Moderated What's wrong with porn?

[Matthew Best]

All men watch porn, scientists find

By Jonathan Liew

Wednesday December 02 2009

Scientists at the University of Montreal launched a search for men who had never looked at pornography - but couldn't find any.

Researchers were conducting a study comparing the views of men in their 20s who had never been exposed to pornography with regular users.

But their project stumbled at the first hurdle when they failed to find a single man who had not been seen it.

“We started our research seeking men in their 20s who had never consumed pornography,” said Professor Simon Louis Lajeunesse. “We couldn't find any.”

Although hampered in its original aim, the study did examined the habits of those young men who used pornography – which would appear to be all of them.

Prof Lajeunesse interviewed 20 heterosexual male university students who consumed pornography, and found on average, they first watched pornography when they were 10 years old.

Around 90 per cent of consumption was on the internet, while 10 per cent of material came from video stores.

Single men watched pornography for an average of 40 minutes, three times a week, while those in relationships watched it 1.7 times a week for around 20 minutes.

The study found that men watched pornography that matched their own image of sexuality, and quickly discarded material they found offensive or distasteful.

Prof Lajeunesse said pornography did not have a negative effect on men's sexuality.

“Not one subject had a pathological sexuality,” he said. “In fact, all of their sexual practices were quite conventional.

“Pornography hasn't changed their perception of women or their relationship, which they all want to be as harmonious and fulfilling as possible,” he added.

 

[quadraginta]

Incidentally, my Chambers Dictionary (1998 reprint) contains, under and in addition to the headword "probable", no less than 11 derivatives. The entire entry contains around 180 words. Not one of those words is "statistic" or a derivative thereof. It also contains, under and in addition to the headword "statistic", 4 derivatives. The entire entry contains around 90 words. Not one of those words is "probable" or a derivative thereof.

Just an observation.

A pointless observation?

Or are you suggesting that you have second thoughts about the source you first chose to cite?

This is indeed a problem with providing linkable references. One that it is understandable you would not anticipate, since you don't trouble yourself to actually read the references other people make the effort to research and supply. I can imagine your consternation when someone actually looks at yours, and points out that it didn't exactly say only what you inferred that it did.

Stick with bluster, ad hom innuendo, and playground rhetoric. You're more amusing that way. No one around here expects you to start dealing in actual facts or participating in mature debate at this late stage of the discussion.

 

[Southwind17]

A pointless observation?

No - there's a point to it.

Or are you suggesting that you have second thoughts about the source you first chose to cite?

No - there's a point to it.

 

[arthwollipot]

Oh boy - this argument is still going on. Is anyone agreeing with Southwind17 yet?

Just thought I'd pop in again and post this link:
NSFW - Definitely not safe for work!

http://www.reddit.com/r/gonewild/

This particular subReddit exists for people to voluntarily upload pictures of themselves. It kinda counters the argument that porn is by definition exploitative. Can someone exploit him/herself?

Probably a bit off-topic given where the discussion has gone, but there you go. I've actually largely given up on following the conversation, to be honest. I don't need the aggravation.

 

[Belz...]

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

Precisely.

 

[Tricky]

People, this thread has become quite uncivil. A couple of infractions have been handed out and a few posts moved to AAH, but there could easily be more action. A lot more. If you don't want that to happen, then rein in your... um... enthusiasm.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky

 

[tesscaline]

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

Alright... How's this?
From: http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2008/us-crashcause.pdf (A rather large PDF, just a warning).

About 34 percent of the driver-related critical reasons were decision errors that included too fast for
conditions (8.4%), too fast for curve (4.9%),

For clarity, the "critical reasons" under discussion are the critical reasons for the critical pre-crash event that caused an accident. This report shows that 13.3% of critical reasons were speed related.

In a table above my quote (on page 23) which I am unable to copy/paste, you'll note that more than half (195 out of 388) of the incidents of a person losing control of their vehicle was due to traveling too fast.

I'm not willing to pull the thread any further off topic with discussion of speed limits, as it's really only tangentially related to the subject of porn and obscenity laws, and even then, only if you really stretch it. If you'd like to discuss it in depth, please start a thread on the matter.

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

​

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

What do public disturbance laws have to do with the right to privacy?

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:

Resist what? No discussion was made by anyone other than yourself about legalizing anthrax. None. Period. What you quoted does not mean what you seem to think it does.

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.

No, it is off topic. Disagreeing with something is not the same as ignoring it. Again. If you'd like to discuss the topic in depth, you're more than welcome to create another thread.

Again, I'll draw the obvious inference.

The "inference" you're drawing seems to be only obvious to you. This suggests that your interpretation of what's being typed has nothing to do with it's actual content. Please stick to discussing what I --actually wrote-- and not whatever strawman you can imagine. Thanks.

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.

I don't think the word "unchallenged" means what you think it means.

I am responsible for my claims, and you are responsible for yours. You made the claim that "all laws do is remove rights". You're responsible for demonstrating that that is actually the case.

I, on the other hand, claimed nothing of the sort. I merely pointed out that you are obviously ignorant on the subject. Your own statement cited as my evidence. Do you dispute that evidence? Can you "debunk" it?

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 ...

Wrong. Civil unions have never had the same rights as marriages have (and i'm talking about the actual contracts and their enforcements, not about anything else that you may be inferring here -- erroneously inferring, by the way, as civil unions in this state apply to more than just homosexual relationships). Therefore, no rights were "given back" as to "give back" rights, those rights must have been had previously, and this is not the case here. You may wish to do some research the next time.

As I wrote above, you've disputed it. I think any burden rests entirely with you. I'm happy for my claim to stand on the record unfalsified.

Where did I dispute your behavior? I think you're confused about what you're replying to, as I've disputed nothing in the conversation you've been having with quadraginta.

 

[RandFan]

Show me where.

I'll withdraw the accusation in the interest of moving forward.

You have the extreme example.

1. Video proving guilt of child molestation.
2. The video demonstrates that there has been a lot of activity.
3. It's believed that it is likely there will be future harm to children.

Now, if it is illegally obtained you would still exclude the video, right?

1. Blood, hair and other forensic evidence including DNA illegally obtained from a crime scene (the defendants home).
2. The crime scene matches the MO of a serial killer.

Would you exclude the evidence?

 

[JFrankA]

So, again, would you care to elaborate, or were you just taking a pot shot?

BTW - it's not an observation, as you claim, it's just a thought, based on observation, no doubt, but just a thought nonetheless, and we can't police those, can we?!

In all honesty it was just an observation. No insult or pot shot or anything like that meant. It's like when you are tutoring someone in math and they aren't getting it. It's not said as an insult, it's said as an observation.

Even my last post wasn't an insult. I'm sorry, I'm just beginning to feel a little fed up.

 

[JFrankA]

Incidentally, my Chambers Dictionary (1998 reprint) contains, under and in addition to the headword "probable", no less than 11 derivatives. The entire entry contains around 180 words. Not one of those words is "statistic" or a derivative thereof. It also contains, under and in addition to the headword "statistic", 4 derivatives. The entire entry contains around 90 words. Not one of those words is "probable" or a derivative thereof.

Just an observation.

Oh really? Maybe you looked up the wrong word. Because probable may not contain the word "statistics" but.....

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/probability

prob⋅a⋅bil⋅i⋅ty  /ˌprɒbəˈbɪlɪti/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [prob-uh-bil-i-tee] Show IPA
Use probability in a Sentence
See web results for probability
See images of probability
–noun, plural -ties. 1. the quality or fact of being probable.
2. a strong likelihood or chance of something: The probability of the book's success makes us optimistic.
3. a probable event, circumstance, etc.: Our going to China is a probability.
4. Statistics. a. the relative possibility that an event will occur, as expressed by the ratio of the number of actual occurrences to the total number of possible occurrences.
b. the relative frequency with which an event occurs or is likely to occur.


—Idiom5. in all probability, very probably; quite likely: The factory will in all probability be relocated.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Origin:
1545–55; < L probābilitās. See probable, -ity
Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2009.
Cite This Source |Link To probability



prob·a·bil·i·ty (prŏb'ə-bĭl'ĭ-tē)
n. pl. prob·a·bil·i·ties

The quality or condition of being probable; likelihood.

A probable situation, condition, or event: Her election is a clear probability.


The likelihood that a given event will occur: little probability of rain tonight.

Statistics A number expressing the likelihood that a specific event will occur, expressed as the ratio of the number of actual occurrences to the number of possible occurrences.

(Bolding mine)

Ooooh, and by the way:

ETA: I've also just looked up "jam". Guess what? There's no mention of strawberries! I guess you have to link two things together to form a relationship!

Hmmm.....

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/jam

jam - 10 dictionary results

jam1  /dʒæm/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [jam] Show IPA verb, jammed, jam⋅ming, noun

–verb (used with object) 1. to press, squeeze, or wedge tightly between bodies or surfaces, so that motion or extrication is made difficult or impossible: The ship was jammed between two rocks.
2. to bruise or crush by squeezing: She jammed her hand in the door.
3. to fill too tightly; cram: He jammed the suitcase with clothing.
4. to press, push, or thrust violently, as into a confined space or against some object: She jammed her foot on the brake.
5. to fill or block up by crowding; pack or obstruct: Crowds jammed the doors.
6. to put or place in position with a violent gesture (often fol. by on): He jammed his hat on and stalked out of the room.
7. to make (something) unworkable by causing parts to become stuck, blocked, caught, displaced, etc.: to jam a lock.
8. Radio. a. to interfere with (radio signals or the like) by sending out other signals of approximately the same frequency.
b. (of radio signals or the like) to interfere with (other signals).

9. to play (a piece) in a freely improvised, swinging way; jazz up: to jam both standard tunes and the classics.
10. Nautical. to head (a sailing ship) as nearly as possible into the wind without putting it in stays or putting it wholly aback.

–verb (used without object) 11. to become stuck, wedged, fixed, blocked, etc.: This door jams easily.
12. to press or push, often violently, as into a confined space or against one another: They jammed into the elevator.
13. (of a machine, part, etc.) to become unworkable, as through the wedging or displacement of a part.
14. Jazz. to participate in a jam session.

–noun 15. the act of jamming or the state of being jammed.
16. a mass of objects, vehicles, etc., jammed together or otherwise unable to move except slowly: a log jam; a traffic jam.
17. Informal. a difficult or embarrassing situation; fix: He got himself into a jam with his boss.
18. jam session.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Origin:
1700–10; appar. imit.; cf. champ 1 , dam 1


jam2  /dʒæm/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [jam] Show IPA
–noun 1. a preserve of whole fruit, slightly crushed, boiled with sugar: strawberry jam.

—Idiom2. put on jam, Australian Slang. to adopt a self-important manner or use affected speech.

Bolding by me.

But anyway, it sounds like to me you either ignored it or you just don't really do enough research. [sarcasm]I wonder if you do that with your other definitions and opinions.[/sarcasm]

 

[JFrankA]

Really? Even a psychologically imbalanced person? You are familiar with the concept of diminished responsibility, yes?

Once again, you lack of comprehension skills are appearent. Here is what I said. Again.

Besides, you're cheating. I have said, repeatedly, everyone makes their own choices provided that they aren't under the influence of drugs, or mentally ill.

Now you need to prove to that a pedophile who has never molested a child is mentally ill. In fact, you need to prove that a child molester is mentally ill. By your own belief, porn makes someone with the tendency to molest "lose control" so now you are talking about "temporary insanity", which is NOT mentally ill.

But regardless, the "intent" debate previously came up way before the "choice" debate.

Wrongo. I brought up choice long before you brought up intent. Besides, whichever came first is irrelavant.

A person CHOOSES to do what she/he does. Intent isn't always appearent, in fact, intent could be one thing to one observer and another thing to another observer.

You argued that a definition of VCP is untenable because it relies on proving intention to appeal to prurience. I've pointed out that that's invalid because other aspects of justice rely on proving intent and state of mind, such as murder.

Watch a baseball game in which a batter gets hit by a pitch. Now prove to me that every pitch that hit a batter was done with the intent to hurt the batter. You can guess, but you don't really know.

Now, my question to you, re-phrased, is: If we have workable laws, e.g. homicide, that require deliberation as to intent and state of mind, why should deliberation as to intent preclude VCP laws? In practice, such deliberation is made simply on the basis of the evidence presented.

You are presenting a bad analogy.

A dead person who was shot in his back from a long range is a homicide. The person is dead. No perception neccassary.

A picture of a naked virutal child can be seen as arousing or funny or cute or artistic depending on who is viewing it. That depends on perception.

 

[JFrankA]

I'm sorry JFrankA, I have nothing to prove here. You've made a claim about some allegedly scientific studies, I've asked you to show me the science, you haven't, so I'm going to remain sceptical of the studies. I'd be happy to review the "scientific" aspects if you want to post or specifically link to them. If you don't, or can't, I'm cool with that - BAU.

Oh, and in my response to the above post, I forgot to add this link

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-244X/9/43

When I realized that I didn't, it was too late to edit it.

Again, I apologize for the harsh tone of that post. I'm just really getting tired of all of the dodging and I really shouldn't post while I'm at work.....

 

[Southwind17]

Alright... How's this?
From: http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2008/us-crashcause.pdf (A rather large PDF, just a warning).
For clarity, the "critical reasons" under discussion are the critical reasons for the critical pre-crash event that caused an accident. This report shows that 13.3% of critical reasons were speed related.
In a table above my quote (on page 23) which I am unable to copy/paste, you'll note that more than half (195 out of 388) of the incidents of a person losing control of their vehicle was due to traveling too fast.

Thank you for that. You've now provided something that purports to be what I asked for. I'll study it later.

I'm not willing to pull the thread any further off topic with discussion of speed limits, as it's really only tangentially related to the subject of porn and obscenity laws, and even then, only if you really stretch it. If you'd like to discuss it in depth, please start a thread on the matter.

Noted.

What do public disturbance laws have to do with the right to privacy?

Well, to avoid going down an irrelevant semantics cul-de-sac regarding the meaning of the word "privacy", my point is that the right to free speech in the way of demonstration is limited by other (restrictive) laws. It is this principle that I am drawing to your attention by way of validating the notion that free speech is not, and cannot be, an absolute in the face of other, conflicting rights.

Resist what? No discussion was made by anyone other than yourself about legalizing anthrax. None. Period. What you quoted does not mean what you seem to think it does.

Well let's find out then, shall we? What do you think I think it means?

No, it is off topic. Disagreeing with something is not the same as ignoring it. Again. If you'd like to discuss the topic in depth, you're more than welcome to create another thread.

Well, I really don't know by what rationale you consider that the meaning of the word "harm" is not pertinent to the topic of the question "What's wrong with porn?", but I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this.

The "inference" you're drawing seems to be only obvious to you.

How do you know that? How can you speak for everybody else?

This suggests that your interpretation of what's being typed has nothing to do with it's actual content. Please stick to discussing what I --actually wrote-- and not whatever strawman you can imagine. Thanks.

Clearly, one cannot draw a meaningful conclusion from a flawed premise. But here's what you wrote:

And yes, I truly believe that people should be able to do as they please as long as they don't harm anyone else, or otherwise negatively impact another person's rights. Please note that caveat. I'll even repeat it, and bold it. "As long as they don't harm anyone else, or otherwise negatively impact another person's rights".

So you agree, then, that persistent demonstrating noisily outside private premises should be illegal? And you agree, then, with obscenity laws because they cause harm:
harm
–noun
1. physical injury or mental damage; hurt: to do him bodily harm.
2. moral injury; evil; wrong.
[dictionary.com]

And you agree, then, that if, repeat if, it were to be shown conclusively that VCP causes harm you would agree with banning it? And you consider, then, that if, repeat if, it were to be shown that porn, generally, can, in some cases, cause mental damage (which I suggest includes adverse emotional and psychological effects, but feel free to differ!)), it should be banned, or otherwise restricted somehow? Or, are you going to elect, at this point in the debate, I wonder, not to engage further in hypotheticals because that would afford you a seeming safety net?!

I don't think the word "unchallenged" means what you think it means.

Well let's find out then, shall we? What do you think I think it means?

I am responsible for my claims, and you are responsible for yours. You made the claim that "all laws do is remove rights". You're responsible for demonstrating that that is actually the case.

I honestly don't know what you mean by "responsible" in this context. I'm free to claim whatever I wish, and so are you. You're free to challenge my claims, and I yours. Neither of us, however, is "responsible" for demonstrating anything. If you doubt or contest my claims, or I yours, we are each free to seek to justify such doubt or contention independently. If either of us can show that the other's claims are false then it's case closed. The "burden" of showing whether a claim is true or false rests entirely with the person seeking proof. If somebody makes a falsifiable claim but is not prepared to prove the claim to be true then they will suffer the consequences, whatever they may be. But having made a claim no person is under any duty whatsoever to proceed further, if they so wish. I guess you could call it "freedom of speech"!

I, on the other hand, claimed nothing of the sort. I merely pointed out that you are obviously ignorant on the subject. Your own statement cited as my evidence. Do you dispute that evidence? Can you "debunk" it?

I would contest that you pointed nothing out, but merely "claimed" my "obvious" ignorance, which, of course, per above, you're free to do. But we both know, per above, the invalidity of the word "obvious", particularly in the context of a person's state of mind. I would suggest that "apparent" is a more appropriate word to use, although I would still disagree with your claim, not that I could be bothered disproving it just for your benefit when I already know the truth, which is all that matters to me.

Wrong. Civil unions have never had the same rights as marriages have (and i'm talking about the actual contracts and their enforcements, not about anything else that you may be inferring here -- erroneously inferring, by the way, as civil unions in this state apply to more than just homosexual relationships). Therefore, no rights were "given back" as to "give back" rights, those rights must have been had previously, and this is not the case here. You may wish to do some research the next time.

OK, I'll try to explain more where I'm coming from with this "laws" and "rights" issue. There was a time (ah ... GNR ... top band!) when humans were essentially no different from any other animal when it came to right, wrong, morals, ethics, survival, etc. The concept of "rights" and "laws" didn't exist. In other words, every human was absolutely free to do whatever it wished, when it wished, how it wished, to whomsoever it wished, etc. (subject to physical constraints, of course). There was no governance. Indeed, most animals continue to enjoy this absolute privilege, subject, of course, to any environmental restrictions that man may have imposed on them.

Now, as the human intellect emerged those in a position of "power" (for whatever reason) began to impose their will upon others, for both good and evil, and those affected began to lose their absolute freedom, for better or for worse. This has culminated in societal living, where such impositions have been enacted in "law". In most western societies the overall effect is for the better, as most inhabitants are prepared to forego some freedom in exchange for the benefits that societal living affords. Clearly, life expectency has increased, so there's an obvious evolutionary pressure in that direction. In some other societies the overall effect, arguably, is for the worse.

Regardless of which society one inhabits, it has evolved from an environment of absolute freedom to one of restricted freedom. Man has imposed these restrictions on himself, and those freedoms that we are left with we call "rights", and they are protected and enforced by what we call "law".

Now, some rights derive from whatever societal "code" one is governed by. Take marriage, and by extension, polygomy, for example. The right to marry could be considered a "secondary" right, in the sense that whilst primitive humans, within their absolute freedom, were, in theory, free to marry, the notion of marriage only emerged later, and when it did, the governance that controlled it was already in place. Exactly the same principle applies to polygomy, and indeed, more recently, civil unions. Civil unions, like marriage, were freely available to primitive man, had they had both the intellect and inclination to realize them.

So, as I wrote before, rights have emerged over the passage of time as a set of rules capturing those residual things that one may do or not do from the open-ended "right" to absolute freedom that once existed. And laws essentially form the "rule book". The fact that "secondary" rights (like civil union) might, on the face of it, appear to be "introduced", thereby giving the illusion of increased freedom, does not detract from the fact that the reality of the situation is simply that they are being "re-introduced" to close the gap between what we were once free to do and what we may do today.

Where did I dispute your behavior? I think you're confused about what you're replying to, as I've disputed nothing in the conversation you've been having with quadraginta.

My reference to "above" meant "above in this post", in my quote starting "Er ... you've disputed it.", which you have commented on, and I've responded to herein.

 

[AWPrime]

OK, I'll try to explain more where I'm coming from with this "laws" and "rights" issue. There was a time (ah ... GNR ... top band!) when humans were essentially no different from any other animal when it came to right, wrong, morals, ethics, survival, etc. The concept of "rights" and "laws" didn't exist. In other words, every human was absolutely free to do whatever it wished, when it wished, how it wished, to whomsoever it wished, etc. (subject to physical constraints, of course). There was no governance. Indeed, most animals continue to enjoy this absolute privilege, subject, of course, to any environmental restrictions that man may have imposed on them.

SW, this is highly flawed, humanity is a social species by default. Maybe there was some humanoid being that didn't have to confirm to a group (absolute freedom), but it wasn't human.

In the past the most primitive societies were controlled by rulers with absolute power, thus there was no absolute freedom.

 

[amb]

We still don't have absolute freedom. We have to obey many different laws otherwise we could end up in jail. Some laws are meant to protect minors which is absolutely necessary to stop children from the clutches of pedophiles and other harm from adults who should know better. The laws governing porn should only apply in the case of child pornography, bestiality and such. But what adults do in the privacy of their own homes is nobodies business.

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

OK, I'll try to explain more where I'm coming from with this "laws" and "rights" issue. There was a time (ah ... GNR ... top band!) when humans were essentially no different from any other animal when it came to right, wrong, morals, ethics, survival, etc. The concept of "rights" and "laws" didn't exist. In other words, every human was absolutely free to do whatever it wished, when it wished, how it wished, to whomsoever it wished, etc. (subject to physical constraints, of course). There was no governance. Indeed, most animals continue to enjoy this absolute privilege, subject, of course, to any environmental restrictions that man may have imposed on them.

Now, as the human intellect emerged those in a position of "power" (for whatever reason) began to impose their will upon others, for both good and evil, and those affected began to lose their absolute freedom, for better or for worse. This has culminated in societal living, where such impositions have been enacted in "law".

<snip>

This is tripe. Pure, unadulterated, fantasy inspired tripe.

Societal pressures are readily apparent in species and evolutionary progressions that have nothing to do whatsoever with humans, or governance, or "human intellect". Nor was there any point at which humans, in their evolution as hominids, were "absolutely free" of social pressures. The concept of "rights" and "laws" may not have existed, but the functionality certainly did, just as it does with the social structures of ants, bees, and prairie dogs. Codification, expression, and development of those may have been expressed through "intellect", but they were there to start with.

Your basic premise is tripe. By extension everything you deduce from it is tripe as well.

Try again.

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

In most western societies the overall effect is for the better, as most inhabitants are prepared to forego some freedom in exchange for the benefits that societal living affords. Clearly, life expectency has increased, so there's an obvious evolutionary pressure in that direction. In some other societies the overall effect, arguably, is for the worse.

<snip>

There is no obvious evolutionary advantage to increased "life expectency" [sic]. Once an organism has reproduced and the offspring can survive to reproduce without further aid everything else may well be gravy. At this juncture there is no clear evidence that generally increased life spans are an a priori benefit to the species overall. Some elements could even be detrimental.

Try again.

 

[Southwind17]

I'll withdraw the accusation in the interest of moving forward.

Fine, acknowledging that I maintain the accusation is false, and that "moving forward" does not involve assuming the accusation to be true, of course.

You have the extreme example.

1. Video proving guilt of child molestation.
2. The video demonstrates that there has been a lot of activity.
3. It's believed that it is likely there will be future harm to children.

Now, if it is illegally obtained you would still exclude the video, right?

1. Blood, hair and other forensic evidence including DNA illegally obtained from a crime scene (the defendants home).
2. The crime scene matches the MO of a serial killer.

Would you exclude the evidence?

Let's recap, to be clear:

If the only evidence that the police have to convict a child molester was an illegally seized tape of a video of the molester engaging in illegal acts with children would you throw it out or would his rights be more less important than stooping him from further harming children? As I remember you said the video should be thrown out. Right?

I'm not sure you were so specific before about what was recorded on the video tape, were you?

Yes. So you would throw out due process in this one instance?

I don't think you were!

Let's assume for arguments sake that I wasn't.
Would you throw out due process in this one instance?

If the evidence is proof, by which I mean the reliability of the evidence itself is as unquestionable as what it purports to inherently prove, I would allow it. By definition, if proof is precluded because the evidence is not unquestionably reliable by virtue of it's illegal acquisition then there can be only one logical answer.

I don't think (and didn't at the time) that you quite grasped the implications and subtleties of my last reponse above. I'll try to clarify:

1. I do not condone the illegal obtaining of evidence by the police.
2. Notwithstanding 1., if evidence is, however, illegally obtained by the police which:
   • the police can prove beyond reasonable doubt has not been invalidated by virtue of its illegal acquisition, and
   • proves beyond reasonable doubt who the perpetrator of a crime is, and
   • the admission of which is necessary, maybe only likely, to prevent such perpetrator further harming children,
   then I would allow it.
3. I would support any and all reasonable action necessary to reduce and eliminate the repeated illegal obtaining of evidence by police that fails to satisfy the criteria set out in 2.

I consider that my last response quoted above fits into this regime. It was certainly meant to.

Now, coming back to your scenario above, it's difficult to say for sure, because of imprecise wording, but it seems that the video scenario satisfies all of the requirements of this regime (by "proof" I am assuming that bullet 2 of Point 2 has been satisfied (in addition to bullet 1, of course)), in which case I would allow it. The biological evidence scenario, however, does not satifsy all of the requirements of this regime, based solely on what you've written. There is absolutely no proof as to whom the perpetrator of the actual and expected crime(s) is, for starters.

However, as much as I occasionally enjoy pondering moral dilemmas I really can't see where you're heading with this particular attempt. I think I know what you're trying to show, though.

 

[Southwind17]

SW, this is highly flawed, humanity is a social species by default. Maybe there was some humanoid being that didn't have to confirm to a group (absolute freedom), but it wasn't human.
In the past the most primitive societies were controlled by rulers with absolute power, thus there was no absolute freedom.

I don't think you're going back in time quite far enough!

 

[Southwind17]

This is tripe. Pure, unadulterated, fantasy inspired tripe.
Societal pressures are readily apparent in species and evolutionary progressions that have nothing to do whatsoever with humans, or governance, or "human intellect". Nor was there any point at which humans, in their evolution as hominids, were "absolutely free" of social pressures. The concept of "rights" and "laws" may not have existed, but the functionality certainly did, just as it does with the social structures of ants, bees, and prairie dogs. Codification, expression, and development of those may have been expressed through "intellect", but they were there to start with.
Your basic premise is tripe. By extension everything you deduce from it is tripe as well.
Try again.

Show me the "Bill of Rights" dated around 4 billion B.C.!