicine, even if it isn't all for me, but perhaps my family or neighbors or whatever, there is going to be an inquiry because it "would appear" that I am running a meth lab! The burden of proof is on ME, to prove I'm NOT running a meth lab. Why? Because *some* people have meth labs and buy medications to make illegal substances out of, and because *some* people have died as a result, and because *some* have been sellers or dealers, suppliers of illegal substances, *EVERYONE* gets their purchase of certain medications put under surveillance. And everyone must prove themselves innocent if that surveillance detects a predetermined level of "guilt".

Is this a good thing? To fight the battle against deadly meth, we all are forced to give up the ability to go buy as many sinus pills as we need to avoid going to the doctor that we maybe can't afford?

Speed limits. I've had a wreck, speed wasn't a factor (in fact I was at a dead stop and someone slammed into my car from behind...one of those traffic backups from an accident causing an accident). Why, therefore, because *some* people are poor drivers and can't handle their vehicles at certain speeds should *I* be forced to drive slower than I want to? What if I *enjoy* driving fast? (which I don't...but if I did, and it didn't hurt anyone, why should I be penalized or prevented from doing something I enjoy?) Maybe by driving fast, someone will work out some aggression and *NOT* hurt an actual person!

This is the logic that those of us in support of the ban on VCP are being asked to accept. It rubs both ways, and again I state that it is the inconsistency that I take issue with. Speech IS restricted, thus we have "hate speech". Thus we allow police officers or volunteers to force certain protestors to stay a certain distance from what they are protesting against (think abortion clinics and the Fred Phelps gang). Fred Phelps isn't "really" hurting anyone by shouting nasty things, is he? I mean, it's just thought put into words, much like thought put into pictures, right? Different kind of expression, but same result.

JFrankA, you mention that the Klan should have a right to protest. Great. Do you also think, then, that if the Phelps church wants to dance on graves they should be allowed to? Cemeteries, after all, aren't all on private property. Do you think that abortion demonstrators should be allowed to stand right by the door of clinics? Or do you agree that they should stay back so many feet? If you agree, why? Who are they hurting? There is as much potential to do harm from thirty feet away as there is from two, after all...yet it is okay to automatically presume them guilty and enact restrictions that supposedly "protect" a minority of individuals.

I don't have a problem with those things...but if you are consistent, then you really *should*. Right? That is the logic that makes no sense to me. What makes, in other words, VCP more deserving than abortion protestors or sinus medicine or guns? Why is being able to express a sexual interest in children deserving of protection, from your estimation, but being able to drive fast or dance on a grave is not?

There *are*, no matter how much it will be denied, certain things in our society that most everyone is on full agreement about...including it being disrespectful to dance on graves (that is how I refer to what the Phelps church does, not to be taken literally). But what you are saying, essentially, is that me and everyone else is wrong for feeling that way....because "no one is really getting hurt!". Do you not see how, if one were to follow the logic being offered up in this thread, the only place to go, then, is there being NO restrictions on ANYTHING that people "enjoy", so long as they don't touch an actual person??? Is that seriously what you believe? I fail to see any "civilized society" under those principles.

 

[Southwind17]

You are merely agreeing with me. Couching it in sonorous 'greater good' pseudo-morality doesn't change the essence of your claim. You have not demonstrated any basis for a "price" to be "paid" beyond vague allegations of potential harm. This tactic is the antithesis of any free society.

I believe you've incorrectly claimed this before. As RandFan might write: simply repeating it won't make it true.

Note also that I said "otherwise law abiding people". It is your insistence on a bogus law that itself creates the lawlessness. First demonize, then criminalize. You advocate legislation by populist hysteria and fear-mongering.

I believe you've incorrectly claimed this before. As RandFan might write: simply repeating it won't make it true.

You've made it perfectly clear that you are willing to allege a net benefit on zero evidence and then defend your premise by pretending that the allegation is "reasonable".

It's not an allegation, it's an assertion. I've admitted it's not based on scientific or empirical evidence previously, but reasonable supposition. I can assure you there's no pretense on my part.

Not in this thread. Well, you've made the claim, but you haven't provided any evidence.

See above.

You haven't even bothered to respond to evidence to the contrary that has been provided.

I believe I responded to the false assertion that there is evidence to the contrary (we are still talking VCP, right?), from which it follows that I don't believe any evidence to the contrary has been presented (we are still talking VCP, right?). But feel free to remind me which post(s) presented such evidence. I'd be more than happy to review it/them to check whether I inadvertently omitted to respond fully.

If you are now claiming that your defense of your position is that there is other bad law also in existence and thus yours must be okay then you are presenting a very weak argument.

Fortunately I'm not. I'm not suggesting at all that just about every other law in existence is "bad" simply because of instances where some unfortunate people are occasionally falsely convicted under them. I'm claiming that it's better to have all of those imperfect laws than none at all. That's not to say that we shouldn't seek to constantly improve all of those imperfect laws, but imperfect law is better than no law, in my opinion.

I'll disregard the sophomoric evasion of that response and simply point out that I didn't ask them. I asked you.

Are you not interested in a cross-section of responses? I can't possibly imagine what would motivate you to want just my view (not ).

I can image that you would like to think so.

I can imagine you imagining that! Isn't the mind wonderful?!

Judging from the general tenor and lack of substance of your other rhetoric I have to agree that expecting a direct, honest response from you is absurd.

Judging from your demonstrating that you're predisposed to believing that every stick has countless ends to get hold of I can see why you would agree to that. It might neatly and conveniently divert attention from your own shortcomings were it true. Unfortunately for you ...

Why do you insist, continually, that alleged, unsupported, hypothetical potential for some benefit must trump proven, demonstrable harm?

I'm sorry. Which posts, exactly, constitute such alleged continual insistence?

"This law is okay because it might do some good. Who cares if people will certainly be hurt?"

I'm sorry - do you believe you're quoting me or somebody else? Or are they simply your own words? If the latter, why don't you directly quote me instead, lest you get accused of resorting to classical gutter press tactics?

Your childlike faith in the intrinsic goodness of the legal machinery is touching, but unfounded. That machinery is operated by people. The precedent for those people to abuse the power of that machinery is indisputable.

Ah ... eventually ... you've teamed up with JFrankA in admitting what's really at the heart of your concern. And, as with JFrankA, it has absolutely nothing to do with VCP per se, but absolutely everything to do with your lack of confidence in the legal system per se. Whether that is founded in cynicism at one end of the spectrum or fact at the other, frankly, is irrelevant. The main thing is that we now know what's really troubling you. Feel free to start a thread.

Good law is crafted in such a fashion as to prevent that abuse first. When the certainty of such abuse can only be offset by an unfounded, hypothetical potential for some net benefit then only bad law can result. Every inch of progress we have made in jurisprudence is predicated on that simple concept.

And look how far we've got. Let's just put all future law making on hold shall we until we've fixed all root shortcomings in the effectiveness of the judicial system?!

You appear to have some strong attraction to nanny legislation which assumes a childlike society in need of protection from itself.

Really? What evidence, exactly, leads you to draw that conclusion?

This also presupposes that someone must take the authority to make judgments for the rest. And you seem to have no problem placing yourself in the position of that someone.

Really? You think that I believe I'm a federal judge? What evidence, exactly, leads you to draw that conclusion, or is it just your imagination, again?!

There is some risk in freedom.

"Some risk"! You make that sound as though you've just spent the weekend continuously surfing the Internet and found a reasonably compelling tidbit!

Good law does not seek to remove any potential for that risk. It seeks to address the issues raised when one party infringes on the freedom of another party. Good law addresses risk when that risk is demonstrable, considerable, and avoidable without impacting fundamental freedoms.

As I wrote before (maybe you missed it), man has not created human rights from the bottom up. Human rights are what remains after we agree to limit freedom from the top down for the sake of creating a civilised society. Laws serve to define such limitation by stating what is illegal, not what is legal. In other words, laws dictate what we MAY NOT do, period. They don't state what freedoms of others may not be infringed. They simply state what we MAY NOT do. They simply serve to restrict our otherwise fundamental, absolute freedom.

Your approach is one of risk removal. Worse, it is one of hypothetical risk removal. There is no real end to that progression.
Bad law.

So UK gun law is "bad" law then, right?

I have asked you to explain where you place the end of that progression. What is an example of law in which, in your opinion, the benefit of hypothetical risk prevention is trumped by the basic rights of a free society? You have taken the position that laws against VCP are not. Where does freedom start to edge out safety?
Are you afraid to provide such an example? Are you unable to? Is there no such point where freedom need take precedence over imagined safety in your worldview?

It is not a progression, as you put it. UK gun laws, for example, have been in place for over a century. What evidence can you present to show that gun laws have progressed into other, unrelated aspects of society? What evidence can you present to show that any such laws have progressed into other, unrelated aspects of society?

Incidentally, but still relevant to the debate, the Firearms Act of 1920:

... was partly spurred by fears of a possible surge in crime from the large number of guns available following World War I and in part due to fears of working class unrest in this period. [emphasis added] [ Wikipedia]

Moreover:

A Home Office study published in 2007 reported that gun crime in England & Wales remains a relatively rare event. It said that injury caused during a firearm offence was rare with less than 3% resulting in a serious or fatal injury.[28]

The number of homicides committed with firearms has remained between a range of 49 and 97 in the 8 years to 2006. There were 2 fatal shootings of police officers in England and Wales in this period and 107 non-fatal shootings - an average of 9.7 per year over the same period.[29]

In 2005/6 the police in England and Wales reported 50 gun homicides, a rate of 0.1 illegal gun deaths per 100,000 of population. Only 6.6% of homicides involved the use of a firearm. [29]

By way of international comparison, in 2004 the police in the United States reported 9,326 gun homicides.[30] The overall homicide rates per 100,000 (regardless of weapon type) reported by the United Nations for 1999 were 4.55 for the U.S. and 1.45 in England and Wales. [31] The homicide rate in England and Wales at the end of the 1990s was below the EU average, but the rates in Northern Ireland and Scotland were above the EU average.[32] [emphasis added] [Wikipedia]

"Bad Law"? If you say so.

 

[RandFan]

Speech IS restricted, thus we have "hate speech".

Vague and ambiguous.

Thus we allow police officers or volunteers to force certain protesters to stay a certain distance from what they are protesting against (think abortion clinics and the Fred Phelps gang). Fred Phelps isn't "really" hurting anyone by shouting nasty things, is he? I mean, it's just thought put into words, much like thought put into pictures, right? Different kind of expression, but same result.

I'm against laws that have these kinds of restrictions. These laws have been used most effectively to shield politicians and organizations like the Church of Scientology against protest.

Great. Do you also think, then, that if the Phelps church wants to dance on graves they should be allowed to? Cemeteries, after all, aren't all on private property.

Yes, they should.

Do you think that abortion demonstrators should be allowed to stand right by the door of clinics?

I have always been against laws that are too restrictive and I think these laws have gone too far. That is the problem with such laws. Power corrupts. The laws are often used to stifle speech.

There *are*, no matter how much it will be denied, certain things in our society that most everyone is on full agreement about...including it being disrespectful to dance on graves (that is how I refer to what the Phelps church does, not to be taken literally).

I'm not everyone.

But what you are saying, essentially, is that me and everyone else is wrong for feeling that way....because "no one is really getting hurt!". Do you not see how, if one were to follow the logic being offered up in this thread, the only place to go, then, is there being NO restrictions on ANYTHING that people "enjoy", so long as they don't touch an actual person??? Is that seriously what you believe? I fail to see any "civilized society" under those principles.

Traffic lights are an effective form of regulation. I'm not opposed to regulation. I think protesters should have to get permits and stay off private property. If the protests prevent individuals from getting medical care then there should be some accommodation. Such laws should be narrowly crafted however. As it is they are far too broad. Sadly SCOTUS has held for them and they are being used in a very cynical manner.

In any event, we have a very real problem right now in that the Church of Scientology has effectively used these often poorly written laws to stifle speech. In Hemet California you cannot effectively protest Co$. They've got the money and the power. They engage in human trafficking. They force children to work long hours and these children are not allowed to go to school. Co$ flaunts their power using the local council. The council routinely comes to the defense of Co$ and even uses Co$ produced propaganda on behalf of the Church.

I'm sorry, it's clear. We ought to be damn careful of how we regulate speech. I hate VCP. It's disgusting and nauseating. If I honestly thought that laws could be crafted that would not ever be abused I'd be for them. As it is no. Not at all.

 

[sugarb]

Vague and ambiguous.

I'm against laws that have these kinds of restrictions. These laws have been used most effectively to shield politicians and organizations like the Church of Scientology against protest.

Yes, they should.

I have always been against laws that are too restrictive and I think these laws have gone too far. That is the problem with such laws. Power corrupts. The laws are often used to stifle speech.

I'm not everyone.

Traffic lights are an effective form of regulation. I'm not opposed to regulation. I think protesters should have to get permits and stay off private property. If the protests prevent individuals from getting medical care then there should be some accommodation. Such laws should be narrowly crafted however. As it is they are far too broad. Sadly SCOTUS has held for them and they are being used in a very cynical manner.

In any event, we have a very real problem right now in that the Church of Scientology has effectively used these often poorly written laws to stifle speech. In Hemet California you cannot effectively protest Co$. They've got the money and the power. They engage in human trafficking. They force children to work long hours and these children are not allowed to go to school. Co$ flaunts their power using the local council. The council routinely comes to the defense of Co$ and even uses Co$ produced propaganda on behalf of the Church.

I'm sorry, it's clear. We ought to be damn careful of how we regulate speech. I hate VCP. It's disgusting and nauseating. If I honestly thought that laws could be crafted that would not ever be abused I'd be for them. As it is no. Not at all.

RandFan, thank you. I must say you generally are consistent, moreso than I think possibly anyone I've ever encountered with the exception of my great aunt who is one hell of a woman, I must say, so I really appreciate your input.

The church of scientology...that is interesting, particularly that you say they engage in human trafficking? (I did not know that). In what way do they utilize the laws to get away with the things they get away with, though? Religious freedom? I realize they have money, and with money comes power...but I have to admit, I'd like to know how they could use any constitutional freedoms to engage in human trafficking. I don't doubt you, that's just one I hadn't heard before. I mean, I knew that human trafficking was still a problem...but not with that particular group, especially as they seem to take as many opportunities as possible to have their celebrity representatives spout their nonsense (just my opinion, the nonsense part, btw). How would they get away with that? And with child labor?

These are exactly the kinds of problems that I think are at issue here...things that allow or enable particularly child exploitation, and perhaps it would help me to understand better if these laws themselves actually *are* enabling those very things. If that makes sense.

 

[RandFan]

I've admitted it's not based on scientific or empirical evidence previously, but reasonable supposition.

You have never demonstrated how or why the supposition is reasonable.

And, as with JFrankA, it has absolutely nothing to do with VCP per se, but absolutely everything to do with your lack of confidence in the legal system per se. Whether that is founded in cynicism at one end of the spectrum or fact at the other, frankly, is irrelevant. The main thing is that we now know what's really troubling you. Feel free to start a thread.

Given the history of abuse by government and legal authorities there is every reason to be concerned. No new thread needed. This one is perfect for this discussion.

And look how far we've got. Let's just put all future law making on hold shall we until we've fixed all root shortcomings in the effectiveness of the judicial system?!

Straw man.

 

[RandFan]

RandFan, thank you. I must say you generally are consistent, moreso than I think possibly anyone I've ever encountered with the exception of my great aunt who is one hell of a woman, I must say, so I really appreciate your input.

Not a problem and I really appreciate your input.

The church of scientology...that is interesting, particularly that you say they engage in human trafficking? (I did not know that). In what way do they utilize the laws to get away with the things they get away with, though? Religious freedom?

It's a chilling story.

The church employs children from the age of 11 on up. The ones who start to work for Co$ under the age of 16 are usualy children of Church members. Once employd the church makes them work upwards of 80 hours a week. They are not allowed to leave the compound unescorted. They are not allowed to have personal lives. If any of the girls get pregnant they are forced to have abortions.

Please see David Miscavige Sued for Human Trafficking

How would they get away with that? And with child labor?

They are are a police organization. The children are kept in a compound with razor topped fences, flood lights, cameras and armed guards. Co$ says that these measures are for the protection of the employees but the razor wire points inward. Many people have left and most aledge that they had no freedom.

A great book called "Blown for Good – Behind the Iron Curtain of Scientology" was just released and it details the criminality and just how difficult it is to leave.

 

[sugarb]

Not a problem and I really appreciate your input.

It's a chilling story.

The church employs children from the age of 11 on up. The ones who start to work for Co$ under the age of 16 are usualy children of Church members. Once employd the church makes them work upwards of 80 hours a week. They are not allowed to leave the compound unescorted. They are not allowed to have personal lives. If any of the girls get pregnant they are forced to have abortions.

Please see David Miscavige Sued for Human Trafficking

They are are a police organization. The children are kept in a compound with razor topped fences, flood lights, cameras and armed guards. Co$ says that these measures are for the protection of the employees but the razor wire points inward. Many people have left and most aledge that they had no freedom.

A great book called "Blown for Good – Behind the Iron Curtain of Scientology" was just released and it details the criminality and just how difficult it is to leave.

Oh my god. RandFan thank you for bringing this up in this thread. I think it probably does apply to the topic at hand, at least from my perspective since my only real concern is laws to protect children. Just that one link you provided shocked me. I guess because...the church of scientology is so...PUBLIC on so many things. How with the high profile membership could things like this happen?

I am going to do more reading about this tonight so I can get a better handle on it. It sounds...worse, though I'm not sure there's any valid basis of comparison when it comes to child abuse, than the was it Mormon compound in the last year or so that the government removed all the children from. Worse, I guess, because off-hand I'm inclined to think that the only difference between the two, and the lack of government action on one, would probably be directly tied to money and power.

Again, I'm glad you brought this up, as sad as it is (and yes, chilling. That's a very good word to describe what I'm feeling right now.) And I also better understand your particular outrage that it appears our concerns are about imaginary children when so many terrible things are happening to real children...though I assure you that isn't where I am coming from in the least. I'll take time with this one. It is certainly deservng of it. (I sometimes wonder why I am ever surprised anymore when it comes to what people will do to other people, particularly children. And that makes me sad that I have to wonder that.)

 

[JFrankA]

VCP is illegal in this country. Even if no "real" person is harmed, as it would seem. Basically, what is being argued is that VCP is a "victimless crime". Correct? That is the position that has been taking. No "real" child is harmed! So it is a "victimless crime".

But if we look at other laws that have been enacted, we would see that this is really nothing all that unique. Buying a gun is a victimless crime, until you shoot someone with it NOT in self defense.

If I have a sinus problem, I just want to go to the store and buy some otc medicine to alleviate the symptoms, so that I can more comfortably go through my days. But now? Well, it's locked up (that which is most effective), my purchase will be tracked, and if I buy too much sinus medicine, even if it isn't all for me, but perhaps my family or neighbors or whatever, there is going to be an inquiry because it "would appear" that I am running a meth lab! The burden of proof is on ME, to prove I'm NOT running a meth lab. Why? Because *some* people have meth labs and buy medications to make illegal substances out of, and because *some* people have died as a result, and because *some* have been sellers or dealers, suppliers of illegal substances, *EVERYONE* gets their purchase of certain medications put under surveillance. And everyone must prove themselves innocent if that surveillance detects a predetermined level of "guilt".

Is this a good thing? To fight the battle against deadly meth, we all are forced to give up the ability to go buy as many sinus pills as we need to avoid going to the doctor that we maybe can't afford?

Speed limits. I've had a wreck, speed wasn't a factor (in fact I was at a dead stop and someone slammed into my car from behind...one of those traffic backups from an accident causing an accident). Why, therefore, because *some* people are poor drivers and can't handle their vehicles at certain speeds should *I* be forced to drive slower than I want to? What if I *enjoy* driving fast? (which I don't...but if I did, and it didn't hurt anyone, why should I be penalized or prevented from doing something I enjoy?) Maybe by driving fast, someone will work out some aggression and *NOT* hurt an actual person!

This is the logic that those of us in support of the ban on VCP are being asked to accept. It rubs both ways, and again I state that it is the inconsistency that I take issue with. Speech IS restricted, thus we have "hate speech". Thus we allow police officers or volunteers to force certain protestors to stay a certain distance from what they are protesting against (think abortion clinics and the Fred Phelps gang). Fred Phelps isn't "really" hurting anyone by shouting nasty things, is he? I mean, it's just thought put into words, much like thought put into pictures, right? Different kind of expression, but same result.

JFrankA, you mention that the Klan should have a right to protest. Great. Do you also think, then, that if the Phelps church wants to dance on graves they should be allowed to? Cemeteries, after all, aren't all on private property. Do you think that abortion demonstrators should be allowed to stand right by the door of clinics? Or do you agree that they should stay back so many feet? If you agree, why? Who are they hurting? There is as much potential to do harm from thirty feet away as there is from two, after all...yet it is okay to automatically presume them guilty and enact restrictions that supposedly "protect" a minority of individuals.

I don't have a problem with those things...but if you are consistent, then you really *should*. Right? That is the logic that makes no sense to me. What makes, in other words, VCP more deserving than abortion protestors or sinus medicine or guns? Why is being able to express a sexual interest in children deserving of protection, from your estimation, but being able to drive fast or dance on a grave is not?

There *are*, no matter how much it will be denied, certain things in our society that most everyone is on full agreement about...including it being disrespectful to dance on graves (that is how I refer to what the Phelps church does, not to be taken literally). But what you are saying, essentially, is that me and everyone else is wrong for feeling that way....because "no one is really getting hurt!". Do you not see how, if one were to follow the logic being offered up in this thread, the only place to go, then, is there being NO restrictions on ANYTHING that people "enjoy", so long as they don't touch an actual person??? Is that seriously what you believe? I fail to see any "civilized society" under those principles.

SugarB, that's a great post.

This is what a debate is about. You challenge me, I challenge you both doing it without disrespect, name calling, superiority and threats. I may or may not agree with you, but I appreciate your posts and thoughtfulness.

Be that as it may, RandFan did a far better job than I could in response. But if I may point out some things that I'd like to add:

VCP is illegal in this country. Even if no "real" person is harmed, as it would seem. Basically, what is being argued is that VCP is a "victimless crime". Correct? That is the position that has been taking. No "real" child is harmed! So it is a "victimless crime".

My disagreement is part of that, but there's another level. A pedophile, whether that person actually molests a real child or not, will always be pedophile. That's not going to change. It's like saying that a homosexual is eventually going to be cured.

I feel, and yes, this is an opinion only, that by making VCP illegal closes the door on possibly helping a pedophile NOT molest a child, using VCP to control and contain her/his urges. I would feel that would be very useful for psychologists. However, since it's illegal, we cannot even experiment to find out if my theory is right and it would help or Southwind's theory is right and it makes a bad situation worse.

We now have to live with ignorance.

I am with RandFan, just because something is legal doesn't mean that something should be unregulated. I can see that, and further regulation is necessary. But to ban it outright, without any test and just because it looks and feels wrong, is a dangerous stance.

When it comes to VCP, or protesting, or religious freedom, or anything that someone wants to do, the basic philosophy of America's laws should remain the same: the government gives people their individual rights (such as freedom to protest) as long as those rights do not interfere with other people's individual rights (such as private property). That does mean regulation. Because granting freedoms with regulation makes compromises.

A ban is NOT a compromise. A ban is babysitting.

I hope that makes sense.

 

[JFrankA]

And, as with JFrankA, it has absolutely nothing to do with VCP per se, but absolutely everything to do with your lack of confidence in the legal system per se. Whether that is founded in cynicism at one end of the spectrum or fact at the other, frankly, is irrelevant. The main thing is that we now know what's really troubling you. Feel free to start a thread.

Given the history of abuse by government and legal authorities there is every reason to be concerned. No new thread needed. This one is perfect for this discussion.

SW, remind me, aren't you the one who asked me if I really believed that law makers are better than us?

 

[sugarb]

SugarB, that's a great post.

This is what a debate is about. You challenge me, I challenge you both doing it without disrespect, name calling, superiority and threats. I may or may not agree with you, but I appreciate your posts and thoughtfulness.

Be that as it may, RandFan did a far better job than I could in response. But if I may point out some things that I'd like to add:



My disagreement is part of that, but there's another level. A pedophile, whether that person actually molests a real child or not, will always be pedophile. That's not going to change. It's like saying that a homosexual is eventually going to be cured.

I feel, and yes, this is an opinion only, that by making VCP illegal closes the door on possibly helping a pedophile NOT molest a child, using VCP to control and contain her/his urges. I would feel that would be very useful for psychologists. However, since it's illegal, we cannot even experiment to find out if my theory is right and it would help or Southwind's theory is right and it makes a bad situation worse.

We now have to live with ignorance.

I am with RandFan, just because something is legal doesn't mean that something should be unregulated. I can see that, and further regulation is necessary. But to ban it outright, without any test and just because it looks and feels wrong, is a dangerous stance.

When it comes to VCP, or protesting, or religious freedom, or anything that someone wants to do, the basic philosophy of America's laws should remain the same: the government gives people their individual rights (such as freedom to protest) as long as those rights do not interfere with other people's individual rights (such as private property). That does mean regulation. Because granting freedoms with regulation makes compromises.

A ban is NOT a compromise. A ban is babysitting.

I hope that makes sense.

JFrankA, hello there. Yes, it makes sense. Lots of things make sense that I don't agree with, and like you, I think it most certainly *is* a good thing to have our thoughts challenged from time to time. Right now I am finding more links to read about what RandFan mentioned (church of scientology and abuses). I am sure there is a connection between them and abuse of the laws/freedoms that is relevant here in some way, and even if it proves me wrong, I want to find it. It is disturbing, and just the little bit I've read so far sounds...um...insane? This doesn't even sound like a religion to me...it's just very bizarre and will take me some time to digest...but maybe the correlation is in laws that are too vague (I think most of us have agreed that the laws are quite poorly written), and really, that may serve both positions here in some strange way, since we're talking about poorly written laws and why we wanted them in the first place, why any of them are felt necessary in the first place. JFrankA, this stuff is just crazy! (my opinion, of course).

As I've gone through life I have come to the conclusion that there really are no absolutes, and on just about any given discussion, there is a probably more realistic compromise position available (meaning middle ground) that ends up being more valid than one extreme or the other. Sometimes it is just hard to get past a lot of preconceived notions to reach that place.

But the few things I have read thus far...well...I don't even know what to say yet. I don't even know that I'll know what to say when I've read as much as I can stand to read. My position even on this thread regarding pornography hasn't been about pornography in general, but mainly focusing on children or images of children utilized for that purpose. It happens, though. Children and adults are exploited in awful, awful ways, and if nothing else, what I'm reading so far about this tells me that the laws aren't really protecting anyone anyway. Especially when there is a lot of money and power involved. But *shouldn't* they, JFrankA? Shouldn't the laws protect those who would be or are being exploited? I know there are sick people in the world, but...I guess what I am getting at is that it seems to me that we're sorely lacking in protection for our most at risk individuals (adults and children), and as it now appears to me, our system actually enables those things to happen just so long as someone has some kind of veil to hide behind, like religion. Like free speech.

Regardless, yes, I understand your position, and RandFan's and Southwind17 as well. I don't have to agree to understand., but I do have to understand to agree. Sometimes I just come at things from a different perspective or a different direction, my starting point may be different, and I think that is probably what causes some confusion. I don't start with freedom of speech, as an example, regarding child pornography of any kind. I start with children. I don't look at the innocent and say "well what do they deserve", I look at the victims and say "well what do THEY deserve from US?", and that puts us at two different starting points. I think we'll reach a closer place eventually, even if we don't fully agree. If *that* makes sense, lol

 

[tesscaline]

VCP is illegal in this country. Even if no "real" person is harmed, as it would seem. Basically, what is being argued is that VCP is a "victimless crime". Correct? That is the position that has been taking. No "real" child is harmed! So it is a "victimless crime".

That is not the only factor being taken into account, at least by myself, in terms of why VCP should or should not be illegal. Freedom of speech is another facet of the discussion.

But if we look at other laws that have been enacted, we would see that this is really nothing all that unique. Buying a gun is a victimless crime, until you shoot someone with it NOT in self defense.

Exactly. And where I live, it is not illegal to simply own a gun. It is illegal to commit a crime with that gun, but it is not illegal to simply buy, sell, or own a weapon.

If I have a sinus problem, I just want to go to the store and buy some otc medicine to alleviate the symptoms, so that I can more comfortably go through my days. But now? Well, it's locked up (that which is most effective), my purchase will be tracked, and if I buy too much sinus medicine, even if it isn't all for me, but perhaps my family or neighbors or whatever, there is going to be an inquiry because it "would appear" that I am running a meth lab! The burden of proof is on ME, to prove I'm NOT running a meth lab. Why? Because *some* people have meth labs and buy medications to make illegal substances out of, and because *some* people have died as a result, and because *some* have been sellers or dealers, suppliers of illegal substances, *EVERYONE* gets their purchase of certain medications put under surveillance. And everyone must prove themselves innocent if that surveillance detects a predetermined level of "guilt".

Is this a good thing? To fight the battle against deadly meth, we all are forced to give up the ability to go buy as many sinus pills as we need to avoid going to the doctor that we maybe can't afford?

Personally, I disagree with that law. I find it to be an invasion of privacy, and I really don't see it as being very effective as the people who make meth already do not care if they break the law, so the restrictions on buying sudafed don't stop them from obtaining it.

Stopping me from treating the head cold that is threatening to turn into a sinus infection, on the other hand, is demonstrable harm to me, personally. In return for what demonstrable benefit? There's little evidence that restricting the legal sale of decongestants effects any actual decrease in the production and/or distribution of meth. And even if there was a decrease, how big is that decrease, and is it worth it to all the people who will have to suffer physical ailments, police investigations, and excessive doctors bills (because to get around the limits on those decongestants it requires a prescription... which costs money to obtain... )?

Speed limits. I've had a wreck, speed wasn't a factor (in fact I was at a dead stop and someone slammed into my car from behind...one of those traffic backups from an accident causing an accident). Why, therefore, because *some* people are poor drivers and can't handle their vehicles at certain speeds should *I* be forced to drive slower than I want to? What if I *enjoy* driving fast? (which I don't...but if I did, and it didn't hurt anyone, why should I be penalized or prevented from doing something I enjoy?) Maybe by driving fast, someone will work out some aggression and *NOT* hurt an actual person!

I would point out that you perhaps don't understand how speed limits are decided upon, if you think that it has to do with "some people being poor drivers". Speed limits are determined by scientific testing and review to determine a level of speed that is safe for particular conditions. Hard evidence is used to prove a demonstrable level of harm. These reviews are required to be done periodically to account for changes in cars, tires, and terrain over time to give an accurate assessment of the level of demonstrable harm involved at any given speed.

So, with regards to speed limits, no, I don't automatically object to them in principle. Yes, there are places that place speed limits arbitrarily. Yes, I disagree with THAT. But in regards to speed limits that are placed after proper testing and review? No, I don't have a problem with that at all. Why? Because they are meeting the burden of proof to show that non-regulation would cause demonstrable harm.

This is the logic that those of us in support of the ban on VCP are being asked to accept. It rubs both ways, and again I state that it is the inconsistency that I take issue with. Speech IS restricted, thus we have "hate speech". Thus we allow police officers or volunteers to force certain protestors to stay a certain distance from what they are protesting against (think abortion clinics and the Fred Phelps gang). Fred Phelps isn't "really" hurting anyone by shouting nasty things, is he? I mean, it's just thought put into words, much like thought put into pictures, right? Different kind of expression, but same result.

JFrankA, you mention that the Klan should have a right to protest. Great. Do you also think, then, that if the Phelps church wants to dance on graves they should be allowed to? Cemeteries, after all, aren't all on private property. Do you think that abortion demonstrators should be allowed to stand right by the door of clinics? Or do you agree that they should stay back so many feet? If you agree, why? Who are they hurting? There is as much potential to do harm from thirty feet away as there is from two, after all...yet it is okay to automatically presume them guilty and enact restrictions that supposedly "protect" a minority of individuals.

"Hate speech" is not technically illegal. Using racial slurs and epithets is not against the law. The "hate speech" of protesters is not why protesters are required to stay a certain distance away from a doorway or other property.

Police show up on protest sites to ensure that protesters are not impeding or otherwise negatively impacting the rights and freedoms of other people. This includes their access to medical care, and the sanctity of their private property. It also includes making sure that fire codes are not being broken through the blockage of access to building exits, and being around as a deterrent to physical encounters.

Yes, I agree that protesters should not be allowed to break safety ordinances (like the fire code), or trespass on private property, or block public thoroughfares, or otherwise negatively impact any persons' rights. But that has nothing to do with the words they're using, so I really don't see what that has to do with a discussion about free speech.

I don't have a problem with those things...but if you are consistent, then you really *should*. Right? That is the logic that makes no sense to me. What makes, in other words, VCP more deserving than abortion protestors or sinus medicine or guns? Why is being able to express a sexual interest in children deserving of protection, from your estimation, but being able to drive fast or dance on a grave is not?

For me, it's about evidence. It needs to be proven to me, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the restricting or banning of a specific media or action will limit demonstrable harm. And not only that, but it has to be proven to me that the limiting of that demonstrable harm will outweigh any harm that the restricting or banning would itself cause. That has not been proven to me regarding VCP yet.

There *are*, no matter how much it will be denied, certain things in our society that most everyone is on full agreement about...including it being disrespectful to dance on graves (that is how I refer to what the Phelps church does, not to be taken literally). But what you are saying, essentially, is that me and everyone else is wrong for feeling that way....because "no one is really getting hurt!". Do you not see how, if one were to follow the logic being offered up in this thread, the only place to go, then, is there being NO restrictions on ANYTHING that people "enjoy", so long as they don't touch an actual person??? Is that seriously what you believe? I fail to see any "civilized society" under those principles.

It is not wrong to feel that way. However, it IS wrong, in the context of debate, to try and justify your arguments with those feelings. It is called "appealing to emotion". Pointing this out is not the same as "calling you emotional". One can be completely non-emotional about a subject and still use an appeal to emotion.

And yes, I truly believe that people should be able to do as they please as long as they don't harm anyone else, or otherwise negatively impact another person's rights. Please note that caveat. I'll even repeat it, and bold it. "As long as they don't harm anyone else, or otherwise negatively impact another person's rights".

Your argument from incredulity on having a "civilized society" under those principles demonstrates a severe lack of understanding about the foundations of the United States. This principle of "freedom to do as they please as long as they don't harm anyone else, or otherwise negatively impact another person's rights" is an integral part of the foundations of this country. We have the Bill of Rights specifically designed to protect those freedoms. Laws as well to protect those freedoms.

But still, you fail to see any "civilized society" in that principle...

 

[JFrankA]

JFrankA, hello there. Yes, it makes sense. Lots of things make sense that I don't agree with, and like you, I think it most certainly *is* a good thing to have our thoughts challenged from time to time. Right now I am finding more links to read about what RandFan mentioned (church of scientology and abuses). I am sure there is a connection between them and abuse of the laws/freedoms that is relevant here in some way, and even if it proves me wrong, I want to find it. It is disturbing, and just the little bit I've read so far sounds...um...insane? This doesn't even sound like a religion to me...it's just very bizarre and will take me some time to digest...but maybe the correlation is in laws that are too vague (I think most of us have agreed that the laws are quite poorly written), and really, that may serve both positions here in some strange way, since we're talking about poorly written laws and why we wanted them in the first place, why any of them are felt necessary in the first place. JFrankA, this stuff is just crazy! (my opinion, of course).

As I've gone through life I have come to the conclusion that there really are no absolutes, and on just about any given discussion, there is a probably more realistic compromise position available (meaning middle ground) that ends up being more valid than one extreme or the other. Sometimes it is just hard to get past a lot of preconceived notions to reach that place.

But the few things I have read thus far...well...I don't even know what to say yet. I don't even know that I'll know what to say when I've read as much as I can stand to read. My position even on this thread regarding pornography hasn't been about pornography in general, but mainly focusing on children or images of children utilized for that purpose. It happens, though. Children and adults are exploited in awful, awful ways, and if nothing else, what I'm reading so far about this tells me that the laws aren't really protecting anyone anyway. Especially when there is a lot of money and power involved. But *shouldn't* they, JFrankA? Shouldn't the laws protect those who would be or are being exploited? I know there are sick people in the world, but...I guess what I am getting at is that it seems to me that we're sorely lacking in protection for our most at risk individuals (adults and children), and as it now appears to me, our system actually enables those things to happen just so long as someone has some kind of veil to hide behind, like religion. Like free speech.

Regardless, yes, I understand your position, and RandFan's and Southwind17 as well. I don't have to agree to understand., but I do have to understand to agree. Sometimes I just come at things from a different perspective or a different direction, my starting point may be different, and I think that is probably what causes some confusion. I don't start with freedom of speech, as an example, regarding child pornography of any kind. I start with children. I don't look at the innocent and say "well what do they deserve", I look at the victims and say "well what do THEY deserve from US?", and that puts us at two different starting points. I think we'll reach a closer place eventually, even if we don't fully agree. If *that* makes sense, lol

Makes a lot of sense. And another good post.

I get that you are coming from the children's side. So is Southwind. I see how both of you wish to make sure that no child, or no human really, want to get exploited or harmed.

Believe me, that's RandFan's and my position as well. In fact, I don't think you'd find anyone on this entire board who wouldn't agree with that. The disagreement comes, as you illustrated, from how do we approach a solution and "closing the loopholes" of that solution and keeping everyone's rights and beliefs intact.

Obviously, that's a difficult task. One that doesn't have a quick and easy solution. Also, with any comprimise, you are going to get disgrunted people. I don't remember who said it, and I am paraphrasing, but someone once said that a good comprimise means everyone is in agreement and satisfied, but still leaves the table angry or something to that effect.

Porn is one of those things.

The range of porn is as wide as the range of sexual fantasies, and sexual fantasies can seem disgusting for one, might be boring for another. That's because we are all different. I enjoy my fetish, though I realize that there are quite a few people who wouldn't go near me if they knew. By the same token, there are people who like missionary sex only, and there are people who think that's boring.

It's a personal thing. Porn is a reflection of our own tastes and a very personal side to ourselves that most people do not share with others. That's why it is both repulsive and the one of the most popular selling items out there.

Now whether someone's fetish comes from genetics or environmentals or a combination of both is irrelevant when it comes to porn. The simple truth is that someone with a fetish for X, or a sexual attraction to X, that person will never lose that desire for X. But no matter what X is, as long as it stays in the limits of fantasy and with safety and aware of consequences if those limits and safeties are turned off, then X will never ever be harmful. Once a person decides to do X for real, that person has crossed the line.

And that's why real child pornography is horrible. It crosses the line, no question. The idea of VCP is horrible. It drums up images of children, real or not, being harmed in a horrible way. In a way, VCP arouses something in us. For most of us, it's anger and disgust. But here is why I defend virtual child porn:

We don't know if virtual child porn does cross that line. It does on a gut level, (and I'm with RandFan, I find it appalling too) but on a technical level it doesn't. It's still a fantasy just like if I someone made virtual rape porn.

There even be a way to help real life pedophiles to cope and control their own urges to actually molest. As disgusting as it sounds, there are people out there who have the urge, but have a conscious and do not want to hurt any child, and those who have, well, maybe it could help. The point is we will never know. And yes, I am basing this on my own experience. If I didn't follow the fantasy limits and safeties, my fetish can be extermely harmful to my girlfriend. Yet, I keep it in line and I'm optimistic enough to think most people do keep their fetishes "behind the line".

Also, there are applications of virtual child porn that are, well, innocent. As I've mentioned before, if an adult writes a story about a fictional story of a fifteen year old high school girl having sex with a fictional twenty-three year old college student, and gives it to her/his adult lover as a way of teasing her/him, and to later to age-play out the fantasy together later is such an example, yet that is illegal. If someone else sees it, then they could be arrested and branded as pedophiles, even though they are not and all they are really doing is exploring play with each other.

And to the point of children being exploited by virtual child porn, here's my question. Real child pornography obviously, without a doubt exploits children. How does virtual child pornography exploit children? Also, since it's been banned, did banning it actually stop child a significant amount of exploitation and trafficking?

The thing is, I believe part of the problem is that people are looking for the quick and easy solution: Ban - there you go, in the dumpster never have to look at that filthy muck again. But that's the easy, emotional answer. And usually those are the worst kinds of answers when it comes to human behaviors. And trash really never goes away. It becomes a big stink pile somewhere.

We have to do more.

Let me turn this around further: If Scientology is trafficking humans, do we ban Scientology out right? Will that even stop all trafficking? Yes, saving those human lives are important, but if we ban something to save few, then stop to pat ourselves in the back, we've done nothing.

So, let's go further. Since banning Scientology worked for a few, it would make logical sense to ban other religions, wouldn't it? The quick, easy emotional answer. So what if people feel that the next step is to ban all religions that are not Jedo-Christians ones? Would that really help? Is that even really logical?

And don't think it wouldn't get to that point: Pat Robertson has already said recently that Islam isn't a religion but a political system bent on world domination. And as laughable as that is, you throw crap at the wall, some of that crap is going to stick.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=159803&highlight=robertson

So there you have it, the emotional easy and quick solution with all the ingredients one needs to feel like they've done something: fear, disgust, "not like me" attitude, patriotism, protection. Let's ban it! I feel better already!

Does saving a few, for the sake of saying "we did it! We saved some!" and have the fanfare, then turn to the next easy solution and ban the next thing really take care of the actual problem?

This country has been doing the "easy knee jerk" solution for years, (Yes, further back before the Bush era), favoring the emotional, easy, quick, solution that is a catchy chant. Personally, I see this trend getting worse.

We have to get to the root of the problem. We have to get our hands dirty. We have to take time, test and think. We have to see all sides, rather than "go with our emotions" in a lot of the problems we have. And we must never ever lose sight of the innocent: in this case both children AND adults - adults who want to express themselves without harming anyone.

Tough to do? You bet. Disgusting at times? Yes. Dangerous? Of course. Takes a long time? Yup.

But to get it right, we have to.

Now I'll admit, banning, such as the case of real child porn, is the answer. There's no question because there is no middle ground: a child gets harmed. The test is done, it's shown as true.

But there is too much middle ground, too many questions, too many what if's and most of all too many beliefs to say that banning VCP is the definite answer.

Finally, I have to say that I know I have meandered around your point, but I hope made sense. I have to apologize if I didn't. I suddenly got into "Paul Simon" mode and wrote in a stream of consciousness...

 

[sugarb]

Skeptichick, thanks for your response. As to my understanding of the freedoms our country was founded on, I would like to point out that those freedoms were established for white men only. I seriously doubt that anyone would argue that the amendments made since then, to ensure protections for everyone (except children, the mentally disabled, and anyone declared unfit to make their own decisions by a court proceeding) should be revoked. Tweaking the Constitution isn't always a bad thing, in other words.

I don't personally like the freedoms we were founded on. Had I been alive then, I couldn't have participated in politics. I couldn't have owned property. I couldn't have gotten credit. I kinda like the tweaks, sort of

 

[RandFan]

I don't personally like the freedoms we were founded on. Had I been alive then, I couldn't have participated in politics. I couldn't have owned property. I couldn't have gotten credit. I kinda like the tweaks, sort of

Good post.

It's worthy to note that the Constitution was written in such a way as to permit change. The framers could have defined specifically who are and are not covered. It was, in large part, the appeal to the constiution that resulted in progress of civil rights.

 

[sugarb]

Makes a lot of sense. And another good post.

I get that you are coming from the children's side. So is Southwind. I see how both of you wish to make sure that no child, or no human really, want to get exploited or harmed.

Believe me, that's RandFan's and my position as well. In fact, I don't think you'd find anyone on this entire board who wouldn't agree with that. The disagreement comes, as you illustrated, from how do we approach a solution and "closing the loopholes" of that solution and keeping everyone's rights and beliefs intact.

Obviously, that's a difficult task. One that doesn't have a quick and easy solution. Also, with any comprimise, you are going to get disgrunted people. I don't remember who said it, and I am paraphrasing, but someone once said that a good comprimise means everyone is in agreement and satisfied, but still leaves the table angry or something to that effect.

Porn is one of those things.

The range of porn is as wide as the range of sexual fantasies, and sexual fantasies can seem disgusting for one, might be boring for another. That's because we are all different. I enjoy my fetish, though I realize that there are quite a few people who wouldn't go near me if they knew. By the same token, there are people who like missionary sex only, and there are people who think that's boring.

It's a personal thing. Porn is a reflection of our own tastes and a very personal side to ourselves that most people do not share with others. That's why it is both repulsive and the one of the most popular selling items out there.

Now whether someone's fetish comes from genetics or environmentals or a combination of both is irrelevant when it comes to porn. The simple truth is that someone with a fetish for X, or a sexual attraction to X, that person will never lose that desire for X. But no matter what X is, as long as it stays in the limits of fantasy and with safety and aware of consequences if those limits and safeties are turned off, then X will never ever be harmful. Once a person decides to do X for real, that person has crossed the line.

And that's why real child pornography is horrible. It crosses the line, no question. The idea of VCP is horrible. It drums up images of children, real or not, being harmed in a horrible way. In a way, VCP arouses something in us. For most of us, it's anger and disgust. But here is why I defend virtual child porn:

We don't know if virtual child porn does cross that line. It does on a gut level, (and I'm with RandFan, I find it appalling too) but on a technical level it doesn't. It's still a fantasy just like if I someone made virtual rape porn.

There even be a way to help real life pedophiles to cope and control their own urges to actually molest. As disgusting as it sounds, there are people out there who have the urge, but have a conscious and do not want to hurt any child, and those who have, well, maybe it could help. The point is we will never know. And yes, I am basing this on my own experience. If I didn't follow the fantasy limits and safeties, my fetish can be extermely harmful to my girlfriend. Yet, I keep it in line and I'm optimistic enough to think most people do keep their fetishes "behind the line".

Also, there are applications of virtual child porn that are, well, innocent. As I've mentioned before, if an adult writes a story about a fictional story of a fifteen year old high school girl having sex with a fictional twenty-three year old college student, and gives it to her/his adult lover as a way of teasing her/him, and to later to age-play out the fantasy together later is such an example, yet that is illegal. If someone else sees it, then they could be arrested and branded as pedophiles, even though they are not and all they are really doing is exploring play with each other.

And to the point of children being exploited by virtual child porn, here's my question. Real child pornography obviously, without a doubt exploits children. How does virtual child pornography exploit children? Also, since it's been banned, did banning it actually stop child a significant amount of exploitation and trafficking?

The thing is, I believe part of the problem is that people are looking for the quick and easy solution: Ban - there you go, in the dumpster never have to look at that filthy muck again. But that's the easy, emotional answer. And usually those are the worst kinds of answers when it comes to human behaviors. And trash really never goes away. It becomes a big stink pile somewhere.

We have to do more.

Let me turn this around further: If Scientology is trafficking humans, do we ban Scientology out right? Will that even stop all trafficking? Yes, saving those human lives are important, but if we ban something to save few, then stop to pat ourselves in the back, we've done nothing.

So, let's go further. Since banning Scientology worked for a few, it would make logical sense to ban other religions, wouldn't it? The quick, easy emotional answer. So what if people feel that the next step is to ban all religions that are not Jedo-Christians ones? Would that really help? Is that even really logical?

And don't think it wouldn't get to that point: Pat Robertson has already said recently that Islam isn't a religion but a political system bent on world domination. And as laughable as that is, you throw crap at the wall, some of that crap is going to stick.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=159803&highlight=robertson

So there you have it, the emotional easy and quick solution with all the ingredients one needs to feel like they've done something: fear, disgust, "not like me" attitude, patriotism, protection. Let's ban it! I feel better already!

Does saving a few, for the sake of saying "we did it! We saved some!" and have the fanfare, then turn to the next easy solution and ban the next thing really take care of the actual problem?

This country has been doing the "easy knee jerk" solution for years, (Yes, further back before the Bush era), favoring the emotional, easy, quick, solution that is a catchy chant. Personally, I see this trend getting worse.

We have to get to the root of the problem. We have to get our hands dirty. We have to take time, test and think. We have to see all sides, rather than "go with our emotions" in a lot of the problems we have. And we must never ever lose sight of the innocent: in this case both children AND adults - adults who want to express themselves without harming anyone.

Tough to do? You bet. Disgusting at times? Yes. Dangerous? Of course. Takes a long time? Yup.

But to get it right, we have to.

Now I'll admit, banning, such as the case of real child porn, is the answer. There's no question because there is no middle ground: a child gets harmed. The test is done, it's shown as true.

But there is too much middle ground, too many questions, too many what if's and most of all too many beliefs to say that banning VCP is the definite answer.

Finally, I have to say that I know I have meandered around your point, but I hope made sense. I have to apologize if I didn't. I suddenly got into "Paul Simon" mode and wrote in a stream of consciousness...

LOL! Come back from Graceland, JFrankA. Go to the light...



I did have a little bit of a hard time following your post, but after a re-read, I gotcha. I think here is another thing that is extremely relevant, and another way in which our approaches differ. I feel that our freedoms are grossly taken advantage of by some groups (as with Scientology, based on what I'm reading), whereas you seem to think that our freedoms are too easily taken away. I disagree that freedoms are easy to take away. I do feel, JFrankA, that anything involving children *should be* an exception, because those children don't have those same rights anyway. They *should be*, for a reasonable amount of time (again we go back to age of consent inconsistencies) a protected class, moreso than ANY minority group. A child can't sue for damages. A child can't, legally, really do anything to protect his or her own interest.

Sadly, we know that many parents fail to do so as well. I think we have a special social responsibility when it comes to children, and I think we are seriously failing them.

Have you ever read the site Parents Behaving Badly? There must be a reason that our laws and our social services are ineffective in so many horrific, horrific cases, JFrankA. I agree that we have hard work ahead of us. I agree we have to get our hands dirty in order to discover the root of the problem, but I think that we also have to consider that at least a PART, however big or small, of the problem lies in how so many people hide behind "rights". Those who refuse to vaccinate their children? Refuse medical care for them? Rely on "faith healing" or some other psuedo medicine. We yell and scream about how wrong that is, but at the same time we're yelling and screaming "we got our rights!" (Sorry, I hear that phrase a lot from some hollywood version of rednecks in some stupid movie we have, LOL. I make fun of it a lot)

Who determines that a child hasn't of his or her own free will decided to apply the principles of their parent's faith to themselves? We say a child cannot make that decision...but yes, actually, when it comes to religion a child can, AS LONG AS THEIR PARENTS AGREE. Do you remember how outraged people were about that boy that didn't want chemotherapy? My point is that, if we are going to discuss free speech, we must also include the other freedoms we are assured of...religion, assembly, blah blah blah. To be consistent, we're going to have to, as you said, make hard, hard choices. We have to give and take, and consider people outside ourselves. Individualism is a great, great, fantastic thing! It IS, don't get me wrong. My favorite people in life are individuals that don't follow trends and act like automatons. I reject a whole lot of society, on an individual level, and live my life according to my own standards in many ways. But when it comes to children, I adapt and overcome. When it comes to disabilities, I adapt and overcome. Certain populations need, above all else, consistency and protection. We simply cannot be wishy washy about it. That's why, in my opinion, there is so much abuse of the elderly. That's why, in my opinion, there is so much abuse of children. We make a lot of mistakes in the decisions we make...and yes, I freely admit, some of that? Is because of poor laws, or abusing the application of those laws.

And no, we should not tolerate that. Which is why with RandFan's illegal search and seizure example, I voted to toss it out. I'm seeing now that abusing the applications of the laws is exactly why the church of scientology is getting away with some pretty gross maltreatment of people...because they pay the right people. I found a list of politicians getting contributions from them, and oh. my. lord. As to all religions, I am a believer, but I will freely admit this...as soon as churches started incorporating? I stopped going. For other reasons as well, but...businesses shouldn't have tax exempt status. Funny, though, how they can sell music and videos and whatever else they want to make money, but never have to pay a dime of it back. Why is that? Misapplication of the laws? Or a poor understanding of the intention behind the laws? What?

You're right, there isn't much you said that I disagree with. Maybe it is naive of me, but I do think it is possible to separate the issue of adult pornography and child pornography. I see, though, why you don't agree with that. Because of extremists who basically want to live in a Theocracy. Still, in my mind I can put that silliness aside (and it is silliness, because eventually these "churches" are going to make a decision--business or faith, I hope) and see many reasonable solutions. *Part* of that is getting serious about protecting children. As I said before, in many of our European counterpart nations, they have much stricter laws to protect children, and for pretty much every statistic in which children are involved (education, medical), they PERFORM better. Why is that? Don't you think we should ask ourselves that question?

Overall, as I've learned through healthcare debates, the concept of "family" is handled much better in Europe. More time at home with children, not having to worry about necessary medical care, education...just wow on the education. I know that we are not Europe, certainly, but I'm inclined to believe that they have a few things right that we've most definitey gotten wrong. It just seems to me that it is worth exploring.

(I don't mind your Paul Simon moments, btw. Makes for interesting reading)

 

[not daSkeptic]

Skeptichick, thanks for your response. As to my understanding of the freedoms our country was founded on, I would like to point out that those freedoms were established for white men only. I seriously doubt that anyone would argue that the amendments made since then, to ensure protections for everyone (except children, the mentally disabled, and anyone declared unfit to make their own decisions by a court proceeding) should be revoked. Tweaking the Constitution isn't always a bad thing, in other words.

I don't personally like the freedoms we were founded on. Had I been alive then, I couldn't have participated in politics. I couldn't have owned property. I couldn't have gotten credit. I kinda like the tweaks, sort of

I think you ignored her entire point. Speed limits exist to protect people from demonstrable harm. Police show up at protests to protect people from demonstrable harm. Does the banning of VCP protect people from demonstrable harm?

 

[tesscaline]

Skeptichick, thanks for your response. As to my understanding of the freedoms our country was founded on, I would like to point out that those freedoms were established for white men only. I seriously doubt that anyone would argue that the amendments made since then, to ensure protections for everyone (except children, the mentally disabled, and anyone declared unfit to make their own decisions by a court proceeding) should be revoked. Tweaking the Constitution isn't always a bad thing, in other words.

I don't personally like the freedoms we were founded on. Had I been alive then, I couldn't have participated in politics. I couldn't have owned property. I couldn't have gotten credit. I kinda like the tweaks, sort of

I think you've rather missed my point. (as DaSkeptic has brought attention to, and addressed quite well)

You're not looking at the actual principle here. If you were, you'd see that the principle that you are so condemning is the exact principle that ALLOWED for change to happen. The principle of being able to say, and do, what you want to do as long as you don't hurt anyone else is the principle that allows protests, and allows demonstrations, and allows the lobbying of congress to get laws changed. That principle of being able to say things that the "majority" finds offensive is the exact same principle that allowed women to stand up for their rights to vote and own property. It's the exact same principle that allowed black people to stand up for the injustices done against them.

And yet, you say you can't possibly see how civilized society can come from the principle of "do what you want, as long as you don't harm anyone or otherwise negatively impact their rights".

So, you appreciate the outcomes allowed by the very principle that you are condemning and advocating the restriction of? Do you not see the hypocrisy there?

And no, there is nothing wrong with tweaking the constitution. It was designed, specifically, to allow such changes to be made. What I have a problem with is when people advocate "tweaking" the constitution and/or the laws of this country in a manner that removes rights, instead of protecting them, based solely upon unsubstantiated emotional pleas. And that is exactly what you are advocating.

 

[Bill Thompson]

Porn is bad because it is false advertising.
You will want that hot babe who has the 15 minute orgasim and search endlessly for her.