Moderated What's wrong with porn?

[Southwind17]

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

And do you intend to post any extracts from the "scientific" parts, or are you content with the spurious, almost tongue-in-cheek tidbits that raise more questions than they answer?

 

[Southwind17]

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

So, you honestly consider that this:

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.

is an accurate representation of this:

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. 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". [no emphasis added!]

Now do you see why I made the reading/comprehension comment, and why your "asserting something doesn't make it true" chestnut has exceeded its shelf life, and why your "proving that you are incapable of rebutting the proposition" comment above is pathetic nonsense, and why I resort to using terms like "pathetic nonsense" in situations such as this, etc?

 

[JFrankA]

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.

(bolding by me)

err... where did I say that anthrax should be freely available? If that's what you got out of my post, then you the one without any idea of comprehension at all. You didn't get want I was saying in that post. There are several lack of comprehension examples I can point to, and have pointed to, that you've either twisted or ignored.

You are doing a fine job of being a pot calling a kettle black.

 

[JFrankA]

Watch:

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.

Yeah, that you got right. ETA: in some of the other BlackAdder series, Baldrick was smarter at times, just ignored...

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!

Ah, it's okay if you think I'm a buffoon. My ex wife certainly does...

 

[JFrankA]

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?

Just that your "own inimitable style" seem to be posting where you can find the "Aha! Gotcha!" moments within a post, taking out of context and thereby completely missing the point that's being made, then not commenting or ignoring the real point of the post.

And then turning around with a superior attitude to say that the person has no comprehension as to what you were saying.

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.

See how beliefs can be wrong?

This is a debate, not a trail and you are not pleading the fifth. By you own admission, you are purposely deciding that you are ignoring or not commenting on postings that you have "deemed not worthy" of your attention. That is not pleading the fifth. I suggest you do some research before you make a comment on what it is.

 

[JFrankA]

And do you intend to post any extracts from the "scientific" parts, or are you content with the spurious, almost tongue-in-cheek tidbits that raise more questions than they answer?

I have presented evidence - a scientific study that supports my standing, that is, to be clear, that viewing virtual child porn does NOT make a pedophile lose control enough to make the viewer molest a child. The study was with REAL child porn to boot. My stance that has been supported is that porn does NOT cause a person to lose control period. ETA: provided that the viewer isn't mentally ill or under the influence of drugs.

I have presented now four articles from different studies supporting my case.

You have not. Not one iota of evidence. You are going by emotional feeling and a cry of "think of the children".

Now, if you want to dismiss a scientific study, then you go ahead. It's a free country, and people with fundamentalist-type thinking are free to believe any beliefs they want.

 

[JFrankA]

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. 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".

Now do you see why I made the reading/comprehension comment, and why your "asserting something doesn't make it true" chestnut has exceeded its shelf life, and why your "proving that you are incapable of rebutting the proposition" comment above is pathetic nonsense, and why I resort to using terms like "pathetic nonsense" in situations such as this, etc?

I'm sorry, Southwind, RandFan is right. The first quote above shows that you really don't understand the concept of what the American laws are all about. You really don't.

 

[Southwind17]

Err... Where have I lost control?

At the point that I "forced you" to respond in a particular way. If I am "forcing you" to do something then I am "controlling you". If I am "controlling you" then you have lost control. But this is all semantics, of course.

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.

All of my posts have been completely deliberate and my choice. And, again, JFrankA, please check the facts (Post #2003). I did not state that I was not sure why I put you on ignore. I stated that I could not recall why I put you on ignore. I was certainly sure at the time, and I essentially offered to read back and check, had you insisted. So, completely different.

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?

Do I see a $1 Million Challenge application in our midsts?!

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?)

Thank you. But with respect JFrankA, you have made countless such mistakes that I haven't pulled you on, or that I have and you haven't checked/admitted like you do here. And I honestly think you're continuing to unwittingly rely on those mistakes for your self-confidence. And yes, I know, you'll say exactly the same about me. Is that how you get me "under your spell"?!

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:

Ah ... I "chose" now, did I?! Tell you what JFrankA - don't ever go getting yourself arrested for a serious crime. Your inability to stick to the same line will surely make it an open and shut case in no time. I can see how you might find the hypnotism skills useful now!

Now after doing more reading, there are people who say neither side (porn reduces rape vs porn increases rape) is right ...
Which leads me to conclude, (and if my logic is faulty some reasonable people please point it out to me), that ...

I'm a reasonable person JFrankA - honestly. Your logic is flawed, and let's stick to logic and not detail (which is why I've snipped your post). How can one logically draw a positive conclusion from an inconclusive premise?

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

Correct - I have acknowledged so countless times. My argument does not depend on proof. No doubt you'll slide us all the way down the snake again on that comment - back to square one!

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

As always.

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.

Any time buddy. But as I wrote before, there's no way we're talking porn!

 

[Southwind17]

err... where did I say that anthrax should be freely available?

Right here:

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!

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?

That sure reads like an agreement to me!

 

[Southwind17]

Yeah, that you got right. ETA: in some of the other BlackAdder series, Baldrick was smarter at times, just ignored...

"Smarter" being a relative term, right?!

Ah, it's okay if you think I'm a buffoon. My ex wife certainly does...

Well I'm never gonna argue with her!

 

[JFrankA]

At the point that I "forced you" to respond in a particular way. If I am "forcing you" to do something then I am "controlling you". If I am "controlling you" then you have lost control. But this is all semantics, of course.

You haven't forced me to do anything. I choose. That's the point. Everyone is responsible for their own choices. I choose to post, I choose what not to post, I choose to react emotionally, I choose to stop and react more rationally. Where is force?

Oh please.

All of my posts have been completely deliberate and my choice. And, again, JFrankA, please check the facts (Post #2003). I did not state that I was not sure why I put you on ignore. I stated that I could not recall why I put you on ignore. I was certainly sure at the time, and I essentially offered to read back and check, had you insisted. So, completely different.

You don't get sarcastic irony do you?

Do I see a $1 Million Challenge application in our midsts?!

Just so you know: I am a hypnotist who comes right out to my audience telling them exactly what it is and why it works. If you've seen me talk about hypnosis on this forum, you'll see that first and foremost, that hypnotsm works only if the subject wants it to work. They choose to be put under. I cannot force anyone to do anything. No one can. Not I, not you, not porn.

Thank you. But with respect JFrankA, you have made countless such mistakes that I haven't pulled you on, or that I have and you haven't checked/admitted like you do here. And I honestly think you're continuing to unwittingly rely on those mistakes for your self-confidence. And yes, I know, you'll say exactly the same about me. Is that how you get me "under your spell"?!

?

Are you looking in a mirror talking to yourself?

Ah ... I "chose" now, did I?! Tell you what JFrankA - don't ever go getting yourself arrested for a serious crime. Your inability to stick to the same line will surely make it an open and shut case in no time. I can see how you might find the hypnotism skills useful now!

Again, you have no sense of sarcastic irony, do you?

If I choose to commit a crime and choose to make up a story, it would be my choice, wouldn't it?

I'm a reasonable person JFrankA - honestly. Your logic is flawed, and let's stick to logic and not detail (which is why I've snipped your post). How can one logically draw a positive conclusion from an inconclusive premise?

Pot calling the kettle black. May I? "Since 'neither side (porn reduces rape vs porn increases rape) is right' it would be a good idea to ban VCP because..."

Oh, I cut that off because how can one logically draw a positive conclusion from an inconclusive premise?

Correct - I have acknowledged so countless times. My argument does not depend on proof. No doubt you'll slide us all the way down the snake again on that comment - back to square one!

Then you have no leg to stand on.

As always.

...unless you see some porn and lose control and just rape someone huh?

Any time buddy. But as I wrote before, there's no way we're talking porn!

Oh, agreed.

err...we can still talk about girls, though right?

 

[JFrankA]

Right here:

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!

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?

That sure reads like an agreement to me!

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

 

[JFrankA]

Well I'm never gonna argue with her!

Trust me. You wouldn't. As frustrating as you are, you are not NEARLY as frustrating as her.

 

[Southwind17]

Just that your "own inimitable style" seem to be posting where you can find the "Aha! Gotcha!" moments within a post, taking out of context and thereby completely missing the point that's being made, then not commenting or ignoring the real point of the post.

Those "Aha! Gotcha!" moments, as you so eloquently put it, are both a legitimate and effective way of challenging what many people here are relying on. You might have noticed that police interviewers and trial lawyers tend to adopt it to completely discredit a suspect or witness. It usually ends with the "right" result. I don't believe I've deployed any such "gotcha"s out of context, other than occasionally for sarcasm, which I've tended to openly acknowledge. I suspect you're averse to it because it's brutally cutting - leaving little to no room to back-track one's way out of, not to mention, of course, that you're generally on the receiving end.

And then turning around with a superior attitude to say that the person has no comprehension as to what you were saying.

I only point this out (lack of comprehension, not "no" comprehension) when I believe it to be true, and can demonstrate so. Admittedly, sometimes I use it sarcastically, but laziness in reading is really no better an excuse than lack of comprehension, probably worse, in fact.

Hey! WTF! I'm giving away all of the trade secrets here!

This is a debate, not a trail and you are not pleading the fifth. By you own admission, you are purposely deciding that you are ignoring or not commenting on postings that you have "deemed not worthy" of your attention. That is not pleading the fifth. I suggest you do some research before you make a comment on what it is.

For goodness sake JFrankA - there's no need to take everything literally in an effort for that extra brownie point - only those things that really matter.

 

[Southwind17]

I have presented evidence - a scientific study that supports my standing, that is, to be clear, that viewing virtual child porn does NOT make a pedophile lose control enough to make the viewer molest a child. The study was with REAL child porn to boot. My stance that has been supported is that porn does NOT cause a person to lose control period. ETA: provided that the viewer isn't mentally ill or under the influence of drugs.
I have presented now four articles from different studies supporting my case.

Given your history of less-than-sound interpretation, would you mind posting compelling extracts from those studies that purport to show what you claim here. No doubt you can locate them immediately, whereas I might end up reading the entire articles and still be left wondering which parts you're alluding to. I'm sure, given your confidence and my scepticism, you'll agree that I'm affording you any advantage here, which you'd be foolish not to take. Perhaps we can end this once and for all, right here and now!

Now, if you want to dismiss a scientific study, then you go ahead. It's a free country, and people with fundamentalist-type thinking are free to believe any beliefs they want.

I'll only dismiss it if it can rightly be discredited.

 

[Southwind17]

I'm sorry, Southwind, RandFan is right. The first quote above shows that you really don't understand the concept of what the American laws are all about. You really don't.

Would you care to elaborate, or are you just taking a pot shot?

 

[Southwind17]

You haven't forced me to do anything. I choose. That's the point. Everyone is responsible for their own choices. I choose to post, I choose what not to post, I choose to react emotionally, I choose to stop and react more rationally. Where is force?

Er ...:

Do you realize your postings are forcing us to do the same thing to you? [emphasis added (but unnecessary (ordinarily!))]

Do you think it could be a "memory thing"?!

You don't get sarcastic irony do you?

Only when it's ... well ... sarcastic and ... well ... ironic at the same time.

Just so you know: I am a hypnotist who comes right out to my audience telling them exactly what it is and why it works. If you've seen me talk about hypnosis on this forum, you'll see that first and foremost, that hypnotsm works only if the subject wants it to work. They choose to be put under. I cannot force anyone to do anything. No one can. Not I, not you, not porn.

Look into my eyes ... my eyes ... my eyes ... don't look around the eyes ... don't look around the eyes ... you're under. Here! - enjoy.

If I choose to commit a crime and choose to make up a story, it would be my choice, wouldn't it?

Sure, but it wouldn't be your "choice" as to whether you continue to remember all of the details and don't trip yourself up, would it? (and he persists that I keep missing the point! )

Pot calling the kettle black. May I? "Since 'neither side (porn reduces rape vs porn increases rape) is right' it would be a good idea to ban VCP because..."

Whoever posited that argument, and where, exactly? But to be honest, JFrankA, it's as logical (not) as what you concluded from that statement (oh how I wish this debate could be translated to a boxing match - JFrankA's corner would be contacting the local laundry asking for more towels whilst the ringside doctor's calling the paramedics. It really would be comical to behold! )

Oh, I cut that off because how can one logically draw a positive conclusion from an inconclusive premise?

Do you even know what this means?!

Then you have no leg to stand on.

How so?

...unless you see some porn and lose control and just rape someone huh?

Kerching!

Oh, agreed.
err...we can still talk about girls, though right?

So long as you don't go drawing mental pictures. Pretty difficult, huh?!

 

[Southwind17]

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

Would you care to elaborate, or just another pot shot? Regardless, I'm pleased to see that you admit it!

 

[Southwind17]

Trust me. You wouldn't. As frustrating as you are, you are not NEARLY as frustrating as her.

Mmm ... I'm starting to see a pattern here ...!

 

[AWPrime]

At the point that I "forced you" to respond in a particular way. If I am "forcing you" to do something then I am "controlling you". If I am "controlling you" then you have lost control. But this is all semantics, of course.
[snip]
All of my posts have been completely deliberate and my choice.
[snip]

So you are deliberately behaving as a little kid? If so then SW17, please come back in 10 years as SW27.