Porn vs. Art

[quadraginta]

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?

Any more. You forgot to add that qualifier. And such social condemnation still has its residue in our society, based on very nearly the same prejudices which inform a cultural fear of nudity, with equally little evidence of cause. If any.

As you say, the reasoning is patently unsound. Just like a broken clock you can be right without meaning to. Unlike that clock, though, I doubt you manage it as often as twice a day.

 

[JFrankA]

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).

My bolding.

That's an interesting little qualifier.

So you omitted baby powder and fish only because evidence exists in respect of both products showing that neither is harmful if handled/consumed sensibly otherwise both should be banned right out.

Well, I have some evidence that child nudity itself doesn't harm anyone. There a literally thousands of pictures of naked children taken from their parents. Why is child nudity harmful only if NOT taken by a family member? You yourself have stated that parents can't be trusted, even if parents are present when someone else snaps the picture. So why the difference between a family member present during a child nude photo and a family member actually snapping the photo?

Now since there are hundreds of family photos of nude children around (a few of myself) without any harm from them, and since I can still point to the Superman movie, there's some evidence that nude child photo doesn't always cause harm "if handled/consumed sensibly" just like...ooohh...baby powder and fish oil.

Getting back to baby powder and fish oil, it may have been proven that it doesn't cause harm "if handled/consumed sensibly", but the risk of harm or potential harm is still there. People don't always read directions, accidents happen or people will abuse the items. So why shouldn't baby powder and fish oil be banned? Maybe all the proud parents showing off nude photos of the children should be thrown in jail for push child porn? Or is this still more hypocrisy on your part? (You know, you still haven't answered to that. 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?)

(By the way, you do know that Trane doesn't see any harm in drawn pictures of nude children. Something I think, and correct me if I'm wrong, you believe that should be banned as well).

 

[BenBurch]

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 ?

"Cleanliness is next to Fordliness."

 

[Belz...]

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".

Of course proponents of an idea always call it a matter of "reason" no matter how much assumption is involved.

It's not difficult to make a compelling argument that orchestrating child nudity for artistic purposes could cause psychological harm.

How ?

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.

Well, for that matter orchestrating child non-nudity also could cause psychological harm. No proof to the contrary exists . You don't seem to be seeing the implications of what you're saying (gee, I said that before)

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.

Well, at least we agree on one thing.

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

I agree with the principle but in reality harm DOES occur from those obvious situations anyway, so it may not be as clear and simple as you think it is.

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.

Quite frankly I think "us all" don't need enlightening here, only you.

The RISK of psychological harm from mishandling a case of nude child photography is comparable to the RISK of dropping a baby on its head while feeding him: both result from otherwise innocuous activities. If the risk of one is enough to warrant banning, why not the other one ?

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

Please try to follow the conversation. You were talking about "practicability" or whatnot.

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

What I'm saying is that you cooked up an exemple whereby you concluded that Mike's work was art BECAUSE he is an artist. That doesn't seem to be what you were arguing elsewhere, and for good reason: it makes no sense. But you DID argue that in that post.

 

[Belz...]

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.

But it's the other way around. Mike is, by definition, an artist because he made what is considered art.

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

Not only do you continue to use insults for no reason, you also fail to understand that when someone refers to YOU understanding YOUR own words, they're not talking about themselves.

 

[Belz...]

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

That's besides the point, because if you can convince enough people that it's reasonable, it WILL get banned.

That's why we need a set of basic principles to check against such legislation, and why we need to evaluate the ACTUAL harm caused by certain actions (ex.: dropping a baby on its head) vs the PERCEIVED POTENTIAL harm caused by others (taking a picture of a nude toddler). The two are certainly NOT equivalent.

 

[Southwind17]

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, what "two identical activities" are you alluding to?

 

[Southwind17]

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.

 

[Southwind17]

Any more. You forgot to add that qualifier.

I forgot nothing. I made a statement of fact that, sadly, you'd evidently prefer not to accept on face value. How many more qualifiers would you like to claim I forgot?!

As you say, the reasoning is patently unsound.

Ouch! That must have hurt - agreeing with me.

Just like a broken clock you can be right without meaning to.

I suppose that took the edge off the pain did it - the mandatory qualifier?!

Unlike that clock, though, I doubt you manage it as often as twice a day.

Which is better then never, eh?!

 

[Southwind17]

So you omitted baby powder and fish only because evidence exists in respect of both products showing that neither is harmful if handled/consumed sensibly otherwise both should be banned right out.

To reiterate, I omitted them because, although I suspect evidence exists, I cannot be sure ... otherwise, in view of the evidence, if any, that might otherwise be available and relevant to assessing risk, a decision as to their possible control, including even possible banning, should be made. I very much doubt that an informed risk assessment would result in the banning of body powder or fish oil.

Well, I have some evidence that child nudity itself doesn't harm anyone.

I don't believe child nudity not causing harm per se is in dispute here, is it?

Getting back to baby powder and fish oil, it may have been proven that it doesn't cause harm "if handled/consumed sensibly", but the risk of harm or potential harm is still there. People don't always read directions, accidents happen or people will abuse the items. So why shouldn't baby powder and fish oil be banned?

I believe I've adequately addressed this ill-considered line of questioning in a very recent post. Please read back and let me know what part(s) you don't follow.

(By the way, you do know that Trane doesn't see any harm in drawn pictures of nude children. Something I think, and correct me if I'm wrong, you believe that should be banned as well).

No, you are wrong, I'm with TraneWreck; I see absolutely no harm in drawn pictures of nude children per se. Where did you get that idea from?

 

[GreyICE]

I'm sorry, what "two identical activities" are you alluding to?

Any two identical activities, were one to state that art can only be created by "artists" and that one must somehow join this class before anything one does can be considered art, as you postulate in posts #375, #457, etc. Your postulate was that one must first be an artist to create art.

Your own words are here:

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?

You define art as 'something created by an artist' rather than defining an artist as 'someone who creates art.' A subtle distinction, perhaps, to one such as yourself, but to those who are familiar with the concept of 'logic,' it's an error so glaring it causes migraines - or perhaps gales of laughter.

 

[not daSkeptic]

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.

(emphasis mine)

Your seeming lack of interest in understanding the reason suggests you value these anti-nude feelings that develop in people. It says you are happy with things as they are and do not wish to explore them further. Why is that?

Unless you have managed to control absolutely everything to which your children have been exposed, I do not think you are in any position to suggest that such feelings just happen. Do you have a log of all social encounters, television programming, and other events which your children have seen? Do you know how many times they've observed somebody covering up in embarrassment or shame? Do you know of all the instances when someone has issued instructions about avoiding nakedness? Do you know of all the times your children have been harassed or ridiculed about their body or parts of it?

Our society is full of things that promote the covering of oneself. Unless your children have been kept from that, it seems reasonable to consider it a factor.

 

[Belz...]

I'm sorry, what "two identical activities" are you alluding to?

Say two identical paintings, one done by an "artist" and one done by a "non-artist".

 

[GreyICE]

Our society is full of things that promote the covering of oneself. Unless your children have been kept from that, it seems reasonable to consider it a factor.

Especially when the Native Americans, Africans, and plenty of other cultures have never had a problem with child nudity, and the children raised in that culture have no problem with it either.

One would then think, logically, that the taboo was perhaps, well, cultural. Ah, the key word... "logically."

 

[Southwind17]

How?

Er ... by application of just a little thought and common sense (or did you want to hear the actual argument?).

Well, for that matter orchestrating child non-nudity also could cause psychological harm. No proof to the contrary exists . You don't seem to be seeing the implications of what you're saying (gee, I said that before)

I'm sorry - "orchestrating child non-nudity"? Meaning what, exactly, clothing our kids? Please tell me not!

I agree with the principle but in reality harm DOES occur from those obvious situations anyway, so it may not be as clear and simple as you think it is.

How clear and simple, exactly, do you think I think it is?

Quite frankly I think "us all" don't need enlightening here, only you.

OK - please go ahead and enlighten just me then.

The RISK of psychological harm from mishandling a case of nude child photography is comparable to the RISK of dropping a baby on its head while feeding him: both result from otherwise innocuous activities. If the risk of one is enough to warrant banning, why not the other one ?

Comparable in the sense that they both need statutory regulation? Really? How so?

Please try to follow the conversation. You were talking about "practicability" or whatnot.

Ah yes, good old "whatnot". Silly me for not keeping up.

What I'm saying is that you cooked up an exemple whereby you concluded that Mike's work was art BECAUSE he is an artist. That doesn't seem to be what you were arguing elsewhere, and for good reason: it makes no sense. But you DID argue that in that post.

And I've clarified (not that it should be necessary!) that by "artist" I also meant "and acting in the role of an artist", as opposed to his many other unrelated, and hence irrelevant, roles in life (presumably), such as baking bread and bathing the kids (but not sketching them at the same time, of course!).

 

[Southwind17]

Your seeming lack of interest in understanding the reason suggests you value these anti-nude feelings that develop in people. It says you are happy with things as they are and do not wish to explore them further. Why is that?
Unless you have managed to control absolutely everything to which your children have been exposed, I do not think you are in any position to suggest that such feelings just happen. Do you have a log of all social encounters, television programming, and other events which your children have seen? Do you know how many times they've observed somebody covering up in embarrassment or shame? Do you know of all the instances when someone has issued instructions about avoiding nakedness? Do you know of all the times your children have been harassed or ridiculed about their body or parts of it?
Our society is full of things that promote the covering of oneself. Unless your children have been kept from that, it seems reasonable to consider it a factor.

The reasons are irrelevant (unless you're suggesting that my kids are unique). The fact of the matter is all that matters. Nudity is clearly an issue for kids even in the most innocuous of circumstances - period.

 

[Southwind17]

Say two identical paintings, one done by an "artist" and one done by a "non-artist".

I'm sorry - "non-artist", meaning what, exactly?

 

[Southwind17]

You define art as 'something created by an artist' rather than defining an artist as 'someone who creates art.' A subtle distinction, perhaps, to one such as yourself, but to those who are familiar with the concept of 'logic ...

I see no distinction, just opposite sides of the same coin. Is that "logical" enough for you?!

 

[GreyICE]

I see no distinction, just opposite sides of the same coin. Is that "logical" enough for you?!

By this "logic," the following two statements are opposite sides of the same coin:

"All squares are rectangles."
"All rectangles are squares."

Your 'logic' does not resemble our Earth logic.

 

[not daSkeptic]

The reasons are irrelevant (unless you're suggesting that my kids are unique). The fact of the matter is all that matters. Nudity is clearly an issue for kids even in the most innocuous of circumstances - period.

Even if it's purely a social construct? Even if the only reason it's an issue is because our culture says so?