Porn vs. Art

[Belz...]

Ahem ...

Another non-answer.

 

[not daSkeptic]

You do realize the purpose of a driving test, don't you?

Generally, the purpose is to demonstrate that one is sufficiently skilled in operating a motor vehicle according to certain established criteria. But whose criteria determines whether one possesses enough skill to be considered a driver? Yours? The California DMV's?

 

[Southwind17]

And yet people are awful at it. AWFUL, I tell ya. Most of them can't make turns properly, don't indicate their intentions and are more often than not confused about what's going on about them.

I'd say this qualifies as a lack of skill, though apparently that's enough for those who give away driving lisences.

The point of my (admittedly slightly exaggerated) example is that "skill" is relative. How can you say that someone has "no skill whatsoever, and therefore isn't REALLY playing the piano, per se" ?

Skill is relative - no doubt. But there are thresholds for competency (or minimum standards of acceptance, if you will), the driving test being a good example (of course, many people relax or even lose their driving skills after they've achieved their purpose!). But please, does the lowest grade recognised piano exam really validate "mashing" as competency or skill? I know it doesn't, and I'm sure you know so too. I don't see how somebody incapable of passing the lowest grade recognised piano exam can legitimately be called a pianist by any stretch of the imagination (except maybe yours).

This aspect of the debate is over. You're wrong and I think you know so now. If you don't then I don't believe there's any convincing you.

 

[Southwind17]

Generally, the purpose is to demonstrate that one is sufficiently skilled in operating a motor vehicle according to certain established criteria. But whose criteria determines whether one possesses enough skill to be considered a driver? Yours? The California DMV's?

That question's irrelevant to the debate. The point is that skill, per se, is required. THAT, is what is being contested by some here.

 

[not daSkeptic]

The point is that skill, per se, is required. THAT, is what is being contested by some here.

What constitutes possessing skill? How is it determined that one is sufficiently qualified to be labeled a pianist, a golfer, a driver, or a pilot?

 

[Southwind17]

What constitutes possessing skill? How is it determined that one is sufficiently qualified to be labeled a pianist, a golfer, a driver, or a pilot?

Well, pilots certainly need to demonstrate that they have the requisite skills before they can fly unaccompanied. Now, qualified pilots are clearly capable of flying a plane before they actually receive their licenses, so I suppose they become "unqualified" pilots somewhere between beginning training and qualifying. I don't know exactly at what point, but it's somewhere within that continuum, but not near the beginning. The same can essentially be said for drivers on public roads. Pianists, because of a lack of statutory minimum standard of skill (sorry, "competency" ), present a less definable continuum range, but it exists nonetheless, and the same can be said for golfers. Bottom line - one cannot realistically be called a pilot, driver, pianist or golfer without possessing a significant degree of skill necessary to competently fly a plane, competently drive a motor vehicle, competently make music on a piano and competently hit a golf ball into a hole respectively.

 

[not daSkeptic]

But please, does the lowest grade recognised piano exam really validate "mashing" as competency or skill?

Yes, it is skill as defined by the criteria of that specific exam. It is not necessarily skill as defined by other criteria. Your standards obviously fall into the latter category, and that's fine. Nobody is saying you personally have to recognize it as skill.

 

[not daSkeptic]

Well, pilots certainly need to demonstrate that they have the requisite skills before they can fly unaccompanied.

To whom?

The same can essentially be said for drivers on public roads.

Again, to whom?

Pianists, because of a lack of statutory minimum standard of skill (sorry, "competency" ), present a less definable continuum range, but it exists nonetheless, and the same can be said for golfers.

Once again, to whom must this be demonstrated?

Bottom line - one cannot realistically be called a pilot, driver, pianist or golfer without possessing a significant degree of skill necessary to competently fly a plane, competently drive a motor vehicle, competently make music on a piano and competently hit a golf ball into a hole respectively.

What constitutes competence?

 

[BenBurch]

Thread Summary:
Porn can be art. Art can be porn. Southwind, per se, is extremely bothered by porn.

I declare this thread over.

 

[Belz...]

Skill is relative - no doubt. But there are thresholds for competency (or minimum standards of acceptance, if you will)

Ah, yes. "Minimum skill" for playing the piano would be the ability to mash the keys and hear the sounds. Whether what you play is good or not isn't relevant. Several "singers" are not good, to me, but that doesn't stop them from being singers, even if I don't consider them to have any talent at all.

But please, does the lowest grade recognised piano exam really validate "mashing" as competency or skill?

You're the one who brought forth the exam part. I never mentioned it. Any idiot in an emergency can drive a car, with or without previous experience. During those minutes, isn't that person a "driver" ?

This aspect of the debate is over. You're wrong and I think you know so now.

Well, well. Isn't that an interesting "I can't hear you" tactic. The 17 in your username must be your age.

 

[tesscaline]

Thread Summary:
Porn can be art. Art can be porn. Southwind, per se, is extremely bothered by porn.

I declare this thread over.

Pretty much.

 

[Southwind17]

To whom?

Irrelevant. Skill, per se, is required.

Again, to whom?

Again, irrelevant. Skill, per se, is required.

Once again, to whom must this be demonstrated?

Once again, irrelevant. Skill, per se, is required.

What constitutes competence?

Whatever the acceptance criteria dictate.

 

[Southwind17]

Thread Summary:
Porn can be art.
Art can be porn.
Southwind, per se, is extremely bothered by porn.
I declare this thread over.

Porn, by definition, cannot be art per se; "art", when pornographic, fails then to constitute art per se; I have no issue with porn per se. Quite the opposite, in fact.

I trust you're declaring this thread over just for you, given that you clearly continue to have no clue what it's about.

 

[JFrankA]

Porn, by definition, cannot be art per se; "art", when pornographic, fails then to constitute art per se; I have no issue with porn per se. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Southwind17's point, by definition, cannot be valid per se; "valid point" when posted and typed by Southwind17, fails then to constitute validity per se; I have issue with a valid point per se. Quite the opposite, in fact.

I trust you see how this works or are you completely blind?

 

[JFrankA]

And neither do you, seemingly. Convenient get out, though, maybe?!

I find it very interesting that you encourage people to stop posting. Because of the definition of a valid point, I can only assume it is because you know it's the only way "win" the thread.

No offense, but it does show me that my definition of what is a valid point is real when you invite people to leave. Usually, if one has a valid point, they tend to want to discuss it.

In so posting another taunt to try to get someone to leave the discussion, it shows that there really isn't a valid point at all in your post, per se. Clearly, begging someone to leave a conversation has no valid point, neither does ignoring posts or people, per se.

Once again, I my definition is supported by you.

 

[Toke]

Thread Summary:
Porn can be art. Art can be porn. Southwind, per se, is extremely bothered by porn.

I declare this thread over.

It does not differ much from my impression from the "What is wrong with porn" tread.

 

[TheDaver]

What’s “debating sensibly” apart from giving up to your supreme self-evident logic and declaring you the winner?

 

[JFrankA]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/195334b0176c60daf4.jpg[/qimg]


[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/195334b0176c60daf4.jpg[/qimg]

*sigh* Repeating a point that isn't valid, per se, doesn't make it valid.

People with nothing meaningful to contribute/add, or others?

Well, the others who post on here with "nothing meaningful to contribute/add" are the people with whom you disagree with, thus proving my definition once again.

I'm sorry. What, exactly, do you mean by this?

Exactly what I said. I'm sorry, but it is not my fault that you fail to comprehend what you have read.

None taken. No offense, but this doesn't make much sense. Can you explain?

My statement is quite clear. The definition I refer to is something I've posted several pages ago and has yet to be disputed by anyone on this thread. I'm sorry, I strongly suggest you go back and read thread.

It shows nothing of the sort. And I really don't want people to leave, unless they've got nothing to contribute or add to the main discussion.

Hence proving my definition once again: you say that you don't want people to leave, but then you add a qualifier, thus rendering what you have said as not a valid point, per se. See how that works?

I'm sorry - begging?

Several times you've politely implored people to leave the thread. That is begging.

And in those three words, you yet again, prove my definition.

I see nothing wrong with ignoring posts or people.

Well, that is obvious. That's part of the reason why my definition is true.

Indeed, the Forum, as you know, has a tool specifically designed to facilitate that. I've refrained from using that tool (except for one poster), but I'm equally entitled to refrain from responding to useless posts, and, dare I say it, useless people, if I so wish. Now, ignoring meaningful, constructive posts and people, that's different.

But I pay attention to your posts, even though they fit the undisputed definition. You just continue to show that my definition is true and you don't see it.

And once again I'm afraid you're going to have to explain exactly what you mean, if you really do wish to continue debating sensibly, that is.

I have been, you just don't understand. Please try to get a hold of what I am talking about because you do nothing but prove my point as valid.

 

[Southwind17]

*sigh* Repeating a point that isn't valid, per se, doesn't make it valid.
Well, the others who post on here with "nothing meaningful to contribute/add" are the people with whom you disagree with, thus proving my definition once again.
Exactly what I said. I'm sorry, but it is not my fault that you fail to comprehend what you have read.
My statement is quite clear. The definition I refer to is something I've posted several pages ago and has yet to be disputed by anyone on this thread. I'm sorry, I strongly suggest you go back and read thread.
Hence proving my definition once again: you say that you don't want people to leave, but then you add a qualifier, thus rendering what you have said as not a valid point, per se. See how that works?
Several times you've politely implored people to leave the thread. That is begging.
And in those three words, you yet again, prove my definition.
Well, that is obvious. That's part of the reason why my definition is true.
But I pay attention to your posts, even though they fit the undisputed definition. You just continue to show that my definition is true and you don't see it.
I have been, you just don't understand. Please try to get a hold of what I am talking about because you do nothing but prove my point as valid.

Well, if nothing else (highly likely) this certainly shows you have no desire to debate anything of substance. So be it.

 

[JJM 777]

porn is not art per se, especially child porn[/URL]

Either nothing is art per se, or then everything is art per se. Which of these alternatives is true, is not a very interesting question after all.

Wait there are more options, including but not limited to:
- everything is art what a closed inner circle of intellectuals declares as art
- everything is art what we democratically vote as art

being aroused by a picture of a pretty girl is a pretty predictable, normal male human reaction.
(...)
Being aroused by a picture of a ten year old is not.

This is not true in all cases, if we agree that

A) it is (biologically) normal to be sexually aroused by a nude body of your own species (in our case, humans) (mostly of the opposite gender, but there are numerous exceptions) which has undergone the onset of puberty (but not necessarily the full completion of puberty)

B) it is (biologically) (probably, do we have statistical survey about this?) unnormal (what does "unnormal" mean, is it a statistical or philosophical concept?) to be sexually aroused by a nude body of anything else than what was defined in section A)

the difference between artistic child nudity and child porn is this: the way it was photographed.

In that case, the innocent end user of the product in most cases doesn't even know whether he is enjoying of cultural art or indulging in sinful child porn.

For example there's a clear difference between photographing a child:
1. with approval from the child

Does a similar difference exist between having sex with the same child, with approval from the child? See I have candies in pocket, you want one?

2. with the parents there

You seem to assume that pedophiles never are the parents of the victim.

3. with the explanation of the shoot to both the child and the parents
4. with the child and the parents keeping the right to not have the shot done
5. with a release form explaining what the shoot contains

See points 1. and 2.

6. with concern to the child's physical and psychological well being
7. with the intent that the photographs clearly placed on display for the public to see.

These two don't contradict each other, do they?

May we kindly publish your nudity for the public to see, to boost your physical and psychological well being?