Moderated What's wrong with porn?

[quixotecoyote]

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?

You once again pretend that you've proven the pre-disposition.

You haven't.

You don't get to make a conclusion until you've supported your arguments.

eta: and btw, I doubt you have any idea what sugarb's point actually was.

 

[Southwind17]

You once again pretend that you've proven the pre-disposition.

The pre-disposition is a given within the situation to which it pertains. You're just not following any of this, are you!

 

[Toke]

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.

I take it that you have no support whatsoever for a ban, except for your "feel" for what works.

 

[Southwind17]

I take it that you have no support whatsoever for a ban, except for your "feel" for what works.

We need clarification here, because of how you confusingly worded your previous post:

1. Banning what, exactly?
2. What, exactly, do you mean by "support" - personal support or rationale/evidence in the way of supporting a case for banning?

If you happen to be alluding to banning virtual child porn I believe I've stated my case sufficiently above.

 

[sugarb]

The pre-disposition is a given within the situation to which it pertains. You're just not following any of this, are you!

Right. The pre-disposition is viewing child porn in the first place. Why would one view child pornography if one didn't find children sexually arousing????

 

[RandFan]

It's called the Constitution.

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?

Not every decision I make conflicts with the first Amendment. It's called Prior Restraint. The constitution expressly prohibits such prophylactic injunctions as they apply to speech.

Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech

Please to tell me which part of that you don't understand?

Now, perhaps you are not American, in which case I apologize but I hope you can understand my perspective from that POV.

On we go...

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

I think this makes my argument. Are you sure you want to go with this example? I'm libertarian small (L). One should not pass laws to limit freedom without a reasonable basis to believe that the law is for the greater good. Guessing just isn't good enough.

 

[Southwind17]

Right. The pre-disposition is viewing child porn in the first place. Why would one view child pornography if one didn't find children sexually arousing????

Not quite, to be fair. The pre-disposition is towards child molestation - period - even before porn, child porn or virtual child porn enters into the mix. The question then is: Does the availability and consumption of porn, child porn or virtual child porn increase the actual incidence of child molestation?

 

[sugarb]

The pre-disposition is a given within the situation to which it pertains. You're just not following any of this, are you!

Not quite, to be fair. The pre-disposition is towards child molestation - period - even before porn, child porn or virtual child porn enters into the mix. The question then is: Does the availability and consumption of porn, child porn or virtual child porn increase the actual incidence of child molestation?

Mmm...but...how does one *prove* the predisposition without any evidence of some kind? I would think there would have to be some evidence.

 

[sugarb]

Whoa! I don't know why there are two quotes there. Sorry.

 

[Southwind17]

Not every decision I make conflicts with the first Amendment. It's called Prior Restraint. The constitution expressly prohibits such prophylactic injunctions as they apply to speech.
Please to tell me which part of that you don't understand?
Now, perhaps you are not American, in which case I apologize but I hope you can understand my perspective from that POV.

So far as I'm concerned this debate does not touch upon any of the above, which is all incidental to the heart of the matter, which, essentially, concerns whether there's reasonable justification for the banning of child porn, in principle.

I think this makes my argument. Are you sure you want to go with this example? I'm libertarian small (L). One should not pass laws to limit freedom without a reasonable basis to believe that the law is for the greater good. Guessing just isn't good enough. [emphasis added]

I can see why you think this example "makes" your argument, and that more than crossed my mind when I reponded. However, I cite this example as simple proof that what you wrote here simply isn't true:

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. [emphasis added]

Clearly, one doesn't necessarily need to demonstrate any such thing to get a ban enacted!

And BTW - in any event the example I cite would only serve to, at best, support your argument:

1. if it does, indeed, subsequently transpire that marajuana is legalised for recreational use because it passes the cost/benefit analysis test, and
2. the cost/benefit for any such legalising the recreational use of marajuana equates to that for legalising child porn.

Neither of those is a given, and I strongly doubt that the second ever will be.

So yes, I will, actually, go with that example, thank you very much.

BTW - is "for the greater good" the same as passing the cost/benefit analysis test?

And I'm still puzzled as to why you persist on using the word "guessing", when, clearly, my rationale is based on far more than a guess. It's a clearly logically reasoned position - not conclusive, I'll openly and continue to admit - but it's logically reasoned nonetheless. That's good enough justification for electing to cross the road in my view!

 

[Southwind17]

Mmm...but...how does one *prove* the predisposition without any evidence of some kind? I would think there would have to be some evidence.

You're missing the point sugarb, as I think Toke has, which might be my fault in the way I might have sought to make my case, in which case I apologize.

The pre-disposition is a given in the sense that we know some people are pre-disposed to molest children. The whys and wherefors for such pre-disposition are not what we're debating here. What we are debating is whether, and if so the extent to which, porn, child porn or virtual child porn could reasonably be considered to be a factor in the incidence of actual child molestation (or other harm) in the event that it is available to and consumed by people with such pre-disposition. Does that help?

 

[Toke]

You're missing the point sugarb, as I think Toke has, which might be my fault in the way I might have sought to make my case, in which case I apologize.

The pre-disposition is a given in the sense that we know some people are pre-disposed to molest children. The whys and wherefors for such pre-disposition are not what we're debating here. What we are debating is whether, and if so the extent to which, porn, child porn or virtual child porn could reasonably be considered to be a factor in the incidence of actual child molestation (or other harm) in the event that it is available to and consumed by people with such pre-disposition. Does that help?

Not really.
You have so far given the impression of wanting a ban on virtual child porn* because you think it increases the risk of actual harm to children.

What you have not done is to provide any backup for that assertion.

BTW. We are not debating your assertion, but whether it is reasonable to impose a ban on assertion alone, in spite of the harm to the adults owing it.

*Including family pictures and poser intermediate files.

 

[RandFan]

So far as I'm concerned this debate does not touch upon any of the above, which is all incidental to the heart of the matter, which, essentially, concerns whether there's reasonable justification for the banning of child porn, in principle.

This is incoherent.

I can see why you think this example "makes" your argument, and that more than crossed my mind when I reponded. However, I cite this example as simple proof that what you wrote here simply isn't true:

And you are still making my argument.

Clearly, one doesn't necessarily need to demonstrate any such thing to get a ban enacted!

This is a skeptics forum. Forgive me the presumption of reason. That people can and do act counter to reason isn't justification to forgo reason in a discussion such as this.

RandFan: You can't murder people.
Southwind: Tell that to OJ simpson.

Hint: The word "can't" in the context of OJ is legally, moraly or ethically. The word "can't" in the context of our discussion is legally (prohibited by the constitution) and reasonably.

Can't DOESN'T mean physically impossible.

It's a clearly logically reasoned position...

It's clearly not. Asserting something doesn't make it so.

 

[Tsunami]

Porn is fine as long as they keep the poo out of it. There's a line people, don't cross it.

 

[JFrankA]

You're missing the point sugarb, as I think Toke has, which might be my fault in the way I might have sought to make my case, in which case I apologize.

The pre-disposition is a given in the sense that we know some people are pre-disposed to molest children. The whys and wherefors for such pre-disposition are not what we're debating here. What we are debating is whether, and if so the extent to which, porn, child porn or virtual child porn could reasonably be considered to be a factor in the incidence of actual child molestation (or other harm) in the event that it is available to and consumed by people with such pre-disposition. Does that help?

Let me reword your point in the analogy you love to use: (and this isn't meant to mock, I'm making a point)


The pre-disposition is a given in the sense that we know some people are pre-disposed to murder. The whys and wherefors for such pre-disposition are not what we're debating here. What we are debating is whether, and if so the extent to which, action films, murder movies or virtual actors portraying murder could reasonably be considered to be a factor in the incidence of actual murder (or murders) in the event that it is available to and consumed by people with such pre-disposition.

Does THAT help?

 

[JFrankA]

Right. The pre-disposition is viewing child porn in the first place. Why would one view child pornography if one didn't find children sexually arousing????

Ask the guy who was arrested collecting Manga. Sometimes it's just part of the story, sometimes, as stated before, it's not to arouse sexually but arouse anger. Some people, like Maplethrope, just saw art.

The truth is in some cases we don't know for certain.

 

[quixotecoyote]

The pre-disposition is a given within the situation to which it pertains. You're just not following any of this, are you!

If you grant your conclusion as a given, guess what? You're going to find it is always correct.

 

[fuelair]

Porn is fine as long as they keep the poo out of it. There's a line people, don't cross it.

Are you pooh-poohing poo here?!! Or impooning it?!!

 

[MontagK505]

Porn is fine as long as they keep the poo out of it. There's a line people, don't cross it.

Are you referring to actual poo, metaphorical poo or virtual poo?

BTW I almost tossed my metaphorical cookies when I found actual links to this kind if “poo”. (No, I didn't look, otherwise the cookies would no longer be “metaphorical”)

 

[fuelair]

Or, heaven forbid,: Winnie-the-Poo!!