Moderated What's wrong with porn?

[quixotecoyote]

I'm talking about the barriers that exist, normally, between thought and action, and how in some circumstances many of those barriers don't necessarily exist.

In that case, I don't see the problem. If my wife watches a movie about a woman who kills her husband for being annoying, I don't feel nervous when I walk home. If she watches porn of a woman driving a stiletto heel into some guy's sack, I still don't feel nervous because I know she wouldn't hurt me.

I think you'd have to do some work showing that virual child porn has a specific power of barrier destruction. You have argued that child rape is harder to detect than other crimes, but that isn't the same thing.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I didn't mean to upset you, Ponderingturtle. Sorry.

But I never said it was a question of who there is more of. I felt it was a question of personal responsibility versus government "baby-sitting" and the fact that I feel that most smokers are more considerate than how they are painted.

Of course it is about numbers. It is to every resturant and bar there is. Do you want to have smokers there or asthmatics? Well there are more smokers so sales will drive you to have the smokers instead of the asthmatics.

 

[RandFan]

Basically, I'm talking about the mechanisms that prevent people who view things from doing them. At first I didn't see any difference between movies about other things and child pornography. But then I realized that there is a difference. There are less mechanisms in place, for *some* people...I stress some (a slight difference came to mind)...to keep themselves from harming a child. In a private home, it would or could be relatively easy for a parent/family member/visitor/family friend whatever to move from thought to action simply because it could be done in absolute private.

I think I understand your point but I'm not sure of its significance or its relevance. Don't we first have to determine to what extent if any virtual child porn is a causative factor?

 

[sugarb]

I think I understand your point but I'm not sure of its significance or its relevance. Don't we first have to determine to what extent if any virtual child porn is a causative factor?

Hello, RandFan. I'm not sure. I don't think that any "thing" necessarily causes people to commit crimes. I mean any tangible thing. Where it gets confusing, to me anyway, is in how much these "things" can influence certain people (and I think those people are probably a very small minority).

It seems to me that the law handles child protection differently than other things, and I'm assuming there are good reasons for that. And perhaps that is because of the point I'm trying to make...children make, really, almost perfect victims. So we take some extreme measures to protect them. (Sometimes probably too extreme).

I'm really trying to come up with another example, in child protection, that presumes something as a causative factor. A law that maybe seems silly or unnecessary, but has actually served to protect at least some children. Would banning corporal punishment be a fair example? A ban in place because *some* people took it too far? Was it corporal punishment that caused some to take it too far in and of itself? No.

Eh, I'm sorry. It's just not coming out right. I'm trying not to get emotional about it, lol, so it's a struggle on this particular issue.

ETA: I think maybe what I'm trying to say is that, with regards to child protection, we have a whole lot of laws that are based on "presumed" harm, or imaginary harm...but harm that is sometimes real. Like with corporal punishment: we ban a punishment, because some people use that punishment as an excuse to abuse, or to justify abuse. Does that make more sense?

 

[RandFan]

I'm really trying to come up with another example, in child protection, that presumes something as a causative factor. A law that maybe seems silly or unnecessary, but has actually served to protect at least some children. Would banning corporal punishment be a fair example? A ban in place because *some* people took it too far? Was it corporal punishment that caused some to take it to far in and of itself? No.

I would be against any such ban.

But let's for argument sake grant your premise. Let's suppose that we deem any remote possible harm sufficient reason to regulate. You've got a problem with Prior Restraint. The courts have consistently held that the first Amendment cannot be abridged by prior restraint with very few exceptions of clear and present danger. No allowances for perceived and far fetched threats against children have ever trumped the first Amendment as far as I know.

That said I cannot grant your premise. I'm not opposed with erring on the side of children on a case by case basis but not as a blanket prescription.

 

[RandFan]

ETA: I think maybe what I'm trying to say is that, with regards to child protection, we have a whole lot of laws that are based on "presumed" harm, or imaginary harm...but harm that is sometimes real. Like with corporal punishment: we ban a punishment, because some people use that punishment as an excuse to abuse, or to justify abuse. Does that make more sense?

Is there any evidence that such a ban works? Just because it seems that such a ban would work isn't a reason to inact such a ban. You need to demonstrate that it will work.

 

[sugarb]

I would be against any such ban.

But let's for argument sake grant your premise. Let's suppose that we deem any remote possible harm sufficient reason to regulate. You've got a problem with Prior Restraint. The courts have consistently held that the first Amendment cannot be abridged by prior restraint with very few exceptions of clear and present danger. No allowances for perceived and far fetched threats against children have ever trumped the first Amendment as far as I know.

That said I cannot grant your premise. I'm not opposed with erring on the side of children on a case by case basis but not as a blanket prescription.

Oh, I don't agree with banning corporal punishment either, but they are in place in some areas because of "perceived threats". I personally feel that if someone uses corporal punishment to justify abuse, that person should simply be charged for abuse. I think we have a lot of unnecessary laws, actually. Laws that amount to nothing more than "feel good" legislation.

I see why you disagree, and in fact I'm not really sure I agree with it myself, so thank you for what you've said. Prior restraint is terminology I need to learn more about.

 

[RandFan]

Oh, I don't agree with banning corporal punishment either, but they are in place in some areas because of "perceived threats". I personally feel that if someone uses corporal punishment to justify abuse, that person should simply be charged for abuse. I think we have a lot of unnecessary laws, actually. Laws that amount to nothing more than "feel good" legislation.

I see why you disagree, and in fact I'm not really sure I agree with it myself, so thank you for what you've said. Prior restraint is terminology I need to learn more about.

Cool. I do better understand your point. In fact I think I might have made similar arguments in similar threads about artists like Mapplethorp in this forum.

 

[sugarb]

Is there any evidence that such a ban works? Just because it seems that such a ban would work isn't a reason to inact such a ban. You need to demonstrate that it will work.

Hello again

Actually, the ban in our local schools has actually made for an interesting debate on the issue. When corporal punishment was in effect, yes, there were some teachers that abused it...but they often didn't get away with it for very long because our schools were small and parents would stop it. The teacher rarely got fired, but the paddle got taken away. It moved to only principals being allowed to paddle. Then it was banned altogether.

Now some parents and many teachers are complaining that the ban created an even bigger disciplinary problem and did nothing to stop the abusive behavior of certain teachers. Which makes sense, really. It wasn't the paddle that made them abusive, it was that they were abusive people and the paddle gave them an outlet.

So I don't think it works, and I don't think it would work as a blanket cure with regards to pornography.

 

[MontagK505]

I'm not prepared to accede to your demand to answer questions that:

1. Essentially beg the question because they derive from assumed premises
2. Are not posed in a way that demonstrates a genuine desire to learn or verify something
3. Are equally likely of being capable of being answered categorically as easily by you as I through due research
4. are unclear as to whether they're simply rhetorical

I don't need to imagine. I know what I would do if I were either allowed to view child porn or did (inadvertently) view child porn (whether allowed or otherwise). What I can imagine is what some child porn looks like. I trust that adequately answers your question.


In answer to that question please allow me to ask you a few, for starters:

1. What is the incidence of shootings in the US compared to the UK?
2. Assuming you know or discover the answer, do you think the difference has anything to do with different fire arm laws?
3. Do you think it's conceivable that certain situations permitted by law for the perceived benefit of some could have serious undesirable side effects on others?
4. Do you think that children should be entitled to receive the benefit of the doubt when it comes to causes of child abuse and molestation?
5. Do you think that a reasonable perceived risk to the safety and wellbeing of minors should be overlooked simply because the actual risk has not been studied and quantified?

As I say - for starters.

If you look at post #1194 I was expanding on JFrankA comments. You were free to answer or remark on them as you saw fit. But you assumed the questions were aimed at you. Which of course set in motion the usual pointless exchange you seem to be a master at.

Please Note: I never demanded you answer anything.


Do you think parents should receive the benefit of the doubt before being put on a sex-offenders list without a trial simply because some porn-cop didn't like the pix of their kids in the bath tub?

 

[Southwind17]

We understand the mechanism between guns and shootings. Point of fact we can't have shootings without guns.

Ergo we can't have shootings (in the context I've introduced shootings) without gun laws that facilitate them. See the start/finish (root cause/end effect) relationship?

No such mechanism is in place for virtual porn and child molestation. No such relationship exists between the two.

See the potential start/finish (root cause/end effect) relationship now?

"Could be"? Child molestations "could be" partly related to the number of ice cream parlors in society. It "could be".

Strawman.

We could speculate about an infinite number of things. To do so isn't good social science. Hell, it isn't even science at all. It's just a guessing game and "could be" isn't a get out of jail free card. You still have to do your homework and you still have to provide the evidence.

"Guessing game"! Many people are motivated to observe many laws not because they see the sense in and reason for those laws, but simply because of the thought of the legal consequences if caught. Take motoring, for example. If speeding or alcohol restrictions were abolished tomorrow many people would undoubtedly drive faster than the current restrictions allow, and/or under the influence. One only needs to look at jurisdictions where speed and alcohol restrictions apply but are hardly enforced to see that. So, what do we tend to see from the more responsible Governments? Positive promotion of the illegality of certain actions.

Now, this principle applies to virtually every law, to varying degrees, which means that there are many people who refrain from molesting children simply because of the legal consequences should they be caught - no other reason. So, if a society freely permits the production, distribution and possession of child porn (which, for clarity, I'm defining as "sexually explicit images of children intended to sexually arouse" (which we can extend to just virtual child porn, if we wish, simply by adding the word "virtual" - the rationale and argument here equally applies)) what message does that send out to potential child molesters? At best: portrayal of child sexuality and Government's endorsement thereof is OK ; at worst: it's OK to sexually abuse children. In other words the exact opposite of promoting the illegality of child abuse. How should one then reasonably expect many of those self-restrained child molesters to behave? Should one reasonably expect that they will apply the same self-restraint when society is now telling them: Hey, exploiting children for sexual purposes isn't so bad afterall!

And don't forget this: Why do people, generally, watch or read porn - any type of porn? They watch or read it because of what porn is designed to do - sexually arouse. And what do most people do who have actively sought and achieved sexual arousal? They then seek relief. And how does one relieve oneself? Either with a "partner" (if available) or otherwise alone. And which of those two options would most people naturally prefer? And isn't it the case that many people sometimes allow their objectivity and judgement to be influenced when sexually aroused (ask Bill Clinton, if you're not sure).

And think about this: In a situation where there is a reasonably perceived risk (ice cream parlors?! ) that something permitted by law for the benefit of a particular segment of society (probably a very small minority) could put many children at risk of molestation, does it not make sense to deprive that segment of what they would, admittedly, argue is a "right" in order to mitigate or eliminate that reasonably perceived risk? Is a cost-benefit analysis not the right approach, even if a relationship hasn't been identified between child porn and consequential child molestation (provided, of course, that definitive studies haven't been undertaken)? Again, does it not make sense to give children the benefit of any reasonable doubt until such time as that doubt can be eliminated one way or the other?

 

[Southwind17]

Do you think parents should receive the benefit of the doubt before being put on a sex-offenders list without a trial simply because some porn-cop didn't like the pix of their kids in the bath tub?

Of course. Has something I've posted here caused you to think that I wouldn't?

 

[Southwind17]

In that case, I don't see the problem. If my wife watches a movie about a woman who kills her husband for being annoying, I don't feel nervous when I walk home. If she watches porn of a woman driving a stiletto heel into some guy's sack, I still don't feel nervous because I know she wouldn't hurt me.

All that these two scenarios show is that you've completely missed sugarb's point. How on earth do you think that these scenarios remotely relate to the risk that a child potentially faces in the home of somebody pre-disposed to child molestation?

 

[Southwind17]

I think I understand your point but I'm not sure of its significance or its relevance. Don't we first have to determine to what extent if any virtual child porn is a causative factor?

Absolutely not, if the reasonably perceived risk outweighs the reasonably perceived benefit then it's a no-brainer. This is true not only for countless enacted laws (narcotics, for example) but for so many basic decisions in life. We don't need to undertake a scientific study and quantitative risk assessment to determine whether to cross a particular road, do we? No, we either perceive or assess the risk and contrast it with the perceived or assessed benefit then act accordingly.

 

[Southwind17]

I would be against any such ban.

But let's for argument sake grant your premise. Let's suppose that we deem any remote possible harm sufficient reason to regulate. You've got a problem with Prior Restraint. The courts have consistently held that the first Amendment cannot be abridged by prior restraint with very few exceptions of clear and present danger. No allowances for perceived and far fetched threats against children have ever trumped the first Amendment as far as I know. [emphasis added]

That said I cannot grant your premise. I'm not opposed with erring on the side of children on a case by case basis but not as a blanket prescription.

"Perceived and far fetched" (I assume necessarily jointly, and not individually). Care to posit a definition?

 

[Southwind17]

Is there any evidence that such a ban works? Just because it seems that such a ban would work isn't a reason to inact such a ban. You need to demonstrate that it will work.

Do you apply this philosophy to every decision you make in your everyday life, or do you, just sometimes, err on the side of judgement based on experience, rationale and/or reason?

What evidence exists for the justification of the criminalising of the recreational use of marajuana?

 

[Toke]

Do you apply this philosophy to every decision you make in your everyday life, or do you, just sometimes, err on the side of judgement based on experience, rationale and/or reason?

The err on the side of caution argument can cut both ways, you are proposing/defending the locking up of people who have hurt nobody.
The "judgement based on experience, rationale and/or reason" tends to require a reason, not just somebody's imagination of how things may or may not be related.

What evidence exists for the justification of the criminalising of the recreational use of marajuana?

Not much, and I think it should be decriminalised.

 

[Beerina]

What's wrong with porn?

Too many wild, swinging shots. Too many cuts back and forth ala MTV generation. Poor lighting. And god help you if they pass it through the popular computerized flesh-smoothing filters, given wrinkles and clarity are key to enjoyment.

Then there's the clueless directors and cameramen. If one girl has big lips and the other, big areolae well, have the former kiss the latter, not the other way around. Clueless!

 

[Southwind17]

The err on the side of caution argument can cut both ways, you are proposing/defending the locking up of people who have hurt nobody.
The "judgement based on experience, rationale and/or reason" tends to require a reason, not just somebody's imagination of how things may or may not be related. [emphasis added]

This response is so flawed as regards its obvious misunderstandings and misquotes there's clearly little point in seeking to respond to the material matters in hand.

 

[Southwind17]

Then there's the clueless directors ...

That's an interesting comment and choice of adjective!