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

[Lithrael]

We wouldn't allow it to be licensed and built in the first place - because we have values and regulations that guard against that kind of thing?

well, a bit, only the 'that kind of thing' is actually the plentiful public restroom, which is currently less tenable because of the difficulty in keeping them clean, safe and available, and which I'd like back actually. Whether they had porn in them or not.

It wouldn't be licensed and built because nobody would want to spend the money to keep them nice.

There are a lot of things that aren't feasable or popular enough that anyone would/could get them permitted, that I have no moral qualms with at all. It's not a useful metric.

And it's your hypothetical; it's a bit silly to describe a whole situation and then if someone says 'how would that happen' you go IT WOULDNT THATS MY POINT well okay. You haven't really actually argued anything yet.

 

[Lithrael]

I think you've pretty much made Poem's point, Lithrael.

Not really. Poem said the kiosks got built, presumably by responsible adults, and then also said no responsible adults would allow them to exist. I just asked how the kiosks were supposed to have happened, in that case. That's still their self-contained problem in their own hypothetical.

 

[arthwollipot]

I don't understand this analogy. What is the automated porn vendor on every street corner supposed to be analogous to?

 

[Poem]

Would it be bad parenting to take a child into a sex shop?

If they tried, yes of course. A sex shop that allowed it to happen would face a fine or losing their licence.

 

[Darat]

If they tried, yes of course. A sex shop that allowed it to happen would face a fine or losing their licence.

Thanks.

 

[Poem]

Then how did it get liscened and built? It's hard enough to get a hot dog stand going. Clearly your analogous society is either pre-regulatory in general (in which case children genuinely have bigger problems) or is set in an alternate universe whose values need to be described before we can discuss things too deeply.

If they skipped permitting we should probably just get them removed on those grounds. Law & order and all.

The analogy has it as licensed?
A firm societal 'yea' would make it abundantly clear what is and what is not to be tolerated; that you are of such a persuasion is obvious.

I think you've pretty much made Poem's point, Lithrael.

 

[Poem]

I'm not going to counter an analogy. It has a begged question hidden in it. I could debate the validity of the begged question, but that would be a waste of time. Just make the argument in its own terms, instead of in terms of something else, and you avoid the whole problem.

1.	If A, then B	true statement we both agree on.
2.	A is properly analogous to X	begged question; usually this is a hidden step
3.	Therefore, if you agree that if A then B, you must by analogy agree that if X then Y.	Forced conclusion, without actually arguing that if X then Y is true.

I could ask you to waste a lot of time establishing a proper analogy between A and X, to my satisfaction, but why bother? The real claim you're trying to prove is "X therefore Y". So I'd rather dismiss the analogy, and just ask you to prove "X therefore Y" in its own terms.

Trying to prove "X therefore Y" is true, in terms of "A therefore B" is completely unnecessary. The only reason to do it is when you're not convincing anyone of X therefore Y, and so you want to force agreement via a begged question.

Nobody wants to play along with that, which is the main reason arguments by analogy always fail.

I appreciate your post but it does not actually establish a begged question (if I am following your logic). Much time has already been spent laying out facts in this thread...but with limited impact.

You say nobody wants to play along - but that is your framing (that it's a game). If a vendor sprang up as described, then the question of it's continued existence would be a real one.

For some reason, no one has actually engaged with that...and in the meantime, the hypothetical vendor continues to furnish youngsters with all kinds of content.

 

[Poem]

Remember: Not responding means the hypothetical vendor keeps running.

 

[Lithrael]

The analogy has it as licensed?

If it's not licensed and permitted it should be taken down on those grounds even if all it does is dispense flowers. Many societies decided not to let cowboys put whatever they want on street corners a long time ago for a whole collection of reasons.

If it is licensed and permitted then ipso facto it's in a community that permits such things, and if anyone in the community wants it gone then they are free to advocate for that through political action and if they have enough support hey presto. They can even just start vandalising them if they feel strongly enough to risk the consequences.

I'd also say if it's licensed and permitted and anyone in the community is bothered that kids are de facto permitted to enter, there are a lot of options to address that besides 'get rid of them' (the kiosks, not the kids).

If I was a bystander in the hypothetical my first step would be looking for evidence of whether the 'children go in there all the time' was true and why they wanted to or were doing so by mistake if so, and start addressing things from that angle. I would investigate the chesterton's fence of it all to understand why my society licensed and permitted them and how they're understood to impact the community. For instance it'd be weird if there were ONLY corner anon porn kiosks but not corner anon anything elses that children could de facto enter.

 

[theprestige]

I appreciate your post but it does not actually establish a begged question (if I am following your logic). Much time has already been spent laying out facts in this thread...but with limited impact.

If you've already laid out your facts, arguments, and conclusions, then your work here is done. All that's left is for you to let people make up their own minds. You don't get to decide what impact your arguments have on your audience. If it's a limited impact, sometimes it be like that.

You say nobody wants to play along - but that is your framing (that it's a game). If a vendor sprang up as described, then the question of it's continued existence would be a real one.

For some reason, no one has actually engaged with that...and in the meantime, the hypothetical vendor continues to furnish youngsters with all kinds of content.

For the reason I have given, nobody has actually engaged.

 

[theprestige]

Remember: Not responding means the hypothetical vendor keeps running.

Haha debates don't usually work like that, but okay, sure:

Why are you running millions of sex shops that sell to kids? Aren't you against that sort of thing?

 

[Poem]

If it's not licensed and permitted it should be taken down on those grounds even if all it does is dispense flowers. Many societies decided not to let cowboys put whatever they want on street corners a long time ago for a whole collection of reasons.

If it is licensed and permitted then ipso facto it's in a community that permits such things, and if anyone in the community wants it gone then they are free to advocate for that through political action and if they have enough support hey presto. They can even just start vandalising them if they feel strongly enough to risk the consequences.

I'd also say if it's licensed and permitted and anyone in the community is bothered that kids are de facto permitted to enter, there are a lot of options to address that besides 'get rid of them' (the kiosks, not the kids).

If I was a bystander in the hypothetical my first step would be looking for evidence of whether the 'children go in there all the time' was true and why they wanted to or were doing so by mistake if so, and start addressing things from that angle. I would investigate the chesterton's fence of it all to understand why my society licensed and permitted them and how they're understood to impact the community. For instance it'd be weird if there were ONLY corner anon porn kiosks but not corner anon anything elses that children could de facto enter.

Whether the establishment (the 'vendor') is licensed or not, is selling flowers, is run by cowboys or entails a discussion about Chesterton's fence isn't the focus of the analogy. We don't know whether it is or isn't licensed; but we do know that porn is made available to children. Any discussion about licensing laws and evidence collecting would probably entail a bureaucratic rabbit hole...meanwhile - well, the consequences have already been laid out.

 

[Poem]

If you've already laid out your facts, arguments, and conclusions, then your work here is done. All that's left is for you to let people make up their own minds. You don't get to decide what impact your arguments have on your audience. If it's a limited impact, sometimes it be like that.

Ok.

For the reason I have given, nobody has actually engaged.

Since you haven't identified any flaw in the analogy then I am confused that you'd bother saying this.

 

[Poem]

Haha debates don't usually work like that, but okay, sure:

Why are you running millions of sex shops that sell to kids? Aren't you against that sort of thing?

This needs responding to?

 

[theprestige]

Ok.

Since you haven't identified any flaw in the analogy then I am confused you'd bother saying this.

It's your world. You filled it with sex shops, and opened their doors to children. Why would you do such a thing? Why is it now my fault that you insist on perpetuating this state of affairs?

 

[Poem]

It's your world. You filled it with sex shops, and opened their doors to children. Why would you do such a thing? Why is it now my fault that you insist on perpetuating this state of affairs?

Emboldened is confusing. No person adopting my position is saying that. Perhaps you can clarify?

 

[theprestige]

Emboldened is confusing. No person adopting my position is saying that. Perhaps you can clarify?

You're blaming me for not engaging with the world you created, to put a stop to the situation you created. It's your world. It's your situation. It's your children going into your sex shops. You engage with it, if you want it to stop.

 

[Poem]

You're blaming me for not engaging with the world you created, to put a stop to the situation you created. It's your world. It's your situation. It's your children going into your sex shops. You engage with it, if you want it to stop.

You are free not to engage but you have poo-pooed my analogy without actually giving any specifics. Declaring it as some cloud-cuckoo-land fantasy on my part is unsubstantiated.

And you still haven't explained your volte face here which would be relevant to the scenario in my analogy:

Nobody is taking responsibility for teaching healthy sexual relationships to children.

Instead you're falling all over yourself, trying to make excuses for a porn industry that's spamming undifferentiated kinks to children without restraint.

It hardly affirms the accusation that I have fabricated reality - on the contrary, it supports it - underpins that reality. You withdrew the charge but I doubt you can just turn off such a characterisation....such a belief.

 

[Lithrael]

Whether the establishment (the 'vendor') is licensed or not, is selling flowers, is run by cowboys or entails a discussion about Chesterton's fence isn't the focus of the analogy. We don't know whether it is or isn't licensed; but we do know that porn is made available to children. Any discussion about licensing laws and evidence collecting would probably entail a bureaucratic rabbit hole...meanwhile - well, the consequences have already been laid out.

Meh. Seems to me like you're the one who isn't interested in engaging. You don't need a whole convoluted analogy to talk about the idea of porn being 'made available to children.'

Any hedonistic thing being 'made available to children' bothers me pretty much in proportion to how actually damaging/addictive/etc it is. Sugar. Soft drugs. Hard drugs. Alcohol. Vapes. Nicotine. Gambling. Porn. TV. Internet video content. Social media.

Porn is an interesting one because in this context, we are talking about something decoupled from direct financial interest. For this list that's pretty much just unpaid porn, TV/internet video content, and social media. It's a different question than if a kid would be, or quickly get, naturally interested in the high of hard drugs or the buzz of alcohol or the perceived relief of nicotine because nobody is giving them any for free. Nobody is 'making it available' and anyone that could would be in trouble with the law. Well, sugar, yeah, but that's a whole nother can of worms.

Except of course, alcohol in the home, which often happens with close parental supervision and in small amounts is seen as very nearly harmless. You can have a little, but it's mainly for adults, it's not that mysterious, and you have no reason to want it anyway.

But TV, internet video, social media, and free porn sites: yes, children - at least, savvy children, can access all of those if they really set out to. But so could they back in the day, even porn, as countless stories of semi-legendary porno magazine stashes or waiting for the clear moments of scrambled cable PPV will tell you. The question to me is why would they want to? Young kids are either uninterested or dispassionately curious, or want something to shock their friends with. Older kids are on their way to adulthood anyway.

The more realistic, historical version has been porno mags left where adventurous or curious kids could find them - not FOR them, mind you, but nobody was in a position to stop them. And they'd usually need to be intrepid enough to go on a little bit of a hike or follow a bit of gossip. I'm not actually against that at all.

If the main thrust of the pearl clutchers was to get porn that directly encourages violence behind paywalls I'd be on board. But I haven't seen any evidence that I find compelling that suggests that kids are swimming in that sort of stuff online. The worst stuff that gets served up when I go looking for what I actually want to see are performers that look like they're blitzed or don't want to be there.

Meanwhile in the US we somehow decided to start letting every-◊◊◊◊◊◊◊-body advertise gambling on every available surface. I find that far more ubiquitous and far more disgusting than porn. And big, BIG money is being made there, off the backs of people who absolutely cannot afford it. Put it back where it was - like porn, available, but you have to go looking for it. So yeah. I think the advertising for porn should be treated like the advertising for gambling USED TO BE and I think the advertising for gambling should be put back that way too!

Thank you for coming to my TED talk.

 

[Poem]

Meh. Seems to me like you're the one who isn't interested in engaging. You don't need a whole convoluted analogy to talk about the idea of porn being 'made available to children.'

Ironic given the length and digressive nature of your post. The analogy isn't convoluted and since it caught you out it would seem to be quite efficacious...and just a few lines too.

Think of it as the equivalent of cleaning the Augean Stables.

If the main thrust of the pearl clutchers was to get porn that directly encourages violence behind paywalls I'd be on board.

If the hypothetical establishment in the analogy only proffered content that avoided such extremes...what then?