• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

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

Oh, yeah, imo there are a lot of signs that early Christianity was essentially an apocalypse cult with an unusually positive disposition, and things got very awkward when the end of the world never happened. But it's absolutely par for the course for a religion to just sorta wallpaper over an embarrassment like that and keep going.
True - but it is also the case that 1/3 of biologists do not accept that Neo-Darwinism explains the history of life.
 
Anyone: Do you recognise the following as sexual abuse?

1. Not taking proper measures to prevent a child being exposed to sexual activities by others.
2. Showing a child images of sexual activity, including photographs, videos or via webcams.
3. Having adult porn or sexual toys in the home where a child could come across them.
 
Last edited:
The Federalist, 2019.

If you think it is nonsense then do state why in another thread.
You brought it up in this thread not anyone else. Creationists are liars, they either make stuff up or misrepresent actual information. I'll let you into a secret, when someone these days talks about Darwinism as if science stopped 150 years ago you know they are a load of crock.
 
You brought it up in this thread not anyone else. Creationists are liars, they either make stuff up or misrepresent actual information. I'll let you into a secret, when someone these days talks about Darwinism as if science stopped 150 years ago you know they are a load of crock.
You need to spend more time actually understanding what I said based on what biologists are saying. If you want to reply to a Creationist, then make sure you identify one.

You clearly didn't read the link and have embarrassed yourself.
 
You need to spend more time actually understanding what I said based on what biologists are saying. If you want to reply to a Creationist, then make sure you identify one.

You clearly didn't read the link and have embarrassed yourself.
I did read the link, it was the typical lies by creationists. Some of us unlike yourself on the forum have interests outside of porn and rape. Many of us have been following the lies of creationists for literally decades, do you not know that "intelligent design" is creationism?
 
I did read the link, it was the typical lies by creationists. Some of us unlike yourself on the forum have interests outside of porn and rape. Many of us have been following the lies of creationists for literally decades, do you not know that "intelligent design" is creationism?
You read it but you didn't understand it - that much is obvious.

My statement that 1/3 (give or take) of biologists do not find Neo-Darwinism adequately explains life is a true statement. I made it in the interest of keeping it real in response to Lithrael's correct (in my view) critique of religion.
 
Some of us unlike yourself on the forum have interests outside of porn and rape.
You won't ever be able to substantiate that so I am wondering why you posted it?

Why did you Darat? You are embarrassing yourself again.
 
..................................................
Do you recognise the following as sexual abuse?

1. Not taking proper measures to prevent a child being exposed to sexual activities by others.
2. Showing a child images of sexual activity, including photographs, videos or via webcams.
3. Having adult porn or sexual toys in the home where a child could come across them.
 
Just to be absolutely clear, do you recognise the following as sexual abuse?

1. not taking proper measures to prevent a child being exposed to sexual activities by others
That is such a vague definition as to be useless. So many things could be included in that- kissing, films with love scenes, wildlife documentaries, works of art- that is cheapens the intent. This vagueness also allows you to claim that porn sites are abusing children, which is not true.
2. showing a child images of sexual activity, including photographs, videos or via webcams
Despite your semantic skulduggery, this does not include online porn sites.
3.. having adult porn or sexual toys in the home where a child could come across them
Neither does this.
 
That is such a vague definition as to be useless. So many things could be included in that- kissing, films with love scenes, wildlife documentaries, works of art- that is cheapens the intent. This vagueness also allows you to claim that porn sites are abusing children, which is not true.

Despite your semantic skulduggery, this does not include online porn sites.

Neither does this.
It's UK law.

Do they constitute sexual abuse - yes or no?
 
The Federalist, 2019.

If you think it is nonsense then do state why in another thread.
A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency, and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for profit or influence . Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact-checked on a per-article basis. Please note sources on this list are not considered fake news unless specifically written in the reasoning section for that source.

Overall, we rate The Federalist Questionable and far-Right Biased based on story selection and editorial positions that always favor the right and promotion of propaganda, conspiracy theories, and numerous failed fact checks.
 
True - but it is also the case that 1/3 of biologists do not accept that Neo-Darwinism explains the history of life.
[Citation needed]. It's a commonly accepted fact* that over 99% of qualified biologists accept the theory of evolution is the best explanation we have for the biological process of evolution and that it will laregly remain unchanged, except around the edges.

*Through multiple surveys and polls of qualified biologists returning 99%+ acceptance of ToE.
 
The Ashcroft v Free Speech Coalition is relevant to the arguments you have been making.

Again, you assert this without specifying which arguments or in what way they are relevant.

I'd think you'd want to emphasize differences rather than similarities, because the arguments you claim are similar to mine won the case in the U.S. Supreme Court. If you insist on ceding my arguments that win, then so be it. The solution you're proposing regarding banning porn is clearly unconstitutional. So that's that. Find another remedy or find something else to obsess about.
 
Just to be absolutely clear, do you recognise the following as sexual abuse?

1. not taking proper measures to prevent a child being exposed to sexual activities by others
No.
2. showing a child images of sexual activity, including photographs, videos or via webcams
Possibly, but definitely not automatically. More information would be needed, such as the age of the child, the nature of the shown material, the context in which it's shown, etc.

Here's a hypothetical example where it's not sexual abuse. A 17 year old boy sees two adults having consensual sex in a secluded area of a public park (they think they're alone), and films it from a distance on his cell phone. He then shows his video footage to another 17 year old boy, and they laugh about it. Did the first boy sexually abuse the second boy? No. That's ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ stupid. What kind of retard would think that's sexual abuse? You can't honestly tell me that even you think that's sexual abuse.
3.. having adult porn or sexual toys in the home where a child could come across them
No.
 
Just to be absolutely clear, do you recognise the following as sexual abuse?

1. not taking
proper measures to prevent a child being exposed to sexual activities by others
2. showing a child images of sexual activity, including photographs, videos or via webcams
3.. having adult porn or sexual toys in the home where a child could come across them
That "proper" is doing a lot of work.

As to 3 - what about condoms? My brother and I found my parents stash of condoms when we were young, we had great fun with them. We used them as water bombs, could drop them from the kitchen roof onto unsuspecting folk passing by. We got in trouble when my parents found out - well not really trouble as my mother found it very amusing that we had found a use for the balloons we had found.
 
Last edited:
You read it but you didn't understand it - that much is obvious.

My statement that 1/3 (give or take) of biologists do not find Neo-Darwinism adequately explains life is a true statement. I made it in the interest of keeping it real in response to Lithrael's correct (in my view) critique of religion.
No it is not true - it is a lie. One often paraded by creationists, it's sad you've been taken in by their lies.
 
Anyone: Do you recognise the following as sexual abuse?

1. Not taking proper measures to prevent a child being exposed to sexual activities by others.
2. Showing a child images of sexual activity, including photographs, videos or via webcams.
3. Having adult porn or sexual toys in the home where a child could come across them.
It depends. There's certainly things I would consider sexual abuse, that could be described in the terms offered above. And there's certainly other things I would not consider sexual abuse, that could be described the exact same way.

For example:

  1. Leaving your child unattended in the next room while you shoot a porn video with the door open? Probably abuse. Letting your child use Google with SafeSearch on, even though it's not a foolproof solution? Not even remotely abuse.
  2. Intentionally and directly showing pornography to a child? Abuse. Intentionally and directly showing a child age-appropriate depictions of human biological functions and healthy sex acts in an educational context, with the informed consent of the child's guardians and reasonable oversight of the curriculum? Not abuse.
  3. Having adult porn or sexual toys in the home where a child could come across them? Probably not abuse. Depends on whether it's just lying around, or stored away somewhere out of sight when not in use, probably.
Note: I'm conflating abuse and harassment in this context. If I brought sex toys and porno discs to work and left them on my desk, I'd be done for sexual harassment. If I left them out of sight in my bag, and some co-worker went fishing in there and found them, that's on them (though my employer would probably reprimand me anyway, out of an abundance of caution). A rule of thumb might be, if it's not sexual harassment in the workplace, it's probably not sexual abuse at home.
 
[Citation needed]. It's a commonly accepted fact* that over 99% of qualified biologists accept the theory of evolution is the best explanation we have for the biological process of evolution and that it will laregly remain unchanged, except around the edges.

*Through multiple surveys and polls of qualified biologists returning 99%+ acceptance of ToE.
@Poem, any response to this <SNIP>?

Edited by zooterkin: 
Edited for rule 12.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
@Poem, any response to this <SNIP>?

Edited by zooterkin: 
Edited for rule 12.
As far as I am aware, all of the one third of biologists I mentioned as having issues with Neo-Darwinism remain thoroughly Darwinian. Neo-Darwinism (or Modern Synthesis) is the mechanism used to explain the process and they are saying it needs overhauling and updating....that it is insufficient as it stands.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
As far as I am aware, all of the one third of biologists I mentioned as having issues with Neo-Darwinism remain thoroughly Darwinian. Neo-Darwinism (or Modern Synthesis) is the mechanism used to explain the process and they are saying it needs overhauling and updating....that it is insufficient as it stands.
Describing evolution as "Neo-Darwinism" is a trait of Christian fundamentalists, who reject science in favour of creationism and a 6,000-year-old earth.
Curious, for someone who so vehemently denies being a Christian, that you are- again- using terminology generally only used by Christians. :xrolleyes
 
I do not trust your characterization of UK law, you've been wrong too many times about factual details. Can you link to the actual statutes?
I, too, would like to see a link from Poem, especially as his claimed definitions do not appear in the relevant government legislation, namely the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
Some excerpts:
Causing a child to watch a sexual act
(1)A person aged 18 or over (A) commits an offence if—
(a)for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification, he intentionally causes another person (B) to watch a third person engaging in an activity, or to look at an image of any person engaging in an activity,...

Engaging in sexual activity in the presence of a child
(1)A person aged 18 or over (A) commits an offence if—

(a)he intentionally engages in an activity,

(b)the activity is sexual,

(c)for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification, he engages in it—

(i)when another person (B) is present or is in a place from which A can be observed, and

(ii)knowing or believing that B is aware, or intending that B should be aware, that he is engaging in it, and

(d)either—

(i)B is under 16 and A does not reasonably believe that B is 16 or over, or

(ii)B is under 13.

This is the actual law, and is a long, long way from what Poem claims it is. I can find no reference to 'sex toys', for example. Note too how the definition of 'showing' is quite precise ("intentionally causing"), and so does not allow for Poem's blasts against porn sites.
Poem: care to comment?
 
Man! I'm gonna have to get a gun safe for my ....something..... before I have any more minor kid visitors in the house

Although. I'm sure the kid from the Wobbly Sausage video lived in fear of anyone recognizing his mum and figuring out he was that particular toddler.
 
Last edited:
As far as I am aware, all of the one third of biologists I mentioned as having issues with Neo-Darwinism remain thoroughly Darwinian. Neo-Darwinism (or Modern Synthesis) is the mechanism used to explain the process and they are saying it needs overhauling and updating....that it is insufficient as it stands.
So you've no response to my request, just baseless and unevidenced assertion (and no, your link to a creationist writing on an obscure far right blog isn't evidence for your claim).

If you're so obviously and egregiously wrong on something so settled and well evidenced as evolution, why should you be believed on anything else? It's clear that you just uncritically take in anything that supports your view and dismiss, with quite a lot of prejudice, vitriol and lies, anything that does not.
 
Take the evolution discussion to a different thread, it doesn't belong here.
 
Why do you think more than 50 Frenchmen did what they did to Gisele Pelicot?


The majority of those losers have tried to come up with excuses for their criminal behaviour. I bet they would love to have you on their side, the porn made them do it.
 
Describing evolution as "Neo-Darwinism" is a trait of Christian fundamentalists, who reject science in favour of creationism and a 6,000-year-old earth.
Curious, for someone who so vehemently denies being a Christian, that you are- again- using terminology generally only used by Christians. :xrolleyes
Source.
 
Just google 'Neo-Darwinism, and see what results come up. Virtually every one of them is from a fundamentalist Christian source.
I notice this attempt at distraction from the bigger issues here, by the way. Have you got a source for your claim about the wording of the legal definition of sexual abuse in the UK?
 
Just to add: downplayingand/or rejecting any attempts to control access to porn by children just plays into Poem's "you're all child abuse enablers and rapists!" spiel. How about some positive reactions, for a change? Try it- you might just like it.
 
Back
Top Bottom