Moderated What's wrong with porn?

[Southwind17]

If they are mutually exclusive, then why can you even use the concept in this discussion?

Because it's still relevant?!

This is not the same thing as surfing the web. I believe that you take the definition of 'right' very broadly. Rights are something that can be demanded, please show how one can demand internet access.

Please show how one can demand the right to murder somebody.

Convicted hackers can be banned from using computers, and thus they are also banned from the internet.

In other words they've had their freedom further restricted, for good reason.

 

[Southwind17]

Among the least of the rights denied by the courts to people convicted of (among other things) possesion of child pornography or sexual crimes involving the internet (including statutory sexual offenses) is their freedom to use computers. Violation of which would constitute a parole or probation offense and result in imprisonment.

Ah ... I see. You're alluding to criminals. Got it. No, we shouldn't treat the rights of criminals differently from those of non-criminals, should we, just because they've chosen to breach the rights of others. I suppose you think a convicted armed robber should retain the right to play around with guns?!

Not only is it common ...

I'm sorry?:

"Commonly" is a weasel word, included only to give yourself an opportunity for another of your childish evasions when challenged.

ROFLAO

Please note that such restrictions are not limited strictly to sexual offenses (although that is the most common area). Many other sentences contain similar ones, most commonly with crimes related to or somehow involving computer use, but not always.

Please note ditto.

 

[not daSkeptic]

The subject of Andrew Blake's work brings up an important point. I think some in this thread are under the impression that all porn videos are little more than people having sex in the presence of a camera. Some of it is, yes. But some is also made by people that are just as knowledgeable and skillful in the traditions and techniques of filmmaking as their mainstream counterparts. They know about composition, lighting, lens selection, camera angles, pacing, etc. They know how to control a viewer's emotions and to direct them into the story for maximum effect. If such things are considered artful in mainstream filmmaking, then I see no reason why they should cease to be so simply because of differences in subject matter.

 

[quadraginta]

From The Chambers Dictionary (1998 reprint):

Doesn't seem very "weasely" to me!

Why, SW, you do yourself a disservice.

Your dodgy use of that word in that application was nothing if not artful.

 

[Southwind17]

The subject of Andrew Blake's work brings up an important point. I think some in this thread are under the impression that all porn videos are little more than people having sex in the presence of a camera. Some of it is, yes. But some is also made by people that are just as knowledgeable and skillful in the traditions and techniques of filmmaking as their mainstream counterparts. They know about composition, lighting, lens selection, camera angles, pacing, etc. They know how to control a viewer's emotions and to direct them into the story for maximum effect. If such things are considered artful in mainstream filmmaking, then I see no reason why they should cease to be so simply because of differences in subject matter.

I agree entirely - seriously - so long as we don't go losing sight of what constitutes pornography and mistake a "beautifully" produced porn movie for pure "art" and nothing more.

 

[Southwind17]

Why, SW, you do yourself a disservice.
Your dodgy use of that word in that application was nothing if not artful.

"Dodgy art". Is that a recognized genre out there on its own, or just a synonym for "porn"?!

ETA: Or should I change my avatar to the "Artful Dodger", perhaps!

 

[Matthew Best]

I agree entirely - seriously - so long as we don't go losing sight of what constitutes pornography and mistake a "beautifully" produced porn movie for pure "art" and nothing more.

What is "pure art"?

 

[Southwind17]

What is "pure art"?

I've no idea, but I thought it was a neat term to use to make the point. You disagree?!

 

[quadraginta]

Ah ... I see. You're alluding to criminals. Got it. No, we shouldn't treat the rights of criminals differently from those of non-criminals, should we, just because they've chosen to breach the rights of others.

<snip>

Why SW, you're slipping. You made no mention or qualification about "criminals". You said,

Since when did the courts have the power to remove one's freedom to use a computer?

That is the entire statement. No missing context. Not even from prior posts. There is no implication that you are excluding classes in that statement. Certainly you're not suggesting you might have written in error.

Remember your mottoes.

Precision! SW!

Comprehension!

 

[AWPrime]

Because it's still relevant?!

How can it be relevant, more detail please?

Please show how one can demand the right to murder somebody.

Please answer my question and do not try to dodge it:

Rights are something that can be demanded, please show how one can demand internet access.

In other words they've had their freedom further restricted, for good reason.

And if they had a right to internet, then it wouldn't have been so easy to do this.

 

[Southwind17]

Why SW, you're slipping. You made no mention or qualification about "criminals". You said,
That is the entire statement. No missing context. Not even from prior posts. There is no implication that you are excluding classes in that statement. Certainly you're not suggesting you might have written in error.

Smacks of desperation, to say the least. Regardless, I simply figured that a discussion about rights of access to that most public of domains, the internet, and using that ubiquitous tool of choice, computers, was taking place in a general context (silly me). I clearly failed to paranormally deduce that you had a minority and unique demographic of society specifically in mind, let alone a non-conformist subset whose most limited of rights, generally, are derived from the microcosm environment that we call "prison". Yes, I certainly need to arrest my slide lest I, too, find myself squeezed into a corner where desperate verbal point scoring seems to be the final frontier.

 

[Southwind17]

How can it be relevant, more detail please?

In the same way that the Model-T Ford has relevance to the modern-day Ford Escape, notwithstanding that a Ford Escape has no direct dependency on a Model-T Ford for its existence. It's a point of principle, a very simple principle, the simple details of which I've previously explained to you.

Please answer my question and do not try to dodge it:
Rights are something that can be demanded, please show how one can demand internet access.

I've sought to "dodge" nothing. First, it wasn't a question, it was a request. Second, I responded to your request by requesting the same of you, in the same context, but using a different, more relatable example concerning a primary (natural) right rather than what I call a "secondary" (artificial) "right" that nobody has a "natural" entitlement to anyhow, thereby showing that your question is invalid. What you're doing here is tantamount to requesting that I show you that a cat is a dog, then, when I respond by requesting that you show that a cow is a sheep (to seek to have you spot the invalidity all for yourself), insisting that I nonetheless show you that a cat is indeed a dog. See?

And if they had a right to internet, then it wouldn't have been so easy to do this.

So easy to do what, remove their right to use computers? I'm really not sure what you're getting at here. These convicted hackers have had their right to use computers removed for a reason - the same reason, in principle, that a DUI convictee can expect to have his driver's license revoked so he cannot drive for a period of time. What, exactly, is your point, that it's wrong to deprive a convicted computer hacker from using a computer if he can't do any more hacking with it? By that logic we should lobby Government to immediately allow the establishment of McDonalds, Papa John's, Baskin Robins, Krispy Kreme et al franchises in all prisons, no?

 

[AWPrime]

In the same way that the Model-T Ford has relevance to the modern-day Ford Escape, notwithstanding that a Ford Escape has no direct dependency on a Model-T Ford for its existence. It's a point of principle, a very simple principle, the simple details of which I've previously explained to you.

Then you miss the extend of your problem. Your relevance is limited to the genetic makeup of the tree before it was cut down to make the first wooden wheel. Its somewhat connected but its completely irrelevant.

I've sought to "dodge" nothing. First, it wasn't a question, it was a request. Second, I responded to your request by requesting the same of you, in the same context, but using a different, more relatable example concerning a primary (natural) right rather than what I call a "secondary" (artificial) "right" that nobody has a "natural" entitlement to anyhow, thereby showing that your question is invalid.

Rights can be demanded, you seem to think that internet access is a right, thus you should be able to show that internet access can be demanded.
Please do so, if you can't then its clearly neutral (not a right or prohibition). And if its neutral then your argument of 'absolute freedom - prohibitions = rights' breaks down.

As for your murder counter, it is complete nonsense and I find your introduction of murder as a right to be downright uncivil.

So easy to do what, remove their right to use computers? I'm really not sure what you're getting at here. These convicted hackers have had their right to use computers removed for a reason - the same reason, in principle, that a DUI convictee can expect to have his driver's license revoked so he cannot drive for a period of time.

First, we don't have to get licenses to operate computers, so your example doesn't work. Secondly of all you still have to show that there is a right to use computers.

 

[JFrankA]

Since when was a commonly accepted meaning of art "expressing oneself; showing the world who one is with one's words"?

I did not quote the dictionary per se, but I believe what I said was within definition.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/art

the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.

skill in conducting any human activity

Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature.

The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium.

The product of these activities; human works of beauty considered as a group

Skill that is attained by study, practice, or observation

Skill arising from the exercise of intuitive faculties

Artful contrivance; cunning.

High quality of conception or execution, as found in works of beauty; aesthetic value.

Notwithstanding that there is no such simple exchange mechanism available I don't consider it's worth me going to jail, no. If there were such a simple exchange mechanism available I'd certainly support your choice to go to jail, provided nobody was harmed in the process and you met all legal and accommodation costs from your own means.

So, in other words, I am willing to give up more freedoms than you are, then you feel that what others might consider VCP is okay and safe.

I believe I endorsed the giving up of a component of, arguably, free speech in the interests of children's welfare, nothing more.

Oh, I do too. I'm just willing to go more extreme than you.

Please quote me.

Very well.

I believe I endorsed the giving up of a component of, arguably, free speech in the interests of children's welfare, nothing more.

There.

Your choice.

So it IS about choices, then huh?

Not to mention all of your other apparent idiosyncrasies.

Everyone has them.

That's "who", not "what".

So? I agree with you, isn't that enough?

As I wrote, it's enough.

Relying on your mind reading powers again?

Suit yourself. Your reasoning and logic can hardly get any worse anyhow.

And yet you still try to prove me wrong, still don't understand a thing I'm saying, asking for clarification, and ignore the points when you can't defend yourself.

I deserve a medal.

 

[Belz...]

Not per se, no.

Then would you mind telling me what is your definition of art ?

 

[Belz...]

With respect, are you expecting us to feel deprived, or saddened?! You could have just sneaked out the back door - I don't think anybody would have noticed.

Perhaps he just expected you to understand his reasons for leaving, but as usual, comprehension is an issue with you.

 

[Southwind17]

Then you miss the extend of your problem. Your relevance is limited to the genetic makeup of the tree before it was cut down to make the first wooden wheel. Its somewhat connected but its completely irrelevant.

I don't have a problem, and your analysis of your analogy is far from good. Freedom still pervades, to varying degrees, as do wheels and engines. It/they just look different now.

Rights can be demanded, you seem to think that internet access is a right, thus you should be able to show that internet access can be demanded.

If you're signed up with an ISP (don't forget, without ISPs there is no practical internet - ISPs make it possible for you and I) then you can be damned sure you can demand access.

Please do so, if you can't then its clearly neutral (not a right or prohibition). And if its neutral then your argument of 'absolute freedom - prohibitions = rights' breaks down.

There, I've done so. Do I win the bet now? I assume that was a you win-I lose/you lose-I win kinda deal, right? Or is it a case of you just chipping away, making the rules up as you go along?

As for your murder counter, it is complete nonsense and I find your introduction of murder as a right to be downright uncivil.

Are you denying that lions "rightly" kill prey? Are you denying that humans "rightly" kill animals? Are you denying that there was a time when humans could "rightly" kill other humans (eye for an eye) (they still can in many places)? Are you denying that in those places where homicide is no longer a "right" that the killing of humans by other humans is simply a "right" (part of freedom) that has been withdrawn by society? Are you? At what point did "freedom" suddenly become a completely different concept from what is was?

First, we don't have to get licenses to operate computers, so your example doesn't work. Secondly of all you still have to show that there is a right to use computers.

I honestly have no idea where you're coming from now or going with this. License or not, we're talking removal of "priviledges" (freedom), plain and simple, so my example works perfectly. I'm sitting here using a computer right now. Nobody, especially nobody in a position of authority (freedom removers), has decreed that I can't. I do not expect anybody to walk in any time soon and either arrest me or confiscate my computer. Show me where I don't have the right to use a computer. Show me that I am not "free" to use a computer. Point to a law.

 

[Southwind17]

I did not quote the dictionary per se, but I believe what I said was within definition.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/art

I'm sorry - I don't see what you wrote in there anywhere.

So, in other words, I am willing to give up more freedoms than you are, then you feel that what others might consider VCP is okay and safe.

This makes no sense.

Oh, I do too. I'm just willing to go more extreme than you.

Bully for you. I'm sure there's somebody out there who will top you, too.

Very well.

You think this:

I believe I endorsed the giving up of a component of, arguably, free speech in the interests of children's welfare, nothing more.

equates to this:

The cost value of the chance of one child being molested is well worth the sacrifice of freedoms one makes.

?

You know what JFrankA - I believe your ability and/or inclination to debate anything meaningful has dwindled to the point where ... well ... it's now pointless. Accordingly, I'm going to have say hasta la vista to you. I'm sure in your heart of hearts you won't feel at all disappointed. Indeed, I wouldn't be at all surprised if you were to welcome it.

Hasta la vista ...

 

[Southwind17]

Perhaps he just expected you to understand his reasons for leaving ...

To be fair, he can't really claim to have ever arrived, can he!

... but as usual, comprehension is an issue with you.

Well then there's little point in my responding to this then, isn't there:

Then would you mind telling me what is your definition of art ?

 

[sugarb]

Except that he's said precisely that it is several times. Why would you assume that his argument is precisely contrary to what he's actually posited?
And why is that? Is it actually because more people do it? Or is it because more people ADMIT to doing it when it ceases to be illegal?

Example: Autism. A formal diagnosis for autism has become acceptable, and considered legitimate. We are now seeing a rise in autism rates. Is this because more people have autism than before? Or is it because more cases of autism are being identified and reported than they used to be because of the wide acceptance of the diagnosis as legitimate?
Please provide evidence that the cause of more people using cell phones in inappropriate places is due to that behavior being "legitimized", instead of it being caused by greater accessibility to cell phones for the average person. Also please demonstrate that the "unacceptable" behavior you are referring to has been "legitimized" by society.

I would argue that if laws are being put in place to combat something, it has not been "legitimized" by society at all, and instead is being actively discouraged.

Except for when it comes to child pornography...in which case you are arguing that there should be unrestricted access to it (rather, a certain type of it involving children that aren't "real")

And you can continue saying that I do not understand things until the cows come home, but it won't make it any truer. When people disagree? That doesn't necessarily mean they are failing to understand one another.