Porn vs. Art

[Southwind17]

Southwind, you have to know something:

This is a debate. The idea is to intelligently discuss the topic, not "he who starts the topic with the most posts using nitpicking, meaning twisting and insults to people with whom you disagree with wins".

If you can't stand the heat ...

 

[JFrankA]

If you can't stand the heat ...

So you are saying you that you are using nitpicking, meaning twisting and insults to people in order to have the biggest number of posts and no interest in actually debating the topic.

I see.

 

[Belz...]

Oh dear.

What, now ?

What "burden of proof"? This isn't a court of law with somebody on trial.

It isn't just a place where we each state our opinions and leave it at that. It's a skeptical discussion forum. We expect people to be able to support their claims, here.

To the extent that TraneWreck's argument can or cannot be proven valid neither can yours. Ergo the stronger you argue your case the stronger you argue his too. Be careful what you wish!

Why ? Because he could actually stop being all talk and provide some evidence of his claims and I might have to change my mind ? Wow, that'd be, like, bad!

Not when it comes down to criminality. Indeed, I would argue the complete opposite.

The problem is, now you're talking about something that is ALREADY illegal. We're talking about whether something is art or not, or pornographic or not. In both cases it comes to a matter of interpretation, in my mind, not intent.

So you're unsure what "skill" is then.

Oh, by all means, Wind, continue to NOT answer the question.

"Intent" rests wholly within the mind of the creator, not the created. Without the creator the question as to intent becomes academic, certainly so far as porn and the law goes.

So if the creator of the piece is dead, that thing cannot ever be banned ?

It's not a question of making up my mind and my not following the conversation. On the contrary, I suggest you read/review Post #319.

Irrelevant. We are trying to determine IF such a thing is porn. You're still arguing from your conclusion.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Look, you've jumped in late, so I don't expect you to read everythig that came before, but the very issue at hand is the inability to consistently and accurately distinguish those two things.

I may be "jumping in late" but I have been reading, Trane. And even then, I don't need to follow all of the posts to realize where a logical fallacy is being committed. And this is an oooold fallacy used by many people. You are actually the one jumping late in the line. There's a whole legacy of people behind you holding the claim "We can't quite differentiate between X and Y, therefore ban everything and that should solve the problem"

No, there really isn't. Obviously if you take extreme examples of actual recorded physical abuse, then you're case won't be tough to make.

So there's no difference between actual child pornography and taking a picture of a nude child? There's no difference between taking a child, abusing him/her sexually, and taking a picture of a child in a completely different context such as a nude beach? There's no difference at all? Those two aren't completely different situations from completely different contexts? You really wanna claim that with a straight face?

Google the COPINE scale.

Uh huh. So what? So the UK has a rating system to determine which pictures of nude children are legal and which not. So? In Australia they wanna ban small breasts in porn even if they belong to women over 18. Does this prove a point about anything?

If you're gonna back up an argument over this subject, actual scientific evidence and logical reasoning is the way to go. Not re-directing me how some country has decided to legalize/ban the thing in discussion.

I can just make an argument saying that salt should be banned and then when you ask for evidence, I'll link you to this

Does that make my argument any less ridiculous?

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins
The reason you've been "misunderstood", the reason your argument has been "fasely described" is because you carelessly exchange one thing for the other and you use them both as if they were the same.
I cannot stress this enough: You need to understand the difference between the two. Sorry if it sounds pedant or condescending.

No, you just sound like your ignoring all the tough cases.

No. You sound like you're just ignoring what I just said.
All I'm gonna say is, what I said doesn't contradict that there have been tough cases. Nobody is denying that.
Reading comprehension test: Can you tell me why it doesn't contradict such thing?
In other words, what am I actually telling you?
Is it:
1) That there haven't been "tough cases". So ignore it. Swipe it under the rug.
2) Something else (I'll leave it to you to see if you can tell me)

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Southwind, do you have ANYTHING at all relevant to add to the discussion, or are you just banging out words on the keyboard to hear yourself type?

You know, I like to imagine his voice and inflection is that of Colonel Hans Landa from Inglorious Basterds

 

[AWPrime]

So you are saying you that you are using nitpicking, meaning twisting and insults to people in order to have the biggest number of posts and no interest in actually debating the topic.

I see.

Guess what happened to the previous version of this topic.

 

[Southwind17]

So you are saying you that you are using nitpicking, meaning twisting and insults to people in order to have the biggest number of posts and no interest in actually debating the topic.

No, I'm simply suggesting that you might not be suited to being a chef.

 

[Southwind17]

It isn't just a place where we each state our opinions and leave it at that. It's a skeptical discussion forum. We expect people to be able to support their claims, here.

You mean claims such as: children posing nude for art's sake cannot possibly be harmful?

The problem is, now you're talking about something that is ALREADY illegal. We're talking about whether something is art or not, or pornographic or not. In both cases it comes to a matter of interpretation, in my mind, not intent.

Notwithstanding that the thread was indeed talking about whether porn is art, until round about Post #2 that is, pornography, by definition, relies on intent, not interpretation. Until you come to realize the relevance of that I'm afraid you'll continue to miss the point.

So if the creator of the piece is dead, that thing cannot ever be banned ?

It could, but that would have nothing to do with criminality, which I think is the key issue here, now.

Irrelevant. We are trying to determine IF such a thing is porn. You're still arguing from your conclusion.

See above re. intent.

 

[Southwind17]

You know, I like to imagine his voice and inflection is that of Colonel Hans Landa from Inglorious Basterds

Wow - I'll take that as a compliment, along with my Oscar! Thank you.

 

[Southwind17]

Guess what happened to the previous version of this topic.

It caught the attention of some over-zealous JREF censorship police?

 

[tesscaline]

Unless and until you demonstrate that you understand what "per se" means, as opposed to simply copying some dictionary entries in a feable attempt to show that you do, you'll continue to ask silly questions like that above. Otherwise, you might be happy to waste your own time continuing to do so, but you'll forgive me for passing.

I think I've demonstrated that I know the meaning of the term. If you happen to disagree with my evidence, you're welcome to provide contradictory evidence of your own. And if my question is so "silly" why can't you answer it?

Oh, right, you'd rather personalize the argument, and make personal attacks, than have a rational discussion.

You do realize that you have yet to back up a single claim you've made with any evidence of any sort, right? Everything you've posted thus far has been nothing more than fallacious ranting.

So, I'll ask again. Please explain why porn and art, as you have defined them, are not or cannot be mutually exclusive.

 

[Belz...]

You mean claims such as: children posing nude for art's sake cannot possibly be harmful?

No, that would be a completely different forum.

In the absence of evidence presented to show that it IS harmful, what would you prefer to assume ?

Notwithstanding that the thread was indeed talking about whether porn is art, until round about Post #2 that is, pornography, by definition, relies on intent, not interpretation. Until you come to realize the relevance of that I'm afraid you'll continue to miss the point.

Please, we've been arguing this for a while, now. We're far from having reached a consensus on the intent vs interpretation part of the debate, so it's a little dishonest by you to claim that it's a matter of fact.

See above re. intent.

How does that adress what I've said ?

 

[Brian-M]

You mean claims such as: children posing nude for art's sake cannot possibly be harmful?

Who made that claim?

I don't think anyone would claim that children posing nude for art's sake cannot possibly be harmful. Hell, most of us wouldn't even claim that crossing the street or eating a hamburger cannot possibly be harmful.

 

[Southwind17]

No, that would be a completely different forum.

Who made that claim?

You two haven't been reading carefully, have you?!

I don't think anyone would claim that children posing nude for art's sake cannot possibly be harmful. Hell, most of us wouldn't even claim that crossing the street or eating a hamburger cannot possibly be harmful.

In the absence of evidence presented to show that it IS harmful, what would you prefer to assume?

I'd prefer to assume that it might well be, and advocate reasonable measures to guard against it until proven one way or the other.

Please, we've been arguing this for a while, now. We're far from having reached a consensus on the intent vs interpretation part of the debate, so it's a little dishonest by you to claim that it's a matter of fact.

Well that depends on which definition of "porn" one subscribes to. I've made it clear which I subscribe to (which I don't think is contentious), and accordingly, so far as I'm concerned, it very much is a matter of fact.

How does that adress what I've said ?

How does it not - seriously?

 

[Southwind17]

I think I've demonstrated that I know the meaning of the term.

Er ... don't think so. Why do you conclude, then, that I'm claiming that porn and art are mutually exclusive, which I'm not?

 

[Belz...]

I'd prefer to assume that it might well be, and advocate reasonable measures to guard against it until proven one way or the other.

Well, I suppose this simply shows two completely different approaches to legislation. You'd prefer to err on the safe side and restrict freedom by using the spectre of hypothetical harm, while I, and those who wrote the various bills of rights I can think of, err on the side of freedom and prefer that you demonstrate that REAL harm occurs before restricting anything.

 

[Southwind17]

Well, I suppose this simply shows two completely different approaches to legislation. You'd prefer to err on the safe side and restrict freedom by using the spectre of hypothetical harm, while I, and those who wrote the various bills of rights I can think of, err on the side of freedom and prefer that you demonstrate that REAL harm occurs before restricting anything.

As you say, two completely different approaches; one analogous to looking left and right before crossing the road in view of a perceived risk (there just might be something coming that I'd rather avoid); the other analogous to blindly stepping out (I'll worry about being hit after it happens). That's freedom for you - go ahead buddy, roll the dice.

 

[GreyICE]

As you say, two completely different approaches; one analogous to looking left and right before crossing the road in view of a perceived risk (there just might be something coming that I'd rather avoid); the other analogous to blindly stepping out (I'll worry about being hit after it happens). That's freedom for you - go ahead buddy, roll the dice.

Or, to use a slightly better analogy, your was is the person who bans crossing roads because someone might get hit by a car. And then bans cars, to be safe.

 

[JFrankA]

As you say, two completely different approaches; one analogous to looking left and right before crossing the road in view of a perceived risk (there just might be something coming that I'd rather avoid); the other analogous to blindly stepping out (I'll worry about being hit after it happens). That's freedom for you - go ahead buddy, roll the dice.

Guess what happened to the previous version of this topic.

It caught the attention of some over-zealous JREF censorship police?

Well, in light of your philosophy, I think the JREF moderators did exactly what you advocating.

I mean, there's a difference between a post that's meant to inform and debate and a post that is clearly meant to arouse anger.

It seems to me, by your condescending style of language and the fact that you twist meanings, ignore definitions that don't fit your opinion, that your intent to arouse anger in others.

And since it was judged as so by the moderates, that your intent was to arouse anger in others, they stopped potential insults from happening.

Now from what you have been stating throughout this thread, such as the statement I quoted above, it's interesting that you called the moderator a

over-zealous JREF censorship police

.

 

[Belz...]

As you say, two completely different approaches; one analogous to looking left and right before crossing the road in view of a perceived risk (there just might be something coming that I'd rather avoid); the other analogous to blindly stepping out (I'll worry about being hit after it happens). That's freedom for you - go ahead buddy, roll the dice.

What makes you this unreasonable, anyway ? I'm trying to be nice and say that it may be simply a matter of point of view, and you go and insult me.

Anyway, I know I don't have to make that effort ever again with you.

Your reasoning is akin to presuming guilt rather than innocent in criminal trials, just to be on the safe side, and demand proof by the defense in order to release the accused. I have no idea why you'd prefer to do this, but I suspect you'd hate that kind of thinking if you were on the bench. Or worse, on death row.