Catholic Cardinal Warns Against Wireless Technology

[Mephisto]

Well here's one site that talks about porn and brain damage.

Porn Causes Brain DamageApril 04, 2006
Rebecca Goldin Ph.D
So say the activists, and that’s good enough for ABC News.


http://www.stats.org/stories/porn_causes_brain_damage_apr04_06.htm

​

Did you READ your link? Just because activists say so and ABC accepts it doesn't mean it's statistically valid. Just look at the questions left unanswered at the end of the STATS article (from your link [emphasis mine]):

The public needs to have statistics, facts, and true science (if there is any) to make a decision about restricting or not this potentially damaging kind of free speech. Aside from quoting less biased sources, and some from both sides of a contentious issue, the authors should have asked and answered these important questions:

• What percentage of porn viewers become addicts? What is the definition of an addict in this case? How does this compare to the percentage of obsessive “sex addicts” before the advent of online porn?

• What scientific evidence is there, if any, that there is physical harm caused by viewing porn? Who is attempting to show this link?

• What percentage of porn viewers divorce? How does that compare to those who do not view porn?
• What percentage of people consume porn happily? What percentage find that it enhances their sex life, rather than destroys it?

A serious report on a contentious issue needs real science and social science. News outlets should stop alluding to science with no basis, and stop asking porn therapists about porn addiction.

I think you shot yourself in the foot quoting the STATS link. They were actually against the evidence you presented.

 

[Mephisto]

Well this site says a study found 200,000 Americans addicted to porn in 2000. Many many people have gotten their first computer since then including myself, . . .

I guess the next logical question is; were YOU addicted to porn BEFORE you got your computer?

 

[DOC]

Seriously. Do you have a problem parsing other people's posts? You're clearly getting words out of them to respond to, but you don't seem to understand that other posters are making an argument when they post.

Do you understand that they are making a logical argument? Do you understand that you are not actually responding to the arguments?

The logical argument I was responding to in post #39 was "millions riiight".

 

[DOC]

Did you READ your link? Just because activists say so and ABC accepts it doesn't mean it's statistically valid. Just look at the questions left unanswered at the end of the STATS article (from your link [emphasis mine]):





I think you shot yourself in the foot quoting the STATS link. They were actually against the evidence you presented.

I said this site talks about porn and brain damage. I never said it proves brain damage. If something out there "could possibly" cause something, I would at least like to have that information and make my own decision. For example there is a lot of "conflicting" talk about the danger of cell phones and radiation. I would rather have that information than not have that information.

 

[Ducky]

DOC, around this forum there used to be a poster named Kumar who would post links after a quick google that appeared in the google description to support his assertions, but then when read did not support those assertions. You see, Kumar knew on this forum he needed to support his assertions, but never bothered to do the legwork to actually read his links. We call what you just did "Kumaring a link."

Oh, and you trying to weasel out of your assertion and attempt to support it with non-supportive links is lame.

As for the "conflicting" talk about cell phones and radiation, the only conflict is from idiots who don't understand the technology.

As for porn and brain damage, well...the fact you are even trying to discuss it shows you have been addicted to porn so long you probably need a helmet and diaper.