Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I can't help but be reminded of that one senator that was caught on cspan of all things on some porn site on his computer while congress was in session.

Some representatives they are.

Howard A Treesong wrote:People can control their own actions, if they spend their lives looking at porn and not caring for their parter, they are to blame not the porn. It's hardly a surprise that some blame the porn, they just want an excuse. It's not porn that ruins relationships - people ruin relationships.

Indeed. Welcome to 2012. Nothing is ever your fault.

This isn't just my opinion on the matter, read a newspaper and see for yourself. I check the BBC website each day of the week, and its always the same story when your reading about a court case or a problem or something. Murder, rape, paedophilia, alcoholic, obese, whatever. If there is something the matter with you, then its not your fault. Its a condition. Such is life in our cringing spineless society. You dont even get kids being little bastards these days.. when I was a kid if you cut class it was cos you were being a necky little gak, but nowadays its always "Oh he did it because of bad parent/mental problem/additives in soft drinks/advertising/rap music" and this even goes on with adults. "Oh he hacked that computer because he has Asperger's Syndrome" "he set the house on fire because he has ADD" "he raped that woman because his father molested him" "he went on a rampage in Afghanistan because he saw his friend die" the list goes on and on and on and on and on.

While I obviously am aware that sometimes there is an external reason, and I especially feel sorry for people with genuine mental issues, we need to draw a line in the sand. People need to man the feth up and lay in the bed they make for themselves. I can see where Relapse and GG are coming from, and I'm sure porn is just another temptation for some people, but ultimately we decide gak for ourselves. Thats what freedom is all about. You have the right to choose, you have the right to make your own decisions, and if you feth up then you pay the price.

We don't ban anything at all that we think you might get addicted to, be it gambling, boozing, smoking fags, or eating cakes. gak, they say even fast food is addictive, should we ban that too?

Thats pretty much the size of it. You make your own decisions, and thats the way I like it. I dont want the government deciding that anything and everything that is addictive should be banned.

If you get addicted to lubing yourself up and throwing yourself around the house 8 hours a day whilst watching Chitty Chitty Gang Bang and you start ignoring your wife, then its because your a fething idiot with no willpower. Its not porns fault.

Your wife should have married someone awesome like me.

Howard A Treesong wrote:While there are problems with the porn industry (regarding exploitation and poor health practices), in itself there is nothing wrong with filming and selling consensual sexual acts.

It doesn't surprise me that GG is leading the charge here, he's a religious conservative on many subjects. Previous discussions have covered his belief in creationism over evolution and his disgust of gay people. I distinctly remember his upset at Star Trek being spoiled because he found out George Takei is gay. So I can't take him seriously on *any* matter and his attempts at 'research' are more an exercise in finding anything that reaffirms his prejudices and prudishness.

One problem with people telling others how to run their sex lives and marriages, and giving morality lectures is that often they are people with very little sexual and relationship experience themselves. They just parrot what they have heard elsewhere. GG is only a kid so some naivety on his part is excusable.

Claims that porn ruins lives of customers is nonsense. People can control their own actions, if they spend their lives looking at porn and not caring for their parter, they are to blame not the porn. It's hardly a surprise that some blame the porn, they just want an excuse. It's not porn that ruins relationships - people ruin relationships.

How to answer this...

A) My comment about George Takei was a joke..and you are taking my joke out of context in very poor taste.
B) Just as you did with Sulu you take my disgust for the act of homosexuality our of context and say I have a "disgust for gay people".
C) You also misrepresented by stance on creationism. In that I do believe that evolution on the microscale exists.

Very..very..bad form....so therefore based on your willingness to distort and misrepresent my statements I guess we all should just ignore you and your statements from now on... becuase after all you have just shown your willingness to stretch the truth.

I wonder how many people that are so vigourosly defending porn are addicts themselves?

GG

generalgrog wrote:
C) You also misrepresented by stance on creationism. In that I do believe that evolution on the microscale exists.

Which means you believe in evolution as a whole.

there's no such thing as 'microevolution' and 'macroevolution,' because macroevolution is just lots of little microevolutions bundled together.

Fafnir wrote:

generalgrog wrote:
C) You also misrepresented by stance on creationism. In that I do believe that evolution on the microscale exists.

Which means you believe in evolution as a whole.

there's no such thing as 'microevolution' and 'macroevolution,' because macroevolution is just lots of little microevolutions bundled together.

fafnir we have been down that road before on the OT...I've given my explanation... not going to derail this thread with that topic. pm me if you like. :-)

GG

generalgrog wrote:

Howard A Treesong wrote:While there are problems with the porn industry (regarding exploitation and poor health practices), in itself there is nothing wrong with filming and selling consensual sexual acts.

It doesn't surprise me that GG is leading the charge here, he's a religious conservative on many subjects. Previous discussions have covered his belief in creationism over evolution and his disgust of gay people. I distinctly remember his upset at Star Trek being spoiled because he found out George Takei is gay. So I can't take him seriously on *any* matter and his attempts at 'research' are more an exercise in finding anything that reaffirms his prejudices and prudishness.

One problem with people telling others how to run their sex lives and marriages, and giving morality lectures is that often they are people with very little sexual and relationship experience themselves. They just parrot what they have heard elsewhere. GG is only a kid so some naivety on his part is excusable.

Claims that porn ruins lives of customers is nonsense. People can control their own actions, if they spend their lives looking at porn and not caring for their parter, they are to blame not the porn. It's hardly a surprise that some blame the porn, they just want an excuse. It's not porn that ruins relationships - people ruin relationships.

How to answer this...

A) My comment about George Takei was a joke..and you are taking my joke out of context in very poor taste.
B) Just as you did with Sulu you take my disgust for the act of homosexuality our of context and say I have a "disgust for gay people".
C) You also misrepresented by stance on creationism. In that I do believe that evolution on the microscale exists.

Very..very..bad form....so therefore based on your willingness to distort and misrepresent my statements I guess we all should just ignore you and your statements from now on... becuase after all you have just shown your willingness to stretch the truth.

I wonder how many people that are so vigourosly defending porn are addicts themselves?

GG

'Disgust' certainly sums it up. You've spoken at some length on your 'discomfort' at being around gay people because they rub your face in it. You've spoken of how being gay is a 'lifestyle choice' but that it's a sin which some have repented and 'turned their lives' around.

Need I go on or should I start digging up quotes from the numerous threads you've discussed all this previously?

Okay here's a gem that should show how you view porn and homosexuality...

I know the Bible is right and I know that God doesn't make mistakes, homosexuality is a sexual perversion in the same light as porn addiction, nymphomania, pedophelia etc.

Oh and...

generalgrog wrote:

I wonder how many people that are so vigourosly defending porn are addicts themselves?

GG

If you're trying to make a specific point about the character of those disputing your opinion, man up and say it.

Show us all the gem where I say I am "disgusted by gay people".

You can continue to try and demonize me, but most of the regulars on here know what you are trying to do, and it's wrong. I find it disturbing how easy it is for so many people to just ignore the blatant exploitation of women and children so they can pleasure themselves to internet porn.

GG

generalgrog wrote:You can continue to try and demonize me, but most of the regulars on here know what you are trying to do, and it's wrong.

This is correct. Not taking sides, but I can spot a good old-fashioned trolling gang-up when I see it. Ask me how. That said...

generalgrog wrote:I find it disturbing how easy it is for so many people to just ignore the blatant exploitation of women and children so they can pleasure themselves to internet porn.

I think one of the places you've gone wrong in this thread is conflating child pornography with the more run of the mill variety.

Monster Rain wrote:
I think one of the places you've gone wrong in this thread is conflating child pornography with the more run of the mill variety.

They arent even remotely linked so Its hardly worth refuting.

Thats like saying that because I like seeing a man have sex with a woman, I would enjoy watching sex involving anything at all as long as it has the sex part in.

Kids, two donkeys, man on goat..

I saw two insects fething once on a wildlife show.. does that count as porn?

I'd bet $100.00 that santorum has directed his staff to hide a dead hooker or has pictures of little boys hidden away for his own use.

He definitely gives off that "creepy" vibe: vacant wild darting eyes and cheesy hair ,etc.

Its always the guys that protest and preach the loudest that have the most skeletons in their own closets...

Monster Rain wrote:

generalgrog wrote:You can continue to try and demonize me, but most of the regulars on here know what you are trying to do, and it's wrong.

This is correct. Not taking sides, but I can spot a good old-fashioned trolling gang-up when I see it.

It's not trolling to call someone on their nonsense.

generalgrog wrote:You can continue to try and demonize me, but most of the regulars on here know what you are trying to do, and it's wrong. I find it disturbing how easy it is for so many people to just ignore the blatant exploitation of women and children so they can pleasure themselves to internet porn.

I thought I commented on exploitation in my first post. I don't ignore it or see that as a positive. But don't confuse paedophilia with porn, there is a difference. Most of the regulars on here are probably familiar with your posting history so I probably don't need to make a point of quoting a lot of it to build up a picture of your continued dislike of homosexuality. Whine that my posting is "wrong" if you like, but that's just because you have no answer to it.

CT GAMER wrote:I'd bet $100.00 that santorum has directed his staff to hide a dead hooker or has pictures of little boys hidden away for his own use.

He definitely gives off that "creepy" vibe: vacant wild darting eyes and cheesy hair ,etc.

Its always the guys that protest and preach the loudest that have the most skeletons in their own closets...

An odd situation when your slating a Religious bloke and Im defending one.

I think Santorum is a pretty stand up guy personally, I just think he has that typical "I am definitely 100% correct" thing going on because he is a fundie, but for a change I think he is actually sincere in his belief.

So its more he thinks slagging off porn is what God requires of him rather than hiding some filthy secret. I could be wrong, but he seems to be a genuine believer, unlike a great many preacher types who do indeed endlessly slate the evils of homosexuality with one hand while savagely jacking off a rent boy with the other.

Like this guy for example!

Howard A Treesong wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

generalgrog wrote:You can continue to try and demonize me, but most of the regulars on here know what you are trying to do, and it's wrong.

This is correct. Not taking sides, but I can spot a good old-fashioned trolling gang-up when I see it.

It's not trolling to call someone on their nonsense.

No, but the leaps of logic and putting words in other peoples' mouths kind of comes off that way.

mattyrm wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:I'd bet $100.00 that santorum has directed his staff to hide a dead hooker or has pictures of little boys hidden away for his own use.

He definitely gives off that "creepy" vibe: vacant wild darting eyes and cheesy hair ,etc.

Its always the guys that protest and preach the loudest that have the most skeletons in their own closets...

An odd situation when your slating a Religious bloke and Im defending one.

I think Santorum is a pretty stand up guy personally, I just think he has that typical "I am definitely 100% correct" thing going on because he is a fundie, but for a change I think he is actually sincere in his belief.

So its more he thinks slagging off porn is what God requires of him rather than hiding some filthy secret. I could be wrong, but he seems to be a genuine believer, unlike a great many preacher types who do indeed endlessly slate the evils of homosexuality with one hand while savagely jacking off a rent boy with the other.

Like this guy for example!

This is why, though I disagree quite strongly with mattyrm on a few things, he is awesome.

Monster Rain wrote:

This is why, though I disagree quite strongly with mattyrm on a few things, he is awesome.

You do? I thought we were like two peas in a pod old chap!

Monster Rain wrote:

Howard A Treesong wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

generalgrog wrote:You can continue to try and demonize me, but most of the regulars on here know what you are trying to do, and it's wrong.

This is correct. Not taking sides, but I can spot a good old-fashioned trolling gang-up when I see it.

It's not trolling to call someone on their nonsense.

No, but the leaps of logic and putting words in other peoples' mouths kind of comes off that way.

What 'leaps of logic'? What words did I 'put in his mouth'? My comment "previous discussions have covered his belief in creationism over evolution and his disgust of gay people" is not in fact me saying he literally said "gay people disgust me". Otherwise I would have just said that. Seeing as I wasn't actually quoting him, his attempt to make me come up with an exact quote, instead of a general summation of his extended posting history that would allow one to draw the same conclusion, is trying to be a little bit clever.

generalgrog wrote:Show us all the gem where I say I am "disgusted by gay people".

Right here:

generalgrog wrote:homosexuality is a sexual perversion in the same light as porn addiction, nymphomania, pedophelia etc.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/510/233388.page
Look at the bolded parts of this, especially. Statements like this piss me off more than almost anything else. They are spiteful, hateful, ignorant, and disgusting comments that frankly are utterly indefensible.

You are a homophobe, and have repeatedly stated you are such. If you want to say you've changed, that's fine (I wouldnt' believe you for an instant), but don't say you never said these kinds of thigns.

Homosexuality in the same light as paedophilia?!

I agree with Maddox. We don't need to give more rights to gays, we need to take more rights away from straights!

http://thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=gay

mattyrm wrote: Homosexuality in the same light as paedophilia?!

And Nazism.

It was bound to happen sooner or later.

Relapse wrote:@Malus,

Very true. I've seen people have their marrages end and lose their kids because of an addiction to porn.
A guy I work with that this happened to came right out and told me that it was his porn addiction that ended his marriage. He said he got into it when he was 14 and had to view it the way an alcoholic needs a drink.
At that point his wife couldn't take it anymore and she took the kids and left him.

@Howard,

I have to disagree with your statement that porn doesn't ruin lives. I agree that people can control their own actions, but some can't control as well as others at times depending on what they get into.
To certain people, I have seen porn can be as addictive as cigarettes, alcohol, or gambling is to others to the point their marriage or relationship crumbles.

I understand that you're saying some people are weak and can't control themselves. Do you understand that I think it's stupid to outlaw things for everyone to accommodate the fractional percentage of people who cannot control themselves?

I know several co-workers who are utterly addicted to World of Warcraft. Some even flunked out of school because of it. In America, we call that "consequences". More to the point, if I want to enjoy a legal adult activity, it's not my problem (or society at large) your coworker couldn't control himself. The US Government is not our daddy.

mattyrm wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

This is why, though I disagree quite strongly with mattyrm on a few things, he is awesome.

You do? I thought we were like two peas in a pod old chap!

Can't believe I missed this earlier.

It must be because I'm "fething Leathered!" as it were.

Howard A Treesong wrote:What 'leaps of logic'? What words did I 'put in his mouth'? My comment "previous discussions have covered his belief in creationism over evolution and his disgust of gay people" is not in fact me saying he literally said "gay people disgust me". Otherwise I would have just said that. Seeing as I wasn't actually quoting him, his attempt to make me come up with an exact quote, instead of a general summation of his extended posting history that would allow one to draw the same conclusion, is trying to be a little bit clever.

I think the fact that you knew exactly what post I was referring to speaks volumes. Anyway, I've said my piece on this and I'm frankly profoundly uninterested in going around about it.

Monster Rain wrote:Anyway, I've said my piece on this and I'm frankly profoundly uninterested in going around about it.

Did something about the conversation rub you the wrong way? Feeling a little jerked around?

If I'm going to be arguing, I'd rather be "arguing with Henry Longfellow", if you will.

I know the Bible is right and I know that God doesn't make mistakes, homosexuality is a sexual perversion in the same light as porn addiction, nymphomania, pedophelia etc.

That is all...

generalgrog wrote:
Adults admitting to Internet sexual addiction: 10%; 28% of those are women (Internet Filter Review).

What is internet sexual addiction? How was the admission established? What was the initial sample?

generalgrog wrote:
More than 20,000 images of child pornography posted online every week (National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, 10/8/03).

Not relevant to pornography as a whole. I also, again, doubt the number due to it conveniently ending in four 0's.

generalgrog wrote:

Approximately 20% of all Internet pornography involves children (National Center for Mission & Exploited Children).

100,000 websites offer illegal child pornography (U.S. Customs Service estimate).

I'd like to know how these numbers were developed.

The 100,000 number I can see, but even if its true I don't care. Its infinitesimal in context of the total number of registered domain names, even before considering aggregating websites not based on the explicit traffic of CP.

The 20% number simply seems incorrect.

generalgrog wrote:
As of December 2005, child pornography was a $3 billion annual industry (Internet Filter Review).

Globally?

If so, that's negligible.

Also, I like how these statistics came from a website designed to sell internet filters. Totally trustworthy.

mattyrm wrote: Homosexuality in the same light as paedophilia?!

well yeah...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase-out_of_incandescent_light_bulbs

generalgrog wrote:Also you should look up the meaning of ad hominum... here for you benefit.

When the ad hominem is true, and relevant to the argument, the ad hominem is not fallacious.

If someone is claiming something that demonstrates that they are full of gak, then it isn't fallacious to claim that they are full of gak.

Anyway:

I'm wondering how the widespread viewing of pornography indicates that porn is a problem, without the accompanying assumption porn is a problem. Then, of course, I'm also curious as to how the average initial age of viewership was established, and what definition of "porn" was used.

To be honest, I think you should be ashamed for posting a blatantly speculative set of statistics without any documentation regarding methodology. And even more ashamed for attempting to defend it.

On the topic of child pornography.

Child pornography is already illegal, so I fail to see how that has any relevance on whether pornography featuring consenting adults should be illegal.

If anything it shows that making it illegal does not prevent it from happening. Paedophiles who want their child porn fix still find a way of getting it.

Normal adults who want their consenting adult porn fix will also find a way of getting it. All you'd do is put the money into the hands of criminals and lose out on income in the form of taxation or whatever.

In case anyone tries to misunderstand what I'm saying, I am not saying that child porn should be legal. I am only saying that making something illegal does not make that thing go away.

Or that they're marketing executives who are lying to you to get you to buy their product.

Which is not only true, it's provably true.

My friend just got really messed up and tried to witness me and then I see this thread.