• 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:
Just stop. What you are doing is backtracking. Go back and read what I wrote. You even said:

2. Is something very natural.

This is what I wrote:
2. A private internet cafe where they will be treated to Pornhub et al content for the same amount of time.

The truth is is that you are taking them to the Church. End of.
Click to expand...
Is it comprehension you have a problem with? Or is it logic?
 
Poem said:
My point has already been made.
Click to expand...
What point is that? That you think that church is better than porn? That lives are endangered by viewing porn? That it causes vision problems and hair to grow on our palms?
 
Poem said:
So you are still taking these kids to watch 3 hours of porn?...make that at least 6 hours of porn:
Click to expand...
I said if it was my choice, I would take them to an internet cafe where they might view porn as opposed to some sleazy church that will infect their minds with crap.
 
acbytesla said:
I said if it was my choice, I would take them to an internet cafe where they might view porn as opposed to some sleazy church that will infect their minds with crap.
Click to expand...
No, the choices were clear - it was Church or porn. The hypothetical scenario was a direct response and test of your hatred of religion (and trivialisation of the harms of porn).

You chose porn and doubled down on it.
 
Last edited:
Poem said:
No, the choices were clear - it was Church or porn. The hypothetical scenario was a direct response and test of your hatred of religion.

You chose porn and doubled down on it.
Click to expand...
Fine, you win, I would prefer that they watch porn than some sleazy preacher. I think it is much healthier. But I'm not "forcing my children to do either. "Ever!"
 
I'd been under the impression that absent fathers are often absent because they are not (sufficiently) interested in raising kids. I am under the impression that guys like that were already good at skiving off to the next sexy lady way before modern porn was even a thing.
 
Last edited:
@Poem, the problem we are having with what you are saying is that you are suggesting that every instance of a child seeing porn is because another person actively showed it to them. A person deliberately called up some porn on their phone and handed it to the child. That is not necessarily the case, it is not always the case, and I would hazard a guess it isn't even that commonly the case. If I have a bottle of whisky in an unlocked cupboard and a child finds it, I have not fed that child whisky.

Since a large part of your prior argument relies on the idea that children can accidentally stumble upon porn, this seems contradictory.
 
most of poem's knowledge on the topic is second hand account, it's all how he imagines it would be
 
dirtywick said:
most of poem's knowledge on the topic is second hand account, it's all how he imagines it would be
Click to expand...
As we've established, most of Poem's knowledge on the topic is not only second hand, the first hands belonged to dedicated anti-porn crusaders who have made entire careers out of arguing that porn is harmful.
 
arthwollipot said:
As we've established, most of Poem's knowledge on the topic is not only second hand, the first hands belonged to dedicated anti-porn crusaders who have made entire careers out of arguing that porn is harmful.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Didn't ruin my life. And my guess, almost nobody's. It's pictures of people having sex. What's the big deal. Raise your children well and there is no way that porn images will have a negative effect.
 
acbytesla said:
No, it's not. No one is causing anyone to view porn. That someone underage views it of their own volition is not me causing them to view porn.
Click to expand...
:cautious:

Nobody is causing kids to drink booze. That someone underage drinks alcohol when it has been made easily available with no material or meaningful safeguards to prevent it is totally the kid's own volition, it's not the fault of the liquor stores that don't employ any restrictions and don't check id.
 
1. Alcohol costs money - porn is free.
2. Any responsible parent can keep track of the amount of booze in the house but, considering that children have a right (as per the UNCRC) to mass media (which includes the internet), then there isn't a easy way to prevent them seeing porn without breaching that right.
 
Poem said:
1. Alcohol costs money - porn is free.
Click to expand...
Technically, yeah, but only the samples. There's a reason it's called the "money shot". Every second clip on PornHub ends with "You missed the best bits! Watch the whole video on PayForPorn.com!" And for the amateurs, Onlyfans requires a paid subscription.

Nb. "PayForPorn.com" is made up by me. I'm reasonably sure it doesn't actually exist.

Poem said:
2. Any responsible parent can keep track of the amount of booze in the house but, considering that children have a right (as per the UNCRC) to mass media (which includes the internet), then there isn't a easy way to prevent them seeing porn without breaching that right.
Click to expand...
Rubbish. Parental controls on internet use are the equivalent of locking the booze cabinet. Will it prevent a smart and enterprising kid from accessing it if they are determined? No. But I challenge you to tell me what will.
 
arthwollipot said:
Technically, yeah, but only the samples. There's a reason it's called the "money shot". Every second clip on PornHub ends with "You missed the best bits! Watch the whole video on PayForPorn.com!" And for the amateurs, Onlyfans requires a paid subscription.
Click to expand...
Ok.
arthwollipot said:
Rubbish. Parental controls on internet use are the equivalent of locking the booze cabinet. Will it prevent a smart and enterprising kid from accessing it if they are determined? No. But I challenge you to tell me what will.
Click to expand...
Already have done so. We ban porn until the industry starts acting responsibly (as in not showing their content to kids). Those children have a right to mass media. Again, where are the SJWs? It's a clear case of a vulnerable minority being treated appallingly by those who should know better. Essentially, it's sexual abuse.

Aylo remains demonstrably 'morally bankrupt' and should be 'crippled by financial liabilities'.

And you dare to talk about utilitarianism? Clearly, your focus lies with existentialism and nihilism.
 
arthwollipot said:
As we've established, most of Poem's knowledge on the topic is not only second hand, the first hands belonged to dedicated anti-porn crusaders who have made entire careers out of arguing that porn is harmful.
Click to expand...
I just want to know precisely the damage that watching porn causes to the viewer and how this was determined. I get that there are anti-porn zealots who see pornography as disgusting or degrading. But that doesn't address the damage.
 
Darat said:
Yep - we know the real harm done to kids is from the like of the social media companies, in a hierarchy of harm "accidentallY" coming across porn is way down the list for evidence of harm.
Click to expand...
Are you going to reply to #4,066 and #4,013?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom