Moderated What's wrong with porn?

[Southwind17]

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, it seems that I do get it, as we are, evidently, agreed on this. I just don't think everybody else here is.

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.

My forcing the discussion into semantics?! You imply that my understanding of a particular meaning does not correspond with yours or others', and when I seek clarification you accuse me of semantics. How does that work then?

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

What does gun control have to do with what you're responding to here?!

It's fairly simple to find out from reading other people's responses to you.

I think you'll find that there's a missing link in that logic!

Please prove that my premise is flawed.

Sorry - no proof necessary.

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".

That's a fair response, which sufficiently answers my question.

No. I do not see that obscenities cause harm. Your definition of "mental damage" is quite broad.

It's dictionary.com's definition, actually. I cited it.

By your seeming definition: ...

dictionary.com's, actually.

... 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.

Since when did turning a man down become an obscenity?!

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.

Thank you.

However, I do not agree with your definition of harm, ...

dictionary.com's definition, actually.

... as you have extrapolated "mental damage" to include mere emotional paper cuts. It is too broad.

Isn't a paper cut harm?

Using your definition (as I noted above) ...

dictionary.com's definition, actually (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.

These are all obscenities? Since when?

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

Says who? dictionary.com doesn't seem to agree. "Trivial harm"? That's a new one on me!

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.

I could be mistaken, but I believe the age restriction on porn emanates form a "harm" thing (non-trivial (not sure about "undue" in the context of harm!)).

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.

That's OK - I'm good with porn, generally.

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.

This is neither a scientific nor a legal forum.

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

Are you referring to this statement?:

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.

If so, what "evidence" are you alluding to? If not, which statement are you referring to?

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.

That's the basis of you rebuttal? I'll take that, thank you very much.

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.

I'm sorry - you're going to have to decipher this if you want it to stand as relevant.

 

[Southwind17]

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.

You're "offended"?! That seems like somewhat of an over-reaction to another person's honest and politely expressed general view on pornography!

 

[Southwind17]

Was there porn before mankind?

Relevance?

 

[tesscaline]

What does gun control have to do with what you're responding to here?!

So, you can't even follow your own responses to know that the quote of mine saying something was off topic was in response to your pushing of the subject of gun control?

Sorry - no proof necessary.

You're the one claiming it's flawed.

It's dictionary.com's definition, actually. I cited it.


dictionary.com's, actually.

No. Dictionary.com gave the definition of harm. It did not define "mental damage" -- you did that, and included "emotional damage" in your definition of it.

Since when did turning a man down become an obscenity?!

Reading comprehension... Turning down a man might cause "emotional damage".

dictionary.com's definition, actually.

Again, no. Your definition of mental damage.

Isn't a paper cut harm?

Are paper cuts illegal? Should they be?

dictionary.com's definition, actually (as I noted above)

Again, no.

These are all obscenities? Since when?

Really? Seriously? Are you even reading my posts AT ALL? I never claimed they were obscenities.

I could be mistaken, but I believe the age restriction on porn emanates form a "harm" thing (non-trivial (not sure about "undue" in the context of harm!)).

You could be. I wouldn't know. Are you?

This is neither a scientific nor a legal forum.

From the top of this website: "A place to discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science..."

And even if it wasn't, are you asserting that debates about legal subjects (i.e. porn as related to obscenity law) should be immune to critical thinking concepts and philosophy? Really?

Are you referring to this statement?:

If so, what "evidence" are you alluding to? If not, which statement are you referring to?

No. You can click the arrow button next to my quotes to see what text I was responding to, as that arrow takes you back to the original post, and I always quote what I'm replying to. I am not going to condone, or support, you quoting people without at least having the presence of mind to ensure they're discussing what you think they're discussing.

I'm sorry - you're going to have to decipher this if you want it to stand as relevant.

I really don't care what you think is relevant or not anymore. You refuse to answer simple questions put to you, you make claims and refuse to offer supporting evidence, you invent definitions for words and then pretend that those definitions are in the dictionary, you invent meanings for statements that don't follow from the words that were used, you take quotes out of context, and you misattribute those comments to entirely different situations than they were intended for. This is absolutely pointless. I'll consider replying to you again if you can conclusively demonstrate that you've learned to stop doing all of the above.

 

[AWPrime]

Relevance?

Answer?

 

[JJM 777]

As a woman, I'm offended by the misogynistic attributes of pornography, which is degrading to women.

Most people are offended by miso-something included in any art form. While they enjoy miso-nearly-everything-else in many art forms.

 

[Pedro De Mello]

Porn?

Is that a diminutive for pop-corn?

Sorry. Don't know what you're talking about...

 

[Southwind17]

Answer?

Who was runner up in the 2000 soccer World Cup? Please answer.

 

[Southwind17]

So, you can't even follow your own responses to know that the quote of mine saying something was off topic was in response to your pushing of the subject of gun control?

It has absolutely nothing to do with following responses. I wrote this:

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.

which, regardless of the thread, is a stand-alone statement with no reference to gun laws. You responded thus:

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

to which I responded:

What does gun control have to do with what you're responding to here?!

So, as I say, this particular exchange has absolutely nothing to do with not following responses (except your not following them) and absolutely nothing to do with gun laws.

You're the one claiming it's flawed.

You should know my views on burden of proof in a forum such as this by now.

No. Dictionary.com gave the definition of harm. It did not define "mental damage" -- you did that, and included "emotional damage" in your definition of it.

I think you'll see that I didn't do anything of the sort, if you'd care to read back. I think you'll see that I suggested what "harm" includes, and I think you'll see that I invited you to agree or disagree (you elected to comment, except for now, in an argumentative tone). But regardless, the quote of mine which you posted and responded to contained only the dictionary.com definition of harm. It might not be a bad idea in future when you purport to comment on somebody's post that you actually quote that person's post!

Reading comprehension... Turning down a man might cause "emotional damage".

The issue was obscenity laws - particularly the question of whether obscenity causes harm. Where does dating or courting have any relevance within that?!

Again, no. Your definition of mental damage.

Again, wrong. You only quoted the dictionary.com definition in your response.

Are paper cuts illegal? Should they be?

As a matter of fact, yes they are, if inflicted by one person of legal age upon another person.

Again, no.

Again, wrong.

Really? Seriously? Are you even reading my posts AT ALL? I never claimed they were obscenities.

Again, the issue was obscenity laws - particularly the question of whether obscenity causes harm. Where do your examples have any relevance within that?!

You could be. I wouldn't know. Are you?

Who knows?

From the top of this website: "A place to discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science..."

The operative word being "discuss" (not to mention the part that you conveniently omitted: "in a friendly and lively way". Oh ... and I note, in any event, that we're in the "Social Issues & Current Events" sub-forum with this particular topic, not "Science, ..." (I didn't notice a "legal" sub-forum, incidentally!).

And even if it wasn't, are you asserting that debates about legal subjects (i.e. porn as related to obscenity law) should be immune to critical thinking concepts and philosophy? Really?

Not at all, but any such "friendly and lively debate" is most certainly immune from any burden of proof. Leave that to the scientists and prosecution lawyers, I say, not lay-people.

No. You can click the arrow button next to my quotes to see what text I was responding to, as that arrow takes you back to the original post ...

I'm sorry, what arrows?

... and I always quote what I'm replying to.

See above. It seems you're mistaken.

I am not going to condone, or support, you quoting people without at least having the presence of mind to ensure they're discussing what you think they're discussing.

I really don't care what you think is relevant or not anymore.

Well you sure seem keen to go out of your way to challenge my thoughts. That seems odd.

You refuse to answer simple questions put to you, ...

Simple, relevant questions that I haven't already answered? Please show me where.

... you make claims and refuse to offer supporting evidence, ...

Please show me where I've made a pertinent claim central to this debate that is capable of being supported by evidence and that I've refused to offer such evidence in support thereof.

... you invent definitions for words and then pretend that those definitions are in the dictionary ...

I sometimes suggest meanings of words amongst all reasonably possible meanings for the purpose of unequivocation. I sometimes invite other people's thoughts thereon. Some people choose not to respond and then criticize me for making such suggestions.

... you invent meanings for statements that don't follow from the words that were used ...

I seek to interpret what other people write when what they write is open to interpretation.

... you take quotes out of context, and you misattribute those comments to entirely different situations than they were intended for.

Please show me where.

This is absolutely pointless. I'll consider replying to you again if you can conclusively demonstrate that you've learned to stop doing all of the above.

I guess I won't be hearing from you again then. Ciao

 

[Southwind17]

Most people are offended by miso-something included in any art form. While they enjoy miso-nearly-everything-else in many art forms.

You're claiming pornography is an "art form"?

 

[Southwind17]

Porn?
Is that a diminutive for pop-corn?

It's certainly no substitute! But taken together ...

 

[AWPrime]

About absolute freedom and why SW17 should abandon the flawed concept.

For all social species it doesn't exist, they all have an informal social rules that benefit the species. Sure there would be individuals that would break them (sociopaths), but they are a mentally defective minority. Considering that the humaniod evolutionary line is one of social species, we can only conclude that the concept of absolute freedom is a laughable concept that has nothing to do with humans.

Also when the social rules were formalized into laws of rights and duties by our species, the only thing that really changed is that we could organize ourselves into larger groups lead by rulers instead of family/clan heads. And the first rulers had absolute power over their primitive societies. Its only in far more mature societies that there was room for freedoms.

Do you understand this SW17?

 

[JFrankA]

You're claiming pornography is an "art form"?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/art+form

art form 
–noun
1. the more or less established structure, pattern, or scheme followed in shaping an artistic work: The sonata, the sonnet, and the novel are all art forms.
2. a medium for artistic expression: ballet, sculpture, opera, and other art forms.
3. a medium other than the artistic regarded as having highly developed or systematized rules, procedures, or formulations: international diplomacy regarded as an art form.


art form
n. An activity or a piece of artistic work that can be regarded as a medium of artistic expression.

I'd say it is.

 

[Southwind17]

About absolute freedom and why SW17 should abandon the flawed concept.
For all social species it doesn't exist, they all have an informal social rules that benefit the species. Sure there would be individuals that would break them (sociopaths), but they are a mentally defective minority. Considering that the humaniod evolutionary line is one of social species, we can only conclude that the concept of absolute freedom is a laughable concept that has nothing to do with humans.
Also when the social rules were formalized into laws of rights and duties by our species, the only thing that really changed is that we could organize ourselves into larger groups lead by rulers instead of family/clan heads. And the first rulers had absolute power over their primitive societies. Its only in far more mature societies that there was room for freedoms.
Do you understand this SW17?

I follow what you write. I don't agree that it shows the concept of absolute freedom to be flawed, as your use of the term "social species" essentially begs the question. Also, your use of the word "laughable" indicates bias, which is not a good basis for a purported objective and authoritative statement (you are offering it as authoritative, I take it, and not just opinion?!).

 

[Southwind17]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/art+form
I'd say it is.

I'd say you're clutching at straws, in the extreme.

 

[AWPrime]

I follow what you write. I don't agree that it shows the concept of absolute freedom to be flawed, as your use of the term "social species" essentially begs the question.

We are a social species, this is a fact, your opinion is irrelevant.

So far you have yet to shown anything indicating that your concept has any basis in reality, so please try to present something substantial.

 

[Southwind17]

We are a social species, this is a fact ...

I don't deny that, but we haven't always been, and even though we are, I disagree that socialism infers rights as opposed to restriction of freedom.

... your opinion is irrelevant.

Irrelevant to a "discussion ... in a friendly and lively way"? I beg to differ.

So far you have yet to shown anything indicating that your concept has any basis in reality, so please try to present something substantial.

It follows simple logic applied to a natural process. Your alternative relies on a man-made notion (rights) that clearly didn't exist at some point in the past. If you wish to show my logic false then the burden is on you to show that rights amount to something more than simply acknowledging restrictions on absolute freedom.

 

[tyr_13]

I'm just so glad this thread got to 69 pages. So glad.

Carry on.

 

[Southwind17]

I'm just so glad this thread got to 69 pages. So glad.
Carry on.

We aim to please!

 

[JFrankA]

I'd say you're clutching at straws, in the extreme.

Why? Because I used an actual definition?

What dictionary do you use?

If porn is not an art form then what is it? Can an art from have "intent to arouse"?

Are the works of Andrew Blake artful even though they contain nudity and sexual situations?

Is this porn or art?

(The image below may not be safe for work)
http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00I/00IKPG-32810184.jpg

If it's intent is to arouse then can it be art? If it's intent is not to arouse, but something else, but arouses anyway, is it porn?

How do we know what the artist's intention was? How do you actually know?

I'm not grasping at any straws. I'm challenging you.

Oh, by the way, here's the study http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-244X/9/43 from the article I posted earlier (http://www.physorg.com/news166769376.html).