Again, because cigarettes couldn't be proven to be harmful in, say, 1950, that doesn't mean they were safe.
No one is denying that.
Cigarettes, though, have been scientifically proven to be harmful.
Images of nudes, haven't.
(Again, I repeat "images of nudes". I'm isolating that from child pornography or any activity which, in addition to nude modeling, there is physical and/or psychological abuse of an innocent person)
No, the argument at this point, given that I've conceded there are no studies isolating nude modelling, is, "until we know whether action X is harmful or not, we shouldn't engage in it."
Ok, let's apply it to something else, "until we know if this drug is harmful, it shouldn't be on the market."
"Until we know if these chinese toys have mercury in them, we shouldn't give them to our kids."
Seems ok to me.
Cool, Trane. But please, lets not stop there. Please, lets continue expanding:
Until we know if blue t-shirts aren't harmful, lets not allow them.
Until we know if spongebob movies aren't harmful, lets not allow them.
Until we know if sheets of bond paper are harmful, lets not allow them.
Until we know if body powder isn't harmful, lets now allow it.
Until we know if fish oil isn't harmful, lets not allow it.
Why stop there, Trane? Lets ban everything until we can demonstrate
that they're not harmful.
Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins
Your rationalization about the trial isn't even guaranteed. Some countries are much more militant with these issues (or others). Imagine you were in a totalitarian state where it was considered illegal to own any image of a nude child, regardless of whether you're innocent or not.
Would you feel okay living in a society like that? And most importantly, would you find that reasonable?
Well, what a reasonable and mature answer you've given. I can now see you're interested in a serious argument.
Wouldn't thinking about all the aspects and details include a study showing the activity to be safe? As long as it remains an open question I err on the side of being overprotective to children.
Why then, don't you apply that same logic of reasoning to everything else (alcohol, driving, flying on airplanes, crossing the streets), and only specifically this issue?
My guess: Because you know that would mean we have to ban everything to "err on the safe side".
Is there a particular reason you then, selectively choose to err on the safe side for some things and not for others?
But I do enjoy the hyperbole. Somehow, "Don't use naked kids in art," has become "banning things without thinking..."
So
"Don't use naked kids in art" is not banning? What is it then?
And if it's not
"banning things without thinking" can you give me the logical line of reasoning that was used to declare that such images are not allowed?
I posted this before. Are we moving to a totalitarian state because Kristen Stewart wasn't allowed to grope Dakota Fanning?
False analogy and strawman all in one.
Right, because someone advocating a change in the legal structure must necessarily be someone who agrees with whatever the authorities say.
Deep breath, chief, deep breath.
Your constant avoidance of my sincere requests to give me reasonable arguments, really lead me to conclude that you do not want to engage in a serious conversation, but rather give me some sneazy rhetoric-based comebacks and wipe the dust off your hands, as if you had solved the problem.
I said that I was getting the impression that you seemed to be the one who just abides by whatever law says (and asked you to confirm or deny this and to expand on it), since the only sources of "evidence" you've provided to back up your arguments are "Well, X state says it's illegal, so it's gotta be true". When I asked you to clarify if this was indeed your stance and if not, asked you to provide more argumentation, you just replied with "Right, just because I advocate some legal changes, you accuse me of agreeing with what the authorities say".
Now do the same for "porn" and "erotica."
Just because you can find one measure on which two things cannot be distinguished (looking up at the sky) does not mean there aren't simple distinguishing criteria.
That's exactly the point I was making!! Exactly what you said:
Just because you can find one measure on which two things cannot be distinguished (looking up at the sky) does not mean there aren't simple distinguishing criteria. Apply that to nude modeling and you have the justification of what I said: There are crucial differences between nude modeling and/or nude images, and pornography. But they aren't always obvious. Just because you can't easily differentiate them, doesn't mean there are no differences.
No one is being punished unless they violate the statute. I have no interest in separating pornographers from artists. And unless they use naked kids, they will be innocent. Just like the current state of the law with respect to groping.
So you would arrest an artist who, say, had his nude daughter playing on the living room and decided to paint a portrait of her?
To you, he and everybody else is automatically a pornographer?
Ok, then what are you basing the harmlessness of nude child modeling on?
Take the example I gave on the previous post. Where's the harm? A nude child playing on the living room, unaware that his/her father is drawing a portrait of him/her. No forcing has been done. No physical nor psychological abuse.
