Moderated What's wrong with porn?

[RandFan]

I've given my reasoning in countless posts, probably starting with Post #996 and then going on to include entire or parts of Posts #1075, #1102, #1168, #1178, #1231, #1289, #1351, #1449, #1450, #1477, #1157, #1648, #1682, #1839, #2197, #2205, #2226, #2261, #2270, #2271, #2331 and #2484. (emphasis mine)

That you reason something doesn't make it reasonable. I think you should call it "your speculation" as that is what it is.

Thanks for confirming exactly what topic you're here to discuss.

No problem. Given zero evidence of harm and given that power corrupts it's clear that not only is there no harm from porn there is real harm from government.

 

[Cavemonster]

You equivocate. I could accept "it's potentially a meaningful component".

You're right, but there are actually studies to suggest that there is a role
Romance Novels can decrease satisfaction in relationships

 

[Skeptic]

I should add that it's not a crime to be a pedophile -- to be sexually attracted to children. It is a crime to molest children. Thought and action are worlds apart -- if they weren't, we'd all be in jail for murder.

 

[RandFan]

You're right, but there are actually studies to suggest that there is a role
Romance Novels can decrease satisfaction in relationships

Ok, but let's look a bit closer.

This study investigates women’s reasons for reading romance novels, romantic relationship expectations, and romantic relationship satisfaction. Major findings include: (a) women most frequently read romance novels for escape or relaxation, (b) reading novels for relationship substitution predicts less satisfaction in romantic relationships, (c) for women with low relationship expectations, reading romance novels led to increased relationship satisfaction, and (d), for women with high relationship expectations, reading novels led to decreased relationship satisfaction. (emphasis mine)

It seems to be a potential wash.

 

[JFrankA]

That you reason something doesn't make it reasonable. I think you should call it "your speculation" as that is what it is.

No problem. Given zero evidence of harm and given that power corrupts it's clear that not only is there no harm from porn there is real harm from government.

You know, RandFan, Southwind has taught me something. Though I will never ever ignore him, I will not reply to something he says that I feel isn't worth commenting on.

Thank you for teaching me that valuable lesson, SW.

 

[JFrankA]

I should add that it's not a crime to be a pedophile -- to be sexually attracted to children. It is a crime to molest children. Thought and action are worlds apart -- if they weren't, we'd all be in jail for murder.

Completely correct and part of my point.

 

[JFrankA]

Ok, but let's look a bit closer.

It seems to be a potential wash.

I think the art follows the desire. There are plenty of examples where a movie was supposed to end one way, but was changed to the "typical Hollywood ending" because the test audiences said they felt the movie was too sad.

Perhaps those people reading romance novels are looking for something to use as confirmation bias.

 

[Whiplash]

Seems to me JFrankA was simply making an observation about the legal climate in the last few (8) years, rather than actually blaming Bush for anything.

Seems to me that some people just get incredibly defensive when people mention Bush or the Bush years, and automatically assume that blame is being assigned.

That said, it is rather off-topic, and it may well be that JFrankA was blaming Bush, so I'm going to drop it.

Yes I was probably defensive and went off on a tangent. The last few days were a problem time for me. More emotion and reaction, less reason and contemplation.

It was to acknowledge that I've read it. I wouldn't want anybody here to mistakenly think I'm ignoring them (unless I've put them on ignore! ). But you know what? I've already decided simply to respond to anything worth responding to, as you suggest.

I hope I did not insult, it really was not my intent.

 

[ZirconBlue]

Funny how I've kept the thread going for close on 2,500 posts then, don't you think?!

Not really. Any half-decent troll can keep a thread alive for days or weeks, often by employing tactics similar to the ones you have displayed.

Your contribution would be how many, approximately?

In terms of number of posts? I don't know exactly. A handful, I'd guess.

In terms of fostering actual meaningful dialog? I'd say I contribute more in my couple of meager posts than you do in a couple hundred of yours.

 

[Southwind17]

That you reason something doesn't make it reasonable. I think you should call it "your speculation" as that is what it is.

Of course it does, provided the reasoning is sound, which mine is. Of course, reasoning, by defintion, is subjective. So, it's certainly not speculation, it's definitely reasoning, which you, unfortunately, just happen to disagree with.

No problem. Given zero evidence of harm and given that power corrupts it's clear that not only is there no harm from porn there is real harm from government.

Again, thank you for making your preferred topic of discussion crystal clear.

 

[Southwind17]

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

I don't believe so, unless it was either a rhetorical or leading question suggesting that they're not. I see no "us" and "them", except in the eyes of the absolute masters of rock "Pink Floyd", namely "... and after all, we're only ordinary men"!

 

[Southwind17]

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.

Do you have any citations for this? "Freedom protectors" in the UK have fought long and hard against increasingly reducing speed limits and enforcement cameras on the basis that there is no scientific evidence that speed and the incidence of road accidents are related.

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.

How about invasion of privacy, like obscenity laws?

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.

But it has with gun laws in the UK compared to the US. How do you feel about that?

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".

You seem very unequivocal on that. So, not harming anyone else would include physical, emotional and psychological harm, right? And another person's "rights" would include the right to absolute privacy, right?

 

[Southwind17]

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.

You're putting a lot of faith into this rhetoric.

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.

Personally, I think your problem is that your "middle ground", as you like to call it, starts and finishes nowhere near the middle. You wrote:

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.

For me (and you, it seems!) VCP lies nowhere near "the middle", but just one small step from "real" child porn. If it's the "middle ground" that concerns you then it's important to recognize that the "middle ground" doesn't start and finish marginally north and south of the extremes.

 

[JFrankA]

For me (and you, it seems!) VCP lies nowhere near "the middle", but just one small step from "real" child porn. If it's the "middle ground" that concerns you then it's important to recognize that the "middle ground" doesn't start and finish marginally north and south of the extremes.

Missed my point, cherry picked a "sound bite" and completely misinterpreted what I had said.

Zero out of three. Your usual average.

 

[tesscaline]

Do you have any citations for this? "Freedom protectors" in the UK have fought long and hard against increasingly reducing speed limits and enforcement cameras on the basis that there is no scientific evidence that speed and the incidence of road accidents are related.

Yes, actually, I do.

From: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2003r1r2/html_index.htm

Section 2B.13 Speed Limit Sign (R2-1)
Standard:
After an engineering study has been made inaccordance with established traffic engineering practices, the Speed Limit (R2-1) sign (see Figure 2B-1) shall display the limit established by law, ordinance, regulation, or as adopted by the authorized agency. The speed limits shown shall be in multiples of 10 km/h or 5 mph.

Guidance:
At least once every 5 years, States and local agencies should reevaluate non-statutory speed limits on segments of their roadways that have undergone a significant change in roadway characteristics or surrounding land use since the last review.

No more than three speed limits should be displayed on any one Speed Limit sign or assembly.

When a speed limit is to be posted, it should be within 10 km/h or 5 mph of the 85th-percentile speed of free-flowing traffic.

Option:
Other factors that may be considered when establishing speed limits are the following:
Road characteristics, shoulder condition, grade, alignment, and sight distance;
The pace speed;
Roadside development and environment;
Parking practices and pedestrian activity; and
Reported crash experience for at least a 12-month period.

How about invasion of privacy, like obscenity laws?

Invasion of privacy and obscenity laws are two separate things. I have already commented on my feelings towards obscenity laws.

But it has with gun laws in the UK compared to the US. How do you feel about that?

What does gun control have to do with VCP? The second amendment is not in discussion here. The first amendment is.

You seem very unequivocal on that. So, not harming anyone else would include physical, emotional and psychological harm, right? And another person's "rights" would include the right to absolute privacy, right?

Why are you differentiating between emotional and psychological here? Why are you using the qualifier "absolute" on privacy? Either you don't understand what you're saying, or you're trying to ask a leading question to try and trip me up. Either way, I'm not falling for it.

And if I really have to define "harm" and "rights" to you, this conversation is entirely pointless, as you obviously have no intent or capability of having an honest discussion.

 

[Southwind17]

Yes, actually, I do.
From: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2003r1r2/html_index.htm

I don't see anything particularly "scientific" in that.

Invasion of privacy and obscenity laws are two separate things. I have already commented on my feelings towards obscenity laws.

So your feelings towards privacy rights are?

What does gun control have to do with VCP? The second amendment is not in discussion here. The first amendment is.

In the UK gun laws amount to the removal of a right to possess something in the absence of no real harm, but which, by comparison to US statistics, appears to be well justified. It's that principle that was being discussed, not First Amendment rights per se.

Why are you differentiating between emotional and psychological here? Why are you using the qualifier "absolute" on privacy? Either you don't understand what you're saying, or you're trying to ask a leading question to try and trip me up. Either way, I'm not falling for it.

So you're refusing to clarify your position. I think you've tripped yourself up!

And if I really have to define "harm" and "rights" to you, this conversation is entirely pointless, as you obviously have no intent or capability of having an honest discussion.

"Harm" and "rights" are the very crux of this discussion. If I seek clarification from you simply as to whether your use of the word "harm" includes emotional and psychological harm (because they're obviously different from physical harm), and what your views are on the fundamental right to absolute privacy, then I suppose I'll have to agree with you that this conversation (with you) is entirely pointless. Please turn off the lights on your way out.

 

[Southwind17]

In terms of fostering actual meaningful dialog? I'd say I contribute more in my couple of meager posts than you do in a couple hundred of yours.

Amusing, observing somebody's self-attributing bias in action.

But I'd have to agree with your use of the word "meager". From Dictionary.com:

mea-ger
–adjective
1. deficient in quantity or quality; lacking fullness or richness; scanty; inadequate: a meager salary; meager fare; a meager harvest.
2. having little flesh; lean; thin: a body meager with hunger.
3. maigre.​

​

Yes, your posts have definitely been "meager".

 

[RandFan]

Of course it does, provided the reasoning is sound, which mine is.

Which is to say you can have any color of car you want so long as you want a black car.

Again, thank you for making your preferred topic of discussion crystal clear.

Oh you are welcome. If follows from your preferred topic.

 

[Southwind17]

Which is to say you can have any color of car you want so long as you want a black car.

By what logic?

If follows from your preferred topic.

"Follows" being the operative word, i.e. "comes after", not at the same time. And ... it's not my preferred topic - it's the topic. I'm struggling to see how your statement could be more wrong!

 

[Southwind17]

Missed my point, cherry picked a "sound bite" and completely misinterpreted what I had said.

Well, if you will persist in making ambiguous points and leaving things open to interpretation ...! If you want to clarify, though, I'd be happy to review and comment further. Your call.