Moderated What's wrong with porn?

[Southwind17]

I agree with you on this. It's not porn, it's humans. Porn itself is an image and sound on a screen. No matter what, that's all it is. It is the viewer's choice as to what to do during and after the viewing.

You just don't get it, though, do you. By this argument everything extraneous to the adult human body is innocuous. We'd might just as well go giving away free anthrax with every bottle of Bud for the benefit of those Bud drinkers who might have a legitmate use for it!

 

[Southwind17]

I have stated clearly my position. You cherry pick little "sound bites" ignoring the whole post and the point that I have clearly stated several times in an attempt to discredit me, not my viewpoint, but me. You have done that several times.
Since up until recently, you've purposely posted "no comment" on my replies to your point, it would seem to me that since you cannot reply to my complete post when I can and have pick apart yours, and instead, have tried to discredit me, (again, not my viewpoint), and have been unsuccessful in doing so, shows me that you can't defend your point.
That's been your whole strategy with not just me, but everyone on here who disagrees with you.

I thought I'd made it clear that I was going to ignore those parts of your and others' posts that I felt were not worth my responding to. At least I wrote "No comment" to identify those parts to you. You seem to have interpreted that as my not being able to respond. Not the case. If I disagree with what's left ("little sound bites", as you put it) that should afford you my full response.

 

[JFrankA]

I disagree. I admit that much of my more recent posting amounts to pointing out and reminding other posters that their points are flawed and arguments continue to fail to pass the litmus test, but only because they continue to beat the same old drum because they've run out of fresh ideas. Just like some people here resorted to "if this then that" and "that doesn't necessarily mean this"-type arguments a long time back I don't see why I should be criticized for pointing out weaknesses and flaws now if some people insist on making false claims and positing flawed arguments.

Do you realize your postings are forcing us to do the same thing to you? Your arguments are even more flawed than ours.

Where have you shown any evidence that VCP will cause a potential/actual child molester to ignore conscious and molest a child? In fact, since we are talking about potential/actual child molesters, we are actually talking about ALL pedophiles.

So your statement pertains to all pedophiles.

Also, where is the evidence that banning VCP actually really does lower the amount of child molestation?

In fact, every time we presented you with evidence, your stance is that porn does not affect any sex crimes at all.

So where is the logic of "banning all VCP lowers child molestation" come from when you yourself actually argued that porn doesn't affect sex crimes?

Oh. Wait. I know.

Because you don't like VCP.

But don't forget, if you insist on free speech but don't like what you read, I'm afraid it's you, my friend, who will have to move on. If you want your cake, sadly, you can't eat it too!

Yeah, and with free speech it's my right to keep debating people with points that doesn't follow any logic but follows emotional pleading.

Besides, I like you, I feel that your postings have been needing "pointing out and reminding ... that [your] points are flawed and arguments continue to fail to pass the litmus test".

 

[JFrankA]

I thought I'd made it clear that I was going to ignore those parts of your and others' posts that I felt were not worth my responding to. At least I wrote "No comment" to identify those parts to you. You seem to have interpreted that as my not being able to respond. Not the case. If I disagree with what's left ("little sound bites", as you put it) that should afford you my full response.

I know what you are saying, but that doesn't fly. It doesn't sound like you "don't feel it worthy", it sounds like you can't.

Because most of the time, you are "no comment"-ing, or ignoring on the parts that have the point in them, choosing only the parts that you think are "worthy" to respond to in an effort to discredit me (and others) but not the point.

That is cherry picking.

 

[JFrankA]

You just don't get it, though, do you. By this argument everything extraneous to the adult human body is innocuous. We'd might just as well go giving away free anthrax with every bottle of Bud for the benefit of those Bud drinkers who might have a legitmate use for it!

ETA: I got it this time.

Yes it's true. Everything extraneous to the adult human is innocuous.

It's our own decisions that make it not.

Most people wouldn't take a bottle of anthrax. And the ones who do, will have to decide what to do with it, huh?

 

[Southwind17]

Do you realize your postings are forcing us to do the same thing to you?

Nobody, least of all I, is forcing you to do any such thing. Funny thing that, though. You (one) can watch any movie, any porn, read any magazine, any Manga comic, and you're (one's) completely free to decide what to do afterwards. You come (one comes) here, read(s) my posts, and suddenly you've (one's) lost your (one's) senses and you're (one's) completely out of control! I don't know whether to criticise or feel sorry for you're lack of willpower or otherwise self-praise my powers of persuasion! And you consider you're the stage hypnotist! Meantime, I feel compelled to mock you, given how this exemplifies the absurdity of the "decision trumps subconsciousness" argument you've been propounding!

In fact, every time we presented you with evidence, your stance is that porn does not affect any sex crimes at all.

Really? Please show where.

So where is the logic of "banning all VCP lowers child molestation" come from when you yourself actually argued that porn doesn't affect sex crimes?

Please identify this alleged argument.

Yeah, and with free speech it's my right to keep debating people ...

Seems we could be here for some considerable time yet!

Besides, I like you, ...

Thank you.

I feel that your postings have been needing "pointing out and reminding ... that [your] points are flawed and arguments continue to fail to pass the litmus test".

That's fair enough. We can both agree to disagree, but continue to assert what such buffoons we each are.

 

[Southwind17]

I know what you are saying, but that doesn't fly. It doesn't sound like you "don't feel it worthy", it sounds like you can't.
Because most of the time, you are "no comment"-ing, or ignoring on the parts that have the point in them, choosing only the parts that you think are "worthy" to respond to in an effort to discredit me (and others) but not the point.
That is cherry picking.

You have repeatedly posited various arguments and made various points even after I've successfully and repeatedly discredited them. I informed you in advance that I was going to refrain from responding to such repetition. Now, you might not see a little synonym swapping as repetition, but I do. I will, therefore, continue to "cherry pick" until the tree is bare. I don't believe there's much left to harvest now.

 

[Southwind17]

ETA: I got it this time.
Yes it's true. Everything extraneous to the adult human is innocuous.
It's our own decisions that make it not.
Most people wouldn't take a bottle of anthrax. And the ones who do, will have to decide what to do with it, huh?

Sure - and who will the finger be pointed at when millions die? No, unfortunately, you still haven't got it.

 

[Southwind17]

That fact that there exists people who commit sex crimes neither indicates that it involves "many people", nor that they will risk any foreseeable consequence.
Rather, only a tiny fraction of people commit sex crimes, and most believe they will get away with it, and often go to great lengths to avoid consequences. There's also an unjustified assumption that all sex crime is primarily motivated by immediate sexual desire.
What sex crime statistics can tell us, however, is that the overwhelming majority of people manage to control their sexual desires and only act on them in legal and appropriate ways.

So you're claiming that there are not many people who commit child sex abuse in the face of the foreseeable consequences, right?

 

[JFrankA]

Nobody, least of all I, is forcing you to do any such thing. Funny thing that, though. You (one) can watch any movie, any porn, read any magazine, any Manga comic, and you're (one's) completely free to decide what to do afterwards. You come (one comes) here, read(s) my posts, and suddenly you've (one's) lost your (one's) senses and you're (one's) completely out of control! I don't know whether to criticise or feel sorry for you're lack of willpower or otherwise self-praise my powers of persuasion! And you consider you're the stage hypnotist! Meantime, I feel compelled to mock you, given how this exemplifies the absurdity of the "decision trumps subconsciousness" argument you've been propounding!

Err... Where have I lost control?

I've gotten emotional, but, and I'm going to be honest here, there are PLENTY of things that I typed, erased and re-typed, or even just not posted because I DECIDED what I was going to say wasn't something I should or should not post. No matter what you throw at me, my decisions as to what to post on here is are my and my choices. Maybe I make bad ones, but they are still mine.

In fact, it is you who have shown more "out of control"-ness. You are the ones with the instant mis-judgments on people in this thread, the mocking of people in this thread, and personally, ignoring me (out of your own words, you weren't sure why you did in the first place), the un-ignore of me.

So, since I am the stage hypnotist, it seems to me that you are more under my spell than you are of mine. I've been secretly controlling you with my works of persuation leading you to actually un-ignore me and continue to debate me, in fact, making you mock me so that you look like a buffoon.

I'm so glad my powers work so well over you.....

....or are you CHOOSING to do all that? Hmmmm?

Really? Please show where.


Please identify this alleged argument.

Well, I'm big enough to admit a mistake. You did not say at any time that "porn does not affect sex crimes". I was remembering my reply to you when you were talking about Meese report. My apologies, I got mixed up. I CHOOSE to say what I posted, realized my mistake and stood up to my responsiblity. (See? You didn't make me make a mistake, right?)

Anyway, here's my response back then, in case you didn't read it because you choose to have me on ignore at the time:

The only mistake I made is that I didn't do enough research.

http://www.nydailynews.com/money/200...uce_the_i.html

Now after doing more reading, there are people who say neither side (porn reduces rape vs porn increases rape) is right:

http://forensicpsychologist.blogspot...pe-debate.html

http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2009/07/mor...ss-rape-or.php


Which leads me to conclude, (and if my logic is faulty some reasonable people please point it out to me), that I was right:

No matter what a person may look at, no matter if it's bloody violent child rape porn or fuzzy little bunnies eating carrots, a person will decide to do something on her or his own accord, and whatever media is being watched will NOT ALTER THAT PERSON'S CHOICE.

Again: The person is responsible. NOT THE MEDIA.

Still, you have provided no proof that VCP will cause a pedophile to "lose control" and molest a child.

Seems we could be here for some considerable time yet!

That would depend on the choices we make in the future, huh?

Thank you.

That's fair enough. We can both agree to disagree, but continue to assert what such buffoons we each are.

You know, you do piss me off sometimes, then you come up with a statement like that and I just want to go buy you a beer.

 

[JFrankA]

You have repeatedly posited various arguments and made various points even after I've successfully and repeatedly discredited them. I informed you in advance that I was going to refrain from responding to such repetition. Now, you might not see a little synonym swapping as repetition, but I do. I will, therefore, continue to "cherry pick" until the tree is bare. I don't believe there's much left to harvest now.

But you never ever discredited point, you are trying to discredit me, and sorry, you haven't been successful at all.

 

[JFrankA]

Sure - and who will the finger be pointed at when millions die?

The person who used the anthrax.

Besides, you're cheating. I have said, repeatedly, everyone makes their own choices provided that they aren't under the influence of drugs, or mentally ill makes their own choices.

If you get a drunk person with anthrax then we should ban the alcohol completely because that's what made unable to make a clear choice - he was under the influence of a drug.

See?

No, unfortunately, you still haven't got it.

No, I do get it - take the easy road, ban VCP, anyone who may use it for other reasons shouldn't anyway because there is a one in a whatever chance that a pedophile will see it and hurt a child.

You didn't read my post to SugarB addressing that. I know you didn't because you ignored it.

What you don't get is that it take responsibility away from the person who actually committed the crime. "Oh, poor child molester. He couldn't help himself - he saw a drawing of a naked virtual child at an art gallery and he lost control, poor dear."

 

[Belz...]

Still, you have provided no proof that VCP will cause a pedophile to "lose control" and molest a child.

In fact, some have asserted the opposite. So far, I see no reason to favour one hypothesis over the other. And the benefit of the doubt should be on the side of liberty.

You know, you do piss me off sometimes, then you come up with a statement like that and I just want to go buy you a beer.

I don't know. I always find it odd when someone only agrees to call himself a buffoon when others are included in the lot.

 

[RandFan]

I believe you described the circumstances under which the conclusive evidence was seized, including the police knowing, i.e. already in possession of other proof(!), who the perpetrator was, and that you stated that the tape conclusively proved not simply that a serious child abuse crime had been committed, but more importantly who the perpetrator of that crime was, in which case, and in the context of the single example discussed, no, I don't deny that I said "yes", and I'll repeat it for you, if you like - "yes"! Under those circumstances, the illegal act of the police justifies the most obvious, immediate risk to other children.

Thank you.

As long as the evidence conclusively proves a crime and the police argue that the the perpetrator will likely commit another crime then we throw out the rights. So there is no impetus for the police to follow the law.

Indeed, under those circumstances there could well be a sound case for claiming that such "illegal" act was necessary to prevent a serious crime under the principle of "lesser evil".

The argument could always be made. Ilegality on the part of the police could always be justified. The police could go on a fishing expedition in your home so long as they get conclusive evidence and can make a convincing argument of future crime.

 

[RandFan]

Evidence that speeding, per se, or possession of a gun, per se, directly cause harm?

Inference. Statistical likelyhood. If we have EVIDENCE that harm has taken place then we can make a determination as to the likelyhood that harm will hapen again.

Pathetic nonsense.

Pathetics nonesense.

 

[JFrankA]

I don't know. I always find it odd when someone only agrees to call himself a buffoon when others are included in the lot.

Being annoying to others is something I admittingly do sometimes for the sake of comedy.

Now, I should point out, I told him it makes me want to buy a beer.

.....that doesn't mean I choose to do buy him one....

 

[AWPrime]

I'm sorry - a what or a what?

Read these threads and know:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=75565
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=124603

 

[Southwind17]

I don't know. I always find it odd when someone only agrees to call himself a buffoon when others are included in the lot.

Proving that you're incapable of reading carefully and/or comprehension!

 

[Southwind17]

Thank you.

As long as the evidence conclusively proves a crime and the police argue that the the perpetrator will likely commit another crime then we throw out the rights. So there is no impetus for the police to follow the law.

The argument could always be made. Ilegality on the part of the police could always be justified. The police could go on a fishing expedition in your home so long as they get conclusive evidence and can make a convincing argument of future crime.

Proving, again(!), that you, too, are incapable of reading carefully and/or comprehension!

 

[Bob from NJ]

Caution; somewhat explicit (Duh)

Porn is demeaning, since it reduces people to their lowest common instincts and desires, both in what it shows and in what it expects of the viewer. It is demeaning for the same reason watching someone wolf down five hamburgers in a row, or drink down a bottle of vodka and pass out, or is demeaning both to the viewer and the guy who does it.

This doesn't mean sex, food, or drink are bad in themselves. But porn is the abuse of sex.

This is not the same as

I don't see it as demeaning, if it's done right. It's supposed to show humans in the 'mating frenzy' totally lost in the throes of lust, when we really ARE reduced to an overwhelming sex-drive.
Look how submissive fetishists endure all sorts of 'indignities' and 'abuse'; they'll be tied up and under someone else's control, yet it's a liberating experience for them. It's not demeaning or degrading for the submissive at all, quite the opposite.
But then, S&M doesn't portray ALL men or ALL women as submissives, unlike a lot of 'normal' porn. (Don't get me started on the Japanese...) It's about fantasy.

I think 'generic' porn is pretty awful though. Unrealistic body types, fake-looking implants, unrealistic expectations for both sexes etc.