Moderated What's wrong with porn?

[JFrankA]

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

Virtual poo is still dirty and stinky!

.....because seeing a virtual poo without being in a toilet has the potential for making other people think that poo is okay to do without using a toilet.


.................I'm so, so sorry. I couldn't resist......

 

[MontagK505]

Virtual poo is still dirty and stinky!

.....because seeing a virtual poo without being in a toilet has the potential for making other people think that poo is okay to do without using a toilet.


.................I'm so, so sorry. I couldn't resist......

FYI

Renderosity has a Poser prop set that allows you to create a bathroom that contains all the elements of all the worst public bathrooms you can imagine. Including a stopped toilet.

Here's your chance to create virtual poo porn!

 

[JFrankA]

FYI

Renderosity has a Poser prop set that allows you to create a bathroom that contains all the elements of all the worst public bathrooms you can imagine. Including a stopped toilet.

Here's your chance to create virtual poo porn!

Wooo Hooo!

Now I can create virtual poo porn so it will make the people who have the potential to go, will go!

 

[TokenMac]

I heard some where that almost all poo play videos are faked, with ememas of stuff like dog food, chocolate, ETC. So in that sense most poo play vids could be called "virtual poo porn".

 

[MontagK505]

Wooo Hooo!

Now I can create virtual poo porn so it will make the people who have the potential to go, will go!

If you cater to people who like watching children take a poo you could be a...

wait for it......



Pedophile Poo Pornographer!!!

 

[MontagK505]

I heard some where that almost all poo play videos are faked, with ememas of stuff like dog food, chocolate, ETC. So in that sense most poo play vids could be called "virtual poo porn".

You know, I'm actually glad to hear this. It does raise my opinion of humanity a few nano-meters.

 

[Southwind17]

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.

Not quite. I think it reasonably introduces a perceived risk.

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

If you really think that then you clearly haven't been reading.

This is incoherent.

Only if the "principle" that you have in mind is different from mine, and it clearly is:

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

Instead of focusing on legal and political semantics (which strongly indicates your bias for "freedom rights" at the expense of duly considering reality) why don't you directly address the points, justifications and concerns that both I and sugarb have described in the last dozen or so posts? I think it's fair to say you've essentially completely overlooked them or elected to skirt around them, for whatever reason.

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

You don't even know what my assertion (not "conclusion") is. You've made that abundantly clear for as far back as I can recall.

 

[quixotecoyote]

You've made that abundantly clear for as far back as I can recall.

Senility sucks, I guess.

 

[Southwind17]

Senility sucks, I guess.

Sure, but it's excusable. Laziness, however ...

 

[RandFan]

Not quite. I think it reasonably introduces a perceived risk.

I don't know what the hell this even means. Do you mean like, Godzilla reasonably introduces a perceived risk? Ghost stories reasonably introduce a perceived risk? Rock music reasonably introduces a perceived risk? Black people reasonably introduces a perceived risk?

There's a logic error in there. Let's see if you can sort it out.

Only if the "principle" that you have in mind is different from mine, and it clearly is:

No. It's just incoherent.

Instead of focusing on legal and political semantics (which strongly indicates your bias for "freedom rights" at the expense of duly considering reality) why don't you directly address the points, justifications and concerns that both I and sugarb have described in the last dozen or so posts?

I thought we got off to a good start earlier. This is just nonsense. I addressed a specific point that you made. You are the one responding with semantics and playing silly games.

I honestly thought you wanted to be taken seriously.

 

[Southwind17]

I don't know what the hell this even means. Do you mean like, Godzilla reasonably introduces a perceived risk? Ghost stories reasonably introduce a perceived risk? Rock music reasonably introduces a perceived risk? Black people reasonably introduces a perceived risk?
There's a logic error in there. Let's see if you can sort it out.
No. It's just incoherent.
I thought we got off to a good start earlier. This is just nonsense. I addressed a specific point that you made. You are the one responding with semantics and playing silly games.
I honestly thought you wanted to be taken seriously.

Clearly, given the speed and tone of this response it's obvious that a veteran feels he has an innate right not to be pressed and is allowing emotion to take over. Yet another example of rights 1 : reality 0.

You clearly have not (what on earth leads you to claim that you have is beyond me, unless you're being dishonest) and aren't prepared to address the points raised earlier in the context of their being raised, and it seems you're now having difficulty comprehending straight forward statements, so it seems there's little point in continuing the debate with you.

If you want a debate focusing on freedom and the preservation of rights generally I suggest you start a thread on that specific topic.

p.s. And to leave it this late to confess that you have absolutely no clue what perception is ...!!!

 

[quixotecoyote]

Clearly, given the speed and tone of this response it's obvious that a veteran feels he has an innate right not to be pressed and is allowing emotion to take over. Yet another example of rights 1 : reality 0.

You clearly have not (what on earth leads you to claim that you have is beyond me, unless you're being dishonest) and aren't prepared to address the points raised earlier in the context of their being raised, and it seems you're now having difficulty comprehending straight forward statements. so it seems there's little point in continuing the debate with you.

If you want a debate focusing on the freedom preservation of rights generally I suggest you start a thread on that specific topic.

p.s. And to leave it this late to confess that you have absolutely no clue what perception is ...!!!

Nobody's got a clue about anything but you, huh Southwind? Generally when that happens it's time for some introspection.

 

[Southwind17]

Nobody's got a clue about anything but you, huh Southwind? Generally when that happens it's time for some introspection.

Similarly when people resort to making defensive straw man statements such as this. You really are a sucker for the ... well, sucker punch, aren't you!

 

[quixotecoyote]

You really are a sucker for the ... well, sucker punch, aren't you!

Good lord. Even your one-liners have turned incoherent!

 

[RandFan]

Clearly, given the speed and tone of this response it's obvious that a veteran feels he has an innate right not to be pressed and is allowing emotion to take over.

The speed? I've never had that complaint before.

I'm not imune to emotional response. This isn't one of those times. Your fist paragraph is just rhetoric.

Yet another example of rights 1 : reality 0.

Rhetoric.

You clearly have not (what on earth leads you to claim that you have is beyond me, unless you're being dishonest) and aren't prepared to address the points raised earlier in the context of their being raised, and it seems you're now having difficulty comprehending straight forward statements, so it seems there's little point in continuing the debate with you.

What world do you live in where you get to just demand that I respond to the points you deem necassary for me to respond to? If you've got specific points you would like me to address then you could be polite and restate them or tell me which posts they are. That's what other considerate posters do.

If you want a debate focusing on freedom and the preservation of rights generally I suggest you start a thread on that specific topic.

If you've got a problem with any of my posts I suggest you notify a moderator.

p.s. And to leave it this late to confess that you have absolutely no clue what perception is ...!!!

Asserting something doesn't make it true.

So, your post was just rhetoric. You did not respond to the points I made directly in response to you.

 

[RandFan]

Similarly when people resort to making defensive straw man statements such as this. You really are a sucker for the ... well, sucker punch, aren't you!

I addressed your points and you responded with rhetoric and personal attack. Look in the mirror.

 

[RandFan]

I think it reasonably introduces a perceived risk.

Just out of curiosity. Does anyone else know what this means?

Is that like a con artist reasonably introduces a perceived benefit?

 

[quixotecoyote]

Just out of curiosity. Does anyone else know what this means?

Is that like a con artist reasonably introduces a perceived benefit?

I think it means that he wants it to be accepted as a risk, but he can't demonstrate any evidence for it, so he handwaves the lack of evidence by saying it's reasonable to perceive it as a risk regardless of evidence.

 

[TokenMac]

Just out of curiosity. Does anyone else know what this means?

Is that like a con artist reasonably introduces a perceived benefit?

Yeah he confused me with that one too. I always thought a "perceived risk" was when something that seems risky but in reality it isn't or there is no proof that it is.

So I don't see how perceived risk could be at the base of any law that can be called fair.

 

[RandFan]

Yeah he confused me with that one too. I always thought a "perceived risk" was when something that seems risky but in reality it isn't or there is no proof that it is.

So I don't see how perceived risk could be at the base of any law that can be called fair.

There was a popular saying when my kids were in elementary school. It was said when anyone would make some obviously outrageous claim. "It could happen".

Jimmy: My dad met the Queen of England.
Billy: Your dad is in prison.
Jimmy: It could happen.

"Percieved" possibility.