The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Romancing the ban: censorship of porn will never work > Comments

Romancing the ban: censorship of porn will never work : Comments

By Sebastian Strangio, published 10/3/2008

We are deluded if we think that by banning porn sexual violence will evaporate overnight.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. Page 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
runner,

The physical abuse of children, even under the name 'corporal punishment', is no joke and your casual observations are nothing to the dozens of peer-reviewed studies.

Strauss' article alone was a survey of 14,000 individuals from 32 countries. Try reading Elizabeth Gershoff's article (Psychology Bulletin, June 24, 2002), and analysis of 88 studies over 62 years that determined, apart from immediate compliance, corporal punishment, had negative effects on all other child behaviour - including the ability to determine right from wrong.

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) in an official policy statement rejects its use, the Canadian Pediatrics Society "strongly discourages" corporal punishment as it leads to negative outcomes and the England's Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health and Royal College of Psychiatrists state it is "wrong and impractical ... it is never appropriate to hit or beat children". UNESCO and the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child also call for the prohibition on corporal punishment.

Some basic reading for you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporal_punishment

I dare you to read the following and suggest that those images are an idea of "loving":

http://www.philosophyblog.com.au/arguments-against-corporal-punishment/

If I were to do a passage-by-passage study of the bible (and it has been done http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/) the majority of moral messages therein are most certainly demands of obedience with threats of punishment. That is simply a matter of fact. And yes, from the empirical evidence available, love does come from humans - as does hatred and indeed any human expression.

And so what if people in the sex industry don't use their real names? At least that usually protects them from discrimination and harassment from those who object to what they do with their own bodies.

I note once again, you failed to answer the question posed; and you've also avoided, for the fourth time, the question of evolution.

What it would take to convince you that you are in error? Is it possible that you're so intellectually insecure you can't?
Posted by Lev, Wednesday, 12 March 2008 7:54:38 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lev

I have never pretended to be an intellectual giant and I doubt you are. There are numerous men an women with every qualification known to man who know evolution is a load of crap. You can continue to have faith in the blind dogma in the name of pseudo science. I will have faith in the living God who created this world. Both positions are unprovable by true science but s far as myself and many scientist are concerned the evidence by far favours a Creator.
Posted by runner, Wednesday, 12 March 2008 7:59:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
runner: "You also know that their (sic) is so much shame with the sex industry that people don't even use their own names"

And of course your real name is "runner", isn't it?

Obviously runner posts under a pseudonym because of the "shame" associated with producing an endless litany of fundy gibberish.

"I have never pretended to be an intellectual giant.."

I'll concede that is a redeeming feature.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Wednesday, 12 March 2008 10:00:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
runner, you need to learn some basic, elementary science and build up on it once you learn about scientific method. And then read about probability. There is no excuse for a citizen like you to not learn some of this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact#Scientific_terminology_applied_to_evolution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#Truth_and_belief
Posted by Steel, Thursday, 13 March 2008 1:57:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thank for those links Steel. Runner, I recommend you pay attention to them. They provide, in a very simple format, why evolution is a fact and why there are theories of evolution.

Denying evolution is akin to denying gravity. Biological evolution states is there are changes in the inherited traits of a population from one generation to the next.

What some religious fundamentalists seem really upset about is speciation. For them, approximately 6,000 years ago, according to biblical mythology, a god created the universe and all its species - for eternity. The first person who really challenged this static species point of view was Charles Darwin with the theory of allopatric natural selection.

Not only has this been observed numerous times, other types of speciation have been discovered and in some cases, actually induced in a laboratory situation, most famously among drosphila.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/Drosophila_speciation_experiment.svg

Both evolution and speciation are observed and repeatable facts.

I sincerely hope you've learned something from this. Rather than seeking to be an intellectual giantism, I suggest you seek intellectual humility. If you have an opinion, even a most cherished one, I suggest you actually research the issue first and be open to the possibility that you cherished beliefs - and the books from which they came - make actually be incorrect.
Posted by Lev, Friday, 14 March 2008 8:52:16 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Those who do not like pornography are not required to watch or read it.

Those who claim any relationship between pornography and sexual assaults have no objective statistics to base their assertion on.

Those who believe that pornography is morally reprehensible and against the laws of their particular God are entitled to their opinion but have no right to inflict their theological maxims on others.

What I see are a few people who want a vanilla world. Well folks if you check the pottery the ancient Greeks and Romans produced or the remaining artifacts of the Mayan culture, you will see the depiction of sexuality and sexual acts is nothing new.

As the final statement of the article states

“Rather than subjecting porn to bans, we should discuss it in terms of ethics - that is, how young men should treat women in our society, regardless of what they see online. Stop me if I’m wrong - but aren’t our teachers and parents already doing that?”

I agree.

Every parent has a duty of care to protect their children from harm. I acknowledge a childs mind is immature and may be unable to effectively handle some influences it may confront, hence censorship for children.

The same reasoning is not applicable to adults, who we must consider, have developed sufficiently to handle, in their stride, the hurley-burley of more graphic imagery and descriptions.

I do not intend to presume that, I should impose constraints on others to the viewing or reading of any “pornographic” acts involving one or more consenting adults, which I may not enjoy / appreciate.

I merely expect other people, who choose not to view/use pornography to employ a similar ethic, in not imposing their own (narrow) view on other adults who, it can be presumed, are adequately equipped to make reasoned judgments to what they will or will not watch or read.
Posted by Col Rouge, Friday, 14 March 2008 10:14:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. Page 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy