I'm not entirely sure the above is accurate. Do you have a reference to support that?
This is correct though, afaik.
It's not a question of being afraid. You should know better than anybody I have no qualms about "addressing" anything that anybody's prepared to cast my way (unless it becomes juvenile, repetitive and/or nonsensical (and even then I'm often prepared to indulge, to a degree)). There is simply no realistic basis for ZB's assertions - not even one of "reasonable supposition" - at least not so far as what's been posted here goes.
Off-topic semantics.
Thanks
I meant generally!
Have you even posited any reasonable suppositions?
I think it should, so long as the reasoning is sound, particularly when it comes to child abuse.
What other significant(!) category of society do you suppose a VCP ban should be lifted for the "benefit" of?
I can see why somebody who, for whatever reason, is incapable of interpolation, might draw this conclusion.
No problem, I had a feeling it was just a typo anyway
Technically, you're correct. My fault for using the term "ban" loosely. I should have said the "illegality", instead of ban -- meaning that VCP, when it is found to be illegal, is found to be illegal under obscenity laws and not sex crime laws.
The term "drama queen" comes to mind.
I believe it's simply because sugarb's reason for supporting the banning of both is the same for each, therefore she doesn't need to differentiate, even if the law currently does. Your reason for only supporting the banning of "real" child porn, I believe, is because it harms actual children, whereas VCP is "harmless". I really can't understand why you're struggling to see this most plain of different stances (actually, I can, but let's not go there).
Maybe not, but you might see it differently from before (if you were to re-read open-mindedly, and objectively, of course), and you might be a whole lot wiser and enriched by now (money isn't everything, you know!).
Curiouser and curiouser. The comment was made by you. I simply pointed out that it was wrong.
Not to you, but to others it does, who are looking at it in a different context. Wouldn't it be just so neat if such a simple throw-away one-liner were to serve to show that this entire thread has been futile. Unfortunately, however, it isn't.
Not necessarily true - evidently. Would you argue the same about attempted murder?
Now this I agree with. Those reasons, however, lead me to the same conclusion, namely that all child porn should be banned. And I'm with sugarb on this - not only should VCP be banned because of the reasonable supposition that it promotes child abuse, but that there's simply no justification in society for the publication of child porn per se. You might argue there's justification for not banning it, on freedom of speech grounds, and I can appreciate that (notwithstanding the camel's nose), and that would need to be reconciled, but I repeat, there's simply no justification in society for the publication of child porn per se.
Reasonable supposition, my friend. But yes, absolutely I would wholly support the publication of VCP if it were "discovered" (even by reasonable supposition (of course, adequately countering the current reasonable supposition to the contrary)) tomorrow that it actually reduces child abuse in net terms, and that the publication and availability was regulated to the extent necessary to ensure such net reduction. Yes I would.
Claims the person who just wrote this:
Again, claims the person who just wrote this:
Clutching at straws. I don't believe SkeptiChick has done any such "running to the teacher" (she might have, but I don't recall seeing anything to even suggest so). Sugarb was simply setting out her own personal stance with no comparison intended. I think you're seeing only what you want to see for the sake of provocation.
That's simply a reason, not reasoning. There's a fundamental difference.
Academic to the debate.
What, exactly, are you claiming I "changed" in what he wrote?
I made a relevant (and hence on-topic) comparison. You, however, homed in on a technicality that in no way served to invalidate the comparison, but which would have served to take the discussion off topic, had I allowed that. Funnily, I don't find that curious at all! You'd might as well have "pointed out" that I'd made a simple typo. That would have been equally "on-topic" as what you did post!
What part of "not only" don't you understand? Very interesting.
That doesn't of itself preclude the validity of the concept of "absolute freedom" as a starting point, though, for appreciating where we are right now.
No they're not. Show them to me, in the genes.
Try living in society without money for a year, then come back and tell me your view.
Again, academic to what I'm arguing. Forget I even used the word, if you like, it makes no difference.
Laws do, essentially, only address prohibitions, either directly or by inferred exclusion. They tend to set out what is illegal, not what is legal. Otherwise, they tend to dictate what one shall do in certain circumstances, not what one may do. In other words, they govern how one may and may not behave in society, thereby restricting one's freedom to otherwise behave exactly how one wishes.
You're incorrectly translating "earning" into a restriction on freedom. You're still maintaining that if something is not freely (at no cost) available than no right to it exists. As I wrote, everything has an opportunity cost, even breathing air, which uses energy thereby requiring food. By your reckoning we have absolutely no freedom! Show me what restrictions are placed on the predator and the prey, other than physiological and environmental (opportunity costs).
Irrelevant to the discussion. Is the savanna not a "hell hole", if you're a wildebeast with a pride of lions chewing on your intestines while you look on because they have every "right" to?!
Oh, here we go, a "true" right. I enjoy pointing out this particular fallacy, ever since I committed it and had it drawn to my attention.
This is a repeat of my opinion?:
