Moderated What's wrong with porn?

[JFrankA]

So on to it:

So, to summarize the salient point by paraphrasing your words: Some people who are aroused by children choose to really molest and harm a child because they don't care and/or don't think about and/or look forward to(!) the consequences. [I've highlighted "some" to try to pre-empt you from reverting to the fallacious and flawed "but not everybody does!" position.

Now, all that's left to discuss, it seems, is the matter of the extent to which VCP causes or contributes to the sexual arousal of, and the apparent legitimization of child abuse to, child molesters. You would hardly disagree, I take it(!), that it would be advantageous to everybody concerned, including child molesters, to inhibit the legitimization message and sexual arousal of child molesters. I believe many serial rapists, if not child molesters, for example, willingly take medication to inhibit their sexual arousal.

So, JFrankA, would you like to go first?

I would.

And my position is simple. If someone does have a child fetish (pedophilia) and decides that playing acting with another adult isn't enough, or imagination isn't enough, or even VCP isn't enough, that that person wants the real thing, wants the full effect, then that person will be triggered by anything.

Here is why I say this. I, admittingly, have a fetish that could be considered dangerous to others, however, I choose to keep it safe so that I do not harm anyone. The real-life, long term harm of someone else is not worth the sex.

Be that as it may, I can tell you some instances where I get aroused by someone saying something innocent, by seeing something totally unrelated that sparks my imagination. My imagination flies and bang. Arousal.

I believe that all people are like that. Some people get turned on by a song, some people get turned on by a smile, some people get turned on by many many different things that are clearly not porn, clearly not meant to arouse but it does that job anyway. Child molesters are no different. Anything could arouse them.

Now is it possible that a child molester could watch VCP and go out to molest? Sure. But then again, a child molester could see a K-Mart child underwear ad (just the underwear, without the child in it) and go molest too. Or it could be that the child molester this one time sees the VCP and masturbates so that no child gets harmed.

You don't know. You really don't. The bottom line is that the child molester has chosen that doing the deed is more important than anyone's safety. You can lock him in a room with a straight jacket and he would still do the deed if he had a chance.

The truth is, the VCP doesn't matter. It's the person in question. Millions of people can see VCP and not molest a child.

Your beliefs is like saying that we should ban all alcohol ads, beer, wine, etc, because an alcoholic could see the ad, get drunk and beat up her/his kids. (If you really think that being sexually aroused makes someone that out of control, being addicted to alcohol, a real life, brain altering drug, I am assuming that you would think that would make someone more out of control.)

See where I am coming from?

 

[JFrankA]

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.

Unfortunately, banning something because it may prevent someone from doing a crime means that innocent people who have that something that will not do the crime will go to jail along with the few who are actually guilty.

This trade off is the definition of thought crime. In other words, the logic is this:

Since you have an item that might make you commit a crime, you must be thinking of doing it someday even though you may not realize it. Either that, or you are going to do it even though you haven't even done it yet. Therefore, either way, you are guilty.

 

[Belz...]

That's not thought crime. That's pre-crime

 

[Southwind17]

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.

Not quite. I've never seen Manga, so I wouldn't claim to know whether it falls within my definition of VCP. As such, I'm unable to comment on your conclusion. I can, however, confirm that I don't, and haven't, claimed that everybody who consumes VCP can't help but get aroused by it.

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

Notwithstanding that you're adding to an already flawed conclusion, I don't, and haven't, claimed that everybody who becomes sexually aroused has no choice but to act on it. BTW - I thought I'd made it clear that for the purpose of this debate I'm prepared to accept your claim that ALL people's actions when sexually aroused are based on choice. Why do you seek to reverse this?

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.

Do you see why I might not agree with this conclusion?!

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.

Oh don't worry, JFrankA, I "get it", and your comment, which clearly shows that you consider freedom of speech to be both a philosophical and cultural matter, leads me to believe that your unwaivering tenacity to preserve it has little or nothing at all to do with logic and reasoning, not to mention the inference that simply because so many people don't "get it" is of itself more than good reason to hang onto it. You might want to ask RandFan whether his opinion on the wearing of Burkhas by Muslim women has much to do with philosophy and culture, but regardless why he thinks that many people "don't get it".

BTW JFrankA, when I wrote these above:

The highlighting is mainly for JFrankA's benefit, who seems to have a serious problem differentiating between partial and absolute quality and quantity.

[I've highlighted "some" to try to pre-empt you from reverting to the fallacious and flawed "but not everybody does!" position.

I really was hoping you'd pause for a moment and think why, and better still check this irritatingly fallacious habit of yours. I seem to recall it contributing to my decision to ignore you previously, as I was spending half my time on this thread repeatedly pointing out where you were continually going wrong in assimilating critical aspects my arguments.

 

[Southwind17]

If someone does have a child fetish (pedophilia) and decides that playing acting with another adult isn't enough, or imagination isn't enough, or even VCP isn't enough, that that person wants the real thing, wants the full effect, then that person will be triggered by anything.
Here is why I say this. I, admittingly, have a fetish that could be considered dangerous to others, however, I choose to keep it safe so that I do not harm anyone. The real-life, long term harm of someone else is not worth the sex.
Be that as it may, I can tell you some instances where I get aroused by someone saying something innocent, by seeing something totally unrelated that sparks my imagination. My imagination flies and bang. Arousal.
I believe that all people are like that. Some people get turned on by a song, some people get turned on by a smile, some people get turned on by many many different things that are clearly not porn, clearly not meant to arouse but it does that job anyway. Child molesters are no different. Anything could arouse them.

I recall copping some serious flack earlier, including from you, JFrankA, for drawing conclusions based on just my own perception of how other people behave. Suddenly it forms the basis of your argument. Tell me, JFrankA, how does that work?!

Now is it possible that a child molester could watch VCP and go out to molest? Sure. But then again, a child molester could see a K-Mart child underwear ad (just the underwear, without the child in it) and go molest too. Or it could be that the child molester this one time sees the VCP and masturbates so that no child gets harmed.

Sure, that's all possible, but why don't you try analysing and contrasting the reasons why VCP (my definition) and the K-Mart catalogue are published then dislose your conclusions right here in this Forum?

The truth is, the VCP doesn't matter. It's the person in question. Millions of people can see VCP and not molest a child.

"The truth"? Now, now JFrankA - steady on! And here it is again: "Most people don't do x so x is never done."

See where I am coming from?

Well, it could one of a number of different planets. Give me a clue - does it have rings around it?!

 

[JFrankA]

Not quite. I've never seen Manga, so I wouldn't claim to know whether it falls within my definition of VCP. As such, I'm unable to comment on your conclusion. I can, however, confirm that I don't, and haven't, claimed that everybody who consumes VCP can't help but get aroused by it.

Then why should it be illegal? If you can make the statement above, how can you say to RandFan "you can keep your Manga" as an insult? Why do you think it should remain illegal? Where's your logic?

Notwithstanding that you're adding to an already flawed conclusion, I don't, and haven't, claimed that everybody who becomes sexually aroused has no choice but to act on it. BTW - I thought I'd made it clear that for the purpose of this debate I'm prepared to accept your claim that ALL people's actions when sexually aroused are based on choice. Why do you seek to reverse this?

I'm sorry, I was just answering your post to me that I had quoted. I did add an "ETA" saying thank you for answering.

Do you see why I might not agree with this conclusion?!

Yes I do now. As I said, I was simply explaining why I came to the question.

Oh don't worry, JFrankA, I "get it", and your comment, which clearly shows that you consider freedom of speech to be both a philosophical and cultural matter, leads me to believe that your unwaivering tenacity to preserve it has little or nothing at all to do with logic and reasoning, not to mention the inference that simply because so many people don't "get it" is of itself more than good reason to hang onto it. You might want to ask RandFan whether his opinion on the wearing of Burkhas by Muslim women has much to do with philosophy and culture, but regardless why he thinks that many people "don't get it".

Actually, if you think that I think that Freedom of Speech is only a philosophical and cultural matter, then you do not understand it or what I am saying at all.

I was trying to cut you some slack, because I do know that there are people who don't understand the freedom at all.

And yes, it's based on logic and reasoning. I've been giving examples as to why this entire thread from the beginning. So has RandFan and most of the other people on here.

That's why I say you don't get it. To you, it seems, that if there is a possibility that something could trigger off a molester to molest again, or for the first time, then it has to be banned. Do I have your idea right? And if I do, how logical is that?

BTW JFrankA, when I wrote these above:


I really was hoping you'd pause for a moment and think why, and better still check this irritatingly fallacious habit of yours. I seem to recall it contributing to my decision to ignore you previously, as I was spending half my time on this thread repeatedly pointing out where you were continually going wrong in assimilating critical aspects my arguments.

Fine. Here's the first quote you are refering to:

Very simple, as before, but I'll repeat it for your benefit: VCP is targeted at people with a pathologically morbid sexual interest in children with the purpose of sexual arousal and serves to legitimize sexual abuse of children.

Not all the time. Again, I have stated many, many examples where it clearly isn't targeted for sexual arousal, and some examples where it's up to the view to decide.

You are accusing me of saying that you saying "all" when you are not. Here's an example of one of those times when you ARE saying "all".

Sexual arousal causes many people to seriously lose judgement to the extent that they will completely lose sight of or otherwise disregard the implications and possible consequences of their actions, whether by conscious decision or otherwise.

That's another example of you saying "all". This is blatantly untrue. Something you have since said was untrue.

Ergo it is reasonable to suppose, if not conclude, that VCP, in many cases, is the indirect cause of harm to some children. The highlighting is mainly for JFrankA's benefit, who seems to have a serious problem differentiating between partial and absolute quality and quantity.

You are making a conclusion from something you are saying "all" in your previous two statements (which you have later rescinded your "all" position), and making a claim that it "indirectly" causes harm.

This make no logical sense. None. If the song "Raindrops Keep Falling on My Head" indirectly causes a child molester to get aroused enough to decide to molest a child, then should we ban the song?

What about my example of an alcoholic seeing an ad for beer? An alcoholic sees an ad for beer, decides to drink, gets drunk, then beats up her/his kids. Do we ban ads for beer because one in a thousand people (yes, I'm pulling a random number, I don't know the exact number, just giving an example), might decide to drink to a drunken state and then may decide to beat their kids?

It's exactly the same argument.

As to your second point, see my last post.

 

[JFrankA]

I recall copping some serious flack earlier, including from you, JFrankA, for drawing conclusions based on just my own perception of how other people behave. Suddenly it forms the basis of your argument. Tell me, JFrankA, how does that work?!

Same way yours does. I've admitted that it's my belief.

But here's my point: do you agree with what I said that it doesn't have to be purposely arousing to be arousing? Do you get aroused or think sexual thoughts at something that's not meant to be but it does trigger a fantasy or a memory?

Sure, that's all possible, but why don't you try analysing and contrasting the reasons why VCP (my definition) and the K-Mart catalogue are published then dislose your conclusions right here in this Forum?

What I wrote is EXACTLY what I am doing. In fact, I have directly and you seem to just skip over it.

"The truth"? Now, now JFrankA - steady on! And here it is again: "Most people don't do x so x is never done."

Re-read what I said: "The truth is, the VCP doesn't matter. It's the person in question." That IS the truth. The viewer of the VCP will decide how they view it. If one is disgusted by it and another is aroused by it, then it's not the VCP doing the interpretation, the view is. The viewer always is. That is the truth!

Well, it could one of a number of different planets. Give me a clue - does it have rings around it?!

Seems to me that you have a habit of when someone comes up with a point you can't defend, you completely ignoring that point and then insult the poster.

Here is my point again, which you've skipped:

Your beliefs is like saying that we should ban all alcohol ads, beer, wine, etc, because an alcoholic could see the ad, get drunk and beat up her/his kids. (If you really think that being sexually aroused makes someone that out of control, being addicted to alcohol, a real life, brain altering drug, I am assuming that you would think that would make someone more out of control.)

 

[quadraginta]

That's not thought crime. That's pre-crime

No! No! No!

The pre-crime is letting children take baths in the first place. The beginning of an obvious slippery slope which can only lead to the utter downfall of civilization as we know it.

 

[Southwind17]

Unfortunately, banning something because it may prevent someone from doing a crime means that innocent people who have that something that will not do the crime will go to jail along with the few who are actually guilty.

Perfect analysis JFrankA, which is why possession of fire arms is generally illegal in the UK, hence gun crime is relatively low. The moral? Don't go possessing fire arms if you want to stay on the right side of the law. Simple and proper.

 

[JFrankA]

Perfect analysis JFrankA, which is why possession of fire arms is generally illegal in the UK, hence gun crime is relatively low. The moral? Don't go possessing fire arms if you want to stay on the right side of the law. Simple and proper.

And that's okay with you? To let innocent people go to jail for something they could do? You think that's right?

Again, you've ignored my point about beer ads.

As to your statement, try banning guns here in the US. The right to own them is defended just as much as the right to free speech.

And again, just because one owns a gun doesn't make one a murderer. That's just judgmental. Let's go further. Let's ban knives. Those things have been known to kill people. Should we allow knives to be in possession of people when it's so tempting to pick one up if a person who would decide to kill gets "uncontrollably" angry?

If, in your opinion, I am being ridiculous with both of these statements, I'd like to know why. And where does the line get drawn? Who has the right to draw it? What makes that person have the right and not anyone else?

 

[Southwind17]

Then why should it be illegal? If you can make the statement above, how can you say to RandFan "you can keep your Manga" as an insult? Why do you think it should remain illegal? Where's your logic?

If it fits my definition of VCP then it should be illegal. What part of my definition don't you like? My comment to RandFan was a throw-away.

Actually, if you think that I think that Freedom of Speech is only a philosophical and cultural matter, then you do not understand it or what I am saying at all.
I was trying to cut you some slack, because I do know that there are people who don't understand the freedom at all.
And yes, it's based on logic and reasoning. I've been giving examples as to why this entire thread from the beginning. So has RandFan and most of the other people on here.

I can only comment on what you do write, not what you don't.

To you, it seems, that if there is a possibility that something could trigger off a molester to molest again, or for the first time, then it has to be banned. Do I have your idea right? And if I do, how logical is that?

Not just "something" - specifically VCP (my definition).

You are accusing me of saying that you saying "all" when you are not. Here's an example of one of those times when you ARE saying "all".

Are you for real? Since when did "many" mean "all"!?

 

[Belz...]

Not quite. I've never seen Manga, so I wouldn't claim to know whether it falls within my definition of VCP.

"Manga" is just Japanese for "comic book".

 

[Southwind17]

Same way yours does.

So, basically, you don't mean what you say. Do you seriously expect me to continue to debate with you if that's your approach?!

But here's my point: do you agree with what I said that it doesn't have to be purposely arousing to be arousing? Do you get aroused or think sexual thoughts at something that's not meant to be but it does trigger a fantasy or a memory?

Sure. I can't see why you think that has any relevance, though.

What I wrote is EXACTLY what I am doing. In fact, I have directly and you seem to just skip over it.

This makes no sense.

Re-read what I said: "The truth is, the VCP doesn't matter. It's the person in question." That IS the truth. The viewer of the VCP will decide how they view it. If one is disgusted by it and another is aroused by it, then it's not the VCP doing the interpretation, the view is. The viewer always is. That is the truth!

And it's the same with two people holding a gun each. But remove the guns ...

Seems to me that you have a habit of when someone comes up with a point you can't defend, you completely ignoring that point and then insult the poster.

Frankly, JFrankA, I honestly don't give a damn what things seem like to you. Your ability, for whatever reason, to comprehend an argument and follow reasoning and logic leaves much to be desired. I don't intend to put you on ignore again, but I have determined to resist repeatedly pointing out and explaining to you why your responses are woefully flawed in favour of only addressing any meaningful questions, points or statements you might happen to make. I suspect my responses from here on in will be noticeably shorter!

Here is my point again, which you've skipped

Does seeing an alcohol ad actually make one drunk, or does one have to make a conscious effort to go buy alcohol and then drink it? Does VCP actually make one aroused, or does one have to ...! See - yet another typical example of twisted logic. I honestly don't think you're capable of following a plot any more complicated than "Man shoots gun; other man dies", for example.

 

[RandFan]

No it's not. It's an observational comment on your posts. They demonstrate conceit, and the childish "just because you say so doesn't make it true" retort has become mind-numbingly boring and repetitive. The sooner you swallow your pride and think about things objectively the better for eveybody here.

Oh please. You throw a tantrum and act like a child and say personal things about me. Telling you that an assertion isn't truth is axiomatic.

I think you're referring to my balance of probability analysis. Probability has absolutely nothing to do with statistics.

Sig material. Breathtaking.

First, your second point has absolutely no relevance to ad homs.
Second, show me where I have specifically relied upon it to seek to strengthen my argument.

Attacking the person is fallacy.

I disagree. I consider that a statement that VCP is disgusting and no one should defend it is a logical conclusion...

It's subjective.

Sexual arousal causes many people to seriously lose judgement to the extent that they will completely lose sight of or otherwise disregard the implications and possible consequences of their actions, whether by conscious decision or otherwise. Ergo it is reasonable to suppose, if not conclude, that VCP, in many cases, is the indirect cause of harm to some children.

Evidence?

It's been claimed, and I've accepted, that no conclusive studies have been undertaken showing a causative link between VCP and child harm, just like no conclusive studies have been undertaken showing a causative link between sherbert dip and child harm.

Is there any evidence to show a causative link between ANY porn and harm?

 

[RandFan]

This deserves a post of its own.

Probability has absolutely nothing to do with statistics.

Yes Virginia,

He really did say that.

statistics

1. the science that deals with the collection, classification, analysis, and interpretation of numerical facts or data, and that, by use of mathematical theories of probability.

Wait for the "I was only joking" argument.

 

[Southwind17]

And that's okay with you? To let innocent people go to jail for something they could do? You think that's right?

If they're in possession of a fire arm then they've broken the law - THEY'RE NOT INNOCENT.

As to your statement, try banning guns here in the US. The right to own them is defended just as much as the right to free speech.

Ah ... NOW we're beginning to see where you're really "coming from" with your preservation of rights rhetoric. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with freedom of speech per se and absolutely EVERYTHING to do with "I'm not going to be told by Government what I can and cannot do". To be honest, it was pretty obvious right from the start that that is your position. It's just taken 2000-odd posts to tease it out of you.

And again, just because one owns a gun doesn't make one a murderer. That's just judgmental. Let's go further. Let's ban knives. Those things have been known to kill people. Should we allow knives to be in possession of people when it's so tempting to pick one up if a person who would decide to kill gets "uncontrollably" angry?

No comment.

If, in your opinion, I am being ridiculous with both of these statements, I'd like to know why. And where does the line get drawn? Who has the right to draw it? What makes that person have the right and not anyone else?

OMG - is this for real? You DO live in the States, right? You HAVE heard of Government, right? you DO understand and appreciate the principles of "society", right? OMG ... OMG! And you wonder why I put you on ignore!

 

[JFrankA]

If it fits my definition of VCP then it should be illegal. What part of my definition don't you like? My comment to RandFan was a throw-away.

Does "your definition" (your opinion, let's not hide behind word here), include a comic book in which a ten year old girl is being raped and it's in there to cause anger in the viewer and a justification when the hero defeats the raper?

Does "your definition" (again, your opinion), include The Simpson's movie, where child nudity was a subject of humor? Could a potential child molester look at that and get aroused enough to molest a child? If so, should The Simpson's move be banned or that scene cut out?

Does "your definition" again your opinion, include an artist who makes a picture, not using any real life people as models, that portrays a nude child in a provocative position, not to arouse, but to have the view decide whether it's arousing or not?

And even if "your definition" is a generally accepted one, who decides? Everyone is going to interpret a picture differently. Now I know some of them have an obvious intent, but not all.

I can only comment on what you do write, not what you don't.

This comment makes no sense. Sorry. I DID write what I was speaking about. Again, what I said was this:

Actually, if you think that I think that Freedom of Speech is only a philosophical and cultural matter, then you do not understand it or what I am saying at all.
I was trying to cut you some slack, because I do know that there are people who don't understand the freedom at all.

Again, I'm going to cut you some slack. Let me clarify this last part:

And yes, it's based on logic and reasoning. I've been giving examples as to why this entire thread from the beginning. So has RandFan and most of the other people on here.

What I meant to say was this: my defense of the Freedom of Speech is based on logic and reasoning. I have, as well as RandFan and some others on this thread, shown the logic and reasoning behind this defense. If you have missed it, I suggest you read back. It seems to me that your defense against it is emotionally based, that is, "we must think of the children" cry.

Not just "something" - specifically VCP (my definition).

Your definition (opinion) is incomplete at best. Also, you ascribe the same ban to fantasy rape too. When does it end? I've said before, there are people who feel that "marshmallow porn" has the same power to make a person molest a child and want even "marshmallow porn" banned because it falls under THEIR definition. Are they right? If not, why is your definition right and theirs wrong? Where is the line drawn? Who draws it?

Are you for real? Since when did "many" mean "all"!?

You are still lumping the many with the all. Here is your logic: Since I don't know what Manga is, but since some contains VCP then all Manga should be banned on the fact that it may be viewed by someone who may be a potential child molester, and that viewer may decide to molest a child because the Manga may give that potential child molester viewer the idea it's okay to molest a child

So even though you say many, all are inclusive.

And once again, you've glossed over my point. Here it is again with more detail:

My definition of beer ads is that it's only purpose is to get people to buy beer. So we should ban all alcohol ads, beer, wine, etc, because an alcoholic could see the ad, get drunk and beat up her/his kids. Because everyone knows that an alcoholic can't help on acting on a drinking impulse. They can't help themselves.

 

[Southwind17]

Evidence?

Of what, my supposition?!

Is there any evidence to show a causative link between ANY porn and harm?

I don't know, is there?

 

[Southwind17]

probability

1. the quality or fact of being probable.

[dictionary.com]

 

[JFrankA]

If they're in possession of a fire arm then they've broken the law - THEY'RE NOT INNOCENT.

Of that law, no. Of murder? most likely. That's my point, you know it, stop screaming "but it's illegal". We are not disputing that. We are debating why the law is there and if it makes sense.

Please try to debate fairly.

Ah ... NOW we're beginning to see where you're really "coming from" with your preservation of rights rhetoric. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with freedom of speech per se and absolutely EVERYTHING to do with "I'm not going to be told by Government what I can and cannot do". To be honest, it was pretty obvious right from the start that that is your position. It's just taken 2000-odd posts to tease it out of you.

Another case of you instantly judging me. I've avoided doing that to you, I've even defended you. Too bad.

No, I do not own guns, I do not collect guns, I've never even fired one, nor would I want one. I was merely stating a point about the US. You've never been here, I was trying to give you some insight, but it falls to wayside as a judgment on me and a very wrong assumption about my character.

Once again, you've fallen upon your old bullying tricks.

No comment.

Of course not. I had a point you couldn't rebut.

OMG - is this for real? You DO live in the States, right? You HAVE heard of Government, right? you DO understand and appreciate the principles of "society", right? OMG ... OMG! And you wonder why I put you on ignore!

It's a fair question because you said it yourself: Who are the politicians? PEOPLE are. Do they have any special powers? No. You've said that yourself. Now since people make the laws, people can, without breaking them, dispute them in a forum such as this. Why are you so gung-ho about making incorrect judgments on my (and other people on this forum) character? Is it your way of invalidating other people's points? Is it your way of making yourself sound like your right by knocking others?

...just asking mind you....

Again, answer the question without all you emotional judgments. You want to be challenged, lets see if you can stand up to it.

where does the line get drawn? Who has the right to draw it? What makes that person have the right and not anyone else?

And "government" is not the answer. That is a cop out. Just because it's the law doesn't mean we have to agree with it. Obey it, yes. Agree with it, no. That's why laws get changed, they get scrutinized, they are debated, they are added and taken away.

Do you believe that the law is absolute and someone with more powers or intelligence than you is always right?