Moderated What's wrong with porn?

[JFrankA]

I don't mean to harp on this, but you'll see the relevance as to why I am asking this question:

Why am I ignored by you?

Correct me if I'm wrong, it wasn't because I was rude. We've been through that and apologized to each other. In fact, there have been some people here who actually out and out said that they don't respect you, so it isn't something like that.

I've been through the thread, and I can't figure out exactly why, I just got impressions from what you said that later, were brushed aside by other impressions from what you said. Hell, the "you are ignored permanently" statement was because I referenced something that a couple of posts later, I admitted to that I was wrong to point out and further admitted that the point I was trying to make in that post was wrong.

Here is why I say this:

When someone posts a question, that you yourself can't answer, you either ignore it or brush it aside with "read previous posts" or "straw man" (which even I see you are blatantly misusing the term). When someone asks evidence to your claims, your reply is that you know it because it's your experience, or that you're sure that everyone in the world agrees with you, but when someone else makes a claim, your first response is asking for evidence. I'm sorry, but to me, you are a poor debater.

So let me give you an easy question: one that doesn't have to do with world opinion or statistics.

Why did you ignore me? Can you answer that straight and clear without evasion or innuendo?

 

[quadraginta]

@ Southwind17

I don't mean to harp on this, but you'll see the relevance as to why I am asking this question:

Why am I ignored by you?

Correct me if I'm wrong, it wasn't because I was rude. We've been through that and apologized to each other. In fact, there have been some people here who actually out and out said that they don't respect you, so it isn't something like that.

I've been through the thread, and I can't figure out exactly why, I just got impressions from what you said that later, were brushed aside by other impressions from what you said. Hell, the "you are ignored permanently" statement was because I referenced something that a couple of posts later, I admitted to that I was wrong to point out and further admitted that the point I was trying to make in that post was wrong.

Here is why I say this:

When someone posts a question, that you yourself can't answer, you either ignore it or brush it aside with "read previous posts" or "straw man" (which even I see you are blatantly misusing the term). When someone asks evidence to your claims, your reply is that you know it because it's your experience, or that you're sure that everyone in the world agrees with you, but when someone else makes a claim, your first response is asking for evidence. I'm sorry, but to me, you are a poor debater.

So let me give you an easy question: one that doesn't have to do with world opinion or statistics.

Why did you ignore me? Can you answer that straight and clear without evasion or innuendo?

(@ JFrankA: Just in case you really are on "Ignore")

 

[Southwind17]

JFrankA:

I'll be completely honest with you here, I cannot recall exactly why I decided to ignore you the first time (I could, if I was so inclined, go back and check, but it's irrelevant, as you'll see), but given how I remember feeling that led to the need to do it a second time (and I can't recall exactly what tipped the balance then - ditto) I have no intention of communicating with you again.

I've taken you off ignore a couple of times in order to follow certain important side-shoots of the debate, and I've read some of the cheap snipes you've made at me believing full well that I have you on ignore. That's what makes them particularly cheap and, frankly, in my opinion, cowardly.

It might well be that other posters here have committed no less a "crime" in my eyes. If so, I guess I've hardened to it even more and I'm prepared to accommodate them. Unfortunately for you you were the first (the very first - ever) and you've obviously left an indelible impression.

That said, if you think this latest proxy post of yours had any chance of swaying me that just goes to show how you seem to have little to no perception of how you come across to me. You start off with seeming empathy (or maybe just self-pity) then just as you get me wondering (seriously) you lurch into a veritable, albeit polite, tirade ending with "... you are a poor debater." Do you seriously think that this, if anything, is going to win me over? If, as you claim, I'm a poor debater, what possible purpose would resuming communications with you serve? It would be a self-defeating prophecy that would benefit neither of us. If, however, you're simply and genuinely interested in why I have chosen to ignore you I guess you'll just have to read back and try to work it out. If you do, and you can't, then I suppose that means that any explanation I give you simply wouldn't register anyhow. The bottom line, JFrankA, is that I have no further time for you, and as such no inclination to indulge you. I'm generally a very forgiving person, but in this instance, and this environment, I see no merit. Good luck.

BTW - I only currently have one other person on ignore, and that's simply because he has absolutely nothing to offer here other than, seemingly, disrespect and insults, not to mention his blatant incapacity to understand what on earth's going on here (I suppose that's why he has absolutely nothing to offer, but the rest is inexcusable). Another one or two are seriously toeing the line, mind.

 

[RandFan]

Please clarify:

I already did.

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.

It's been predicted for some time that you would ignore me so it's not a surprise.

 

[RandFan]

BTW - I only currently have one other person on ignore, and that's simply because he has absolutely nothing to offer here other than, seemingly, disrespect and insults, not to mention his blatant incapacity to understand what on earth's going on here (I suppose that's why he has absolutely nothing to offer, but the rest is inexcusable). Another one or two are seriously toeing the line, mind.

 

[RandFan]

To be clear, for my position to be potentially tenable it relies on both a workable definition of VCP and a workable definition of applicable criminality. Some people here argue that my position infringes the First Amendment. I've responded to that. Others argue that it's simply not practicable because of the difficulty (impossibility - some!) in defining VCP. I've responded to that.

You might feel that you have responded to it but you haven't.

My positing what I believe could be a workable definition serves to strengthen my argument.

It fails for the many reasons outlined.

Of course, if one isn't prepared to consider the merit in doing so because one holds an unwaivering absolutist view regarding freedom of speech, then there's little point in debating anything that falls outside the realms of the First Amendment.

I think the concept and importance of free speech transcends Americas codification of that right. I think free speech ought to be a universal and fundamental human right (see Natan Sharansky's The case for Democracy).

You've got a hard row to hoe there is no doubt about it. I don't blame you if you wanted to back down. However, I'm not going to back down. If you find my arguments difficult to respond to then I've no doubt you will put me on ignore. It's been predicted for some time that you would.

That's why, for example, I openly and honestly sought clarification over your motives here, and, frankly, your response above, so far as I can tell, serves to confirm that, so far as you're concerned, any suggestion that falls outside the stricture of the First Amendment is off limits.

No. I'm honest and forthright. I don't take the cause to defend material I find offensive lightly.

Accordingly, I'd much rather you just say so in no uncertain terms and move along instead of purporting to be interested in a debate over notions and ideas that you seem to have absolutely no interest in and are not open to.

I'm here in defense of freedom of speech. I've been respectful and up front with you. Do what you will.

 

[RandFan]

There seems to be less crimes to children and women in countries where porn is banned or controlled.

Let's take for granted your dearth of evidence and assume for sake of argument that this is true. Are these unnamed countries run by oppressive totalitarian regimes? Is this a correlation or cause? How do these countries rank in the Human Development Index?

Please note. Most if not all of the nations in the top 26 HDI don't ban porn.

 

[MontagK505]

No - I couldn't grasp that any tighter. What's arguably irritating is your failure to realize that I appreciate the weaknesses of the current bear trap but that the answer is to simply adapt the bear trap so that it catches only bears, not to remove the bear trap completely. You're advocating a flawed baby and bathwater approach. That's what's arguably irritating.

BS! your actual response was:
“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.”

Clearly nothing in this statement indicated you had a "tight grasp" on anything that was said.

 

[negativ]

There seems to be less crimes to children and women in countries where porn is banned or controlled.

When I think of countries where porn is banned outright, I immediately think of places like Iran and Saudi Arabia. In those cheerful places, the most heinous crimes against women and children are not actually crimes in the eyes of the law, and are in fact perpetrated by the state itself.

c.f. legal marriageable age in Saudi Arabia, and Iran's frequent executions of child perpetrators, just to barely scrape the tip of the iceberg.

 

[Southwind17]

You might feel that you have responded to it but you haven't.

Yes I have.

It fails for the many reasons outlined.

No it doesn't.

I think the concept and importance of free speech transcends Americas codification of that right.

I don't.

I think free speech ought to be a universal and fundamental human right.

I don't.

You've got a hard row to hoe there is no doubt about it.

No I haven't; yes there is.

I don't blame you if you wanted to back down.

Yes you do.

However, I'm not going to back down.

Yes you are.

If you find my arguments difficult to respond to then I've no doubt you will put me on ignore.

Yes you have.

It's been predicted for some time that you would.

No it hasn't.

No.

Yes.

I'm honest and forthright.

No you're not.

I don't take the cause to defend material I find offensive lightly.

Yes you do.

I'm here in defense of freedom of speech.

No you're not.

I've been respectful and up front with you.

No you haven't

Do what you will.

Thank you

Hey - this style of argument is much easier. Why didn't I think of it before? Thanks for the heads up RandFan!

 

[MontagK505]

Let's take for granted your dearth of evidence and assume for sake of argument that this is true. Are these unnamed countries run by oppressive totalitarian regimes? Is this a correlation or cause? How do these countries rank in the Human Development Index?

Please note. Most if not all of the nations in the top 26 HDI don't ban porn.

There's also the question of the reliability of crime data from such regimes.

 

[RandFan]

Yes I have.
No it doesn't.
I don't.
I don't.
No I haven't; yes there is.
Yes you do.
Yes you are.
Yes you have.
No it hasn't.
Yes.
No you're not.
Yes you do.
No you're not.
No you haven't
Thank you

Had the post I responded to not simply been an opinion piece you would have a point. It was and you don't.

 

[Southwind17]

BS! your actual response was:
“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.”
Clearly nothing in this statement indicated you had a "tight grasp" on anything that was said.

You wrote this:

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) [emphasis added]

To which I responded:

I don't know why you conclude that:

1. this issue necessarily hinges on aesthetics, and
2. aesthetics necessarily preclude possibility [emphasis added].

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.

Where's the BS in that, and what part of "not possible" don't you think constitutes a foregone conclusion?

 

[MontagK505]

Had the post I responded to not simply been an opinion piece you would have a point. It was and you don't.

You know, RandFan I really admire your ability to keep your cool in the face of SW's endless provocations.

 

[Southwind17]

Had the post I responded to not simply been an opinion piece you would have a point. It was and you don't.

No I wouldn't. It wasn't and I do.

 

[quadraginta]

Had the post I responded to not simply been an opinion piece you would have a point. It was and you don't.

No I wouldn't. It wasn't and I do.

That's just too funny.

 

[Southwind17]

That's just too funny.

At least we agree on something!

 

[RandFan]

No I wouldn't. It wasn't and I do.

Then please to point out anything in your post that isn't simply asserting or expressing an opinion?

 

[Southwind17]

I see there haven't been any meaningful responses to Ivor's Post #1814 yet.

And still nothing!

 

[Southwind17]

Then please to point out anything in your post that isn't simply asserting or expressing an opinion?

Then please point out anything in my post that is simply asserting or expressing an opinion.

See where this is going (not)?!