iNow

Okay, I'm in the office so can't watch the video just now, but let me ask... Does the hot chick holding the beaker have anything to do with phenomenon? Is she perhaps the catalyst for the effect?

Ah... Fox News. Lying about the numbers of last weekends protest in Washington about healthcare, and then using stock footage of the 9/12 project in an attempt to pretend that reality matched their numbers. Keepin' it classy, Fox. Watch for yourself: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-november-10-2009/sean-hannity-uses-glenn-beck-s-protest-footage

Here's the part I'm struggling with. If the movie was made in 1980, and I watched it today in nearly 2010, you'd still send me to jail. I have problems with that since you keep saying that you're only trying to "protect the child." I say, bullshit. If you'd still send me to jail for watching a video made 30 years ago, then you are not abiding by your own argument because there is no way that I could legitimately be considered involved with the harm done to that child.

I'm exploring the logic of your arguments, not the likelihood that my chosen scenario could actually happen. Often, if we stretch our arguments to their most extreme we can see more clearly where and why they fail. So, with that said... We take for given that there is a total disconnect. You are still against it. Why are your preferences more worthy of legislation which restricts freedom of others (remember, child harm is fully subtracted from this scenario) than the preferences of someone who accepts even less than you do, but does NOT get to have their preferences legislated? I'm referring to people such as those who wish to make illegal the consumption of violent movies, or movies where they show a booby for a nanosecond, or movies where a white woman sleeps with a black man, or where the president is shown in a negative light... or any of the countless other things people oppose because they personally find it distasteful, vile, and/or deplorable.

Okay. So your argument is essentially this. Because I am not very well versed in online mechanisms to store videos for personal use, but which also have the characteristic where others can access those files from another system, I undermine my entire argument. Whatever. My point remains. People arguing against CP are doing so because of their own personal preferences... because they find it distasteful and disgusting. I understand that. I feel that way, too. However, I'm growing increasingly impatient with people who are disingenuous with their distaste, trying instead to rationalize it in terms of child protection. It's weak. My entire approach in these last several posts has been an attempt to pull out the "harm to the child" aspect of the discussion... both in terms of direct and indirect harm from consumption driving further production... And the opposition remains even when the harm is fully removed. Perhaps I could have chosen a better example than Youtube, but the point is that there is no connection between consumer and producer, and yet people still oppose it. This means... by definition... that they are NOT arguing just for the protection of the child... and they are instead trying to impose their own preferences on others for no good reason. That then brings me back to my opening argument on page 1... Why are your tastes and preferences more acceptable to deny others the ability to view this stuff than the tastes and preferences of people who wish to deny ALL porn (standard everyday run of the mill stuff), or who wish to outlaw movies with blood and violence?

Well, at least when you miss a point, Mr.Skeptic, you miss it broadly. Youtube was just an example. The concept underlying what was presented is that there is a total disconnect between the consumer and the producer... Whether that means you download the CP from online somewhere, see it on youtube, watch it at a friends house, or get a copy for free from someone... Youtube was just the example to illuminate the idea that there exists a disconnect between the consumer and the producer, and hence your desire to punish the consumer in this particular instance is based merely on a wish to legislate your own personal morality since you find CP deplorable and vile... NOT because it helps to protect the child. Does that help to clear up the issue? Good deal. I'm going to start selling the new game titled, "Ass-pounding 7 year old boys with 35 year old phalluses" for Playstation next week. The graphics are incredibly life-like... on par with Disney and Pixar, but I should not encounter any resistance since it's "just pixels." After all... both you and A_Tripolation say you're fine with that. I say... Whatever. You're both being incredibly disingenuous in this thread, and it's becoming rather tiresome.

And, if they do that, there is a very real chance that the health reform bill itself will not / cannot pass.

Thanks for clearing that up. It's just that the cells lack the "fuel" which is glucose, not that they lack oxygen. I appreciate you correcting my misconception.

Paranoia - You've clearly missed my point, and you are reading into my post things which it simply did not contain, imply, or suggest. Please stop doing that. Thanks.

The challenge here, TBK, is that the fight was not only to restrict public funds from covering abortion, but ALSO to disallow privately purchased insurance from covering them. I'd be fine if the public option did not cover them, but for them to legislate that private companies cannot simply sickens me. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/07/compromise-reached-on-hea_n_349309.html All day on Friday, House leaders struggled to reconcile the pro-life and pro-choice wings of the Democratic Party. Over the last several weeks, the pro-choice bloc, consisting of nearly 200 Democrats, had gradually come to terms with an amendment authored by Rep. Lois Capps (D-Calif.). The intent of the amendment was to keep the debate about health care rather than abortion and it would make clear that -- as is current law -- no federal funds would be used for abortion. "Our hope was that we could continue the current ban on federal funding for abortion so the issue wouldn't bog down the overall health reform legislation," wrote Capps at the time. But that wasn't enough for pro-life Democrats. On November 3, Rep. Brad Ellsworth (D-Ind.) offered a more conservative compromise, one that restricted abortion in a bunch of extra ways and would require at least one private plan in the exchange not to cover abortion. In reality, most insurance plans -- even using pro-life numbers -- already do not cover abortion. Story continues below advertisement Still, pro-choice Democrats swallowed the compromise -- while saying they'd go no further. Health care reform, said Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.), a staunch pro-choicer and co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, should not be a vehicle to drive a pro-life social agenda. That's when Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) re-entered the debate. Stupak is a longtime pro-life advocate and had been pressing his concerns upon House leadership. On Friday, Ellsworth withdrew his compromise language from negotiations, according to several House sources, sending the debate back to the starting line, where Stupak was waiting. Stupak, in meetings with Pelosi and other members of leadership, pressed to include, instead, his own amendment that would ban the public health insurance option from funding abortion and also ban any private plan operating within the exchange from funding abortions. Under Stupak's plan, a woman buying private insurance from within the exchange with her own money would not have a choice of a plan that covered abortion.

This is basically what I've been trying to get you to admit all along. Your argument as presented throughout this thread is little more than a rationalization. When you get right down to it, you are trying to legislate your own personal tastes and morals... You are trying to prevent others from viewing it because YOU find it deplorable, NOT because you are trying to "protect the children." If protection of the children was your sole goal, then the final three bullets should all be perfectly acceptable to you, yet they are not. I honestly thought I'd get more libertarians stepping up in this thread supporting me with how I've positioned my argument... ya bunch of wusses.

Hmmm... That's counter to what I've been taught during all my years as a diabetic. The way it was conveyed to me by my doctors was that hemoglobin carries the oxygen to the brain, and the amount of oxygen the cells can carry is a function of the amount of glucose in the system. I understood that less glucose results in smaller red blood cells which results in less oxygen transfer to the brain. I imagine that is oversimplified, but if it's wrong, I'd be curious to find out why. It's about more than just "being hungry." When my blood sugar drops, I get dizzy and rather loopy, I lose focus and concentration is nearly impossible, and I've always attributed it to the lack of oxygen in my brain. The higher cortical layers essentially are shutting down, and all resources are being directed to the cerebellum and hippocampus/amygdalal regions (reptilian brain) to ensure heart beat and breathing take precedence. If this is not caused by lack of oxygen to the brain, and lack of oxygen is not a result of low blood glucose levels, then what causes the effect above?

k0aeKwVe9wU

TBH, I wish I saw less of it... That seems to be all I can see. It's not that I (personally) cannot see it. It's that my fellow voters are too stupid to vote in large enough blocks to change it, and to elect people who are capable, cultured, and competent. QFT.

Body lacks it, sends distress signal. Distress signal causes cascade of impulses leading up to the specific craving. Specific craving is informed by past experience (learning).

Lack of sugar (glucose) means less oxygen can be carried to the brain. When the brain begins to starve of oxygen, it begins sending distress signals to various parts of the body. Through experience, we learn that some foods do better at raising blood sugar (glucose) than others, and hence we will crave certain things when our blood sugar is low (like fruit juice, pizza/bread, or candy for example). Similar phenomenon are at play when we crave other things like proteins or foods with certain minerals/vitamins.

Okay, so let's recap. If you are the one engaging in the sex act with the child, that deserves punishment and others should try to disallow that If you watch the sex act with the child as a spectator in the location where it is occurring (in the present... it's happening right in front of you), that deserves punishment and others should try to disallow that If you film/produce CP for yourself, that deserves punishment and others should try to disallow that If you film/produce CP for distribution, that deserves punishment and others should try to disallow that If you contract with someone else paying them to produce CP on your behalf, that deserves punishment and others should try to disallow that If you purchase CP which has already been produced, that deserves punishment because it encourages further production (the demand/supply argument), and others should try to disallow that Then, moving on: If you get a free copy, you will not be punished because you are not paying and not encouraging further production, so others have no place trying to disallow that If you view it for free at a site like Youtube, you will not be punished because you are not paying and not encouraging further production (taking as given that # views is not a motivator for further production), so others have no place trying to disallow that If graphic CP is depicted in a video game, you will not be punished because it's just pixels (no matter how graphic or vile), so others have no place trying to disallow that Is this accurate so far? Does everyone agree? If I've missed any scenarios, please speak up. If you disagree, please explain where... and, more importantly, please explain why.

Close, but the correct version really is: "If a man speaks in the forest and a woman is not around to hear him, is he still wrong?"

In short, I question the relevance of the supply/demand assumption. I may not be correct in my own assumption that consumption is only minimally tied to production. I stipulate that. However, does your argument really change if there is no exchange of money? If the product is delivered without charge... It's obtained via YouTube, for example... I strongly doubt that your argument against consumption suddenly goes away... I am reluctant to believe that you'd be fine with people viewing CP just because there is no commerce involved. THAT's my point. You have argued that you wish to protect the children. I have argued that the harm comes from the production of the material, and that is where enforcement should be focused. You have countered that consumption feeds production due to the profit motive. I am now asking... If the profit motive is removed, are you now suddenly okay with consumption? I HIGHLY doubt that. So... Explain.

As I've stated numerous times already, I dismiss this central premise from which you are working. In the context of CP, it will be produced regardless of demand, since most times the producer themselves plays a dual role as a consumer. I find your assumption that people wouldn't make this shit if they didn't have someone to whom to sell it to be incredibly flawed. I am confident that standard supply/demand fundamentals can only be minimally applied in the context of CP. No need to yell. Get a grip, and think through my comments before blasting out and making me repeat myself over and over again as if I'm some sort of sick, twisted monster.

I took great pains to explain this already multiple times to A_Tripolation, but it seems that you are making the exact same mistaken assumption that he is. I am not talking about people who contract directly to have the product produced. That is a separate and distinct set of circumstances, and falls (IMO) under the producer umbrella, since they are directly involving themselves with the production event... which is where I think the enforcement mechanisms should be focused. To help you understand my point, think of people who watch regular (non-controversial) movies at the cinema or via Netflix. They are consuming the product after it has already been created. They are not involved in production, they are not involved in story or cast selection. The product exists... and they then interact with that already existing product. I am assuming the same scenario with CP... that the product itself is already in existence by the time the consumer comes in contact with it. It could have been video-taped 10 years ago... Is the person who watches that 10 year old video still complicit in its making? My argument has focused on consumers who encounter the product after the fact. They were in no way involved with the creation, they are simply consumers of the product after it's already been released. I am taking the existence of the product as given, and the involvement of the consumer as nil. There are also now separate questions about whether or not the product is presented for a price, or if the consumer has obtained it for free. I tried to touch on this previously with my mention of YouTube. I may watch it, but I'm not paying for it. Do the arguments regarding economics (the assumption producers would not do this without a market) also apply when it's obtained and no money is exchanged? In short, where do you draw the lines and why do you draw them there? Are you being consistent, and do those lines apply equally to other content that you don't personally find as vile?

In its opening you see the death of a woman named Maritza Martin, who was gunned down by her ex-husband on Spanish language television. Your argument is that I should be held accountable since it was caught on film and I watched it. That's stupid. What if I click a YouTube link and it's someone getting stabbed? Am I guilty and accountable then, too? Do you not see how ridiculous your line of reasoning has become? I'm honestly not sure the contributors to this thread are able to get past their visceral distaste enough to have that conversation. People are making unsupported claims, assertions based on fallacious premises, and using twisted logic to justify their stance. Exploring the nuance between censorship and complicity would be very engaging and rewarding, but I've seen practically none of that here thus far. The way this thread has gone, it seems I should be jailed for viewing a clip online two years ago of a gang beating one of their "pledges" to death during his initiation in Dallas. It seems I'm as bad as the folks who were kicking him in the skull with steel-toed boots.

I fail to see your point. If you were contracting someone to videotape sex with a child, I'd be against that too. However, that is not the type of consumption I've been discussing in this thread. In your example, people contracting to see sex with a child (or, to kill someone using your example) are, in fact, responsible for the production of the material, and are hence no longer mere consumers... They are no longer just viewers after the fact, they have involved themselves directly with production, and hence are now included under the producer umbrella... which I've argued above is where the punishment should be directed. EDIT: I can't believe I'm having to push so hard on this. It seems perfectly obvious to me. I'm going to back off this thread again for a while. I feel like I need to take a shower, and I can't believe I'm here arguing so strongly for such a disgusting thing. That's just it, though. I will come right out and state that I find it disgusting. I don't try to hide behind rationalizations, flawed premises, and inconsistent logic. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged My bad. I meant Traces of Death. I often confuse the two.

So, according to you I'm complicit in the deaths of people because I watched Faces of Death while I was in high school, and I should be punished for being a consumer of that material. I'm sorry, but no. I'm not guilty, nor am I complicit, but according to you, I am. That's ridiculous on its face. Precisely. The murder already happened. You are in no way, shape, or form responsible for my death by viewing it after the fact. The responsibility lies with murderer, and the murderer alone. The situation changes if you paid the murderer to kill me just so you could watch, but if that's the case then your comparison is not inline with what we've been discussing here in this thread... The consumption of videos well after they've been produced.

And I decline your request. It was the OP himself who made the comment, and I'm essentially asking for him to explain why. I don't need to take a position in this thread to challenge that expressed by others. Well, you're welcome to your opinion, but you're logic doesn't hold. The consumer does NOT indirectly harm the child. The harm to child comes form the producer, and I argue from the producer alone. The only role the consumer could play is if they happen to encourage the producer to make more. That would result in indirect harm, but the harm itself comes from the producer and no one else. Further, your argument would only really hold if the producers did this solely for economic benefit. My stance is that they don't. I'd say the vast majority of times the producer plays a dual role, and tend most often to also themselves be a consumer of the material. The fact that others seek to gain access to that material once it's already been produced is generally going to be irrelevant to the desire of the producer to make it in the first place. The harm comes from the person who puts the child in that position to begin with, not those who find pleasure in viewing the the materials the producer has made. You are arguing ideal supply/demand, as if the producers would not make this crap if people were disallowed from consuming it. I reject that premise since all indicators suggest that the material will be produced regardless of the laws against consuming/viewing it. So, my question remains. Why do you advocate punishing the consumer when the harm comes from the producer? I posit that it is a retaliatory response... a desire for punishment and retribution... an implicit desire to legislate your own personal morality... and has NOTHING to do with protection of the child. You are working with some very weak assumptions here. First, you have not established that consumption of the material is harmful to the child. As I have argued above, it is production of the material which causes the harm. Second, you assume standard supply and demand fundamentals for a market where they don't apply. As I argued above, producers do not make this material to increase the size of their bank accounts or to make money. They produce it to satisfy a need, and the existence of that need will not be terminated by making consumption illegal. It can, however, be mitigated via better enforcement on the production side. Simply put, the protection of the child comes from preventing production, not consumption. You can argue that you wish to "protect the children" all you want. My point is that the consumption of CP is not where the harm to the child takes place, and also that consumption is not what drives production in the first place (i.e. supply/demand assumptions are being mistakenly applied in this specific instance). I don't have to. I'm not the one arguing that CP should be treated differently, nor am I arguing that the viewing of CP leads to sex crimes against children later in life from those who have viewed it. That was NOT my assertion. I'm not the one asserting that consumption harms the child. I am challenging those assumptions/assertions, and the burden of proof lies with those who are making them. Thanks for the tip. I'll take that under consideration. I setup no strawman. You should check what that means. At no where and at no time did I misrepresent the position of others, argue instead against that misrepresentation, and then claim victory. I used a similar circumstance to ask for clarification, and to pull apart why one was okay, but not the other... Why a correlation was good enough to argue against CP, but not against everyday porn. No strawmen involved. It was a sincere question, and I was not attempting to misrepresent others in this thread, so thanks. Indeed. That was the heart of why I decided to open this exchange, and I'm glad to find agreement around this point that we should be clear on why are against certain things and draw the lines we do. In fairness, I'd accept it if others just came out and said they were against CP because it's gross and they don't want anything to do with it, and will take any measure possible to keep it from happening, even if the efficacy of that measure is questionable. I'd be good with that, because at least then people would be being sincere. However, the arguments being put forth in this thread have been little more than rationalizations based on flawed and inconsistent logic. When did I imply that I gave a shit about being constructive? I'm just after having some interesting and stimulating discussions with bright people, and making sure that the arguments we put forth are logically consistent and representative a membership here with a modicum of academic integrity.