• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Moderated What's wrong with porn?

Southwind17 said:
View Post
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.
Click to expand...
I don't think you're going back in time quite far enough!
Click to expand...
If the beginning of the human species isn't far back enough, then your argument has no meaning for this discussion.
 
Southwind17 said:
Off-topic, per se.
Click to expand...


I'll have to cede to your judgment regarding this, since you brought it up. It appeared to be a point you were trying to make in support of your statement.

If you are asserting that you are bringing up irrelevant, off-topic claims to support your statements I will be the last person to question your authority in that regard.
 
Southwind17 said:
<snip>

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 1 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.
Click to expand...


Illegally obtained evidence is invalid because it is illegally obtained. Circumstances where the status of evidence is in question are resolved by determining the merit of that question. If challenged evidence is found to be in compliance then it is not "illegally obtained".

Please provide some examples of how evidence "illegally obtained by the police" is not " invalidated by virtue of its illegal acquisition"

**************

" Point 1" has neither a "bullet 2", nor a "bullet 1".

Sometimes you even confuse yourself.

Why do you feel compelled to elaborate your arguments to the point of confusing even yourself. Are you trying to obfuscate?

You said, "I do not condone the illegal obtaining of evidence by the police."

What's wrong with stopping there?
 
As a woman, I'm offended by the misogynistic attributes of pornography, which is degrading to women. I think pornography dehumanizes both men and women and desensitizes both to love.
 
quadraginta said:
I'll have to cede to your judgment regarding this, since you brought it up. It appeared to be a point you were trying to make in support of your statement.
Click to expand...
It was incidental and, admittedly, superfluous, albeit inadvertent.

[off topic]
Oh, BTW:

  1. Why do most animals have multiple mating seasons throughout adulthood?
  2. Why do animals remain fertile for most of their adult life?
  3. Why were most families as recently as the 1900s large?
[/on topic]
 
Southwind17 said:
So you can't show it me then. In other words, there was a time when freedom was absolute and even the notion of "rights" didn't exist, until man came along and restricted and created it, respectively.
Click to expand...

Repeating your failed statements does not improve their veracity.

You alleged "a time when freedom was absolute". I demonstrated that was mistaken. You alleged that the "notion of "rights" didn't exist, until man came along and restricted and created it". I demonstrated that was a misstatement.

Bees allow each other a "right" to enter their hive. They do not grant that "right" to wasps. Do you suggest that the bees have "notion" of "rights" which they "restricted and created"? Are you suggesting that they are not social?

You have an endearingly romantic notion of social evolution, but it is remarkably distant from anything resembling reality.
 
Southwind17 said:
It was incidental and, admittedly, superfluous, albeit inadvertent.

[off topic]
Oh, BTW:

  1. Why do most animals have multiple mating seasons throughout adulthood?
  2. Why do animals remain fertile for most of their adult life?
  3. Why were most families as recently as the 1900s large?
[/on topic]
Click to expand...


[offtopic]

What is the relationship between birthrates per family, or per capita and modern extended lifespans in most western societies as compared to past shorter life expectancy?

What are the comparisons between available birth control techniques "as recently as the 1900s" and most western societies now?

Even when you're off topic you can't make a cogent point.

[/offtopic]
 
quadraginta said:
You alleged "a time when freedom was absolute". I demonstrated that was mistaken. You alleged that the "notion of "rights" didn't exist, until man came along and restricted and created it". I demonstrated that was a misstatement.
Click to expand...
"Demonstrated" in the protestation sense, I agree, but no other.

quadraginta said:
Bees allow each other a "right" to enter their hive. They do not grant that "right" to wasps. Do you suggest that the bees have "notion" of "rights" which they "restricted and created"? Are you suggesting that they are not social?
Click to expand...
See, you're falling into the trap again. Bees don't grant rights at all, they simply restrict the freedom of wasps. But do they even do that? Wasps are free to enter bees' hives - they just pay a hefty price if they do! It's all very simple, if you stop to think about it.
 
quadraginta said:
[offtopic]
What is the relationship between birthrates per family, or per capita and modern extended lifespans in most western societies as compared to past shorter life expectancy?
What are the comparisons between available birth control techniques "as recently as the 1900s" and most western societies now?
Even when you're off topic you can't make a cogent point.
[/offtopic]
Click to expand...
You overlooked some things:
Southwind17 said:
[off topic]
Oh, BTW:

  1. Why do most animals have multiple mating seasons throughout adulthood?
  2. Why do animals remain fertile for most of their adult life?
  3. Why were most families as recently as the 1900s large?
[/on topic]
Click to expand...
 
quadraginta said:
Beats the heck out of me. I'm not addressing RandFan or responding to a statement of his.
You made a statement. I responded to you.
Why are you changing the subject?
Click to expand...
RandFan asked a question. I responded to him You're indirectly disputing the validity of his question. I suggest we allow RandFan to clarify.
 
Southwind17 said:
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.
Click to expand...
You really don't get this concept do you. Of course demonstration is limited. It is limited in that it is not allowed to harm or otherwise infringe upon anyone else's rights. This is entirely in line with my statements of "do what you will, as long as you do not harm or otherwise negatively impact anyone else's rights". Entirely. So I fail to see what your point is.

Well let's find out then, shall we? What do you think I think it means?
Click to expand...
I'm getting really tired of your attempts to force the discussion into a debate over semantics just so you can try and dodge having to admit that you were wrong about something.

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.
Click to expand...
I find the discussion of gun control not pertinent to the topic of pornography.

How do you know that? How can you speak for everybody else?
Click to expand...
It's fairly simple to find out from reading other people's responses to you.

Clearly, one cannot draw a meaningful conclusion from a flawed premise.
Click to expand...
Please prove that my premise is flawed.

But here's what you wrote:

So you agree, then, that persistent demonstrating noisily outside private premises should be illegal?
Click to expand...
That is a rather vague question. In some cases, I would agree. In others, not so much. It would depend upon the circumstances and context of "demonstrating", "noisily", and "private premises".

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]
Click to expand...
No. I do not see that obscenities cause harm. Your definition of "mental damage" is quite broad. By your seeming definition: If an obscenity should be illegal because it causes "harm", then turning a man down for a date should be illegal too because it causes "harm" to his ego.

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?!
Click to expand...
IF you could show conclusively that VCP causes real and demonstrable harm, then yes, I would agree with the banning, or at least the regulation thereof.

However, I do not agree with your definition of harm, as you have extrapolated "mental damage" to include mere emotional paper cuts. It is too broad. Using your definition (as I noted above) many things that are necessary in life would have to be made illegal as they would cause "harm". Firing someone from a job, turning down someone for a date, disciplining a child (even verbally)... These and more would all immediately become illegal.

The sorts of harm involved must be non-trivial. They must be undue.

And for the record, pornography (in general) is already restricted. I have no problem with those restrictions as they currently stand (that persons under the age of 18 are not allowed to purchase it). IF you could prove conclusively, however, that pornography, by virtue of it's nature alone, caused harm (undue and non-trivial harm), I would accede to more rigorous regulation and/or banning.

Many MANY studies have been done on pornography though, and none have been able to prove such a thing, despite being hell bent on doing so.

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"!
Click to expand...
This is entirely and completely wrong. The burden of proof lie entirely with the person making the claim. That you don't know this says much about your understanding both of the scientific field, and the legal one as well.

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.
Click to expand...
Can you dispute the evidence that I provided (the statement of yours that I quoted)? If not, you have no leg to stand on.

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.
Click to expand...
As others have already said, your theories here are entirely flawed. It's complete and utter nonsense, and your attempt to use it to support your original statement of "all laws do is remove rights" is laughable.

I fully consider my assertion of your ignorance about law upheld and conclusively proven based upon what you have written above. Thank you very much for doing the work for me.

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.
Click to expand...
See... If you're responding to a quote, and you take it out of the context in which it was made, then apply it to a context that it was never intended to apply to, you end up with nonsense. Which is what you've just posted. If you are going to quote me, and reply to that quote, at least have the common decency to reply to that quote in it's original context. Doing otherwise is disingenuous, and quite rude.
 
Lissa said:
As a woman, I'm offended by the misogynistic attributes of pornography, which is degrading to women. I think pornography dehumanizes both men and women and desensitizes both to love.
Click to expand...
As a woman, I'm offended by people making hasty generalizations and people who play the gender card as if it's supposed to lend credence to their logically flawed statements.

Please provide evidence to support your claims that:

1) pornography is misogynistic.
2) pornography degrades women.
3) pornography dehumanizes both men and women.
4) pornography desensitizes both men and women to love.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom