Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 11/3/08 01:39 AM, poxpower wrote: What's the argument for pushing sex ed to as late as possible? As far as I remember, as a kid, me and my friends were pretty keen on seeing a nude pair of tits. It was in fact AWESOME. That is the opposite of "traumatizing".

I believe its more to do with the way the sex is presented to the children. If you turn sex, or the other sex even, into an object that is only there to fulfill one goal, you are undermining a huge part of our society. A lot of porn treats women as objects to have, possess, abuse, and then throw away. Additionally, kids exposed to sexual activity at a young age are more likely to participate, I believe, or at least to live more sexual lives. I don't see anything specifically wrong with this, except that then people again might enter into relationships only for sex, be more likely to engange in risky sexual behavior putting them more at risk for an STD, or may be more likely to cause a teen pregnancy.

As far as sex ed, that's not pornography. And I think there's a strict line between the two. One seeks to educate the person before they engage so that they better understand what the risks are and what is what. The other serves only to increase desire and get a person off. Two very different goals, but then you love to generalize pox.

And for that matter, why censor certain web pages and contents for kids? Why can't a 2 year old play Mortal Kombat? What the fuck is he gonna do? Try to uppercut the head of other kids? Kids already beat the shit out of other kids, they don't need video games to get the idea. In fact it's the kids who don't play video games who beat up the ones who play the most games.

That's an entirely different subject. There is tons of psychological research that not only proves but again and again reaffirms that children who are exposed to violent tendancies are more likely to be violent than those that aren't. And yes, they may try to uppercut another kid if they repeatedly see someone they look up to try to do it. As to whether vg kids are more violent may depend on whether non vg kids are exposed to more violently accurate material like R films, domestic violence and other visual or actual forms of violence.

I mean, not only is your entire argument based loosely on opinions of your own childhood, its just innacurate. You are making assumptions and your entire argument is weak. This seems to be a reacurring strategy of yours though, and I'm left wondering whether you a, pump out topics with out thinking them through; b, actually believe this stuff because you thought it up or decided to regurgitate what you already heard; or c, you're just trying to get a rise out of people by making invalid weak arguments. Either way, its a shame tha someone who is supposed to be a well respected member of the community again and again shows his ingorance and refuses to ever reevaluate it or concede a point. Its tiring.

At 11/3/08 01:39 AM, poxpower wrote:

What the fuck are they gonna do?

they are gona grow up to be a serial rapist XD

At 11/3/08 01:42 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: I'd say the "R" word, but that of course would make an an arrogant, elitist, bigoted asshole.

It's not always about religion. Some people just want to protect their children. Yeah, it's partly motivated by religious belief but the main reason is to protect them from the perceived dangers of such activities.

At 11/3/08 02:17 PM, ThePretenders wrote:

At 11/3/08 01:42 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: I'd say the "R" word, but that of course would make an an arrogant, elitist, bigoted asshole.

It's not always about religion. Some people just want to protect their children. Yeah, it's partly motivated by religious belief but the main reason is to protect them from the perceived dangers of such activities.

It's not motivated by religous belief at all. Don't even make this an argument about religion. The relationship between two human beings is entirely tied to the way people want to treat each other and be treated, and this includes on a sexual level. Whether or not a child can handle porn at a young age with out being changed drastically or at all on an emotional level is an issue for psychology, not religion.

I think Pox is a perfect example of what I don't want my kids to become, so I'll keep them away from porn as long as possible.

personally I don't give a fuck what people do sexually after they pass puberty

that is the stage where nature wants them to be interested in sex, so, as far as I'm concerned, they can please themselves however they want

though, with younger children, it's definitely questionable

At 11/3/08 04:22 AM, poxpower wrote:
oh not, anything but "lewd" behavior, i.e. something 100% subjective that uptight cunts try to push on everyone else.

If you think kids fucking IN THE MIDDLE OF CLASS is a "subjective" and "uptight" example of lewd behavior, you need to stop talking, right now......

Last I checked, blowjobs in class were not the most conductive environments for learning......

Why is it bad that a kid would have sex again? What does that do?

STDs, pregnancy, and all the responsibility that comes from sticking some chick? If you want your 8 year old talking to you about what he's gonna do with his kid, and how he's gonna take care of his family with the $2.15 a week paper route he's got, you go ahead and do that. I'm sure Maury will help you both.

I think I'll raise my kid slightly different, thank you.....

I doubt that has anything to do with porn. I don't even think they can afford paper. Or computers.

You doubt teenage pregnancy has anything to do with porn.......You didn't actually read what the APA had to say about porn, did you?

See, even when I bring in scientific articles you still disagree. Pull head from ass please.

At 11/3/08 08:36 AM, homor wrote: ask a psychologist.

I posted a link from the APA. You'd think people who frequently talk about science would listen to people holding the Ph.Ds......

At 11/3/08 11:59 AM, Drakim wrote: If it's basically "We should hide porn from children because it might make them have sex", then, why the fuck aren't we hiding cars?

Unfortunately Drakim I agree with Lazy. We do hide cars, stop being an idiot. Can't even start learning to drive till you're 15, and you don't get a license till you're 16, after going through several stages.

All to make sure these kids are resonsible enough not to take the 2000 lb battering ram they inherit on their 16th birthday and ramming it into pedestrians.

The situation is identical except religion hasn't made it taboo to talk about cars.

Religion has nothing to do with it. Like, absolutely nothing. At all.
C'mon, Drakim, I expect better.

Children should NEVER EVER under ANY circumstances drive cars.

Yeah, because a car and porn are clearly on par with each other......
They both have equal advantages for the person, and equal disadvantages.

What a perfect analogy.....

Please tell me you aren't taking lessons from Pox in giving analogies, or I might just have to go ahead and revoke your "smarty pants" diploma.

Why do we openly let children see how we use and operate cars every day?

We don't.

Why do we glorify cars by giving toy cars to children, making them interested in this driving machine which they aren't allowed to use?

We glorify war in the same way. GI Joe dolls.
Still can't buy a gun till you're old enough to handle the responsibilities.

You get the picture yet? Responsibility is why kids should not be viewing porn at a young age, and not having sex.

They're just mimicking, and don't understand the consequences of their actions.

But you go ahead Drakim. Let your 4 year old drive, knock up hookers, smoke, vote, shoot guns, and drink booze. The freer the better for these kids right? Might as well expose em early!!

In fact, do em a favor. Tell their mommy to start drinking while pregnant, because that ensures kids get the proper exposure to alcohol before they're even born!!!

I can run wild with shit analogies too.

At 11/3/08 02:17 PM, ThePretenders wrote:

At 11/3/08 01:42 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: I'd say the "R" word, but that of course would make an an arrogant, elitist, bigoted asshole.

It's not always about religion. Some people just want to protect their children. Yeah, it's partly motivated by religious belief but the main reason is to protect them from the perceived dangers of such activities.

I don't think I'd give my child porn until they were a certain age. The child's mind is a very fragile thing. It's impossible to shelter a child completely of course but a certain amount of protection is important in at least the early years.

If they were to view it though at a friend's house I wouldn't get upset.

And let's all agree on one thing:

Sex Education does NOT equal pornography.

Lemme repeat:

Sex Ed=/= porn

I wanna make that clear because I have a feeling part of the reason there are ANY pro-porn-at 5 years-of-age proponents at all is because the sentiment is that it will "teach" them about sex.

On the other hand (was that a pun?) you could make your kids so exposed to porn to the point where they've seen every possible sexual activity and get bored of sex altogether. Then they'll grow up being dull and boring. So it all works out.

Even porn stars don't think that kids should be watching porn. A former porn star that was being interviewed said that it gives kids the wrong impression of what sex is. For most mature adults, there is some level of attraction and affection during intercourse, what you see in a porn movie isn't what happens in real life. Young boys are going to imagine sex as something hardcore, with BJ's, and anal, pounding as hard as they possibly can and thinking that this is feeling good for the girl, when in reality it's hurting like hell. Most kids get sex ed from a movie, that's why they really should be teaching it at an earlier age.

Grade 5 was the first year we learned about male and female bodies. All we really seen was one of those charts with the tubes connecting stuff, and the teacher answered all of our questions. The only time I really got a thorough education of the subject was in grade 12 where I took a Career and life Management course for the second time, I think it was about 5 hours of teaching us about diseases all the way to slang and how to put the condom on correctly (We used out fingers).

They're never going to stop kids from having sex, so why not teach them the safe way from an early age. It's not that kids are maturing faster, it's just that they're more exposed to sexy commercials, movies, video games, and they DO get influenced by it. Teaching them about sex isn't going to make as big of an impact as GTA or those sleazy ads you always see.

I do see how parent's wouldn't want their kids learning about sex though. I'm sure most mothers were just used for sex at one point in their life and fathers know how young boys are and don't want their daughter to have the same thing happen to them. The simplest solution would be to tell them that sex is wrong, it may not be the right solution, but it is the most simple solution until the child matures a little more.

At 11/3/08 11:39 AM, Proteas wrote:

If they're my kids, I have every right to say they can't.

Sure, but that's not an argument for anything.

You think it would be a great thing for children to be exposed to porno and sex at an early age, I'm asking you to show me WHY you think that way.

Huh because it's a natural part of the world and there's nothing weird about sex and I can't see any reason why you should prevent kids from it?
And I don't advocate showing it to them or whatever. I wouldn't rent porn for a kid, that's just weird and he wouldn't appreciate it anyway.

I'm saying it's a giant waste of time and effort to try and shield them from it like it was anthax.

Anyway you don't understand how it works: you don't need a reason to have a freedom, you need a reason to DENY a freedom.

You constantly advocate the removal of people's freedoms with the argument that "well they should make their case to me why the deserve freedom" instead of pleading your case.

Why limit the freedom of children to access porn, or sexual content or information about sex??? There is no good answer that I can see, only fear of "depravity" which is present in your current discourse and a sign of a medieval way of thinking.

So why stop with sex? Why not go into pregnancy, std's, abortion, miscarriage, birth control, bastard children, and child support payments while we're at it?

Sure, why not?
:o
Why shouldn't you tell a kid about pregnancy or abortion or AIDs?

not a representative sample of the population at large

ad populum holds no water here, sorry.

How are you going to act on an instinct if you don't know what to do?

Do... you.. know what an instinct is?
:o

At 11/3/08 01:26 PM, Brian wrote:

you are undermining a huge part of our society.

So? Maybe it's wrong. As far as I can tell, society is often wrong on a great many things. You cannot use "society doesn't like that" as an argument, ever. It's a dangerous and dark path.

A lot of porn treats women as objects to have, possess, abuse, and then throw away.

You haven't seen a lot of porn, have you?
Neither did I to be honest. Still, that is retarded. All I ever saw are usually two people who look like they're having a damn good time.

might enter into relationships only for sex,

Who cares? What does that do?

be more likely to engange in risky sexual behavior putting them more at risk for an STD, or may be more likely to cause a teen pregnancy.

Last I heard, lack of information is what spreads this shit the most. In fact, wasn't the WHOLE point of sex ed to prevent this from happening as much as possible?

Two very different goals

Sure, but so what?
Porn is entertaining. Entertainment rules. Porn harms no one.
Everyone wins.

That's an entirely different subject. There is tons of psychological research that not only proves but again and again reaffirms that children who are exposed to violent tendancies are more likely to be violent than those that aren't.

Such as?

his ingorance

Irony.

At 11/3/08 01:02 PM, Bramly-apple wrote: Just let kids figure stuff out for themselves.... at around 8 kids have developed common sense aren't going to try to imitate everything they seen on TV or the internet.

You're kidding, right?

Its only going to fuck their heads up if their already retarded, and it won't matter because their retarded.

Kids are impressionable, they are GONNA imitate what they see on TV and to a lesser extent in games. Who the hell hasn't played a game with their friends where they imitate some show?

The idea is that most kids today aren't mentally matured enough to know better. In some countries children are raised in a manner that matures them at a younger age. You look in Japan and you see boobs in their cartoons. Those kids are also taught that boobs are simply a body party and not a "private nasty body part that should always remain hidden no matter what" In other words, its not such a big taboo to see sister in the bathtub.

If we raised our kids to be more mature, it wouldn't be a problem. however, people today allow the school system to raise their children for them, and that causes problems. Mostly peer pressure. You show some young punk something and he's gonna pressure some girl with low self esteem to act out what they just saw. Or it could happen the other way around when some girl decides to try it out and finds a guy thats all too willing.

It would make for better comics in america though...

At 11/3/08 01:26 PM, Brian wrote:
I believe its more to do with the way the sex is presented to the children. If you turn sex, or the other sex even, into an object that is only there to fulfill one goal, you are undermining a huge part of our society. A lot of porn treats women as objects to have, possess, abuse, and then throw away.

this is complete bullshit ,
porn undermines men alot more then it does women, when you wacth porn with men in it they only thing they focus on is the mans penis , and thats all. at least the women get their face shown or something, and just dont focus on one organ.

At 11/3/08 04:34 PM, thedo12 wrote:

At 11/3/08 01:26 PM, Brian wrote:
I believe its more to do with the way the sex is presented to the children. If you turn sex, or the other sex even, into an object that is only there to fulfill one goal, you are undermining a huge part of our society. A lot of porn treats women as objects to have, possess, abuse, and then throw away.

this is complete bullshit ,

Not really.

porn undermines men alot more then it does women, when you wacth porn with men in it they only thing they focus on is the mans penis , and thats all. at least the women get their face shown or something, and just dont focus on one organ.

Either way, it makes sex out to be the same as eating or sleeping, its an action you do and thats it, its meaningless. It breaks it down as a risk free thing that two complete strangers can engage in that have no feelings for each other.

At 11/3/08 04:18 PM, poxpower wrote: Sure, but that's not an argument for anything.

Nice way to take my argument out of context and ignore the possible consequences of your own misguided actions, jackass.

Anyway you don't understand how it works: you don't need a reason to have a freedom, you need a reason to DENY a freedom.

You're not arguing for a freedom, you're arguing for legalized Child Abuse and Contributing to the Delinquency of a Minor, of which showing porno to a minor is.

You constantly advocate the removal of people's freedoms with the argument that "well they should make their case to me why the deserve freedom" instead of pleading your case.

You're presenting an argument, I'm asking you to defend it, you're dancing around like Stan on American Dad acting like I'm a freedom hating Nazi for questioning your views. I am not advocating that someone chop you're hands off and sew you're mouth shut so you can't exhort your bizarre world view, I just want a straight answer as to why you feel your viewpoint is correct. Now cut the bullshit.

Pretty please? With a cherry on top?

Why limit the freedom of children to access porn, or sexual content or information about sex???

Because pornography presents a skewed version of what sex actually is, and it's mainly aimed as entertainment for adults who are (somewhat) able to realize that. Information about sex is available for for children, but only in their tweens when they are about to go through the changes of puberty, about such that kind of information is pretty handy.

only fear of "depravity" which is present in your current discourse

Childhood lasts only 14 years or so, you have the rest of your life to be an adult. Why do want to expose children to things of the adult world so early? What benefit is there to that?

and a sign of a medieval way of thinking.

Okay, first a crack about my parents, now about my way of thinking. You know what? I've never made any jokes about English not being your first language, Canadian accents, Labat beer, hockey, elk, mounties, maple syrup, or anything else about you during the course of discussion as a means to discredit your arguments. I've only ever gone after the arguments you present.

Why shouldn't you tell a kid about pregnancy or abortion or AIDs?

I don't know, to give them a well rounded education about the subject and possibly make them think twice about screwing around? The world's too populated anyway, the last thing I want is for a bunch of 10 year olds running around screwing each other on a regular basis.

ad populum holds no water here, sorry.

You're the one who argued that your experience with porno did not irreparably harm you in anyway and that wouldn't see why it would harm anybody else. All I did was contradict your view and present an alternate viewpoint.

Do... you.. know what an instinct is?

A point that you are attempting to use to justify you're bizarre viewpoint that we are still animals who throw are own shit at each other, apparently.

At 11/3/08 04:26 PM, Korriken wrote:

At 11/3/08 01:02 PM, Bramly-apple wrote: Just let kids figure stuff out for themselves.... at around 8 kids have developed common sense aren't going to try to imitate everything they seen on TV or the internet.

You're kidding, right?

Its only going to fuck their heads up if their already retarded, and it won't matter because their retarded.

Kids are impressionable, they are GONNA imitate what they see on TV and to a lesser extent in games. Who the hell hasn't played a game with their friends where they imitate some show?

And how many kids watch Naruto and didn't manage to kill their friends? It was just some seriously retarded kids who thought burying someones head in sand would be a good idea. When I was little, I used to pretend I was superman with my friends, but not one of us thought we really could fly, because like most normal kids we had common sense.

I agree with you about kids needing to be bought up more mature, and the best to make develope maturity is to give kids the responsibility to fend for themselves sometimes.

At 11/3/08 05:23 PM, Bramly-apple wrote: but not one of us thought we really could fly, because like most normal kids we had common sense.

It was a far different time back then, when children actually had an iota of common sense. Nowadays, children are stupid, and who do we have to blame? Dipshit bimbos like Britany Spears, Lindsey Lohan, and Paris "Typhoyd Mary" Hilton...

I saw porn for the first time at age 9. It was pretty cool to see some boobs for the first time. As I got older it demistfied sex for me because in sex end they never tell you how to have sex, only what sex is.

Plus alot of the sites that I found had sex tips like how to have safe sex and fun things to try in bed. It opened up that sex isn't a cold, dull way to manufacture babies but, can be hot and loving.

At 11/3/08 03:39 PM, Imperator wrote:
If you think kids fucking IN THE MIDDLE OF CLASS is a "subjective" and "uptight" example of lewd behavior, you need to stop talking, right now......

Never brought that up.

Why is it bad that a kid would have sex again? What does that do?

stuff

Actually I was wrong on that in light of two things:

1- kids are irresponsible little shits who probably wouldn't use contraceptives anyway if they had it.
2- I forgot not everyone is for abortion.

I missed the physical part of it and was focusing more on the "why is it so wrong?" part.

You doubt teenage pregnancy has anything to do with porn.......You didn't actually read what the APA had to say about porn, did you?

The thing is that you keep putting links in random words and I can't see them when I reply.
If you want people to read links, just paste the link in your post so that I know to go and check it when I reply and quote you.

At 11/3/08 05:20 PM, Proteas wrote:

You're not arguing for a freedom, you're arguing for legalized Child Abuse and Contributing to the Delinquency of a Minor, of which showing porno to a minor is.

See again this argument that "if it's the law now, then it must be correct".

You're presenting an argument, I'm asking you to defend it, you're dancing around like

No I'm not, YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT I AM TELLING YOU.
If you wish to deny people's freedoms, YOU have to bring arguments. Not me. Freedom is a basic human right.
You are advocating something that takes it away and your argument boils down to "well why not?".

Because pornography presents a skewed version of what sex actually is

And movies aren't skewed? E.T. is a good representation of reality you think?
Cause that's your argument right now, "it's not real". It can't just apply to porn.

So what REALLY is your argument?

Why do want to expose children to things of the adult world so early? What benefit is there to that?

What's so adult about sex?
Like, let's say for one second that 100% of kids used contraception and couldn't get pregnant/ stds.

What arguments would you have left to deny them the right to fool around with each other?

Why shouldn't you tell a kid about pregnancy or abortion or AIDs?

I don't know, to give them a well rounded education about the subject and possibly make them think twice about screwing around?

Ok so you're going to give them a well-rounded education by NOT teaching them about STDs, abortion or pregnancy?

All I did was contradict your view and present an alternate viewpoint.

No, you try to pass off things like "well most people don't like porn so that's an argument".
Show me those kids who have been "damaged by porn".
Show me the ravages of porn movies. I claim there's none or barely any. I can't prove a negative.

A point that you are attempting to use to justify you're bizarre viewpoint that we are still animals who throw are own shit at each other, apparently.

haha wha?
Anyway you asked something like "well if they have the instinct, how do they know to do it?" Or something.
Well an instinct IS THE INATE KNOWLEDGE DO TO SOMETHING. So the question answers itself: how do tehy know? Instinct.

I'm starting to think this is all an elaborate attempt at trolling...

At 11/3/08 11:39 AM, Proteas wrote: There is no legitimate reason for an 8 year to know what sex is as they are not physically capable of having it, and the changes of puberty that allow them to have sex do not occur for another few years, so they have no biological urge to do it.

Your turn.

There is a legitimate reason for an 8 year old to know what sex is. You see, there are these people called sexual predators. Informing kids about what sex is allows them to understand what's happening if a predator approaches them and asks them to do odd thing. It makes them more likely to run away.

Saying that a kid shouldn't know about sex because he's incapable of it is the same as saying that a quadriplegic shouldn't know about murder because he can't harm anyone.

And to everyone linking to instances where a kid emulated something he saw on TV. Fuck off. These cases are few and far between. Most kids are smart enough to differentiate fantasy from reality. The ones that aren't? Just think of it as Darwin's theory in action.

At 11/3/08 05:48 PM, poxpower wrote:
Never brought that up.

I did in the news article. You seem to have ignored it.

Actually I was wrong on that in light of two things:

1- kids are irresponsible little shits who probably wouldn't use contraceptives anyway if they had it.
2- I forgot not everyone is for abortion.

I missed the physical part of it and was focusing more on the "why is it so wrong?" part.

I bet you thought this was gonna be a religious/ethical issue......glad to see you're at least considering the other side of it.

The thing is that you keep putting links in random words and I can't see them when I reply.

Read the post before hitting reply then. The words with links are yellow.

If you want people to read links, just paste the link in your post so that I know to go and check it when I reply and quote you.

Well considering you're the only person who's had this problem, I think it'd be better if you just READ before RESPONDING......

See again this argument that "if it's the law now, then it must be correct".

To answer for Proteas:
What's this argument then? "If it's the law, it must be baseless and wrong"?

Ever think laws are in place because they're actually good ideas based on past incidents?

At 11/3/08 05:48 PM, poxpower wrote: See again this argument that "if it's the law now, then it must be correct".

"The layman's constitutional view is that what he likes is constitutional and that which he doesn't like is unconstitutional." Hugo Black.

If you wish to deny people's freedoms, YOU have to bring arguments. Not me. Freedom is a basic human right.

I HAVE presented my argument; exposing minor's to pornography has no benefit to their development and has the potential to do psychological damage the same way exposure to violence can harm then. And teaching young children about sex has no merit as they are not old enough to benefit from it. You presented you're argument, I presented a retort, now you're sitting there telling me I haven't presented any argument at all and am painting me to be a moron.

Cause that's your argument right now, "it's not real". It can't just apply to porn.

Except, we're not discussing movies and something that is clearly fantasy in general, we're discussing porno, which shows real people committing real acts.

So what REALLY is your argument?

That you're an immature ass who's using his intellect to formulate dumb topics for the sole purpose of getting his jollies by irritating the HELL out of people with insane logic.

What's so adult about sex?

The fact that you generally have to be past puberty to participate in it, which is a sign that you have physically matured to adulthood? (At least to willingly participate in it, anyway).

What arguments would you have left to deny them the right to fool around with each other?

None, except the same one I've been touting that kids below the age of puberty have no need for it.

Ok so you're going to give them a well-rounded education by NOT teaching them about STDs, abortion or pregnancy?

I see what did thar.

I can't prove a negative.

I'm not asking you to prove a negative, I'm asking you to show me the positives of your argument and how it would benefit society. You have as yet to do that.

At 11/3/08 06:14 PM, Musician wrote: You see, there are these people called sexual predators. Informing kids about what sex is allows them to understand what's happening if a predator approaches them and asks them to do odd thing. It makes them more likely to run away.

While that is a legitimate argument, notice how it has no part of Pox's argument.

At 11/3/08 05:48 PM, poxpower wrote: If you wish to deny people's freedoms, YOU have to bring arguments. Not me. Freedom is a basic human right.

LOL since when has it ever been a child's "basic human right" to do whatever they please? They aren't even legally responsible for themselves. As long as parents are liable for their children's actions that is reason-enough to shield kids from pornography. It fosters an unbalanced, unhealthy attitude towards sex, their attitude is reflected and expressed through their actions, and it is the parents who will invariably be held accountable for the actions of their young, don't-know-any-better(-but-should) offspring who bring physical and emotional harm to others.

At 11/3/08 06:14 PM, Musician wrote:

At 11/3/08 11:39 AM, Proteas wrote:

Informing kids about what sex is allows them to understand what's happening if a predator approaches them and asks them to do odd thing.

A kid doesn't need to know what sex is explicitly, all you need to tell them is that if someone tries to touch them in certain areas, they should run away. Fast. No need to go into detail about what sex is in order for them to run away.

:It makes them more likely to run away.

Telling them that such people want hurt them should be enough without describing sex or what said areas are used for.

Saying that a kid shouldn't know about sex because he's incapable of it is the same as saying that a quadriplegic shouldn't know about murder because he can't harm anyone.

Valid point, but a quadriplegic has a more stable and advanced mental mindset than a child. Also, children aren't taught about murder, either, because such topics destroy a child's innocence that we try to maintain until about age 12 or 13, when they are more likely to actually understand what's they're being told.

At 11/3/08 06:23 PM, Imperator wrote:

I bet you thought this was gonna be a religious/ethical issue

Anyway this thread was more about why it's so WRONG to show porn to a kid and how some people go to great lengths to keep kids away from it, supposedly because reasons X and Y.

Read the post before hitting reply then.

That is annoying as hell and it's much more convenient and fast to read it the first time around by replying to it. Just make it easier on everyone and put the whole link in there so it's easy to know where there's links.

Whatever do what you want.

Ever think laws are in place because they're actually good ideas based on past incidents?

If it is, then why doesn't he bring the arguments forward instead of saying "it's the law"?

At 11/3/08 06:28 PM, Proteas wrote:

exposing minor's to pornography has no benefit to their development

Ok then you have to ban:

- ketchup
- nerf huns
- the game "pac-man"

This is an argument you've used CONSTANTLY for the "no alcohol" thing. What a shitty argument.

And I could just claim stupid shit like "it shows that sex is great! It teaches kids sex positions for the future! It teaches that boobs must be sucked!". Wow that's totally beneficial in my opinion.

As for the "psychological harm", please show me evidence of that because I don't believe you.

Except, we're not discussing movies and something that is clearly fantasy in general, we're discussing porno, which shows real people committing real acts.

James Bond shows reckless driving. Let's ban it! No one should drive like he does.
If your argument works for porn, then it works for all fictional entertainment. Sorry.

That you're an immature ass who's using his intellect to formulate dumb topics for the sole purpose of getting his jollies by irritating the HELL out of people with insane logic.

So... don't reply?
Btw why do you keep insulting me? You keep bringing up that I'm mean for taking jabs at you and then go right ahead and rip on me. What's wrong with you, son? Why the overtly useless hypocrisy?
If you want to insult me, go ahead, I don't give a shit, but then don't try to make me seem like a bad guy because I insult YOU.

haha you so silly

The fact that you generally have to be past puberty to participate in it, which is a sign that you have physically matured to adulthood? (At least to willingly participate in it, anyway).

Well I could get boners when I was about 10, so under that amazing definition, that made me adult enough for sex.

None, except the same one I've been touting that kids below the age of puberty have no need for it.

Well if they have no need for it, why ban it?

Ok so you're going to give them a well-rounded education by NOT teaching them about STDs, abortion or pregnancy?

I see what did thar.

Go back and read what was said, you actually started arguing against yourself. I imagine you thought that some part of the text that was yours was actually mine haha.

I'm not asking you to prove a negative, I'm asking you to show me the positives of your argument and how it would benefit society. You have as yet to do that.

I claim "there is no X".
You ask "prove there is no X".

That is proving a negative.

X here being the mental damage to kids that porn supposedly brings about.

At 11/3/08 06:45 PM, Cornbucket wrote:

LOL since when has it ever been a child's "basic human right" to do whatever they please?

That's not what I said.

My argument is that anyone is born with the freedom to do whatever they please and that if you have to make a law or a rule against a certain freedom ( like, say the freedom to kill others ) then you need a damn good reason.

At 11/3/08 06:48 PM, poxpower wrote: I claim "there is no X".
You ask "prove there is no X".

That is proving a negative.

X here being the mental damage to kids that porn supposedly brings about.

Your whole argument is that porn is harmless, therefore kids seeing porn is harmless.

So why do you think it's harmless? People have already given you a stack of reasons as to how it can be harmful -- you haven't seriously given even one reason as to why it isn't. All you did was suggest that kids aren't stupid enough to imitate what they see, even though they obviously are and do it quite often. The whole early learning process is more or less just an act of imitation.

At 11/3/08 06:51 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 11/3/08 06:45 PM, Cornbucket wrote:

LOL since when has it ever been a child's "basic human right" to do whatever they please?

That's not what I said.

My argument is that anyone is born with the freedom to do whatever they please and that if you have to make a law or a rule against a certain freedom ( like, say the freedom to kill others ) then you need a damn good reason.

And this is a good argument. Otherwise, we've got some
Communism on our hands.