Author Topic: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption  (Read 23360 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline joebbowers

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1074
  • Darwins +91/-47
  • Gender: Male
    • My Photography
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
« Reply #174 on: July 23, 2012, 10:54:44 PM »
Either I just missed his comment, or he added the comment after he edited the page, (which he did a few minutes after making the original post) and I did not go back and read the edited version.  I am not sure if it was my mistake, or if I just missed his edit.  In either case, I apologized.  I should not have used such strong language without double checking. 

She called me out for dodging her posts about the Harvard study, I showed her how she was wrong.
She again called me out for dodging the NYC school and foster care posts. I again showed her she was wrong.
She ignored that (and hopes you do too) and tried to shift blame by saying that I edited my post after the fact and she must have just missed it.

Can anyone guess what's going to happen next?

Quesi, I commented on your Harvard study on July 20, 2012, 09:49:16 PM. Your next reply in this thread was on July 21, 2012, 08:18:14 AM. The window for editing my post had long since expired by then. Any changes I had made to my post would have been final before you made your next post.

Where will you put the goalpost next Quesi, aren't you running out of field?

In terms of who linked which article first two months ago, I defer to Joe's careful research on the topic.  I find the content of his posts inconsistent, his citations weak, his shifting of goal posts infuriating, and his worldview offensive.   But I can't help but admire his (obsessive) follow up in this case.

You clearly haven't been reading my posts carefully, and you clearly haven't even read the studies I linked, as you've never responded to them with any indication that you understood them. I've cited solid research that backs up my arguments, you've cited discredited studies, repeatedly blamed me for dodging an article behind a paywall and a study by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children that does not make the claims that you say it does.

My shifting of goal posts is infuriating? Find one example where I've shifted goalposts.

My worldview is offensive? You mean the worldview that we shouldn't be throwing people in jail who might not deserve to be there? You mean my worldview that there is solid data that says legalizing possession of child pornography could lead to fewer victims?

The fact that you dismiss that possibility without consideration tells me that your argument is purely emotional, and you don't really care about protecting kids as much as you think you do.  I find your worldview offensive. By continuing to support a strict child pornography ban, you are part of the reason child sex abuse is so rampant, you are not part of the solution.
"Do you see a problem with insisting that the normal ways in which you determine fact from fiction is something you have to turn off in order to maintain the belief in God?" - JeffPT

Offline joebbowers

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1074
  • Darwins +91/-47
  • Gender: Male
    • My Photography
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
« Reply #175 on: July 24, 2012, 01:30:54 AM »
When it gets to the point where members are calling each other liar and idiots, making it bold and including the adjective "fucking", then it is time to either lock it or send it to the Pit.

So, to the Pit with ye.


It was appropriate, given her continued dishonesty. Also, there is nothing in the rules about using foul language. This is a disappointing attempt to stifle the discussion, in my opinion.

i think it would be best to have Joe be moderated. While i agree he has the right to his opinions, i think he needs to be watched. I strongly disagreed with him and i think Joe might not be interested in hearing what anyone wants to say, he rather it goes his way.

I have not broken the rules, foul language is not banned here. I respond to questions directed at me and I provide explanations and facts to back up my statements. My posts are relevant to the discussion and not intended to derail the topic. You just want to shut me up because you don't have a logical argument to throw in the ring.
« Last Edit: July 24, 2012, 01:32:27 AM by joebbowers »
"Do you see a problem with insisting that the normal ways in which you determine fact from fiction is something you have to turn off in order to maintain the belief in God?" - JeffPT

Offline Timtheskeptic

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2239
  • Darwins +20/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • atheist and loving it
    • atheist blogspot
Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
« Reply #176 on: July 24, 2012, 03:03:52 AM »
i think it would be best to have Joe be moderated. While i agree he has the right to his opinions, i think he needs to be watched. I strongly disagreed with him and i think Joe might not be interested in hearing what anyone wants to say, he rather it goes his way.

You just want to shut me up because you don't have a logical argument to throw in the ring.

I think i made my point! 8)
Me:What are you looking at Eminem?
Brother: Nothing, Harry Potter.

I love to read books, just not your Bible. i support gay rights and women's rights. Why? Because i'm tired of the hate, stupidity, and your desire to control us all and make up lies.

Online Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12313
  • Darwins +276/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
« Reply #177 on: July 24, 2012, 06:58:37 AM »
Or his...
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6198
  • Darwins +408/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
« Reply #178 on: July 24, 2012, 08:08:58 AM »
You mean my worldview that there is solid data that says legalizing possession of child pornography could lead to fewer victims?

I'll be honest - I haven't read all the links, and will do so before I come to a firm conclusion, but for the moment I'll accept that this position is correct.  From reading the thread, it appears that the point is that studies show that persons who have access to the virtual are less likely to require it in reality?  I can accept that point of view - it makes sense, especially where there are far greater consequences to the actuality.  I seem to recall reading recent studies that show that playing shoot-em-up PC games makes you less likely to shoot people in the real world, so I guess the same principle applies.

Logical counters might be that there will be some who progress from virtual to actual - I don't doubt they exist - but the question would be which has the greatest overall effect.  It may be that both points are true: that some move from one to the other, while others are "stabilised" (if that's the right word) by one so do NOT progress.  It may well be that studies will show both effects are true, if they haven't been constructed to look at both aspects. 

The second logical counter might be that the virtual (because of its illegality) is restricted, and so therefore the "type" that progresses from virtual to reality would be observed far less frequently under the current system, than if the virtual were legalised - increased access may lead to increased take-up, and hence increased progression.  Not sure if that has been covered in the studies - or even how you would test for it?  I suppose the best parallel might be to look at historical data to see whether increased access to the "normal" virtual led to increased or decreased actuals.  I seem to recall that being shown not to be the case, but I can't find the link right now.
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Offline joebbowers

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1074
  • Darwins +91/-47
  • Gender: Male
    • My Photography
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
« Reply #179 on: July 24, 2012, 12:31:43 PM »
Quote from: Anfauflir
I seem to recall reading recent studies that show that playing shoot-em-up PC games makes you less likely to shoot people in the real world, so I guess the same principle applies.

Also, watching violent movies leads to a decrease in violence.

But you don't have to read studies about games and movies and "guess the same principle applies" to porn, and by extension child porn. The studies have already been done.

Can you clarify what you mean by virtual and actual? Are you referring to virtual porn like animations compared to porn depicting actual children? I didn't follow that post.
« Last Edit: July 24, 2012, 12:34:34 PM by joebbowers »
"Do you see a problem with insisting that the normal ways in which you determine fact from fiction is something you have to turn off in order to maintain the belief in God?" - JeffPT

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12381
  • Darwins +683/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
« Reply #180 on: July 24, 2012, 06:49:26 PM »
It was appropriate, given her continued dishonesty. Also, there is nothing in the rules about using foul language. This is a disappointing attempt to stifle the discussion, in my opinion.

Joe,

I don't think it was appropriate because I don't think she was lying.  I'm not saying she wasn't wrong, or mistaken or even biased by her position.  If you can show she was deliberately misrepresenting the facts, then it is appropriate.  Otherwise, please don't do that in threads that are not in the Pit.   

Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline Quesi

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1986
  • Darwins +371/-4
  • Gender: Female
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
« Reply #181 on: July 24, 2012, 08:14:33 PM »
Either I just missed his comment, or he added the comment after he edited the page, (which he did a few minutes after making the original post) and I did not go back and read the edited version.  I am not sure if it was my mistake, or if I just missed his edit.  In either case, I apologized.  I should not have used such strong language without double checking. 

She called me out for dodging her posts about the Harvard study, I showed her how she was wrong.
She again called me out for dodging the NYC school and foster care posts. I again showed her she was wrong.
She ignored that (and hopes you do too) and tried to shift blame by saying that I edited my post after the fact and she must have just missed it.

Can anyone guess what's going to happen next?

Quesi, I commented on your Harvard study on July 20, 2012, 09:49:16 PM. Your next reply in this thread was on July 21, 2012, 08:18:14 AM. The window for editing my post had long since expired by then. Any changes I had made to my post would have been final before you made your next post.

Where will you put the goalpost next Quesi, aren't you running out of field?

In terms of who linked which article first two months ago, I defer to Joe's careful research on the topic.  I find the content of his posts inconsistent, his citations weak, his shifting of goal posts infuriating, and his worldview offensive.   But I can't help but admire his (obsessive) follow up in this case.

You clearly haven't been reading my posts carefully, and you clearly haven't even read the studies I linked, as you've never responded to them with any indication that you understood them. I've cited solid research that backs up my arguments, you've cited discredited studies, repeatedly blamed me for dodging an article behind a paywall and a study by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children that does not make the claims that you say it does.

My shifting of goal posts is infuriating? Find one example where I've shifted goalposts.

My worldview is offensive? You mean the worldview that we shouldn't be throwing people in jail who might not deserve to be there? You mean my worldview that there is solid data that says legalizing possession of child pornography could lead to fewer victims?

The fact that you dismiss that possibility without consideration tells me that your argument is purely emotional, and you don't really care about protecting kids as much as you think you do.  I find your worldview offensive. By continuing to support a strict child pornography ban, you are part of the reason child sex abuse is so rampant, you are not part of the solution.


Again Joe, I have to say that I am flattered that you are interested in putting so much energy into tracking the minutia of our posts on the topics of pornography, pedophilia, and child abuse over the past couple of months. 

I am not willing to put out the effort that you did to track which post came before the other post because I have no vested interest in “winning” a battle with you.  You’re just not that important to me. 

But there are a few things I would like to say. 

I do not lie. 

Integrity and honesty are very important to me.   

Sometimes I get too emotional.  Especially on topics of abuse and exploitation.  Anyone who has read my threads on topics of race or economic disparity or anything to do with child abuse sees my strong emotions.  Sometimes, when I am emotional, I say or write things that I should have thought out more. 

I genuinely like almost everybody.  I like most of the people who I interact with on a daily basis.  I like almost everyone on this forum.  Even most of the theists.  I didn’t like PlaneJane.  And I don’t care for the “unique uncreated creator of the universe’ guy. 

And I don’t like you Joe.  And I know it comes out in my posts.  I think you are arrogant.  I think you are manipulative. I think you are not nearly as smart as you think you are.  And I think you are a predator.  I would never let a child anywhere near you, and I fear for your daughters as your girlfriend/wife gets older and those girls hit puberty.  And I am certainly not the only one on this forum who has those fears. 

Sometimes I bait you.  Those are not my best moments.  But I know I do it. 

But I don’t lie. 

Joe, I know you think you know more than the AMA and Harvard Medical Journal Researchers and the Mayo Clinic and everyone else I’ve cited over the past few months.  But I don’t think you do. 

We will just have to agree to disagree on that fact.   

I do not have an opinion on whether porn quenches or amplifies the appetite to molest children, and I think it is very clear that there is NO CONSENSUS among experts on this topic.  That is why I cited studies contradicting your studies.  “You maintained that there was a clear consensus among experts.”  There is not. 

From the beginning of this series of threads relating to pedophilia and pornography, my concern has always been the exploitation of children.  In terms of mentally ill people, I strongly believe that they have rights too.  I have never advocated for randomly putting pedophiles in jail.  I support continued research into potential treatments.  I’m not even sure I have a vision of what a successful model of protecting children is.  I have mixed feelings about “sex offenders” lists, even though as a mom, I’ve studied the lists of sex offenders in my neighborhood.   

I strongly advocate for harsh prison terms for those producing pornography, and especially those involved in human trafficking.  I’ve worked with human trafficking victims, and it is not an abstract concept to me.  It is very real and very raw and very emotional. 

You have a vested interest in downplaying the negative impact of pornography and pedophilia.  I have a vested interest in advocating for victims. 

And after a few months of going back and forth, I don’t see any way to reconcile our competing interests. 
« Last Edit: July 24, 2012, 08:25:17 PM by Quesi »

Offline joebbowers

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1074
  • Darwins +91/-47
  • Gender: Male
    • My Photography
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
« Reply #182 on: July 24, 2012, 10:42:24 PM »
I am not willing to put out the effort that you did to track which post came before the other post because I have no vested interest in “winning” a battle with you.  You’re just not that important to me. 

You don't even have to read my entire post. You could simply click on the two links that demonstrate which one came first. You're willing to type almost a whole printed page reply here but can't click on two links? I think that clearly proves that you know you're wrong and yet again not willing to admit it.

I do not lie. 
You do. Repeatedly. In fact that statement itself is a lie.

Joe, I know you think you know more than the AMA and Harvard Medical Journal Researchers and the Mayo Clinic and everyone else I’ve cited over the past few months.  But I don’t think you do. 

No, as I've explained several times, YOU think you know more than they do. THEY freely admit that they know their research is biased as the data collection methods are heavily based on interviews with convicted pedophiles, and do not represent the overall population. YOU are claiming they have drawn conclusions that support your argument, but they haven't. They have theories based on incomplete data.

From the "Mayo Clinic study" (which was actually a study by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children), under the section titled PROBLEMS WITH PEDOPHILIC RESEARCH:
Quote
When reviewing research studies on pedophilia, it must be remembered that there is a strong potential for sampling biases. Many studies obtained their pedophilic or sexual offender populations from prisons or legally mandated sexual treatment groups. The prison populations also exclude pedophiles who have not been caught, those whose level of offense was not severe enough to result in jail time, those who could control their impulses, and those who were more financially successful and better able to prevail in their legal troubles through the retention of private attorneys.

In other words they are clearly warning the reader that the data is incomplete and that their conclusions are based on convicted pedophiles, and do not represent the overall pedophile population. YOU are the one who thinks you know more than the AMA and Harvard Medical Journal Researchers and the Mayo Clinic and everyone else you’ve cited over the past few months. This has been pointed out to you several times, you dismiss it because I am not a doctor, I am not qualified to discredit their studies, however at least I am smart enough to read a fucking disclaimer.

I do not have an opinion on whether porn quenches or amplifies the appetite to molest children
You don't have an opinion yet you clearly didn't read the studies that favored my argument, and went out of your way to find studies to contradict it, including discredited studies, and you ignored the disclaimers in those studies that admitted their data was biased. For someone without an opinion, you went a long way to say nothing.

From the beginning of this series of threads relating to pedophilia and pornography, my concern has always been the exploitation of children.
If you are so concerned about protecting children, then why didn't you read the studies I cited that demonstrate that legalizing the possession of child pornography could lead to fewer victims? Why did you post BAD SCIENCE to contradict it? Seriously, think about that. Good studies with solid methodologies conducted across the world have concluded that it would lower the incidences of sexual abuse against children. You counter with admittedly biased and discredited studies. You put bad science against good science because you don't want me to be right. Honestly, if you really cared about the children, wouldn't you consider an idea that could lead to significantly fewer children being abused and raped? An idea backed up by decades of research? An idea that has already been tested in other countries including Japan, Denmark, and the Czech republic and had demonstrably good results?

Let me ask you plainly.

If it were proven that legalizing the possession of child pornography lead to fewer cases of child abuse and rape, would you support it?

I have mixed feelings about “sex offenders” lists, even though as a mom, I’ve studied the lists of sex offenders in my neighborhood.
Even murderers don't have to register on such lists. Why pedophiles? Thought crime. We persecute them for what they are, not what they do.

I strongly advocate for harsh prison terms for those producing pornography...
I am guessing you mean child pornography, not all pornography.

You have a vested interest in downplaying the negative impact of pornography and pedophilia.  I have a vested interest in advocating for victims.
You have a vested interest in downplaying the negative impact of banning pornography. I have a vested interest in advocating for victims of prosecutorial witchhunting.

And after a few months of going back and forth, I don’t see any way to reconcile our competing interests.
You're not willing to face the possibility that you're wrong, and you haven't offered one iota of solid evidence to counter my position.
"Do you see a problem with insisting that the normal ways in which you determine fact from fiction is something you have to turn off in order to maintain the belief in God?" - JeffPT

Offline Emily

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5674
  • Darwins +50/-0
  • Gender: Female
Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
« Reply #183 on: July 24, 2012, 11:24:21 PM »
]If it were proven that legalizing the possession of child pornography lead to fewer cases of child abuse and rape, would you support it?

Can I answer it. No, I wouldn't support it. Because If there is at least one child in a video or picture that is distributed to millions of people that's one child who is being exploited for sexual arousal of someone else. Why would anyone support this?
"Great moments are born from great opportunities." Herb Brooks

I edit a lot of my posts. The reason being it to add content or to correct grammar/wording. All edits to remove wording get a strike through through the wording.

Offline Zankuu

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2112
  • Darwins +132/-3
  • Gender: Male
    • I am a Forum Guide
Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
« Reply #184 on: July 24, 2012, 11:53:19 PM »
Can I answer it. No, I wouldn't support it. Because If there is at least one child in a video or picture that is distributed to millions of people that's one child who is being exploited for sexual arousal of someone else. Why would anyone support this?

Because it leads to fewer cases of child abuse and rape.
Leave nothing to chance. Overlook nothing. Combine contradictory observations. Allow yourself enough time. -Hippocrates of Cos

Offline Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6198
  • Darwins +408/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
« Reply #185 on: July 25, 2012, 01:59:46 AM »
Can you clarify what you mean by virtual and actual? Are you referring to virtual porn like animations compared to porn depicting actual children? I didn't follow that post.

Sorry - I have to be careful what I type when I'm on the office PC.  In that post, for "virtual" read "magazines, films, etc", and for "actual" read "physical interaction".  Sorry 'bout that!
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Offline Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6198
  • Darwins +408/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
« Reply #186 on: July 25, 2012, 02:10:48 AM »
]If it were proven that legalizing the possession of child pornography lead to fewer cases of child abuse and rape, would you support it?

Can I answer it. No, I wouldn't support it. Because If there is at least one child in a video or picture that is distributed to millions of people that's one child who is being exploited for sexual arousal of someone else. Why would anyone support this?

Hmm.  "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one" said Spock (now there's an appropriate homonym!)  Not sure I could agree with that - I have a problem with sacrificing one unwilling innocent to save others, though of course its different if the "victim" is capable of giving, and gives, their consent.

But that said, there appears to be an awful lot of material out there already.  Its made, it done with, its not harming anyone else any more.  By nature of its illegality, I doubt anyone has access to it all - by legalising it, you open up fresh avenues of old stuff for them to use.  So there may already be "enough" to satisfy the requirements of Joe's proposal.
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Offline joebbowers

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1074
  • Darwins +91/-47
  • Gender: Male
    • My Photography
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
« Reply #187 on: July 25, 2012, 03:16:59 AM »
Anfauglir gets it. There is plenty of content already out there. And we should continue to criminalize the production and sale to discourage production of new stuff.

I don't want to comment on Emily's response quite yet, but Emily, I would like you to to read my question one more time and answer it again if you don't mind. If your answer is the same that's fine.
"Do you see a problem with insisting that the normal ways in which you determine fact from fiction is something you have to turn off in order to maintain the belief in God?" - JeffPT

Offline pianodwarf

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 4367
  • Darwins +208/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Je bois ton lait frappé
Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
« Reply #188 on: July 25, 2012, 07:26:12 AM »
]If it were proven that legalizing the possession of child pornography lead to fewer cases of child abuse and rape, would you support it?

Can I answer it. No, I wouldn't support it. Because If there is at least one child in a video or picture that is distributed to millions of people that's one child who is being exploited for sexual arousal of someone else. Why would anyone support this?

Trying this link again...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer-generated_imagery
[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]:  Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12381
  • Darwins +683/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
« Reply #189 on: July 25, 2012, 08:00:24 AM »
Trying this link again...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer-generated_imagery

CGI is the future of all porn.  Cheap, reuseable, free of STDs and lawsuits, no "victims", and you can tailor it to fit whatever niche fetish you want.
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline joebbowers

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1074
  • Darwins +91/-47
  • Gender: Male
    • My Photography
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
« Reply #190 on: July 25, 2012, 08:03:31 AM »
We just have to get them to legalize it first. What a ridiculous ban. Conclusive proof that it's thought crime.

We know there's no victim but we just don't like you, so off to jail with you.

And most of our society agrees!
« Last Edit: July 25, 2012, 08:10:02 AM by joebbowers »
"Do you see a problem with insisting that the normal ways in which you determine fact from fiction is something you have to turn off in order to maintain the belief in God?" - JeffPT

Online Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12313
  • Darwins +276/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
« Reply #191 on: July 25, 2012, 08:05:32 AM »
Can I answer it. No, I wouldn't support it. Because If there is at least one child in a video or picture that is distributed to millions of people that's one child who is being exploited for sexual arousal of someone else. Why would anyone support this?

Even putting CGI aside...

How many child rapes are acceptable in order to prevent the exploitation of one child for the purpose of pornography?  I'm curious as to how you weight this.

It might help to re-read the question.
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline joebbowers

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1074
  • Darwins +91/-47
  • Gender: Male
    • My Photography
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
« Reply #192 on: July 25, 2012, 08:11:09 AM »
I didn't want to comment Adzgari until I was sure she understood what she was saying. Of course, maybe she did understand exactly what she was saying. I will withold comment until she responds.
"Do you see a problem with insisting that the normal ways in which you determine fact from fiction is something you have to turn off in order to maintain the belief in God?" - JeffPT

Offline pianodwarf

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 4367
  • Darwins +208/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Je bois ton lait frappé
Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
« Reply #193 on: July 25, 2012, 08:17:34 AM »
How many child rapes are acceptable in order to prevent the exploitation of one child for the purpose of pornography?  I'm curious as to how you weight this.

If that's not a moot point now, it will be pretty soon.  The state of the art in CGI is now to the point where a human being can be portrayed with near-perfect realism, and that being the case, there is no reason to suppose that any children at all would need to be exploited for this.  It's kind of like pregnancy tests.  We don't need to kill cute little fluffy bunny rabbits anymore to find out whether a woman is pregnant.
[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]:  Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

Online Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12313
  • Darwins +276/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
« Reply #194 on: July 25, 2012, 08:28:02 AM »
Agreed, but Emily was clearly thinking "CGI aside", for whatever reason.  I'm asking more for an insight into Emily's thought process than to analyze the actual situation at hand.
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline pianodwarf

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 4367
  • Darwins +208/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Je bois ton lait frappé
Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
« Reply #195 on: July 25, 2012, 08:34:33 AM »
Agreed, but Emily was clearly thinking "CGI aside", for whatever reason.  I'm asking more for an insight into Emily's thought process than to analyze the actual situation at hand.

Ah, I see.  Yes, it's an interesting question, even if it is only academic in this case.  Since I majored in philosophy, we talked about this kind of scenario quite a bit in my ethics classes.  You may be interested in Ursula K. LeGuin's short story, "The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas", which gives her views on a hypothetical situation that's very similar to the one you're asking about.
http://harelbarzilai.org/words/omelas.txt
[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]:  Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

Offline joebbowers

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1074
  • Darwins +91/-47
  • Gender: Male
    • My Photography
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
« Reply #196 on: July 25, 2012, 11:30:26 AM »
But remember this isn't one of those "would you kill 1 person to save 100" type of hypothetical questions. The research has been done, it has been legalized in other countries and the child sex abuse cases have dropped significantly. It's really not a "hypothetically, would you want to save kids?" type of question, it's actually a "seriously, why don't you want to save kids?" type of question.
"Do you see a problem with insisting that the normal ways in which you determine fact from fiction is something you have to turn off in order to maintain the belief in God?" - JeffPT

Offline Gnu Ordure

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3832
  • Darwins +109/-9
  • Gender: Male
Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
« Reply #197 on: July 25, 2012, 05:12:01 PM »
But that said, there appears to be an awful lot of material out there already.  Its made, it done with, its not harming anyone else any more. 

A five-year-old child cannot consent to photos of its abuse being published. So publication of such photos should be prohibited, on grounds of invasion of privacy, at the very least.

And as I said, it is highly unlikely that an adult survivor of sexual abuse would consent to such photos being released into the public domain.

Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that all publications of images of child sexual abuse are non-consensual, and therefore they should be confiscated and removed from the public domain.

Offline Gnu Ordure

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3832
  • Darwins +109/-9
  • Gender: Male
Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
« Reply #198 on: July 25, 2012, 05:55:16 PM »
If it were proven that legalizing the possession of child pornography lead to fewer cases of child abuse and rape, would you support it?

Joe, you say that the production of child pornography should be illegal - as do we all. We support the efforts of the authorities to do all they can to eliminate it.

So even if you were right about the possession of child porn reducing assaults on children, we are still going to try to eliminate its production, and we will have to accept a rise in assaults as a consequence.

Or...

... there's a correlation between psychopathy and animal torture. If it were proven that legalizing the torture of animals lead to fewer cases of sadism against people, would you support it?

The ends do not justify the means.

That post contained 31 links, which is possibly a forum record. Since no sensible person is going to read all those links in order to rationally counter Joe's argument, this qualifies it as an argumentum verbosium, (wiki: submission of others to an argument too complex and verbose to reasonably deal with in all its intimate details.)
So since you're too lazy to bother with any fact checking, that somehow means I've committed a fallacy?
I didn't invent the concept of argumentum verbosium; and your post fits the description.

My (or anyone's) 'laziness' has got nothing to do with it.
« Last Edit: July 25, 2012, 06:52:15 PM by Gnu Ordure »

Offline joebbowers

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1074
  • Darwins +91/-47
  • Gender: Male
    • My Photography
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
« Reply #199 on: July 25, 2012, 10:18:50 PM »
Quote from: Gnu Ordure
So even if you were right about the possession of child porn reducing assaults on children, we are still going to try to eliminate its production, and we will have to accept a rise in assaults as a consequence.

**slow sarcastic clapping** Thanks for that.


I didn't invent the concept of argumentum verbosium; and your post fits the description.

My (or anyone's) 'laziness' has got nothing to do with it.

No, an argumentum verbosium would be to simply tell you that the proof is in the thread, and tell you to go find it yourself, knowing that you wouldn't take the time to read through 22 pages to find it. What I did was clearly summarize the argument in a concise single page with optional links in case someone wanted to verify what I was claiming. Notice each of those links goes directly to the post being referenced, not just the page, or the thread, or this website. While it may be long and detailed, it is not argumentum verbosium by any means, as I suspect you already know.
« Last Edit: July 25, 2012, 10:27:43 PM by joebbowers »
"Do you see a problem with insisting that the normal ways in which you determine fact from fiction is something you have to turn off in order to maintain the belief in God?" - JeffPT

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12381
  • Darwins +683/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
« Reply #200 on: July 26, 2012, 07:10:40 AM »

Has this topic played out yet?  Has everyone had their fill of it?  Can I lock it? 

Please let me know.
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline Gnu Ordure

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3832
  • Darwins +109/-9
  • Gender: Male
Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
« Reply #201 on: July 26, 2012, 07:54:45 AM »
Quote from: Gnu Ordure
So even if you were right about the possession of child porn reducing assaults on children, we are still going to try to eliminate its production, and we will have to accept a rise in assaults as a consequence.

**slow sarcastic clapping** Thanks for that.
Clap all you like. Your hypothetical question was a false dichotomy anyway, as it excluded the legalization of CGI as an alternative course of action. 

Offline Timtheskeptic

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2239
  • Darwins +20/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • atheist and loving it
    • atheist blogspot
Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
« Reply #202 on: July 26, 2012, 08:52:38 AM »

Has this topic played out yet?  Has everyone had their fill of it?  Can I lock it? 

Please let me know.


Maybe we should.
Me:What are you looking at Eminem?
Brother: Nothing, Harry Potter.

I love to read books, just not your Bible. i support gay rights and women's rights. Why? Because i'm tired of the hate, stupidity, and your desire to control us all and make up lies.