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.

Castiel wrote:
Also, please don't start arguing with me just because I tried to calm down the argument and have a sensible discussion.

Don't worry. I won't.

If you can't see that you were trying to be provocative, then this conversation isn't worth my time, either.

Ahtman wrote:due to that it was obvious his stake in the discussion

I have a stake in ANY discussion I am in.

It is called taking debate seriously.

Thing is, my entire point is that the anti-porn business is so deep in you socially that you couldn't explain what's bad about it if you TRIED.

I´m waiting for the explanation also.

IF and I mean, if it is done voluntary and by own choice and doesnt cause direct harm to someone else then who is someone else to say it is shameful or bad if it isnt to the person doing it.

kronk wrote:

Castiel wrote:
Also, please don't start arguing with me just because I tried to calm down the argument and have a sensible discussion.

Don't worry. I won't.

If you can't see that you were trying to be provocative, then this conversation isn't worth my time, either.

So any time people challenge you to explain and defend your views, you bounce? Got it. Pretty sure you're earning my ignore list more than I earned yours.

kronk wrote:

Castiel wrote:
Also, please don't start arguing with me just because I tried to calm down the argument and have a sensible discussion.

Don't worry. I won't.

If you can't see that you were trying to be provocative, then this conversation isn't worth my time, either.

You yourself have been provocative towards me, and now that I defend myself you call me provocative? Not the first time I have seen you do this. You are a hypocrite, and I have no time for you.

I popped in to a thread that looked like it had potential to be a good dicussion, tried to calm it down and I get this from you?

This conversation isn't worth my time, and I shall be ignoring you from now on.

This whole controversy would go away if Sasha Grey were reading the kids the Bible.

Easy E wrote:This whole controversy would go away if Sasha Grey were reading the kids the Bible.

I knew I liked you.

We need to just not talk about cops anymore.

I'd like to think I'd have no problem with a family member in the porn business (in front of the camera). But I wouldn't be sure until it happened.

That said as long as they were happy and safe I can't see why it would be my problem if a family member chose to do it. But then again I'm for legal prostitution and weed so I'm a tainted source.

Easy E wrote:This whole controversy would go away if Sasha Grey were reading the kids the Bible.

She'd need to read the Qu'ran and other holy books to be PC as well though!

People complaining about the porn industry now.

Its like the clothes you wear, we all know that its made in some sweat shop in some poorer part of the world by basically slaves but nobody complains because you like the clothes.

Yeah its dirty but modern man likes it too much to stop it. Cant complain about it and use it at the same time lol

Rented Tritium wrote:

Ahtman wrote:due to that it was obvious his stake in the discussion

I have a stake in ANY discussion I am in.

It is called taking debate seriously.

There is a difference between being personally invested and invested. This is not a new thing, and it is recognized all the time in laws. There is a reason why a detective is not allowed to investigate crimes involving people they are related to are had a close personal relationship, and the same goes for doctors treating family members, just to list two examples. Our vision becomes myopic and we lose the ability to step back and take everything in. The person doing it rarely can tell they are. This isn't some new idea or crackpot psychology, but a well understood element of human nature, and has been for some time. There are degrees to which a person is invested into a discussion or subject, and they aren't all equal.

I like how you throw 'take debate seriously' as if that makes your points suddenly have more weight, or that only you are taking this seriously. It is more evidence of how your personal views are making you intractable and lash out. If you took debate as seriously as you say, you would have left that part off, as it makes you look desperate.

And I am done with this thread, as there really is no where else it can really go. They were wrong to throw fits but she was either foolish or cynical for going to a school under her porn stage name.

Hulksmash wrote:I'd like to think I'd have no problem with a family member in the porn business (in front of the camera). But I wouldn't be sure until it happened.

I actually feel the same way. If it ACTUALLY HAPPENED I might be irrationally freaked out by it.

But that's illogical. I'd have to get over it.

Rented Tritium wrote:

Hulksmash wrote:I'd like to think I'd have no problem with a family member in the porn business (in front of the camera). But I wouldn't be sure until it happened.

I actually feel the same way. If it ACTUALLY HAPPENED I might be irrationally freaked out by it.

But that's illogical. I'd have to get over it.

Here lies the truth of the matter!

Rented Tritium wrote:

kronk wrote:Rented Tritium,

Is someone close to you a porn star? We seem to have hit a nerve.

There are women close to me.

When you imply that they have less agency than other people because of their career choices, you hit a nerve.

Reality sucks.
You wanne be that knock yourself out, but don't expect to be judged positively for it.

Ahtman wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:

Ahtman wrote:due to that it was obvious his stake in the discussion

I have a stake in ANY discussion I am in.

It is called taking debate seriously.

There is a difference between being personally invested and invested. This is not a new thing, and it is recognized all the time in laws. There is a reason why a detective is not allowed to investigate crimes involving people they are related to are had a close personal relationship, and the same goes for doctors treating family members, just to list two examples. Our vision becomes myopic and we lose the ability to step back and take everything in. The person doing it rarely can tell they are. This isn't some new idea or crackpot psychology, but a well understood element of human nature, and has been for some time. There are degrees to which a person is invested into a discussion or subject, and they aren't all equal.

I like how you throw 'take debate seriously' as if that makes your points suddenly have more weight, or that only you are taking this seriously. It is more evidence of how your personal views are making you intractable and lash out. If you took debate as seriously as you say, you would have left that part off, as it makes you look desperate.

And I am done with this thread, as there really is no where else it can really go. They were wrong to throw fits but she was either foolish or cynical for going to a school under her porn stage name.

You're the one who made claims about me personally. I have every right to toss a jab right back.

O.k so she has tought people in my village that missionary isn't the 'only' way, and she can read! and she's friendly! what's so bad with her? at least she's not preaching hatred on a bus!

kronk wrote:

Being a Porn Star is not something to be proud of.

They should be ashamed. Have a nice day, RT. (Added to ignore).

This seems harsh to me.. I saw Sasha Grey on a talk show once and she doesnt seem fethed in the head or anything.

Maybe you could just.. you know. Do it for the money?

I dont think it guarantee's that you have no sense of self respect or you should be ashamed. I mean, sure some might, but some arent.

For example, how much money we talking!?

I have plenty of self respect, I think I am totally awesome, and yet, if you offered me 5 million pounds to jack a donkey off on the nine o-clock news I would be tugging that donkey with dollar signs whirling around my eyes faster than you could say "sex pest"

Surely some people are just, well, confident enough to feth in front of people, unconcerned about what strangers think of them, and want the money?

Frazzled wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:

kronk wrote:Rented Tritium,

Is someone close to you a porn star? We seem to have hit a nerve.

There are women close to me.

When you imply that they have less agency than other people because of their career choices, you hit a nerve.

Reality sucks.
You wanne be that knock yourself out, but don't expect to be judged positively for it.

Right, but he didn't say that just that she should expect it. Of COURSE she could expect it.

What he said was that she MUST be just seeking attention because there's NO OTHER REASON one might want to sail into known controversy. She couldn't POSSIBLY just want to do the right thing and ignore the haters.

Rented Tritium wrote:You're the one who made claims about me personally.

I said you were myopic on it becuase you were personally invested, which you admitted that you were. I didn't say you were an idiot, or that you were wrong, just entrenched.

Rented Tritium wrote:I have every right to toss a jab right back.

There are many things wrong with that sentence and sentiment. It also seems to be more evidence that proves my point.

Castiel wrote:
You yourself have been provocative towards me, and now that I defend myself you call me provocative?

Probably too late since you've put me on ignore, but oh well.

You were the one responding to me, not the other way around. Go back and read it. Take off your rose colored glasses, man.

Castiel wrote: Not the first time I have seen you do this. You are a hypocrite, and I have no time for you.

Thanks for the personal attack.

Rented Tritium wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:

kronk wrote:Rented Tritium,

Is someone close to you a porn star? We seem to have hit a nerve.

There are women close to me.

When you imply that they have less agency than other people because of their career choices, you hit a nerve.

Reality sucks.
You wanne be that knock yourself out, but don't expect to be judged positively for it.

Right, but he didn't say that just that she should expect it. Of COURSE she could expect it.

What he said was that she MUST be just seeking attention because there's NO OTHER REASON one might want to sail into known controversy. She couldn't POSSIBLY just want to do the right thing and ignore the haters.

Oh no, I'm not saying she did it for any reason but altruism. My point was in reference to the career choice statement. I'm a libertarian generally and don't really care. frankly I opened up the thread thinking this was the Borat guy.

Ahtman wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:You're the one who made claims about me personally.

I said you were myopic on it becuase you were personally invested, which you admitted that you were. I didn't say you were an idiot, or that you were wrong, just entrenched.

I like this little thing you're doing where because I'm serious about my positions, I'm somehow wrong in them.

Please keep the discussion on-topic and free of personal attacks. Thanks!

Frazzled wrote:
Oh know, I'm not saying she did it for any reason but altruism. My point was in reference to the career choice statement. I'm a libertarian generally and don't really care.

Ok well yeah, I don't disagree that people will judge you for all kinds of reasons and you shouldn't pretend it won't happen.

But some people were saying she should kowtow to those people or that her motivations were somehow different based solely on what those other people said.

Hey, only tangentally realted....

Here is something I don't understand.

To pay someone to have sex with you is illegal.

I can pay two people to have sex with each other, film it, and then sell the film, and it is legal.

Can someone explain to me why that makes sense?

Rented Tritium wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:You're the one who made claims about me personally.

I said you were myopic on it becuase you were personally invested, which you admitted that you were. I didn't say you were an idiot, or that you were wrong, just entrenched.

I like this little thing you're doing where because I'm serious about my positions, I'm somehow wrong in them.

See, you can't even read a simple sentence without coming up a convoluted, forced interpretation of it. It is as if you aren't actually reading what it written, but are guessing what you think is written. When you aren't listening to what the other person is saying, or actually reading what they are writing, there is little purpose in continuing, and it has nothing to do with right or wrong.

@Easy E: I think that is already being discussed here.

For more:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/08/12/colb.pornography/index.html

It doesn't. Legalize Prostitution and tax it!

Rented Tritium wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Oh know, I'm not saying she did it for any reason but altruism. My point was in reference to the career choice statement. I'm a libertarian generally and don't really care.

Ok well yeah, I don't disagree that people will judge you for all kinds of reasons and you shouldn't pretend it won't happen.

But some people were saying she should kowtow to those people or that her motivations were somehow different based solely on what those other people said.

No, thats not me. In the words of the Immortal Bard: "We're in America now. We won't be bowing to you English Lords any more. "

Easy E wrote:Hey, only tangentally realted....

Here is something I don't understand.

To pay someone to have sex with you is illegal.

I can pay two people to have sex with each other, film it, and then sell the film, and it is legal.

Can someone explain to me why that makes sense?

I pointed that out earlier, and was called a sexist for it.