Moderated What's wrong with porn?

[Belz...]

The process by which one concludes that an event is statistically likely is different from that by which one concludes that it's probable.

Oh, please do tell. What are those different processes ?

 

[Skeptic]

The supreme court, in the 70s, used to watch porn movies -- because for a while every pronographer would have the actors give a short speech against "exploitation of women" or "communism" or whatever so that the movie will "have redeeming social importance" and therefore it should be constitutional.

Once they were watching another one of those dreary movies, this time with the excuse of being an "educational" film. After the screening, Thurgood Marshall asked the prudish, and obviously uncomfortable, judge Blackmun: "well, Harry, I didn't learn anything new -- what about you?"

 

[JFrankA]

No. It's a proposed definition that either works or doesn't, to varying degrees. It has absolutely nothing to do with "opinion".

Oh please get real. You even said "my definition". It's not the actual law, it's not someone else definition, therefore, it's yours. So it's your option of what the definition should be.

Tell me what you think, and why. I'll then tell you whether I agree or disagree, and why.

I've been doing that over and over in this thread. The first time I did, long ago, your reply was basically you think it could've been done better if it wasn't shown.

Again, that's your opinion.

Again, no.

Again, it is. By your own words. Your definition.

Again, tell me what you think, and why. I'll then tell you whether I agree or disagree, and why.

On the Simpson's movie example? It was pure comedy. It was plain funny on all levels. Nothing sexual about it at all. If someone saw it as such then that's that viewer's problem.

Now. Did you see the movie? And what do you think?

Again, no.

What part of the word "my" a word you used, don't you understand?

Again, tell me what you think, and why. I'll then tell you whether I agree or disagree, and why.

You know, I'm getting sick of repeating myself. Look back on my previous posts if you don't know by now what I feel about it. And don't jump to judgmental conclusions as you seem to often be prone to do.

The law makers.

And the laws they come up with are always right and should never be questioned or debated? (Followed - yes. That's not the debate. We are discussing how valid the reasoning behind the law is.)

I think most of them will probably have an "obvious intent", or there would be little point in producing them!

But what you percieve as one obvious intent (to invoke arousal) could be percieved as another obvious intent to another (e.g. to invoke anger) but not what the artist's obviously intended (e.g. to invoke humor).

See?

Seriously, I'm really not sure what your "logic and reasoning" are. Perhaps you could summarize, as I did recently for my position on VCP.

Honestly, I can't in a heartbeat. I'll give it some serious thought and get back to you, if you let me work on that, please.

Again, no.

You are asking me for my definition of VCP for you to comment on it. Would my definition NOT be my opinion then? If it is not, then why isn't YOUR definition an opinion?

See how that works?

Please explain.

It could include anything. Let's take the Simpson's movie. Under your definition, if one person gets sexually aroused by seeing that scene, then it becomes VCP and the movie is banned, censored and the creators, the movie houses and the people who've bought the DVD are subject to prosecution of child porn.

That's for starters.

Please explain. What, exactly, do you believe the definition includes that could be referred to as "fantasy rape".

I'm going by what you said. I was basing my statement on the fact that you said that fantasy rape porn should be banned because it could make a person who has the potential to rape someone make them do it.

I have no idea, and am not interested, in what their definitions are. You know what mine is. Either comment on it, specifically, or forever keep thou trap shut.

Woah. Woah. I HAVE been commenting on your opinion. (Yes, your opinion, because you are not interested THE definition, you are interested in only YOUR definition - therefore your opinion.)

Stop climbing soapboxes and hiding behind "it's the law!!" or "think of the children!" and actually read and debate your point, please.

Please show where I claimed that all manga, indeed any manga, should be banned.

Alright. Fair enough. So I will ask you straight out:

Considering there are some Manga that has drawn pictures of under aged girls (usually around 13 to 17) getting raped, should they be banned? Should all of them be banned in case a Manga title that usually doesn't have one might someday?

*sigh* I'm sorry. I can't put it any clearer than my post. You may say many but by excuting your logic, you lump all in.

Again, based on what you said before:

Since you don't know what Manga is, but since you've heard that some Manga may contain something someone could see as 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 Manga doesn't have VCP, and many people are not child molesters all Manga and all people are suspect.

 

[JFrankA]

Holy cow....

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.

No comment

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

No comment.

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.

No comment.

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.

No comment.

You do realize you are beginning to sound like a politician who was just backed into a corner with something he can't dispute?

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

What do you mean by "absolute"? As to the second question - no.

Absolute in this case mean "completely, unquestionably, without reproach correct".

And there was only one question before your non-"no comment" reply. Did you mean no to my question above your non-"no comment" reply?

 

[JFrankA]

The supreme court, in the 70s, used to watch porn movies -- because for a while every pronographer would have the actors give a short speech against "exploitation of women" or "communism" or whatever so that the movie will "have redeeming social importance" and therefore it should be constitutional.

Once they were watching another one of those dreary movies, this time with the excuse of being an "educational" film. After the screening, Thurgood Marshall asked the prudish, and obviously uncomfortable, judge Blackmun: "well, Harry, I didn't learn anything new -- what about you?"

He watched the wrong kind of porn!!!


..sorry, saw the opening for the joke, couldn't resist....

 

[MontagK505]

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.

Verbal – Talking about child rape? Is this an actual problem? (Howard Stern's next subject?)

“is clearly intended, or will or is likely to appeal” Is guessing allowed?

“prurient nature of some people” What people are we referring to? Some is still a rather vague description to be used in a legal definition.

“clear and specific focus on genitalia or anal areas” How clear? How specific?
What compositional rule shall be our standard of evidence for specific focus?
Rule of thirds perhaps? Is soft focus OK? How soft? How sharp?

It still doesn't address the issue: If the alleged VCP is part of a larger artistic expression then what?

If a committee of anally retentive prudes consulting their magic 8-balls or their magic “stomachs”, claim the artist's intent was to arouse, what possible defense can be mounted against a prudes “stomach”?

Bad idea for a law.

 

[MontagK505]

1. Children are statistically likely to be harmed by VCP (there is a perceived threat).
2. VCP is disgusting AND HAS ONLY ONE PURPOSE TO SEXUALLY AROUND PEOPLE WITH A MORBID INTEREST IN CHILDREN and no one should defend it.
3. Our concern for children should be greater than any concern of loss of freedom for perverts.
4. [there is 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.

Where is this evidence for #4?

Where is this evidence for #2 (high lite)
Alleged VCP could have another purpose. (Arouse disgust? part of a horror show?)

 

[RandFan]

Where is this evidence for #2 (high lite)
Alleged VCP could have another purpose. (Arouse disgust? part of a horror show?)

How do you know there is no other purpose? You just know it when you see it?

The phrase "I know it when I see it" is a colloquial expression by which the user attempts to categorize an observable fact or event, although the category is subjective or lacks clearly-defined parameters. This phrase is best known as a description of a threshold of obscenity, no longer used, which is not protected speech under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. The phrase notably appeared in Jacobellis v. Ohio (1964), decided by the United States Supreme Court.

“I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core pornography"]; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that. [Emphasis added.]”
— Justice Potter Stewart, concurring opinion in Jacobellis v. Ohio 378 U.S. 184 (1964), regarding possible obscenity in The Lovers

This expression became "one of the most famous phrases in the entire history" of the Supreme Court.[1]

Stewart's "I know it when I see it" standard was praised as an example of "candor"[2] and "realistic and gallant",[3] though it has been criticized for its lack of concreteness.

I couldn't begin to justify SW's logic or reason. We're just supposed to know.

 

[MontagK505]

How do you know there is no other purpose? You just know it when you see it?



I couldn't begin to justify SW's logic or reason. We're just supposed to know.

I wasn't expecting you to explain SW's reasoning.

 

[JFrankA]

Verbal – Talking about child rape? Is this an actual problem? (Howard Stern's next subject?)

“is clearly intended, or will or is likely to appeal” Is guessing allowed?

“prurient nature of some people” What people are we referring to? Some is still a rather vague description to be used in a legal definition.

“clear and specific focus on genitalia or anal areas” How clear? How specific?
What compositional rule shall be our standard of evidence for specific focus?
Rule of thirds perhaps? Is soft focus OK? How soft? How sharp?

It still doesn't address the issue: If the alleged VCP is part of a larger artistic expression then what?

If a committee of anally retentive prudes consulting their magic 8-balls or their magic “stomachs”, claim the artist's intent was to arouse, what possible defense can be mounted against a prudes “stomach”?

Bad idea for a law.

I agree with MontagK505's points and add more as to why your opinion...errr "definition" is incomplete, at best:

"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,

Clarification: (and I'm not being a smartalec here, I really want this clarified), if a husband who is five years older than his wife, says to his buddies, "You think my wife is hot now, when she was sixteen, she was really hot back then too. I'd love to have had sex with her then", is he breaking the law there?

If a husband and wife age play over the phone, and one of them really sound like an underaged person, does that come under your definition too?

If a couple are age playing in an adult only chat room (text chat), in private, does that come under your definition? What if it's a group of adults, all in an adult only chat room (text chat), age playing in that public channel? What if it's the same circumstances except that the only difference is that it's something like Second Life or Red Light Online (www.RedLightOnline.com)?

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.

Now you have several things going on here. First off, what is "clearly intended"? How do you absolutely know what the artist is intending for the viewer to feel? What if a viewer saw the picture in a completely different way that was intended by the creator of the piece? And what do you mean by "some"? Is it one person? Ten? Twenty? The majority? Who has the final say as to what the "clearly intended" intent is? Does the majority override the real intent of the creator?

In the case of the Simpsons movie, if two people see the child nudity as arousing, instead of humorous as I suspect the creators intended, then is that enough to come under your definition?

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."

And, as your definition goes, only arousal by the viewer is enough. It says nothing about actually "causing" someone to do molesting, which is something you have said that VCP can do to someone who is prone to be a molester.

By your definition, I can make a painting of a virtual eight year old girl in a two piece bathing suit, smiling at the camera while jumping into the pool, caught in mid-air with her leg spread wide, and if two or more people find that arousing, it's VCP, and I should be prosecuted.

In fact, just writing that paragraph and having you all read it and if two or more people (I say two because you said some), are aroused by just me typing that, it's VCP and I should be prosecuted.

That's why your definition is incomplete.

And one more thing: remember we are not talking about real people in the picture, these are all figures from someone's imagination, so no harm has come to any real people.

 

[quadraginta]

How do you know there is no other purpose? You just know it when you see it?



I couldn't begin to justify SW's logic or reason. We're just supposed to know.

I wasn't expecting you to explain SW's reasoning.

I'd be worried for him if he could.

 

[MontagK505]

I'd be worried for him if he could.

A clinical psychologist might.
In all seriousness SW does seem to have a wild hair in his ear over this issue.

 

[Toke]

I'd be worried for him if he could.

I have given up following SW's semantic games.

So far it still seems that he wants to ban some or all porn, starting with VCP because it is easiest. The deliberate vague definition is an excellent tool for expanding a ban.

 

[MontagK505]

I agree with MontagK505's points and add more as to why your opinion...errr "definition" is incomplete, at best:



Clarification: (and I'm not being a smartalec here, I really want this clarified), if a husband who is five years older than his wife, says to his buddies, "You think my wife is hot now, when she was sixteen, she was really hot back then too. I'd love to have had sex with her then", is he breaking the law there?

If a husband and wife age play over the phone, and one of them really sound like an underaged person, does that come under your definition too?

If a couple are age playing in an adult only chat room (text chat), in private, does that come under your definition? What if it's a group of adults, all in an adult only chat room (text chat), age playing in that public channel? What if it's the same circumstances except that the only difference is that it's something like Second Life or Red Light Online (www.RedLightOnline.com)?



Now you have several things going on here. First off, what is "clearly intended"? How do you absolutely know what the artist is intending for the viewer to feel? What if a viewer saw the picture in a completely different way that was intended by the creator of the piece? And what do you mean by "some"? Is it one person? Ten? Twenty? The majority? Who has the final say as to what the "clearly intended" intent is? Does the majority override the real intent of the creator?

In the case of the Simpsons movie, if two people see the child nudity as arousing, instead of humorous as I suspect the creators intended, then is that enough to come under your definition?



And, as your definition goes, only arousal by the viewer is enough. It says nothing about actually "causing" someone to do molesting, which is something you have said that VCP can do to someone who is prone to be a molester.

By your definition, I can make a painting of a virtual eight year old girl in a two piece bathing suit, smiling at the camera while jumping into the pool, caught in mid-air with her leg spread wide, and if two or more people find that arousing, it's VCP, and I should be prosecuted.

In fact, just writing that paragraph and having you all read it and if two or more people (I say two because you said some), are aroused by just me typing that, it's VCP and I should be prosecuted.

That's why your definition is incomplete impossible.

And one more thing: remember we are not talking about real people in the picture, these are all figures from someone's imagination, so no harm has come to any real people.

I think these are good examples. I still like my demon / faerie example.

How human and how young does she have to be before the artist falls screaming into the bottomless pit of the dreaded:

VCP!

 

[quadraginta]

I think these are good examples. I still like my demon / faerie example.

How human and how young does she have to be before the artist falls screaming into the bottomless pit of the dreaded:

VCP!

Not at all, apparently. It is only necessary that someone in a sufficiently powerful position of authority perceive an intent that she is.

 

[MontagK505]

Not at all, apparently. It is only necessary that someone in a sufficiently powerful position of authority perceive an intent that she is.

That's really the crux isn't it. At the bottom line it's all about intent. Or thought crime if you want to be Orwellian.

 

[quadraginta]

That's really the crux isn't it. At the bottom line it's all about intent. Or thought crime if you want to be Orwellian.

Well, that seems to be one half of it. The intent thing is just one test. Even in its total absence, we are told, if that selfsame authority decides the image is even "likely' to cause bad thoughts then you're still busted.

 

[tesscaline]

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

No, I did not miss the word "some". You have not offered up evidence that your claim is supported in any case, let alone "some".

 

[Southwind17]

Oh, no question. I never said that statistics and probability were the very same thing. I said, and I quote: "Children are statistically likely".

However, having actually taken a course in statistics and given that I write software for statistical probability analysis I can safely say that"

"Statistically likely" and "probability" ARE THE SAME THING.

Now. What did you say?

This is absurd. I can show tens of millions of sources.

Statistical probability

Statistical probability - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Introduction to Probability and Statistics

Why 14,000,000 links, dictionary definitions, etc., etc.. if the two have absolutely nothing to do with each other?

He wasn't even particularly happy with his source. He left out this part.




I expect that the last one was especially inconvenient.

I suppose we can add 'quote mining' and 'cherry picking' to his other rhetorical talents. He's not very good at it though. No wonder he shies away from providing evidence to support his assertions.

So will you agree that your statement is wrong?

Please to give an example?

Isn't probability usually determined by statistics ?

Oh, please do tell. What are those different processes ?

If you guys really want this thread to go down a semantics blind alley just say so. I've just got back from a night out with wonderful mates and am well and truly pissed (that's UI for you yanks!).

 

[Southwind17]

Seriously, Wind, wouldn't you rather answer his question clearly rather than say something like this and leave things in a state of confusion ?
I'm starting to think that your accusations as to my misunderstandings of your position were just a way to not admit that you are being intentionally unclear.

Absolutely not. It's clear that JFrankA has difficulty with comprehension. If he can show that he understands what's going on here I'll entertain him. Otherwise, I don't have time for him.