1
   

Ban Girls Gone Wild Commercials?

 
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Jan, 2007 08:44 am
Ticomaya wrote:
I'm willing to go out on a limb, without the use of any scientific study as a safety net, and say that any person who believes it is not psychologically harmful to a 6 or 8 year old child to view pornography, is an idiot.

Of course that's merely my opinion.

In that case I fit your definition of an idiot, which may be explained by the porn magazines my best friend and I "borrowed" from his older brother when we were about that age. I evidently fit many other people's opinion of an idiot too, so don't worry about me. I'm used to it. Smile
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Jan, 2007 09:17 am
Thomas wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
I'm willing to go out on a limb, without the use of any scientific study as a safety net, and say that any person who believes it is not psychologically harmful to a 6 or 8 year old child to view pornography, is an idiot.

Of course that's merely my opinion.

In that case I fit your definition of an idiot, which may be explained by the porn magazines my best friend and I "borrowed" from his older brother when we were about that age. I evidently fit many other people's opinion of an idiot too, so don't worry about me. I'm used to it. Smile



:wink: :wink: :wink: :wink:

Ya gotta love these people who are determined to stop young people from discovering that sex is spectacular...that people sometimes engage in sex for money...that the naked body can tittilate...that guys who normally can be bored by a football game that produces no scoring for severa minutes can watch a woman spread her legs hours on end...that...

...well, you get the picture.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Jan, 2007 09:42 am
Frank Apisa wrote:
Ya gotta love these people who are determined to stop young people from discovering that sex is spectacular...that people sometimes engage in sex for money...that the naked body can tittilate...that guys who normally can be bored by a football game that produces no scoring for severa minutes can watch a woman spread her legs hours on end...that...

Well, you're certainly not an idiot. Then again, you're a New Jersey Italian. I know everything about New Jersey Italians -- McTag is sending me The Sopranos on DVD, season by season. So, how are things at the Bada-Bing?
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Jan, 2007 09:47 am
Thomas wrote:
Frank Apisa wrote:
Ya gotta love these people who are determined to stop young people from discovering that sex is spectacular...that people sometimes engage in sex for money...that the naked body can tittilate...that guys who normally can be bored by a football game that produces no scoring for severa minutes can watch a woman spread her legs hours on end...that...

Well, you're certainly not an idiot. Then again, you're a New Jersey Italian. I know everything about New Jersey Italians -- McTag is sending me The Sopranos on DVD, season by season. So, how are things at the Bada-Bing?


Fuggedaboudit! Dintsha ever hear of omerta?
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Jan, 2007 10:11 am
Frank Apisa wrote:
Thomas wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
I'm willing to go out on a limb, without the use of any scientific study as a safety net, and say that any person who believes it is not psychologically harmful to a 6 or 8 year old child to view pornography, is an idiot.

Of course that's merely my opinion.

In that case I fit your definition of an idiot, which may be explained by the porn magazines my best friend and I "borrowed" from his older brother when we were about that age. I evidently fit many other people's opinion of an idiot too, so don't worry about me. I'm used to it. Smile



:wink: :wink: :wink: :wink:

Ya gotta love these people who are determined to stop young people from discovering that sex is spectacular...that people sometimes engage in sex for money...that the naked body can tittilate...that guys who normally can be bored by a football game that produces no scoring for severa minutes can watch a woman spread her legs hours on end...that...

...well, you get the picture.


You sat down with your Kindergartener to watch a little good ol' fashioned porn? Can't teach him those valuable lessons early enough?

Well, I suppose the world is chock full of idiots.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Jan, 2007 10:14 am
Ticomaya wrote:
Frank Apisa wrote:
Thomas wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
I'm willing to go out on a limb, without the use of any scientific study as a safety net, and say that any person who believes it is not psychologically harmful to a 6 or 8 year old child to view pornography, is an idiot.

Of course that's merely my opinion.

In that case I fit your definition of an idiot, which may be explained by the porn magazines my best friend and I "borrowed" from his older brother when we were about that age. I evidently fit many other people's opinion of an idiot too, so don't worry about me. I'm used to it. Smile



:wink: :wink: :wink: :wink:

Ya gotta love these people who are determined to stop young people from discovering that sex is spectacular...that people sometimes engage in sex for money...that the naked body can tittilate...that guys who normally can be bored by a football game that produces no scoring for severa minutes can watch a woman spread her legs hours on end...that...

...well, you get the picture.


You sit down with your 6 year old son to watch a little good ol' fashioned porn? Can't teach him those valuable lessons early enough?

Well, I suppose the world is chock full of idiots.


Well...I wonder if that might not be more healthy than the way we handle it now.
0 Replies
 
Slappy Doo Hoo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Jan, 2007 10:54 am
It's not like the commercials are on during Sesame Street....don't think it's much of an issue with the kids.

While we're at it, let's also ban the Spanish channel, which is basically a bunch of super hot chicks wearing slutty clothes speaking in words I can't understand.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Jan, 2007 10:59 am
Considering my take on this item...you might find it interesting (even mildly hypocritical) that I have started to take offense to the use of attractive young (very young) girls in so many advertisements on TV.

Why this trend?

Porn is one thing.

Using kids as an allure is quite another.
0 Replies
 
Slappy Doo Hoo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Jan, 2007 11:07 am
They use attractive people in almost every commercial...what's the difference if it's a kid or not?
0 Replies
 
flushd
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Jan, 2007 08:19 pm
North americans have a fondness for really young chicks.

Like borderline pedo. Smile

It's really encouraged by a lot of crap, unfortunately, to have super young kids thinking that being hyper-sexualized is a good thing.

I gotta agree with ya Frank cause I think it's gone overboard. That stuff always exists to one extent or another, and there will always be a market for it, but we don't all have to constantly give it the Thumbs Up.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Jan, 2007 08:40 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
Chumly wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
I didn't attempt to make a case by scientific standards.
That is because you cannot do it and you are dodging.
What's your point?
Good humors are always most welcome!
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Jan, 2007 08:48 pm
squinney wrote:
squinney wrote:


In part:

Quote:
PEOPLE ARE AFFECTED BY WHAT THEY SEE
Some Americans strongly hold the belief that pornography, while it may be vulgar and tasteless, is still essentially harmless and has no real effect on the viewer.
To claim it "has no real effect on the viewer" has got to be the biggest loads I've heard. These so-called "Some Americans" who "strongly hold the belief" that pornography "has no real effect on the viewer" must have neither a penis or vagina! It's been proven numerous times that pornography has a real effect on the viewer, that being one of sexual arousal.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Jan, 2007 09:06 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
I'm willing to go out on a limb, without the use of any scientific study as a safety net, and say that any person who believes it is not psychologically harmful to a 6 or 8 year old child to view pornography, is an idiot.

Of course that's merely my opinion.
And what other unsubstantiated opinions do you wish to share with us such that those whom disagree with you are also idiots in your eyes? A religion or two perhaps? A moral absolutism of some nature?
0 Replies
 
Slappy Doo Hoo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Jan, 2007 07:03 am
Girls Gone Wild commercials are far, far away from porn.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Jan, 2007 09:28 am
Chumly wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
I'm willing to go out on a limb, without the use of any scientific study as a safety net, and say that any person who believes it is not psychologically harmful to a 6 or 8 year old child to view pornography, is an idiot.

Of course that's merely my opinion.
And what other unsubstantiated opinions do you wish to share with us such that those whom disagree with you are also idiots in your eyes? A religion or two perhaps? A moral absolutism of some nature?


No ... just the one.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Jan, 2007 01:56 pm
Given that there have been a number of successful cultures that had very relaxed mores as pertaining to children being exposed to sexual acts I take it you would then consider all members of said societies as being idiots as well, again with no evidence to back up your claim.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Jan, 2007 02:55 pm
Chumly wrote:
Given that there have been a number of successful cultures that had very relaxed mores as pertaining to children being exposed to sexual acts ...


Does Canada fall into that category?

Quote:
... I take it you would then consider all members of said societies as being idiots as well, ...


No, only those that believe it is healthy to expose small children to sexual acts.

Quote:
... again with no evidence to back up your claim.


I never have agreed that there is no evidence to back up my claim, but I do agree that I've not attempted to present any in this discussion, for the reasons previously stated.

And if you happen to fall into the category of person who believes it is healthy to expose small children to sexual acts, then you can correctly presume how I would categorize you. Wear that shoe proudly, Chumly.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Jan, 2007 03:29 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
Does Canada fall into that category?
Not as a hole.
Ticomaya wrote:
No, only those that believe it is healthy to expose small children to sexual acts.
Given that it would be integral to the culture at hand, it's unlikely such distinction would be a mertible point, until Puriitism and its ilk were introduced that is.
Ticomaya wrote:
I never have agreed that there is no evidence to back up my claim, but I do agree that I've not attempted to present any in this discussion, for the reasons previously stated.
You don't have to agree or disagree, it makes no difference, I challenged you to support your claim in a reasonable evidentiary manner, and you have not.
Ticomaya wrote:
And if you happen to fall into the category of person who believes it is healthy to expose small children to sexual acts, then you can correctly presume how I would categorize you. Wear that shoe proudly, Chumly.
I don't fall into either category, given there is zero reasonable evidence of harm. As to reasonable evidence of good, I would argue that there is based on the alternative of harmful censorship. As to reasonable evidence of good outside of the censorship argument I don't know.

Might I presume you do not see the consummate hypocrisy of claiming that youth seeing pornarghy is harmful, while at the same time lying about the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy and the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow; plus behind their innocent backs engaging in warfare, ecological destruction, pogroms, racism, etc?
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Jan, 2007 04:06 pm
Chumly wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
Does Canada fall into that category?
Not as a hole.


Who you calling an "a hole"?

Quote:
Ticomaya wrote:
No, only those that believe it is healthy to expose small children to sexual acts.
Given that it would be integral to the culture at hand, it's unlikely such distinction would be a mertible point, until Puriitism and its ilk were introduced that is.


You asked, I answered. How "meritable" my distinction is, I can't say; but it is, nevertheless, accurate.

Quote:
Ticomaya wrote:
I never have agreed that there is no evidence to back up my claim, but I do agree that I've not attempted to present any in this discussion, for the reasons previously stated.
You don't have to agree or disagree, it makes no difference, I challenged you to support your claim in a reasonable evidentiary manner, and you have not.


Nor do I need to.

But I have supported my claim that the restrictions I advocate are not impermissible censorship based on current US law.

Quote:
Ticomaya wrote:
And if you happen to fall into the category of person who believes it is healthy to expose small children to sexual acts, then you can correctly presume how I would categorize you. Wear that shoe proudly, Chumly.
I don't fall into either category, given there is zero reasonable evidence of harm. As to reasonable evidence of good, I would argue that there is based on the alternative of harmful censorship. As to reasonable evidence of good outside of the censorship argument I don't know.


I hereby expand my previously stated thesis to include in the category of "idiot" those who would insist it is better to expose small children to sexual acts than to require such programming to only be broadcast after 10 o'clock in the evening.

Quote:
Might I presume you do not see the consummate hypocrisy of claiming that youth seeing pornarghy is harmful, while at the same time lying about the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy; plus behind their innocent backs engaging in warfare, ecological destruction, pogroms, racism, etc?


You may.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Jan, 2007 05:18 pm
I gather you like skirting, you wear it well!
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Take it All - Discussion by McGentrix
BEFORE WE HAD T.V. - Discussion by edgarblythe
Cancelled - Discussion by Brandon9000
John Stewart meets Bill O'Reilly - Discussion by Thomas
Recommend good HBO series? - Discussion by dlowan
Orange is the New Black - Discussion by tsarstepan
Odd Premier: Under the Dome - Discussion by edgarblythe
Hey, Can A Woman "Ask To Get Raped"? - Discussion by firefly
Larry King To Hang Up His Suspenders - Discussion by firefly
The Gates : Episode 1 - Discussion by Miller
 
Copyright © 2014 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.8 seconds on 07/22/2014 at 01:20:47