User Ardinius makes his debut on the Joseph V Stalin Forums by arguing both against pornography and censorship and discussing Child pornography to illustrate his point. He clarifies his position to user's Ironchin and Unit Rico and makes quite an entrance into the community.
Ardinius
I am both
strongly opposed to all forms of internet censorship and the Porn Industry.
The Issue is not 'Porn on the net'. The issues are
1. Internet censorship and all associated consequences, and
2. The Porn Industry and all associated consequences.
Hence, the argument can be generally deduced to two extremities. Either their
exists some content on the internet that is so extreme that it needs to be
censored or that there are some practices in the Porn industry that are so
extreme that they need to be stopped.
To keep this argument simple (And do forgive me for resorting to such an
argument) I will use Child pornography as an example as something we can all
agree is wrong (I hope). Does this warrant legal and state imposed actions to
prevent an industry that profits out of the sexual misappropriation of minors?
It certainly does.
Now, does it also warrant the censorship of all content related to child
pornography on the net?
My argument is as follows - Censorship of such content does little to stop the
perpetrators of the crime. In fact, it does quite the opposite - censorship of
such content serves to hide the perpetrators of the crime. This is
precisely why child-abuse survivor organizations are so strongly opposed to censorship of child-abuse
content on the internet.
On a side note - this is why the argument to be made against organizations like
the MPAA (who use child porn as a reason to censor the net in the fight against
piracy) is that they are supporters of child pornographers - not the
contrary.
Given the above, my stance is that their needs to be serious social policies
and laws that crack down on all forms of Pornography in the Porn Industry that
involve:
A) Violence, exploitation or degradation against women (and men, transgendered
people, animals, dead people etc).
B) Promoting values of misogyny, decadence and immaturity towards sexuality.
C) Taking advantage of people's privacy or their ignorance as to what will be
done with the pornographic material.
D) Taking advantage of the sexuality of consumers of Pornography in the form of
advertising dollars or direct payment.
Further to this, in order for such action to be effective, it is imperative
that the internet is not censored in order to identify the culprits of
the Porn Industry that create such pornography.
Unit Rico
I am both strongly opposed to all
forms of internet censorship and the Porn Industry.
If I'm reading that correctly, it
sounds somewhat...contradictory.
The Issue is not 'Porn on the
net'. The issues are
1. Internet censorship and all associated consequences, and
2. The Porn Industry and all associated consequences.
Hence, the argument can be generally deduced to two extremities. Either their
exists some content on the internet that is so extreme that it needs to be
censored or that there are some practices in the Porn industry that are so
extreme that they need to be stopped.
Meaning that either said
practises that are shown in the content are downright illegal, and should be
punished regardless of whether the material is censored.
To keep this argument simple (And
do forgive me for resorting to such an argument) I will use Child pornography
as an example as something we can all agree is wrong (I hope). Does this
warrant legal and state imposed actions to prevent an industry that profits out
of the sexual misappropriation of minors? It certainly does.
So you want to make an entire
industry illegal because of what is created and spread by sick and lunatic
individuals that aren't affiliated with said industry? I doubt you'll find any
child pornography on professional porn sites or in pornographic magazines.
Now, does it also warrant the
censorship of all content related to child pornography on the net?
After the makers have been dealt
with, yes.
My argument is as follows -
Censorship of such content does little to stop the perpetrators of the crime.
In fact, it does quite the opposite - censorship of such content serves to hide
the perpetrators of the crime. This is precisely why child-abuse survivor
organizations are so strongly opposed to censorship of child-abuse
content on the internet.
Of course, only taking down child
porn without actually trying to find out who made it makes no sense.
On a side note - this is why the
argument to be made against organizations like the MPAA (who use child porn as
a reason to censor the net in the fight against piracy) is that they are supporters
of child pornographers - not the contrary.
I get your point, but I don't
think "supporters" is the word to describe it.
Given the above, my stance is
that their needs to be serious social policies and laws that crack down on all
forms of Pornography in the Porn Industry that involve:
A) Violence, exploitation or degradation against women (and men, transgendered
people, animals, dead people etc).
B) Promoting values of misogyny, decadence and immaturity towards sexuality.
C) Taking advantage of people's privacy or their ignorance as to what will be
done with the pornographic material.
D) Taking advantage of the sexuality of consumers of Pornography in the form of
advertising dollars or direct payment.
So you basically want to ban
fetishism. Good luck with that.
As for the C thing, if people are fucking idiots and don't see the harm in
being taped while having sex, it's their own damn fault.
Further to this, in order for
such action to be effective, it is imperative that the internet is not
censored in order to identify the culprits of the Porn Industry that create
such pornography.
Censoring the internet doesn't
mean you won't be able to find out who was behind the content. That is, if you
do it right.
Ardinius
If I'm reading that correctly, it
sounds somewhat...contradictory.
This is a very interesting
comment - I suppose that it is based on the common maxim 'the internet is for
Pr0n'. This premise (despite how much Porn we all watch) is in fact woefully
untrue - In terms of sheer number of websites, only about 4%
of the
internet consists of Porn websites (That being said, 4% of the internet is
still an enormous amount of porn content). But even if half the internet was
full of porn, I still don't think the maxim would hold true. If the internet
really was full of porn, I wouldn't argue the internet is for porn, I
would argue that people are for porn (which wouldn't be to justify the
practice, but only to state that peoples fascination with porn is only
channeled through the internet, the internet itself is not specifically
designed as a tool of pornography).
Meaning that either said
practises that are shown in the content are downright illegal, and should be
punished regardless of whether the material is censored / Of course, only
taking down child porn without actually trying to find out who made it makes no
sense.
I've just clumped these quotes
into one here, it seems that we generally tend to agree with the premise that
censorship is not synonymous will illegal content. Yet you say:
Censoring the internet doesn't
mean you won't be able to find out who was behind the content. That is, if you
do it right.
Yes, while it is possible to find
the people behind the content in a censored internet environment, it is much harder.
Which is why even child abuse victim organizations oppose the censoring of
child pornography.
After the makers have been dealt
with, yes, the content should be censored. (my bolding)
This is an interesting point. My
position would be that part of dealing with illegal content producers is
removing the content off the internet. This isn't the same as specifically
creating laws that make it illegal to view content - I would argue that
such a law would be direct censorship, which is much more dangerous.
Furthermore, there are some benefits to not removing all the content
pertaining to child porn. The first argument is that pedophiles (both child
porn content creators and non-creators) are much more likely to be caught in a
non-censored web environment.
The second, (and this is rather controversial)is that it is not necessarily
illegal to view or Possess Child pornography. Currently it is illegal to posses
child pornography regardless of intent to distribute in only 58 out of the 94 Interpol member
states - so internationally, it is not clear-cut as it may seem. Further to
this point, having an outlet to explore your fetish for minors may be an important
factor in preventing you from actually perpetrating a crime against a child.
This is a very interesting phenomenon in media - where the incidence of a
behavior decreases in relation to your exposure to it in the media. For
example, sexual abuse of minors in Japan has declined since the 1960s and 70s,
which roughly coincides with the increasing presence of fictional lolicon
(anime depicting pre-pubescents). That all being said, this cathartic
experience of media (the idea that the more you watch, the less likely you are
to actually behave that way) is still debated and it would be worthwhile to
look into it further. At the very least, I think most of us here would agree
that, for example, playing violent video games don't make us more
violent. The amount of time you spend playing GTA isn't proportional to the
amount of crimes you'll commit in your lifetime. Hence, it follows, that having
access to or viewing child pornography isn't more likely to make you commit an
act of pedophilia.
So you want to make an entire
industry illegal because of what is created and spread by sick and lunatic
individuals that aren't affiliated with said industry?
I never stipulated that the whole
industry should be made illegal and I'm disappointed you'd jump to such a
radical conclusion. My position is quite the contrary actually, I think the
Porn Industry is essential in giving people an outlet to explore/vent their
sexuality and can have very strong social benefits. That being said, I am
strongly opposed to its existence in its current form, given the stated
reasons, A, B, C and D and believe social policies and laws should be
implemented to regulate the Industry for the better.
As for the C thing, if people are
fucking idiots and don't see the harm in being taped while having sex, it's
their own damn fault.
Taking advantage of a person's
stupidity and then justifying it by saying it's their fault because they're
stupid is a very poor argument. You could essentially make the same argument
against a rape victim. Analogously, a rapist isn't justified in saying it was
the woman's fault he raped her because she was stupid enough to walk in a dark
alley at night. In the same sense, its not okay for a someone to say it's the
woman's fault she engaged in a sexual act with him on video because she's too
stupid to realize he's going to make money off it on the internet.
So you basically want to ban
fetishism.Good luck with that.
Again my position was to employ
social policies and laws to prevent violence, exploitation and degradation of
those involved in fetishistic porn not ban it. It is in fact a very
egalitarian position as I believe such laws/social policies should be applied
to all participators of Porn (again, whether they're a woman, man, animal, dead
person, transgendered or just someone who is really into their chocolate
pudding).
Iron Chin
This is a very interesting
comment - I suppose that it is based on the common maxim 'the internet is for
Pr0n'. This premise (despite how much Porn we all watch) is in fact woefully
untrue - In terms of sheer number of websites, only about 4%
of the
internet consists of Porn websites (That being said, 4% of the internet is
still an enormous amount of porn content). But even if half the internet was
full of porn, I still don't think the maxim would hold true. If the internet
really was full of porn, I wouldn't argue the internet is for porn, I
would argue that people are for porn (which wouldn't be to justify the
practice, but only to state that peoples fascination with porn is only
channeled through the internet, the internet itself is not specifically
designed as a tool of pornography).
Not what he was getting at, and
irrelevant. What a maverick you are, arguing against the notion that the reason
the internet exists is porn. Wow. You're totally alone there kid, didn't you
know everyone uses the internet for porn and porn alone? Nice straw man. For
future reference, it's much less a maxim than a satirical internet joke.
Going to skip the rest of your post because it's mostly about child porn which
is a separate, though related argument.
I never stipulated that the whole
industry should be made illegal and I'm disappointed you'd jump to such a
radical conclusion.
You
shouldn't be, it was your own fault, you didn't exactly give a clear consistent
view. You started your post with a pretty direct message:
I am both strongly opposed
to all forms of internet censorship and the Porn Industry (my bolding)
- and then went on about child
porn, with little elaboration on your stance until afterwards. Hardly a radical
conclusion. And leave your disappointment for people who care.
Given the above, my stance is
that their needs to be serious social policies and laws that crack down on all
forms of Pornography in the Porn Industry that involve:
A) Violence, exploitation or degradation against women (and men, transgendered
people, animals, dead people etc).
B) Promoting values of misogyny, decadence and immaturity towards sexuality.
C) Taking advantage of people's privacy or their ignorance as to what will be
done with the pornographic material.
D) Taking advantage of the sexuality of consumers of Pornography in the form of
advertising dollars or direct payment.
Further to this, in order for such action to be effective, it is imperative
that the internet is not censored in order to identify the culprits of
the Porn Industry that create such pornography.
My position is quite the contrary
actually, I think the Porn Industry is essential in giving people an outlet to
explore/vent their sexuality and can have very strong social benefits. That
being said, I am strongly opposed to its existence in its current form, given
the stated reasons, A, B, C and D and believe social policies and laws should
be implemented to regulate the Industry for the better. Again my position was
to employ social policies and laws to prevent violence, exploitation and
degradation of those involved in fetishistic porn not ban it. It is in
fact a very egalitarian position as I believe such laws/social policies should
be applied to all participators of Porn (again, whether they're a woman, man,
animal, dead person, transgendered or just someone who is really into their
chocolate pudding).
Good luck figuring out how it will be implemented and maintained. When
you're done playing in your fantasy land, why don't you look for ways to solve
the multitude of problems with your proposals. I'll point out a few.
A) - Firstly, those three terms are going to be tough to define. Then there's
the fact that a whole lot of people like to be degraded, exploited, and
violence in the context of sex/porn, and more who would be willing to watch it.
B) - Again, in many it's not going to be easy to determine if a porno
"promotes values of misogyny/decadence/immaturity". And why are these
so bad? One could argue that lots of much loved, popular and culturally
significant comedy films promote values of misogyny and immaturity, should we
ban those too?
C) - I'm mostly with you here, but tell me how this would be regulated. Lets
say two willing participants make an amateur porno, for themselves. The
relationship goes ugly and one of them posts the video on the internet in
spite, without the other's permission. How would you know?
D) - This seems pretty extreme. "Taking advantage of people" in this
sense is kind of how the world works, especially in a capitalist environment.
Making people pay for the HBO cable channel to watch the TV show "Game of
Thrones" taking advantage of people's desire to be entertained. Charging
money for a textbook is taking advantage of people's desire to learn. Putting a
high price on a luxury food such as caviar or truffles is taking advantage of
people's desire to enjoy good food. See what I'm getting at here? If all people
involved are willing, and it doesn't really hurt anyone, how and why would you
stop people paying for it?
Ardinius
Not what he was getting at, and
irrelevant. What a maverick you are, arguing against the notion that the reason
the internet exists is porn. Wow. You're totally alone there kid, didn't you
know everyone uses the internet for porn and porn alone? Nice straw man. For
future reference, it's much less a maxim than a satirical internet joke.
Well, I was rather fond of idea
that it was an internet maxim - I think regrading it as a mere satirical
internet joke really does it less significance than it deserves, given it's a
phrase of almost 'meme'ical proportions. But undoubtedly it does have a
satirical nature to it and I think that's worth looking into. Generally such
satirical jokes reinforce beliefs that people hold opposite to the meaning of
the joke. So for example, if I were to joke that your last post was very
welcoming and polite and your reaction was to genuinely laugh at its satirical
nature, it would generally serve to reinforce (in a light hearted way) the
belief you have that you don't always behave in a polite and welcoming manner
(Of course it could work differently if you rejected the joke by getting
insulted - but such an analysis won't serve the purposes of our argument here).
Similarly, I believe that most of us know the internet isn't for porn.
But given (mostly young males) our extensive use of the internet for
porn we relate to this phrase as a means to come to terms with that belief in a
light hearted way (i.e that the internet isn't for Porn, but we use it
like it is for porn anyway).
Good luck figuring out how it
will be implemented and maintained. When you're done playing in your fantasy
land, why don't you look for ways to solve the multitude of problems with your
proposals.
It's a poor argument to dismiss
proposals to a problem because the idea is some kind of fantasy utopia. Should
we have dismissed the proposal to abolish slavery in the 1800s for instance?
Just because there was a multitude of problems regarding the how?
The first stage of addressing important social issues is to first accept that
there is a social issue, that there are serious issues with the
porn industry. Namely those which I stated in A, B, C and D. It seems like C is
the only one we can actually agree on, and thus the only one worth discussing
social policies that can be undertaken to prevent the misappropriation of a
person's privacy through posting their content on the net. Given this is the
second stage of addressing the issue, I'll address the how of C with you
later (maybe it's even worth starting a new thread for it).
A) - Firstly, those three terms
are going to be tough to define. Then there's the fact that a whole lot of
people like to be degraded, exploited, and violence in the context of sex/porn,
and more who would be willing to watch it.
You're right, they are very tough
to define - but before we delve into that, we need to address those people who
willfully have themselves degraded, exploited and subjected to violence. My
stance is that serious social policies need to be implemented to help such
people - a person who is addicted to being violated, exploited or degraded
through sexuality has to treated as someone who has serious psychological issues.
Furthermore, the exploitation of someone with such issues by the porn industry
is thoroughly unethical and the people who make profit out of them need to be
held liable. Again, if you agree with my stance, we can continue with regards
to how address the issue.
B) - Again, in many it's not
going to be easy to determine if a porno "promotes values of
misogyny/decadence/immaturity". And why are these so bad? One could argue
that lots of much loved, popular and culturally significant comedy films
promote values of misogyny and immaturity, should we ban those too?
Again, I can't emphasis enough
that I'm not for banning content - I mean I was arguing to keep kiddie porn on
the net earlier for heavens sake (I'm glad we didn't go down that rabbit's hole
by the way - kiddie porn debates always turn into flame wars). The basis of my
argument is that pornography that promotes values of misogyny, immaturity, etc
can't be good for society and is a social issue that needs to be dealt with.
The same goes for comedy films that promote similar values. Let be precise
here, the issue isn't that people consume and are entertained by such
misogynistic/immature films, People can be entertained by anything from
grotesque violence (like the movie 300) to pop tart cats farting rainbows out
of their arse. The real issue is that there are people and institutions in a
system that produce such content and then widely distribute them to the masses.
These are the people that need to be analyzed in their various social contexts
so that we can shed light on their motivations and reasons for producing the
content they do. The questions isn't why should there be anything wrong with
films that promote bad values when so many people enjoy them, the questions
should be who are the ones producing such content? Why are they producing it?
and what is the socio-economic and ideological context in which such content
has become popular and culturally significant.
D) - This seems pretty extreme.
"Taking advantage of people" in this sense is kind of how the world
works, especially in a capitalist environment. Making people pay for the HBO
cable channel to watch the TV show "Game of Thrones" taking advantage
of people's desire to be entertained. Charging money for a textbook is taking
advantage of people's desire to learn. Putting a high price on a luxury food
such as caviar or truffles is taking advantage of people's desire to enjoy good
food. See what I'm getting at here? If all people involved are willing, and it
doesn't really hurt anyone, how and why would you stop people paying for it?
I'm impressed that you saw the
larger picture here and extended my proposal to it's logical conclusion. D is
falls into the larger context of the current socio-economic paradigm we
currently live in - and there's not much point addressing it unless you want to
address the the whole issue of globalized capitalism as the dominant
socio-economic system of our time.
And leave your disappointment for
people who care.
Oh but the effort you've taken to address my post and my
disappointment makes me feel like you do care =). I don't think you're
so bad after all Ironchin =).
Unit Rico
This is a very interesting
comment - I suppose that it is based on the common maxim 'the internet is for
Pr0n'. This premise (despite how much Porn we all watch) is in fact woefully
untrue - In terms of sheer number of websites, only about 4%
of the
internet consists of Porn websites (That being said, 4% of the internet is
still an enormous amount of porn content). But even if half the internet was
full of porn, I still don't think the maxim would hold true. If the internet
really was full of porn, I wouldn't argue the internet is for porn, I
would argue that people are for porn (which wouldn't be to justify the
practice, but only to state that peoples fascination with porn is only
channeled through the internet, the internet itself is not specifically
designed as a tool of pornography).
There's no one with a bit of
intelligence that actually thinks the sole purpose of the internet was
spreading pornography.
Yes, while it is possible to find
the people behind the content in a censored internet environment, it is much harder.
Which is why even child abuse victim organizations oppose the censoring of
child pornography.
Well, if you're going to take
down and throw away said content without first trying to find out who posted it
in the first place, yes, it's going to be hard. But nowhere was I saying they
should do that.
This is an interesting point. My
position would be that part of dealing with illegal content producers is
removing the content off the internet. This isn't the same as specifically
creating laws that make it illegal to view content - I would argue that
such a law would be direct censorship, which is much more dangerous.
So, the content should be
removed, but you just said that would make it harder to track down the people
who made it, and therefore it shouldn't be done. That's even more contradictory
than what you just said. Or I'm just reading something wrong here.
Furthermore, there are
some benefits to not removing all the content pertaining to child porn. The first
argument is that pedophiles (both child porn content creators and non-creators)
are much more likely to be caught in a non-censored web environment.
To sum it up, content should be
removed, but not removed, so that people who can watch it (which shouldn't be
illegal) can be arrested for watching it. Either I'm reading something terribly
wrong, or you're contradicting yourself every single sentence.
As for paedophilia, that's a separate discussion entirely.
The second, (and this is rather
controversial)is that it is not necessarily illegal to view or Possess
Child pornography. Currently it is illegal to posses child pornography
regardless of intent to distribute in only 58 out of the 94 Interpol member
states - so internationally, it is not clear-cut as it may seem. Further to
this point, having an outlet to explore your fetish for minors may be an
important factor in preventing you from actually perpetrating a crime against a
child. This is a very interesting phenomenon in media - where the incidence of
a behavior decreases in relation to your exposure to it in the media. For
example, sexual abuse of minors in Japan has declined since the 1960s and 70s,
which roughly coincides with the increasing presence of fictional lolicon
(anime depicting pre-pubescents). That all being said, this cathartic
experience of media (the idea that the more you watch, the less likely you are
to actually behave that way) is still debated and it would be worthwhile to
look into it further. At the very least, I think most of us here would agree
that, for example, playing violent video games don't make us more
violent. The amount of time you spend playing GTA isn't proportional to the
amount of crimes you'll commit in your lifetime. Hence, it follows, that having
access to or viewing child pornography isn't more likely to make you commit an
act of pedophilia.
It's a fair point, but I still
think a majority of people won't be too comfortable with it.
I never stipulated that the whole
industry should be made illegal and I'm disappointed you'd jump to such a
radical conclusion. My position is quite the contrary actually, I think the
Porn Industry is essential in giving people an outlet to explore/vent their
sexuality and can have very strong social benefits. That being said, I am
strongly opposed to its existence in its current form, given the stated
reasons, A, B, C and D and believe social policies and laws should be
implemented to regulate the Industry for the better.
I am both strongly opposed to all
forms of internet censorship and the Porn Industry.
To keep this argument simple (And
do forgive me for resorting to such an argument) I will use Child pornography
as an example as something we can all agree is wrong (I hope). Does this
warrant legal and state imposed actions to prevent an industry that profits out
of the sexual misappropriation of minors? It certainly does.
Explain. I mean, I can misread
something once or twice, but you're constantly contradicting yourself.
Taking advantage of a person's
stupidity and then justifying it by saying it's their fault because they're
stupid is a very poor argument. You could essentially make the same argument
against a rape victim. Analogously, a rapist isn't justified in saying it was
the woman's fault he raped her because she was stupid enough to walk in a dark
alley at night. In the same sense, its not okay for a someone to say it's the
woman's fault she engaged in a sexual act with him on video because she's too
stupid to realize he's going to make money off it on the internet.
Yarpen said it quite nicely, and
the comparison isn't valid. We're talking about someone agreeing to have
sex and agreeing to have it on tape (unless, of course, the camera was
hidden for this very purpose, in which the rape comparison would make sense). I
don't see any context in which anyone would film themselves having sex and not
sharing it with others.
Again my position was to employ
social policies and laws to prevent violence, exploitation and degradation of
those involved in fetishistic porn not ban it. It is in fact a very
egalitarian position as I believe such laws/social policies should be applied
to all participators of Porn (again, whether they're a woman, man, animal, dead
person, transgendered or just someone who is really into their chocolate
pudding).
So, you want laws that prevent the fetish, but not ban it? You're going
to have to explain that, because it makes no sense to me.
For the rest, I agree with Ironchin.
Ardinius
Most of my arguments here are
based on the clear distinction between between censorship of the net, and
implementing laws and policies against the Porn Industry. It's about the reason
behind why we take content off the net which may be the point of confusion.
So, the content should be
removed, but you just said that would make it harder to track down the people
who made it, and therefore it shouldn't be done. That's even more contradictory
than what you just said. Or I'm just reading something wrong here... / ...To
sum it up, content should be removed, but not removed, so that people who can
watch it (which shouldn't be illegal) can be arrested for watching it. Either
I'm reading something terribly wrong, or you're contradicting yourself every
single sentence.
The difference here is a little
more subtle, but again its rests one the intent of the enforcer of the law. if
law enforcement is removing content to prevent a child pornographer from making
money, or benefiting in someway, then I would support such an action. If
however, law enforcement were to remove child porn content with the intent of
censoring it from it's viewers, this is an altogether different story.
Explain. I mean, I can misread
something once or twice, but you're constantly contradicting yourself.
Again the distinction lies in
that action against an industry that produces content for the internet is not
the same as action against content itself on the internet. I support the
former and oppose the latter.
Yarpen said it quite nicely, and
the comparison isn't valid. We're talking about someone agreeing to have
sex and agreeing to have it on tape (unless, of course, the camera was
hidden for this very purpose, in which the rape comparison would make sense). I
don't see any context in which anyone would film themselves having sex and not
sharing it with others.
I don't want to delve into this
too much as it was just an analogy to serve an argument. I wasn't making an
analogy between a couple who agree to have sex and rape in an alleyway- I was
making an analogy between a stupid girl who ignorantly decides to doing a sex
vid with her bf and a stupid girl who ignorantly decides to walk in a dark
alleyway. In the former case she loses out because her privacy is compromised
on the net, in the latter she loses out because she is sexually abused. The
difference between the two cases is the severity of what she experiences, and
the analogy was made to illustrate that when taken to the extreme, its clear
that regardless of what you're stupid action may be, it doesn't justify someone
taking advantage of that stupidity.
So, you want laws that prevent
the fetish, but not ban it? You're going to have to explain that, because it
makes no sense to me.
Fetish is fine, as long as no-one is hurt, degraded, taken advantage of
- etc, during it. Iron Chin made the point about the cases where your fetish
specifically involves being degraded, hurt, etc - this case is a little more
complex, but I've already addressed Iron Chin in regards to it.
The Shaw
Wait wait, so you think the authorities shouldn't stop child
pornography as long as their is no profit??
Ardinius
Let's be clear once again,
authorities shouldn't necessarily stop Child pornography. Authority's should
stop Child Pornographers. There's a big difference here.
Unit Rico
Most of my arguments here are
based on the clear distinction between between censorship of the net, and
implementing laws and policies against the Porn Industry. It's about the reason
behind why we take content off the net which may be the point of confusion.
So, if I understand it correctly,
making the content is illegal, but if it's already made, it's no big deal, and
the content shouldn't be removed as it would be censorship?
The difference here is a little
more subtle, but again its rests one the intent of the enforcer of the law. if
law enforcement is removing content to prevent a child pornographer from making
money, or benefiting in someway, then I would support such an action. If
however, law enforcement were to remove child porn content with the intent of
censoring it from it's viewers, this is an altogether different story.
Fair point, although that
different story is quite controversial itself.
Again the distinction lies in
that action against an industry that produces content for the internet is not
the same as action against content itself on the internet. I support the
former and oppose the latter.
I think I finally get it now
(took me long enough). So, what are your reasons to be against the porn
industry itself, then? That still isn't too clear.
I don't want to delve into this
too much as it was just an analogy to serve an argument. I wasn't making an
analogy between a couple who agree to have sex and rape in an alleyway- I was
making an analogy between a stupid girl who ignorantly decides to doing a sex
vid with her bf and a stupid girl who ignorantly decides to walk in a dark
alleyway. In the former case she loses out because her privacy is compromised
on the net, in the latter she loses out because she is sexually abused. The
difference between the two cases is the severity of what she experiences, and
the analogy was made to illustrate that when taken to the extreme, its clear
that regardless of what you're stupid action may be, it doesn't justify someone
taking advantage of that stupidity.
While both actions are ignorant,
walking into a dark alleyway won't result in rape most of the time (then again,
walking into a dark alleyway isn't nearly the only way in which rape occurs),
but again, I can't think of any reason as to why people would make a sex tape
without sharing it with someone else, be it friends or the internet.
Fetish is fine, as long as no-one
is hurt, degraded, taken advantage of - etc, during it. Iron Chin made the
point about the cases where your fetish specifically involves being degraded,
hurt, etc - this case is a little more complex, but I've already addressed Iron
Chin in regards to it.
Ok, I was already thinking about
the same argument as Ironchin (as in the degrading part is the fetish itself).
Iron Chin
I can't think of any reason as to
why people would make a sex tape without sharing it with someone else, be it
friends or the internet.
People in
relationships make sex tapes for themselves and their partners all the time.
There are millions of such videos.
Ok, I was already thinking about
the same argument as Ironchin (as in the degrading part is the fetish itself).
His answer was that all the
millions of people who like to be hurt, degraded or taken advantage of in the
context of sex have "serious psychological issues" and people who
willingly and with consent make pornos featuring such content (a significant
portion of the industry, I might add) are unethical and should be prosecuted.
He also believes that the makers of anything that promotes values of immaturity/misogyny
shouldn't be encouraged as it is supposedly bad for society, even though he
admits lots of people might be entertained by it.
It's plain that Ardinius and I think and feel differently on this issue. That's
fine, we're different people. I have no interest in taking the discussion
further - I don't like the way he answers my direct questions with vague
incomplete answers and even more questions. That child porn stuff I could deal
with, but he crossed the line when he suggested that stuff like Mr. Bean and
Shakespeare is bad.
@Ardinius, I kindly request that you tell
us more about yourself. I see you haven't made an introduction thread, that
would be a good place to start. Just a little bit about yourself, games you
like to play, political and philosophical stance/ideology. It's just a request,
you can do what you want, but it would help people understand your arguments.
http://josefvstalin.com/forums/introductions.40/create-thread
Ardinius
That child porn stuff I could
deal with, but he crossed the line when he suggested that stuff like Mr. Bean
and Shakespeare is bad.
Hmm, I wasn't suggesting this at
all - Mr Bean is in fact one of my favorite comedies and I revere Shakespearean
literature. These are two examples of content however - what I'm arguing
is the need to analyze Rowan Atkinson and Shakespeare in their various
ideological contexts, and analyze the institutions that distribute their
material. Doing so will allow us to understand their motivations and reasons
for producing what they do. Such information is essential on order for a
society to properly establish a set of values based on reasoned and logical
dialogue.
It's plain that Ardinius and I
think and feel differently on this issue. That's fine, we're different people.
I have no interest in taking the discussion further - I don't like the way he
answers my direct questions with vague incomplete answers and even more questions.
Ah, but that's why I find you so
interesting Ironchin, the very fact that we have so many points of difference!
Though I do respect your request to end this discussion. You will have to put
up with my convoluted answers and questioning manner I'm afraid, it really is
just my style of argument =).
@Ardinius, I kindly request that you tell
us more about yourself. I see you haven't made an introduction thread, that
would be a good place to start. Just a little bit about yourself, games you
like to play, political and philosophical stance/ideology. It's just a request,
you can do what you want, but it would help people understand your arguments.
http://josefvstalin.com/forums/introductions.40/create-thread
This is actually a very good idea
Iron, I'm not sure why I didn't post in the introductory thread earlier
actually. Starting heated discussion about the Porn Industry probably wouldn't
be best way to introduce oneself now would it? I most definitely will take you
up on your request =).
