• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Porn vs. Art

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?
 
quadraginta said:
We're talking about the criminalization of any depiction of children which can be construed by someone as pornographic.
Click to expand...
I'm not. I'm talking about the criminalization of any depiction of children which can be proven beyond reasonable doubt to be pornographic.
 
Bob from NJ said:
I have 2 horrible demonic questions:

1) Is the lingere section of the Sears Catalog porn or art? (this one's a joke but the next one's not so funny)
Click to expand...
Neither - no intent to sexually arouse and no skill applied (not in the context of art - marketing and advertising maybe, but not art).

Bob from NJ said:
2) If certain people are born with a genetic disposition towards pedophilia, just as some are born to be homosexual, wouldn't that make pedophilia just as natural and healthy as homosexuality? [emphasis added]
Click to expand...
I think you need to take a couple of steps backward.
 
TraneWreck said:
What is your evidence that it causes no foreseeable harm?
Click to expand...

The fact that you have been unable to provide evidence that it does.

It's as I said: you can't ban something for having no use or merit. That's censorship. You ban things that cause harm. If you can't demonstrate that the subject at hand does, then I have no effort to make whatsoever to show that you shouldn't ban it.
 
JFrankA said:
Now, since you are a lawyer, can you see how the first group of situations is a valid attempt to try to prevent any kind of harm to the child?
Click to expand...
Notwithstanding that it falls flat at the first hurdle (approval of the child?!?), yes, it seems like a valid attempt.
 
JFrankA said:
That hasn't been your stance. In fact, there was an example of a nude child in a film, you stated that the reason the child was naked wasn't good enough for you.
Click to expand...
TraneWreck said:
Huh?
Click to expand...
JFrankA said:
Sorry, you are NOT the artist in this case. The artist and the model (and the model's parents) have the say whether it's okay or not. You don't like it, fine. But if an artist and model and model's parents are okay with the photographing of a child, then one cannot call it child porn.
Click to expand...
TraneWreck said:
Haha, did I ever argue that wasn't the current state of the law? This is such a confusing argument you're making.
Click to expand...
My advice TraneWreck: either get used to it or resort to the "Ignore" function. I'm afraid they're your only two options here!
 
Southwind17 said:
What part of the meaning of "skill" don't you understand?
Click to expand...

See, this is what I find intolerable about you, Wind. Instead of clarifying the term, as I explicitly asked in my post, you answer with a bunch of words that do not carry the conversation forward in any way.

If the person is dead where's the public interest in even thinking about gathering evidence?
Click to expand...

Well, if you're trying to BAN a certain body of work, it might help, no ?

Why do you think we differentiate between murder and manslaughter?! I suppose it shouldn't "matter", should it?
Click to expand...

You're not following the conversation, Wind. You said: "Evidently not. Is it likely to sexually arouse?", as though likelihood was important. But you said earlier that INTENT was the important factor. So make up your mind.

When the perpetrator (loose definition) is an adult and the potential "victim" is a minor, and when there's no actual or duly-informed judgement of perceived benefit to the minor of the "perpetrator's" actions (or inactions)under the circumstances, essentially.
Click to expand...

Perpetrator ??? You're already ASSUMING harm when drawing your conclusion. I doesn't get more circular than this.
 
SkeptiChick said:
You'll need to demonstrate exactly how I've "missed the point" before anyone will agree with you. As things stand, you have said that "clearly, porn is not art per se". This would imply that the definitions of the two things are mutually exclusive. However, the definitions you supplied for those two things (porn and art) are not mutually exclusive. Please explain why porn and art, based upon the definitions you supplied, are mutually exclusive.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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".
 
Last edited:
Brian-M said:
What chance circumstance? I can't be 100% sure, but that photograph is most likely the result of deciding to produce a photograph of the Sydney Harbour Bridge with a certain "feel" to it, followed by days of searching out possible locations from which to take the picture, exercising skill in judging the possible aesthetic outcome of taking the picture at each location from different angles at various times of day, and returning to those sites in various weather conditions. If this is the case, then that photograph is not a product of "chance circumstance", but of deliberate planning and exercising of practiced judgment and skill.
Click to expand...
And if you're right then I concede it's artistic. If not, then no.
 
Brian-M said:
One of your objections to children appearing nude in art mentioned in previous posts is that they can't [legally] consent. But parents and guardians can consent on behalf of the child. It's their responsibility to determine whether or not appearing nude in art will be detrimental to the child.

Sure, there are bad parents out there, but the majority of parents are interested in protecting the well-being of their child. What you're suggesting is to deny parents the right to decide for themselves whether or not to allow their child to participate in an activity (appearing nude in art or using chainsaws).
Click to expand...
Nice one. Give parents the right to determine whether or not appearing nude in art will be detrimental to the child. Yes, that's eminently sensible. Yes, that should ensure adequate child protection. After all, who's more educated and responsible on matters of psychology than your average parent?! Yes, nice one indeed. :rolleyes:
 
Belz... said:
And that's a good reason for you to evade your burden of proof and let other people do the opposite, right ?
Click to expand...
What "burden of proof"? This isn't a court of law with somebody on trial. 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!
 
Belz... said:
I was simply pointing out the difference between intent and interpretation. In my mind the latter is much more important than the former and therefore is more relevant to determining what is porn and what isn't, and what is art and what isn't.
Click to expand...
Not when it comes down to criminality. Indeed, I would argue the complete opposite.
 
Belz... said:
See, this is what I find intolerable about you, Wind. Instead of clarifying the term, as I explicitly asked in my post, you answer with a bunch of words that do not carry the conversation forward in any way.
Click to expand...
So you're unsure what "skill" is then.

Belz... said:
Well, if you're trying to BAN a certain body of work, it might help, no ?
Click to expand...
"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.

Belz... said:
You're not following the conversation, Wind. You said: "Evidently not. Is it likely to sexually arouse?", as though likelihood was important. But you said earlier that INTENT was the important factor. So make up your mind.
Click to expand...
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.

Belz... said:
Perpetrator ??? You're already ASSUMING harm when drawing your conclusion. I doesn't get more circular than this.
Click to expand...
What purpose of my writing "loose definition" are you struggling with, or did you completely overlook that too?!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom