• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Moderated What's wrong with porn?

SkeptiChick said:
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.
Click to expand...
As I wrote above, you've disputed it. I think any burden rests entirely with you. I'm happy for my claim to stand on the record unfalsified.
 
RandFan said:
:) Now you can be damn sure a petty insult is to follow. Something about reading comprehension. Thanks SC. It was Belz.
Click to expand...
Not at all. That was a genuine mistake. Perfectly excusable. But to answer the question, simple, it all comes down to the legal definition of "child pornography" and "VCP", just the same as an accusation of murder vs. accidental death would come down to respective definitions. Nothing particularly tricky about that (other than getting the definitions right, of course!).
 
JFrankA said:
But they are so blatantly off the point. You twist meanings that clearly wasn't what was meant and try to make that a "mistake".
Click to expand...
I disagree, but I'd be more than happy to revisit any or all such comments that you might wish to point out, and seek to clarify.

JFrankA said:
You are the biggest offender of miscomprehention on this thread. And when someone points out the white elephant of a something you completely did not comprehend, or purposely twisted, then you say "you have lack of logic"
Click to expand...
Again, I disagree, but I'd be more than happy to revisit any or all such "miscomprehensions" that you might wish to point out, and seek to clarify.

JFrankA said:
Sorry, it's no secret what you are doing. It's obvious. Nothing new I've ever encountered. :)
Click to expand...
So you're used to it then. I'm tempted to say "then deal with it", but I'm not in my usual and blatantly obnoxious mood right now. ;)

JFrankA said:
You are just as guilty of it. When I am being sarcastic and ironic or both, you take me literally with your "Gotcha moment".
Click to expand...
Again, I disagree, but I'd be more than happy to revisit any or all such instances that you might wish to point out, and seek to clarify.
 
JFrankA said:
The two articles are summaries of the conclusion of two studies that show that there is no connection between porn and sex crimes - even with pedophiles and child porn.
Sorry, it's your turn to prove your point. Can you find an article to a study that proves child porn causes pedophiles to lose control?
Click to expand...
I'm sorry JFrankA, I have nothing to prove here. You've made a claim about some allegedly scientific studies, I've asked you to show me the science, you haven't, so I'm going to remain sceptical of the studies. I'd be happy to review the "scientific" aspects if you want to post or specifically link to them. If you don't, or can't, I'm cool with that - BAU.

JFrankA said:
So I was right: when you cannot discredit a post, when you can't defend your point, you dismiss the post.
Click to expand...
:confused:

JFrankA said:
You've just validated my assumption: that when you don't comment on a reply it means you have no defense.
Click to expand...
:confused: You do appreciate what "discredited" means, right (seriously)?
 
JFrankA said:
Honestly, SW, I didn't mean this as an insult. I just don't think you understand the philosophy of what America's laws are centered around and the purpose of them. That's not an insult, just an observation.
Click to expand...
So, again, would you care to elaborate, or were you just taking a pot shot?

BTW - it's not an observation, as you claim, it's just a thought, based on observation, no doubt, but just a thought nonetheless, and we can't police those, can we?! ;)
 
JFrankA said:
Missing the point once again. Intent isn't the issue. CHOICE is.
In all that rhetoric, where do you think "intent" comes from???
A person has an intent because that person CHOOSES to have an intent. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Really? Even a psychologically imbalanced person? You are familiar with the concept of diminished responsibility, yes?

But regardless, the "intent" debate previously came up way before the "choice" debate. You argued that a definition of VCP is untenable because it relies on proving intention to appeal to prurience. I've pointed out that that's invalid because other aspects of justice rely on proving intent and state of mind, such as murder.

Now, my question to you, re-phrased, is: If we have workable laws, e.g. homicide, that require deliberation as to intent and state of mind, why should deliberation as to intent preclude VCP laws? In practice, such deliberation is made simply on the basis of the evidence presented.
 
RandFan said:
The point stands for the reasons stated. Gainsaying won't win the day for you on this one.
Click to expand...
You haven't stated any reasons! You've simply paraphrased what I wrote, selectively omitting key aspects and inferred a generality from a specific. I can't think of a more flawed and dishonest approach to debating. If we were in the "real" world you'd probably be facing a slander suit!
 
Southwind17 said:
You haven't stated any reasons! You've simply paraphrased what I wrote, selectively omitting key aspects and inferred a generality from a specific.
Click to expand...
No, I did state reasons. The first example of the tape is an extreme. A base line to prove a point.

So long as, the evidence recovered is conclusive and there is a likelyhood that the crime will happen again it's ok for police to break the law. You have agreed to this.

The question becomes where do you draw the line? When does the "lesser evil" kick in? DNA and a habitual criminal would seem to meet the criteria.

So what would stop the police for breaking the law? You've not explained that to us. What good is the law if it won't stop the police?

I can't think of a more flawed and dishonest approach to debating. If we were in the "real" world you'd probably be facing a slander suit!
Click to expand...
Yeah, I think we've found your problem.
 
Last edited:
Southwind17 said:
Not at all. That was a genuine mistake. Perfectly excusable. But to answer the question, simple, it all comes down to the legal definition of "child pornography" and "VCP", just the same as an accusation of murder vs. accidental death would come down to respective definitions. Nothing particularly tricky about that (other than getting the definitions right, of course!).
Click to expand...

There is one important difference in this example (the dead body) , and a better example would be murder vs. a high score in a computer game.
 
Incidentally, my Chambers Dictionary (1998 reprint) contains, under and in addition to the headword "probable", no less than 11 derivatives. The entire entry contains around 180 words. Not one of those words is "statistic" or a derivative thereof. It also contains, under and in addition to the headword "statistic", 4 derivatives. The entire entry contains around 90 words. Not one of those words is "probable" or a derivative thereof.

Just an observation. :D

ETA: I've also just looked up "jam". Guess what? There's no mention of strawberries! I guess you have to link two things together to form a relationship!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom