|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Internet Porn | |||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: No, I'm saying that these have been inappropriately named as champions of feminism, and used as exemplary icons of feminism, in order that the moderate case can be attakced through ther proxy of the extreme case. So there is much hysteria about Dworkin and her ilk - and even then, Dworkin makes more moderate claims than are often attributed to her - and insufficent recognition of OTHER feminists. A good example of this is the bra-burning hairy-legged man-hating stereotype.
quote: Well I would think that was most post-70's Feminism. Yes, why is it you think Feminism is monolithic and stuck in awe-struck hero-worship of Dworkin?
quote: And rightly so; you can't pick and choose who constitutes a feminist merely because YOU agree with them or not.
quote: Yes of course; thats what I was pointing out - feminism does not just have one opinion, and it is not fair to present it as if it does. There are pros', moderates, and anit's on this issue, and you are perfectly entitled to express your own position and preference. You are not entitled to declare who is and wqho is not a feminist based on your own position on this matter, nor can you fairly tar all feminists with the anti brush. Why not just deal with it as a field of reserach and opinion like any other, exhibiting various strands of argument like any other, and containing dievrse people and opinions, like any other?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: Well, we don't know and cannot know I'm afraid; its an inherent limit of the medium and is a line of work already substantially underground. But to be frank, all I need is ONE incident to legimiately claim there is cause for concern. If you are going to claim there is no cause for concern, then it is your responsibility to demonstrate why I should have this confidence.
quote: I cannot see how that is relevant. In the first case, its unremarkable, because sex tourism by western men is well established; Thailand has been a prime choices for sex tourists for a few decades now. In the Kosovan case, they were definitely Western. Marc Dutroux starved kidnapped girls to death in his basement cell after a career of abductions anrd rapes. But I need not at any time claim that Western men necesarily consciously tell themselves they desire a trafficked person - my allegation is that they don't ask and don't care any more than most people care if their shirt was made by someone working in inhumane conditions.
quote: Oh no; I fully recognise its undemonstrabel, as its a claim to an insight into another persons thought process. I can only assert it is my opinion and impression, and manifestly I am not alone in either view.
quote: Thats been comprehensively dealt with already.
quote: here:
quote: quote: quote: quote: quote: quote: quote: Again, comprehensivly demonstrated. Is your word search function broken, Custard?
quote: Well funny you should mention that, Custard... I did not demand that anyone agree with my views. I attacked only two things: the bklanket denigration of feminists, and the assertion that all porn is inherently harmless. The people advancing those extreme positions are the ones carryiong the burden of proof. I have only indicated that there is CONCERN, and that it might not all be sweetness and light. Thats an entirely resonable position to adopt. Those who argue that there is NO REASON FOR CONCERN must demonstrate that it is comprehensivleym IMPOSSIBLE for anyone to come to harm in porn, and that therefore expressions of concern are unfounded. And furthermore, I don't have to tolerate resort to ignorantum; merely becuase you or holmes are unfamiliar with the research work indicating, for example, the degree of trafficking is frankly not my problem. I also openly acknowledge that my capacity to find such materials as they exist on the net is limited, and I make no pretensions, ever, to advancing an academic argument on the net. But then again, I don't have to: convincing YOU individually is a fundamantally trivial issue. Here's a discussion of the acceptance of violence against sex workers in New York: Page not found | The Sex Workers Project Identification of a client as a trafficked person, again in NY:http://www.sexworkersproject.org/...ationAndAdvocacy1103.pdf The sex workers project also notes:
quote: Research carried out by UK police departments indicates:http://209.190.246.239/ver2/cr/uk.pdf quote: quote: Appliance Repair Videos - find local appliance repair companies
quote: quote: From the US DOJ report:We apologize for the inconvenience... - United States Department of State quote: I reiterate: there is just and legitimate cause for concern. The burden of proof lies on those who claim that despite nearly a million people trafficked annually world wide, and despite a persistent and organic relationship between trafficking and the sex trade, that there is no cause for alarm and that the only peopole who consider there might be any concern are miliciously anti-porn.
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5819 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
inappropriately named as champions of feminism, and used as exemplary icons of feminism By themselves no less. Look I didn't say they were the champions, and have made quite clear that in this thread by "feminist" I was referring to the antiporn crowd. They existed, they still exist. And they are feminists. While not ALL feminists make the claims I was criticizing, the only ones making the specific claims I was dealing with are feminists. Specifically the antiporn ones. If you want to keep beating a dead horse and ignore the clarification, then you are simply looking to prolong argument where there is none.
why is it you think Feminism is monolithic and stuck in awe-struck hero-worship of Dworkin? I swear to god you must own a strawman production factory. I have already MENTIONED other feminist authors who I believe represent the more MODERN state of feminism. I think I even used that term, MODERN. I even said twice that Dworkin is defunct. How you get the above, when I am sidelining her in my commentary and discussing others as feminists, I am clueless.
And rightly so; you can't pick and choose who constitutes a feminist merely because YOU agree with them or not. Okay I got ya now. This is just BS. Whatever I say you are simply going to attack, even if it means contradicting yourself and when you can't find something to attack you create a strawman. I don't choose who's a feminist, that was my WHOLE FUCKING POINT.
feminism does not just have one opinion, and it is not fair to present it as if it does. ??????????? That was MY WHOLE FUCKING POINT! holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: Granted. They are also women, so women must be anti-porn. And they are also people, so people must be anti-porn. They are also hominids, so hominds must be anti porn. They are also mammals, so mammals must be anti-porn. They are also vertebrates, so vertebrates must be anti-porn. Etc ad infinitum ad nauseum; this is SYNECHDOCHE, I believe.
quote: You can maintain that, but I have quoted you above: "I am saying the feminist position is that porn is misogynistic" And as I pointed out a couple of posts ago, the fact that you were inconsistent in this declaration is how I know for certain that you were employing it as a rhetorical device to round up support from the anti-feminist brigade. I have you red-handed, holmes. And the perverse point about the whole issue is that centrally, we agree. IMO the point you have been advancing in this thread is too extreme for your own argument to defend; what you needed to do was advance a more moderate case and not assume that anyone who disagree with you about any detail has an axe to grind.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5819 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
Glad to see you coming clean that you have no facts and just innuendo and anecdotes.
But to be frank, all I need is ONE incident to legimiately claim there is cause for concern. If you are going to claim there is no cause for concern, then it is your responsibility to demonstrate why I should have this confidence. What kind of concern? Concern that if you go online and buy an Amber Lynn vid, that you may be helping the slave trade? Concern that if you use porn you will want to join the slave trade? Concern that allowing porn to exist helps keep the slave trade alive? Those are the kind of cases people start building when vague words like "concern" are used. It does not matter what you mean, when you pose your statements so disengenuously. The reality is that people should be concerned about abuse, and that includes in the porn business. I have never said nor argued otherwise despite the strawman you continually build regarding my position. The reality is that abuse does occur, but it is like in any other industry, isolated from the mainstream. Most people making and using porn would have no connection to the abuse. Just because there is a justified concern that someone somewhere is being abused to make porn, does NOT mean that you picket VCA pictures to clean up the industry. There simply is no connection like that. It is fearmongering. There should be no vague "concerns" about the sex industry. They are concrete. Someone somewhere may be getting abused. You track down leads and prosecute those involved. Just like any other industry.
Thats been comprehensively dealt with already. Yes, your bizzaro-ideology regarding sex between races has been expounded quite comprehensively. If you habitually do not appreciate your sex partner as just a bunch of parts, and any parts will do, then you are a racist. Maybe you missed Custard's point. You need facts. I'm still trying to get how you know what everyone MUST be doing privately, though they all do something different publicly. Maybe you have Santa's list? Cust: Where, specifically, holmes has abused feminists. You: here: Me: Told you, that you couldn't tell a joke from reality. But, since you did take it seriously... nice job rebuilding your strawman through quote mining. My use of the word feminist in this thread, regarding criticisms of porn, has already been well explained. You simply choose not to get it in order to keep arguing.
I attacked only two things: the bklanket denigration of feminists, and the assertion that all porn is inherently harmless. Well that leaves me out of the picture. Although I will say that all PORN IS harmless, it is not the using of porn which does the harm, it is people who make it that may cause harm during its production. This needs to be stopped wherever it is found.
merely becuase you or holmes are unfamiliar with the research work indicating, for example, the degree of trafficking is frankly not my problem. Speak for youself asshole. First of all we were talking about PORN, which is a wholly separate issue than TRAFFICKING. If this had been a thread on TRAFFICKING then I could have provided stats on that. Its curious that you hounded me for stats (regarding PORN), I show you they already existed in this thread, then you brush them off with "can't use them because they are over a 30 year period versus MILLENIA of oppression", and when confronted for stats yourself you switch goalposts in order to provide SOMETHING and for the actual issues under discussion say you don't have to provide jack. Fuck you. I can't believe you have actually made me angrier than I was with Darkstar's obfuscation but you did it. Then again, as I am beginning to suspect, that is your point?
Here's a discussion of the acceptance of violence against sex workers in New York The subject was porn. If you want to expand it to all sex work then that is fine, but then you must still address the stats regarding porn as well to make the actual points that are the MAIN TOPIC of this thread and ALL I WAS ADDRESSING. Yet in the following links all you do is outline violence against sex workers, and connections of human trafficking to sex work, and the extent of human trafficking. Well blow me down! I don't even HAVE to address those because they have little or nothing to do with the topic! And, if anything, they will support my own arguments (if we want to get into a broad based discussion on the issue like we did I think a year or so ago)... If you are aware of research in this area then you already KNOW that human trafficking is a poverty issue, not a porn/sex worker issue. And where does the profit to use people in the sex trade, as well as violence against these workers stem from? Both are correlated to its ILLEGALITY. You bring me stats from New York? Sex work (in this case prostitution since you have moved the goalposts to that) is illegal in NY. That is the reason it is profitable, and that is the reason violence gets reinforced against these poor people (which actually includes boys though the study was not so up on that). Ohhhh, and then Britain? Same thing. The very beginning quote from the first study you link to points to the underlying issues of poverty, the fact that it is street prostitutes and their involvement with police points to the reinforcement problems. Street prostitution is BAD. Or at least the vast percentages lean heavily toward that generalization. If you saw in any of my arguments a support for street prostitution, or a denial that there is violence against sex workers, or a denial that there is a serious human trafficking issue, then you are totally delusional. And if you believe those issues make any serious case against PORN, even that we must be CONCERNED more about that industry than others, you are also delusional. You have made NO connection between any of the above and the majority and specifically mainstream porn.
The burden of proof lies on those who claim that despite nearly a million people trafficked annually world wide, and despite a persistent and organic relationship between trafficking and the sex trade, that there is no cause for alarm Persistent and organic. And an upgrade from concern to alarm. See what I am talking about? Fearmongering. Seriously, is there any reason to believe that your corner porn store is carrying many if any tapes made with human trafficked sex workers? How about the internet? Do you think a person can accidentally buy forced porn? While I agree it might be tougher to tell when you are dealing with sites outside of the US, don't you think YOU can tell when you are crossing from content in a white market, to a grey market, to a black market? Trafficking is alarming. Violence against sex workers is alarming. These issues are poverty and legality based, and not dependent on porn for there existence. Get some REAL stats to support your claims on misogyny, racism, or at least some credible link between general use and manufacture of porn and human trafficking, or go peddle your BS somewhere else. holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5819 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
Etc ad infinitum ad nauseum Heavy on the nauseum. Your weird argument has no place in reality. Dworkin and the antiporn crowd were and are feminists. I have made clear that they are a branch of feminism. My use of the term feminist in the context of criticism of porn is against that branch. I have made that clear how many times now? Even if there was a misunderstanding at the beginning we should be wayyyyy past it. Not all feminists are against porn and it should be quite obvious that I understand this.
I have quoted you above: "I am saying the feminist position is that porn is misogynistic" Starting a quote mining business?
the fact that you were inconsistent in this declaration is how I know for certain that you were employing it as a rhetorical device to round up support from the anti-feminist brigade. I have you red-handed, holmes. No, no, sadly you are simply insane. Good bye contracycle. Let me know if you ever get around to dealing with my real arguments and have some research to back up any claims you make. holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: Concern that some people in the tarde are there not volutarily, but due to coercion. Do you or do you not acknowledge that this is a possibility and a problem?
quote: Actually, you have - for example, you accused me of posting material to "discredit" porn. Your line of argument has been that any concern or cricisim is mischievous and ill-informed.
quote: Completely undemonstrable; there is no reason at all for thinking that. Porn on the net is more accessible than porn in the shops. There is no mechanism anywhere that leaves you absoluetly positive that an image you are looking at was not taken under coerced conditions. It may well be that many people are viewing images of coerced sex; but neither you nor I have any idea. This is a reality that you seem to persist in denying. Its manifest in your sentence above where you falsely conflate buying an amber lynn videa weith the slave trade. Thats clearly ridiculous, and is a spoiling argument artificially constructed to be false.
quote: Thats arrogant complacency. As you yourself say:
quote: But apparently NOT like any other industry, because according to you all "concerns" are "fear mongering".
quote: Thats quite true. But then again, I've never advocated picketing VCA pictures, have I? So I have caught you once again resorting to hyperbole and misrepresenting my argument to make a rhetorical point.
quote: ... as you do here again. Not very good with logic, are you holmes?
quote: And as I pointed out, the medium in which a racist trope is propagated is irrelevant. An undeniable racist trope is being propagated, the medium happens to be porn.
quote: Vaion protestations of innocence. [bart]"I didn't do it, nobody saw me, you can prove a thing".[/bart] quote: Well then what the fuck have you been objecting to?
quote: Also demonstrably false; in fact I can quote you acknowledging this up-thread:
[quote]me
quote:you quote: My position has been consistent through-out.
quote: I didn't hound you for stats. I asked you where the stats where that you claimed undercut my point that 1) not everyone in porn is there consensually and 2) that other pernicious tropes are propagated by porn. you ahve provided no states criticising any position I have advanced.
quote: What is the reason for thinking that porn, as a subset of sex work, is uniquely free of the problems that plague other sex workers?
quote: well clearly it does, unless you can show some reason for thinking that nobody who was coerced has ever appeared in internet porn. And that is blatently untrue; at the very least we can be confident that some paedophilic images were coerced. Can you provide any reason at all for ruling this out? If not, you must concede it is relevant to the topic of internet porn.
quote: Of course I do; thats why I stated that the poverty was a salient point up-thread. Have you even been reading what I write holmes or just leaping to conclusions? And the reason this is relevant to porn and sex work in general is becuase manifestly, human trfficking provides the PRODUCT - that is women - these industries sell.
quote: Yes absolutely. Or at least partially; I would still allege that there is misogynistic collusion between pimps and johns, especially where johns apply violence. But I fully agree that the solution is to make porn legal and bring out into the bright light of day where it can be regulated like any other industry and, among other things, suppress such hate speech as is propagated through this medium.
quote: You are imposing moralism where none exists.Somebody who sympathsaies with a girl getting beaten up to perform for camera or for johns is not satying that prostitution is bad; they are saying the violence is bad. quote: Shifting goal posts again (as you have already done with Lynn). Who said anything about mainstream porn? Did I? Does the thread title read "mainstream porn"? No, it reads "internet porn". You are demonstrating yet again that the entirety of your argument has depended on selective reading; you parse concerns about internet porn as concerns about mainstream porn, despite the fact that the distinction has been repeatedly drawn. Please start debating honestly.
quote: I see. And so its your contention that despite illegal status of sex work generally, if you found a relationship between any sex worker and organised crime you'd be suprised? Then you have been living in fantasyland. Yes, persistent and organic.
quote: I have no idea; its inherently unkowable where a picture was taken. I cannot in any sense verify the sourcing and origin of such material when it is so closely linked with the black- or grey-markets.
quote: "buy"? Thats only a subset. But yes, its entirely easy, becuase you cannot know the circumstances under which the material was shot. you have already conceded that much of porn includes the feigning of pleasure, so let me reverse the question and put it to you thus: how can you be sure that any given image is NOT coerced? What methods would you employ to determine that to your satisfaction?
quote: Haha. Yes, I know for certain I cannot tell. Because the black market was the the conjoining medium that brought porn and the hackers together. And I know that hackers can put together a web site that will in every detail be as good as one designed by a professional outfit. It is entirely possible for any site to be wholly illegal, andf no punter would be able to determine that. And if it were hosted oput of a data haven, there wouldn't be any way to find out either. So if you think you could tell, would you advise me as to what tools you would use to dinstinguish them? And while you're about it, can yuo explain whaty difference it makes if its consumed accidentaly or deliberately? The performer has still been coerced regardless of the punters interaction with whoever is taking the money.
quote: Absolutely correct; but then you will note that my argument from the very beginning is not that they are DEPENDANT on porn, but that porn serves as a VENUE. Will you now, finally and belatedly, acknowledged and address the point I have actually advanced? Or are you still a little high strung about the issue and prone to imagining persecution where there is none?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5819 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
Actually, you have - for example, you accused me of posting material to "discredit" porn. Yes. You use broad language which pretends knowledge that abuse can be anywhere. This is not true and acts to put the spectre of abuse in any porn one buys or views. It is a tactic used often in witchhunts. Generalize the fear through the unknown. For example.
Porn on the net is more accessible than porn in the shops. There is no mechanism anywhere that leaves you absoluetly positive that an image you are looking at was not taken under coerced conditions. It may well be that many people are viewing images of coerced sex; but neither you nor I have any idea. This is a reality that you seem to persist in denying. This is PATENTLY FALSE. No mechanism anywhere? I tell you what. Start a porn business (even an independent internet one) and run it LEGALLY. In doing so you will then have your ignorant mouth shut by the facts. If a person is ever in doubt and wants to make sure, absolutely 100%, that there is no coercion, all you have to do is look at 1) it's a US registered business, and 2) it has a nice little 2257 compliance notice at the bottom. Now I suppose someone could FAKE those things, but you know how easy it would be to find out? EVERY PROFESSIONAL AND INDEPENDENT PORN SHOOT IS CATALOGUED, WITH EXTENSIVE RECORDS UP THE YING YANG. So yeah, as you get into grey and black markets some may fake creds and some may have none at all. You want ASSURANCE? There ARE MECHANISMS. Thus YOUR UNFOUNDED ASSERTIONS are FEARMONGERING.
according to you all "concerns" are "fear mongering". no read again... from me...
There should be no vague "concerns" about the sex industry. Here it is again, asshole...
There should be no vague "concerns" about the sex industry. You ever see the Manchurian Candidate? There are 200 card carrying communists in the Houses of Congress! Vague, idiot, vague. Its part of a guilt by association argument, which you do just dandy. Bob and weave, duck and cover, and shift them goal posts. No one can touch ya... then zoom out with a nice juicy "but you NEVER CAN KNOW."
My position has been consistent through-out. By which you mean to say you will be right no matter the truth. The rest of your arguments have had the consistency of a weather vane... whichever way the wind blows.
What is the reason for thinking that porn, as a subset of sex work, is uniquely free of the problems that plague other sex workers? There is a huge difference between different fields of sex work. While I never said uniquely free, your trying to pass stats off from one to another is ridiculous.
at the very least we can be confident that some paedophilic images were coerced. Can you provide any reason at all for ruling this out? If not, you must concede it is relevant to the topic of internet porn. Huh? And huh? I like how you tell me not to talk about the content of porn stores, yet are able to bring in sex workers and childporn because they are relevant to internet porn? Anyhow, I am trying to figure out how anyone mistakes buying childporn online, with buying adult porn from a legitimate business (indy or not). Its pretty obvious when you start crossing lines. And if someone wants to stay clear of any possible coercive content THE MECHANISMS ARE THERE. Hell you don't even need the 2257 stuff.
the solution is to make porn legal and bring out into the bright light of day where it can be regulated like any other industry and, among other things, suppress such hate speech as is propagated through this medium. Funny thing is, and maybe you should check it out, in the West it already is legal and is regulated. Overregulated in fact. That's why when you go to get that black market shit you keep talking about, you know when you crossed the line. About the only exception to this is FREE content which can hit you with mass popups and blindlinks. Then again, you are not feeding any industry by receiving free content they force into your computer. No childrape pornographer said I think I'll keep up this site and round up more girls and boys because so many people are seeing my popup page. Heck, it doesn't even encourage an industry in trades of such images. An industry (what your articles were discussing) was human trafficking and sex WORK. That is money and the people involve have no illusions they crossed legal limits... unless they live outside 1st world countries?
And the reason this is relevant to porn and sex work in general is becuase manifestly, human trfficking provides the PRODUCT - that is women - these industries sell. See what I'm saying. Conflation and vaguery and indictment of PORN. Porn sells women. Wrong. Porn sells sexual entertainment. You will note that human trafficking is more than just women. You will note that porn is more than just women. And there is no MANIFEST connection between human traffickers and the porn industry at large.
Who said anything about mainstream porn? Did I? Does the thread title read "mainstream porn"? No, it reads "internet porn". Mainstream is the majority of porn, including internet porn. Thus it has relevance... much more so than sex workers and child slave rings. And that's the key. You say there is a reason to be concerned and that there are NO MECHANISMS for one to know whether any image is coerced or not. Well that is patently untrue. There is a great amount... mainstream porn... for which there ARE MECHANISMS, and so free of this CONCERN of yours. People should not be concerned about the porn they consume, until they start deviating from the mainstream. Just as it is pretty fucking obvious that picking up a street prostitute where such things are illegal, is worlds apart from hiring an independent escort where sex work is legal.
if you found a relationship between any sex worker and organised crime you'd be suprised? Now we're moving in to organized crime and sex work? I hate to say it, but by definition anywhere sex work is illegal, sex workers are a part of organized crime. Maybe you should let me know when you've decided where the goal is too. If you mean between human trafficking (actual slavery) and any sex worker, then the answer is still yes. According to your own stats you should know this is true. Look how many were trafficked in the US. Then think of the number of sex workers. Then do the math. And that's ASSUMING all trafficked people go into sex work which is also patently untrue. Again, a person getting a slave sex worker can't be too shocked. Normally they don't speak the language to well and are in surroundings that suggest hiding. They aren't in the phone book advertising as independent escorts. Persistent and organic. Find me some data, especially with the mainstream.
I have no idea; its inherently unkowable where a picture was taken. I cannot in any sense verify the sourcing and origin of such material when it is so closely linked with the black- or grey-markets. Now remember I was talking about porn stores in this case, and you say unknowable. They better all have labels and those labels better all have 2257 notices and inside the tapes (when you watch) you will see 2257 compliance notices. That's your guarantee ignoramus. And indeed you don't even need 2257 (which personally I hate). If you find a store selling grey and especially black market material, why don't you just call the cops? There is no REASONABLE CONCERN for the white market, certainly not at this point in time.
"buy"? Thats only a subset. But yes, its entirely easy, becuase you cannot know the circumstances under which the material was shot. Buying is the only thing fueling a market in human trafficking. And as for yous second sentence, that is the third time in this singular post you make a statement which proves your ignorance entirely.
Yes, I know for certain I cannot tell. Because the black market was the the conjoining medium that brought porn and the hackers together. And I know that hackers can put together a web site that will in every detail be as good as one designed by a professional outfit. It is entirely possible for any site to be wholly illegal, andf no punter would be able to determine that. And if it were hosted oput of a data haven, there wouldn't be any way to find out either. Fourth. How can a hacker fool you into believing their business registration and 2257 compliance material? And again, you can always choose to buy white market stars... then you know for sure don't you?
So if you think you could tell, would you advise me as to what tools you would use to dinstinguish them? And while you're about it, can yuo explain whaty difference it makes if its consumed accidentaly or deliberately? I just did, and my point was not the affect of accident/deliberation on a person who has been abused to make some porn. My point was regarding the fueling of the market. That is NOT accidental. And so without DELIBERATE customers, there is no trafficking in the material you are discussing. You can certainly bump into it accidentally through free content, but then I pose the question to you how that leads to a market in human trafficking? Seeing something for free never put money in anyone's pocket.
porn serves as a VENUE. You mean grey and black market ends of porn generally serves as a venue for gray and black market activity in general? If this is where the goal post is settling then I guess I will cross it. Yeah. And a more mundane and noncontroversial point it is. I certainly never fought it. Of course if that is supposed to drive some sort of CONCERN or ALARM about porn outside those markets (which are not as large as the white market) and allow people to believe they have no way of knowing if ANY image involves coercion or not... then you're way off. I guess this means you finally and belatedly concede everything else, regarding misogyny and racism. At the very least that you have nothing but your own hot air to try and fly that lead balloon. Good. holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
1. Can kids be adversely affected by internet porn? I think the answer is yes. The answer is resoundingly, if not 100% definitively NO! You want a study? Go out there and look for them. There have been many studies done and the effect seen in every single one is zero, zilch, nada. It doesn't matter what you say or claim OR if ten thousand studies assert that porn does not adversely affect kids. It is not a matter of a opinion - all intelligent and honest people know it does - this is a brute fact. Kids are impressionable - they are walking sponges. Holmes has no argument or case, whatever he or she is - they are whitewashing black to be something other. Holmes is probably a pedophile but he or she probably would never admit it. This entire question answers itself IF honesty and integrity exist. Does porn adversely affect kids ? Merely asking the question reveals an answer of nonsense to follow. It is not a matter of opinion - porn is evil to kids. Only completely amoral perverts without any character argue these things, while hiding behind First Amendment rights which is not the issue. If ten thousand persons with Ph.D.'s say porn does not harm kids this means they are secret pedophiles and brazen liars. I wish I knew what this Holmes creep looked like - I bet he is a life long customer of prostitutes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5819 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
if ten thousand studies assert... It is not a matter of a opinion - all intelligent and honest people know it does - this is a brute fact. Willow, studies don't assert. And if something is not just an opinion, but a brute fact, then studies should end up supporting your position. That is a brute fact.
Kids are impressionable - they are walking sponges. Yes, kind of. They suck up all sorts of things, hopefully more than JUST porn. Here's your problem, kids must grow up to be sexual beings. By nature, they will explore their body (and bodies of others) before puberty, and more aggressively as hormones kick in during puberty. Sex is natural and seeing it will do what exactly? If you want to argue moral harm then that is something I think you should be able to claim as a parent for your child. Certainly if you have certain morals regarding sex they should be respected. But if you want to move beyond that and say real harm, like they WILL become maladjusted, they WILL dislike girls, they WILL become addicts, they WILL lose their eyesight and grow hair on their palms... it just is not supported by any data. And that should not be surprising as sex is part of the natural human condition. Does nudity count? Certainly just nudity is a major part of porn, yet there are children in nudist families who live or vacation in nudist areas. That means they see what most kids try very hard to get a look at all the time in porn. Yet these nudist kids do not show any harm... some are even quite religious (and so argue there is no moral harm to seeing nudity). If you believe kids are sponges, then perhaps you should be more concerned about violence. Not only is that less natural (as an everyday thing) than sexuality, but it actually has evidence to support that it leads to a temporary influence on children's behavior.
Holmes has no argument or case Well I'm not the only one who has said this, even if I was the first here on EvC. If you want to rebut this, go right ahead, but please use some facts and definitions.
Holmes is probably a pedophile but he or she probably would never admit it. Yeah probably, you certainly got me on that one. By the way I'm a he.
It is not a matter of opinion - porn is evil to kids. Only completely amoral perverts without any character argue these things Well now I never did address evil. That is a moral or religious argument. I have stated that I support parents in their ability to raise their children with the sexual mores that they believe in, not me. If parents felt sex is evil, because of their religion, then I think they have every right to teach their kids that and society should NOT be forcing them to tell their kids otherwise. I may very well seem amoral to you because I am not a Xian. But I do have a morality. I view sexuality as a good. It can be used in an unhealthy way if one forgets moderation, but otherwise cannot be defined as evil. So whose morality is supposed to be right? Yours? Why not fundamentalist Islam? It's coming from the same position as far as I'm concerned. But then that would be too far for you in the other direction I'll bet. Do we force society to hold the lowest common denominator's sexual mores? Moving beyond the question of good and evil, there is no real psychological or physical harm done to minors (and if you want to start with a definition start with that one) by viewing porn.
If ten thousand persons with Ph.D.'s say porn does not harm kids this means they are secret pedophiles and brazen liars. That's just beautiful. Do you have any concept of not lying yourself? Judge not Willow, especially when it involves this much lying on your part.
I wish I knew what this Holmes creep looked like - I bet he is a life long customer of prostitutes. What difference does it make what I look like? Oh yeah, but you got me on the lifelong customer of prostitutes thing too. Right out of the womb I was macking on the nurses. Which of course goes in great with the pedophile charge you hit me with earlier. But let's say for argument's sake that I was a pedophile... what does that have to do with results of studies on the effects of porn? I'm not the one making the studies.... Oh wait, but they are all pedophiles too. Have you ever heard you shouldn't shoot the messenger? Or not to judge others? holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
If ten thousand persons with Ph.D.'s say porn does not harm kids this means they are secret pedophiles and brazen liars. Right, because WT has never, ever been wrong... Of the several ways that exist to know what is true, "the word of some anonymous dude on the net" isn't even in the same state with "a number of independant, methodological surveys of the subject." Morever, WT, all you have to do to prove us wrong is show us the example of a few kids who were fucked up my porno exposure at an early age. I've never heard of any. Of course, it's just easier for you to call your opponents pedophiles, I know. Me, I don't know anybody who didn't see some porn as a kid. As far as I can tell, it's a lack of exposure to pornography as a kid that fucks you up sexually.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
apple Inactive Member |
quote: I never understood how parents can let kids watch war shows and killing and even the news and yet go ballistic if a movie has a love scene. Maybe someone on here can let me know the rationale?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5819 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
Maybe someone on here can let me know the rationale? Yeah, they're afraid if they don't move with the pack this way, they'll be labelled pedophiles. holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
apple Inactive Member |
I figured it must be some weird reason because it certainly doesn't make any sense.
Do you recall a couple of years ago there was a newscast showing a little Arab boy trying to hide behind his father and the boy was shot to death? It was replayed over and over on the 6 PM news. Why society believes something like that is suitable to show during family hours yet rant about a love scene is proof some folks are not right in the head.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5819 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
Why society believes something like that is suitable to show during family hours yet rant about a love scene is proof some folks are not right in the head. Yeah I remember the kid and his father getting blasted. But at least that had some NEWS behind it. I'm more puzzling how a bunch of people watching men brutalize each other, in between commercials including horses farting in people's faces and impotence drugs, get thrown out of whack when a girl's nipple appears. A nipple. The human body is that taboo now? holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024