Porn vs. Art

[JFrankA]

Nothing per se. It's just that it's incompatible with this statement:




So what element of judgement is left for the parent if the child fully understands!? I don't think you appreciate what "understand" means.

I don't think you appreciate what "judgment" means and you throw around the phrase "per se" more than the vampire wanna-be kid from South Park.

This line of argument is ridiculous on your part. It is, once again, a dodge and a feeble attempt to discredit me without facing the issue you cannot seem to dispute.

Here's the an example between the difference of judgment and understanding: You yourself are judging parents even though they understand the circumstances of letting a child pose nude for a legitimate, non-sexual, artistic photo shoot.

Once again, you cowardly dodge the question of your own hypocrisy while at the same time, you show it off for all to see.

 

[JFrankA]

Art per se, no, it cannot. Porn with some artistic merit, for sure. I think you might be catching on!

So that's it:

Porn is not art. Period. Never will be, never can be. Simply because porn's intent is to sexual arouse someone.

End of story.

 

[JFrankA]

Mmm ... advertisement with artistic merit, arguably also pornographic, but I wouldn't argue so, personally. You see how the creator had two, possibly three, hats on?

Next example?

This isn't a discussion. This is a game. It's called "Southwind17 is always right."

The rules of the game are thus:

1. If you agree with SW, you are smart and thoughtful.
2. If you disagree with SW you get veiled insults.
3. If you disagree with SW and put up a post that he can't argue, he cherry picks at the argument and you get veiled insults.
4. If you point out holes in SW's argument, you either your point will be ignored or you will be ignored.
5. If you come disagree with SW's opinion he will tell you that a) you don't understand what he is saying or b) you don't understand what a certain word means.
6. Only SW can make judgments.
7. The debate doesn't matter, what matters is the number of posts in the thread.

....have I got this right?

 

[quadraginta]

I don't think you appreciate what "judgment" means and you throw around the phrase "per se" more than the vampire wanna-be kid from South Park.

This line of argument is ridiculous on your part. It is, once again, a dodge and a feeble attempt to discredit me without facing the issue you cannot seem to dispute.

Here's the an example between the difference of judgment and understanding: You yourself are judging parents even though they understand the circumstances of letting a child pose nude for a legitimate, non-sexual, artistic photo shoot.

Once again, you cowardly dodge the question of your own hypocrisy while at the same time, you show it off for all to see.

Imagine a large, flat and level expanse of Teflon coated surface. Imagine a single ball bearing rolling around randomly on that surface. Imagine trying to trap that ball bearing in one spot using nothing but the sharpened end of a long, thin broom straw.

That is how easily you will pin down SW to any statement of any content. But probably more rewarding.

 

[BenBurch]

Imagine a large, flat and level expanse of Teflon coated surface. Imagine a single ball bearing rolling around randomly on that surface. Imagine trying to trap that ball bearing in one spot using nothing but the sharpened end of a long, thin broom straw.

That is how easily you will pin down SW to any statement of any content. But probably more rewarding.

Oooh! That would be a fascinating modern art installation.

 

[JFrankA]

Oooh! That would be a fascinating modern art installation.

Just make sure that there are

a) no non-sexual photos of nude children or
b) no photos of adults having sex.

....because then it becomes something that has artistic value but isn't art per se.

 

[Southwind17]

Here's the an example between the difference of judgment and understanding: You yourself are judging parents even though they understand the circumstances of letting a child pose nude for a legitimate, non-sexual, artistic photo shoot.

But that's judgement and understanding by different people, not by one and the same person, namely the child. In the context of a single child, please contrast judgement and understanding from a practical perspective, i.e. without turning all academic (I'm sure we can all do that!).

 

[Southwind17]

So that's it:

Porn is not art. Period. Never will be, never can be. Simply because porn's intent is to sexual arouse someone.

End of story.

Well, I'd never go so far as to say "never" (who really knows what the future holds?!), but otherwise I was right - you've caught on! Well done.

 

[Toke]

This isn't a discussion. This is a game. It's called "Southwind17 is always right."

The rules of the game are thus:

1. If you agree with SW, you are smart and thoughtful.
2. If you disagree with SW you get veiled insults.
3. If you disagree with SW and put up a post that he can't argue, he cherry picks at the argument and you get veiled insults.
4. If you point out holes in SW's argument, you either your point will be ignored or you will be ignored.
5. If you come disagree with SW's opinion he will tell you that a) you don't understand what he is saying or b) you don't understand what a certain word means.
6. Only SW can make judgments.
7. The debate doesn't matter, what matters is the number of posts in the thread.

....have I got this right?

I overlooked this tread, guess there is no reason to go through 14 pages, as it seems similar to the "what is wrong with porn".

 

[Southwind17]

This isn't a discussion. This is a game. It's called "Southwind17 is always right."

The rules of the game are thus:

1. If you agree with SW, you are smart and thoughtful.
2. If you disagree with SW you get veiled insults.
3. If you disagree with SW and put up a post that he can't argue, he cherry picks at the argument and you get veiled insults.
4. If you point out holes in SW's argument, you either your point will be ignored or you will be ignored.
5. If you come disagree with SW's opinion he will tell you that a) you don't understand what he is saying or b) you don't understand what a certain word means.
6. Only SW can make judgments.
7. The debate doesn't matter, what matters is the number of posts in the thread.

....have I got this right?

I was asked a question; I answered it (quite sincerely and politely, I feel). I invited more examples (in case more is needed). Is that so bad, or do you simply not like the truth of the matter?!

 

[Southwind17]

Imagine a large, flat and level expanse of Teflon coated surface. Imagine a single ball bearing rolling around randomly on that surface. Imagine trying to trap that ball bearing in one spot using nothing but the sharpened end of a long, thin broom straw.
That is how easily you will pin down SW to any statement of any content. But probably more rewarding.

Imaginative analogy. Almost artistic, in fact!

 

[Southwind17]

Oooh! That would be a fascinating modern art installation.

Ah ... I see BenBurch agrees!

 

[Southwind17]

Just make sure that there are

a) no non-sexual photos of nude children or
b) no photos of adults having sex.

....because then it becomes something that has artistic value but isn't art per se.

So close. Sadly, we're back a step now to merely catch[ing] on. "Pornographic" would disqualify it as art per se; not simply the characteristics you list above.

 

[JFrankA]

So close. Sadly, we're back a step now to merely catch[ing] on. "Pornographic" would disqualify it as art per se; not simply the characteristics you list above.

Oh. My mistake.

I forgot to say "pictures of adults having sex that are intended to arouse people"......'

 

[Idiot Wind]

"Pornographic" would disqualify it as art per se; not simply the characteristics you list above.

Why would an image being pornographic in nature disqualify it as being art 'per se'?
What intrinsic quality of art excludes potential pornography?

 

[JFrankA]

I was asked a question; I answered it (quite sincerely and politely, I feel). I invited more examples (in case more is needed). Is that so bad, or do you simply not like the truth of the matter?!

Sincerely, yes.

Politely, no.

You have been dodging any point or question by either giving insults or nit picking/cherry picking.

Here's an example of a question you've been continuously dodging:

Why is it that you advocate that someone should dictate that a parent should have their child pose nude for a photo because of the "potential harm", yet insult the moderators for censoring you because you had the potential for breaking rules of the forum?

I'm sorry, SW, but debating you is exactly like arguing with a fundamental religious person.

 

[JFrankA]

Why would an image being pornographic in nature disqualify it as being art 'per se'?
What intrinsic quality of art excludes potential pornography?

Because, per SW, porn is meant to arouse sexual desire. Art isn't.

 

[quadraginta]

Why would an image being pornographic in nature disqualify it as being art 'per se'?
What intrinsic quality of art excludes potential pornography?

Just guessing, but I think SW may still be struggling with the idea that much of the rest of the English speaking world views the expression "per se" and the term "intrinsic" as synonymous in most respects. Somehow, when he employs it I get the sense of a language with remarkably similar sounding words conveying a meaning that he doesn't share with the population at large. Until we manage to help him over that barrier I don't expect much progress.

Of course, a mutually agreed-upon definition of "art" would also be helpful, but that seems unlikely, as well. I for one am unwilling to accept that art is what SW deems to be art, and nothing else, and the chances that he will concede any other interpretation are vanishingly small.

 

[JFrankA]

But that's judgement and understanding by different people, not by one and the same person, namely the child. In the context of a single child, please contrast judgement and understanding from a practical perspective, i.e. without turning all academic (I'm sure we can all do that!).

Sheesh. Another feeble attempt at nit picking words. Fine, I'll play your game.

A child may understand what is involved, such as what it takes to take care of a dog, and judge so that she/he is responsible and have enough money to take care of one, or such as understand that the shoot will make the child a some money and there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with it.

But the parents, make the final judgment of either example (or anything that their child wants to do), based on their knowledge of their child, experience, understanding, etc.

You are really, really, really, really stretching this feeble attempt to discredit what I am saying, you know.

 

[JFrankA]

Well, I'd never go so far as to say "never" (who really knows what the future holds?!), but otherwise I was right - you've caught on! Well done.

Yeah, I "caught on" by dumbing down.