• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

Poem said:
The porn I referred to is illegal in many countries. The UK (on DVD and Blu-ray at least) and Canada would be examples.

I'm still not sure we are on the same wavelength.
Click to expand...
Different countries draw the line between legal and illegal in different places. That's not news.
 
Poem said:
Obviously false and it's pointless continuing.
Click to expand...

No, it's obviously true and everyone reading this thread can see that. You ask if I'm "an advocate for" some particular thing that's legal but distasteful for many people. Your ingenious never-tried-before plan works like this:

If I answer yes, depict that answer as my actively approving the distasteful thing in question. Proceed to then personally impugn my morals on that basis, which also allows you to dismiss my position as motivated by self-interest.

If I answer no, depict that answer as my agreement that the thing should be illegal. Proceed to then infer my support for your entire extremist position of banning all sexual depictions including sex education materials, kissing in movies and photographs, most classical sculpture, and anatomy textbooks.

When explained that what I advocate is the legal principle that preserving civil rights sometimes requires some distasteful things to remain legally permissible, pretend not to understand and then repeat the question.
 
Myriad said:
No, it's obviously true and everyone reading this thread can see that. You ask if I'm "an advocate for" some particular thing that's legal but distasteful for many people. Your ingenious never-tried-before plan works like this:

If I answer yes, depict that answer as my actively approving the distasteful thing in question. Proceed to then personally impugn my morals on that basis, which also allows you to dismiss my position as motivated by self-interest.

If I answer no, depict that answer as my agreement that the thing should be illegal. Proceed to then infer my support for your entire extremist position of banning all sexual depictions including sex education materials, kissing in movies and photographs, most classical sculpture, and anatomy textbooks.

When explained that what I advocate is the legal principle that preserving civil rights sometimes requires some distasteful things to remain legally permissible, pretend not to understand and then repeat the question.
Click to expand...
Framing this as if it is somehow wrong of me to ask for a reaction is just wrong. Those comfortable with the porn status quo should be comfortable with defending where it's at.

Maybe this thread isn't for you.
 
Poem said:
Framing this as if it is somehow wrong of me to ask for a reaction is just wrong. Those comfortable with the porn status quo should be comfortable with defending where it's at.

Maybe this thread isn't for you.
Click to expand...

Advocating laws that are blatantly unconstitutional is just wrong, regardless of comfort. As long as you keep doing so in this thread I'll keep objecting in this thread.
 
Myriad said:
Advocating laws that are blatantly unconstitutional is just wrong, regardless of comfort.
Click to expand...
Incorrect. The Miller Test only needs a little tweaking and the whole US porn edifice could crumble. Nothing unconstitutional about that. Your faith in the Supreme Court is extraordinary.
Myriad said:
Proceed to then infer my support for your entire extremist position of banning all sexual depictions including sex education materials, kissing in movies and photographs, most classical sculpture, and anatomy textbooks.
Click to expand...
Strawman.
.
 
Darat said:
Poem - do you think Michelangelo’s David should once again wear his fig leaf?
Click to expand...
Do you think it right that a poster should respond to posts they have ignored before they expect the poster of such posts to respond to them?
 
Last edited:
Poem said:
#1,734
Click to expand...
In the complete absence of any contest or explanation, I'm going to assume that this solitary link is meant as a response to my post. That particular part of our discussion is dangerously close to bickering and, as such, I will not be continuing to press the point. Your repeated attempts to bait me into a probable transgression of the MA are not going to work.
Now, can we see this law you keep going on about?
 
Poem, it looks like you made a mistake, as that post does not contain information about any UK law but rather is part of a slap fight about whether a particular term is a favorite of religious evolution deniers.
 
Lithrael said:
Poem, it looks like you made a mistake, as that post does not contain information about any UK law but rather is part of a slap fight about whether a particular term is a favorite of religious evolution deniers.
Click to expand...
It wasn't a mistake. The poster knows what it's about.

Would you agree that, rather than worrying about whether we should allow Michelangelo's David or not (I'd allow it), what actually desperately needs addressing is the fact that Pornhub et al are exposing their content to children and the issue of #1,783.

Regarding the UK law - I cited CEOP which is part of the NCA. I have repeatedly spoke of the spirit rather than the letter of the law.

Barnardo's January 2020:
Since the decision not to enact Part 3 of the Digital Economy Act in October 2019, Barnardo’s have found that it is likely that children will have accessed pornographic content 54 million times at a minimum.

Since Barnardo's is a UK children's charity then that figure refers purely to the UK.
 
To the best of a quick search, there are something like 13 million people under the age of 16 living in the UK. Someone is doing a lot of work to get 54 million accesses in four months. If the kids like it THAT much they're definitely gonna be setting up VPNs if the banhammer comes down.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom