Moderated What's wrong with porn?

[Belz...]

Agreed. It took thousands of years of moral and social advancement to realize that it was in our long term best interest to codify fundamental rights and defend those rights against appeals to emotion.

And that was due to the thousands of years it took to understand that emotions weren't a reliable way to learn the truth value of a proposition.

 

[Belz...]

Good luck with that.

I'm an eternal optimist.

 

[Toke]

I'm an eternal optimist.

At page 54 my optimism is wearing thin.

 

[Southwind17]

You could stand to learn from this, Southwind. First step: doubt yourself.

See! You were harmed!

 

[Southwind17]

Good point. I don't. But then the same can be said of any negative experience, of any degree. Of course, that's all irrelevant because the burden of evidence would be on the one claiming that it HAS caused harm.

If Plan-A fails try Plan-B. If Plan-B fails try Plan-C. If Plan-C fails ...

Thanks for proving my point.

Sorry - what point?

 

[Southwind17]

And that was due to the thousands of years it took to understand that emotions weren't a reliable way to learn the truth value of a proposition.

Agreed, although I can't vouch for the alleged time period. I believe it was much longer. You're a creationist, right? Or am I confusing you with somebody else here?

 

[Southwind17]

I'm an eternal optimist.

Even more evidence you were harmed!

 

[JFrankA]

I consider that both foolish and irresponsible at best; negligent at worst. If your child was molested by the VCP-reading boyfriend (and I'm by no means suggesting that that's certain, and I'm also clarifying that the molestation could have absolutely nothing in reality to do with his reading VCP (of course, we'll never know for sure!)) and the Authorities discovered that you'd consciously elected to allow him to co-babysit your child, what would your response be if challenged?

No, I wouldn't. Sorry. It would be the responsibility of the boyfriend and maybe the girl (if she decided to help him). As I stated, I'm hiring the girl, not the guy. I would have (and have had) strict policy of no visitors.

If my child got molested because the boyfriend came over and did it, it wouldn't be my fault. Let me make it clear, I would feel horrible but I wouldn't be responsible.

Would it be:

​

If so, you would deserve to be indicted for failing to adequately care for a minor in your charge, and rightly so. You clearly haven't thought this through properly, preferring to defend an untennable principle through sheer dogmatism. Not to worry, though - we all KNOW what the real answer is, if push came to shove!

No, we don't. You are ignoring the possibility of hiring the girl with the football player boyfriend. What if HE bust his way into the house and beat up his girl and my kid, by your logic, would I be responsible then too?

What if the boyfriend didn't show up at all the girl herself molested my child regardless of which boyfriend she had? Would I be responsible then?

See, no matter what is said, one can come up with a lose-lose situation. The "boyfriend reads VCP" is a red herring. I could hire anyone and their spouse/significant other/parent/son could do all sorts of things. How can I be held responsible for someone elses friend's actions?

I'm sorry, and I don't mean this as a dig, but if you are saying that I shouldn't hire the girl with the boyfriend who uses VCP because he could show up and molest my child is exactly the same argument I hear from Christians who say to me "you should become Christian because when you die you could be wrong and go to hell."

It's exactly the same mentality. I refuse to fall for that fallacy.

I'm dodging it because it's irrelevant.

I'm glad you admit to dodging it. However, it is NOT irrelevant.

Why? When you write about "government" what and who do you think you're referring to? You're referring to people. People who, in all likelihood, are no different from RandFan, in principle. What makes you think that lawmakers do, or should, think differently from everybody else? Are they some form of special breed? I have no doubt that many lawmakers would offer exactly the same ill-considered response as RandFan has if faced with the same "dilemma". Do you think that it's reasonable to expect that they should somehow divorce their humanistic thoughts from their decision-making process? Hell - why don't we just develop some appropriately complex algorithms and have a couple of laptops write laws for us?

Yes. I DO expect them to go beyond irrationality and knee-jerk fear. Yes, I DO expect them to divorce their humanistic thoughts from their decision making process and actually see all sides of the coin. Yes, I DO expect them see the rights of all people, know that one's rights doesn't mean taking another's rights away, the concept of equality, the concept of innocent until proven guilt, the concept of what it means to live without fear.

Yes. I do. I can. It's what the country was based upon.

No, they are not a "breed apart", however, they should be able to step up to the plate and see the difference between a curve ball and slider. Even RandFan said he was being irrational, and he has every right to be but he also stated that the government should not be irrational and use fear and the lawmakers should be very aware of what is irrational and not knee jerk a quick solution. It's alright to do that as an individual, it's your right. But as an elected official, someone who is trying to keep everyone's rights healthy and equal, you are in a position that a bunch of people trust you to do the job.

Just like someone hires me to go onstage and entertain a whole bunch of people. A lot of people can't do what I do, but I am going to do what I am trusted and paid to do, otherwise, I don't keep my job.

In fact, I voted for Obama partly because he didn't campaign "fear this, fear that". McCain did to some degree, Palin certainly did. In the past eight years with George Bush we were governed by fear. It was the lowest time in America's recent history in my opinion.

Laws are designed to protect society. If society is fearful of something that can be assuaged by law, then hell, yes, of course it should be addressed by law. Why on earth do you think murder is illegal?

Wrong. Laws are designed to protect human rights. I explained this before. Murder is illegal because when Person A kills Person B, Person A has removed Person B's rights (in fact, all of his rights) permanently. Gotta see it from that angle. It may sound unemotional, but the government (the US government anyway) isn't interested in emotion (or shouldn't be) but interested in keeping people's individual freedoms and rights in check so that they do not interfere with other people's individual freedoms and rights.

Yes, I'll admit our government doesn't always succeed and there are some sticky points that come up, but the philosophy I've stated is what our government is based upon.

I don't think you mean how this literally reads.

Oh yes I do.

If you're equating introducing laws to assuage society's fear (irrational or otherwise) with positively inciting fear in society (clearly not irrational!) as a means to introduce an otherwise unjustified law, I think you've confused yourself slightly. If not, perhaps you could contextualize your question.

Any government who uses fear to rule it's people, whether it's to appease or not, is not a good government.

I cannot make it any clearer than that.

Notwithstanding that I'm intrigued to learn what such warnings actually say(!), as I wrote above, laws are designed to protect society. If there's a net benefit to society in having perspiring people instead of scared people and a law would achieve that then yes, fans should be made illegal. It's no different, in principle, to recognizing the net benefit to society in having an educated populace, hence making schooling compulsory (hey - perhaps I should suggest that to strengthen my argument - compulsory schooling for children? No - I'll just get shot down in flames -it's surely a breach of the fundamental right not to educate your kids!). I would, however, ascribe to the idea of exhausting all other appropriate means to address the issue first, though, like education, for example!

Wiki is our friend: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fan_death

The Korea Consumer Protection Board (KCPB), a South Korean government-funded public agency, issued a consumer safety alert in 2006 warning that "asphyxiation from electric fans and air conditioners" was among South Korea's five most common seasonal summer accidents or injuries, according to data they collected.[11] Also included among the five hazards were air conditioner explosions and sanitation issues, including food poisoning and opportunistic pathogens harbored in air conditioners. The KCPB actually published the following:

If bodies are exposed to electric fans or air conditioners for too long, it causes [the] bodies to lose water and [causes] hypothermia. If directly in contact with [air current from] a fan, this could lead to death from [an] increase of carbon dioxide saturation concentration [sic] and decrease of oxygen concentration. The risks are higher for the elderly and patients with respiratory problems. From 2003 [to] 2005, a total of 20 cases were reported through the CISS involving asphyxiations caused by leaving electric fans and air conditioners on while sleeping. To prevent asphyxiation, timers should be set, wind direction should be rotated and doors should be left open.

You claim to be a skeptic and a critical thinker. Can you, in all conscious as someone who is a critical thinker believe that it's okay to spread a lie to keep people in line? Keep people ignorant, keep them suspicious of all others, keep them in fear for their own good?

I'm sorry to say this. That to me is profoundly scary thinking.

Aaaaaand by the way, it is NOT mandatory to have your children go to school. Many people choose home-schooling. In fact, my ex-wife chose to home-school my son. Believe it or not, I do not agree with her decision, but as the non-custodial parent, she had the final choice.

But it worked out. The good news is that my son is going back to school next year for his first year in a high school with a specialty in marine studies (which he is very enthusiastic about). He has already taken the aptitude grade equivalency test to get in a passed with flying colors.

I'm sorry. I'm very proud of my son.

 

[Southwind17]

Wrong. Laws are designed to protect human rights.

You seem to think rights are innate. They're not - they're an end from a means. That means is law, which is a set of rules and regulations. Rules and regulations are designed to address and control things, usually behaviour, often dangerous, harmful behaviour, or threat thereof. Rights are what we end up with. Things like fear are what prompts them.

You claim to be a skeptic and a critical thinker. Can you, in all conscious as someone who is a critical thinker believe that it's okay to spread a lie to keep people in line? Keep people ignorant, keep them suspicious of all others, keep them in fear for their own good?

No and no. Are you suggesting I do? If so, on what basis?

Aaaaaand by the way, it is NOT mandatory to have your children go to school. Many people choose home-schooling.

OK - split hairs if you must.

 

[quadraginta]

You seem to think rights are innate. They're not - they're an end from a means. That means is law, which is a set of rules and regulations. Rules and regulations are designed to address and control things, usually behaviour, often dangerous, harmful behaviour, or threat thereof. Rights are what we end up with. Things like fear are what prompts them.

<snip>

If you pursue this approach much farther you end up with ...

"Everything that is not mandatory is forbidden."
​

 

[Toke]

If you pursue this approach much farther you end up with ...

"Everything that is not mandatory is forbidden."
​

Well, in SW's world people are remarkable malleable to suggestions, it kind of fits your hypothesis here.

 

[JFrankA]

You seem to think rights are innate. They're not - they're an end from a means. That means is law, which is a set of rules and regulations. Rules and regulations are designed to address and control things, usually behaviour, often dangerous, harmful behaviour, or threat thereof. Rights are what we end up with. Things like fear are what prompts them.

In America, it's the other way around. Rights ARE innate. It's what every law should start with. I'd rather have the right to run into a fire than being arrested for starting a fire on the basis that people fear I might run into it.

I don't think you understand that. I say that without insult. I just think we are on opposite ends of the same line.

No and no. Are you suggesting I do? If so, on what basis?

Again, I mean no insult. What you say seems to imply that you do. I've said so why in my last post:

I'm sorry, and I don't mean this as a dig, but if you are saying that I shouldn't hire the girl with the boyfriend who uses VCP because he could show up and molest my child is exactly the same argument I hear from Christians who say to me "you should become Christian because when you die you could be wrong and go to hell."

Let me explain it more, if I may. You said:

<snip>> laws are designed to protect society. If there's a net benefit to society in having perspiring people instead of scared people and a law would achieve that then yes, fans should be made illegal.

Let's take this "Fan Death" thing.

Fans do not cause death. There is evidence abound that they do not suck up all the air in the room. We know that.

But if the people have an irrational fear for their lives that fans do suck up all the air, should the government appease the people and make fans illegal? Do you think that the government is right in doing so?

Or if the government thinks that it would help people save electricity by perpetuating the fear that fans suck up the air in a room so people would be sure to turn off their fans when they go to sleep, is that the right thing to do?

In either case, do you really think it's a good idea to keep an irrational fear going? One is to keep people calm and no worries, the other is for their own good, but both methods employ fear, misinformation and deceit.

Can you, as a critical thinker, really agree to this and think it's right?

OK - split hairs if you must.

Didn't mean to, sorry about that. I wanted just wanted to a) point out that people in America isn't forced to go to school for their own good, b) sometimes it works out for the better, and c) admittingly, I saw an opportunity to brag about my son a little.

 

[MontagK505]

<snip>

You claim to be a skeptic and a critical thinker. Can you, in all conscious as someone who is a critical thinker believe that it's okay to spread a lie to keep people in line? Keep people ignorant, keep them suspicious of all others, keep them in fear for their own good?

I'm sorry to say this. That to me is profoundly scary thinking.

<snip>

I admire your endurance JfrankA. Arguing with Inter Party Leader O'Brien takes great intestinal fortitude. I bow to the master!

 

[Southwind17]

If you pursue this approach much farther you end up with ...

"Everything that is not mandatory is forbidden."
​

How so?

 

[JFrankA]

I admire your endurance JfrankA. Arguing with Inter Party Leader O'Brien takes great intestinal fortitude. I bow to the master!

I appreciate that.

And believe it or not, I want to thank Southwind for reaching out to me so we can work it out and letting me off ignore so we can discuss this.

I mean that, SW. Thanks

 

[MontagK505]

BTW: While it's true that I act irrationaly from time to time (I'm human most of us do) unlike you I don't want to pass laws based on irrationality.

And SW, that is exactly what you are doing. Adimiitedly so. You acknowledge that your cause is based on fear, intuition and bias. You admit that you would act without any evidence. I'm just honest enough to admit that my actions could very well be irrational.



No, thank you.

I admire your endurance RandFan Arguing with Inter Party Leader O'Brien takes great intestinal fortitude. I bow to the master!

 

[RandFan]

...the fact that you've admitted you would be scared is enough...

I never said "scared". Why do you do that? The word I would use is concerned.

So you're claiming that your judgements of others are incapable of rational analysis and reconciliation. How convenient.

Straw man. I never used the word "incapable". And that is a non-sequitur.

Plainly wrong. You wrote:

We are all capable of acting irrationaly. That we as humans act irrationaly sometimes does not mean that we always do.

You have no idea why many modern-day women wear burkhas!

The best way to control someone is to convince them that they are doing it for their own motivations. Why do women raised in different cultures without burkhas never start wearing them unless they convert to Islam?

In your opinion why do modern women wear burkhas? Would you?

“I freed a thousand slaves I could have freed a thousand more if only they knew they were slaves.” --Harriet Tubman

I honestly don't think you know what you've written and what you haven't. Does senility come along for the ride with irrationality?! Or maybe senility is the cause of irrationality!

This is just a personal attack.

Are you interested in a serious debate?

Are you not worried for the children? Don't you intuitively think there is a likelyhood children will be harmed? Are you not biased against those who watch VCP?


Please show where.[/quote]

 

[RandFan]

I admire your endurance RandFan Arguing with Inter Party Leader O'Brien takes great intestinal fortitude. I bow to the master!

Thanks.

 

[Southwind17]

In America, it's the other way around. Rights ARE innate.

Perhaps "inherent" might be more accurate a word. Rights are formulated by man, not within man. You write as though rights are genetically programmed!

Let's take this "Fan Death" thing.
Fans do not cause death. There is evidence abound that they do not suck up all the air in the room. We know that.
But if the people have an irrational fear for their lives that fans do suck up all the air, should the government appease the people and make fans illegal? Do you think that the government is right in doing so?

Let's take it to extremes to make the point. If people's fear of fans was so extreme as to cause the entire population to run to the hills and avoid the city, and all other avenues had turned out to be cul-de-sacs, what would you do to keep the country afloat?

We could debate this exact same principle by substituting the Devil for fans and Christianity for law, if you prefer (except that I would never advocate Christianity as a substitute for education!). I suppose that would "Americanise" the topic and make it easier to relate to!

 

[MontagK505]

I appreciate that.

And believe it or not, I want to thank Southwind for reaching out to me so we can work it out and letting me off ignore so we can discuss this.

I mean that, SW. Thanks

The term, discussion usually suggests an exchange of, or understanding, of different viewpoints. I don't see too much with SW.

BTW The “ Inter Party Leader O'Brien” reference I admit is nasty. But insults seem to be part of SW's style so I don't feel too guilty.