Moderated What's wrong with porn?

[fuelair]

Oh not that pathetic old chestnut again. Please tell me I'm imagining it! "It makes sense to me (because I wrote it ) therefore how can it possibly not make sense to eveybody else?"
Your conceitedness, not to mention your mind-numbingly, boring repetitiveness precedes you.


Well thank you for at least admitting for once that you might possibly be wrong!


Let's see:

• Children are statistically likely to be harmed by VCP (there is a perceived threat).
• VCP is disgusting and no one should defend it.
• Our concern for children should be greater than any concern of loss of freedom for perverts.

I never claimed anything based on statistics. The term I used was "reasonable to suppose".
Whilst I agree with your second point it has absolutely no relevance to my argument.
I agree with your third bullet if you replace "loss of freedom for perverts" with "loss of freedom of the right to acquire VCPspeech for child molesters".

You've also overlooked:

• VCP (by my definition) has only one purpose - to sexually arouse people with a morbid interest in children, and
• We know (we have compelling evidence!) that many people lose judgement when sexually aroused to the extent that they will risk just about any foreseeable consequences in return for satisfying their immediate sexual desire.

Now, there's something mildly entertaining about to start on TV far more deserving of my attention than you RandFan. I'm afraid you'll have to wait until at least tomorrow to continue your spat. I trust your Manga collection will keep you occupied.

Very few things are reasonable to suppose if they are amenable to or have actually been studied. If they have not been, any use of commentary only represents personal opinion which, on this/these matters, is less than worthless - here or anywhere else. So are mine, and Randfans, etc. They are all opinions. We can each use ours to make decisions - but they do not make arguments right or wrong. For others, without calling anyone a troll, you really are wasting time and energy here. SW clearly wishes to annoy you, troll or not. Invest your time otherwise as if trolling was involved. This is a no win situation as you should know by now - SW is not going to change his incorrect but presented to annoy "opinions" and you are better than wasting time with him - unless you are doing it for your amusement. At least the last one of these had people on the other side who had obvious legitimacy.

 

[quadraginta]

Very few things are reasonable to suppose if they are amenable to or have actually been studied. If they have not been, any use of commentary only represents personal opinion which, on this/these matters, is less than worthless - here or anywhere else. So are mine, and Randfans, etc. They are all opinions. We can each use ours to make decisions - but they do not make arguments right or wrong. For others, without calling anyone a troll, you really are wasting time and energy here. SW clearly wishes to annoy you, troll or not. Invest your time otherwise as if trolling was involved. This is a no win situation as you should know by now - SW is not going to change his incorrect but presented to annoy "opinions" and you are better than wasting time with him - unless you are doing it for your amusement. At least the last one of these had people on the other side who had obvious legitimacy.

From Post # 581

<snip>

So my question is ... are the rest of you just remarkably patient, or are you all just feeding the troll?

He's obviously working from a premise of the 'certain truth' that porn is somehow intrinsically 'bad' and 'wrong', and struggling to defend that position without sounding like a judgmental bigot.

Without success, in my opinion.

I don't think that the prospects of changing that foundation are promising.

It's okay. Throwing raw meat at trolls is an honorable and popular pastime. I just rarely see it done for so long, by so many people at the same time, with such subtlety.

Carry on.

Okay. So I was wrong about the "subtlety"

 

[fuelair]

As a second minor point, people are free to define words/initialisms/phrases as they wish. They have no right of any kind to expect others to follow those definitions unless they have been adopted by a large number of persons generally OR by a large number of persons in a given specialty if technical in nature. Also, definitions cannot include intent as only individual persons can have intent (other, of course, than definitions formed purely to destroy argument about a word by declaring in the definition that by definition the word includes an intent by it's very existence - this is clearly not correct, but that seems to have little effect on those who do it.).

 

[Southwind17]

This is an assumption on your part. Something that you imagine or claim, in your fevered brain, to be VCP could be part of a larger body of art and not intended to arouse anyone.

I'm sorry - I thought it was, by now, a given that when I refer to VCP in the context of my argument I'm alluding to a workable definition within a workable legal context. I believe Post #1985 included my latest proposed draft definition thus:

"The attempted or actual solicitation or obtaining (or facilitation thereof) by a person from another/others, or the creation, generation, production, promotion, advertizing, storage, handling, distribution, display, sale or provision (or facilitation therof) by a person to another/others of verbal or visual expressions of pre-pubescent persons, the nature and composition of which, either wholly or partially, is clearly intended, or will or is likely to appeal, to the prurient nature of some people. For the avoidance of doubt verbal or visual expressions of pre-pubescent persons in combination with pubescent persons involving deliberate, non-incidental physical skin-to-skin contact of or clear and specific focus on genitalia or anal areas shall be deemed to constitute child pornography."[/QUOTE]

For the avoidance of dought, when I advocate the banning of VCP its in the context of a workable definition within a workable legal context as above, subject to any necessary refining.

 

[Southwind17]

I don't think it is an assumption. His position seems to be that any unintentional collateral damage caused by ill-considered punitive legislation is of no concern in the face of any potential benefits, regardless of how unlikely those benefits are to materialize, or how certain such damage is to occur.
He's been pretty clear, even adamant on that point.

Completely wrong. Please show me where.

 

[Southwind17]

I am concerned about banning VCP for reasons of free speech, but I don't fear losing that expression, because personally I have no desire to make VCP, thus banning it would never impact my free speech.
I am opposed to banning it on ideological grounds, because I believe free speech is a vital right, I believe it is easy to allow it to be carved back to almost free speech, and therefore I believe it is something that needs to be constantly protected.
In other words, I am not opposed to banning VCP due to fear, but on grounds of basic principle. Very different.

So you believe that the pursuit of ideology is sensible within the context of modern societal existence do you? I guess you must feel disappointed and let down a lot!

 

[Southwind17]

Um, what? We know this? Since when?

Er ... since sex crimes became illegal but persisted?!

 

[tesscaline]

Er ... since sex crimes became illegal but persisted?!

False premise. You are assuming that sexual arousal is the cause of sex crime.

 

[Southwind17]

.. any use of commentary only represents personal opinion ... They are all opinions. We can each use ours to make decisions - but they do not make arguments right or wrong.

SW is not going to change his incorrect ... "opinions" ... [emphasis added]

That's just beautiful. Say what you mean; mean what you say!

 

[Southwind17]

False premise. You are assuming that sexual arousal is the cause of sex crime.

Really? You concluded that from this?:

We know (we have compelling evidence!) that many people lose judgement when sexually aroused to the extent that they will risk just about any foreseeable consequences in return for satisfying their immediate sexual desire.

Amazing!

 

[tesscaline]

Really? You concluded that from this?:

Amazing!

You state there is compelling evidence to support your claim that we "know" people will risk just about any foreseeable consequence to satisfy their immediate sexual desire. When asked about that evidence, you state that the fact that sex crimes still exist, despite being criminalized, supports your claim. Thus, you are claiming sex crimes are because of "immediate sexual desire."

Since you state that we have "compelling evidence" please provide the actual evidence, and not just some ignorant and vague supposition that sex crimes are the result of "immediate sexual desire".

 

[quadraginta]

This is an assumption on your part. Something that you imagine or claim, in your fevered brain, to be VCP could be part of a larger body of art and not intended to arouse anyone.

I'm sorry - I thought it was, by now, a given that when I refer to VCP in the context of my argument I'm alluding to a workable definition within a workable legal context. I believe Post #1985 included my latest proposed draft definition thus:

"The attempted or actual solicitation or obtaining (or facilitation thereof) by a person from another/others, or the creation, generation, production, promotion, advertizing, storage, handling, distribution, display, sale or provision (or facilitation therof) by a person to another/others of verbal or visual expressions of pre-pubescent persons, the nature and composition of which, either wholly or partially, is clearly intended, or will or is likely to appeal, to the prurient nature of some people. For the avoidance of doubt verbal or visual expressions of pre-pubescent persons in combination with pubescent persons involving deliberate, non-incidental physical skin-to-skin contact of or clear and specific focus on genitalia or anal areas shall be deemed to constitute child pornography."

For the avoidance of dought, when I advocate the banning of VCP its in the context of a workable definition within a workable legal context as above, subject to any necessary refining.

"... or will or is likely to appeal,"

Still bad law.

Even "... is clearly intended," is a misguided effort to engineer social behavior based on the morals of a subset of society. The implicit assumption is that there is something intrinsically wrong with "... the prurient nature of some people." without stating explicitly what that wrong is, or how it is actually harmful to the society. This is a campaign against 'bad' thoughts. In an enlightened society the law has no business mandating what people should be allowed to think, only how their actions affect the welfare of others.

For one thing it is predicated on the ability to actually know what someone is thinking, an ability that has yet to be reliably demonstrated by anyone.

Your "... or will or is likely to appeal," goes one step further and assumes the ability to predict the future, an even less evidenced talent.

So the sum total of these is to bestow, by legislative fiat, the powers of telepathy and prophecy upon some D.A. or jury. This is rule by superstition, which is why it is no surprise that the normal advocates tend to be religious fundies.

If there was even some scintilla of actual evidence that some harm is likely then the basis for rule making is put on a different footing. But not only have you steadfastly refused to offer such evidence, you have asserted that it is not even needful, that only an alleged hypothetical potential for harm is sufficient.

 

[arthwollipot]

No money shot.

Ah. Humour.

 

[Southwind17]

You state there is compelling evidence to support your claim that we "know" people will risk just about any foreseeable consequence to satisfy their immediate sexual desire. When asked about that evidence, you state that the fact that sex crimes still exist, despite being criminalized, supports your claim. Thus, you are claiming sex crimes are because of "immediate sexual desire."

Since you state that we have "compelling evidence" please provide the actual evidence, and not just some ignorant and vague supposition that sex crimes are the result of "immediate sexual desire".

You missed out the critical word "some". See if you can figure out where.

 

[Southwind17]

"... or will or is likely to appeal,"
Still bad law.

Not in the face of accepted precedents.

Even "... is clearly intended," is a misguided effort to engineer social behavior based on the morals of a subset of society.

No. It's a perfectly legitimate effort to inhibit criminal behaviour based on the morals or pathological tendencies of child molesters.

The implicit assumption is that there is something intrinsically wrong with "... the prurient nature of some people." without stating explicitly what that wrong is, or how it is actually harmful to the society.

No. The prurient nature test is simply to protect innocent people with precedence serving as reference standards. This principle is no different from case precedence generally.

This is a campaign against 'bad' thoughts. In an enlightened society the law has no business mandating what people should be allowed to think, only how their actions affect the welfare of others.

The definition only applies to tangible material not generated directly by the holder. How can that possibly be considered to relate to thoughts - thoughts are personal?

For one thing it is predicated on the ability to actually know what someone is thinking, an ability that has yet to be reliably demonstrated by anyone.

Wrong - see above.

Your "... or will or is likely to appeal," goes one step further and assumes the ability to predict the future, an even less evidenced talent.

Case precedence reference standards.

So the sum total of these is to bestow, by legislative fiat, the powers of telepathy and prophecy upon some D.A. or jury. This is rule by superstition, which is why it is no surprise that the normal advocates tend to be religious fundies.

Only if one cannot see sense because of acute cynicism.

If there was even some scintilla of actual evidence that some harm is likely then the basis for rule making is put on a different footing. But not only have you steadfastly refused to offer such evidence, you have asserted that it is not even needful, that only an alleged hypothetical potential for harm is sufficient.

Well, at least you got something right! (except the steadfast refusal part - I've admitted that there might well be no scientific or empirical evidence just a few posts back, because nobody has looked properly for any yet).

 

[TokenMac]

SW just wanted to see if I'm under standing your thoughts on VCP.

So do you think if a child molester gets aroused from VCP then he may not be able to control himself which could lead to him molesting a child?

It seems you also think some people when aroused have no or very limited control over what they do.

Lastly, I'm not saying you don't care about the few people who would get caught up in any laws banning VCP that aren't pedophiles, but do you see it as a necessary evil in order to protect the children.

 

[TokenMac]

The Amercan law which bans VCP was passed in 2003, so does anybody know of any decline in reported child abuse since then?

 

[Belz...]

What assumption? Have you really, really, really stopped to consider whether what I wrote could logically lead you to believe that I've made an assumption to that effect?! Are are you just asking random, incidental, provocative questions to keep the debate alive?

So, that's "no", then ?

 

[Southwind17]

SW just wanted to see if I'm under standing your thoughts on VCP.
So do you think if a child molester gets aroused from VCP then he may not be able to control himself which could lead to him molesting a child?

I believe that some child molesters' judgements will be severely impaired to the extent that they will molest a child.

It seems you also think some people when aroused have no or very limited control over what they do.

I believe that some people's judgements will be severely impaired to the extent that they will act irrationally.

Lastly, I'm not saying you don't care about the few people who would get caught up in any laws banning VCP that aren't pedophiles, but do you see it as a necessary evil in order to protect the children.

No. I think the law could be made only to convict people who are guilty of child abuse crimes to the same extent that many other, satisfactory laws concerning other crimes do.

 

[JFrankA]

What assumption? Have you really, really, really stopped to consider whether what I wrote could logically lead you to believe that I've made an assumption to that effect?! Are are you just asking random, incidental, provocative questions to keep the debate alive?

I've taken into account what you were saying when I asked you this question. Here is the logic behind it.

Since you think that all VCP, including Manga, is made to arouse a person only it only goes to the logical conclusion that a person who reads a Manga comic with VCP can't help but get aroused by the scene in the comic.

Added to this your opinion that when one is sexually aroused they have no choice but to act on it.

Therefore, it seems by your opinion, anyone reading Manga will molest a child because the comic book with the VCP in it will overwhelm one's actions and destroy any decision making facilities they have.

Hence my question.


And for the record, I honestly do not think you are a troll. I do think you don't get the American philosophy of Freedom of Speech and how important it is to our culture. That's understandable, though, because there are so many Americans who don't get it either.


ETA: And thank you for answering my question in the post above.