Porn vs. Art

[Southwind17]

Example: If the model in question was a member of a family of practicing nudists then being the subject of a painting or photograph would be unlikely cause any harm.

Being a member of a family of practicing nudists might, though, at which point the image capture becomes incidental. Consider this: I consider myself pretty liberal. I uncaringly walk around the bedroom, sometimes other rooms(!), naked in the presence of my kids (all boys - 13, 9 and 9). Always have done. But for some reason that I honestly question but fail to understand, they've taken to finding it amusingly squeemish. Moreover, and more importantly, they all three (especially the eldest) are embarrassed if inadvertently observed naked by either my wife or me, and seek to avoid such situations at great inconvenience to them. Why is that? I've consciously but passively endeavoured to raise them with little or no inhibitions whan it comes to nudity in the privacy of our home, albeit in the presence of each other. The bottom line is, for whatever reason, nudity in the presence of others, at some point, seems to become a psychological issue for kids. Plain and simple. That, to me, is enough to question the wisdom of promoting it in anything other than an "incidental" manner.

If on the other hand, the model feels they are being pressured or forced to pose nude then psychological harm could result.

Ergo here's the rub. To what extent can positive promotion of child nudity (which is exactly what orchestrating child nudity for the purpose of artistry undoubtedly amounts to) NOT be considered "pressuring" or even "forcing" (please don't offer the "with the child's permission" as a defense - it has no logical or legal standing)?

”Classifying” the art by government bureaucrats would have little bearing on this issue. (Actual child porn is direct evidence of abuse).

Again, engineered child nudity vs. child porn comparison - red herring.

 

[Southwind17]

Because you are erring on the side of "harm". You're assuming that there is harm, and therefore that those artists are criminals. I think it's an easy comparison.

No, I'm erring on the side of caution, not harm - big difference. And who's accusing anybody of being a criminal, other than anybody who breaks a law? Easy comparison, eh!

 

[Southwind17]

Yes, but since parents MAY harm their children, why don't we err on the side of caution and remove the child from their parents' care right after childbirth ?

Because it's a question of degree. Some things can be deemed to be obvious to all parents (even if there are still limited exceptions!), such as the danger of dropping a baby on its head; some things are not so obvious (to many!), such as, surprisingly (to me), leaving a baby unattended in a hot car whilst doing the shopping. It's the not so obvious that require legislation to afford sufficient protection to children (and even then it's not guaranteed, but it helps).

It's not simply a question of "might" (almost everything's possible); it's a question of reasonableness and practicability. I really do wish you'd see and appreciate this simple principle.

 

[Southwind17]

So... basically it comes down to asking whether a pornographer is an artist, and we'll know if porn is art ?

Not quite (as usual). It comes down to whether the person (it's irrelevant whether he/she is a pornographer (whetever that's meant to mean)) is creating something that is generally acknowledged as being art. Porn, per se, is not generally acknowledged as art.

 

[Belz...]

OK, let's stop there. You're clearly contesting that Michelangelo was an artist. Clearly not a "worst attempt at logic", but certainly a worst attempt at something else upon which the rest of your argument depends! Need I go on?!

That Mike was an artist doesn't mean everything he did was art. That's why one needs to determine if something is ART before one can determine if the person who did it is an artist, not the other way around.

 

[Southwind17]

Of course it does. Otherwise we'd be wasting most of our time arguing for things that are already proven or that do not warrant our time and effort. Why do you think skeptics ask believers to prove their claims ? You can't ask people to prove that their lives are not harmful before you allow them to carry them out. That does indeed go against the very principle of liberty.

It's patently wrong (to most intelligent people) to claim that just because something has not been proven or cannot be proven to be safe necessarily determines that it is safe. To check whether I understand you correctly do you disagree with this statement?

 

[Belz...]

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.

Bears repeating.

 

[Southwind17]

And they should've banned them back in a time when they couldn't have known ?

How would you say the smoking of cigarettes in the 1950's differs, in principle in the context of this debate, with the taking of an untested medication today?

 

[Belz...]

No, I'm erring on the side of caution, not harm - big difference.

Not quite. Your "erring on the side of caution" directly results from your assumption that it causes potential harm.

And who's accusing anybody of being a criminal, other than anybody who breaks a law? Easy comparison, eh!

You don't think that presumption of innocence should be applied everywhere ?

Because it's a question of degree. Some things can be deemed to be obvious to all parents (even if there are still limited exceptions!), such as the danger of dropping a baby on its head; some things are not so obvious (to many!), such as, surprisingly (to me), leaving a baby unattended in a hot car whilst doing the shopping. It's the not so obvious that require legislation to afford sufficient protection to children (and even then it's not guaranteed, but it helps).

I'm inclined to agree, however many parents have hurt their children by ignoring the so-called obvious things. Isn't that potential harm, and shouldn't we err on the side of caution there, as well ?

It's not simply a question of "might" (almost everything's possible); it's a question of reasonableness and practicability.

And for some reason this particability applies to porn but not dropping a child on its head ?

I really do wish you'd see and appreciate this simple principle.

The problem is, Southwind, is that you MAKE it complex, whereas it should be simple.

Not quite (as usual). It comes down to whether the person (it's irrelevant whether he/she is a pornographer (whetever that's meant to mean)) is creating something that is generally acknowledged as being art. Porn, per se, is not generally acknowledged as art.

But that wasn't the point of your post. You asked if the person was an artist and THEN if what that person creates is therefore art.

 

[Southwind17]

That Mike was an artist doesn't mean everything he did was art. That's why one needs to determine if something is ART before one can determine if the person who did it is an artist, not the other way around.

I figured the context of the debate would ensure that nobody here would consider "Mike's" extra-artistic existence relevant. Unfortunately I overlooked you.

 

[Belz...]

It's patently wrong (to most intelligent people) to claim that just because something has not been proven or cannot be proven to be safe necessarily determines that it is safe. To check whether I understand you correctly do you disagree with this statement?

I don't disagree with your statement, which is why it's not the argument I'm making. I'm saying that we shouldn't assume that it's harmful until it's proven that it's harmful, that safety doesn't bear the same burden of proof and that things should be banned only if they _are_ harmful.

 

[Southwind17]

Bears repeating.

In which case so does this:

As usual you overlook an important distinction. Almost without exception all of the things in your "expanded" list carry no reasonably perceived risk (yes, I know, we've debated the idea of "reasonably perceived" before, to no avail (not so far as I'm concerned, anyhow)). I very much doubt that even you, if you're to be honest, would adamantly deny that it's reasonably possible that some psychological, if not physical, harm could come to some children from posing nude in the name of art. Continuing, again, if you were to be honest I'm sure you could form a rational argument as to why and how that potential risk exists. Please, however, offer your rational argument in support of a ban of blue T-shirts, Spongebob movies and sheets of bond paper (I deliberately omit body powder and fish oil as it seems conceivable to me that being inhaled and consumed respectively they could actually pose a risk. I suspect, however, that evidence exists in respect of both products showing that neither is harmful if handled/consumed sensibly).

 

[Belz...]

I figured the context of the debate would ensure that nobody here would consider "Mike's" extra-artistic existence relevant. Unfortunately I overlooked you.

You'll notice that I don't insult you in every post I make, which is one of many ways to distinguish Belz... from Southwind17.

YOU said:

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?:

HENCE, Southwind. If Michelangelo WAS an artist, HENCE his works are art. Those are YOUR words, not mine. I would never have said such a nonsensical thing. You are saying, quite clearly, that BECAUSE Mike was an artist, his WORKS were art. There can be no distinction between his various works because your criterion in that post is that he is an ARTIST.

I really wish you'd understand the implications of the words you use.

 

[Belz...]

Almost without exception all of the things in your "expanded" list carry no reasonably perceived risk

Atheism carries a reasonably perceived risk by a lot of people. Should we have to prove that atheism is not harmful before it's allowed ?

 

[Southwind17]

Not quite. Your "erring on the side of caution" directly results from your assumption that it causes potential harm.

You need to be careful how you word things. It's not a matter of "assumption" it's a matter of "reason", and then "degree". It's not difficult to make a compelling argument that orchestrating child nudity for artistic purposes could cause psychological harm. In fact, no such argument is needed. By definition it's a matter of fact that orchestrating child nudity for artistic purposes could cause psychological harm (no proof to the contrary exists). Ergo it's a matter of fact that a risk exists. As I say, it's then simply(!) a question only of degree - no assumptions necessary.

You don't think that presumption of innocence should be applied everywhere ?

Please read carefully. If a crime has been committed then the question of guilt or innocence is already answered. But to put your mind at rest I'm a firm believer in the maxim innocent until proven guilty.

I'm inclined to agree, however many parents have hurt their children by ignoring the so-called obvious things. Isn't that potential harm, and shouldn't we err on the side of caution there, as well ?

So being only "inclined to agree" means that you can then disagree?! You do disagree with what I wrote, right?

And for some reason this particability applies to porn but not dropping a child on its head ?

Notwithstanding that porn per se is not the topic of discussion here, you consider that addressing the matter of porn, the associated risks and legislative control are as practicable as addressing the matter of dropping a baby on its head?! Please enlighten us all.

The problem is, Southwind, is that you MAKE it complex, whereas it should be simple.

I'm sorry, what, exactly, should be simple, that I make complex?

But that wasn't the point of your post. You asked if the person was an artist and THEN if what that person creates is therefore art.

I'm sorry, you'll have to show me where I've been contradictory, if that's what you're saying.

 

[Southwind17]

I don't disagree with your statement, which is why it's not the argument I'm making. I'm saying that we shouldn't assume that it's harmful until it's proven that it's harmful, that safety doesn't bear the same burden of proof and that things should be banned only if they _are_ harmful.

I don't think that TraneWreck is making any such assumption. I'm certainly not. I believe we're both saying that if something could be reasonably deemed to be potentially harmful then we should caution against it to a degree proportional to the perceived risk and extent of such harm (TraneWreck might choose to word his proviso differently, but hopefully along essentially the same lines). If such "degree" (if any!) extends to banning then so be it. I very much doubt that you know for a fact that cyanide has been scientifically proven to be highly toxic (of course, you're free to research the matter and satisfy yourself). I also very much doubt, however, that you disagree with it being banned from general sale. In other words, I suspect that you support the banning of the general sale of cyanide based on a very loose assumption on your part as to the existence of proof of its danger. Yet child nudity for art's sake you demand proof of harm before supporting a ban.

 

[Southwind17]

HENCE, Southwind. If Michelangelo WAS an artist, HENCE his works are art. Those are YOUR words, not mine. I would never have said such a nonsensical thing. You are saying, quite clearly, that BECAUSE Mike was an artist, his WORKS were art. There can be no distinction between his various works because your criterion in that post is that he is an ARTIST.

Implying, of course(!), that what "Mike" created when in "artist" mode is, by definition, "art", further implying, therefore, that what "Mike" might have created in the kitchen when in "baker" mode, for example, was simply a loaf of bread, and hence irrelevant to the debate.

I really wish you'd understand the implications of the words you use.

I'm sorry. I'll consider dumbing down my posts just for your benefit in future.

 

[Southwind17]

Atheism carries a reasonably perceived risk by a lot of people. Should we have to prove that atheism is not harmful before it's allowed ?

Fortunately, not by enough people with the power to ban. Why? Presumably because the said "reasoning" is patently unsound. Get it?

 

[GreyICE]

Implying, of course(!), that what "Mike" created when in "artist" mode is, by definition, "art", further implying, therefore, that what "Mike" might have created in the kitchen when in "baker" mode, for example, was simply a loaf of bread, and hence irrelevant to the debate.

No, pointing out your definition is recursively stupid. If an artist creates art, and a non-artist does not create art, then when we consider two identical activities, one undertaken by an 'artist' and one by a 'non-artist,' one becomes art and the other does not, despite the fact that they are in all other ways identical.

This is obviously absurd.

I'm sorry. I'll consider dumbing down my posts just for your benefit in future.

Impossible, the standard could not be lower.

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

I very much doubt that you know for a fact that cyanide has been scientifically proven to be highly toxic

<snip>

Priceless.

Thank you, SW. It's gems like this that almost make wading through your usual inane drivel worth the effort.

Almost.

Keep up the good work.