• 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.

Moderated What's wrong with porn?

She provided an example of something she claimed. It wasn't accepted as valid (I actually agree with it). I provided a different, convincing example. Ergo the claim was validated.
And thus, you have now demonstrated that you've missed the entire point behind my asking HER those questions. It's not just about the claim being validated or not (and no, you have not actually validated it, as you have provided no actual evidence, just your own suppositions), it's about the ideology behind the claim.

Now, as I wrote, move along ... please?
If you don't want to talk about it anymore, why do you keep responding to my posts on the subject? No one is forcing you to.
 
And thus, you have now demonstrated that you've missed the entire point behind my asking HER those questions. It's not just about the claim being validated or not (and no, you have not actually validated it, as you have provided no actual evidence, just your own suppositions), it's about the ideology behind the claim.
As I wrote, she provided an example of something she claimed (to demonstrate legitimization of anti-social behaviour). It wasn't accepted as valid (on the basis that it allegedly doesn't demonstrate legitimization of anti-social behaviour). I provided a different, convincing example (to demonstrate legitimization of anti-social behaviour). Ergo the claim was validated.

If you don't want to talk about it anymore, why do you keep responding to my posts on the subject? No one is forcing you to.
Somebody has to keep pointing out where you're going wrong and putting you straight. I'm happy to persist in obliging, for the time being. But hey - don't go taking it for granted now!
 
As I wrote, she provided an example of something she claimed (to demonstrate legitimization of anti-social behaviour). It wasn't accepted as valid (on the basis that it allegedly doesn't demonstrate legitimization of anti-social behaviour). I provided a different, convincing example (to demonstrate legitimization of anti-social behaviour). Ergo the claim was validated.
Wrong.

Somebody has to keep pointing out where you're going wrong and putting you straight. I'm happy to persist in obliging, for the time being. But hey - don't go taking it for granted now!
LOL. Riiight. And if anyone believes the above, I've got a bridge I'm interested in selling.
 
Whatever.

LOL. Riiight. And if anyone believes the above, I've got a bridge I'm interested in selling.
You're American, aren't you? Would that happen to be this bridge?

From the Lancashire Evening Telegraph, first published Wednesday 1st Jul 1998.

SIR Desmond Heap, the Burnley-born solicitor who became one of Britain's most respected experts on town planning, has died aged 90.

The son of architect and surveyor William Heap, Sir Desmond lived in London and won national fame in 1967 as the man who sold London Bridge to the Americans.
 
<snip>

You know what? "That knock on the door", as you put it, is one of the very last things that I lose sleep over at night. Call it relative naivety on my part if you like. I'm well into adulthood and history would seem to show that it's an unfounded concern for me. I'm more inclined to put it down to relative naivety on your part, actually. Call it paranoia, if you will.


"It can't happen here." (nod to FZ)

I expect that the family who dropped off their vacation photos to be processed had exactly the same mindset that you are professing.

I also think that after they were arrested, jailed, (and yes, their computers confiscated), put on nationwide Sexual Offenders lists, lost their jobs, and spent $70K in legal fees to establish that they weren't, after all, trafficking in kiddie porn that they probably were no longer as complacent as you claim to be.

The simple fact that you are so willfully (albeit not skillfully) evading is that these sorts of consequences have absolutely nothing to do with any actions of your own.

When bad law is placed in the hands of opportunists no amount of compliance, obedience, subservience, or conformity will serve to protect you.

Complacency is not a defense.

You should not feel secure in the knowledge that you have done nothing wrong when "wrong" is defined by legal statute as a matter of someone else's opinion.

You shouldn't necessarily feel complacent even when it isn't.

I recall a Usenet newsgroup years ago where two people were discussing a relatively obscure point about the Holy Trinity in Christian belief. The discussion became heated and degenerated into a flame war of proportions impressive even for those rather rough and tumble times. One of the participants was in the U.S., the other in Australia. The American one managed to unearth the Australian's real identity, and decided that it would be appropriate to get in touch with the local equivalent of Child Protective Services and report the Australian for child abuse.

I expect that that Australian was every bit as surprised as you would be when the knock came on his door. And even though the outcome was probably to find him blameless his record will forever show that he had been reported for child abuse.

The sort of VCP legislation you are so blasé about could even more easily create a similar situation where the damage is less innocuous. Kiddie porn laws alone already have. This is not unlike the family with the vacation pics, or the woman breast feeding her child, or any of the other examples we have taken the time to document for you.

I don't understand what sense of personal invulnerability makes you think that your door in particular is safe, but I wish you well in that feeling.

It is completely and utterly unfounded.
 
Flawed stance. Appeal to common practice.


What kind of gibberish is that? It isn't even up to your usual remarkably low standards. The bar for rhetorical technique has in your case been laying on the ground from the onset. Yet still you manage to squirm under it.

I didn't "appeal" to anything. I made a statement. If you are suggesting that the statement is in error you are welcome to provide your data in support.

I'll wait.
 
Last edited:
"It can't happen here." (nod to FZ)
I expect that the family who dropped off their vacation photos to be processed had exactly the same mindset that you are professing.
I also think that after they were arrested, jailed, (and yes, their computers confiscated), put on nationwide Sexual Offenders lists, lost their jobs, and spent $70K in legal fees to establish that they weren't, after all, trafficking in kiddie porn that they probably were no longer as complacent as you claim to be.
The simple fact that you are so willfully (albeit not skillfully) evading is that these sorts of consequences have absolutely nothing to do with any actions of your own.
When bad law is placed in the hands of opportunists no amount of compliance, obedience, subservience, or conformity will serve to protect you.
Complacency is not a defense.
You should not feel secure in the knowledge that you have done nothing wrong when "wrong" is defined by legal statute as a matter of someone else's opinion.
You shouldn't necessarily feel complacent even when it isn't.
I recall a Usenet newsgroup years ago where two people were discussing a relatively obscure point about the Holy Trinity in Christian belief. The discussion became heated and degenerated into a flame war of proportions impressive even for those rather rough and tumble times. One of the participants was in the U.S., the other in Australia. The American one managed to unearth the Australian's real identity, and decided that it would be appropriate to get in touch with the local equivalent of Child Protective Services and report the Australian for child abuse.
I expect that that Australian was every bit as surprised as you would be when the knock came on his door. And even though the outcome was probably to find him blameless his record will forever show that he had been reported for child abuse.
The sort of VCP legislation you are so blasé about could even more easily create a similar situation where the damage is less innocuous. Kiddie porn laws alone already have. This is not unlike the family with the vacation pics, or the woman breast feeding her child, or any of the other examples we have taken the time to document for you.
I don't understand what sense of personal invulnerability makes you think that your door in particular is safe, but I wish you well in that feeling.
It is completely and utterly unfounded.
I don't lose sleep over it for the same reason I don't lose sleep over the possibility of being struck by lightning. See the commonality there?
 
Please detail your particular refutations of the study in question. Did you find fault with the methodology? Please provide examples of those "holes" you have discerned, along with the evidence supporting your criticisms.
Your blanket dismissal does not constitute a refutation of any value. It is the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "Nyah! Nyah! Nyah!".
BTW, quadraginta, I hope you enjoyed reading my "particular refutations" and examples of "holes" that I "discerned". If nothing more, I'm sure JFrankA, for one, would conclude that it was a "beautifully artistic" study! :D

Well, SW. The truth is that your "refutation" was such a childish and desperately conceived piece of claptrap that I hoped to spare you the embarrassment of drawing any more attention to it than you had yourself by writing it in the first place.

Taking the authors' own cautions about the limits of their study and listing them as "flaws" is the weakest sort of argument that could be imagined. That is just the beginning of how sadly infantile your "refutation" was. I was especially amused at you calling them to task for not including in the survey people who could not be found. Your expectations in the abilities of researchers is cute. You must expect to see "works magic" on résumés.

I could go on, but there really isn't any point. Nothing in your "refutation" included demonstrating fault with the conclusions they drew from the sample they had.
 
Well, SW. The truth is that your "refutation" was such a childish and desperately conceived piece of claptrap that I hoped to spare you the embarrassment of drawing any more attention to it than you had yourself by writing it in the first place.

Taking the authors' own cautions about the limits of their study and listing them as "flaws" is the weakest sort of argument that could be imagined. That is just the beginning of how sadly infantile your "refutation" was. I was especially amused at you calling them to task for not including in the survey people who could not be found. Your expectations in the abilities of researchers is cute. You must expect to see "works magic" on résumés.
I expected as much, or rather, as little! All sausage and no sizzle.

I could go on, but there really isn't any point. Nothing in your "refutation" included demonstrating fault with the conclusions they drew from the sample they had.
The fact that the sample was fundamentally flawed being completey irrelevant, then! :rolleyes:
Let me know if you have any other completely irrelevant studies you'd like me to debunk! :D
 

Back
Top Bottom