Moderated What's wrong with porn?

[sugarb]

Perhaps. But then there's a trail so you can defend your rights as to why you are suicidal.

And maybe I'll meet someone in the courthouse that is defending their art to prove it isn't obscenity

 

[JFrankA]

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


This makes no sense.


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


You think this:

equates to this:

?

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 ...

Is you gone? Are you ignoring me again? *Taps on the monitor* Hello?

If you are ignoring me, then let me clear up something and apologize to everyone, including SW, if he is watching out of the corner of his eye, so to speak.

First off, what I said about art I do believe. I do see beauty in something as simple as a staple. I was honest in feeling sorry for SW for not seeing art and beauty in everything we humans create, even in mundane, functional things. It may be very "out-there" for me to say that, but I have learned never to take anything for granted.

Second, my whole stance on making a graphic, virtual child being molested by a virtual older man video was an experiment. I wanted to know exactly what Southwind was going base his argument about. It was interesting to me that because I used his "definition" i.e., it's intent wasn't to arouse, his argument was "it's illegal". That's it. No reason why it was illegal, even though it satisfied his definition of what child porn is, no argument as to how I was going to show my intent, etc. Simply "It's illegal".

Further, I wanted to see how extreme he would go. I see he wouldn't mind giving up something he doesn't enjoy to "save one child", but what about giving up something more? What if something he liked was deemed "dangerous"? Since he admitted to dealing with extremes I thought I'd give him an extreme example, and risk losing my freedom for protection of others. I see he thought that it was too extreme.

Lastly, I wanted to see if one could really determine intent. Basically, with this whole thing I was kind of yanking his chain purposely, just wondering if he would get it. Maybe I played my part well, but I never saw anything saying that he saw me goofing on him.

I still say that one can not see true intent of anyone else all the time, and besides, the judgment of what one thinks of the intent of another is based on the one's experience, thought processes and prejudices.

Wondering what one's reasons for doing something is clearly different than wondering what was done.

That's the difference between judging the creator's intent in art, and determining if someone pulled a trigger. The first item is based on interpretation, the second is based on physical evidence. The two cannot be mixed.

Well, I apologize to everyone for my last few posts. I was having a bit of fun. No, I am not going to make a graphic movie depicting a virtual child molestation, and no, I do not agree with Southwind. I just wanted to give him what his stance was and take it to the extreme. Mind you, I'm not making any judgements on this, just wondering as to the reaction. Just to see if he liked it and see how he reacted to it. Nothing more.

And Southwind, if you are reading this, my apologies for doing that to you. I fully understand why you've put me on ignore this time. This time I was asking for it.

Err, by the way, I will remain civil, but I will continue to debate you whether you are watching or not. I firmly disagree with your following beliefs:

that any media can overtake someone's decisions and choices (who is not brain damaged or drugged)

that sexual arousal is so powerful it causes people to lose the ability to make choices

that VCP causes a pedophile, whether actually molesting children or not, to decide to molest a child.

that you can determine intent of anything created simply by asking a judge

that art is only the stuff hanging in a museum

that the definition of porn is "intent to arouse" (that's where you lost consistency - at first you said that (and I listed some posts), but in that later post you said that "intent to arouse" only applied to VCP.)

that porno can't be art

that laws are made to reduce freedom and liberty, instead of protecting them and allow others to have them.

that it's worth losing something you don't like for the sake of something that "one may be safer", but you cannot confirm that giving it up will actually make things safer, it's only a "feeling".

and there maybe others, but I can't remember them for now. I do like you Southwind, but honestly, if I am ignored, I am glad I don't have to put up with your rudeness. And, admittingly, I was giving back that same rudeness to you, but in a kinder way. At any rate, I can freely debate (a word which you never defined) on this thread now.

One final thing, it my intent was never to convince you (or anyone else) of anything. My intent was to simply debate and put forth my ideas and thoughts and have them challenged and debate them, perhaps learn something. Even though I told you that that was my intent all along, I don't think you ever choose to belief or understand that.....

 

[JFrankA]

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.

Let me ask you this, SugarB (and anyone else). Do you see the difference in these two statements?

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

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

Personally, I don't. They say exactly the same thing to me, and they both scare me.

 

[JFrankA]

And maybe I'll meet someone in the courthouse that is defending their art to prove it isn't obscenity

Perhaps. I hope not. I will not make child porn or virtual child porn, not my thing, but I can see that someday, the porn I do produce might be deemed "obscene". People have gone for "marshmallow porn" before, I am definitely beyond that.

But that's why I defend VCP. I still see no harm, in fact, I see a potential benefit for keeping VCP legal. Again, since it's banned, we will never know.

ETA: And it was banned, not because it was dangerous or obscene, but because lawyers were afraid that someday the technology would be there that makes VCP indistinguishable from real child porn.

 

[sugarb]

Let me ask you this, SugarB (and anyone else). Do you see the difference in these two statements?





Personally, I don't. They say exactly the same thing to me, and they both scare me.

Hello, JFrankA. There is a difference between the two statements. It is minor, as I see it, but that minor difference can lead to two totally different meanings. (I detest quibbling over words, but that seems to be where this thread has had to go, so...keep in mind, this is just me looking at the two statements to see how they differ, or IF they differ, okay?)

Your statement says giving up freedoms (meaning the way you wrote it it seems as though you are saying if one child could be saved from harm, a person should be willing up to give up a freedom).

Southwind's statement says a *component* of a freedom (in this case, free speech).

And I think that is the crux of the problem. No one is recommending giving up a broad freedom. No one is arguing eliminating a freedom entirely. The argument is that there are some parts or certain aspects of the freedom (in this case, speech) that needs to be for whatever reason restricted. Not being able to yell fire in a crowded theater (I get so tired of that example, lol, but there you have it) is losing a small *part*, or component, of freedom of speech (in this case). You, as a man, cannot go to work (since you work with women) and expect to be allowed to talk to them in certain ways. THAT is a restricted component of freedom (in this case, speech).

It is strange how these slight differences in meaning can cause so much controversy...but as we've made clear throughout this thread, there is a whole lot of emotion on both sides of the issue.

That is the only difference I see between the two statements. As I said, though, that minor difference in wording can entirely change the meaning of an argument. Do you see what I mean? (And it is just my take on the examples for comparison that you gave)

 

[sugarb]

Perhaps. I hope not. I will not make child porn or virtual child porn, not my thing, but I can see that someday, the porn I do produce might be deemed "obscene". People have gone for "marshmallow porn" before, I am definitely beyond that.

But that's why I defend VCP. I still see no harm, in fact, I see a potential benefit for keeping VCP legal. Again, since it's banned, we will never know.

ETA: And it was banned, not because it was dangerous or obscene, but because lawyers were afraid that someday the technology would be there that makes VCP indistinguishable from real child porn.

It may shock you to know that I really do realize that you have no interest in child pornography. You have made that abundantly clear. As has pretty much everyone involved in this thread. But I do understand your position (though I don't agree with it...that doesn't mean I don't understand). The REASON I disagree with it is right in what you just wrote. "the porn I do produce might be deemed "obscene"" "that's why I defend VCP"

Fear, from whichever side, of what might...MIGHT...someday be attempted against us is not a valid reason to defend something. Defending something out of fear of what might happen to us is rarely a good idea. Look at what messes doing just that has caused politically/economically/socially. We have pot smokers in prison because...??? We "fear". People oppose gay marriage because...they fear. So many things we do, or fail to do, out of fear of something completely unrelated to what we are focusing at that moment on. Now, you could assume that my own stance on this is out of "fear", but to be honest with you JFrankA, it is not truly inspired by fear at all. Instead, I simply recognize that, particularly now that men and women are, under the law, equal, that leaves two segments of citizens that need AS much protection, or more, than even we women have demanded for decades now, and those two segments are children and the elderly.

It might interest you to know that my husband and I were discussing his job the other day (he's been on a short vacation, it is over now...blah), and he said to me that as much child abuse as they do see, the fact of the matter is that they see a much higher rate of elderly abuse/neglect. And let me also add this: I was one of those abused children, and though most people won't buy this, the truth is, that abuse really didn't harm me that much in the long run. At least in no way that I'm incapable of overcoming, and having grown up that way, having lived through it, I realize that no amount of laws will ever protect every man, woman, and child from a criminal. But...even though I will freely say that I don't feel as harmed by the abuse as most seem to think I should, the fact remains that, as an adult, I do think that it is important to make as many efforts as we can so that SOME children won't have to suffer through such things. It is too easy to hide abusing a child. Just as it is too easy to hide abusing an elderly shut-in. I think that children who are sexually abused, obviously, can go on and lead very productive, meaningful lives....but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't do whatever we can to prevent it, everything within our power.

Eh, I have to get ready for a doctor's appointment, but I'll come back to this when I get home. Sorry, I lost track of time.

 

[AWPrime]

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.

And yet you want to apply something that is only relevant to mindless things to humans? If one want a new wheel on a car then one should choose one that fits and not just any wheel.

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.
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?

You didn't demand it, you paid to get it. So you fail. If it had been a right, then an ISP would have been provided without payment.

You took up a binary position (its either a right or a prohibition), I simply showed that reality isn't limited to those two. Thus your entire argument is broken and needs to be thrown away or revised.

Are you denying that lions "rightly" kill prey? Are you denying that humans "rightly" kill animals?

In a natural prey/predator interaction, there is no right or prohibition involved. Its completely neutral.

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?

Feel free to post an actual example of where a human can murder another person out of the blue without any fear of retribution.

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.

Privileges have to be earned and rights don't.

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.

Show me that you have a right to a computer. I am not the one with a binary position, so such a negative doesn't apply to my argument. If you had a right to a computer then you be able to demand and get one without earning it.

Also I would like to ask if you understand the difference between a right and freedom.

 

[tesscaline]

Except for when it comes to child pornography...

Special pleading.

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")

I have not argued that at all. I have argued against banning it. This is not the same as arguing for unrestricted access to it.

And you are STILL conflating child porn with VCP which, even if you don't personally see them as different, is disingenuous to do when you know that other people here (including the person you're responding to) do, and are discussing them in the context of them being separate things.

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.

Would you care to actually answer the questions I put forth in my post? To demonstrate that you do understand your own statements? Or are you going to stick to making claims with no supporting evidence?

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

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.

Not quite sure exactly what you mean by ISP. If you mean "any access whatsoever to any internet connected server in any fashion" then I agree with that statement. If you mean the current "commonly" accepted understanding of a company which provides direct subscription access to their own server for fee or other service then I don't.

My first access to the internet was back in the early 80's through a local hobbyist's FidoNet BBS which had a gateway to a nearby university's mainframe. This would not conform to most modern conceptions of an ISP.

<snip>

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?

Humans can still "'rightly' kill other humans" under many circumstances.

And I don't think that "eye for an eye" means what you think it means. It was one of the early codifications of commensurate justice, and would more accurately be expressed as "only an eye for an eye". It is a expression of the concept that punishment should be proportional to the crime, as in "You shouldn't kill someone for the crime of poking out an eye."

This is actually reflective of what many of us have been trying to get you to understand, that disproportionately retributive or fallaciously retributive laws about pornography, even child pornography, are not acceptable in an enlightened society.

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.

This is relatively naive. One of the first things to get swept up when even the suspicion of a crime is present are the computers. At least around here. Conviction is not needful, so don't start weaselling. I'm not talking about criminals.

Somebody spoofs your IP address on a child porn website and you might get that knock on the door.

When those victims of prosecutorial opportunism about kiddie bathtub photos and vacation pics that we have cited for you were jacked up by the cops their computers were among the first things to leave the house. I'll bet they didn't schedule an appointment.

It doesn't even have to have anything to do with pornography. From what I've seen it could be conjectured that "all electronic storage media" is pre-printed on all the search warrant motion requests these days.

That knock on your door isn't as inconceivable as you might imagine.

This is the point we've been trying to get you to understand.

 

[sugarb]

Special pleading.

I have not argued that at all. I have argued against banning it. This is not the same as arguing for unrestricted access to it.

And you are STILL conflating child porn with VCP which, even if you don't personally see them as different, is disingenuous to do when you know that other people here (including the person you're responding to) do, and are discussing them in the context of them being separate things.

Would you care to actually answer the questions I put forth in my post? To demonstrate that you do understand your own statements? Or are you going to stick to making claims with no supporting evidence?

Mmm...ya know, I could sit here...well, in fact I will, I will sit here and type that YOU are still trying distinguish between one kind of child porn and another, just because you personally see them as different, which is disingenuous to do when you know that other people here (including the person you're responding to) do not, and are discussing them in the context of being different things. But...no, that wouldn't be special pleading at all now, would it? I mean, you're only demanding that it only be discussed as YOU see it, so that it will be more favorable to your argument, and I'm not sorry to say that I do not see it that way. Now. What did writing THAT accomplish? Nada.

And one thing I have learned (for a person that you seem to like to portray as incapable of understanding anything) is that when someone only focuses on the person they disagree with and attempts to put them down at every turn, and attempts to make them look/appear stupid or ignorant simply because there is a disagreement, it is completely and utterly pointless to engage said person.

But to make you happy, you are in fact being disingenous when you say that you are arguing against banning, not for unrestricted access. First you argue that virtual child pornography is harmless because they aren't "real" children, but now you say that you agree it should be restricted? Quite a contradiction, isn't it? Why? If it isn't a "real child", as you've continuously argued, why are you now implying that it shouldn't be "banned" but should perhaps be restricted?

The questions you asked are about another poster, and what his meanings are. I believe that I posted that in response to something by JFrankA, but I am not sure. You want to know why I think Southwind means something that you and others don't think he means...and the only reason I can think of is that my understanding of language must be incredibly different from your own. Well, that...and I'm not a psychic, nor do I see him or anyone else in an adversarial position here (or didn't, except quite a bit earlier, but I had considered that resolved by the parties involved), and so I tend to consider not what I *think* someone is saying because of which side of the debate they are on (preconceived notions), but what they are actually trying to convey. Surprisingly, that's how I can manage to sometimes agree with both sides of this issue on different aspects of it. I don't see everything as "me against the world", nor do I see it as "the world against me". But...that probably just means I "don't understand" myself or anyone else. lol

 

[tesscaline]

I think that's a gross and disingenuous exaggeration of what sugarb is asserting, and I strongly suspect you know it, too:

No, I don't know that. I've seen all sorts of cockamamie arguments from you throughout this thread, but none that say quite what sugarb said.

I have asserted exactly this, in different words, as an integral part of my reasoning for banning VCP.

Evidence?

It's both, of course.

Is it? You have evidence of this?

I think there are other, maybe better, examples that prove the point. Take rioting or looting. It usually starts with a small group but very quickly becomes widespread. Mass looting, when it happens, escalates because people who do it justify it as acceptable in their minds: "If everybody else is doing it I'm not going to be left out." But they sure wouldn't do it if nobody else was.

Is that because it's being "legitimized" by society? Or is it because they suddenly doubt they're going to get caught due to a chaotic crowd forming? How does this state of mind translate to VCP, exactly?

It's natural human behaviour to interpret what the majority do as "normal", because, by definition, it is normal, and "normal" is typically deemed acceptable by those involved.

And how exactly is "the majority" involved at all in anything regarding VCP? We're not talking about a majority being created. Well, --I'm-- not talking about a majority being created. You might, but that'd be a slippery slope argument... And that would be pointless for me to address, what with it being such a lovely little logical fallacy and all.

 

[quadraginta]

Is you gone? Are you ignoring me again? *Taps on the monitor* Hello?

If you are ignoring me, then let me clear up something and apologize to everyone, including SW, if he is watching out of the corner of his eye, so to speak.

<snip>

It's very admirable for you to offer an apology, but speaking strictly for myself I don't feel that one is owed.

The intent of your comments was quite apparent, and in no way offensive.

I thought they were very well considered.

Err, by the way, I will remain civil, but I will continue to debate you whether you are watching or not. I firmly disagree with your following beliefs:

<snip>

You left out ...

"Probability has absolutely nothing to do with statistics."
​

... didn't you?

One final thing, it my intent was never to convince you (or anyone else) of anything. My intent was to simply debate and put forth my ideas and thoughts and have them challenged and debate them, perhaps learn something. Even though I told you that that was my intent all along, I don't think you ever choose to belief or understand that.....

I think that you have accomplished your intent very handily, and I hope that you will continue in the same vein. Your contributions have in general been well thought out, well presented, and helpful to the discussion.

I think that you (and others) have been surprisingly patient and tolerant with SW in particular. That was, if you recall, the point I made in my first contribution to this thread. I have not been so charitable.

As far as he is concerned the only question in my mind is whether he does not choose to understand, as you suggest, or whether he is, in fact, unable to. My original vote was for the former, but as things have developed I'm not so sure.

 

[tesscaline]

Mmm...ya know, I could sit here...well, in fact I will, I will sit here and type that YOU are still trying distinguish between one kind of child porn and another, just because you personally see them as different, which is disingenuous to do when you know that other people here (including the person you're responding to) do not, and are discussing them in the context of being different things. But...no, that wouldn't be special pleading at all now, would it? I mean, you're only demanding that it only be discussed as YOU see it, so that it will be more favorable to your argument, and I'm not sorry to say that I do not see it that way. Now. What did writing THAT accomplish? Nada.

You are the only person in this discussion who refuses to differentiate between VCP at least in terms of terminology. You are the only person in this conversation that insists on only using the term "child pornography" no matter which subset of it you are referring to, despite acknowledging that there IS a subset involved. You KNOW this causes confusion. Purposefully causing confusion when you could easily avoid it is a rather dishonest tactic.

You could sit there and write about me being disingenuous, but you'd have a hard time proving it, since I'm not the one insisting on changing the terms and moving the goalposts constantly.

I'm not demanding anything. I am pointing out that your arguments have a certain quality. If you don't like it, you're perfectly capable of changing the characteristics of those arguments so that they don't have that quality anymore.

And one thing I have learned (for a person that you seem to like to portray as incapable of understanding anything) is that when someone only focuses on the person they disagree with and attempts to put them down at every turn, and attempts to make them look/appear stupid or ignorant simply because there is a disagreement, it is completely and utterly pointless to engage said person.

So... You've learned to completely misrepresent anything that's been said to you? You've learned to conflate attacking arguments with attacking a person? Okay.

Look, you seem to want to turn this into something personal, and I'm getting really freaking sick and tired of it. I am not making personal attacks. I am attacking ARGUMENTS. Your ARGUMENTS give the appearance of a lack of understanding. This is not an attempt to make you look stupid, or ignorant, for any reason. It is an attempt to discredit the ARGUMENT.

If I were making personal attacks, I would expect you to report my posts so that it could be handled by the moderators, since making personal attacks is against the rules here.

But to make you happy, you are in fact being disingenous when you say that you are arguing against banning, not for unrestricted access. First you argue that virtual child pornography is harmless because they aren't "real" children, but now you say that you agree it should be restricted? Quite a contradiction, isn't it? Why? If it isn't a "real child", as you've continuously argued, why are you now implying that it shouldn't be "banned" but should perhaps be restricted?

I have not said that it should be restricted, but I have not said that it should NOT be restricted. I have not addressed the subject of restriction at all, whatsoever. I have only commented on the BANNING of VCP. Trying to say that I've said anything about whether or not VCP should be restricted if it were to become legal is entirely a strawman. It is not disingenuous of me to point out a blatantly obvious logical fallacy, especially when that logical fallacy is completely misrepresenting my position.

See, this is why I say the things I do about your posts. Where on earth do you get "VCP shouldn't be regulated at all" from saying that "VCP does not harm real children"? One sentence has nothing to do with the other. You're obviously reading in based upon your own personal biases on the matter -- there's simply no other explanation for how you could make such a huge and unwarranted jump between two completely unrelated statements.

The questions you asked are about another poster, and what his meanings are. I believe that I posted that in response to something by JFrankA, but I am not sure. You want to know why I think Southwind means something that you and others don't think he means...and the only reason I can think of is that my understanding of language must be incredibly different from your own. Well, that...and I'm not a psychic, nor do I see him or anyone else in an adversarial position here (or didn't, except quite a bit earlier, but I had considered that resolved by the parties involved), and so I tend to consider not what I *think* someone is saying because of which side of the debate they are on (preconceived notions), but what they are actually trying to convey. Surprisingly, that's how I can manage to sometimes agree with both sides of this issue on different aspects of it. I don't see everything as "me against the world", nor do I see it as "the world against me". But...that probably just means I "don't understand" myself or anyone else. lol

No. I didn't ask any questions about another poster. I asked why YOU would come to a certain conclusion. This makes the question about you, and not another poster. You still have not explained how you reached that conclusion, other than to imply that it's because "you think"... Which isn't really an explanation at all.

I also asked you a lot of questions about your analogy to cell phone calls in restaurants. Would you care to answer those? Or are you ignoring them because you know that you can't answer them in any way that would support your assumptions?

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

ETA: And it was banned, not because it was dangerous or obscene, but because lawyers were afraid that someday the technology would be there that makes VCP indistinguishable from real child porn.

This I do not agree with, and the reason for my disagreement is a core component of my general distaste for such laws.

These kinds of bans are not often the result of any sincere effort to improve general social welfare. They are quite consciously selected targets of opportunity to present a posture of such intent often only for immediate, short-term political advantage, backed in this case by the unarguable "Think about the children!" refrain, but always by some argument to emotion instead of reason.

The targets selected are intentionally out of the mainstream of public approbation, and usually without any substantial social or financial momentum to discourage such ploys. When such momentum does exist a black market is inevitable, with all of the concurrent drawbacks and real, quantifiable detriment to society.

The result is invariably abuse of power and harassment of innocents because such legislation is flawed at its core. There will never be a silk purse crafted from these sorts of sows' ears.

 

[JFrankA]

Hello, JFrankA. There is a difference between the two statements. It is minor, as I see it, but that minor difference can lead to two totally different meanings. (I detest quibbling over words, but that seems to be where this thread has had to go, so...keep in mind, this is just me looking at the two statements to see how they differ, or IF they differ, okay?)

Your statement says giving up freedoms (meaning the way you wrote it it seems as though you are saying if one child could be saved from harm, a person should be willing up to give up a freedom).

Southwind's statement says a *component* of a freedom (in this case, free speech).

And I think that is the crux of the problem. No one is recommending giving up a broad freedom. No one is arguing eliminating a freedom entirely. The argument is that there are some parts or certain aspects of the freedom (in this case, speech) that needs to be for whatever reason restricted. Not being able to yell fire in a crowded theater (I get so tired of that example, lol, but there you have it) is losing a small *part*, or component, of freedom of speech (in this case). You, as a man, cannot go to work (since you work with women) and expect to be allowed to talk to them in certain ways. THAT is a restricted component of freedom (in this case, speech).

It is strange how these slight differences in meaning can cause so much controversy...but as we've made clear throughout this thread, there is a whole lot of emotion on both sides of the issue.

That is the only difference I see between the two statements. As I said, though, that minor difference in wording can entirely change the meaning of an argument. Do you see what I mean? (And it is just my take on the examples for comparison that you gave)

I see that now. But it still scares me. It's been said on this thread before that it will never stop at one, and it's a "component" of freedom that does not have a real reason to be taken away.

As I said, I believe that virtual child porn has a very real chance that it could actually curb someone from molesting a child by a pedophile relieving her/himself while watching it.

Further, by "removing only a component of freedom of speech" poses a very real threat of truly innocent people (i.e. people who age play, people who write stories - any kind of stories, people who create art to challenge a viewer's thinking) a subject of persecution and implied guilt.

It makes anyone who thinks of doing this in fantasy is guilty of future child molestation by association.

Let me give you an example. Last week on a comedy website (a more "underground" comedy website), I saw a drawing of little girl looking at a music stand. She was fully clothed wearing a skirt. A flute was poking out of the skirt. The caption read "A flute playing in A minor."

Now sorry, I found that funny. It certainly wasn't meant to be arousing, it certainly wasn't meant to say "it's okay to stick flutes in little girls", it was simply a crass joke. (Sorry, I do like a crass joke - I'm with the South Park people: either you can find humor in everything, or you shouldn't find humor at all).

This joke is banned. If someone showed it to a friend in a non-work environment, then that person can be arrested for virtual child pornography and quite possibly thrown in jail and/or fined and/or put on a sex offender's list (which believe me, is a lot easier to get on than you think), for A JOKE.

Hell, per the law, I could possibly be reported for typeing that up. Virtual child porn does include text.

So, I'm sorry, whether it's a "smidgen" of freedom of speech taken away or all of the freedoms taken away, it's still too much. Especially since that the "component of free speech" that is taken away, in this case, is

a) based on emotional feelings. (It's so yucky).

b) no one get hurt at all. (I should have asked Southwind to show me a case where virtual child porn was linked to some child getting harmed - I bet there is no case that proves that - would someone ask him for me?)

c) not based on any scientific study that anyone does get hurt.

d) for the people who are molesters who want to stop, this could be a great way to help them stop (we will never know, because now it would be illegal to do the test)

e) will make innocent people guilty by association

f) pretty much restricts a lot of people who could use this subject in fictional, non-porn situation stories and media.

g) the reason why it was banned was to fill a loop hole in case the technology gets so good that one can't tell real child porn from virtual child porn - the real reason had nothing to do with any harm or even potential harm

This isn't a component. This is a big chunk. And further, if this works, well what next?

And there will be a "ban this next". There always is.

 

[not daSkeptic]

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.

I am not aware of anybody suggesting that pornography can be produced without any intent of providing sexual stimulation. As I understand it, the term specifically refers to material made with that in mind. However, just because there is a certain intent does not mean it is the sole intent.

 

[JFrankA]

It's very admirable for you to offer an apology, but speaking strictly for myself I don't feel that one is owed.

I appreciate that. Thank you.

The intent of your comments was quite apparent, and in no way offensive.

I thought they were very well considered.

Thank you again.

Although I do find it interesting that the intent was lost by the person who claims that someone can figure it out. Well, I expect him to defend himself if he looking.

You left out ...

"Probability has absolutely nothing to do with statistics."
​

... didn't you?

I knew I left out one or two! Good catch!

I think that you have accomplished your intent very handily, and I hope that you will continue in the same vein. Your contributions have in general been well thought out, well presented, and helpful to the discussion.

Aw shucks.

I think that you (and others) have been surprisingly patient and tolerant with SW in particular. That was, if you recall, the point I made in my first contribution to this thread. I have not been so charitable.

It's understandable to not be patient, though. I've been had training with dealing with frustrating people: I've been a customer service rep for almost 20 years and was married to my ex for eight.

As far as he is concerned the only question in my mind is whether he does not choose to understand, as you suggest, or whether he is, in fact, unable to. My original vote was for the former, but as things have developed I'm not so sure.

I still say he chooses not to. It seems to me that he needs to prove he's right more than he wants to debate. (I don't mean this as an insult, just an observation). I base that on the fact that he can't answer a simple question of "What is a debate?" and when asked about this thread being a debate his reply was "It is?"

Unfortunately, a lot of people believe that a debate means that there is a "winner". And it seems to me that Southwind is more concerned with "winning", and having a topic with a lot of posts, than he is with actually having his OP discussed.

Another thing I noticed about him, (and again, it's an observation) that when anyone who "comes in late" into this discussion disagrees with him, he ridicules those people and tells them to go back and read the entire thread. He does not do that with people who jump in and agree with him.

I just think he's out to "win".

Anyway, thanks for your words of encouragement. And I am not going away.

 

[not daSkeptic]

I just think he's out to "win".

This has been my sense as well. His style of discourse is reminiscent of something I've seen before. Sometimes a person will value the individual points over the debate as a whole. It doesn't matter to them whether the points are consistent with each other so long as they win them. In their mind, if they can rack up more points than their opponent then they are superior. It's like getting the high-score in a video game without actually trying to complete it. You don't really get anywhere, but you can still gloat.

 

[Southwind17]

And yet you want to apply something that is only relevant to mindless things to humans?

What part of freedom do you consider is only relevant to mindless things? At the risk of a philosophical derail what does the "mind" have to do with the concept of freedom?

If one want a new wheel on a car then one should choose one that fits and not just any wheel.

You didn't demand it, you paid to get it. So you fail. If it had been a right, then an ISP would have been provided without payment.

You and I seem to have different views as to what "rights" are. You seem to believe that they come necessarily free of cost. I could probably list on the back of my hand every single western societal right that, if invoked, does not incur some degree of financial outlay. Take into account other "costs" and the list diminishes.

You took up a binary position (its either a right or a prohibition), I simply showed that reality isn't limited to those two.

I'm not sure whether by "reality" you're extending your thought process beyond the concept of "freedom", which is what we're discussing here. For any entity any "natural" aspect of existence "X" can either be freely engaged in or not (if you're now thinking of some "grey" areas simply proceed to break X down into subsets until X/y becomes part of a subset of binary absolutes). If X can be freely (not necessarily at no "cost" - everything has an "opportunity cost") engaged in it is a right; if it cannot it is a constraint, or a prohibition, if you will. There is no middle ground. Remember that just because there is a cost associated with doing something (financial or otherwise) that does not render that something not free in the "freedom" sense. I think that might be where you're going wrong.

In a natural prey/predator interaction, there is no right or prohibition involved. Its completely neutral.

Wrong. Both the predator and prey are completely free to do whatever their physiological existence will allow in order to obtain a meal and not become a meal respectively. They have the benefit of absolute freedom in the context of the hunt, i.e. they have absolutely unconstrained "rights" at their disposal - anything goes, literally.

Feel free to post an actual example of where a human can murder another person out of the blue without any fear of retribution.

I never wrote "... without any fear of retribution." Here's what I wrote:

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)?

So, in that context try here, for starters:

In line with Albania's ancient social code known as Kanuni i Lekë Dukagjinit or simply Kanun (English: The Code of Lekë Dukagjini), someone is allowed to kill another person to avenge an earlier murder or moral humiliation. Gjakmarrja (literally "blood-taking", i.e. "blood feud") or Hakmarrja ("revenge") refers to this practice [emphasis added].

Wikipedia.com

I'm sure there are many more examples, particularly across Africa, for example.

Privileges have to be earned and rights don't.

Go ahead - start a semantic debate, if that's what you want.

Show me that you have a right to a computer. If you had a right to a computer then you be able to demand and get one without earning it.

There you go, see. You mistakenly think that rights necessarily incur no cost. Wrong.

Also I would like to ask if you understand the difference between a right and freedom.

This seems somewhat of an odd request, given that this is the very question we're discussing here! You seem to have forgotten this:

Come on, show us that rights are an acknowledgment of a restriction of freedom. So far we only heard your opinion.

Look - this is not a difficult concept to grasp and accept. Imagine listing out all of your rights as an individual wherever you may be living. Clearly, your list will not include everything. Those things not included on your list can be called "prohibitions". Absolute freedom can be defined as an absence of prohibition. Consequently, prohibition is a restriction of freedom, and rights are what is left. Civil laws tend to focus on prohibitions, i.e. they set out the extent to which freedom is restricted. Again, rights are what's left over. Plain and simple.

 

[Southwind17]

Not quite sure exactly what you mean by ISP. If you mean "any access whatsoever to any internet connected server in any fashion" then I agree with that statement.

I mean "Internet Service Provider". I wouldn't claim to know exactly what signing up with one equates to as regard unfettered access, but all I know is that it affords seemingly unfettered access to "the internet" (there's nothing I've tried to access and not been able to (Government restrictions excepted!)), and I have every right to demand that my ISP affords that access as that's what they've contracted to provide in exchange for my paying the monthly fee. I'm struggling to think of a simpler example of rights granted and the potential demanding thereof.

If you mean the current "commonly" accepted understanding of a company which provides direct subscription access to their own server for fee or other service then I don't.

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

I'm sorry - this still continues to more than tickle me!

Humans can still "'rightly' kill other humans" under many circumstances.

I think wanton murder is essentially what we're getting at.

And I don't think that "eye for an eye" means what you think it means.

I don't think you understand the absurdity of this statement. It means whatever I meant by it. If you interpret my meaning differently from what I meant then, clearly, we have a communication problem, which is why we have dictionaries. And so ...

It was one of the early codifications of commensurate justice, and would more accurately be expressed as "only an eye for an eye". It is a expression of the concept that punishment should be proportional to the crime, as in "You shouldn't kill someone for the crime of poking out an eye."

Which is pretty much exactly what I meant by it. What leads you to think I had a different meaning in mind?

This is actually reflective of what many of us have been trying to get you to understand, that disproportionately retributive or fallaciously retributive laws about pornography, even child pornography, are not acceptable in an enlightened society.

I think you're misguided. "Retribution" seems wholly out of context with the notion of banning VCP.

One of the first things to get swept up when even the suspicion of a crime is present are the computers. At least around here. Conviction is not needful, so don't start weaselling. I'm not talking about criminals.
Somebody spoofs your IP address on a child porn website and you might get that knock on the door.
When those victims of prosecutorial opportunism about kiddie bathtub photos and vacation pics that we have cited for you were jacked up by the cops their computers were among the first things to leave the house. I'll bet they didn't schedule an appointment.
It doesn't even have to have anything to do with pornography. From what I've seen it could be conjectured that "all electronic storage media" is pre-printed on all the search warrant motion requests these days.
That knock on your door isn't as inconceivable as you might imagine.
This is the point we've been trying to get you to understand.

You know what? "That knock on the door", as you put it, is one of the very last things that I lose sleep over at night. Call it relative naivety on my part if you like. I'm well into adulthood and history would seem to show that it's an unfounded concern for me. I'm more inclined to put it down to relative naivety on your part, actually. Call it paranoia, if you will.