Moderated What's wrong with porn?

[Southwind17]

I hope I did not insult, it really was not my intent.

You most certainly did not.

 

[RandFan]

By what logic?

Your's.

"Follows" being the operative word, i.e. "comes after", not at the same time. And ... it's not my preferred topic - it's the topic.

No, follows as in logically follows. And as far as "preferred". I note that you aren't posting in every thread in every forum. You must have some preferrence to discussing VCP.

So, I guess you could be more wrong. Is this really a tangent you want to go on?

 

[RandFan]

That you reason something doesn't make it reasonable. I think you should call it "your speculation" as that is what it is.

Of course it does, provided the reasoning is sound, which mine is.

By what logic?

RF: Reasoning something doesn't make it reasonable.
SW: If the reasoning is sound.
RF: That is to say that the reason is reasonable.

You are just repeating what I said.

I could have said, that you reason something doesn't make it sound.

Oh, and I forgot,

...provided the reasoning is sound, which mine is.

Asserting something doesn't make it true.

 

[Southwind17]

Speed limits exist to protect people from demonstrable harm.
Police show up at protests to protect people from demonstrable harm.

Er ... potential, indirect, demonstrable harm, to be exact i.e. they're preventative laws.

Does the banning of VCP protect people from demonstrable harm?

Potential, indirect, demonstrable harm? Quite possibly.

 

[Southwind17]

What I have a problem with is when people advocate "tweaking" the constitution and/or the laws of this country in a manner that removes rights, instead of protecting them, based solely upon unsubstantiated emotional pleas. And that is exactly what you are advocating.

All that laws do is remove rights!

 

[RandFan]

Er ... potential, indirect, demonstrable harm, to be exact i.e. they're preventative laws.

No. There is evidence that harm has happened in the past (IOW: It's demonstrable that harm has happened) and we can infer that harm can happen again.

Potential, indirect, demonstrable harm? Quite possibly.

Bob: I have an invisible dragon.
Tim: Can you demonstrate it?
Bob: Quite possibly.
Tim: Ok, and?
Bob: "Ok, and" what?
Tim: Demonstrate it?
Bob: Oh, well, I can't actually demonstrate it. It's only quite possible to indirectly demonstrate the potential of the dragon.
Tim: Do you know the meaning of equivocating?

 

[Southwind17]

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

Pathetic Nonsense.

If you have a claim or argument then state it.

If you can't be bothered either to read or read carefully, frankly, that's your problem. I'm not here to coach you.

My conclusion is drawn from your words. You've said you are willing to trade freedom for security.

Acknowledging that everybody who lives in a civilized society is, too, including you.

Police are free to engage in illegal search and seizure so long as their efforts result in conclusive proof.

Please show me where I advocated this in other than a single, non-specific, un-caveated context.

 

[RandFan]

Pathetic Nonsense.

Rhetoric.

If you can't be bothered either to read or read carefully, frankly, that's your problem. I'm not here to coach you.

Personal attack. It's old.

Acknowledging that everybody who lives in a civilized society is, too, including you.

No, most of us are willing to give up some freedom. You want to neuter search and seizure.

Please show me where I advocated this in other than a single, non-specific, un-caveated context.

I gave you an example of an illegally seized tape that showed conclusively that a crime had been committed. I asked if you would permit it? You said yes. Do you deny that?

 

[Southwind17]

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.

Er ... I believe we were talking "permits", i.e. requests for "permission".

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.

Speeding restrictions - no real harm - only potential. Gun laws (UK) - no real harm - only potential. Prior restraint?

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.

Oh how I wish you'd read and write carefully:

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.

Harm? I don't see it there!

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.

The next on the list of "the most offensive people on the planet", I believe you meant!

 

[RandFan]

Er ... I believe we were talking "permits", i.e. requests for "permission".

Yeah, so?

Speeding restrictions - no real harm - only potential. Gun laws (UK) - no real harm - only potential.

We do have evidence of real harm from speeding and guns. VCP?

Oh how I wish you'd read and write carefully:

I'm talking about protests.

The next on the list of "the most offensive people on the planet", I believe you meant!

No. Using Southwind17 speculation anything can be banned.

 

[Southwind17]

Rhetoric.

No. What you wrote is pathetic nonsense, I assure you. Go ahead - substantiate it, if you can.

Personal attack.

No. You just couldn't be bothered to check the facts. That's fact - not an attack.

No, most of us are willing to give up some freedom. You want to neuter search and seizure.

Evidence for that claim?

I gave you an example of an illegally seized tape that showed conclusively that a crime had been committed. I asked if you would permit it? You said yes. Do you deny that?

I believe you described the circumstances under which the conclusive evidence was seized, including the police knowing, i.e. already in possession of other proof(!), who the perpetrator was, and that you stated that the tape conclusively proved not simply that a serious child abuse crime had been committed, but more importantly who the perpetrator of that crime was, in which case, and in the context of the single example discussed, no, I don't deny that I said "yes", and I'll repeat it for you, if you like - "yes"! Under those circumstances, the illegal act of the police justifies the most obvious, immediate risk to other children. Indeed, under those circumstances there could well be a sound case for claiming that such "illegal" act was necessary to prevent a serious crime under the principle of "lesser evil".

 

[Southwind17]

Yeah, so?

Your post seemed irrelevant.

We do have evidence of real harm from speeding and guns. VCP?

Evidence that speeding, per se, or possession of a gun, per se, directly cause harm?

I'm talking about protests.

No - see above. You're clearly referring to VCP. You use the abbreviation "VCP"!

No. Using Southwind17 speculation anything can be banned.

Pathetic nonsense.

 

[Bill Thompson]

I have not done any research on this. So I am just throwing this out. Maybe someone here HAS done the research.

Isn't it true that countries where porn is limited in access and circulation have less crimes against women and kids? Here is where I get this question from. Japan is a huge market of porn and women are constantly (so it seems) groped on the subway.

Cultures where women are hidden (like Arab cultures) and covered have been interviewed by western women activists and the reporters are sometimes shocked to find that women feel safe and protected in their lifestyles.

Also, I have talked to lots of people in China and they insist that there is very little propotional cases of rape, incest, and child abuse in China.

Nothing is wrong with porn.

Something is wrong with the human animal.

At least, that is how it seems to me.

It is like gun cointrol. Sure people have a right to have hand guns, but do all people have the maturity to own hand guns.

I think the same argument can be made with porn.

If you don't believe me, pull up the free database online that shows how many sex offenders live near you. You might be suprised.

 

[AWPrime]

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?

So you pulling a 'DOC' or a 'Dutch' on us?

 

[Belz...]

Gee, Southwind, do you think you could tone down your posts and try to keep them informative and relevant ? In the last few pages all you've posted is rhetoric and personal attacks. Even if you think your opponents post drivel, do you really need to sink lower than them to make your point ? Unless your point IS to be unpleasant ? If that's the case why not simply stop posting and move on ?

 

[Southwind17]

So you pulling a 'DOC' or a 'Dutch' on us?

I'm sorry - a what or a what?

 

[Southwind17]

Gee, Southwind, do you think you could tone down your posts and try to keep them informative and relevant ? In the last few pages all you've posted is rhetoric and personal attacks. Even if you think your opponents post drivel, do you really need to sink lower than them to make your point ? Unless your point IS to be unpleasant ? If that's the case why not simply stop posting and move on ?

I disagree. I admit that much of my more recent posting amounts to pointing out and reminding other posters that their points are flawed and arguments continue to fail to pass the litmus test, but only because they continue to beat the same old drum because they've run out of fresh ideas. Just like some people here resorted to "if this then that" and "that doesn't necessarily mean this"-type arguments a long time back I don't see why I should be criticized for pointing out weaknesses and flaws now if some people insist on making false claims and positing flawed arguments.

But don't forget, if you insist on free speech but don't like what you read, I'm afraid it's you, my friend, who will have to move on. If you want your cake, sadly, you can't eat it too!

 

[JFrankA]

I have not done any research on this. So I am just throwing this out. Maybe someone here HAS done the research.

Isn't it true that countries where porn is limited in access and circulation have less crimes against women and kids? Here is where I get this question from. Japan is a huge market of porn and women are constantly (so it seems) groped on the subway.

Cultures where women are hidden (like Arab cultures) and covered have been interviewed by western women activists and the reporters are sometimes shocked to find that women feel safe and protected in their lifestyles.

Also, I have talked to lots of people in China and they insist that there is very little propotional cases of rape, incest, and child abuse in China.

Nothing is wrong with porn.

Something is wrong with the human animal.

At least, that is how it seems to me.

It is like gun cointrol. Sure people have a right to have hand guns, but do all people have the maturity to own hand guns.

I think the same argument can be made with porn.

If you don't believe me, pull up the free database online that shows how many sex offenders live near you. You might be suprised.

I agree with you on this. It's not porn, it's humans. Porn itself is an image and sound on a screen. No matter what, that's all it is. It is the viewer's choice as to what to do during and after the viewing.

 

[JFrankA]

Well, if you will persist in making ambiguous points and leaving things open to interpretation ...! If you want to clarify, though, I'd be happy to review and comment further. Your call.

I have stated clearly my position. You cherry pick little "sound bites" ignoring the whole post and the point that I have clearly stated several times in an attempt to discredit me, not my viewpoint, but me. You have done that several times.

Since up until recently, you've purposely posted "no comment" on my replies to your point, it would seem to me that since you cannot reply to my complete post when I can and have pick apart yours, and instead, have tried to discredit me, (again, not my viewpoint), and have been unsuccessful in doing so, shows me that you can't defend your point.

That's been your whole strategy with not just me, but everyone on here who disagrees with you.

 

[Belz...]

I disagree. I admit that much of my more recent posting amounts to pointing out and reminding other posters that their points are flawed and arguments continue to fail to pass the litmus test

That's not what I said. Much of your recent postings have no substance because you are simply being belligerent. That brings nothing to the discussion, which is why I suggest you take some time off from the thread, as you seem emotionally attached to the topic.

But don't forget, if you insist on free speech but don't like what you read, I'm afraid it's you, my friend, who will have to move on. If you want your cake, sadly, you can't eat it too!

"If". But since the premise isn't true, I think I'll stay.