Moderated What's wrong with porn?

[tesscaline]

Porn is bad because it is false advertising.
You will want that hot babe who has the 15 minute orgasim and search endlessly for her.

I'm sorry, were you looking for me?

 

[RandFan]

I'm against porn, but for reasons of false and misleading advertising.

Porn is bad because it is false advertising. (Today, 04:29AM)

Porn is bad because it is false advertising (Today, 10:16 PM).

Ok Bill. Got it.

 

[Southwind17]

BTW: It should be noted that you do not hold freedom from illegal search and seizure as sacrosanct. So long as the police can find evidence conclusively demonstrating guilt then there is no need to toss the evidence even if it is obtained illegally.

BTW: It should be noted that we discussed this principle in a very specific context previously. Now you're seeking to claim that my view extends to the most general context. Why are you doing that RandFan? Regardless, I believe you overlooked a subtle but critical caveat when I commented previously in your haste to berate somebody holding a different view from you. It's entirely up to you whether you can be bothered to go identify it.

So yeah, I have no idea what your foundation for freedom is or even if it exists. It would seem (I said seem) that you would prefer a society from the Iron Age over that of modern western liberal democracy.

What evidence, exactly, draws you to reach this conclusion, even if it is only seemingly the case?

I concede that is a dichotomy so I would happily accept a middle ground. Could you explain that middle ground? Is there a society that exists today that you think is an exemplar of your ideal?

I am prepared to consider this "middle ground" question in appropriate detail, but suspect that I would conclude that all western society lies somewhere within such "middle ground" already. Unfortunately, I don't know enough about all societies to identify which, if any, is an "exemplar of my ideal" (not that I have formulated a definitive view as to what my "ideal" might be), but I strongly suspect there is none.

 

[Southwind17]

Vague and ambiguous.

Just like this response, eh!

I'm against laws that have these kinds of restrictions. These laws have been used most effectively to shield politicians and organizations like the Church of Scientology against protest.

Baby/bathwater.

I have always been against laws that are too restrictive and I think these laws have gone too far. That is the problem with such laws. Power corrupts. The laws are often used to stifle speech.

Nice dodge!

I'm not everyone.

Exactly. You're a minority.

Traffic lights are an effective form of regulation. I'm not opposed to regulation. I think protesters should have to get permits and stay off private property.

"Get permits"! You mean "obtain permission", right (that's what "getting a permit" amounts to). By what principles, parameters, jurisdiction and mechanism do you envisage such permission being considered and granted/denied?

If the protests prevent individuals from getting medical care then there should be some accommodation. Such laws should be narrowly crafted however. As it is they are far too broad. Sadly SCOTUS has held for them and they are being used in a very cynical manner.

Ah ... so some laws are OK in principle, but could benefit from adjustment. I'm pleased you eventually acknowledge this principle.

I'm sorry, it's clear. We ought to be damn careful of how we regulate speech. I hate VCP. It's disgusting and nauseating. If I honestly thought that laws could be crafted that would not ever be abused I'd be for them. As it is no. Not at all.

Interesting U-turn. Seems very similar to my position, don't you think?!

 

[RandFan]

BTW: It should be noted that we discussed this principle in a very specific context previously. Now you're seeking to claim that my view extends to the most general context.

The specific is critical to the general. I stand by it.

Regardless, I believe you overlooked a subtle but critical caveat when I commented previously in your haste to berate somebody holding a different view from you.

The patronizing and condesension gets old.

If you have a claim or argument then state it. Otherwise you are engaging in boorish rhetoric.

What evidence, exactly, draws you to reach this conclusion, even if it is only seemingly the case?

My conclusion is drawn from your words. You've said you are willing to trade freedom for security. Police are free to engage in illegal search and seizure so long as their efforts result in conclusive proof. Therefore there would be no impetus for the police to follow the law. If they don't find conclusive proof then they don't bother to prosecute. No harm no foul. We simply set aside the poison tree.

 

[RandFan]

"Get permits"! You mean "obtain permission", right (that's what "getting a permit" amounts to). By what principles, parameters, jurisdiction and mechanism do you envisage such permission being considered and granted/denied?

There are in place such mechanisms now. If you contact the ACLU they will advise you how to lodge complaints in the event of abuse. The ACLU doesn't have a problem with the laws and procedures so long as they are not arbitrary. When they are the ACLU files lawsuits. (FWIW: Banning VCP would be quite arbitrary for all the reasons JFrankA has explained to you time and time again.

Ah ... so some laws are OK in principle, but could benefit from adjustment. I'm pleased you eventually acknowledge this principle.

Straw man. And you know better. I've explained to you the concept of no prior restraint. You are trying to stretch one legal concept to match another. And it's disapointing given all of the many pages that this has been explained to you time and time again.

Interesting U-turn. Seems very similar to my position, don't you think?!

I've stated from the start that I find VCP disgusing. I've told you time and again tht if you could demonstrate harm I would be on your side.

But this about protests and we already know that those laws are being abused. That's the problem. Now throw in no prior restraint (which addresses a very different problem) and you in effect want to ban all protests of a certain kind. I find Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist a-holes to be some of the most offensive people on the planet but I wouldn't ban them. I'm sure we can work out some kind of speculation of harm on them also. So I guess they would be next on the list of people to ban.

 

[gumboot]

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!

Some ideology, yes. Society cannot function without ideology. Without shared core values, you're not a society at all.

And no, I don't. Every day I see wonderful examples of human beings adhering to these important values in the face of difficulty.

 

[gumboot]

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

That's hardly compelling evidence of your claim. Remember you claimed:

"We know 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."

I've bolded the pertinent points. That fact that there exists people who commit sex crimes neither indicates that it involves "many people", nor that they will risk any foreseeable consequence.

Rather, only a tiny fraction of people commit sex crimes, and most believe they will get away with it, and often go to great lengths to avoid consequences. There's also an unjustified assumption that all sex crime is primarily motivated by immediate sexual desire.

What sex crime statistics can tell us, however, is that the overwhelming majority of people manage to control their sexual desires and only act on them in legal and appropriate ways.

 

[RandFan]

It's entirely up to you whether you can be bothered to go identify it.

In your arrogance you have failed to respond in any reasonable fashion to most of my posts of late choosing instead to simply be snide or obtuse. I'll leave it up to you whether or not you have the decency to go back and address them.

At this point I don't really care but I do find it a bit pompus and hypocritical of you to suggest I missed something.

 

[amb]

Fascinating thread. Keep it up.
SkeptiChick, you're not down under are you?

 

[tesscaline]

Fascinating thread. Keep it up.
SkeptiChick, you're not down under are you?

Nope, just a night owl

 

[Belz...]

Meaning what? Arthwollipot posits complete opposites. Typical ill-considered response from you.

Ironeeeee.

 

[Belz...]

Clearly, this is an absurd request.

Really ? I think it's entirely reasonable because answering it will allow us to determine where you stand and debate accordingly.

Of course, that would clarify things for us, something you're usually loathe to do.

 

[Belz...]

I'm sorry, were you looking for me?

'That a trick question ?

 

[JFrankA]

Porn is bad because it is false advertising.
You will want that hot babe who has the 15 minute orgasim and search endlessly for her.

Science fiction movies are bad because it's false advertising.
You will want that cool jet pack they issue from that space ship and search endlessly for it.

Love story movies are bad because it's false advertising.
You will always expect that the hot girl to fall for you eventually when she realizes that the hot, rich guy she's with is not for her and wait endlessly for that to happen.

Fairy tale movies are bad because it's false advertising.
You will want that prince charming who will come and make your life happy ever after and wait endlessly for him.

Sports movies are bad because it's false advertising.
You will expect to win that game even though you are clearly out matched even though you have endlessly practiced for it.

......shall I continue?

 

[Cavemonster]

Love story movies are bad because it's false advertising.
You will always expect that the hot girl to fall for you eventually when she realizes that the hot, rich guy she's with is not for her and wait endlessly for that to happen.

Actually, I feel this is true, terrible love stories in the western world in every movie and song give people unrealistic expectations about relationships and are likely partly responsible for the high divorce rate.

 

[RandFan]

Actually, I feel this is true, terrible love stories in the western world in every movie and song give people unrealistic expectations about relationships and are likely partly responsible for the high divorce rate.

I seriously doubt that. I'm not saying it's impossible or even a tiny fraction of truth but I don't have that much contempt for humanity.

 

[Cavemonster]

I seriously doubt that. I'm not saying it's impossible or even a tiny fraction of truth but I don't have that much contempt for humanity.

Eh, it just my view from experience, most divorced people I know had unrealistic expectations and got wrapped up in the fairy tale of romance rather than the hard work of a relationship. Most of them seem to have gotten that notion from the million love stories we're bombarded with from Romeo and Juliet to the latest top 40 song.

It would be a pretty hard thing to prove, but there is a correlation between divorce rate and media saturation, that's a starting point. I'm not saying it's the primary driver of divorce rates, but given relationships I've seen, it's a meaningful component.

 

[Southwind17]

You have never demonstrated how or why the supposition is reasonable.

I've given my reasoning in countless posts, probably starting with Post #996 and then going on to include entire or parts of Posts #1075, #1102, #1168, #1178, #1231, #1289, #1351, #1449, #1450, #1477, #1157, #1648, #1682, #1839, #2197, #2205, #2226, #2261, #2270, #2271, #2331 and #2484.

Given the history of abuse by government and legal authorities there is every reason to be concerned. No new thread needed. This one is perfect for this discussion.

Thanks for confirming exactly what topic you're here to discuss.

 

[RandFan]

It would be a pretty hard thing to prove, but there is a correlation between divorce rate and media saturation, that's a starting point. I'm not saying it's the primary driver of divorce rates, but given relationships I've seen, it's a meaningful component.

You equivocate. I could accept "it's potentially a meaningful component".