• 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:
No - it's legal on the net. I asked you for a citation that is at odds with The Guardian and Barnardos.
Click to expand...
No you did not - I offered to provide you with the citations to the various acts:

Darat said:
Again this is just acknowledging that different laws apply to different distribution channels, media etc. Please see my post above for more details. I can provide you the references from the various acts of parliament if you want them.
Click to expand...
I think I've navigated the UK gov site so these links should jump straight to the relevant section

Protection of Children Act 1978 - pseudo image

Protection of Children Act 1978

An Act to prevent the exploitation of children by making indecent photographs of them; and to penalise the distribution, showing and advertisement of such indecent photographs.
www.legislation.gov.uk www.legislation.gov.uk

Sexual Offences Act 2003 - definition changed from under 16 to under 18 - section 45

Coroners and Justice Act 2009 - possession computer and cartoon - see section 62
 
Darat said:
No you did not - I offered to provide you with the citations to the various acts:


I think I've navigated the UK gov site so these links should jump straight to the relevant section

Protection of Children Act 1978 - pseudo image

Protection of Children Act 1978

An Act to prevent the exploitation of children by making indecent photographs of them; and to penalise the distribution, showing and advertisement of such indecent photographs.
www.legislation.gov.uk www.legislation.gov.uk

Sexual Offences Act 2003 - definition changed from under 16 to under 18 - section 45

Coroners and Justice Act 2009 - possession computer and cartoon - see section 62
Click to expand...
#3,489

If you were right then we wouldn't need to ban barely legal (etc) on the internet. But what is being proposed for the Crime and Policing Bill? - yes, exactly that.
 
Last edited:
Darat said:
Are the cites sufficient for you?
Click to expand...
Are you saying we do not need any new legislation to deal with this content? If so, should the Pornography task force be told they are wasting their time?
 
Last edited:
Poem said:
Your opposition is to most legal porn - CMIIW.
Click to expand...
My opposition is more to the algorithms designed to encourage excessive consumption and delivering more extreme content that skews people's model of reality. This in turn actually alters the environment, which is why you're going to struggle to find any evidence to convince anyone here: we're all in the swamp!
 
Ivor the Engineer said:
My opposition is more to the algorithms designed to encourage excessive consumption and delivering more extreme content that skews people's model of reality. This in turn actually alters the environment, which is why you're going to struggle to find any evidence to convince anyone here: we're all in the swamp!
Click to expand...
You have no opposition to extreme content - as long as it is not suggested and encouraged to consumers using current algorithmic models?
 
arthwollipot said:
My family situation is not the subject of this thread. I did not marry the mother of my child. That is all that I'm going to say.
Click to expand...
If you won’t discuss it, then it’s not relevant. As theprestige said, marriage is a very good proxy measurement for involved fathers, and we know that the lack of fathers in the home leads to all sorts of social pathologies including lower educational achievement and increased crime, drug use, and violence. Fatherlessness is correlated with being poor, but it is not strictly caused by being poor.
 
Ivor the Engineer said:
Ah, so unless poverty can explain 100% of human behaviour it cannot be a causal factor?
Click to expand...
Causal factor for what, exactly? Be precise.
Ivor the Engineer said:
That it is strongly correlated with such behaviour
Click to expand...
Other factors are even more strongly and directly correlated. You are ignoring those other factors in favor of poverty, when poverty is mostly correlated with violence etc. because it is also correlated with those more direct factors such as a lack of a father in the home.
Ivor the Engineer said:
As expected, when successful programmes such as Sure Start are presented to you you simply ignore them because they don't fit with the acausal free will delusion.
Click to expand...
Nothing I have said has anything to do with acausal free will. This is entirely your own straw.
 
Ziggurat said:
If you won’t discuss it, then it’s not relevant. As theprestige said, marriage is a very good proxy measurement for involved fathers, and we know that the lack of fathers in the home leads to all sorts of social pathologies including lower educational achievement and increased crime, drug use, and violence. Fatherlessness is correlated with being poor, but it is not strictly caused by being poor.
Click to expand...
Are you saying that there is something about the male of the species that cannot be replaced by a female? Or just that it takes two?
 
Poem said:
Are you saying that there is something about the male of the species that cannot be replaced by a female? Or just that it takes two?
Click to expand...
Numerics seems to be part of it, but not all of it. Mothers and fathers are not interchangeable.
 
Ziggurat said:
Numerics seems to be part of it, but not all of it. Mothers and fathers are not interchangeable.
Click to expand...
Just to be clear - are you suggesting that the traditional one of each sex relationship should be the model? That would be quite a claim given current western mores.

Not saying you are wrong.
 
Poem said:
Just to be clear - are you suggesting that the traditional one of each sex relationship should be the model?
Click to expand...
I don't understand your question. Are you asking it one parent of each sex should be the model? Then yes. Evidence indicates that this works best. I am NOT saying that no one should ever be permitted to behave differently, or that anyone should be forced into such an arrangement.

If you're asking if these parents need to adopt "traditional" sex roles, then no.
 
Last edited:
Ivor the Engineer said:
Click to expand...
I didn't respond specifically to this before since I didn't know much about it. I've done a bit of reading since. Here's another article on the topic:

www.nesta.org.uk

Insights: what can we learn from Sure Start?

A panel of experts reflected on the success of the Sure Start initiative and discussed the transferable lessons for other social policy areas.
www.nesta.org.uk www.nesta.org.uk

As both this source and your own indicate, the program started as a very local one, with lots of local engagement and customization. As they tried to scale that up, they made it more uniform, less local, and less customized. And then it stopped working so well. That's not my conclusion, BTW, that's the conclusion of both my source and yours. But that's sort of the nature of government. Bureaucracy doesn't like local autonomy. Bureaucracy strangles it. They couldn't scale it up without ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ it up. So you have managed to show that local government programs can succeed, but you haven't shown that a national program can.

Oh, and from my source: "The early results of Sure Start were not always positive. The fact that children of teenage mothers did worse in Sure Start areas than non-Sure Start areas made for challenging conversations with ministers." So it's not like the program was a total success even at its best.
 
Ziggurat said:
I don't understand your question. Are you asking it one parent of each sex should be the model? Then yes. Evidence indicates that this works best. I am NOT saying that no one should ever be permitted to behave differently, or that anyone should be forced into such an arrangement.

If you asking if these parents need to adopt "traditional" sex roles, then no.
Click to expand...
I was asking that.

What evidence would you cite?
 
Ziggurat said:
Causal factor for what, exactly? Be precise.

Other factors are even more strongly and directly correlated. You are ignoring those other factors in favor of poverty, when poverty is mostly correlated with violence etc. because it is also correlated with those more direct factors such as a lack of a father in the home.

Nothing I have said has anything to do with acausal free will. This is entirely your own straw.
Click to expand...
You can't see the wood for the trees. Living in poverty is not conducive to a stable family life. This manifests itself in numerous ways, include relationship breakdown, drug misuse, violence, crime, etc. You are picking out individual effects of poverty and ignoring the common factor that links them all: poverty.

E.g., Having to constantly decide on whether to heat the house or feed the kids and/or themselves is not conducive to children being able to feel secure and learn, or their chronically stressed parent(s) being able make good choices about numerous other things that will shape the adults their children turn into.

Your comment about fathers reminds me of the example in Freakonomics about kids who have books at home do better, so some politician campaigned to put some books in every kids home. Let's start a campaign to put a father in every home!
 
Lithrael said:
*sees a problem*
"There ought to be a law!"
"There already is a law. It's just not being well enforced."
"Then there oughta be ANOTHER law! And we'll enforce THAT one!"
Click to expand...
This seems to be at least 50% of politics.
 
Ivor the Engineer said:
You can't see the wood for the trees. Living in poverty is not conducive to a stable family life.
Click to expand...
You have that backwards. Parents living together, especially if they are poor, is MORE stable than living apart.
Ivor the Engineer said:
E.g., Having to constantly decide on whether to heat the house or feed the kids and/or themselves is not conducive to children being able to feel secure and learn, or their chronically stressed parent(s) being able make good choices about numerous other things that will shape the adults their children turn into.
Click to expand...
Living expenses are higher when you live apart than when you live together. Heating two homes is more expensive than heating one home. All the problems you talk about are easier, not harder, to deal with when two parents living together work together on those problems.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom