Moderated What's wrong with porn?

[Southwind17]

Hey JFrankA - I don't think we exhausted this line of enquiry:

It's a definition of child porn set within a legal context. Clearly, if we're to have laws governing child porn then we need to define "child porn" just like if we're to have laws governing murder then we need to define "murder". BTW - what is the legal definition of murder, out of interest? From Wikipedia:

Murder, as defined in common law countries, is the unlawful killing of another human being with intent (or malice aforethought), and generally this state of mind distinguishes murder from other forms of unlawful homicide (such as manslaughter).

Well what do you know! "Intent"; "aforethought"; "state of mind". We can't possibly have laws that require judges and juries to be mind readers, can we? That go to intent, aforethought and state of mind? Oh no - that could be subjective. No - we must rescind the law governing murder immediately. In fact, every law that goes to intent and is subjective. Rescind them all I say - they can't possibly work without convicting all the innocents too!
You can read the entire article here if you could be bothered.

But murder can be defined as one simple thing: The act of one person killing another. There we go.

No that's homicide - completely different concept from murder. Please check your facts before seeking to pass off an assumption as knowledge.

I figured we should discuss that bedrock of your counter-argument further - "intent". Again, from above:

... with intent (or malice aforethought), and generally this state of mind distinguishes murder from other forms of unlawful homicide.

Now, remind me, what was it you were claiming re. that basis for allowing VCP because of the untenable onus of proving intent?

 

[Southwind17]

Still, you have provided no proof that VCP will cause a pedophile to "lose control" and molest a child.

In fact, some have asserted the opposite. So far, I see no reason to favour one hypothesis over the other.

So equal likelihood either way then.

And the benefit of the doubt should be on the side of liberty.

By applying what rationale?

 

[Belz...]

When it's actually carried out with no significant delay, when the condemned doesn't sit around for 20+ years and is thus more likely to die of old age or prison violence ... *shrug*

As far as I know, the death penalty is not a significant deterrent.

 

[Belz...]

JFrankA asserts that I'm a buffoon; I assert that he is. I would never admit to being a buffoon, even if I were (actually, I might then, by definition (Baldrick of Blackadder springs to mind )), but I'm not. I strongly suspect that JFrankA, similarly, holds much the same view. See where you went wrong now? Again, careless reading and/or lack of comprehension. I strongly suspect the latter more than the first.

Actually you've just proven my point. You've only admitted to being one provided you included him in the set of people who are buffoons. And I find that quite interesting.

Also interesting is how you constantly claim that everyone except you has reading comprehension issues.

 

[Belz...]

Those "Aha! Gotcha!" moments, as you so eloquently put it, are both a legitimate and effective way of challenging what many people here are relying on. You might have noticed that police interviewers and trial lawyers tend to adopt it to completely discredit a suspect or witness.

In your case, however, it gives me the impression that you're doing more to glorify yourself than to advance the discussion.

 

[Belz...]

So equal likelihood either way then.

By applying what rationale?

Oh, I don't know... maybe that people are innocent until proven guilty ? I don't know about your country, but around here that's how it works (at least in principle).

 

[Southwind17]

Actually you've just proven my point. You've only admitted to being one provided you included him in the set of people who are buffoons. And I find that quite interesting.

Also interesting is how you constantly claim that everyone except you has reading comprehension issues.

Please highlight that part of my text that leads you to draw that conclusion.

 

[Southwind17]

In your case, however, it gives me the impression that you're doing more to glorify yourself than to advance the discussion.

Oh really? How so?

 

[Southwind17]

Oh, I don't know... maybe that people are innocent until proven guilty ? I don't know about your country, but around here that's how it works (at least in principle).

And what, on earth, has that reasoning got to do with justifying this statement:?

In fact, some have asserted the opposite. So far, I see no reason to favour one hypothesis over the other. And the benefit of the doubt should be on the side of liberty.

Comprehension indeed!

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

Correct - I have acknowledged so countless times. My argument does not depend on proof.

<snip>

And thus, by your own admission, your argument has zero merit.

 

[Southwind17]

And thus, by your own admission, your argument has zero merit.

Are you claiming that everything without proof has zero merit or just some things? If just some, how do you propose that one distinguishes between what does and what doesn't?

 

[quadraginta]

Are you claiming that everything without proof has zero merit or just some things? If just some, how do you propose that one distinguishes between what does and what doesn't?

Didn't say anything of the sort. Read what I said again. All eleven words.

Precision, SW!

Comprehension!

 

[Southwind17]

Didn't say anything of the sort. Read what I said again. All eleven words.
Precision, SW!
Comprehension!

Well, I'm concluding, by the application of logic and deduction, from what you wrote, that you believe that an argument not based on proof has no merit. But if that's not what you mean, please do put us out of our misery and explain what, exactly, you do mean. Thank you so much - in advance.

 

[quadraginta]

Well, I'm concluding, by the application of logic and deduction, from what you wrote, that you believe that an argument not based on proof has no merit. But if that's not what you mean, please do put us out of our misery and explain what, exactly, you do mean. Thank you so much - in advance.

Don't know why you concluded that. It isn't what I said. Your logic is faulty, and your deduction appears to start from error.

Precision, SW!

Comprehension!

 

[Southwind17]

Don't know why you concluded that. It isn't what I said. Your logic is faulty, and your deduction appears to start from error.
Precision, SW!
Comprehension!

Suit yourself.

 

[Belz...]

Please highlight that part of my text that leads you to draw that conclusion.

I'll be happy to:

That's fair enough. We can both agree to disagree, but continue to assert what such buffoons we each are.

Oh really? How so?

Because your "gotcha" moments don't serve to move the discussion forward in any way, and are consistently either personal or evasive. If you seek to educate someone in how they're wrong, that's not how you should do it. Perhaps you're not aware that you're doing it, but you're surely not educating.

And what, on earth, has that reasoning got to do with justifying this statement:?

In fact, some have asserted the opposite. So far, I see no reason to favour one hypothesis over the other. And the benefit of the doubt should be on the side of liberty.

Well, let's see. You say that VCP should be banned because it MAY cause crimes to be commited. We've had people claim that it MAY NOT. So far I see no evidence, one way or another. So assuming that there is no VCP law, which verdict should a jury give if one was accused of making child pornography while they were making VCP ? If there is no evidence of harm, they should rule in favour of the defendent, no ?

Comprehension indeed!

Indeed. It would've helped if you read what I said at all.

 

[Belz...]

Are you claiming that everything without proof has zero merit or just some things?

I see no reason to give any merit to arguments not grounded in reality.

 

[Southwind17]

I'll be happy to:

I've already explained gramatically why that highlighted part doesn't mean what you think it does. Want another go?

Because your "gotcha" moments don't serve to move the discussion forward in any way, and are consistently either personal or evasive. If you seek to educate someone in how they're wrong, that's not how you should do it. Perhaps you're not aware that you're doing it, but you're surely not educating.

Seriously, have you ever stopped and reflected on your own typical posts in the same context? Seriously?

Well, let's see. You say that VCP should be banned because it MAY cause crimes to be commited. We've had people claim that it MAY NOT. So far I see no evidence, one way or another. So assuming that there is no VCP law, which verdict should a jury give if one was accused of making child pornography while they were making VCP ? If there is no evidence of harm, they should rule in favour of the defendent, no ?

The issue pertained to the justification for banning VCP vs. allowing it, not how a person should be judged should they be accused of falling foul of a pornography law. I'll happily show you (again), if you can't read back and see it.

Indeed. It would've helped if you read what I said at all.

Again, comprehension, indeed!

 

[quadraginta]

Suit yourself.

What a puzzling remark. You've explained often, in great detail, and at great length why someone else's failure to comprehend is not the fault of the person making the statement. At least when that person is yourself. Are you applying some sort of double standard?

Really, SW. It's only eleven words. Six of them aren't even germane to your question. Review the post, and your response. This is a practice you recommend frequently to others. Are you applying some sort of double standard?

Surely someone of your immense intellect and limitless logical capacity can discern the error you made in your response.

Precision, SW!

Comprehension!

 

[Southwind17]

What a puzzling remark. You've explained often, in great detail, and at great length why someone else's failure to comprehend is not the fault of the person making the statement. At least when that person is yourself. Are you applying some sort of double standard?
Really, SW. It's only eleven words. Six of them aren't even germane to your question. Review the post, and your response. This is a practice you recommend frequently to others. Are you applying some sort of double standard?
Surely someone of your immense intellect and limitless logical capacity can discern the error you made in your response.
Precision, SW!
Comprehension!

If somebody honestly asks me to explain what I mean I do so.