Unspeakable filth on the internet

From reading about them in the news. What I said was common knowledge.

As always, kennethamy, you seem to start from the assumption that the person with whom you are corresponding knows less than you

As always, kennethamy, you seem to start from the assumption that the person with whom you are corresponding knows less than you.

I am quite happy to have a debate on topic of 'morality of pornography', but I insist that it is cleared through the board admin first and that it is very strictly moderated. It is a very touchy topic that hits a lot of hot buttons. I can assure you there is ample empirical evidence for the proposition 'porn is evil' but as far as this thread goes I am out.

There is a ton of empirical evidence out there on the upsurge of sexually transmitted infections amongs <25 yo. I suppose if I was a socioligist I could show you all the studies of how porn undermines trust, destroys intimacy, gives children a completely false idea of what sex is about, and so on, and so on. There are tons of tangible effects out there, lots of scripts being written for the illnesses, lots of counselling sessions taking place to overcome the effects on normal human relationships.

porn is evil.

I am not writing this from some high and mighty moral position here. I am also in the audience for this, and I am one of the people that needs to understand it. If you catch my drift.

these things are seeds to insanity and murder

Okay, so since you have a problem with porn, everybody else must have a problem with porn? Stop projecting your own shortcomings onto others.


I asked you once before: do you have proof for this assertion? If you ignore me again, I'm going to assume that you have none. (It's interesting that the throwing out of wild and outrageous claims by insecure, defensive, and projecting puritan moralists without a semblance of proof seems to be such a prominent theme in this thread.)

Do you have any proof for this assertion?

How can I prove it to you? it is well documented for example that Ted Bundy and Jeffrey Dahma had a fascination with killing and dissecting animals as children.

The images I saw on the web were the dismembered bodies of real people and such despicable pornography that almost made me physically ill You are going to say then why did I look at it, I did it to see what my grandson was doing and downloading on my computer.

First, nothing you posted has anything to do with the internet, so strictly speaking it's all irrelevant.

Second, you have the causation relationship backwards. If we grant you that all serial killers had a fascination with gruesome things (I don't know if this is true or not), then we have this statement:

*If someone is a serial killer, then that person had a fascination with gruesome things.

This is a reasonable claim. However, it is not at all the claim you made. Your claim was this:

*If someone has a fascination with gruesome things, then that person will become a serial killer.

In other words, your claim was of the form 'A -> B', whereas what you're proving is of the form 'B -> A'. You are guilty of affiming the consequent, a fairly basic logical fallacy. You may wish to consult the Logic Forum for an explanation of what I mean. In fact, I strongly suggest that you do, since your poor grasp of logic is causing you to say things that are completely insane and borderline libelous.

This type of stuff on the web is food for people who might use it for gratification or even cause a person to become a serial killer

All I asked was whether your opinion was an informed opinion. All you said is that you were offering an opinion, as if that settled the matter.

In one study of 600 people junior high school and older, found 91% of males and 82% of females were already exposed to hard core pornography. 66% of of those males and 40% of the females reported wanting to try some of the sexual acts they saw in the pornographic material. 31% of the males and 18% of the females went through with it and did some of the things they saw. Source

"Take Dolly magazine. It recently had a section "OMG my boyfriend wants me to ...", Gale says. "Among the things discussed were giving him head, a handjob and having anal sex. But it wasn't about how to deal with it if the subject came up. It was how it was done." Source

Apologies.

I am aware that mine is probably a minority opinion but I suppose, having started the ball rolling, I should present some evidence for it.

There are numerous articles on high rates of teen pregnancy and STI's in the US, UK and Australia. I have read that certain STI's are in epidemic proportions in the youth of many advanced countries.

Some references: Pregnancies and STD's up amongst US Teens

More girls under 14 having sex

it is also indispuitable that many teens, and children, are exposed to hard core pornography via the internet, whether as a result of searching for it, or accidentally. It is easy to be blase about this, but think back to 1995 or before, it would actually be impossible for most children to be exposed to imagery of this kind. It was strictly regulated or banned. As for the effects,



Australian media commentators noted this week that Dolly magazine, a publicaton addressed to the 'pre-teen market', girls from 9-14 years, now carries articles on the finer points of the acts depicted in porn:



Meanwhile, sexual addiction - a term that didn't even exist 10 years ago - has suddenly become a worldwide phenomenon. This can only be because of internet pornography. There would be no other means to create such an effective distribution channel.

As for the 'destruction of intimacy', I hardly think this is an argument that needs much proving. Traditionally, the sexual act was something that took place in private in the context of a sanctified relationship. High definition videos of group sexual acts and gross perversions of various kinds completely undermines the social and spiritual significance of human sexual intimacy.

Now I am aware of the arguments of civil libertarians. We have quite a few able representatives of this view here in Australia. One of them has even formed a political party to represent sexual lbertarianism. No matter what evidence you present, they will always have a counter argument along the lines of (1) it is all a matter of better sex education (2) people should be allowed to view or do whatever they like and so on.

But my opinion is - and this is my opinion, I realise that many don't share it - porn is evil, it exploits the base instincts of human beings, undermines intimacy, sexualises children and young adults, and is generally a cause of suffering, illness, maladjustment and social disorder.

In short, porn is evil.

---------- Post added 08-15-2009 at 09:09 AM ----------

I would be interested to hear what some of the 'moral objectivists' would have to say about this topic.

Apologies.

I am aware that mine is probably a minority opinion but I suppose, having started the ball rolling, I should present some evidence for it.

There are numerous articles on high rates of teen pregnancy and STI's in the US, UK and Australia. I have read that certain STI's are in epidemic proportions in the youth of many advanced countries.

Some references: Pregnancies and STD's up amongst US Teens

More girls under 14 having sex

I am not a brainwashed political person, William
And don't make me report your ad hominem
Fair warning