Oh Jen,

My opinion, from my extensive research, is my opinion.

'I don’t think anyone has the right to argue against the possible negative effects of violent porn, or its accessibility, when we don’t have the research and the knowledge we need to make informed decisions about it. '

I think I have a 'right' to argue what I please. Well even if I don't I have just exercised it.

I think you seem to be getting a bit worked up. As I said, I have no great qualms about your opinions about porn, and I don't see your measures as entirely unreasonable, I am concerned about 2 things. The thin edge of the wedge, and the current inadequacies of censoring the internet.

I understand society must attempt to protect children whose parents are either naive or recalcitrant, though I am not sure about Mr Hume. I don't think it's accurate to lump us together as one and the same position.

I do agree with him however, that the burden of proof doesn't lie with those who don't see the harm. The burden of proof definately lies with those who want to create new regulation and legislation.

In regards to addiction, I can easily see this as a problem. Someone who gives their brain a reward via dopamine/seratonin (Not sure which sexual arousal/orgasm would promote, possibly both) from an activity, especially an activity that can be used as escapism is no doubt able to be used as a drug. Just like poker machines I would imagine.

But a dependency of a drug comes after the fact of disfunction, pain, etc. It's a symptom.

Though, just like annorexia, both disfunctions are directly or indirectly somehow blamed on men's 'attitude to women'.ie being attracted to them. It's an ideological trogen horse, and a way of controlling men just like 'nymphomania' in days of yore.

The motivation of some is to pin failed relationships purely on the dirty male lust (porn), just as womens body issues are blamed on the male gaze. The theme is always mens desire is inately destructive and abusive.

Nobody is currently in a position to ascertain whether or not there is harm caused, or what that harm might be, except anecdotally, because enough research has not been done. There are a lot of people from various areas expressing concerns. I don’t believe it's reasonable to dismiss concerns out of hand because people like Hume spit the dummy every time he thinks he might possibly be inconvenienced, or his freedom curtailed, when nobody is suggesting that in the first place. It’s like listening to a two-year-old who thinks someone’s taking his ice cream away.

Houllie it wasn’t my intention to lump you in with Hume, I apologise.

I’m not a great fan of the thin edge of the wedge and slippery slope fallacies.

I haven’t suggested “censoring the internet.” I have no idea how that can be done and I’m not sure anybody has at this stage. I’ve suggested restricted access to violent porn sites of the kind that already exists in all other media.

As we already have restrictions in place in all media other than the Internet, the precedent for legislation is well and truly set. I'm not suggesting new legislation, only that we bring the Internet into line with legislation that already exists. If you don’t want restrictions on the Internet the burden is on you to prove why the Internet should be exempt from existing legislation that operates everywhere else.

Now you’ve decided to introduce gender bias, which has nothing whatsoever to do with any of my arguments and I'm not even going there.

Yes, porn addiction is a symptom and a symptom has to be treated as well as the cause. Drug addiction is a symptom and we treat it – where did this idea come from that because it’s a symptom it doesn’t require treatment just as much as its cause?
to be continued

OMG, Peter, you can’t get past your horror at the possibility of something being “banned” can you, even though I’m not suggesting banning anything.

I’ve made this same argument for research I don’t know how many times to the MTR and Dines brigade when they claim everything is harmful and everything should be banned, and they are just as resistant to it as you. Different sides of the same coin, I’m beginning to think.

I don’t know how suggesting we research the effects of violent porn is “threatening or bullying or violating the rights of others” but you seem to get apoplectic at the very thought of even an inquiry. I don’t agree with banning violent porn, I think that’s a useless tactic, so I’m not arguing for you or anyone else to be deprived of your sexual freedoms and the liberty to view anything you want to view.

What is your problem?

As for the child issue – they do grow up to be adults you know. Most people want them to get the best start they can so the adults they become aren’t too dysfunctional. And as I mentioned children in the article, I’m hardly resorting to them now because I’m losing an argument with you.

Of course parents are primarily responsible for their children, and I imagine that if we were able to adapt some kind of (already existing in other media) porn classification system for the Internet, parents would be primarily responsible for implementing and monitoring it. How will this interfere with your sexual liberty? How is this interfering with your freedom?

If people are turning up in increasing numbers looking for psychological assistance for the effects of pornography on their lives then it’s reasonable to conclude that for some people pornography of some kind is proving dangerous. That is, unless all those people are lying to clinicians, or all the clinicians who make these claims are lying.

Restrictions already exist across the media. Why should the Internet be exempt from them? That's for you to prove, not me

Your argument only makes sense if you've established a reason to restrict anything in the first place, but you haven't. Therefore you haven't got to the stage of being able to dismiss anyone's objections to encroachments on their liberty, including being forced to pay for any of this.

According to your theory, I should be able to restrict anyone else's freedom, even if I can't show that what they're doing is harmful, by just asserting that hypothetical "research" might or would show it is harmful. What infringement of liberty would that *not* justify?

You still haven't defined violent porn.

And what kind of "harm" are you supposing comes from watching violent porn? Are we talking brain rupture?

Who's the "we" you keep referring to? Obviously it can't refer to everyone who disagrees, or doesn't care, or who prefers to spend their own income than have it confiscated for these purposes.

Arguing by reference to pre-existing infringements of liberty is not valid, unless the original infringement is valid. It's like the people who argue that, because you need a license to have a dog, therefore you should need a license to have a baby. You need to justify infringements on liberty in the first place. You haven't done that. The fact that other infringements of liberty have already been done elsewhere does not, of itself, justify new ones. There's lots of unjustified infringements of liberty!

The question is whether the publication by internet of what you call violent porn involves aggression against the personal or property rights of others. It doesn't, which means aggression against the personal or property rights of the publishers or consumers is not justified.

As for not banning, you are advocating the use of force or threats to get the money to do the research, and to produce, run, and enforce the system of classification.

I admit I get sick of the never-ending calls of busybodies coming up with new ideas for how there can be more policing and regulation of anything and everything.

Just because some people don't like something, doesn't mean they are justified in forcing other people to pay for or do anything; and that's all you've got so far for an argument.

There is no valid problem in the first place, but if there is, the solution is for those people to learn a little tolerance, and if they need to, stop watching TV or surfing the net so much.

You know ... freedom?