Moderated What's wrong with porn?

[MontagK505]

<snip>
I thought the issue was whether it looks like a child or not, not whether it looks "too human"!

Southwind17:
Workable parameters can be defined.
What parameters in the scale of faerie to human AND on the the scale of old enough to too young will keep the artist from falling into the abyss of child porn?

BTW The US law refers to anyone who has the appearance of being a minor.
In the US a minor is anyone under 18.

Can you show an example of those parameters? You claimed they can be defined.
(Hint: with esthetics it's not possible to create such parameters)

 

[Southwind17]

We're debating laws banning virtual pornography because the demonstrated costs of their misuse is not offset by any demonstrable benefit.

In that case you're about 1,500 posts behind everybody else. Let us know when you've caught up.

 

[JFrankA]

In that case you're about 1,500 posts behind everybody else. Let us know when you've caught up.

This response makes no sense. You are dodging his point.

Why not just expunge him?

 

[Southwind17]

It doesn't become pornography (a consumer product) until you distribute it ...

I understand that mere possession of "pedophile material" in the US (and the UK) is illegal, regardless of generative or acquisitive source.

 

[JFrankA]

Gumboot, I'll answer this because you feel it hasn't adequately been answered. I realize that perhaps you haven't participated in the entire conversation and as such my earlier answers to this may have been missed.

Draw the cartoon. No, no one has been harmed (I do assume you are talking about Lisa Simpson the cartoon character, right? Not our administrator who is for some reason always to blame, lol)

Draw as many cartoons as you want. No one is telling you that you can't (or at least I am not, and I don't think the law is either, as it stands now).

It doesn't become pornography (a consumer product) until you distribute it, and at that point, you are injecting your thought and the product of that thought into the economy, society as a whole. And economy, by the way (child pornography) that brings in billions of dollars every year at the expense of children.

At *that* point, society, government has a right to intervene if it deems that there is something dangerous to our society in that content. It's like being fascinated with guns and wanting to collect them all, but our government places restrictions on that, the buying and selling of guns, because of the nature of the item. Or...weapons in general. The laws vary, but in many places, buying certain lengths of blades is illegal, or carrying certain lengths is illegal, even though shorter lengthed blades could potentially also cause harm. A limit is set. Do you feel sorry for gun owners who cannot purchases sawed off shotguns or fully automatic weapons? Or do you think there's no legitimate reason for them to have them? In other words, do *your* thoughts and government's opinions trump the thoughts of the few.

I do see what you are saying, but guns do are meant to hurt others physically. VCP, in most cases, is not. VCP could be meant for something as simple as a tasteless joke or something as complex as challenging our own selves and thoughts and sexuality.

VCP is not always intended to arouse, and, in fact, virtual child pictures, that aren't considered porn can still be made to intend to cause sexual arousal. If I make a picture of a virtual ten year old boy, fully dressed with a baseball bat and glove, fully clothed, looking at the viewer but has with an obvious erection, is that VCP? is that humor? is that just life? Am I allowed to distribute it? Who decides if it is humor or VCP or a representative of life or a challenge to one's own thoughts?

I don't know how to answer your question other than that. I have no problem with you sitting and drawing erotic cartoons if you want to. I don't even care if your friends see them. I might even enjoy them. But...when it comes to commerce, to distribution, of certain things, our government does have a right to intervene. And it does so because of not issues like pornography. There seems to be some massive disconnect going here simply because the subject matter is pornography. A disconnect, I use that term, because it seems that the same standards and feelings regarding free speech and expression and right to privacy doesn't exist when it comes to less popular notions such as guns, religious expression, illegal drugs, what have you. Do you consider it restricting freedom of thought if a male business owner only wants to hire men because he doesn't believe men and women should work together? I'm willing to guess that you do not, and you would call that discrimination. Laws against discrimination are what if not policing personal thought. We say "you can *think* what you want, but in our society, you must *act* or *do* this". Nobody gripes about that here do they?

There's a difference there, too. If a business owner descides to do discriminate, then the person being discriminated doesn't have a choice. If someone creates VCP the viewer has a choice in a) whether they want to view it or not, b) how they interpret it themselves.

Same principle. Same exact principle.

I understand what you are saying but I can't see it being the same principle. Sorry.

 

[Southwind17]

Southwind17:
Workable parameters can be defined.What parameters in the scale of faerie to human AND on the the scale of old enough to too young will keep the artist from falling into the abyss of child porn?
BTW The US law refers to anyone who has the appearance of being a minor.
In the US a minor is anyone under 18.
Can you show an example of those parameters? You claimed they can be defined.
(Hint: with esthetics it's not possible to create such parameters)

I don't know why you conclude that:

1. this issue necessarily hinges on aesthetics, and
2. aesthetics necessarily preclude possibility.

To my mind that seems rather defeatist at best, self-interesting at worst. Regardless, you clearly believe it's a foregone conclusion, so you'll pardon me for not wasting my time on you.

 

[JFrankA]

I don't know why you conclude that:

1. this issue necessarily hinges on aesthetics, and
2. aesthetics necessarily preclude possibility.

To my mind that seems rather defeatist at best, self-interesting at worst. Regardless, you clearly believe it's a foregone conclusion, so you'll pardon me for not wasting my time on you.

MontagK505 you have been EXPUNGED!


Soon, SW is going to be talking to only himself...

 

[RandFan]

Neither a criticism nor a dig, RandFan, but I get the distinct impression that you're no longer interested in a meaningful debate here, at least with me.

I'm happy to have a debate. You didn't say anything in the post worthy of response. It's a bit troubling but it's just an opinion. I think you are entitled to an opinion.

If so, would you be so kind as to say so. That way I can avoid wasting my time and effort expressing my views and making points and arguments that specifically touch upon and relate to those matters that you and I have recently posted on. Thank you in advance.

I can only be honest with you. If my honesty bothers you and you find that a waste of time then by all means don't respond to me. It's your choice.

 

[RandFan]

We don't simply accept things because they seem to us to be true.

Isn't science grand ?

If only more people applied its methods...

Agreed.

 

[JFrankA]

I'm happy to have a debate. You didn't say anything in the post worthy of response. It's a bit troubling but it's just an opinion. I think you are entitled to an opinion.

I can only be honest with you. If my honesty bothers you and you find that a waste of time then by all means don't respond to me. It's your choice.

RandFan, be careful or else you will be EXPUNGED!

I'm sorry, I can't help myself. The word "expunged" is stronger than porn!

 

[RandFan]

To my mind that seems rather defeatist at best, self-interesting at worst. Regardless, you clearly believe it's a foregone conclusion, so you'll pardon me for not wasting my time on you.

I've seen no evidence in all of your posts in this thread that you didn't think your position was a foregone conclusion.

I've outlined clearly what would change my mind.
What would change your mind?

 

[MontagK505]

I don't know why you conclude that:

1. this issue necessarily hinges on aesthetics, and
2. aesthetics necessarily preclude possibility.

To my mind that seems rather defeatist at best, self-interesting at worst. Regardless, you clearly believe it's a foregone conclusion, so you'll pardon me for not wasting my time on you.

So if the parameters are not based on aesthetics does that mean you still can't give me a definition?

Did that escape hatch bruise the top of your head in the way down?

 

[MontagK505]

MontagK505 you have been EXPUNGED!


Soon, SW is going to be talking to only himself...

Like I said, it's becoming about as exclusive as a rain storm.

 

[JFrankA]

I've seen no evidence in all of your posts in this thread that you didn't think your position was a foregone conclusion.

I've outlined clearly what would change my mind.
What would change your mind?

I don't think anything will convice him other than his beliefs are true. He's not even willing to debate it, and futher, will "expunge" anyone who he has judged "part of the problem".

Funny thing is, that this is the exact same discussion we had with him way back in the beginning of this thread about his belief that no female porn actersses deserve respect and his belief that no "normal" woman would want to do porn.

 

[JFrankA]

Like I said, it's becoming about as exclusive as a rain storm.

Hmmm.... "Expundged Limited"? No.... "Expundged Club"? Nah... "The Expundgeneers?" Noooo, too "Disney"...... ...hmmmmm

 

[MontagK505]

I don't think anything will convice him other than his beliefs are true. He's not even willing to debate it, and futher, will "expunge" anyone who he has judged "part of the problem".

Funny thing is, that this is the exact same discussion we had with him way back in the beginning of this thread about his belief that no female porn actersses deserve respect and his belief that no "normal" woman would want to do porn.

In any case not "normal" is not the same as bad.

 

[MontagK505]

MontagK505 you have been EXPUNGED!


Soon, SW is going to be talking to only himself...

What's irritating is that my purpose is simply to illustrate how a legitimate artist can step into the bear trap of virtual child porn.

SW can't seem to grasp that.

Off to photograph some naked ladies!

Later

 

[JFrankA]

What's irritating is that my purpose is simply to illustrate how a legitimate artist can step into the bear trap of virtual child porn.

SW can't seem to grasp that.

There's a bunch of bear traps in SW's thinking. One of the biggest I see is who decides? One person's porn is just a photo of a naked person to another person.

Speaking of which....

Off to photograph some naked ladies!

Later

Have fun! Get 2257 statements!!!

 

[RandFan]

I don't think anything will convice him other than his beliefs are true. He's not even willing to debate it, and futher, will "expunge" anyone who he has judged "part of the problem".

Agreed. I got the feeling a bit back that this wasn't a debate. It's more of a lecture using rhetorical device and appeals to emotion.

1. There is a statistical likelyhood that VCP causes harm.
2. No one is harmed by banning VCP.
3. Why not ban VCP to protect children?

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins
Why do you find it unreasonable to conclude that there is no harm if there is no demonstrable causation between "viewing porn" and "harm"? [emphasis added]

You say "if" ...

Don't get carried by semantics. I was speaking in a hypothetical way at that moment. In other words, my question to you is, "Why do you find it unreasonable to conclude that there is no harm if there is no demonstrable causation between "viewing porn" and "harm"?"

I'm presenting you the premise, which you have confused by the if. I may as well rephrase it like this: "If indeed there is no evidence between "viewing porn" and "harm" why do you find it unreasonable to conclude that there is no harm"?

(Notice the "if" is still there, but it does not suggest that we're not sure. It's all about how you construct the phrase)
(Another way of constructing the same phrase but without the if ""Given that there is no evidence between "viewing porn" and "harm" why do you find it unreasonable to conclude that there is no harm"?)

So why do you find it unreasonable then, SW?
You did not answer the question after all, which was kind of crucial.

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins
Until compelling evidence shows up suggesting that there may be a demonstrable causation ...

... then further confirm you're not sure.

SW, are you sure there is no man-eating invisible dragon in my closet?
Is that then a reasonable posture to take precautions against it?

Of course you are never "sure" of anything in an irrefutable 100%. I've granted you that perhaps in the future, new studies will prove that there actually is a harm in viewing images of virtual child porn. But until there is no compelling evidence, until we have nothing but evidence that the only thing we have is millions of different reactions depending on the individual personalities of each individual; there is no reason to take any precautions against virtual child porn.

Do you not find this line of thinking reasonable? And if you don't, please explain why.

Do you understand that your personal disgust with something isn't in itself reason enough to claim that such thing is harmful?. Honestly, do you?.

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins
However, if you really must insist on beneficial consequences, they have already been pointed in this thread: Cases of people who are sexually attracted to children, who do not want to actually molest them, who need an outlet, and who recur to virtual child porn to vent out their inner urges.

Evidence?

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins
And since we've already seen that there is no demonstrable causation between viewing images and harm, then there is no reason to exclude things such as virtual child porn. [emphasis added]

Sorry, I missed it. Remind me where to look would you?

Sounds like you have seen something different then. You know of any serious studies that determine that people had previously non existing sexual urges "created" just by viewing porn? Or then again, non violent people who had violent urges created by viewing violent images?.

You have examples of people not having previously non-existing urges created by images everywhere: Jfranka told you how he is never persuaded by certain types of advertisement. I, for example, cannot stand movies like Saw because their detail in the mutilations disgust me, no matter how many times I see it. These images have never transformed my original tendency to feel disgusted by bone fractures and detailed mutilations.

Maybe you can even look inside yourself and try to recount how many times you've seen images that did not succeed at persuading you into what they suggested. It's a work that requires certain honesty, though, as claiming the opposite would be saying that you could be suggested into doing anything, provided that we feed you with the proper audiovisual work.

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins
So it's actually the other way around: First determine that there is no demonstrable harm in virtual child porn, then include it in the lists of things that belong to individual self expression.

Is this a maxim that you would apply to everything in life or just speech (by the First Amendment definition)?

I think it should apply to everything. Do you not? And if not, why?.