Pornography - are you for or against it and why?

[tackattack]

Much clearer and I appreciate the bluntness. There's a difference between convicting someone of their thought and justifiably not condoning thought. Some could say the entire purpose of the legal system is to delineate what society feels is socially acceptable and what's not. It establishes a forced minimum standard for social morality by deciding what's right and wrong, legal and illegal.

1-Society feels it is morally wrong for people to abuse kids and for people to watch kids being abused. I agree with that moral personally, so I don't think the law is wrong.
2-Some Porn imitates kids being abused. That porn is legal, and the parties are consensual and verified.
3-They are still by moral social standards sub par whether legal by the letter or not.
4-If they ever want to get themselves out of the "gutters of society" and have the connotation of something bad associated with them, they should stop catering to the illegal acts in a legal way.
5-legally there is nothing to do because we do have the letter of the law, and can't prosecute based off of intent. I don't have to personally accept it, or publicly/ socially condone it. I can justifiably condemn it publicly because it is intentionally circumventing the letter of the law and running all over the intent of that law, hence my reason for the follow up discussion.

I appreciate yours and Sae's help in solidifying those thoughts into something a little more concrete then [Mr.garrison]"Porn is bad... mmmmkay [/Mr.garrison]

[Ashendant]

5-legally there is nothing to do because we do have the letter of the law, and can't prosecute based off of intent. I don't have to personally accept it, or publicly/ socially condone it. I can justifiably condemn it publicly because it is intentionally circumventing the letter of the law and running all over the intent of that law, hence my reason for the follow up discussion.

Not it's not, it's neither circumventing the letter or the spirit of the law, that law is made to protect the children and teenagers, for example if a 22 years old made to look like a 16 years old started a porn where he was raped, neither the spirit or the letter of the law was circumvented because no children or teenagers were needed to be protected.

[tackattack]

Ashendant, the only reason for child pornography (not the act but the image of) to be is illegal, after the act has already been committed can be one or more of very few things.
1-To prevent people from seeing said images
2-Do protect the identity of the victims
3-Because society deems the act heinous enough not to have it circulating legally
If it's all #2 then you're absolutely right no intent has been broken. If it however is any of 1 or 3 (I find 1 very likely) then faking the incidents is in direct opposition to that. If you can't see something that simply opposite, then perhaps you have a bias. Perhaps I am too.

Is that a logically sound conclusion anyone:

1-At least one intent for making child pornography illegal is to prevent it from being seen
2-Some legal pornography intentionally makes their actresses seem to be below the age of consent (google jailbait if you doubt this)
3-Filming people below the age of consent is illegal and is child pornography
4-Some of the legal porn industry is in direct opposition to the intent of child pornography laws.

[Ashendant]

Ashendant, the only reason for child pornography (not the act but the image of) to be is illegal, after the act has already been committed can be one or more of very few things.
1-To prevent people from seeing said images
2-Do protect the identity of the victims
3-Because society deems the act heinous enough not to have it circulating legally
If it's all #2 then you're absolutely right no intent has been broken. If it however is any of 1 or 3 (I find 1 very likely) then faking the incidents is in direct opposition to that. If you can't see something that simply opposite, then perhaps you have a bias. Perhaps I am too.

Is that a logically sound conclusion anyone:

1-At least one intent for making child pornography illegal is to prevent it from being seen
2-Some legal pornography intentionally makes their actresses seem to be below the age of consent (google jailbait if you doubt this)
3-Filming people below the age of consent is illegal and is child pornography
4-Some of the legal porn industry is in direct opposition to the intent of child pornography laws.

Because it was filmed illegally duh...

[reverendjeremiah]

Intent.

Intent is always important, and it is the key to this discussion right now. Do we imprison people just on intent? We have to have evidences that a crime has happened. The biggest thing I know that intent can do in court is if you can prove a conscious intent to murder someone. We would have to see evidence of planning, practicing, covering his traces, etc. That is when intent will make the crime look even worse, and then you can bump up the penaltie for it. I LIKE that system. But intent alone proves nothing.

Its just like the florida preacher. That man did nothing illegal. I know his intent was NOT benevolent. That pisses me off. I cant find the man guilty of anything other than a thought crime. I oppose people being arrested and penalized for thought crime.

I'm not sure if I can get anymore blunt and clearer. Actually, it was rather nice for me to solidify some of my thoughts this way. I agree Tack. This is a good discussion.

[tackattack]

@Ash - I'm not quite sure how that response fits in. Does faking illegal acts in porn break the intent of child pornography laws?

@RevJ- Intent is importnat and it is what this is about. The isn't about intent of a person though. It's the intent of the law. It's also different than the FL preacher because what he did was legal and society thought it was generally morally wrong but legally permissable. This convo is about pretending to do something illegal, which general society finds morally wrong however legally permissable if faked. I'm not saying punish people for their thoughts or intent, even though I'd like to (that's another topic), It's about faking illegal acts in porn still violating the reason for the law in the first place.

For instance I wrote a silly law that said something along the lines of:

"It is illegal to film people eating hot dogs because of the phallic shape"
You then film yourself sucking on a sausage. It didn't break the law as a sausage isn't a hot dog, but it did break the intent.
I then would have to reword my law like so
"It is illegal to film people eating anything hot dog shaped"

That's how I see the failure of the child protection laws at this point.

[Ashendant]

@Ash - I'm not quite sure how that response fits in. Does faking illegal acts in porn break the intent of child pornography laws?

@RevJ- Intent is importnat and it is what this is about. The isn't about intent of a person though. It's the intent of the law. It's also different than the FL preacher because what he did was legal and society thought it was generally morally wrong but legally permissable. This convo is about pretending to do something illegal, which general society finds morally wrong however legally permissable if faked. I'm not saying punish people for their thoughts or intent, even though I'd like to (that's another topic), It's about faking illegal acts in porn still violating the reason for the law in the first place.

For instance I wrote a silly law that said something along the lines of:

"It is illegal to film people eating hot dogs because of the phallic shape"
You then film yourself sucking on a sausage. It didn't break the law as a sausage isn't a hot dog, but it did break the intent.
I then would have to reword my law like so
"It is illegal to film people eating anything hot dog shaped"

That's how I see the failure of the child protection laws at this point.

Hum no, the intent of the law is to protect children and teenagers, otherwise we would illegallise faked rape porn too.

[Violet]

Spam spam spam spam... oh look, i sandwiched spam. I wonder if that makes me a spamsandwicheir or a spamsandwichor

---

Strangest thing is that in Oz you can't walk into the local video shop and hire porn movies.

But you CAN hire as many gory slasher movies as you want, showing all sorts of torture, intestines and suffering... and brutal ghastly deaths.

Hmmmmm.....

---

In the Name of Allâh, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful
1. I swear by the Day of Resurrection 2. And I swear by the self-reproaching person (a believer) 3. Does man (a disbeliever) think

that We shall not assemble his bones? 4. Yes, We are Able to put together in perfect order the tips of his fingers 5. Nay! (Man denies

Resurrection and Reckoning. So) he desires to continue committing sins 6. He asks: "When will be this Day of Resurrection?" 7.

So, when the sight shall be dazed 8. And the moon will be eclipsed 9. And the sun and moon will be joined together (by going one

into the other or folded up or deprived of their light, etc.) 10. On that Day man will say: "Where (is the refuge) to flee?"11. No! There

is no refuge!12. Unto your Lord (Alone) will be the place of rest that Day 13. On that Day man will be informed of what he sent

forward (of his evil or good deeds), and what he left behind (of his good or evil traditions) 14. Nay! Man will be a witness against

himself [as his body parts (skin, hands, legs, etc.) will speak about his deeds]15. Though he may put forth his excuses (to cover his

evil deeds) 16. Move not your tongue concerning (the Qur'an, O Muhammad ) to make haste therewith 17. It is for Us to collect it and

to give you (O Muhammad ) the ability to recite it (the Qur'an)18. And when We have recited it to you [O Muhammad through Jibrael

(Gabriel)], then follow you its (the Qur'an's) recital 19. Then it is for Us (Allah) to make it clear to you20. Not [as you think, that you

(mankind) will not be resurrected and recompensed for your deeds], but (you men) love the present life of this world 21. And leave

(neglect) the Hereafter 22. Some faces that Day shall be Nadirah (shining and radiant) 23. Looking at their Lord (Allah) 24. And some

faces, that Day, will be Basirah (dark, gloomy, frowning, and sad) 25. Thinking that some calamity was about to fall on them 26. Nay,

when (the soul) reaches to the collar bone (i.e. up to the throat in its exit) 27. And it will be said: "Who can cure him and save him

from death?" 28. And he (the dying person) will conclude that it was (the time) of departing (death) 29. And leg will be joined with

another leg (shrouded) 30. The drive will be, on that Day, to your Lord (Allah)!31. So he (the disbeliever) neither believed (in this

Qur'an, in the Message of Muhammad ) nor prayed!32. But on the contrary, he belied (this Qur'an and the Message of Muhammad )

and turned away! 33. Then he walked in full pride to his family admiring himself!34. Woe to you [O man (disbeliever)]! And then

(again) woe to you! 35. Again, woe to you [O man (disbeliever)]! And then (again) woe to you! 36. Does man think that he will be left

Suda [neglected without being punished or rewarded for the obligatory duties enjoined by his Lord (Allah) on him]?37. Was he not

a Nutfah (mixed male and female discharge of semen) poured forth?38. Then he became an 'Alaqa (a clot); then (Allah) shaped and

fashioned (him) in due proportion39. And made him in two sexes, male and female40. Is not He (Allah Who does that), Able to give

life to the dead? (Yes! He is Able to do all things).

---

I love how spammer-trolls don't post relevant rants when they quote somebody. I mean, it's totally fascinating. How do they work?

.

@intent: the intent of these laws is to deal with less hassle than otherwise.

[tackattack]

@Sae, please don't quote the spam... you could catch a fungus.

@Ash and Sae- Back from the distraction..the intent of the law is not to deal with less hassle, you're going to have to back that claim up with some sound logic before I buy that one.

or to protect the victims.
If the act is already done why would you bother to say it's illegal to show films of it? The victims have already been victimized by that point.That protects no one other than the viewing public. Support it or your point fails Ash.

[Violet]

@Sae, please don't quote the spam... you could catch a fungus.

I see. Then I am a spamsandwichor ^_^

@Ash and Sae- Back from the distraction..the intent of the law is not to deal with less hassle, you're going to have to back that claim up with some sound logic before I buy that one.

Hassle: All of the women in your country are raped, and now you have no idea whose child is whom, the whole 'marriage' setup is drawn into question, women complain to the government every single day about the rapes, many men murder unnecessarily due to the fact that the government won't deal with rape, your society degenerates from being proactive and spendy to being cautious and unwilling to do things 'just because'. Oh, and rapes can sometimes cause other physical injuries, further limiting your populace. To say nothing on the number this does to your immigration and emigration. And you also have to respond to your country about it without causing them to revolt (if they haven't already).

All in all... i'd rather rape be banned than all of that.