Moderated What's wrong with porn?

[JFrankA]

*sigh*

Is it just me, or did that post just miss the point entirely?

It's just you!

No, it's not you, Arthwollipot. There's a couple of people here missing the point or brushing it aside........

 

[Southwind17]

Is that a "No", or are you just dodging the questions, as usual?

It's an honest quest for clarification. Your questions are meaningless as currently worded. If you can be bothered to clarify I will be bothered to answer them. That is what you want, isn't it?

 

[Southwind17]

No, it's not you, Arthwollipot. There's a couple of people here missing the point or brushing it aside........

Poor old Arthwollipot - he must be wondering whether he's coming or going!

 

[quadraginta]

It's an honest quest for clarification. Your questions are meaningless as currently worded. If you can be bothered to clarify I will be bothered to answer them. That is what you want, isn't it?

For someone who spends as much time criticizing other peoples' comprehension as you do you certainly exhibit convenient failures of your own.

There was nothing obscure about the thrust of my questions. It is quite disingenuous* of you to pretend that there is.

(* dis⋅in⋅gen⋅u⋅ous: lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity; falsely or hypocritically ingenuous;

Just in case you needed clarification.)

 

[Southwind17]

For someone who spends as much time criticizing other peoples' comprehension as you do you certainly exhibit convenient failures of your own.
There was nothing obscure about the thrust of my questions. It is quite disingenuous* of you to pretend that there is.
(* dis⋅in⋅gen⋅u⋅ous: lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity; falsely or hypocritically ingenuous;
Just in case you needed clarification.)

I take it from this that you either have no intention of clarifying or you now recognize the absurdity of your line of questioning and realize that clarification is impossible. Either way, I'm cool with it.

 

[JFrankA]

*sigh*

Seems to me that this whole thread has turned into the beginning of "The Crimson Permanent Assurance": People are sitting in a board meeting where one person lists off two thing that could be affecting people. One is that people aren't wearing enough hats. The second is a long, complicated topic of possibilities, which are open for honest debate, maybe some reverence and very interesting theories.

Then someone says "What was that thing about hats?"

It was funny in the movies. It's sad to see in real life.

 

[Southwind17]

Seems to me that this whole thread has turned into the beginning of "The Crimson Permanent Assurance": People are sitting in a board meeting where one person lists off two thing that could be affecting people. One is that people aren't wearing enough hats. The second is a long, complicated topic of possibilities, which are open for honest debate, maybe some reverence and very interesting theories.
Then someone says "What was that thing about hats?"
It was funny in the movies. It's sad to see in real life.

Except that we have debated the long, complicated topic of possibilities to death, and now come back to the hats. Or do you feel we've overlooked something significant?

 

[quadraginta]

I take it from this that you either have no intention of clarifying or you now recognize the absurdity of your line of questioning and realize that clarification is impossible. Either way, I'm cool with it.

You have posited that it is reasonable to use law to restrict the freedoms of all otherwise law abiding people in anticipation of the potential anti-social acts of an undetermined few.

You have posited that it is reasonable to enact such legislation in the total absence of any evidence that it will provide any benefit to society as a whole.

You have posited that it is reasonable to enact such legislation even in the face of demonstrated proof that such legislation can and does harm innocents.

I asked you to describe what circumstances would need to apply for you to feel that such legislative restrictions on people in general would no longer be justifiable by alleged, unproven benefits.

I asked you to provide an example of such circumstances.

 

[JFrankA]

Except that we have debated the long, complicated topic of possibilities to death, and now come back to the hats. Or do you feel we've overlooked something significant?

No, we've been playing "I'm right - your not" using semantics, blame, judging of others, over-sensitivity and bypassing the point that have all been part of this thread. Tactics that stop points dead in their tracks, and distract the conversation off the point. This is no debate, it's a "win the game".

I will admit to me being guilty of that. Even with this post I am guilty.

And yes. Quite a lot has been overlooked.

 

[ZirconBlue]

Fair enough. You were right there. My apologies.

No. Everyone except Southwind17 knew what you meant. It's weird how there seems to be this gaping chasm in communication between Southwind17 and . . . well, everyone else. Everything said to him seems to be misconstrued, and he can't seem to make any coherent points that anyone else can understand. It's as if we're speaking different languages with at least 2 iterations of Google Translate between each post.

 

[Southwind17]

You have posited that it is reasonable to use law to restrict the freedoms of all otherwise law abiding people in anticipation of the potential anti-social acts of an undetermined few.

No. I have pointed out to you and others here that laws, by definition, serve to limit the otherwise carte blanche right to do whatever one likes for the greater good of society. If everybody was a model citizen then, in theory, we wouldn't need most laws. But everybody is not a model citizen, so we need rules, boundaries and a system of enforcement. Fortunately the noncompliants are in the minority. Unfortunately the majority have to pay the price of relative freedom that societal living affords. Interestingly, you, yourself, use the term "law abiding people" above, acknowledging your acceptance of this principle.

You have posited that it is reasonable to enact such legislation in the total absence of any evidence that it will provide any benefit to society as a whole.

No. I have made it perfectly clear that my advocation of legislation governing VCP in particular is based on reasonable supposition of a net benefit.

You have posited that it is reasonable to enact such legislation even in the face of demonstrated proof that such legislation can and does harm innocents.

No. I have posited that VCP laws can be written that achieve the intended objective and at the same time protect people from innocently falling foul to the same extent that many other, essential laws currently do.

I asked you to describe what circumstances would need to apply for you to feel that such legislative restrictions on people in general would no longer be justifiable by alleged, unproven benefits.

Given what I've previously written, and clarified above, there is no more relevance to your asking this question of me as there would of yourself, JFrankA, Randfan, Montagwotshisface, et al.

I asked you to provide an example of such circumstances.

Clearly, this is an absurd request.

 

[JFrankA]

No. I have pointed out to you and others here that laws, by definition, serve to limit the otherwise carte blanche right to do whatever one likes for the greater good of society. If everybody was a model citizen then, in theory, we wouldn't need most laws. But everybody is not a model citizen, so we need rules, boundaries and a system of enforcement. Fortunately the noncompliants are in the minority. Unfortunately the majority have to pay the price of relative freedom that societal living affords. Interestingly, you, yourself, use the term "law abiding people" above, acknowledging your acceptance of this principle.


No. I have made it perfectly clear that my advocation of legislation governing VCP in particular is based on reasonable supposition of a net benefit.


No. I have posited that VCP laws can be written that achieve the intended objective and at the same time protect people from innocently falling foul to the same extent that many other, essential laws currently do.


Given what I've previously written, and clarified above, there is no more relevance to your asking this question of me as there would of yourself, JFrankA, Randfan, Montagwotshisface, et al.


Clearly, this is an absurd request.

....case in point.

 

[JFrankA]

No. Everyone except Southwind17 knew what you meant. It's weird how there seems to be this gaping chasm in communication between Southwind17 and . . . well, everyone else. Everything said to him seems to be misconstrued, and he can't seem to make any coherent points that anyone else can understand. It's as if we're speaking different languages with at least 2 iterations of Google Translate between each post.

Thank you, ZirconBlue. I appreciate that.

 

[Southwind17]

No, we've been playing "I'm right - your not" using semantics, blame, judging of others, over-sensitivity and bypassing the point that have all been part of this thread. Tactics that stop points dead in their tracks, and distract the conversation off the point. This is no debate, it's a "win the game".
I will admit to me being guilty of that. Even with this post I am guilty.
And yes. Quite a lot has been overlooked.

OK, what's left that can be sensibly debated?

 

[Southwind17]

No. Everyone except Southwind17 knew what you meant. It's weird how there seems to be this gaping chasm in communication between Southwind17 and . . . well, everyone else. Everything said to him seems to be misconstrued, and he can't seem to make any coherent points that anyone else can understand. It's as if we're speaking different languages with at least 2 iterations of Google Translate between each post.

Funny how I've kept the thread going for close on 2,500 posts then, don't you think?! Your contribution would be how many, approximately?

 

[Southwind17]

....case in point.

Case of what, exactly - my reiterating my position because some people are seemingly incapable of paying attention?!

 

[Southwind17]

Thank you, ZirconBlue. I appreciate that.

You would. You need all the moral support you can muster!

 

[JFrankA]

OK, what's left that can be sensibly debated?

"What's wrong with porn?"

Funny how I've kept the thread going for close on 2,500 posts then, don't you think?! Your contribution would be how many, approximately?

Ah. Quantity over quality wins every time, huh?

Case of what, exactly - my reiterating my position because some people are seemingly incapable of paying attention?!

I'm not going to bother clarifying it, SW, because I'm sure you will deem it not worth responding to.

 

[quadraginta]

You have posited that it is reasonable to use law to restrict the freedoms of all otherwise law abiding people in anticipation of the potential anti-social acts of an undetermined few.

No. I have pointed out to you and others here that laws, by definition, serve to limit the otherwise carte blanche right to do whatever one likes for the greater good of society. If everybody was a model citizen then, in theory, we wouldn't need most laws. But everybody is not a model citizen, so we need rules, boundaries and a system of enforcement. Fortunately the noncompliants are in the minority. Unfortunately the majority have to pay the price of relative freedom that societal living affords. Interestingly, you, yourself, use the term "law abiding people" above, acknowledging your acceptance of this principle.

You are merely agreeing with me. Couching it in sonorous 'greater good' pseudo-morality doesn't change the essence of your claim. You have not demonstrated any basis for a "price" to be "paid" beyond vague allegations of potential harm. This tactic is the antithesis of any free society.

Note also that I said "otherwise law abiding people". It is your insistence on a bogus law that itself creates the lawlessness. First demonize, then criminalize. You advocate legislation by populist hysteria and fear-mongering.

You have posited that it is reasonable to enact such legislation in the total absence of any evidence that it will provide any benefit to society as a whole.

No. I have made it perfectly clear that my advocation of legislation governing VCP in particular is based on reasonable supposition of a net benefit.

No. You haven't. You've made it perfectly clear that you are willing to allege a net benefit on zero evidence and then defend your premise by pretending that the allegation is "reasonable".

You have posited that it is reasonable to enact such legislation even in the face of demonstrated proof that such legislation can and does harm innocents.

No. I have posited that VCP laws can be written that achieve the intended objective and at the same time protect people from innocently falling foul to the same extent that many other, essential laws currently do.

Not in this thread. Well, you've made the claim, but you haven't provided any evidence. You haven't even bothered to respond to evidence to the contrary that has been provided. If you are now claiming that your defense of your position is that there is other bad law also in existence and thus yours must be okay then you are presenting a very weak argument.

I asked you to describe what circumstances would need to apply for you to feel that such legislative restrictions on people in general would no longer be justifiable by alleged, unproven benefits.

Given what I've previously written, and clarified above, there is no more relevance to your asking this question of me as there would of yourself, JFrankA, Randfan, Montagwotshisface, et al.

I'll disregard the sophomoric evasion of that response and simply point out that I didn't ask them. I asked you.

I asked you to provide an example of such circumstances.

Clearly, this is an absurd request.

I can image that you would like to think so.

Judging from the general tenor and lack of substance of your other rhetoric I have to agree that expecting a direct, honest response from you is absurd.

Why do you insist, continually, that alleged, unsupported, hypothetical potential for some benefit must trump proven, demonstrable harm?

"This law is okay because it might do some good. Who cares if people will certainly be hurt?"

Your childlike faith in the intrinsic goodness of the legal machinery is touching, but unfounded. That machinery is operated by people. The precedent for those people to abuse the power of that machinery is indisputable.

Good law is crafted in such a fashion as to prevent that abuse first. When the certainty of such abuse can only be offset by an unfounded, hypothetical potential for some net benefit then only bad law can result. Every inch of progress we have made in jurisprudence is predicated on that simple concept.

You appear to have some strong attraction to nanny legislation which assumes a childlike society in need of protection from itself. This also presupposes that someone must take the authority to make judgments for the rest. And you seem to have no problem placing yourself in the position of that someone.

There is some risk in freedom. Good law does not seek to remove any potential for that risk. It seeks to address the issues raised when one party infringes on the freedom of another party. Good law addresses risk when that risk is demonstrable, considerable, and avoidable without impacting fundamental freedoms.

Your approach is one of risk removal. Worse, it is one of hypothetical risk removal. There is no real end to that progression.

Bad law.

I have asked you to explain where you place the end of that progression. What is an example of law in which, in your opinion, the benefit of hypothetical risk prevention is trumped by the basic rights of a free society? You have taken the position that laws against VCP are not. Where does freedom start to edge out safety?

Are you afraid to provide such an example? Are you unable to? Is there no such point where freedom need take precedence over imagined safety in your worldview?

 

[Southwind17]

"What's wrong with porn?"

Where would you like to begin?!

Ah. Quantity over quality wins every time, huh?

You're saying you're easily entertained? Or simply no alternative life outside JREF?

I'm not going to bother clarifying it, SW, because I'm sure you will deem it not worth responding to.

Suit yourself - it's a freerelatively free country!