Porn vs. Art

[Southwind17]

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.

"Slightly better"?! I think your analogy pertains to something somewhat different from what mine does, but I can see where you're coming from, and why you extended your erroneous thought process to where you've ended up.

 

[Southwind17]

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

Mmm ... this takes me back:

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?

 

[Southwind17]

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.

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.

How on earth you can translate erring on the side of caution to guilt unless proven innocent is beyond me, especially when the maxim of "beyond reasonable doubt" itself derives from erring on the side of caution. I think you might be assuming something that you really shouldn't.

 

[quadraginta]

How on earth you can translate erring on the side of caution to guilt unless proven innocent is beyond me, especially when the maxim of "beyond reasonable doubt" itself derives from erring on the side of caution. I think you might be assuming something that you really shouldn't.

Your position assumes that harm is caused in some proportion sufficient to warrant summary, preemptive proscriptiion without providing any evidence that this is the case. This is certainly a presumption of guilt, if you are equating "guilt" with "harm", as you seem to be.

Evidence is required to establish something "beyond reasonable doubt".

 

[BenBurch]

Allowing children to be raised by untrained, unregulated parents can be harmful.

I mean its an established fact that the majority of child sexual abusers are family members. (Yes, I can prove that.)

So we ought to ban families altogether.

Right, Southwind?

 

[quadraginta]

Allowing children to be raised by untrained, unregulated parents can be harmful.

I mean its an established fact that the majority of child sexual abusers are family members. (Yes, I can prove that.)

So we ought to ban families altogether.

Right, Southwind?

Ben, that is utterly ridiculous.

Just families with children.

 

[tesscaline]

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?

Reading comprehension. Seriously.

Your original claim was:

Clearly, porn is not art per se, especially child porn, as some misguided, self-indulgent people like to think.

In regards to "per se" I asked:

Can you name any art that is art intrinsically?

You claimed you could... So then I asked:

Since you insist that things that are art are intrinsically art, please define the essential characteristics necessary for those things to be art, explain how those things do not change over time or require any subjective judgement from any viewer in order for them to be so.

A request that you soundly ignored. I did not reiterate it. Though, I would very much like an answer. What is it about a piece of media that makes it "intrinsically art"? Hm?

You see, your answer to the above is directly relevant to your use of "per se" in your original claim. Whether or not anything can be art "per se" is of relevance, especially what criteria make a piece of media intrinsically art.

The part about mutual exclusivity in regards to art and porn has nothing to do with the "per se", and has everything to do with the "clearly". You claimed that "clearly" porn is not art "per se". Is it "clear" that porn is not art? Is it clear that porn is not art "per se"? Is it clear that anything is art "per se"?? The definitions you gave did not provide any clarity to the question at all. In fact, because they were not mutually exclusive, your definitions actually support the idea that the subject is not clear, at all, whatsoever.

 

[GreyICE]

"Slightly better"?! I think your analogy pertains to something somewhat different from what mine does, but I can see where you're coming from, and why you extended your erroneous thought process to where you've ended up.

With all due respect, I extended your thought process, not mine. Mine involved slightly better analogies, not ones to do with equating physical harm and mental harm, as the two are often very different in cause and origin. So if your belief is that the original thought process was erroneous, I submit that the most likely culprit is probably the originator, unless Mind Control Rays are yet another one of your "well reasoned" beliefs.

 

[JFrankA]

Mmm ... this takes me back:

Well, we are both guilty of it, aren't we?

Doesn't change the fact that you calling the moderators:

over-zealous JREF censorship police

and then you say things like:

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.

So what should it be?

Since both our intentions were determined by the moderators as arousing anger and "potentially insulting", they acted accordingly.

This is according to the same ideas you have been defending. However, now when it happens to you (and me) you call those people making that decision "over-zealous JREF censorship police".

I'm sorry, I don't mean to be insulting, but your whole opinion reeks of hypocrisy.

 

[Southwind17]

Allowing children to be raised by untrained, unregulated parents can be harmful.
I mean its an established fact that the majority of child sexual abusers are family members. (Yes, I can prove that.)
So we ought to ban families altogether.
Right, Southwind?

No, we ought to, and indeed do, make it illegal for parents to act irresponsibly and negligently in respect of child guardianship, because many are incapable of deciding for themselves. I mean, it's an established fact. Right BenBurch?

 

[quadraginta]

No, we ought to, and indeed do, make it illegal for parents to act irresponsibly and negligently in respect of child guardianship, because many are incapable of deciding for themselves. I mean, it's an established fact. Right BenBurch?

If you left it as this, then yes, that's right.

Unfortunately your logic suggests that the more appropriate path is to make the potential for parents to act irresponsibly and negligently illegal. After all, there is a chance that they might. More than a chance, in fact. It is quite well documented that most child abuse is done by parents.

You have taken the position that the existence of material which can be interpreted as child pornography should be prohibited without any clear evidence that harm is done to children, even if children are not involved. Others have taken the position that nude modeling involving children should also be prohibited, also without any evidence that the mere participation in such causes any harm. Even the demonstrated misapplication of such laws and concurrent collateral damage has been dismissed as insignificant in pursuit of this possible, not actual harm.

If it is reasonable to prohibit something based on the unfounded, un-evidenced anticipation of a potential for harm then certainly it is reasonable to prohibit something when clear and compelling evidence of harm exists.

It seems obvious, using your rationale, that families are entirely too dangerous to be allowed to have children.

 

[Southwind17]

It seems obvious, using your rationale, that families are entirely too dangerous to be allowed to have children.

You might wish to believe that there is some merit in an argument stating that that seems obvious. What is actually obvious, however, is that anybody who can allow themselves to draw such a patently absurd conclusion must be allowing themselves to apply a patently flawed interpretation. Any reasonably intelligent person would recognize that and check themselves. Either that or they're just being obstinate under the conceited guise of wishing to appear smart. I'm sorry, but this really is all your post amounts to, and is hardly worth the three-or-so line response I've afforded it.

 

[Southwind17]

Well, we are both guilty of it, aren't we?
Doesn't change the fact that you calling the moderators:
and then you say things like:
So what should it be?
Since both our intentions were determined by the moderators as arousing anger and "potentially insulting", they acted accordingly.
This is according to the same ideas you have been defending. However, now when it happens to you (and me) you call those people making that decision "over-zealous JREF censorship police".
I'm sorry, I don't mean to be insulting, but your whole opinion reeks of hypocrisy.

Excuse me ... you're in this thread to discuss what, exactly?

 

[JFrankA]

Excuse me ... you're in this thread to discuss what, exactly?

I am on topic.

I am commenting on your own quotes and viewpoints on the matter.

So why do you keep dodging?

 

[Southwind17]

Your original claim was:

Clearly, porn is not art per se, especially child porn, as some misguided, self-indulgent people like to think.

In regards to "per se" I asked:

Can you name any art that is art intrinsically?

You claimed you could... So then I asked:

Since you insist that things that are art are intrinsically art, please define the essential characteristics necessary for those things to be art, explain how those things do not change over time or require any subjective judgement from any viewer in order for them to be so.

A request that you soundly ignored. I did not reiterate it. Though, I would very much like an answer. What is it about a piece of media that makes it "intrinsically art"? Hm?

OK - let's see. Let me ask you these questions:

Q1: Was Michelangelo an artist?
Q2: Assuming you've answered yes(!), his works are, hence, "art", yes?
Q3: Assuming you've answered yes(!), this image is intrinsically "art", yes?:

Q4: If it isn't intrinsically "art" then what, intrinsically, is it, exactly?
Q5: As for your inference that the "essential characteristics" change over time and that "art" relies on subjective judgement by the viewer for its classification, at what point in time do you expect "The Creation of Man" to be declassified? It's endured 499 years so far. Half a millenium, say, next year?

 

[Southwind17]

I am on topic.
I am commenting on your own quotes and viewpoints on the matter.

No you're not. You've simply defaulted to commenting on my style of posting.

 

[JFrankA]

No you're not. You've simply defaulted to commenting on my style of posting.

A tactic, many have noticed, that you use without worry.

I'm sorry, SW, you are reeking of hypocrisy.

Your statement:

No, we ought to, and indeed do, make it illegal for parents to act irresponsibly and negligently in respect of child guardianship, because many are incapable of deciding for themselves.

It seems to me that this same idea works for this forum as well. The purpose of the moderators of this forum ought to, and indeed do, reprimand and even ban posters who act irresponsibly and negligently in respect to the rule of the forum, because many are incapable of actually following those rules. Yet, when you yourself was confronted with a reprimand that affect you directly, you called the moderators "over-zealous JREF censorship police".

So why, when the restrictions and reprimands that you advocate affect you directly, it's wrong, but when it affects someone else, it's absolutely right.

This is why I am still on topic. I am disputing your opinion and, in fact, pointing out the fallacy in it. I'm sorry that part of the fallacy is your own hypocrisy, but that can't be helped.

Now could you please stop dodging the issue, stop trying to discredit me and address the hole you yourself opened up in your opinion.

 

[quadraginta]

You might wish to believe that there is some merit in an argument stating that that seems obvious. What is actually obvious, however, is that anybody who can allow themselves to draw such a patently absurd conclusion must be allowing themselves to apply a patently flawed interpretation. Any reasonably intelligent person would recognize that and check themselves. Either that or they're just being obstinate under the conceited guise of wishing to appear smart. I'm sorry, but this really is all your post amounts to, and is hardly worth the three-or-so line response I've afforded it.

Your bluster and insult is not a response, it is an evasion. As usual.

Of course, your dilemma ... a flawed, indefensible premise ... is unenviable. I can understand your frustration, if not your willful refusal to perceive the real implications of your own statements.

 

[TraneWreck]

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"

First of all, that's not a "fallacy," it's a proposed solution. You can agree or disagree, but there's nothing fallacious about it.

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?

I've already discussed this. There is a huge difference between a photographer capturing on film something that is happening and an artist creating an event/situation purposefully.

Roughly speaking, this is the difference between news and art.

Now, if someone was hiding in the bushes with a telephoto lense and taking pictures of someone's naked children then posting them on the internet, you would call that art?

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?

That was merely to show the existence of the grey area that you seem to deny or ignore. Criminally, the courts have to deal with the existence of pictures of naked kids that don't capture actual abuse but are likely pornography. You have offered nothing to deal with that situation. I simply directed you to an attempt to distinguish those cases.

It wasn't meant to prove what you attacked it for not proving.

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)

Well, since it's your job to explain your argument, I won't presume to speak for you. You made claims based on the assumption that it was simple to differentiate between art and child porn. Show me your system, I'm curious.

 

[TraneWreck]

And that's a good reason for you to evade your burden of proof and let other people do the opposite, right ?

No, again, not being that much of a dupe, it doesn't work. Nice try.

No, it's an assertion that both sides have a burden to meet.

Just because someone cannot prove that it isn't safe doesn't mean the default position is that it's safe.

If you're arguing about how the law should approach this issue based on First Amendment concerns, then certainly I bear the burden. But when discussing the harmfullness or harmlessness of a given action, the failure of one side to prove its case doesn't establish the other's.