Should Pornography Be ILLEGAL???? 🙈

[paulo420uk 2.0]

You be hanging out with @paulo420uk 2.0

CLEM I always knew you fancied the pants off me. All you need to do is ask to see me unclothed and I am more than happy to do it for you. Mwah x

 

[Inkandtatts]

My particular argument is this-since its proven that porn is harmful, and there is a lot of evidence to that.

But all you’ve provided to support that position is a study by an anti-porn group. @DontCostYaNuffin has provided a study that says the opposite and that it is in fact a good thing.

You even seem to agree the bias point relating to the anti-porn group in this comment but now you say something different on that:

edit:
Ad hominem
This is a fallacy in which a claim is rejected on the basis of an aspect of someone's character, identity, motivations, or even the relationships they have with others.

nothing ive said is intended to pertain to any chatroom on site. (OP said porn in relation to legality only)

All 4 adult rooms allow gifs/images of porn. Many of them are from ph. If porn should be illegal then it surely follows that the view is that this site shouldn’t break the law by allowing porn, should it be made illegal.

Canada is trying to regulate pornhub . Because its not regulated.

Of course it’s regulated. There are certain types of porn that are illegal and can’t be shown on there or any site legally. There are mechanisms for reporting anything that looks suspicious. There was a case where a video was taken down on ph and the studio that produced it had to evidence the age of the actors before it was allowed back. That particular video imo shouldn’t be allowed but it shows that it is regulated and it is policed.

Right now minors can access the porn people want to stay legal:

Yes and that’s a different argument which I believe various governments are trying to tackle. It’s certainly not a valid argument for saying porn should be illegal. Minors can watch normal (non-porn) movies rated over their age on TV unless their parents stop them from doing so, so if this argument carried weight then there’d be an argument for outlawing all adult rated movies.

Consider this criminologist "Violent porn can be “a facilitator for one person, while having no effect on others," a 2017 Psychology Today article citing research by criminologist Eric Hickey states. "Still, the fact the certain serial murderers have insisted that pornography was a major factor in their killing young women and children cannot be ignored.'"

Is your position limited then to violent porn? If so that’s different and is more nuanced.

You’re not including what types of porn they’ve watched and whether those are legal or illegal. Convicted paedophiles blame child porn but of course that is already illegal. Perhaps it’s similar with all these murderers - they’ve watched illegal porn already.

In any event, I’m sure several serial murders insist anything is a major factor in their killing of victims as part of their defence of a crime that carries a heavy punishment.

Court case re sentencing Jeffrey Dahmer is one case (although not directed at women )

"Because of Porn" again you challenge causation, but these cases show correlation and argueably causation .

I can see you’re very passionate about porn but using Dahmer as the only example is extremely far fetched.

He had psychotic disorder, borderline personality disorder, and scizotypal disorder.

His murders involved cannibalism, necrophilia, snd doing things with body parts. Unless you’ve seen something I haven’t on ph, none of that activity is allowed there (or legal)

I wonder if Dhamer ate pork. They say that’s the closest taste to human flesh. Maybe pork should be illegal just in case.

According to the BBC around half of UK adults watch porn.

When ph released its last stats in 2019, they were getting 80,000 visits a minute and had 22 million registered users.

In 2020, the top 3 porn sites globally had a higher viewership than Netflix, hitting almost 6 billion visits a month.

The numbers don’t add up to support a view that porn is a direct cause of violence or in the case you’ve quoted murder, cannibalism, dismemberment, or necrophilia - and there are zero cases to support that position.

To make the case, you’re going to need to show cases where the defendant had no mental health issues and argued that the sole reason they were violent, murdered someone, or ate someone, was because they watched porn. I’d bet every penny I have that there won’t be any cases like that.


Unrelated to this debate but if you quote properly it makes is much easier for readers to look at the quote in context (and saves me scrolling to find what I said)

 

[Inkandtatts]

Solution:

Keep it legal. Play wherever this sound is before and after each video:

This is what erectile dysfunction and sterilisation sounds like.

https://*******.com/1iZlNdFdr3Gh

Not sure that it will deter the violent women or the female cannibals that watch porn and blame their violence and propensity to eat people on porn, so this could be added for women:

 

[rapinoes smirking revenge]

minors get their hands on alcohol, tobacco. kids who aren't legal age to drive yet sneak out with their parent's car. they sneak into r rated films, play adult rated video games. rules and regulations don't 100% stop anything from happening. nor does banning or criminalization, prohibition really put an end to alcohol. come up with better ways of keeping minors from having access to it? great. want to get rid of certain types of porn? yeah that's a discussion to be had. outright banning something because it might possibly have the slightest effect on a small percentage of people (which hasn't even been shown) just doesn't make any sense.

 

[Inkandtatts]

outright banning something because it might possibly have the slightest effect on a small percentage of people (which hasn't even been shown) just doesn't make any sense.

Precisely. Correlation is always a weak basis to support any point on anything. It has its place, perhaps as a starting point, but sometimes as with porn and violence the correlation is so obviously wrong

 

[Deleted member 263960]

But all you’ve provided to support that position is a study by an anti-porn group. @DontCostYaNuffin has provided a study that says the opposite and that it is in fact a good thing.

no, what I did was show several studies, peer reviewed, and some in medical journals, that a group opposed to pornography referenced. That group didn't conduct the studies themselves no bias was shown..

All 4 adult rooms allow gifs/images of porn.

The OP didnt mention this site- neither do I.

Is your position limited then to violent porn? If so that’s different and is more nuanced.

The OP didn't specify, and I previously answered this. MY argument? Primarily violent porn yes, porn that is aggressive towards women, choking and the like is the most clearly associated with violent behaviour among consumers.

I can see you’re very passionate about porn but using Dahmer as the only example is extremely far fetched.

Bundy did to. I think I read something to similar effect on Gacy, these examples are not mine- I cited a respected criminologist who said those facts about various serial killers "cannot be ignored" those also coborrate what the Ministry of Attorney General of various provinces show in various reports, and case files. Sexual offenders use porn . It not rare, its not unheard of. In fact its very common. And its not limited by any means to CP.

To make the case, you’re going to need to show cases where the defendant had no mental health issues and argued that the sole reason

I never said it was the sole reason, Also Big Tobacco and the Gun Lobby have used similar reasoning that you have in their arguments, rather than say" yeah we know our product is harmful and this is what we will do about it...."

. @DontCostYaNuffin has provided a study

He conducted more than a few porn studies of his own in General Chat .

Precisely. Correlation is always a weak basis to support any point on anything. It has its place, perhaps as a starting point, but sometimes as with porn and violence the correlation is so obviously wrong

Corelation is not weak unless its proven to be a false corelation, and that's when its the conclusion -not the premise- or a supporting argument.

The ground breaking Bobo Doll experiment at Stanford clearly showed "monkey see monkey do " and many studies in the decades that followed showed similar findings in relation to the behaviour of men in particular. At a bare minimum Its better such porn be illegal until such time as only "adults" can access it.

 

[DontCostYaNuffin]

“At the population level, studies explored the relationship between pornography consumers and sexual violence, and found that an increase in available pornography reduced sexual aggression”

This study was conducted by Chris Ferguson and Richard Hartley. chair of UTSA’s Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice. The authors conducted meta-analytic research and examined more than 50 correlational, experimental and population studies that explored the association between pornography and sexual aggression during the past 40 years.

Unfortunately I wasn’t allowed to post a link to said study:

 

[DontCostYaNuffin]

All of them were blindfolded studies, I mean blinded studies.

 

[-Luka]

Debate forum rules apply. Links are allowed to backup posts.

Proven example My link was allowed about Shannen Doherty so…

Edit: rule 3

View attachment 975038

 

[Deleted member 263960]

Debate forum rules apply. Links are allowed to backup posts.

Proven example My link was allowed about Shannen Doherty so…

external links are not allowed .

 

[-Luka]

no, external allowed

it may be of best interest to remain neutral on that rule since external links which relate to topic/post confirming facts (or even to confirm where the poster is basing their responses) are also being confirmed by rule 3.

 

[Deleted member 263960]

it may be of best interest to remain neutral on that rule since external links which relate to topic/post confirming facts (or even to confirm where the poster is basing their responses) are also being confirmed by rule 3.

that's an old rule- one of many that are outdated on forums as you rightly mentioned before.

"Links to other websites - Links are not allowed in threads. Personal links to your website or websites you are affiliated with are NOT allowed. It will be deleted." - CM forum rules

 

[-Luka]

that's an old rule- one of many that are outdated on forums as you rightly mentioned before.

Correct. Many rules are outdated, that doesn’t mean they’re wrong. That’s why I suggested remaining neutral because it’s debate forum.

Edit: it’s debate forum rules

 

[Deleted member 263960]

Correct. Many rules are outdated, that doesn’t mean they’re wrong. That’s why I suggested remaining neutral because it’s debate forum.

Edit: it’s debate forum rules

Lets just go by what CM says in the forums rules- i added bold- what does that last part mean?

 

[-Luka]

Lets just go by what CM says in the forums rules- i added bold- what does that last part mean?

Well it means it’s debate forum. Dutchy is posting his view, you are posting yours. Links are allowed as per rule 3 in my screenshot (since you’ve now edited the rule) because Dutchys post is on topic. You can do the same.

Not just this forum but any forum. Again, my post in celeb forum about Shannen Doherty I used an external link so people could read it if they wanted to. Thats not against the rules. Those forum rules were made in 2005. No links are allowed but we can post external links and social media profiles within our profile.

Hence. Why. I. Said. Stay. Neutral. In. Debate. Forum.

that’s my opinion which has now contributed to derailment.

TLDR if links were posted to an insecure page, I’d understand. The preview is in the link confirming legit source.

 

[Deleted member 263960]

Well it means it’s debate forum. Dutchy is posting his view, you are posting yours. Links are allowed as per rule 3 in my screenshot (since you’ve now edited the rule) because Dutchys post is on topic. You can do the same.

Not just this forum but any forum. Again, my post in celeb forum about Shannen Doherty I used an external link so people could read it if they wanted to. Thats not against the rules. Those forum rules were made in 2005. No links are allowed but we can post external links and social media profiles within our profile.

Hence. Why. I. Said. Stay. Neutral. In. Debate. Forum.

that’s my opinion which has now contributed to derailment.

TLDR if links were posted to an insecure page, I’d understand. The preview is in the link confirming legit source.

i just looked, this was previously answered by CM< i'm wrong- you can use links (move along please nothing to see folks....)

 

[babydolla]

weird that @Akrta voted yes, in favor of banning pornography 🤔

she literally volunteered to be a mod in sex chat, whos ass is she kissing exactly here??

a n y w a y s

just about all of the things you guys compared to pornography that should sarcastically be banned too; aren’t in the same league, they’re not even in the same ballpark as addiction to pornography…

these things don’t cause nearly the same detriment to a person’s life as porn addiction does; now do i think a porn addiction is going to make you into a serial killer like that rex feller in long island, hacking away at prostitutes on the beach? no of course not that’s silly 🙂‍↔️

…you’d has to already be a sexist sociopath with no influence from porn wat-so-ever to start doing that…

its going to permanently damage your brain chemistry, ruin your sexual health, make you depressed, perhaps even weird, & make u with drawn from your luv’d ones while also making you a less productive person 👺

this of course is especially detrimental to teenagers, & young adults; eduction, & a more ethical industry isn’t fixing the addiction, & like drugs which has similar effects on the brain should be illegal too

im just playin’, but i’m sayin’

 

[Inkandtatts]

no, what I did was show several studies, peer reviewed, and some in medical journals, that a group opposed to pornography referenced. That group didn't conduct the studies themselves so bias was shown..

I agree, bias was shown.

Bundy did to.

Oh come on - that’s even more weak than Dhamer. You’re referencing an interview with a fake cleric that was a Republican activist trying to sway public opinion against porn.

This is from an article about the interview. Quotes aren’t from anyone here. I copy pasted and it put them in quotes:

Criminologists were asked about it. One named William Wilbanks was quoted in news reports explaining the interview could not be taken at face value. He says:

“By placing the blame on porn, Bundy absolved himself of personal responsibility and portrayed himself as a victim of porn. His suggestion that he was not trying to avoid responsibility was either a self-deception or a final ‘con’ on the public he so despises.”

In period news reports, Bundy biographer Stephen Michaud dismissed it completely. “Look,” he said:

“…the last time Bundy was caught, you know what he had in his car? A stack of well-thumbed pamphlets for cheerleader training schools. He was into cheerleader pamphlets, and he wasn’t using them for scratch paper. He also got off on his college physiology text, which had diagrams of female genitalia.”

The OP didnt mention this site- neither do I.

The OP mentions porn. You mention porn. Everybody in this thread is talking about…porn. The site allows porn in certain rooms. If porn was illegal as is being advocated here then surely it follows that the site wouldn’t allow porn? Or am I being completely thick and missing something?

The OP didn't specify, and I previously answered this. MY argument? Primarily violent porn yes, porn that is aggressive towards women, choking and the like is the most clearly associated with violent behaviour among consumers.

But the question was all porn. The OP was very clear about that.

If someone watched porn that involves choking and then goes out and chokes someone, you surely aren’t saying that the porn would be to blame?

I saw a clip of Hannibal after referencing it earlier and so far I’m not getting any urges to carve into anyone’s skull and eat their brain for dinner.

He conducted more than a few porn studies of his own in General Chat .

Are you putting him forward as an expert on the subject?

Corelation is not weak unless its proven to be a false corelation,

I disagree.

Anybody can push correlation to support their agenda. My examples already given on race and crime prove that.

At a bare minimum Its better such porn be illegal until such time as only "adults" can access it.

You’ve mentioned several times what the OP referred to. The OP hasn’t asked anything about kids and porn. You’re moving the goalposts of the debate. The only person that has brought kids up, I believe, is you. Not one person here in their right mind is going to say that kids should be allowed to watch porn. The debate is surely about adults, unless @babydolla says differently?

The ground breaking Bobo Doll experiment at Stanford clearly showed "monkey see monkey do " and many studies in the decades that followed showed similar findings in relation to the behaviour of men in particular.

That “ground breaking” study was on children ages between 3 and 6, with an average age of 4 and proved that children can learn through observation and later imitating the same behaviors with a combination of environmental and cognitive processes.

I am not sure why you’re quoting a study that says 4-year old children learn from their environment. It’s hardly ground breaking and I really don’t see what referencing that study does to aid the debate on whether porn should be illegal for adults to view.



The best studies to read are the ones that take into account both sides of the debate and every single one of those that I’ve read concludes that there isn’t sufficient evidence to show that watching porn leads to (or makes more likely) murder, violence, choking, cannibalism, or dismemberment of other people.

 

[Deleted member 306961]

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on *******.

youtu.be

 

[babydolla]

You’ve mentioned several times what the OP referred to. The OP hasn’t asked anything about kids and porn. You’re moving the goalposts of the debate. The only person that has brought kids up, I believe, is you. Not one person here in their right mind is going to say that kids should be allowed to watch porn. The debate is surely about adults, unless @babydolla says differently?

the subject is specifically the dangers pornography poses to the brain chemistry of teenagers, young adults, & grown adults alike; & thus should be criminalized in the same fashion most drugs are criminalized for the very same reason...

the topic isn't about the morality or ethics of watching porn, & who should / shouldn't be watching it though these things do play a factor into the dangers of porn; frankly the true danger however is the addiction it causes, & the poisoning of the mind when watched excessively (addiction) regardless of the viewer's age 🍜

...the whole destruction of the family unit, & such...

but i think it's a given that children shouldn't be watching pornography even if there was no risk posed to one's mental health; which is irrelevant, for that is an entirely different topic 🙎🏼‍♀️