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

[Poem]

And in many places where the UNCRC is in force, children are indeed able to do this.

Can yo back that up?

"Should make sure" goes too far, in my opinion. Surety is an impossible standard, and I disrespect any government that ratified such nonsense. I also doubt any of the governments that have ratified the UNCRC are in any way serious about making sure of this. I'm also pretty sure that most signatories to the UNCRC have horrible human rights records across the board. You're basically making an appeal to popularity. In this case, that means an appeal to a population that includes entities that wipe their ass with the concept of human rights as we understand it. The countries that do the best at controlling what their citizens can see on the Internet are the countries that do the best at oppressing their citizens and denying their human rights. If you hold up China as a paragon of porn censorship, you're holding up China as a paragon.

So your appeal to the UNCRC and its signatories is another dead letter, as far as I'm concerned.

Apologies - I quoted from an interpretation. This is the original wording of the UNCRC:
Article 17 States Parties recognize the important function performed by the mass media and shall ensure that the child has access to information and material from a diversity of national and international sources, especially those aimed at the promotion of his or her social, spiritual and moral well-being and physical and mental health. To this end, States Parties shall: (a) Encourage the mass media to disseminate information and material of social and cultural benefit to the child and in accordance with the spirit of Article 29; (b) Encourage international co-operation in the production, exchange and dissemination of such information and material from a diversity of cultural, national and international sources; (c) Encourage the production and dissemination of children’s books; (d) Encourage the mass media to have particular regard to the linguistic needs of the child who belongs to a minority group or who is indigenous; (e) Encourage the development of appropriate guidelines for the protection of the child from information and material injurious to his or her well-being, bearing in mind the provisions of Articles 13 and 18.

 

[Poem]

What nobody here agrees with is your proposal to ban porn entirely. And a mandate to ban porn entirely has been found nowhere in the UNCRC. You seem to value appeals to authority and popularity, so hopefully this will resonate with you: Not one of the states parties to the UNCRC think it mandates a total ban on porn.

Nevertheless, they are bound by international law to ensure that children can safely access mass media. Countries with monist legal systems incorporate international law directly into their domestic legal systems without further action needed. Dualist legal systems have a duty to formally incorporate such international laws.

 

[Poem]

God you really need to go look up what fallacies are.

The Abrahamic god is (probably) the most worshipped god in history, therefore you should absolutely believe in him/her/it.

Serously, fallacies. Look them up.

Equally, Porn is (probably) the most (or one of the most) worshipped 'gods' in history, therefore you should absolutely believe in it.

 

[Poem]

There's no reason to believe that the people that authored the UNCRC don't consume porn themselves. And that the UNCRC therefore was never intended to mandate a blanket ban, nor even anything more robust than what most western cultures currently have in place.

What do western cultures have in place?

 

[arthwollipot]

You cite Pornhub's T&Cs as evidence that they are reputable and law-abiding? What are you suggesting - that back in 2020, when Kristof made us aware that their content was infested with rape and CSAM that their T&Cs were materially different?

Yes, that's literally what happened. The authorities cracked down on illegal content and PornHub changed its policies. A lot of other sites did too, by the way. PornHub isn't the only one out there. The fact that PornHub was caught with its pants down actually led to a rise in self-managed subscription sites like OnlyFans and Fanvue.

I'll you again to back up your claim that PH is reputable and law-abiding.

Well, it's kind of difficult when you can't back it up with links. I've demonstrated that NC and CSAM are against PornHub's terms and conditions. I don't have access to their moderation controls (and neither do you) but I can say that PornHub removes content all the time. I'm not sure what kind of stronger evidence I can give on this forum.

 

[Poem]

As it should be, in my opinion.

Yes, and rights often come into conflict with each other. The solution is to find some balance or compromise between the two rights, not just delete one of them.

Like children's access to the internet (safe access) has been effectively cancelled.

That's a pretty weak argument for a ban. Assuming it even is an argument, and not just more empty rhetoric.

It is reality. Society can protest all it likes - access to porn remains their 'God'.

 

[Poem]

I have to prove your claim? No, that is not how this works, Poem. If you know that others agree with you, it should be easy for you to link to them.

I responded with some links but you haven't come back. Why did you ask for them?

 

[Helen]

I responded with some links but you haven't come back. Why did you ask for them?

No, you didn't, you responded by telling me to look it up for myself (#2.696), and whrn I said that's nit how it works, you told me you were content not to prove it. You have also said that the sources you have cited have not called for a ban.

 

[Darat]

And... fringe reset... again!

 

[Poem]

No, you didn't, you responded by telling me to look it up for myself (#2.696), and whrn I said that's nit how it works, you told me you were content not to prove it. You have also said that the sources you have cited have not called for a ban.

Not true: #2,701.

Note: 'Protect 25' should be 'Project 25'.

 

[Poem]

No, you didn't, you responded by telling me to look it up for myself (#2.696), and whrn I said that's nit how it works, you told me you were content not to prove it. You have also said that the sources you have cited have not called for a ban.

You asked me out of the blue for links to those that want to ban porn and I suggested you look it up. That is and can be how it works.

 

[Ziggurat]

Apologies - I quoted from an interpretation. This is the original wording of the UNCRC:
Article 17 States Parties recognize the important function performed by the mass media and shall ensure that the child has access to information and material from a diversity of national and international sources, especially those aimed at the promotion of his or her social, spiritual and moral well-being and physical and mental health. To this end, States Parties shall: (a) Encourage the mass media to disseminate information and material of social and cultural benefit to the child and in accordance with the spirit of Article 29; (b) Encourage international co-operation in the production, exchange and dissemination of such information and material from a diversity of cultural, national and international sources; (c) Encourage the production and dissemination of children’s books; (d) Encourage the mass media to have particular regard to the linguistic needs of the child who belongs to a minority group or who is indigenous; (e) Encourage the development of appropriate guidelines for the protection of the child from information and material injurious to his or her well-being, bearing in mind the provisions of Articles 13 and 18.

Huh. Not a single mention of the Internet here. It's almost like you made that ◊◊◊◊ up.

 

[Poem]

Huh. Not a single mention of the Internet here. It's almost like you made that ◊◊◊◊ up.

You appear to (still) not know what mass media means. We have been through this. You just decided that those that clarified article 17 were all idiots.

 

[Ziggurat]

You appear to (still) not know what mass media means. We have been through this. You just decided that those that clarified article 17 were all idiots.

Indeed, we have been through this before, and you are still wrong. TV is mass media too. So are newspapers. Giving kids access to these satisfies the requirement that they have access to mass media. Nothing in that section requires access to the internet. You made that ◊◊◊◊ up.

 

[Helen]

Not true: #2,701.

Note: 'Protect 25' should be 'Project 25'.

Poem, when you stated that you were content to not prove it, I took you at your word. Shouldn't I have?

 

[Helen]

You asked me out of the blue for links to those that want to ban porn and I suggested you look it up. That is and can be how it works.

 

[Poem]

Indeed, we have been through this before, and you are still wrong. TV is mass media too. So are newspapers. Giving kids access to these satisfies the requirement that they have access to mass media. Nothing in that section requires access to the internet. You made that ◊◊◊◊ up.

You seem intent on preserving the status quo - that kids should not have a right to access the internet. One of the reasons for this denial is a desire for easy access to porn content. However, children do have a right to the internet and they have a right to it such that that experience is safe. That right would be (and should be) a priority for societies that agree with Mandela when he said that our treatment of children is a revelation of it's soul.

Ever wonder why society is so broken?

BTW - using '◊◊◊◊' isn't going to help you.

 

[Poem]

Poem, when you stated that you were content to not prove it, I took you at your word. Shouldn't I have?

Prevarication. Just respond to what you asked for.

 

[dirtywick]

unfortunately porn is also sold in other forms of mass media as well.

 

[Helen]

Prevarication. Just respond to what you asked for.

Prevarication? Sigh. When I asked if any of your sources advocate for a ban, you said yes. I asked for links, you suggested that I should do my own search. Not how it works. In #2,701, which i read today, you then linked to an organisation you have cited, and said they are not calling for a ban. I have no idea what "respond to what you asked for" means in that context.