Moderated What's wrong with porn?

[Southwind17]

I appreciate that you are looking out for my welfare. However, as I said, I am willing to go to jail for my art. If I am willing to go to jail for art, the product is still art.

Suit yourself.

And if my art will make some people think about what I am trying to express, which is the intent to make people feel sorry for a victim of child molestation and disgust for a molester, so that there is a chance that someone will take steps to stop a child from being molested, then it's worth it.

I think if your aim is to take steps to stop a child from being molested your energies could be better directed. But so be it - just make sure your intention is clear lest the people you're targeting get the wrong message.

After all, isn't that why you think VCP should be banned in the first place?

I'm sorry? This question doesn't logically follow from the text that precedes it and upon which it purports to derive its context. Please clarify.

The act of putting it up or not means nothing. The curator's mind didn't change, he caved into the demands of some of the patrons. The fact remains that even though it isn't up, the curator still wanted to put it up. He obviously considers it art still.
The entire interview stated the reasons why and the procedures they took to put it up, as well as why some of the patron didn't feel it was art and their reasons why.
That's what art does.

Whatever.

It's obvious that you didn't read my descriptions. I wasn't commenting on the photos but on the things that the photos were of.

"Obvious"? How so? I've asked you to tell me where I can see them in an art gallery. Not photos of them, but them. Surely that makes it obvious that I read exactly what you wrote, doesn't it?!

Art is in everything that we humans create.

BS of a particularly stinky order.

Just because it isn't in a museum doesn't mean it's not art.

I agree, but if it's art we would expect it to be widely acknowledged as art, and if it can fit through a gallery door we would expect to see it in an art gallery from time to time. Now, again, please tell me where I can see those things you claim as art in an art gallery, or in an art genre publication. In short, put up or shut up.

It's very sad you can't appreciate the beauty of how something works.

"Beauty" and "works" are not really two words than should generally be placed close together. If you're thinking of that absolute marvel of engineering, the internal combustion engine, for example, "beautiful" is not a particularly accurate adverb to describe it (unless, of course, it contains visible features that are deliberately designed with aesthetics in mind, and that are, indeed, "beautiful(!)). It's becoming one of those non-descript unimaginative catch-alls, like "nice", but feel free to use it as such.

The minds of many people coming together to make something as simple as a staple - the exquisite beauty of simplicity and science for something we take for granted - is art itself.

Dream on.

 

[Southwind17]

What is debating?

It's de putting de little worm on de hook before casting de line to catch de little fishy for de dinner!

 

[Southwind17]

You're forgetting something, though. You're forgetting liberty.

liberty n freedom from constraint, captivity, slavery or tyranny; freedom to do as one pleases

Nope - don't think so. Seems I hit "liberty" right on the head with "freedom".

 

[Southwind17]

Then I was right. This confirms that you stopped being consistent in your definition in post 2835.

Consistent in what sense, exactly? In the sense that I might have inadvertently referred to my consistent proferred definition of "child porn" when somebody alluded to my consistent meaning of the word "porn"? Is that the sense you mean?

 

[AWPrime]

evolution, both literally and metaphorically, is paramount to what I'm claiming. If you can't accept that then just say so and move along.

Actually evolution doesn't help you, in fact informal social rules have evolved so early that the complete absence of prohibition doesn't exist for humans. That we have later formalized the social rules doesn't mean that they didn't exist until then.

That's not debating.

Its a vital part of a debate, during a debate one must try and prove his own case and disprove the case of the other side. However because both sides can be wrong, it's best to try and prove your own case. And proving ones own case can best be done with objective evidence.

Look - this is not a difficult concept to grasp and accept. Imagine listing out all of your rights as an individual wherever you may be living. Clearly, your list will not include everything. Those things not included on your list can be called "prohibitions". Absolute freedom can be defined as an absence of prohibition. Consequently, prohibition is a restriction of freedom, and rights are what is left. Civil laws tend to focus on prohibitions, i.e. they set out the extent to which freedom is restricted. Again, rights are what's left over. Plain and simple.

Well a right is a guaranty, while a prohibition forbids something, so what about things that aren't guarantied or forbidden?

 

[Matthew Best]

Please tell me what art galleries I can find them in - not artistic photos of them, but them.

In what way would that demonstrate whether or not they are art?

 

[Southwind17]

Actually evolution doesn't help you, in fact informal social rules have evolved so early that the complete absence of prohibition doesn't exist for humans. That we have later formalized the social rules doesn't mean that they didn't exist until then.

What comes first, informal social rules or the entities to which such informal social rules apply?

Its a vital part of a debate, during a debate one must try and prove his own case and disprove the case of the other side. However because both sides can be wrong, it's best to try and prove your own case. And proving ones own case can best be done with objective evidence.

You're mistaken, my friend, very mistaken. Debating is the antithesis of proof. Afterall, if everything were proven there'd be nothing to debate. Debating is more about expressing views and opinions, arguing and reasoning (all of which I, and other people here, have done, to varying degrees of success).

Well a right is a guaranty, while a prohibition forbids something, so what about things that aren't guarantied or forbidden?

Such as?

 

[Southwind17]

In what way would that demonstrate whether or not they are art?

In the same way that not finding a camel in any motor car showroom is a very good indication that a camel is not a motor car.

 

[Southwind17]

In a broader context 21 is a woefully inadequate sample size for identifying recidivism changes generally, especially when subdivided into three separate categories.

... and so is 22!

 

[JFrankA]

Suit yourself.


I think if your aim is to take steps to stop a child from being molested your energies could be better directed. But so be it - just make sure your intention is clear lest the people you're targeting get the wrong message.

You express your self in your own way. Your art is here on the thread for everyone to see. My art is how I express myself. If I should go to jail for the expression of sorrow I feel for these unfortunate children, with the attempt to make others feel that same sorrow, if it would save one child from being molested, then it's worth it isn't it?

Isn't it worth losing your freedom to save one child from molestation?

I'm sorry? This question doesn't logically follow from the text that precedes it and upon which it purports to derive its context. Please clarify.

Why should I clarify your own stance? I am agreeing with you.

Whatever.

Ah. Your intent to show a quiet resignation that I am right. Thank you. I do appreciate that.

"Obvious"? How so? I've asked you to tell me where I can see them in an art gallery. Not photos of them, but them. Surely that makes it obvious that I read exactly what you wrote, doesn't it?!

You still haven't read my postings. You are looking at the pictures, not the items. It's beautiful how things work.

BS of a particularly stinky order.

No, BS is made by bulls.

I agree,

Oh. Since you agree then the rest of your statement afterward is moot.

"Beauty" and "works" are not really two words than should generally be placed close together.

It's a beauty to see how a staple works. It's a thing of beauty to listen to the telephone exchange working. It's a beauty that the internet works. It's a beauty on how man-made things works. It's a beauty that you and I use the same words, but they work in different ways.

My apologies, SW, but I don't understand why you say that.

If you're thinking of that absolute marvel of engineering, the internal combustion engine, for example, "beautiful" is not a particularly accurate adverb to describe it (unless, of course, it contains visible features that are deliberately designed with aesthetics in mind, and that are, indeed, "beautiful(!)). It's becoming one of those non-descript unimaginative catch-alls, like "nice", but feel free to use it as such.

The rhythms of words can be a poem, the sounds of clicking in a telephone change is music, the bite and then hugging of paper by a staple is terrifying and soothing, these things are beautiful in the way they work.

Pity you can't see beauty.

Dream on.

Two beautiful words that are more beautiful together.

 

[JFrankA]

It's de putting de little worm on de hook before casting de line to catch de little fishy for de dinner!

I see. So you don't know the answer.

 

[AWPrime]

What comes first, informal social rules or the entities to which such informal social rules apply?

The first species to use social rules is likely the first species to allocate any brain power to social interaction. So it likely started with a mutation, which allowed the use of social rules. The evolutionary advantage of social rules is quite high, which would make sure they would be implemented immediately.

You're mistaken, my friend, very mistaken. Debating is the antithesis of proof. Afterall, if everything were proven there'd be nothing to debate. Debating is more about expressing views and opinions, arguing and reasoning (all of which I, and other people here, have done, to varying degrees of success).

Proof comes in many types and grades of quality, thus arguing and reasoning are still needed to refine the proof to a conclusion. That is the debate.

Such as?

Surfing the web. It isn't guarantied, nor is it forbidden.

 

[JFrankA]

liberty n freedom from constraint, captivity, slavery or tyranny; freedom to do as one pleases

Nope - don't think so. Seems I hit "liberty" right on the head with "freedom".

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberty

liberty
–noun, plural -ties.
1. freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control.
2. freedom from external or foreign rule; independence.
3. freedom from control, interference, obligation, restriction, hampering conditions, etc.; power or right of doing, thinking, speaking, etc., according to choice.
4. freedom from captivity, confinement, or physical restraint: The prisoner soon regained his liberty.
5. permission granted to a sailor, esp. in the navy, to go ashore.
6. freedom or right to frequent or use a place: The visitors were given the liberty of the city.
7. unwarranted or impertinent freedom in action or speech, or a form or instance of it: to take liberties.
8. a female figure personifying freedom from despotism.
—Idiom
9. at liberty,
a. free from captivity or restraint.
b. unemployed; out of work.
c. free to do or be as specified: You are at liberty to leave at any time during the meeting.

I do recall you mentioned that "strawberry jam" wasn't in the definition of jam and I showed you it was. Didn't you say that "Statistics" wasn't any form or probable either? I posted that it was.

Where do you get your definitions from?

 

[Southwind17]

The first species to use social rules is likely the first species to allocate any brain power to social interaction. So it likely started with a mutation, which allowed the use of social rules. The evolutionary advantage of social rules is quite high, which would make sure they would be implemented immediately.

So immediately prior to this mutation absolute freedom was the order of the day. This mutation was the beginning of restricted freedom, is what you're admitting.

Proof comes in many types and grades of quality, thus arguing and reasoning are still needed to refine the proof to a conclusion. That is the debate.

That's an interesting viewpoint, but not one that I subscribe to.

Surfing the web. It isn't guarantied, nor is it forbidden.

Surfing the web per se isn't illegal. In other words you have the right to surf the web. In other words surfing the web is part of absolute freedom that has not been taken away from you. Incidentally, surfing the web is a "secondary freedom" that I posited earlier, that is it's not a naturally derived freedom but a freedom that relates to a concept that man has created, like marriage.

 

[Matthew Best]

In the same way that not finding a camel in any motor car showroom is a very good indication that a camel is not a motor car.

If you found a camel in a motor car showroom would that make it a car?

 

[JFrankA]

If you found a camel in a motor car showroom would that make it a car?

What it the car had the model name "Camel"

The Ford Camel - doesn't need much gas.

Anyway everyone knows Camels are cigarettes.

 

[Southwind17]

You express your self in your own way. Your art is here on the thread for everyone to see.

This isn't art by any stretch of the rational imagination. But you think it is, and that's harmless, so I'm cool with that.

My art is how I express myself. If I should go to jail for the expression of sorrow I feel for these unfortunate children, with the attempt to make others feel that same sorrow, if it would save one child from being molested, then it's worth it isn't it?

If you think that's a worthwhile trade then who am I to argue with you. I don't condone breaking the law, though, which usually means that one has done or not done something detrimental to others. You need to factor that into your altruistic sacrifice.

Isn't it worth losing your freedom to save one child from molestation?

That's a value judgement we can only make individually. My value judgements are personal and private, as are yours. If you wish to publicize them, however, that's your prerogative.

Why should I clarify your own stance? I am agreeing with you.

That's fine, but I'm not sure what, exactly, you're agreeing with.

You still haven't read my postings. You are looking at the pictures, not the items. It's beautiful how things work.

It's the other way around, actually. I only skim read your words. That was enough.

It's a beauty to see how a staple works. It's a thing of beauty to listen to the telephone exchange working. It's a beauty that the internet works. It's a beauty on how man-made things works. It's a beauty that you and I use the same words, but they work in different ways.

With respect, my 9-year old kids' command of English surpasses this.

My apologies, SW, but I don't understand why you say that.

Well I did explain in some detail. What part did you not follow?

The rhythms of words can be a poem ...

Quite possibly(!).

... the sounds of clicking in a telephone change is music ...

Rubbish, and an insult to musicians.

... the bite and then hugging of paper by a staple is terrifying and soothing ...

You need help!

... these things are beautiful in the way they work.

Whatever.

 

[Southwind17]

Where do you get your definitions from?

It's academic. Dictionary.com's definition of "liberty" fits nicely within the meaning of absolute freedom.

 

[JFrankA]

It's academic. Dictionary.com's definition of "liberty" fits nicely within the meaning of absolute freedom.

Oh I see....


EDITED TO CORRECT: You cherry picked.

 

[Southwind17]

If you found a camel in a motor car showroom would that make it a car?

What do you think? An exception doesn't disprove the rule.