Moderated What's wrong with porn?

[quadraginta]

If somebody honestly asks me to explain what I mean I do so.

Evidence?

And anyway, how do I know your question was honest?

 

[Southwind17]

Evidence?
And anyway, how do I know your question was honest?

Evidence?! What do you think you are - a federal judge? What question?

 

[RandFan]

is an accurate representation of this:

Duh! How are they different?

Now do you see why I made the reading/comprehension comment, and why your "asserting something doesn't make it true" chestnut has exceeded its shelf life, and why your "proving that you are incapable of rebutting the proposition" comment above is pathetic nonsense, and why I resort to using terms like "pathetic nonsense" in situations such as this, etc?

Pathetic nonsense.

 

[RandFan]

I believe you described the circumstances under which the conclusive evidence was seized, including the police knowing, i.e. already in possession of other proof(!), who the perpetrator was, and that you stated that the tape conclusively proved not simply that a serious child abuse crime had been committed, but more importantly who the perpetrator of that crime was, in which case, and in the context of the single example discussed, no, I don't deny that I said "yes", and I'll repeat it for you, if you like - "yes"! Under those circumstances, the illegal act of the police justifies the most obvious, immediate risk to other children. Indeed, under those circumstances there could well be a sound case for claiming that such "illegal" act was necessary to prevent a serious crime under the principle of "lesser evil".

As long as the evidence conclusively proves a crime and the police argue that the the perpetrator will likely commit another crime then we throw out the rights. So there is no impetus for the police to follow the law.

The argument could always be made. Ilegality on the part of the police could always be justified. The police could go on a fishing expedition in your home so long as they get conclusive evidence and can make a convincing argument of future crime.

Lesser evil is in the eye of the beholder. It can almost always be argued that police ilegality is the lesser evil. That's how most dictatorial regimes justify police states.

 

[quadraginta]

Evidence?! What do you think you are - a federal judge? What question?

You made a claim about your own behavior. I asked you to provide evidence. Are you unable to substantiate that claim? What do federal judges have to do with anything?

Are you conceding that you make claims about your behavior that you cannot substantiate?

What question?

Why, the question that you asked me. Only two hours ago. Only ten posts ago.

Are you having memory difficulties as well? Perhaps this helps explain your comprehension issues.

 

[sugarb]

Lesser evil is in the eye of the beholder. It can almost always be argued that police ilegality is the lesser evil. That's how most dictatorial regimes justify police states.

I agree with this. The problem with saying that anything confiscated in an illegal search and seizure should be accepted as evidence if the crime is "bad enough" is that, without proper warrants and proper procedures, anybody could plant any kind of evidence at any time they wanted and "find" it during that illegal search. In this way, proper procedure doesn't serve to protect the guilty, but instead the innocent.

It would be a serious mistake to ever allow evidence acquired illegally.

Which brings me to a question about the case we were discussing earlier, the comic book guy (sorry, can't remember his name). If I recall correctly, wasn't it customs that found the offending material? When material enters the country, is it automatically subject to search and seizure? I'm asking because I do not know, having never ordered anything or travelled internationally.

 

[Belz...]

I've already explained gramatically why that highlighted part doesn't mean what you think it does. Want another go?

Yes, actually. I don't think "gramatically" means what you think it means.

Seriously, have you ever stopped and reflected on your own typical posts in the same context? Seriously?

A tu quoque. Do I need to explain why that doesn't work ?

The issue pertained to the justification for banning VCP vs. allowing it, not how a person should be judged should they be accused of falling foul of a pornography law. I'll happily show you (again), if you can't read back and see it.

No. I said something, and you asked for clarification, which was given. The "issue pertained to" what I was saying, no more, no less.

Again, comprehension, indeed!

You're just obsessed, now.

 

[Toke]

I am pretty sure that stuff entering a country can be searched by customs legally.
Some years ago I brought two decorative swords in Japan and had them shipped. All I received was a request for a weapon permit from the customs. They would then release my package.

There is also a reason why drugs are smuggled across borders instead of being send by mail.

 

[sugarb]

I am pretty sure that stuff entering a country can be searched by customs legally.
Some years ago I brought two decorative swords in Japan and had them shipped. All I received was a request for a weapon permit from the customs. They would then release my package.

There is also a reason why drugs are smuggled across borders instead of being send by mail.

Thank you, Toke. I was wondering why a package of comic books would be considered worthy of search and seizure to begin with. Weapons (even decorative ones) I could understand, reading materials I don't.

(I don't know much about drug smuggling, but from what I've read, some interesting means are utilized, lol)

 

[tesscaline]

That depends on the exact details of the engineering study. I saw nothing scientific in the extract you posted. If you're prepared to accept every "engineering study" as "perfectly scientific" just because of the words "engineering" and/or "study" that's entirely up to you SkeptiChick. Not me, though.

You wanted proof that speed limits are not set arbitrarily, I gave it to you. There is a set quantifiable procedure for setting speed limits. I linked to a brief overview. I will not, however, be baited into an off topic debate about the scientific process of setting speed limits. If you'd like to discuss that, you're welcome to start another thread.

I'll ignore the ad homenim for now. But you're really starting to cross the line. I'd watch it if I were you.

Not at all. Many people here are arguing freedom of speech in support of allowing VCP on the basis that freedom of speech is sacrosanct, including the right to demonstrate outside private premises. My point, or question, is: why should demonstration trump the right to privacy? If the right to privacy were to trump the right to demonstrate then that, alone, erodes the sacrosanct freedom of speech position. See?

How, exactly, is demonstrating on PUBLIC property (OUTSIDE private property) a violation of privacy?

Your stated understanding (or rather, lack thereof) is entirely a strawman. No one has said the right to demonstrate trumps the right to privacy.

Misses the point. Real and demonstrable harm has not been shown with regard to the mere possession of guns. See? BTW - you did read JFrankA's post in which he argues that anthrax should be freely available, right? I didn't notice you challenging that. Just an observation.

No where did he argue any such thing. So again, strawman.

No. You're refusing to be honest and paint yourself into a corner. Understandable, albeit cowardly.

Asserting something does not make it true.

I will not be baited into off topic conversation. Sorry.

No. I want you to clarify your position in relation to a specific position that you've only just adopted, or at least only just stated. Again, understandable, albeit cowardly.

This from the guy who absolutely outright refused to define what he meant by "public domain"? Seriously? If you're not required to provide definitions, even when you're using words contrary to their most commonly understood meanings, then I'm most definitely not required to define words when I'm using them in accordance with their most commonly understood meanings.

 

[tesscaline]

And if you're not prepared to support this assertion then yours, more so, I would suggest.

LOL.

You're the one who made the claim that "all laws do is remove rights," you're the one with the burden of proof.

But I'll humor you anyway since your statement only needs one instance to disprove it, and I just happen to have one handy...

Just this past election, my state passed a law that extended the rights of civil unions to be equal to those of marriage. That's not removing rights. It's extending them.

 

[tesscaline]

I'm sorry, Southwind, RandFan is right. The first quote above shows that you really don't understand the concept of what the American laws are all about. You really don't.

He's demonstrated that several times actually. It's starting to get a little old. I, personally, didn't join this thread to teach a Jr. High level social studies class about US law...

 

[quadraginta]

He's demonstrated that several times actually. It's starting to get a little old. I, personally, didn't join this thread to teach a Jr. High level social studies class about US law...

I think we're far from getting SW all the way up to that level of understanding. There appears to be a sort of willfulness that is normally exhibited in a much younger age group. Perhaps he needs the kind of restraint by authority he advocates.

But I'm glad to see you involved the effort.

 

[Toke]

Thank you, Toke. I was wondering why a package of comic books would be considered worthy of search and seizure to begin with. Weapons (even decorative ones) I could understand, reading materials I don't.

(I don't know much about drug smuggling, but from what I've read, some interesting means are utilized, lol)

It could be for taxation/dues purposes, I once ordered books from amazon.us instead of .uk and got hit with a import tax on my books. I have also been searched in the airport and was told that the metal detector was set to beep at every tenth person metal or not.
So maybe just a random search.

 

[Southwind17]

You made a claim about your own behavior. I asked you to provide evidence. Are you unable to substantiate that claim?

I have nothing to prove. You don't believe me? Go disprove it.

What do federal judges have to do with anything?

You don't know?

Are you conceding that you make claims about your behavior that you cannot substantiate?

Am I? What do you think?

What question?
Why, the question that you asked me. Only two hours ago. Only ten posts ago.

Oh, thanks for being clear, now. But I think you'll find I've asked you two questions within those 10 posts. Which of those two questions are you referring two?

Are you having memory difficulties as well? Perhaps this helps explain your comprehension issues.

It seems not, so it seems not.

 

[tesscaline]

I have nothing to prove. You don't believe me? Go disprove it.

That's not the way it works, Southwind. Burden of proof lies on the claimant. You're the claimant, so yes, you do have something to prove -- that your claims are true.

 

[tesscaline]

I think we're far from getting SW all the way up to that level of understanding. There appears to be a sort of willfulness that is normally exhibited in a much younger age group. Perhaps he needs the kind of restraint by authority he advocates.

Indeed. I was, perhaps, a bit generous with the Jr. High level assessment.

But I'm glad to see you involved the effort.

Thanks! I'm glad to see you involved as well

 

[Southwind17]

Yes, actually. I don't think "gramatically" means what you think it means.

What do you think I think it means?

A tu quoque. Do I need to explain why that doesn't work?

No, not to me, but it sure would be amusing watching you try, so yes, please, go ahead.

No. I said something, and you asked for clarification, which was given. The "issue pertained to" what I was saying, no more, no less.

History lesson:

Still, you have provided no proof that VCP will cause a pedophile to "lose control" and molest a child.

In fact, some have asserted the opposite. So far, I see no reason to favour one hypothesis over the other. And the benefit of the doubt should be on the side of liberty.

So equal likelihood either way then.

Oh, I don't know... maybe that people are innocent until proven guilty ? I don't know about your country, but around here that's how it works (at least in principle).

And what, on earth, has that reasoning got to do with justifying this statement:?

Well, let's see. You say that VCP should be banned because it MAY cause crimes to be commited. We've had people claim that it MAY NOT. So far I see no evidence, one way or another. So assuming that there is no VCP law, which verdict should a jury give if one was accused of making child pornography while they were making VCP ? If there is no evidence of harm, they should rule in favour of the defendent, no ?

The issue pertained to the justification for banning VCP vs. allowing it, not how a person should be judged should they be accused of falling foul of a pornography law. I'll happily show you (again), if you can't read back and see it.

No. I said something, and you asked for clarification, which was given. The "issue pertained to" what I was saying, no more, no less.

 

[RandFan]

Well, let's see. You say that VCP should be banned because it MAY cause crimes to be commited. We've had people claim that it MAY NOT. So far I see no evidence, one way or another. So assuming that there is no VCP law, which verdict should a jury give if one was accused of making child pornography while they were making VCP ? If there is no evidence of harm, they should rule in favour of the defendent, no?

The issue pertained to the justification for banning VCP vs. allowing it, not how a person should be judged should they be accused of falling foul of a pornography law.

I'd be interested to know your answer. Hopefuly without the petty insults.

 

[tesscaline]

I'd be interested to know your answer. Hopefuly without the petty insults.

I think you got your quotes mixed up there somehow... I didn't say what your post says I said...