Is censorship moral?

[Loren Pechtel]

In what ways have kids been harmed by beauty pageants, and how can censoring those pageants undo that harm? I've never watched a child beauty pageant, but they sound like they can be a lot of fun for the kids in them. Little girls like to feel pretty, in case you don't know. It sounds like it's the prudish adults who don't like those kinds of pageants.

I've never seen one, but I have seen some pictures in reporting on them--and I've seen some rather sexualized outfits. The kids probably don't understand but that doesn't make it not wrong. An actual test would be to take a bunch of images/video from such pageants and asking the women 20 years later what they thought about it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The big problem I have with child beauty pageants is the commodification and sexualising of youngsters. Teaching girls that what's important is looks and sex appeal.
Call me a prude if you must, but I despise those things and consider the parents involved abusers.
Tom

Nothing prudish about that in my book. A prude objects to sexuality whether it's appropriate or not and tends to regard as sexual things which are not. You are objecting to sexuality when it's not appropriate (kids of that age should not be engaging in sex)--and I share your objection.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

How about we drop the extremely murky subject of porn and discuss more grown up aspects of censorship as an issue?

What I had in mind when I started this thread was the censorship of unpopular "fringe" ideas that appear threatening to those in power. But anything that might be censored is on the table.

But you didn't say so, you used way too broad a brush. Thus we jumped on areas that broad brush hit that shouldn't have been hit.

As for unpopular ideas--fine, but there comes a point where it goes from a fringe idea to fraud. I do believe fraud should be censored. Reality usually drives fringe ideas to the very fringes--when you see them center stage you can basically assume they are being pushed for ulterior motives. That is, fraud. Both Russia and China have engaged in such things on a massive scale.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

How about we drop the extremely murky subject of porn and discuss more grown up aspects of censorship as an issue?

What I had in mind when I started this thread was the censorship of unpopular "fringe" ideas that appear threatening to those in power. But anything that might be censored is on the table.

But you didn't say so, you used way too broad a brush. Thus we jumped on areas that broad brush hit ...

Full stop. This.

 

[Jarhyn]

Child porn, immoral and illegal for obvious reasons, was brought up as an example of something that should be censored.

Actually, the view that extramarital sex including voyeurism is immoral has its roots in the Bible, Christian theology, and in church tradition. The age of the girls who were sold off into marriage by this tradition has often been much younger than today's "legal" age although most US states allow child marriage.

So in the USA you might be technically breaking the child porn laws if you have photos of your wife in the nude.

Yes, because that marriage should not be legal and the only reason is conservatives, the same conservatives that want to censor homosexuality and broadcast child beauty pageants.

I would rather censor child beauty pageants and let adults be adults in adult places.

Yup. We have this strange obsession with nudity when the real issue is sexualizing. Sexualized images of those too young to understand the sexual nature of them are unacceptable in my book regardless of how much or little is shown. Kids at the nudist resort, no problem.

That said, if you want to get your rocks off to whatever, just... go to civit.ai and download whatever model gets your rocks off. I know FurtasticV20 makes some absolutely fantastic filth, in fact. It has no standards, and will generate pretty much anything you want, as long as you don't mind furry, and what's more, you know you're consuming something not-real, and the law actually stands on your side there in the United States.

Huh? I thought simulated kiddie porn was illegal.

You have AI. I will teach you how to use it and I will argue for your right to do so. I argue for my own right to do so...

That's where I stand (although I have no experience with it to do the teaching.) I do not believe the law should make any action illegal that doesn't have a non-consenting victim (true informed consent) or undue risk of a victim (thus, for example, DUI--even if you don't hit anyone you took an undue risk of doing so.) (Also, a law need not be required to point to a specific victim--for example, pollution laws. If releasing chemical X will result in an increase in some malady it can be made illegal without identifying any particular victim.)

If simulated kiddie porn were illegal, Inkbunny would not exist. I do not recommend going to that site or even looking it up, but needless to say, it contains more abject filth than Ultimate Soldier could consume in a lifetime and all of it is hand drawn or made by AI.

e621, hosted in the US, also has a large corpus of accessible simulated pornography of minors.

These sites insulate themselves from the majority of laws thanks to the fact that the characters are clearly non-human.

Like... Unknown Soldier could absolutely have allies in this conversation if they relented on their demand for The Worst Thing.

 

[DBT]

Child porn, immoral and illegal for obvious reasons, was brought up as an example of something that should be censored.

Actually, the view that extramarital sex including voyeurism is immoral has its roots in the Bible, Christian theology, and in church tradition. The age of the girls who were sold off into marriage by this tradition has often been much younger than today's "legal" age although most US states allow child marriage.

So in the USA you might be technically breaking the child porn laws if you have photos of your wife in the nude.

False analogy.

I didn't post an analogy.

Of course you did, and still do.

What's wrong with analogies? What I posted above is meant to lend some understanding about the history of porn and how it's evolved into the silly mess it is today. It demonstrates that opposition to porn and attempts to censors it is based on the primitive attitudes of religious clans from antiquity and has little to do with logic or safeguarding people.

Analogies are fine. False analogies are not. When you said - ''So in the USA you might be technically breaking the child porn laws if you have photos of your wife in the nude'' - rather than an analogy, you were equivocating.

An analogy is comparing significant aspects between two things.

That's not the definition I normally use, but I'd rather not get bogged down arguing semantics.

You try to analogize what may be innocent nude paintings of children, cherubs, etc, with porn, when what turns nudity into porn is the setting, poses and acts being performed, therefore not an analogy at all.

OK, that's how you distinguish porn from "nude paintings." As any man who remembers the Sears catalog knows, porn can crop up anywhere, and it's in the eye of the beholder. Paintings can be every bit as sexually stimulating as photos, yet we call paintings "art" and photos "porn." So my point is that what is or is not porn is very subjective, and the opinion that will win out is the opinion not of the wisest or the most moral but the strongest.

Images/portraits of nude men, women or children that are not graphically or explicitly sexual in nature may be seen as erotica or simply portrayals of nude bodies, there being no sexual acts involved, it is not porn. Graphic, explicit sexual acts turn it into porn.

Pictures of children running around naked in the back yard or beach, or portraits, cherubs, etc, in a gallery is not porn, where a child being used sexually, that is pornography.

 

[Jarhyn]

Child porn, immoral and illegal for obvious reasons, was brought up as an example of something that should be censored.

Actually, the view that extramarital sex including voyeurism is immoral has its roots in the Bible, Christian theology, and in church tradition. The age of the girls who were sold off into marriage by this tradition has often been much younger than today's "legal" age although most US states allow child marriage.

So in the USA you might be technically breaking the child porn laws if you have photos of your wife in the nude.

False analogy.

I didn't post an analogy.

Of course you did, and still do.

What's wrong with analogies? What I posted above is meant to lend some understanding about the history of porn and how it's evolved into the silly mess it is today. It demonstrates that opposition to porn and attempts to censors it is based on the primitive attitudes of religious clans from antiquity and has little to do with logic or safeguarding people.

Analogies are fine. False analogies are not. When you said - ''So in the USA you might be technically breaking the child porn laws if you have photos of your wife in the nude'' - rather than an analogy, you were equivocating.

An analogy is comparing significant aspects between two things.

That's not the definition I normally use, but I'd rather not get bogged down arguing semantics.

You try to analogize what may be innocent nude paintings of children, cherubs, etc, with porn, when what turns nudity into porn is the setting, poses and acts being performed, therefore not an analogy at all.

OK, that's how you distinguish porn from "nude paintings." As any man who remembers the Sears catalog knows, porn can crop up anywhere, and it's in the eye of the beholder. Paintings can be every bit as sexually stimulating as photos, yet we call paintings "art" and photos "porn." So my point is that what is or is not porn is very subjective, and the opinion that will win out is the opinion not of the wisest or the most moral but the strongest.

Images/portraits of nude men, women or children that are not graphically or explicitly sexual in nature may be seen as erotica or simply portrayals of nude bodies, there being no sexual acts involved, it is not porn. Graphic, explicit sexual acts turn it into porn.

Pictures of children running around naked in the back yard or beach, or portraits, cherubs, etc, in a gallery is not porn, where a child being used sexually, that is pornography.

I guess I just don't see any problem with porn in the least as long as no harms arose. While I have a fairly specific, if abstract, idea of harm, I think most can agree child abuse and photographing minors for sexual purposes (also abuse, but I wanted to clarify it's explicit inclusion) are bad.

It's clear that the ethical responsibility and rights arises directly as a function of harm, and porn is not harmful except when requires directly patronizing an evil thing (such as the photographer who creates The Worst Thing).

 

[DBT]

Child porn, immoral and illegal for obvious reasons, was brought up as an example of something that should be censored.

Actually, the view that extramarital sex including voyeurism is immoral has its roots in the Bible, Christian theology, and in church tradition. The age of the girls who were sold off into marriage by this tradition has often been much younger than today's "legal" age although most US states allow child marriage.

So in the USA you might be technically breaking the child porn laws if you have photos of your wife in the nude.

False analogy.

I didn't post an analogy.

Of course you did, and still do.

What's wrong with analogies? What I posted above is meant to lend some understanding about the history of porn and how it's evolved into the silly mess it is today. It demonstrates that opposition to porn and attempts to censors it is based on the primitive attitudes of religious clans from antiquity and has little to do with logic or safeguarding people.

Analogies are fine. False analogies are not. When you said - ''So in the USA you might be technically breaking the child porn laws if you have photos of your wife in the nude'' - rather than an analogy, you were equivocating.

An analogy is comparing significant aspects between two things.

That's not the definition I normally use, but I'd rather not get bogged down arguing semantics.

You try to analogize what may be innocent nude paintings of children, cherubs, etc, with porn, when what turns nudity into porn is the setting, poses and acts being performed, therefore not an analogy at all.

OK, that's how you distinguish porn from "nude paintings." As any man who remembers the Sears catalog knows, porn can crop up anywhere, and it's in the eye of the beholder. Paintings can be every bit as sexually stimulating as photos, yet we call paintings "art" and photos "porn." So my point is that what is or is not porn is very subjective, and the opinion that will win out is the opinion not of the wisest or the most moral but the strongest.

Images/portraits of nude men, women or children that are not graphically or explicitly sexual in nature may be seen as erotica or simply portrayals of nude bodies, there being no sexual acts involved, it is not porn. Graphic, explicit sexual acts turn it into porn.

Pictures of children running around naked in the back yard or beach, or portraits, cherubs, etc, in a gallery is not porn, where a child being used sexually, that is pornography.

I guess I just don't see any problem with porn in the least as long as no harms arose. While I have a fairly specific, if abstract, idea of harm, I think most can agree child abuse and photographing minors for sexual purposes (also abuse, but I wanted to clarify it's explicit inclusion) are bad.

It's clear that the ethical responsibility and rights arises directly as a function of harm, and porn is not harmful except when requires directly patronizing an evil thing (such as the photographer who creates The Worst Thing).

I wasn't referring to porn in general as in acts performed between consenting adults, but child exploitation and other material where people are being physically and mentally harmed. A child may be 'groomed' to consent, but that doesn't count.

 

[TomC]

So, let's change the subject.

Many years ago I was a member of a website called Stormfront. It was similar to IIDB, but much larger and more active.
Also it was the internet home of many white nationalists and racists. Imagine a forum like IIDB, only instead of infidels it's dominated by a cross between the TeaParty and the KKK (and much bigger).

After several years, the big company that did their website hosting decided not to renew the contract for web hosting. It didn't happen suddenly, the members knew for a couple of months that the contract wouldn't be renewed. But they couldn't find a new host.

They thought it censorship. Apparently, their opinions were unpopular with the relatively educated and informed people who are able to run such web hosting companies. Those people didn't think Stormfront worth doing business with, for whatever reason.

I don't consider that situation censorship, even though I missed Stormfront. It didn't include violent suppression or government intrusion. It was just people choosing not to be associated with or broadcasting the opinions of other people. That's not censorship, IMNSHO.
Tom

 

[bilby]

Many years ago I was a member of a website called Stormfront. It was similar to IIDB, but much larger and more active.

That's an astonishing thing to openly admit.

It implies a great deal that is deeply troubling.

How would you feel about someone who casually mentioned:

"Many years ago, I was a member of an organisation called the Schutzstaffel. It was similar to the Army, but much smaller and with a more political focus"?

Sounds like an interesting organisation; Perhaps I could join them too, maybe so I could join with their doubtless fascinating discussions about knitting patterns...

 

[TomC]

That's an astonishing thing to openly admit.

In what way?

I've never pretended to be part of the ideological bubble that dominates IIDB, if that's what you're talking about. Otherwise, I don't know what it is.

I've been a member of a huge number of internet forums. From very religious to this one. Super "liberal" to that one. There's really no end to my long and checkered past.

And that's just the internet. I was around long before there even was an internet. Maybe you just can't imagine someone who isn't afraid of much, and barges right in where angels fear to tread.
I dunno.
WTF
Tom

 

[TomC]

It implies a great deal that is deeply troubling.

What does it imply, other than I'm not scared of little black marks on my computer screen?
Tom

 

[TomC]

Getting back to the subject of the thread, censorship, does anyone have a worthwhile opinion on whether Stormfront having trouble getting their website back on the internet was a censorship issue?
Tom

 

[Jarhyn]

Getting back to the subject of the thread, censorship, does anyone have a worthwhile opinion on whether Stormfront having trouble getting their website back on the internet was a censorship issue?
Tom

It was most certainly not a censorship issue. Is it a censorship issue when someone takes a steaming turd on the floor of the store they leased, and they are evicted from their storefront tenancy when they refuse to clean it up?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Imagine a forum like IIDB, only instead of infidels it's dominated by a cross between the TeaParty and the KKK (and much bigger).

So basically it was the Republican Party.

 

[TomC]

It was most certainly not a censorship issue.

So basically it was the Republican Party

Yep.

We can all agree that it can't be censorship.
Because Democratic



Nevermind.
It's all well understood by the people who run this place.

 

[DBT]

Many years ago I was a member of a website called Stormfront. It was similar to IIDB, but much larger and more active.

That's an astonishing thing to openly admit.

It implies a great deal that is deeply troubling.

How would you feel about someone who casually mentioned:

"Many years ago, I was a member of an organisation called the Schutzstaffel. It was similar to the Army, but much smaller and with a more political focus"?

Sounds like an interesting organisation; Perhaps I could join them too, maybe so I could join with their doubtless fascinating discussions about knitting patterns...

I was recently mobbed on a US gun forum because I dared question the bible, and their religious beliefs by default, now a persona non grata I am told...I guess I have been censored.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Analogies are fine. False analogies are not.

I didn't post a false analogy. Do you know what a false analogy is? I just posted some historical information regarding the origins of the opposition to open, free, normal sexuality.

When you said - ''So in the USA you might be technically breaking the child porn laws if you have photos of your wife in the nude'' - rather than an analogy, you were equivocating.

Do you know what equivocating is? Look it up if you don't, and you'll see that I never equivocated. And like it or not, the laws against kiddie porn are ridiculously inconsistent because they arbitrarily allow photographing nude kids in some situations and criminalizing doing so in other circumstances that have nothing to do with any actual harm.

Images/portraits of nude men, women or children that are not graphically or explicitly sexual in nature may be seen as erotica or simply portrayals of nude bodies, there being no sexual acts involved, it is not porn. Graphic, explicit sexual acts turn it into porn.

OK, that's how you define porn. May others disagree, or must we take your word for it?

Pictures of children running around naked in the back yard or beach, or portraits, cherubs, etc, in a gallery is not porn, where a child being used sexually, that is pornography.

In addition to the difficulties I mentioned in your other posts, what you're saying here is way too vague. What do you mean by "a child being used sexually"?

So let me summarize where your arguments need to be honed:

1. You need to argue clearly what porn is and why we should accept your definition of porn.
2. You need to explain why porn, so defined, is harmful.
3. You should argue for how censoring porn will do more good than harm.

 

[DBT]

Analogies are fine. False analogies are not.

I didn't post a false analogy. Do you know what a false analogy is? I just posted some historical information regarding the origins of the opposition to open, free, normal sexuality.

When you said - ''So in the USA you might be technically breaking the child porn laws if you have photos of your wife in the nude'' - rather than an analogy, you were equivocating.

Do you know what equivocating is? Look it up if you don't, and you'll see that I never equivocated. And like it or not, the laws against kiddie porn are ridiculously inconsistent because they arbitrarily allow photographing nude kids in some situations and criminalizing doing so in other circumstances that have nothing to do with any actual harm.

Images/portraits of nude men, women or children that are not graphically or explicitly sexual in nature may be seen as erotica or simply portrayals of nude bodies, there being no sexual acts involved, it is not porn. Graphic, explicit sexual acts turn it into porn.

OK, that's how you define porn. May others disagree, or must we take your word for it?

Pictures of children running around naked in the back yard or beach, or portraits, cherubs, etc, in a gallery is not porn, where a child being used sexually, that is pornography.

In addition to the difficulties I mentioned in your other posts, what you're saying here is way too vague. What do you mean by "a child being used sexually"?

So let me summarize where your arguments need to be honed:

1. You need to argue clearly what porn is and why we should accept your definition of porn.
2. You need to explain why porn, so defined, is harmful.
3. You should argue for how censoring porn will do more good than harm.

Saying a child is 'being used sexually' is not hard to grasp. It's quite clear, someone is having sex with a child, be it for personal gratification or commercial gain, ie, producing pornography.

As for your false analogy, the comparison you tried to make has been explained.

Now you engage with obsfercation and feigned incomprehension.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

It was most certainly not a censorship issue.

So basically it was the Republican Party

Yep.

We can all agree that it can't be censorship.
Because Democratic



Nevermind.
It's all well understood by the people who run this place.

Seriously stormfront is modern nazis, not merely tea baggers or half baggers.