Moderated What's wrong with porn?

[tesscaline]

I don't see anything particularly "scientific" in that.

That's your problem. I'm sure other people are perfectly capable of recognizing that an engineering study is perfectly scientific.

So your feelings towards privacy rights are?

Irrelevant to the subject of whether VCP should or should not be legal.

In the UK gun laws amount to the removal of a right to possess something in the absence of no real harm, but which, by comparison to US statistics, appears to be well justified. It's that principle that was being discussed, not First Amendment rights per se.

As has been stated, real and demonstrable harm has been shown in regards to guns. Whether I agree with the laws as currently stated in the US or the UK isn't particularly relevant though.

So you're refusing to clarify your position. I think you've tripped yourself up!

I am refusing to play your little game. Sorry.

"Harm" and "rights" are the very crux of this discussion. If I seek clarification from you simply as to whether your use of the word "harm" includes emotional and psychological harm (because they're obviously different from physical harm), and what your views are on the fundamental right to absolute privacy, then I suppose I'll have to agree with you that this conversation (with you) is entirely pointless. Please turn off the lights on your way out.

Harm and rights have been under discussion for pages and pages and pages. And only NOW do you decide that you want someone to define them? This is disingenuous of you. Again, something I will not buy into.

 

[tesscaline]

All that laws do is remove rights!

If that's what you really think, then your ignorance is showing.

 

[Belz...]

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

Why, Southwind. If I didn't know better, I'd think your post was a personal attack aimed at my reading comprehension, something you're seldom known for using

It was a comment, Wind. I just find it funny when some people concede a point but with the caveat of including others in their downfall.

 

[JFrankA]

Interesting, SW, you didn't comment on my replies to you.
I can only assume that you did not deem them worthy of your attention.

And since your defenses are lately "you are incapable of reading carefully and/or comprehension!" or "I think you've tripped yourself up!" or "I don't see anything particularly "scientific" in that", your silence says to me that you have no defense.

 

[not daSkeptic]

Also, I have talked to lots of people in China and they insist that there is very little propotional cases of rape, incest, and child abuse in China.

I can confirm this. When I lived in Beijing (early 90s) it was incredibly safe to walk the streets at night or meander through some back alley. The reason for this, however, was attributed to the swift and public executions that were held in the stadium next to my apartment.

 

[tesscaline]

I can confirm this. When I lived in Beijing (early 90s) it was incredibly safe to walk the streets at night or meander through some back alley. The reason for this, however, was attributed to the swift and public executions that were held in the stadium next to my apartment.

In other words, it had nothing to do with the accessibility to porn, or the lack thereof. Right?

 

[ZirconBlue]

I can confirm this. When I lived in Beijing (early 90s) it was incredibly safe to walk the streets at night or meander through some back alley. The reason for this, however, was attributed to the swift and public executions that were held in the stadium next to my apartment.

Wait. Are you saying the Death Penalty is an effective deterrent?



Where is that can o' worms smiley, anyway?

 

[Toke]

I can confirm this. When I lived in Beijing (early 90s) it was incredibly safe to walk the streets at night or meander through some back alley. The reason for this, however, was attributed to the swift and public executions that were held in the stadium next to my apartment.

I have always felt safe going ashore in china, but have to some extend ascribed it to standing head and shoulder above the locals.

 

[not daSkeptic]

Wait. Are you saying the Death Penalty is an effective deterrent?

When it's actually carried out with no significant delay, when the condemned doesn't sit around for 20+ years and is thus more likely to die of old age or prison violence ... *shrug*

As I said, that's how things were attributed. I know of no scientific studies on the matter. It could be just a coincidence. Still, if I was convinced that getting caught for something would mean I'd be dead within the week, it would make me think twice. But that's just me.

 

[JFrankA]

When it's actually carried out with no significant delay, when the condemned doesn't sit around for 20+ years and is thus more likely to die of old age or prison violence ... *shrug*

As I said, that's how things were attributed. I know of no scientific studies on the matter. It could be just a coincidence. Still, if I was convinced that getting caught for something would mean I'd be dead within the week, it would make me think twice. But that's just me.

Huh? What? Did I hear someone say the words "scientific studies"?

Oh. Well. I happen to have a couple here in my pocket. Just found them!

http://www.physorg.com/news178892132.html

Lajeunesse refutes the perverse effect often attributed to pornography. "Aggressors don't need pornography to be violent and addicts can be addicted to drugs, alcohol, gaming and asocial cases are pathological. If pornography had the impact that many claim it has, you would just have to show heterosexual films to a homosexual to change his sexual orientation."

http://www.physorg.com/news166769376.html

For people without a prior conviction for a hands-on sex offense, the consumption of child pornography alone does not, in itself, seem to represent a risk factor for committing such an offense. Researchers writing in the open access journal BMC Psychiatry studied 231 men convicted of consuming child pornography in 2002 and found that only 1% had gone on to commit a hands-on sex offense in the following six years.

 

[RandFan]

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

Again proving that asserting something doesn't make it true. Again, proving that you are incapable of rebutting the proposition.

 

[Southwind17]

That's your problem. I'm sure other people are perfectly capable of recognizing that an engineering study is perfectly scientific.

That depends on the exact details of the engineering study. I saw nothing scientific in the extract you posted. If you're prepared to accept every "engineering study" as "perfectly scientific" just because of the words "engineering" and/or "study" that's entirely up to you SkeptiChick. Not me, though.

Irrelevant to the subject of whether VCP should or should not be legal.

Not at all. Many people here are arguing freedom of speech in support of allowing VCP on the basis that freedom of speech is sacrosanct, including the right to demonstrate outside private premises. My point, or question, is: why should demonstration trump the right to privacy? If the right to privacy were to trump the right to demonstrate then that, alone, erodes the sacrosanct freedom of speech position. See?

As has been stated, real and demonstrable harm has been shown in regards to guns. Whether I agree with the laws as currently stated in the US or the UK isn't particularly relevant though.

Misses the point. Real and demonstrable harm has not been shown with regard to the mere possession of guns. See? BTW - you did read JFrankA's post in which he argues that anthrax should be freely available, right? I didn't notice you challenging that. Just an observation.

I am refusing to play your little game.

No. You're refusing to be honest and paint yourself into a corner. Understandable, albeit cowardly.

Harm and rights have been under discussion for pages and pages and pages. And only NOW do you decide that you want someone to define them? This is disingenuous of you. Again, something I will not buy into.

No. I want you to clarify your position in relation to a specific position that you've only just adopted, or at least only just stated. Again, understandable, albeit cowardly.

 

[Southwind17]

If that's what you really think, then your ignorance is showing.

And if you're not prepared to support this assertion then yours, more so, I would suggest.

 

[Southwind17]

Why, Southwind. If I didn't know better, I'd think your post was a personal attack aimed at my reading comprehension, something you're seldom known for using
It was a comment, Wind. I just find it funny when some people concede a point but with the caveat of including others in their downfall.

Watch:

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

JFrankA asserts that I'm a buffoon; I assert that he is. I would never admit to being a buffoon, even if I were (actually, I might then, by definition (Baldrick of Blackadder springs to mind )), but I'm not. I strongly suspect that JFrankA, similarly, holds much the same view. See where you went wrong now? Again, careless reading and/or lack of comprehension. I strongly suspect the latter more than the first.

BTW - I don't really think JFrankA's a buffoon! I wouldn't profess to read his mind, though!

 

[amb]

Eh, it just my view from experience, most divorced people I know had unrealistic expectations and got wrapped up in the fairy tale of romance rather than the hard work of a relationship. Most of them seem to have gotten that notion from the million love stories we're bombarded with from Romeo and Juliet to the latest top 40 song.

It would be a pretty hard thing to prove, but there is a correlation between divorce rate and media saturation, that's a starting point. I'm not saying it's the primary driver of divorce rates, but given relationships I've seen, it's a meaningful component.

Sometimes a fantasy can make a person lose their rational, but in most divorces there could be 101 reasons.
A man may fantasize about a model in a men's magazine, yet because of the airbrushing if he sees that same model say, in a supermarket he may be disappointed at her average looks without all the make up.
Men's magazines depend on fantasy to sell their magazines.

 

[Southwind17]

Interesting, SW, you didn't comment on my replies to you.
I can only assume that you did not deem them worthy of your attention.

And since your defenses are lately "you are incapable of reading carefully and/or comprehension!" or "I think you've tripped yourself up!" or "I don't see anything particularly "scientific" in that", your silence says to me that you have no defense.

I believe I may have skipped some posts in my attempt to keep up with the pack. I'll read back soon and check.

Incidentally, your quotations above are not my defenses. They're simply observations that serve to discredit or disqualify others' false or flawed assertions. Isn't that exactly what you've been seeking to do, albeit in your own inimitable style?

Oh ... BTW ... I'd be careful, if I were you, drawing inferences of guilt from pleading the Fifth (even though no such "pleading" was actually involved - on the contrary). I don't believe you really want to go down that particular road.

 

[Southwind17]

Men's magazines depend on fantasy to sell their magazines.

Especially "Golf Monthly"!

 

[Southwind17]

I can confirm this. When I lived in Beijing (early 90s) it was incredibly safe to walk the streets at night or meander through some back alley. The reason for this, however, was attributed to the swift and public executions that were held in the stadium next to my apartment.

You mean everybody was there spectating so the streets and back alleys were completely deserted (except for you, of course)? Interesting theory.

 

[Southwind17]

In other words, it had nothing to do with the accessibility to porn, or the lack thereof. Right?

Possibly. I believe an engineering study is called for.

 

[Southwind17]

As I said, that's how things were attributed. I know of no scientific studies on the matter.

So definitely an engineering study needed, yes?

It could be just a coincidence. Still, if I was convinced that getting caught for something would mean I'd be dead within the week, it would make me think twice. But that's just me.

Ah ... that's the point, though. It's not just you. It's most people. What it's not, however, more importantly, is most criminals.