Porn vs. Art

[TraneWreck]

I think Tranewreck is making two major errors here, both of which have already been pointed out but both of which bear further highlighting.

The first is that it's irrational to take data about the outcomes of child sexual abuse plus the recording of said abuse, and assume that it is valid data about the outcomes of nude child modelling. You can't generalise from apples to oranges.

Yeah, sure, I acknowledged I couldn't factually sustain that argument. There aren't any studies that deal with that situation one way or the other.

Tranewreck is arguing that in practise you cannot adequately distinguish child sexual abuse plus the recording of said abuse from nude child modelling. I find that argument very strange indeed, since the differences appear to be quite obvious.

So you think you can look at a picture of a naked kid and conclude how that child felt while it was being taken? That's a pretty bold assertions.

The second, perhaps deeper issue is that Tranewreck thinks it is okay to restrict people's freedom to act as they see fit unless the people being restricted can prove that they need a given freedom. I take great exception to that. I think that it should be up to people who want to censor or restrict others to prove that they need to pass such laws in order to prevent provable, significant harm. No proof of harm from the activity in question, no law censoring or restricting it.

There's absolutely no proof of harm from posing for artists such as Henson, to pick one example, but we have first-hand testimony from at least one of his models that while the photography did no harm at all, subsequent harassment by malignantly self-righteous "moral" crusaders caused her significant emotional suffering. Based on the available evidence I'm more in favour of censoring anti-child-pornography crusaders than of censoring artists like Henson.

Sure, I see that point. If you can come up with a method for predicting how a child would react in a given situation I have said multiple times that I'm alright with moving forward. I remain skeptical of that claim, however, and only one poster has even tried to establish a framework of rules.

How do you know the child will be treated like Henson and not humiliated? You have as many studies proving your point as I have proving mine.

As for the freedom issue, people act as though this is some massive restriction on First Amendment rights, it just isn't. Legally, it could almost be dealt with as a child labor issue. Children in the entertainment profession already have massive restrictions concerning such employment. Simply adding-"cannot be naked"-would hardly be restrictive to artists.

Did the makers of this movie have their rights unacceptibly violated because Dakota Fanning was too young to be groped on film?
http://www.showbizspy.com/article/2...oo-young-to-be-groped-by-kristen-stewart.html

I doubt Dakota Fanning would have been destroyed as a human by Kristen Stewart's wandering hands, yet that law hardly seems destructive to an artist's ability to express themselves.

 

[TraneWreck]

A parent or guardian can decide whether or not is is reasonably safe for the child to use the chainsaw. A parent or guardian might decide that the child is old enough and mature enough to use a small chainsaw without injuring themselves, and teach their child how to use it safely. In fact, a lot of parents do exactly that.

For example, here's a picture of a 14 year-old girl using a chainsaw to make art...

Sure, but a parent cannot legally allow their children to drink alcohol or drive a car before a certain age or have sex with an adult even if they think it would be good for them.

There are two ways to approach this argument, one legitimate and one not.

The illegitimate approach is to claim that it would be unprecedented to define a class of actions that a parent cannot consent to on behalf of a child. That simply isn't true.

The Legitimate approach is to argue that nude modelling is not like alcohol consumption and driving, it should be allowed.

You've made an argument for the first position, I assume you're argument for the second is that nude modelling is more analagous to chainsaws then the examples I offered.

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.

True for some things, not for others.

 

[quadraginta]

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.

Perhaps I need to go back and re-read the appropriate posts. I thought your primary position was that certain activities should be banned categorically because of their potential for harm. This is an issue of legal concerns rather than the niceties of formal debate. It seemed to me that you were advocating a blanket legal proscription based on an undocumented potential for harm, rather than any foundation of fact that real harm was being addressed.

Now you concede that advocacy of such a prohibition does place the burden of proof upon you. Are you rethinking the Draconian reach of your original suggestions?

 

[TraneWreck]

If you actually read the report you mention (here), you'll notice that they give the following definition...
They then go on to clarify...
What we're talking about is nude modeling, which this report places in the category of child erotica, not child pornography. The report doesn't address this issue at all.

The distinction is simple when you look at the definitions above. Just ask, is it sexually explicit? The distinction can be blurred at times, but in most cases it's very clear.

I just don't agree with that last statement. Because the study didn't come with actual pictures to examine, there is no way for anyone to conclude as you did. There may very well be pictures included under "child pornography" that many people in this forum would consider "child erotica."

Honestly, reading those definitions do you have a clear idea of which is which? As a lawyer these are the sorts of issues where we make our money. In a courtroom both sides will take the same picture and make passionate arguments on both sides. I would be willing to bet that courts and juries err so far on the side of child pornography (that is to say, finding pictures to be porn, not erotica) that even highly innocent looking things have been deemed unacceptible.

Where? Where does it say that? I didn't see a section like that anywhere in the report. Here's the entire section on harm to the victims...

Exactly where in all of that does it even suggest that non-sexually explicit nude modeling harms children in any way? It doesn't even address the subject. It only talks about "obscene adult material".

Yeah, that's the part I couldn't sustain. There just isn't a test group to study.

Again, if we're legally arguing that the practice should be banned, that would mean I failed to meet the burden to limit First Amendment rights.

If, however, you're arguing that this proves it's safe, then you have to make that case just like I have to make mine. Both sides bear the burden of establishing safety/harm, and neither side has done so.

I'd argue that's it's very easy to distinguish between situations where innocent nude pictures are being taken which won't harm the child, and situations where sexually explicit photographs are being taken that will likely harm the child.

Please prove this. Find a case where someone has been exonerated. You keep saying this is easy, but you have no idea what pictures were used to convict someone. You may very well find those to be innocent but the owner is in prison.

You're making the positive claim here.

I'd say that the burden is on those opposed to it that non-sexual nude pictures taken for artistic purposes causes harm of any kind to children.

Legally, yes, factually, no.

Just because I couldn't prove cigarettes to be harmful in 1950, that doesn't mean they were safe.

 

[TraneWreck]

Perhaps I need to go back and re-read the appropriate posts. I thought your primary position was that certain activities should be banned categorically because of their potential for harm. This is an issue of legal concerns rather than the niceties of formal debate. It seemed to me that you were advocating a blanket legal proscription based on an undocumented potential for harm, rather than any foundation of fact that real harm was being addressed.

There is documented harm from child pornography. It's impossible to tell what harm comes from merely being photographed naked because all of those depressing studies I linked say they cannot find a child that appeared in porn who wasn't also physically abused.

Thus, it's an open question. I initially thought I could show that appearing naked alone caused problems, I cannot.

Based on the fact that child porn is harmful and distinguishing "porn" from "erotica" is incredibly difficult, I suggested we shouldn't even try, the cost of error being so high.

I've yet to see anyone prove that 1) nude modelling isn't harmful and 2) there's an easy way to distinguish cases.

Now you concede that advocacy of such a prohibition does place the burden of proof upon you. Are you rethinking the Draconian reach of your original suggestions?

Legally, yes, factually, no.

Obviously this discussion will not result in the creation of a new law, but when we ask the quetion, "Is nude child modelling harmful," the failure to prove that it is does not mean that it isn't.

 

[Southwind17]

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.

Oh that life were so simple.

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

Please prove this. Find a case where someone has been exonerated. You keep saying this is easy, but you have no idea what pictures were used to convict someone. You may very well find those to be innocent but the owner is in prison.

You're making the positive claim here.

<snip>

We could start with this one, that somebody rolleyes cited earlier in this thread ...

<snip>

http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2009/09/peoria_parents_sue_wal-mart_ag.php

The ridiculous, over-zealous local authorities tried to take the kids away. The parents were cleared after an investigation and are now suing those same authorities.

<snip>

Others are available.

Sadly, evidence supporting the second part of your statement above exists as well. That would be further, but less appropriately resolved evidence of the inevitable abuse of such laws by less-than-scrupulous prosecutors.

 

[JFrankA]

Oh that life were so simple.

Again with the dodging.

 

[TraneWreck]

We could start with this one, that somebody rolleyes cited earlier in this thread ...

Others are available.

Sadly, evidence supporting the second part of your statement above exists as well. That would be further, but less appropriately resolved evidence of the inevitable abuse of such laws by less-than-scrupulous prosecutors.

Come on now, that was a case of parents having photos of their kids. We've already discussed that in great length. It isn't remotely what was discussed in that report.

As for the second part, I don't really get your point.

 

[quadraginta]

Come on now, that was a case of parents having photos of their kids. We've already discussed that in great length. It isn't remotely what was discussed in that report.

That was a case of someone perceiving photographs of nude children to have erotic intent, pursuing prosecution under the sort of statutes you appear to be advocating, and the accused subsequently being exonerated. I thought that is what you asked for when you said,

Please prove this. Find a case where someone has been exonerated. You keep saying this is easy,

in direct response to,

Originally Posted by Brian-M
I'd argue that's it's very easy to distinguish between situations where innocent nude pictures are being taken which won't harm the child, and situations where sexually explicit photographs are being taken that will likely harm the child.

So now I'm confused. What exactly were you asking for in that exchange?

 

[not daSkeptic]

Let me ask you these questions:

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

Not inherently, no. Only if someone considers them as such.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins
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.

A thing can be both a fallacy and a proposed solution. Not all proposed solutions make sense.
I think you haven't actually sat down to think about what the world would look like if we solved all problems from that logic. "Lets spare ourselves thinking about the problem and studying the differences between X and Y. Lets just ban everything and arrest anyone who violates the law"

Here's an alternative solution: Studying what the differences between X and Y are, and if Y is not proven to be inherently harmful, then don't ban it.
Would you like to be the father from the comic strip joke, where the guy is taking a picture, and then right at the moment he snaps it, his nude son runs into the frame, and then the picture developer sees it and reports him to the police and the man goes to jail? Is that a scenario you find acceptable? How would you feel if you were in that position?

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?

No.
So what?
What's your point, Trane? That because it isn't art, it should be banned?

I'm talking to you about the difference between child nude images (whether real or virtual) and child pornography, which is a crime because of the abuse committed against the children in question.

Can you justify the banning of images that, in the process of making them, did not involve any physical nor psychological harm to any children?

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.

To deal with what situation? An image where there's uncertainty as to whether the child in question was abused or not? What do you think is the most reasonable solution? In my opinion, it is to study the case further until evidence is gathered that there was actual harm done to the child. If no evidence can be found on this, there is absolutely no reason to punish the person responsible for the material. But I can't change what specific countries decide to make for their individual law/books. That's my reasonable opinion. Each country governs with their own laws, and they may not always be based on reason.

If I've been following your argument correct, your position is that, to make things "safe" and save us the trouble of thinking and reasoning, we just ban everything and arrest anyone involved, even if they happened to have committed no crime at all.
Right?

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.

I'm even more curious as to when I said such thing and why is your reading comprehension so faulty and biased. When did I ever said that it was "simple" to differentiate between art and child porn? What I did say is, there is a difference. Not all nudity is pornography and not all nudity involved harm to the person (for example in virtual porn. There wasn't even a real person involved).
That it may not be as simple as we wish it were to decipher which of the two it is, that's another thing.

Your argument seems to be that since it is very hard to differentiate, we just punish everyone, both innocents and guilty people. Am I wrong? If I am, explain then what your position is.

 

[TraneWreck]

That was a case of someone perceiving photographs of nude children to have erotic intent, pursuing prosecution under the sort of statutes you appear to be advocating, and the accussed subsequently being exonerated. I thought that is what you asked for when you said,


in direct response to,

So now I'm confused. What exactly were you asking for in that exchange?

Fair enough, I could have explained that better.

There's a legal distinction made between "child pornography" and "child erotica." If you read the study from the US Embassy they explain it in some detail. One could conclude from that language that there's a strong way of distinguishing the two. The problem is that there are no images attached to the language so we have no idea what is considered porn and what is considered erotica.

This is a constant issue with the law, you and I could read the same statute and come away with two totally different images of to what it applies. Thus, without knowledge of what images are attached to what definitions, it's not appropriate to say there's a clear distinction. Things may have been defined as "porn" that all of us would argue is "eroitca."

So I shouldn't have said your example doesn't apply, simply that it's an obvious case (one on the other side being the photographic capture of sexual abuse). So yes, that case helps define the perameters, but it doesn't really flesh out the language in a way that let's us make claims about the legal distinction.

 

[JFrankA]

There is documented harm from child pornography. It's impossible to tell what harm comes from merely being photographed naked because all of those depressing studies I linked say they cannot find a child that appeared in porn who wasn't also physically abused.

Thus, it's an open question. I initially thought I could show that appearing naked alone caused problems, I cannot.

Based on the fact that child porn is harmful and distinguishing "porn" from "erotica" is incredibly difficult, I suggested we shouldn't even try, the cost of error being so high.

I've yet to see anyone prove that 1) nude modelling isn't harmful and 2) there's an easy way to distinguish cases.

There's the kid who was naked in Superman....

Legally, yes, factually, no.

Obviously this discussion will not result in the creation of a new law, but when we ask the quetion, "Is nude child modelling harmful," the failure to prove that it is does not mean that it isn't.

So wait.

If it's okay for a parent to take a picture of a child naked, why would it be illegal if that same parent was present if another person took a picture of that same child naked?

Let's me give you an example. A single father is dating a woman, the man is doing something and the child is naked except for a cowboy hat and calling himself "Cowboy John". The woman thinks that this is adorable, and tells the child to go get his toy horse and pretend he is riding the toy horse and pose for the picture. The child gets his toy horse, telling the father about what's happening, the father comes to watch the photography take place.

The picture is snapped and both agree that it's cute. So they show the photo to some of his family (relatives) and some of her friends (non-relatives).

....is this child porn? It's more than "look what happened, let's snap the picture" because the child posed for the woman. It was the woman's idea, approved by the father and the child didn't mind.

Should the woman be arrested? Should the child go back to the mother?

I think, by the way you set this up, the child goes back to the mother and both the father and the girlfriend are arrested for child porn.

The problem with what you are saying is that it's a "zero-tolerance" policy. If one is willing to sacrifice the right to a) do whatever art they choose to do without causing any harm to anyone and b) the right to parent, then we get into arresting anyone who just barely comes close to the line on impulse, without actually delving into what really happened, why it happened and what the result was.

 

[TraneWreck]

A thing can be both a fallacy and a proposed solution. Not all proposed solutions make sense.
I think you haven't actually sat down to think about what the world would look like if we solved all problems from that logic. "Lets spare ourselves thinking about the problem and studying the differences between X and Y. Lets just ban everything and arrest anyone who violates the law"

Here's an alternative solution: Studying what the differences between X and Y are, and if Y is not proven to be inherently harmful, then don't ban it.
Would you like to be the father from the comic strip joke, where the guy is taking a picture, and then right at the moment he snaps it, his nude son runs into the frame, and then the picture developer sees it and reports him to the police and the man goes to jail? Is that a scenario you find acceptable? How would you feel if you were in that position?

Sure, but that's the very point at issue. If you can prove Y isn't harmful, go for it. Show me the study.

What do you think "fallacy" means?

And as for your example, undoubtedly the man would get a lawyer, argue the circumstances in court, and likely be found innocent. Any enacted law would require a mental standard of the perpetrator. Malice, negligence...etc., a naked kid running in the picture would negate the necessary mental intent on the part of the photographer and he wouldn't be guilty.

No.
So what?
What's your point, Trane? That because it isn't art, it should be banned?

I'm talking to you about the difference between child nude images (whether real or virtual) and child pornography, which is a crime because of the abuse committed against the children in question.

Can you justify the banning of images that, in the process of making them, did not involve any physical nor psychological harm to any children?

If you can prove no such harm occured, have at it.

To deal with what situation? An image where there's uncertainty as to whether the child in question was abused or not? What do you think is the most reasonable solution? In my opinion, it is to study the case further until evidence is gathered that there was actual harm done to the child. If no evidence can be found on this, there is absolutely no reason to punish the person responsible for the material. But I can't change what specific countries decide to make for their individual law/books. That's my reasonable opinion. Each country governs with their own laws, and they may not always be based on reason.

If I've been following your argument correct, your position is that, to make things "safe" and save us the trouble of thinking and reasoning, we just ban everything and arrest anyone involved, even if they happened to have committed no crime at all.
Right?

Well, if the statute prohibits an activity, and they perform said activity, then they will have commited a crime. Whether you think that action should be prohibited is a different issue.

Look, take prescription drugs. When a new drug is developed we don't put it on the market and make someone prove it's harmful. We keep it out of circulation until facts can be developed.

I'd be alright with a temporary moratorium until more evidence was gathered.

I'm even more curious as to when I said such thing and why is your reading comprehension so faulty and biased. When did I ever said that it was "simple" to differentiate between art and child porn? What I did say is, there is a difference. Not all nudity is pornography and not all nudity involved harm to the person (for example in virtual porn. There wasn't even a real person involved).
That it may not be as simple as we wish it were to decipher which of the two it is, that's another thing.

Your argument seems to be that since it is very hard to differentiate, we just punish everyone, both innocents and guilty people. Am I wrong? If I am, explain then what your position is.

You said, "You need to understand there's a very drastic difference between the two."

If there's a "drastic difference" one should be able to distinguish the two. Can you name two things that are "Drastically different" that are hard to differentiate? If so, then fine, I got your statement wrong.

As for punishing innocents, once again, if a statute was enacted that prohibited the use of nude children in the production of art, you wouldn't be innocent if you used nude children in art.

It's illegal to possess marijuana. It shouldn't be illegal, but you are not "innocent" if you possess marijuana.

You're making an argument that says a law shouldn't exist, don't try to smear my position with confusion about arresting innocent people.

 

[quadraginta]

Fair enough, I could have explained that better.

There's a legal distinction made between "child pornography" and "child erotica." If you read the study from the US Embassy they explain it in some detail. One could conclude from that language that there's a strong way of distinguishing the two. The problem is that there are no images attached to the language so we have no idea what is considered porn and what is considered erotica.

This is a constant issue with the law, you and I could read the same statute and come away with two totally different images of to what it applies. Thus, without knowledge of what images are attached to what definitions, it's not appropriate to say there's a clear distinction. Things may have been defined as "porn" that all of us would argue is "eroitca."

So I shouldn't have said your example doesn't apply, simply that it's an obvious case (one on the other side being the photographic capture of sexual abuse). So yes, that case helps define the perameters, but it doesn't really flesh out the language in a way that let's us make claims about the legal distinction.

I think one of the main problems here is that the quality which constitutes "erotic" isn't necessarily or even primarily one of intent, but rather one of perception. As you point out even the distinction between "pornographic" and "erotic' is contentious and as much a matter of perception as intent, if such a distinction can plausibly be made in the first place.

This being said, it makes the issue of whether or not "harm" is being done quite independent of the issue of the content of an image, and returns it to the actual treatment of the subject of that image. This is why statutes which presume harm miss their professed goal entirely. Simply reverse the assumptions to see the error being made. Is it valid to assume that because the content of an image involving a minor exhibits no apparent harm that no harm was done to that minor during the production of the image? Your approach would suggest that it is not appropriate to make such an assumption, and thus any image of any minor at all should be criminalized.

The state of dress or undress is a red herring, and is driven by cultural mores (most often as an opportunistic grab at public emotion) rather than any rational considerations. It is really quite irrelevant to any serious discussion of the welfare of the subject.

 

[TraneWreck]

There's the kid who was naked in Superman....

This is probably the most Superman III has been discussed since it was released.

So wait.

If it's okay for a parent to take a picture of a child naked, why would it be illegal if that same parent was present if another person took a picture of that same child naked?

Obviously it will depend on all the facts surrounding the circumstance. This is why trials exist. A parent taking a picture of their kid naked and not sharing it with anyone obviously isn't a big deal. Posting that picture on the internet is stranger, it would get a little more scrutiny (should it be made a legal issue through an arrest or something). A parent hiring someone to photograph their kid naked is moving quickly towards danger.

Each case will obviously be different and require scrutiny of material facts.

The problem with what you are saying is that it's a "zero-tolerance" policy. If one is willing to sacrifice the right to a) do whatever art they choose to do without causing any harm to anyone and b) the right to parent, then we get into arresting anyone who just barely comes close to the line on impulse, without actually delving into what really happened, why it happened and what the result was.

Again, the farther that picture is publicized, the more scrutiny it would invite.

Probably nothing wrong with sharing the picture with close relatives (I've personally never been sent a picture of my relatives' naked kids, but whatever).

If parents know they can't spread pictures of their kids naughty bits around the world, what's the problem? Do I need to see their kid's ass on YouTube?

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Sure, but that's the very point at issue. If you can prove Y isn't harmful, go for it. Show me the study.

Don't turn the tables, Trane. You're the one advocating/suggesting that Y may be harmful, when there's absolutely no evidence at all that it is (And yes, for the record, "Y" is "images of nude children"). It is up to you to prove that there's anything wrong with it that makes this discussion worthwhile. And don't get me started on "potential harm" because everything has potential harm. Did you know ex-President Bush once almost died because he nearly choked on a Pretzel?. You didn't see him banning Pretzels the next day. Even a not-so-clever guy as him didn't do something as ridiculous as that.
The reason you're making the argument that it has to be banned, is certainly because you suspect the harm is more than just "potential". And you haven't provided a spec of evidence. Only bigotry and bias.

What do you think "fallacy" means?

Unreasonable argument that isn't logically consistent.
Saying "X is harmful, and Y isn't proven at all to be, but I think it may be, so lets ban both" is not a reasonable argument.
Again, do the mental exercise. Really. Just sit down and apply that same reasoning to everything else and see how absurd it is.

And as for your example, undoubtedly the man would get a lawyer, argue the circumstances in court, and likely be found innocent. Any enacted law would require a mental standard of the perpetrator. Malice, negligence...etc., a naked kid running in the picture would negate the necessary mental intent on the part of the photographer and he wouldn't be guilty.

Would you feel ok going to jail because you were accused of being a pedophile just because your own son was captured in the picture, Trane? Would you feel ok with a bogited society like that one? Don't avoid the question. Answer it.

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?

If you can prove no such harm occured, have at it.

Refer to the first section of my post.

Well, if the statute prohibits an activity, and they perform said activity, then they will have commited a crime. Whether you think that action should be prohibited is a different issue.

Look, take prescription drugs. When a new drug is developed we don't put it on the market and make someone prove it's harmful. We keep it out of circulation until facts can be developed.

I'd be alright with a temporary moratorium until more evidence was gathered.

Look, Trane. No one here is disagreeing that "if the state says Y is illegal, then you're considered a perpetrator if you're caught doing it". In Islamic countries, women get beaten for showing their hair. In other countries, there are different laws. A country may decide it's illegal and highly punishable to wear red shirts, and anyone caught doing it is technically violating the law. Obviously, I don't disagree with you that the person caught doing the action prescribed by the Country as illegal, is by definition, violating the law.

I am asking you, Trane (or whatever your real name is) what you, as an individual with a mind and an ability to reason; thinks about it. I'm asking you if you find this reasoning logical. If you really find it coherent. If you see yourself living in a society that bans things without sitting down to think about all the aspects, details and exceptions of the situation.

Or are you a conformist who just blindly agrees with whatever the authorities say? If that's the case, then just tell me and I'll stop wasting my time trying to discuss this issue intelligently. Really, I have no problem.

You said, "You need to understand there's a very drastic difference between the two."

If there's a "drastic difference" one should be able to distinguish the two.

Sorry, that's just wrong. It does not follow.
There can be drastic differences between things, and still not be easy to tell the difference between them. You're drawing out a wrong conclusion there.

Can you name two things that are "Drastically different" that are hard to differentiate? If so, then fine, I got your statement wrong.

Out of the top of my head, I can say: a star and a planet. Many times when I look at the sky, I don't know if what I'm looking at is a star or a planet. From where I'm standing, they look virtually identical. Yet, they have very drastic differences.

I'm sure I (and you, if you also do the homework and sit to think about this more deeply) will find that there are many, many things that at first sight seem identical and yet, they really are very very different. It's a lesson about appearances. That you can't always judge by what it seems.

Going back to the example of child modeling, since you can't read feelings from a person by looking at a picture, you can't tell if the person in question has been abused. There's a good example of how it's possible that something can be drastically different from what it seems and yet not be obvious to the naked eye.

It is an issue, Trane, and nobody denies that it's very difficult to reach a verdict sometimes. But it is irresponsible to just say "I'm gonna save myself the problem of having to think about this and punish everyone, both innocents and guilty"

As for punishing innocents, once again, if a statute was enacted that prohibited the use of nude children in the production of art, you wouldn't be innocent if you used nude children in art.

It's illegal to possess marijuana. It shouldn't be illegal, but you are not "innocent" if you possess marijuana.

You're making an argument that says a law shouldn't exist, don't try to smear my position with confusion about arresting innocent people.

You keep focusing on "the law" instead of "the issue in hand".
I'm making an argument about the issue, not about how some countries decide to legalize it.
If anything, there's a long legacy of laws being passed for irrational reasons. Here we are, in the year 2010 and still trying to pass down laws to allow homosexuals to marry.

Your problem seems to be that you focus on how people pass down laws and not whether these laws are based on a reasonable line of thought, or just mere bias/superstition.

 

[TraneWreck]

Don't turn the tables, Trane. You're the one advocating/suggesting that Y may be harmful, when there's absolutely no evidence at all that it is (And yes, for the record, "Y" is "images of nude children"). It is up to you to prove that there's anything wrong with it that makes this discussion worthwhile. And don't get me started on "potential harm" because everything has potential harm. Did you know ex-President Bush once almost died because he nearly choked on a Pretzel?. You didn't see him banning Pretzels the next day. Even a not-so-clever guy as him didn't do something as ridiculous as that.
The reason you're making the argument that it has to be banned, is certainly because you suspect the harm is more than just "potential". And you haven't provided a spec of evidence. Only bigotry and bias.

Again, because cigarettes couldn't be proven to be harmful in, say, 1950, that doesn't mean they were safe.

On factual matters, the failure of one side to prove something harmful does not mean it's safe.

And what's my "bigotry and bias?" Find a single instance where I accused someone of being a pornographer. This is just unacceptible hysteria.

Unreasonable argument that isn't logically consistent.
Saying "X is harmful, and Y isn't proven at all to be, but I think it may be, so lets ban both" is not a reasonable argument.
Again, do the mental exercise. Really. Just sit down and apply that same reasoning to everything else and see how absurd it is.

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.

Would you feel ok going to jail because you were accused of being a pedophile just because your own son was captured in the picture, Trane? Would you feel ok with a bogited society like that one? Don't avoid the question. Answer it.

What does that have to do with anything? Does it such if there's a false conviction? Obviously.

But people are falsely convicted of murder, and I don't think you'd say it was the fault of the murder statute.

You're conflating an issue concerning a law with a hypothetical situation wherein people misinterpret facts. This is not solid reasoning.

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?

Haha.

Look, Trane. No one here is disagreeing that "if the state says Y is illegal, then you're considered a perpetrator if you're caught doing it". In Islamic countries, women get beaten for showing their hair. In other countries, there are different laws. A country may decide it's illegal and highly punishable to wear red shirts, and anyone caught doing it is technically violating the law. Obviously, I don't disagree with you that the person caught doing the action prescribed by the Country as illegal, is by definition, violating the law.

I am asking you, Trane (or whatever your real name is) what you, as an individual with a mind and an ability to reason; thinks about it. I'm asking you if you find this reasoning logical. If you really find it coherent. If you see yourself living in a society that bans things without sitting down to think about all the aspects, details and exceptions of the situation.

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.

But I do enjoy the hyperbole. Somehow, "Don't use naked kids in art," has become "banning things without thinking..."

I posted this before. Are we moving to a totalitarian state because Kristen Stewart wasn't allowed to grope Dakota Fanning?

http://www.showbizspy.com/article/2...oo-young-to-be-groped-by-kristen-stewart.html

Banning nudity for young children (again, I'm flexible on the age--18 isn't a magic number) is just one slight step past the restrictions that already exist.

Or are you a conformist who just blindly agrees with whatever the authorities say? If that's the case, then just tell me and I'll stop wasting my time trying to discuss this issue intelligently. Really, I have no problem.

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.

Sorry, that's just wrong. It does not follow.
There can be drastic differences between things, and still not be easy to tell the difference between them. You're drawing out a wrong conclusion there.

Out of the top of my head, I can say: a star and a planet. Many times when I look at the sky, I don't know if what I'm looking at is a star or a planet. From where I'm standing, they look virtually identical. Yet, they have very drastic differences.

That was awesome.

Let's see if we can develop a set of criteria that separate planets from stars. Hmm...even choosing something as simple as "size" differentiates the two at about a 99% success rate. Add in a few other characteristics and to my knowledge there are no examples of objects that cannot be distinguished.

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.

No such thing exists for our discussion. If it does, share it, please.

There are no two things that are drastically different for which no clear criteria exists to separate them. In fact, by merely using the word "drastic" you're acknowledging that fact.

I'm sure I (and you, if you also do the homework and sit to think about this more deeply) will find that there are many, many things that at first sight seem identical and yet, they really are very very different. It's a lesson about appearances. That you can't always judge by what it seems.

Well, now we're thinking about it. What's your distinguishing measure?

Going back to the example of child modeling, since you can't read feelings from a person by looking at a picture, you can't tell if the person in question has been abused. There's a good example of how it's possible that something can be drastically different from what it seems and yet not be obvious to the naked eye.

It is an issue, Trane, and nobody denies that it's very difficult to reach a verdict sometimes. But it is irresponsible to just say "I'm gonna save myself the problem of having to think about this and punish everyone, both innocents and guilty"

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.

You keep focusing on "the law" instead of "the issue in hand".
I'm making an argument about the issue, not about how some countries decide to legalize it.
If anything, there's a long legacy of laws being passed for irrational reasons. Here we are, in the year 2010 and still trying to pass down laws to allow homosexuals to marry.

Your problem seems to be that you focus on how people pass down laws and not whether these laws are based on a reasonable line of thought, or just mere bias/superstition.

Ok, then what are you basing the harmlessness of nude child modeling on?

 

[tesscaline]

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?:
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/195334b9bc1a976498.jpg[/qimg]
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?

None of those questions answer the question posed to you.

You claim that there exists art which is art per se. Please support your claim with evidence.