Does 'rape culture' accurately describe (many) societies?

[Poem]

Whenever you state alleged facts, uncomfortable or not, it is a good idea to present documentation for those alleged facts.

That's true. It would also be 'a good idea' to read what has been posted already; if you had you wouldn't have posted as you did.

 

[Poem]

Declaring things still doesn't make them true. Do you not understand what this forum is supposed to be about? There's a reason we're not a good audience for your announcements.

You haven't been following the thread.

However, in the interests of I'm bored at this particular instant, I'll ask: how exactly does my looking at a website of Tom of Finland drawings, circa 1960, of adult men in adult situations "severely harm" children? Explain to me how that "severe harm" is happening.

Read the thread...just the last few pages will do. Child experts and children's charities have been saying that young people are being 'severely harmed' by porn (two years ago now). Harm isn't restricted just to children - and I have posted on that as well.

Why would you even want to question that fact TM?

Either way, please present your evidence that they are not being harmed.

 

[TragicMonkey]

You haven't been following the thread.

You can't answer my question.

Read the thread...just the last few pages will do. Child experts and children's charities have been saying that young people are being 'severely harmed' by porn (two years ago now). Harm isn't restricted just to children - and I have posted on that as well.

Again, declarations don't make things true, whether they are coming from you or someone else.

Answer my question: how are children being "severely harmed" by the event I described?

Why would you even want to question that fact TM?

It's what we do here. When people make claims they are asked to prove them. Proof does not mean finding someone else who makes the same claim, it means backing up the claim with evidence, or reason.

If you really think children are "being severely harmed" in the situation I described then you should be able to explain how. If you can't think of how they can be being harmed in that situation then you should adjust your thinking and modify your claim. Anything else is intellectual dishonesty.

Either way, please present your evidence that they are not being harmed.

Again, that's not how things work. You have made a claim, you must support it. You cannot demand other people prove negatives. Present your evidence that children are being "severely harmed" in the situation I described. If you cannot provide evidence it means your claim can and should be rejected.

 

[Poem]

You can't answer my question.

Again, declarations don't make things true, whether they are coming from you or someone else.

Answer my question: how are children being "severely harmed" by the event I described?

It's what we do here. When people make claims they are asked to prove them. Proof does not mean finding someone else who makes the same claim, it means backing up the claim with evidence, or reason.

If you really think children are "being severely harmed" in the situation I described then you should be able to explain how. If you can't think of how they can be being harmed in that situation then you should adjust your thinking and modify your claim. Anything else is intellectual dishonesty.

Again, that's not how things work. You have made a claim, you must support it. You cannot demand other people prove negatives. Present your evidence that children are being "severely harmed" in the situation I described. If you cannot provide evidence it means your claim can and should be rejected.

The Guardian (1st April 2022):
Age checks needed urgently to protect children from online porn, say charities

An “immediate and urgent” introduction of age verification is needed to stop children accessing extreme content on pornography websites, children’s charities have warned.

In a strongly worded open letter to the largest pornography sites in the UK, a coalition of charities and child safety experts led by Barnardo’s said the harm being done to children was so severe that the issue could not wait to be addressed as part of the online safety bill, which has yet to come into effect.

So here's an example form that article:

One 15-year-old boy went from spending hours outdoors to watching pornography during lockdown. He was arrested after exposing himself to an older woman, and disclosed that he had been specifically viewing content that portrayed men exposing themselves in public to women who enjoyed this and then engaged with the men sexually.

You must have missed this previously (#142) as I have seen no response (you disagreed that children find porn on X more than anywhere else).

Let me ask you then, are children been harmed by porn or not? If not, your evidence that contradicts child experts and children's charities is what?

 

[TragicMonkey]

The Guardian (1st April 2022):
Age checks needed urgently to protect children from online porn, say charities



So here's an example form that article:


You must have missed this previously (#142) as I have seen no response (you disagreed that children find porn on X more than anywhere else).

You haven't answered my question. Explain what "severe harm" is done to children by my looking at a website of Tom of Finland drawings, circa 1960, of adult men in adult situations. Can you do that? If not, then you must modify your claim that "anyone watching or uploading porn is contributing to this harm".

Let me ask you then, are children been harmed by porn or not? If not, your evidence that contradicts child experts and children's charities is what?

I don't see any reason to entertain questions from you until you answer mine.

And no, citing declarations from "child experts and children's charities" doesn't constitute proof. Once more: declarations do not make things true.

At this point I'm beginning to think you may be a chatbot because your responses skirt the posts they reply to without apparently understanding the meaning.

 

[Poem]

You haven't answered my question. Explain what "severe harm" is done to children by my looking at a website of Tom of Finland drawings, circa 1960, of adult men in adult situations. Can you do that? If not, then you must modify your claim that "anyone watching or uploading porn is contributing to this harm".

It's illegal to show children porn which assumes that such material is damaging. You don't seem to agree with that.

Most online porn today is off the scale extreme compared to 1960s porn so I'm not sure why it's even being discussed. Either way, children are acting out what they see as demonstrated by the quote I cited.

I don't see any reason to entertain questions from you until you answer mine.

Your non-response was weeks back, so it would be right to get back on that wouldn't it?

And no, citing declarations from "child experts and children's charities" doesn't constitute proof. Once more: declarations do not make things true.

The right thing to do would be to cite other experts who contradict their findings which you haven't done.

Citing declaration from the people I have carries more weight than a single poster on a internet forum - unless of course you are an expert. Are you?

At this point I'm beginning to think you may be a chatbot because your responses skirt the posts they reply to without apparently understanding the meaning.

You'd need some expert evidence for that wouldn't you?

 

[Poem]

You haven't answered my question. Explain what "severe harm" is done to children by my looking at a website of Tom of Finland drawings, circa 1960, of adult men in adult situations. Can you do that? If not, then you must modify your claim that "anyone watching or uploading porn is contributing to this harm".




I don't see any reason to entertain questions from you until you answer mine.

And no, citing declarations from "child experts and children's charities" doesn't constitute proof. Once more: declarations do not make things true.

At this point I'm beginning to think you may be a chatbot because your responses skirt the posts they reply to without apparently understanding the meaning.

I'll ask again: are children been harmed by porn or not? If not, your evidence that contradicts child experts and children's charities is what?

 

[TragicMonkey]

It's illegal to show children porn which assumes that such material is damaging. You don't seem to agree with that.

That's not the situation, though. Who is "showing children porn" in the scenario I described? Nobody. Are you adjusting your claim from "anyone watching or uploading porn is contributing to this harm" to add "if it is being shown to children"?

Most online porn today is off the scale extreme compared to 1960s porn so I'm not sure why it's even being discussed.

You made a very broad claim. I posited a question about a scenario that falls within the bounds of what you claimed. You must either adjust your claim to exclude that scenario or explain how your claim does fit that scenario. It either fits or it doesn't. In or out.

Either way, children are acting out what they see as demonstrated by the quote I cited.

This doesn't seem relevant to the question I asked. No children are in the situation I'm asking you to apply your claim to.

Your non-response was weeks back, so it would be right to get back on that wouldn't it?

Not really. You're the one making claims, it is up to you to defend them...if you can. This is your pony show, and your ponies are not performing well. The audience is not impressed.

The right thing to do would be to cite other experts who contradict their findings which you haven't done.

Citing declaration from the people I have carries more weight than a single poster on a internet forum - unless of course you are an expert. Are you?

For the nth time, declarations are not proof. Citing authority is not proof (even if the authority is actually pertinent, and qualified). You have made a claim that "severe harm to children" is a result of "anyone watching or uploading porn". I have cited a situation of watching porn that does not appear to harm any children. You do not seem to be able to explain how children can be harmed in this situation. That disproves your claim.

Let's make it easy:

Hypothesis: X leads to Y.
W is a subset of X.
W occurs. Y does not occur.
Therefore: X does not always lead to Y.

Either you must prove that Y does occur from W, prove that W is not a subset of X, or adjust the hypothesis to exclude at least W from leading to Y. There aren't any other possibilities I'm seeing there. One of those things must necessarily be true. Am I wrong?

You'd need some expert evidence for that wouldn't you?

Your pettish tone is in fact a point against your being a chatbot. See how that works? I make a claim (not really, it was floating a theory), I encounter a point that seems to suggest otherwise, I weigh that point and realize that my claim is less likely to be true than I thought it was. So I withdraw it.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I'll ask again: are children been harmed by porn or not? If not, your evidence that contradicts child experts and children's charities is what?

I haven't made a claim that children haven't been harmed by porn. I'm questioning your claim that all porn always harms children.

eta: As theprestige isn't here I'll employ an analogy: saying that fire doesn't always kill people isn't the same thing as saying no people have ever been killed by fire.

 

[Poem]

That's not the situation, though. Who is "showing children porn" in the scenario I described? Nobody. Are you adjusting your claim from "anyone watching or uploading porn is contributing to this harm" to add "if it is being shown to children"?

You made a very broad claim. I posited a question about a scenario that falls within the bounds of what you claimed. You must either adjust your claim to exclude that scenario or explain how your claim does fit that scenario. It either fits or it doesn't. In or out.

This doesn't seem relevant to the question I asked. No children are in the situation I'm asking you to apply your claim to.

Not really. You're the one making claims, it is up to you to defend them...if you can. This is your pony show, and your ponies are not performing well. The audience is not impressed.

For the nth time, declarations are not proof. Citing authority is not proof (even if the authority is actually pertinent, and qualified). You have made a claim that "severe harm to children" is a result of "anyone watching or uploading porn". I have cited a situation of watching porn that does not appear to harm any children. You do not seem to be able to explain how children can be harmed in this situation. That disproves your claim.

Let's make it easy:

Hypothesis: X leads to Y.
W is a subset of X.
W occurs. Y does not occur.
Therefore: X does not always lead to Y.

Either you must prove that Y does occur from W, prove that W is not a subset of X, or adjust the hypothesis to exclude at least W from leading to Y. There aren't any other possibilities I'm seeing there. One of those things must necessarily be true. Am I wrong?

Your pettish tone is in fact a point against your being a chatbot. See how that works? I make a claim (not really, it was floating a theory), I encounter a point that seems to suggest otherwise, I weigh that point and realize that my claim is less likely to be true than I thought it was. So I withdraw it.

Okay, apologies TragicMonkey - I took my eye off the ball there. I should have made it clear that my 'anyone watching porn' was contextually related to the harm that experts affirm is occurring and which is of material that is more explicit than the example you cited. So, yes, I was not precise with my language and didn't fully take in your point.

So, in the context described, anyone watching will be fuelling demand for material that children are and do access.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Okay, apologies TragicMonkey - I took my eye off the ball there. I should have made it clear that my 'anyone watching porn' was contextually related to the harm that experts affirm is occurring and which is of material that is more explicit than the example you cited. So, yes, I was not precise with my language and didn't fully take in your point.

So, in the context described, anyone watching will be fuelling demand for material that children are and do access.

Ah, yes, "fueling demand". Party A consumes Item B, therefore it's safe to assume this will causes Party C to consume Item B as well...somehow. Can you explain how that's supposed to happen? Is it a certainty? A probability? A possibility? An improbability?

You also bring it back to the matter of "access"; it's been pointed out quite a few times before that it is the responsibility of their guardians to monitor their childrens' behavior, not the responsiblity of everybody else to purge the world of everything deemed inappropriate for children. I assume you have a television in your house. Did you know you can see things on it that are inappropriate for children? What's the solution to the possibility of children using your television to see inappropriate things?: 1) remove all such material from all television, 2) keep children from using your television to see inappropriate things.

I'm also willing to bet you have knives in your kitchen. A kid could cut themselves.

I'm pretty sure this has turned back to the same repetitive circle this thread has always been. The answer is "No", rape culture doesn't accurately describe (many) societies", overbroad assertions about pornography being the font of evil are not credible, and society does not need to childproof everything it does in lieu of parents minding their children.

 

[Myriad]

So, in the context described, anyone watching will be fuelling demand for material that children are and do access.

Using fire to provide heat and cook food fuels demand for matches and flammable materials that arsonists are and do access.

Reading books fuels demand for literacy education and printing presses that Nazi propagandists are and do access.

Building and living in houses fuels demand for construction materials and tools that torture chamber builders are and do access.

Should we shiver outdoors in illiterate ignorance, in order to curb these evils?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Australian Childhood Foundation
https://professionals.childhood.org.au/prosody/2016/07/melinda-tankard-reist/

American College of Pediatricians
https://acpeds.org/position-statements/the-impact-of-pornography-on-children

Unicef
https://www.unicef.org/harmful-content-online

Australian Institute of Family Studies
https://aifs.gov.au/research/research-snapshots/effects-pornography-children-and-young-people

 

[TragicMonkey]

American College of Pediatricians

You might want to do a slight Google and Wikipedia on this one.

 

[Emily's Cat]

You might want to do a slight Google and Wikipedia on this one.

OMG!!!!!! Evil Conservative1!!!! Therefore anything they say must be totally wrong!!!!!!! Only Progressive Doctors are Acceptable!!!!!



If we were talking about whether or not homosexual people deserve equal rights, and whether or not gay kids should go to conversion camps, I would toss anything from that source out the window. But I don't throw out an entire group because I disagree on some topics - even if they're big topics that are important to me. Doing so would be poisoning the well.

 

[TragicMonkey]

OMG!!!!!! Evil Conservative1!!!! Therefore anything they say must be totally wrong!!!!!!! Only Progressive Doctors are Acceptable!!!!!



If we were talking about whether or not homosexual people deserve equal rights, and whether or not gay kids should go to conversion camps, I would toss anything from that source out the window. But I don't throw out an entire group because I disagree on some topics - even if they're big topics that are important to me. Doing so would be poisoning the well.

...it's literally a hate group. That you are willing to overlook that because they agree with you on one subject...

I only bothered posting because I thought that maybe, just maybe, you didn't know. But now I think you did.

 

[dirtywick]

probably worth reminding that this whole threaded started based on the product of basically what’s left of project veritas. not really sure quality of sources is a consideration

 

[Emily's Cat]

...it's literally a hate group. That you are willing to overlook that because they agree with you on one subject...

I only bothered posting because I thought that maybe, just maybe, you didn't know. But now I think you did.

I looked up their wikipedia page when you mentioned it, I had no prior knowledge. Wikipedia doesn't describe them as being a hate group, but whatever floats your boat I guess.

 

[Poem]

Ah, yes, "fueling demand". Party A consumes Item B, therefore it's safe to assume this will causes Party C to consume Item B as well...somehow. Can you explain how that's supposed to happen? Is it a certainty? A probability? A possibility? An improbability?

I'm not sure what there is to explain - leaving Item B lying around for Party C to access is irresponsible.

You also bring it back to the matter of "access"; it's been pointed out quite a few times before that it is the responsibility of their guardians to monitor their childrens' behavior, not the responsiblity of everybody else to purge the world of everything deemed inappropriate for children.

I'm sure many parents do their best but why would Daniel Kebede, the general secretary of the National Education Union (in the UK) say:

We can’t individualise the issue and put it down to problem parenting, failure of parenting. It’s very difficult when every other child has access to a smartphone to be that parent who says no. There has to be regulation on this from government, who in turn supports families in making those decisions.

Of course, parents who deny their child a smartphone can't guarantee what their child will see on their friend's phone.

I assume you have a television in your house. Did you know you can see things on it that are inappropriate for children? What's the solution to the possibility of children using your television to see inappropriate things?: 1) remove all such material from all television, 2) keep children from using your television to see inappropriate things.

I would back moves to clean up programmes for TV but clearly there are grey areas.

I'm also willing to bet you have knives in your kitchen. A kid could cut themselves.

I'd say your analogy doesn't equate - knives have utility for children when eating but the porn we are discussing is material that is illegal to show them.

I'm pretty sure this has turned back to the same repetitive circle this thread has always been. The answer is "No", rape culture doesn't accurately describe (many) societies", overbroad assertions about pornography being the font of evil are not credible, and society does not need to childproof everything it does in lieu of parents minding their children.

Mere assertion while much evidence to the contrary has been presented here.

 

[Poem]

Using fire to provide heat and cook food fuels demand for matches and flammable materials that arsonists are and do access.

Reading books fuels demand for literacy education and printing presses that Nazi propagandists are and do access.

Building and living in houses fuels demand for construction materials and tools that torture chamber builders are and do access.

Should we shiver outdoors in illiterate ignorance, in order to curb these evils?

As with TragicMonkey's kitchen knives, your analogies don't equate - all the examples you give are, in general, beneficial for children but the porn we are discussing is illegal to show to them and severely harming them.