Moderated What's wrong with porn?

[RandFan]

I think you got your quotes mixed up there somehow... I didn't say what your post says I said...

Now you can be damn sure a petty insult is to follow. Something about reading comprehension. Thanks SC. It was Belz.

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 ?

 

[quadraginta]

I think you got your quotes mixed up there somehow... I didn't say what your post says I said...

Weird. You didn't. Belz... did. The SW part of the quote links back to the right place. Wonder what happened.

ETA: Bet he lost track trying to edit out the rest of SW's collage.

 

[RandFan]

Weird. You didn't. Belz... did. The SW part of the quote links back to the right place. Wonder what happened.

I had clicked the multi quote button, not the "quote" button but the """ button for SC. I was going to multi quote SC and SW. However I changed my mind and forgot that I had clicked the multi quote button. Later I multi quoted Belz and SW. I then edited the text so the quotes would be embeded. I carelesly highlighted from the text of Belz that I wanted to include to the first [quote= tag which was for the earlier multi quote (SW).

 

[tesscaline]

I had clicked the multi quote button, not the "quote" button but the """ button for SC. I was going to multi quote SC and SW. However I changed my mind and forgot that I had clicked the multi quote button. Later I multi quoted Belz and SW. I then edited the text so the quotes would be embeded. I carelesly highlighted from the text of Belz that I wanted to include to the first [ quote= tag which was for the earlier multi quote (SW).

No worries. Mistakes happen

 

[Belz...]

What do you think I think it means?


No, not to me, but it sure would be amusing watching you try, so yes, please, go ahead.


History lesson:

I'll take it as an admission that you can't adress my points, as this is mere rhetoric.

 

[Belz...]

No worries. Mistakes happen

Only to the rest of us, I'd guess.

 

[tesscaline]

Only to the rest of us, I'd guess.

What?

 

[RandFan]

What?

I think he's talking about SW's self righteous stance.

 

[JFrankA]

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. It usually ends with the "right" result. I don't believe I've deployed any such "gotcha"s out of context, other than occasionally for sarcasm, which I've tended to openly acknowledge. I suspect you're averse to it because it's brutally cutting - leaving little to no room to back-track one's way out of, not to mention, of course, that you're generally on the receiving end.

But they are so blatantly off the point. You twist meanings that clearly wasn't what was meant and try to make that a "mistake".

That's not being a lawyer or a cop. That's be yellow journalist.

I only point this out (lack of comprehension, not "no" comprehension) when I believe it to be true, and can demonstrate so. Admittedly, sometimes I use it sarcastically, but laziness in reading is really no better an excuse than lack of comprehension, probably worse, in fact.

You are the biggest offender of miscomprehention on this thread. And when someone points out the white elephant of a something you completely did not comprehend, or purposely twisted, then you say "you have lack of logic"

Hey! WTF! I'm giving away all of the trade secrets here!

Sorry, it's no secret what you are doing. It's obvious. Nothing new I've ever encountered.

For goodness sake JFrankA - there's no need to take everything literally in an effort for that extra brownie point - only those things that really matter.

You are just as guilty of it. When I am being sarcastic and ironic or both, you take me literally with your "Gotcha moment".

Again, you seem to looking in a mirror.....

 

[quixotecoyote]

What?

Obviously you lack sufficient reading comprehension to participate in this discussion.

 

[tesscaline]

I think he's talking about SW's self righteous stance.

Oh! Yes, that makes sense.

Obviously you lack sufficient reading comprehension to participate in this discussion.

Obviously!

(actually, I am currently posting under the influence of prescription narcotics for the ear infection I've got at the moment... I think I should probably avoid anything too complex until they wear off a bit)

 

[JFrankA]

Given your history of less-than-sound interpretation, would you mind posting compelling extracts from those studies that purport to show what you claim here. No doubt you can locate them immediately, whereas I might end up reading the entire articles and still be left wondering which parts you're alluding to. I'm sure, given your confidence and my scepticism, you'll agree that I'm affording you any advantage here, which you'd be foolish not to take. Perhaps we can end this once and for all, right here and now!

The two articles are summaries of the conclusion of two studies that show that there is no connection between porn and sex crimes - even with pedophiles and child porn.

Sorry, it's your turn to prove your point. Can you find an article to a study that proves child porn causes pedophiles to lose control?

I'll only dismiss it if it can rightly be discredited.

So I was right: when you cannot discredit a post, when you can't defend your point, you dismiss the post.

You've just validated my assumption: that when you don't comment on a reply it means you have no defense.

Thanks

 

[JFrankA]

Would you care to elaborate, or are you just taking a pot shot?

Honestly, SW, I didn't mean this as an insult. I just don't think you understand the philosophy of what America's laws are centered around and the purpose of them. That's not an insult, just an observation.

ETA: I am sorry to say that there are a few Americans who don't understand it either.

 

[JFrankA]

Mmm ... I'm starting to see a pattern here ...!

Oooh! Don't worry. My present girlfriend doesn't follow the pattern! She's definitely is not frustrating and low maintenance.

 

[JFrankA]

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





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

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

Missing the point once again. Intent isn't the issue. CHOICE is.

In all that rhetoric, where do you think "intent" comes from???

A person has an intent because that person CHOOSES to have an intent.

 

[Southwind17]

Duh! How are they different?

You seriously cannot read very well, can you!

Pathetic nonsense.

Hey! That's my catch phrase, reserved only for you, and it's trademarked. Go find your own.

 

[Southwind17]

Lesser evil is in the eye of the beholder.

But an accepted principal, nonetheless. Regardless, it isn't the main thrust of my argument, so, although I threw it in for good measure, it could really be deemed straw man bait. Hook, line and sinker come to mind.

It can almost always be argued that police ilegality is the lesser evil.

Successfully argued?

 

[Southwind17]

You wanted proof that speed limits are not set arbitrarily, I gave it to you.

Completely wrong. I asked for citations proving a causative relationship between speed and safety:

"Freedom protectors" in the UK have fought long and hard against increasingly reducing speed limits and enforcement cameras on the basis that there is no scientific evidence that speed and the incidence of road accidents are related. [emphasis added]

I'll ignore the ad homenim for now. But you're really starting to cross the line. I'd watch it if I were you.

What "ad hom"?

How, exactly, is demonstrating on PUBLIC property (OUTSIDE private property) a violation of privacy?

UK - Justice and Public Order Act, 1994 - Section 154
US - Public Disturbance Laws:

The following is an example of a local law dealing with public disturbances:

" A. It is unlawful for any person to cause, or for any person in possession of property to allow to originate from the property, sound that is a public disturbance noise.

B. The following sounds are public disturbance noises:

...
Yelling, shouting, hooting, whistling or singing on or near the public streets, particularly between the hours of eleven p.m. and seven a.m. or at any time and place as to unreasonably disturb or interfere with the peace and comfort of owners or possessors of real property;
...
[http://definitions.uslegal.com/p/public-disturbance/]

No one has said the right to demonstrate trumps the right to privacy.

It's been inferred, at least. At what point do you consider demonstrating crosses the line, then?

No where did he argue any such thing.

OK - I'll admit he didn't actually argue it as such, but he at worst supported the idea and at best didn't resist it, having had every opportunity to:

Yes it's true. Everything extraneous to the adult human is innocuous.
It's our own decisions that make it not.
Most people wouldn't take a bottle of anthrax. And the ones who do, will have to decide what to do with it, huh?

Asserting something does not make it true.

Including asserting that "asserting something does not make it true". OK - I'm cool with that.

I will not be baited into off topic conversation. Sorry.

Your choice, but it's not off topic, as I've explained (and you've ignored), you know it, and I'll draw the obvious inference. Sorry.

This from the guy who absolutely outright refused to define what he meant by "public domain"? Seriously? If you're not required to provide definitions, even when you're using words contrary to their most commonly understood meanings, then I'm most definitely not required to define words when I'm using them in accordance with their most commonly understood meanings.

Again, I'll draw the obvious inference.

 

[Southwind17]

You're the one who made the claim that "all laws do is remove rights," you're the one with the burden of proof.

Er ... you've disputed it. I think any burden rests entirely with you. I'm happy for my statement to stand on the record unchallenged.

But I'll humor you anyway since your statement only needs one instance to disprove it, and I just happen to have one handy...

Just this past election, my state passed a law that extended the rights of civil unions to be equal to those of marriage. That's not removing rights. It's extending them.

LOL. OK, I'll humour you now, if you don't mind? Hang on ... still laughing ... OK - that's better - here we go. They didn't extend any rights at all. They'd like to have you believe they did (and you, for one, fell for it), but the bottom line is they simply gave back a little of what was originally taken away. You're not very experienced in negotiating, are you? This is a classic tactic that seasoned negotiators spot a mile off. It works well with children, too. Take away what they want, give them a little back, and they're happy as Larry. ... sorry ... ... still chuckling ...

 

[Southwind17]

I, personally, didn't join this thread to teach a Jr. High level social studies class about US law...