Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

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.

kids should hit puberty first

otherwise they aren't really mature enough for it

after that, I don't really give a shit what they do as long as they want to do it and no one's forcing them

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

"Damn Good Reason" List

#1 Children imitate what they see.
#2 Children are too young to understand the ramifications of their actions.
#3 By way of #2, children are thus not legally accountable for their actions.
#4 By way of #3, parents are thus held accountable for the actions of their children.

#1 and #2 are reasons that have the child's well-being in mind, #3 and #4 are reasons for why it's simply more practical as an adult to present sex-ed to kids in an age-appropriate and reasonable manner rather than letting them take their examples from a form of entertainment that may present sex in unrealistic and harmful ways. Like other people have said before, all porn is not made the same. There's softcore Skinemax flicks and then there's DP bondage rape fantasies and all sorts of other odd shit in-between.

At 11/3/08 07:27 PM, Cornbucket wrote: may present sex in unrealistic and harmful ways.

then use a rating system like you have for movies that sorts suitability by age group

At 11/3/08 07:34 PM, lazymonkey94 wrote: then use a rating system like you have for movies that sorts suitability by age group

Why should there be a ratings system just for porn? G / PG / PG-13 / R / NC-17 / XXX isn't good enough?

At 11/3/08 06:48 PM, poxpower wrote:
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.

I'm assuming by "Wrong" you mean the ethics behind porn, and by reasons "X" and "Y" I'm assuming are religious arguments.

Otherwise, your comment here makes no sense, because people have put forward why it's "wrong" for "X and Y" reasons, eg, lack of responsibility, psychological effect, unhealthy sexual upbringing.

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.

In that case, it'll be the way that annoys you.
For instance, contained within this word: APA : you will find another article.

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

Well if you wanna argue that it should not be illegal at that age, which is a different premise entirely, I think the fact that your 8 year old can GO TO JAIL for it is a perfectly acceptable reason.

If you don't think "it's illegal" is a good reason why it's a bad idea to do something, go tag a police station and see how it works out for ya.

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

There are now 2 APA articles in this thread, go back and find them. Proteas shouldn't have to provide what you've very clearly overlooked.

That's APA: American Psychological Association. Yes, they're experts.

If your argument works for porn, then it works for all fictional entertainment. Sorry.

You're right. Which is why we have movie ratings. And video game ratings. And driving laws. And alcohol laws. And tobacco laws. And PORN laws. And gun laws.

18 is "adult", and yes, everyone's different, but the state has at least recognized these things require a certain amount of maturity before people should be allowed to go all willy nilly on them.

But this isn't about porn for 23 year olds, we're talking kids. Like, elementary school. So what possible argument do you have that 10 year olds should be handling these things?

So... don't reply?

I think Proteas agrees with you though; stupidity should be rooted out and destroyed. Hence, he responds.

I knew this thread was rather stupid too, but I respond just to find places to harass you. Surprise surprise.

Eureaka, I am having a blast in this thread!

At 11/3/08 06:48 PM, poxpower wrote: This is an argument you've used CONSTANTLY for the "no alcohol" thing. What a shitty argument.

Oh, a bait-and-switch appeal to ridicule. How original, pox, comparing my arguments against things that are clearly addictive and pose serious hazards to one's psychological well being to relatively harmless things. Where have I seen this before?

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

Click.

So... don't reply?

I already ignore the religion threads you rant endlessly in like a modern day Archie Bunker, what more do you want from me?

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?

Unless you've noticed, I've been making cracks about your argument, not about you as a substitute for an argument.

Well, except for that pizza crack, my bad.

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

And I could get them at 5, again, we are FAR from a representative sample of the population at large.

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

Who said anything about banning it? Not me.

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

You said "I think X"
I asked "I think X is a bad idea, please give me reason why you think this not so."
You said, "You think Y, and that's ridiculous!"

I'm doing what I've been taught by the people in this forum; I'm looking at the issue, I'm weighing the pro's and con's, and making an opinion based on which seems more logical to me. And instead of defending your own viewpoints, you attack me for mine, and wind up not helping me to formulate what might wind up being a balanced opinion based on some of your viewpoints, just re-enforcing my own and the way I think things should be.

I mean, hell, the only valid point to support your argument was presented by Musician (help kids to recognize lecherous behavior from adults), but it would only work for sex ed, not porno.

At 11/3/08 04:22 AM, poxpower wrote:

At 11/3/08 03:54 AM, Imperator wrote:

But if you don't feel 10 year olds having sex duing class and getting charged with felonies for lewd behavior is problematic.....I guess that's a legit position as well.....

oh not, anything but "lewd" behavior, i.e. something 100% subjective that uptight cunts try to push on everyone else.
Why is it bad that a kid would have sex again? What does that do?

The best argument i can provide against childeren having sex is the issue of age and development. It's biologically unusual for childeren under the age of 10 to develop sexually in that sense. The sheer fact that a 6 year old can look at pornography and find it interesting and not confusing raises some questions about that particular child's physical condition, equally as much as if that child was growing pubic hair at that age.

Further more I wouldn't trust a 5-10 year old to stay alone in a house for a full day or longer, i wouldn't trust them to drive a car, or feed a cat every day, or change the filters in a pool, or cook a healthy dinner for themselfs, i wouldn't trust them with alot of things that are necessary to get through the day properly. But my lack of trust is a generality applied, i am sure that there are 5-10 year olds that are intelligent enough to perform these things, but i am sure that you, pox, look at today's small childeren and how impressionable they are from the silliest of things. It's hard to argue that sexual intercourse is an activity that doesn't require before-hand knowledge and responsibility, my health course in my high school teaches EVERY form of contraception and even they acknowledge this. As such, given the attention span of childeren, they're level of responsibility [hell, some of them don't even clean their own rooms], and their level of accountability, letting them look at pornography and perform sexual activities is probably the last thing on my list of thing's i'd expect them to be smart enough to do. If maybe i had a child that could do all of the above things, get their homework done.

The other thing about kids and sex, the only way to maybe understand the way adults feel about childeren having sex is for you to have a child of your own. I assume you don't have kids yet, Pox, but i think that with being a parent comes an instinctual tendency for parents to shield their childeren. I recommend reading 'Catcher in the Rye' to understand.

At 11/3/08 08:14 PM, Proteas wrote:

Oh, a bait-and-switch appeal to ridicule. How original, pox, comparing my arguments against things that are clearly addictive and pose serious hazards to one's psychological well being to relatively harmless things. Where have I seen this before?

Can you stop changing subject for one second and answer directly to what I say?
Now I don't even know what the hell we were talking about anymore.

Click.

I've never ever seen a more sad piece of propaganda. That site is pitiful and about 99% of their arguments are complete and total moral judgments.

Wow child porn? That doesn't even have anything to do with what we're discussing. Sex addiction? What? Child molestors???

Retarded.

Gimme studies, not propaganda pieces that suck out 1 or 2 random sentences from scientific journals.

Unless you've noticed, I've been making cracks about your argument

No, you shoot out straight personal insults about how I'm immature, a troll and a dumbass. Again, not that I care, but don't try to pretend like you're not being a douche and I am.

I openly admit that I will rip on anyone for any reason and it doesn't constitute an argument, but you seem hellbent on showing how it's ok when YOU insult me, but it's not ok when I insult you.

And I could get them at 5, again, we are FAR from a representative sample of the population at large.

I doubt that.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/b ody/articles/lifecycle/teenagers/erectio ns.shtml
Kids have boners really early on, just not ejaculation.

Who said anything about banning it? Not me.

Well this is what this thread is about: why should porn and sex be banned for kids?

I'm doing what I've been taught by the people in this forum blahblah

Don't dodge, you're asking me to prove a negative. Admit your mistake.
I can't "prove" there's "no" bad effects from porn. It's impossible. Demanding that proof is a logical fallacy.

At 11/3/08 08:28 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote:

Pox, but i think that with being a parent comes an instinctual tendency for parents to shield their childeren.

Yes, I understand that. Just as there would be a tendency for victims of a crime to demand a greater punishment for the offender than the law.

As a society we have to strive to make the best objective decisions for everyone, not to indulge the personally fears and feelings of individuals.

And I fully admit that there probably will be times in my life where I will want to do something that is against what would objectively be better out of fear or personaly ideals. But again, we have to try to eliminate that as much as we can as a society.

Pox I tried to get it on with another chick while playing house when I was 8. No titt's, no hard on, and people all around you going, "Ewwww." Plus the teachers give a pretty boring speech about it too.

Nuff said.

At 11/3/08 01:39 AM, poxpower wrote: EXPLAIN THIS UNIVERSE WE LIVE IN TO ME

The problem is, children are annoying. And when they discover that sex is deviant, they do it just to get attention. If children freely watched poor, they would likely be in public, penis out, doing humping motions towards little girls.

Many children actually do watch porn, and they actually do preform sexual acts with one another - even if it's not intercourse. Some times, they seem so innocent, too. There is a game that some of us played called, "I'll show you mine if you show me yours." it goes from there and moves all the way up to oral sex, honestly, and I'm quoting my psychology books here.

The overall problem people have with porn is that it shows women as objects for men's pleasure. Women, being the jealous objects that they are, have a hard time coping with this, so it's not really decent in the publics eye.

omg pox is getting owned at his own topic XD

At 11/4/08 05:45 AM, PurePress wrote: omg pox is getting owned at his own topic XD

Wow. You made your third post ever today, but you suspiciously know who "pox" is and already have a vendetta against him.

yeah, you're totally not shaggy's alt.

At 11/3/08 01:39 AM, poxpower wrote: I don't get any of the arguments for keeping kids away from porn.

Why?
You hear all the time how kids shouldn't see tits on tv or how it would destroy them to stumble on a porn site. But seriously, why? What the fuck are they gonna do?

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".

And I also don't get the "innocence" argument and how that is tied to sex.

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.

EXPLAIN THIS UNIVERSE WE LIVE IN TO ME

I would have loved the law over here to permit me to have sex when I was fourteen, but now I think it's good they didn't put it that low. Children, most - or even just some - of them know what sex is, but are not strong enough or educated enough to safely have intercourse. We do not permit children to have sex under 18 because of the potential damage that could do, and to protect from paedophiles.

However I think 18 is a bit late, 16 must be more fitting in this day and age. We simply want our children protected from the psychological harassement and assaults adults have to put up with. Though the law has room for improvement (lower all restriction ages by at least 2 years - apart from alcohol, drugs and tobacco) we do really need it. I wouldn't feel comfortable around a child of 4 that spends his days playing mortal combat. Children simply are too dependant on the outside world to show them what is right and wrong, that we cannot allow them to be corrupted by pornographic or violent content of video(-games).

Children aren't capable of discerning the way adults do. Until the children are capable to comprehend the greater extents of the elements we're talking about here, they should be protected from it or at least well guided in it. Of course this is impossible to connect to a certain universal age, some kids will be fully capable of understanding the ins and outs of sexual intercourse at the age of 14, others might understand it as late as 20 years old. The government should protect as much people as possible to an extent that seems fitting to that society, in our society, we care about the mental health of children, so we protect them from potential threats until they are strong enough to cope with it.

A Libertarian might say the government should get their noses out of it, but if not the law, then who will protect the children? Parents? Most of them might, but I've seen quite horrible things done to children through their own parents. Some parents are not capable to raise children; what about those?

Well...i did read my first erotic magazine when i was eight, the same age that i found out about masturbation. I think that it is not porn that is the problem, but what kind of porn.
If a kid finds a porn mag with just big tits or "normal" sex, i don't think that kid will turn out bad.
But if the find a BDSM or odd fethis mag, that can really mess with there heads.

Sooo my money is on "If it is a strange kind of porn, it will mess with you"

We were probably better off back in the days when kids learned about sex from watching farm animals. It left them a little confused I guess. Some of 'em ended up fucking sheep, but mostly only the stupid, ugly ones.

Proteas the one problem with arguing against someone by asking them why something is 'good' is that it implies that our legal system only permits acts which are productive and non harmful, which is certainly not the case. :P I agree 100% that virtually nothing constructive could be gained out of legalizing this sort of thing, atleast now when a bunch of really young kids rape someone there's no argument over whether or not it was rape, but plenty of other things are as well. The only difference is that this sort of thing can be enforced, since childeren live off the sustinence of their parents, and when they're not being watched by them they're being watched by the state. [sad to say] Usually problems occur for childeren that have an absence of both of these, to no surprise.

I'll assume pox ignored my other arguments because they were already addressed, I'll go look for demz.

At 11/4/08 07:52 AM, marchohare wrote: We were probably better off back in the days when kids learned about sex from watching farm animals. It left them a little confused I guess. Some of 'em ended up fucking sheep, but mostly only the stupid, ugly ones.

This is a stance I have to respect.

Drakim, are you really expecting me to reply to you in a way that isn't flamebaiting? How can you expect a serious discussion when you lie to yourself?

At 11/4/08 08:43 AM, LazyDrunk wrote:

At 11/4/08 07:52 AM, marchohare wrote: We were probably better off back in the days when kids learned about sex from watching farm animals. It left them a little confused I guess. Some of 'em ended up fucking sheep, but mostly only the stupid, ugly ones.

This is a stance I have to respect.

Drakim, are you really expecting me to reply to you in a way that isn't flamebaiting? How can you expect a serious discussion when you lie to yourself?

Because this isn't flamebating at all. D:

Meh, I don't see any replies worthy anyway. All I got is "OMG YOU ARE WRONG AND THAT'S TOTALLY NOT THE SAME"

At 11/3/08 12:27 PM, Drakim wrote:

At 11/3/08 12:13 PM, LazyDrunk wrote:

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

Porn is "hidden" by passing legislation requiring proof of age for participants. Porn is regulated by restricting the age at which it may be consumed, which also varies from place to place. Cars, driving, insurance, and driver's licenses operate in the same restrictive, "hidden" sense.

No, because the "moral" thing to do with children is to pretend sex and porn does not even exist! We have no issues with children knowing about cars. We simply tell them, "it's only for grownups".

You don't account for driver's training and behind-the-wheel requirements, which regulate vehicular legality when age is a factor. I don't think 21+ folk need the behind-the-wheel hours to obtain a legal license to drive, but I know under 18's need them in every state in the midwest before they are revealed the mysteries of the automobile.

I was taught sex ed in grade school, about the time the girls were hitting puberty and the guys were just starting to notice. I don't understand where your anecdotal, and probably sarcastic, assertions stem from.

We aren't afraid that they will try to drive a car and crash it the minute we look the other way. As I said, we even hype up cars and how awesome they are, by making toy cars and such.

What does being afraid have to do with regulation? When an underage driver is pulled over they are ticketed and/or arrested as per the allowance of the law. It's like kiddie porn, only a lesser offense.

We hype up sex too, then turn around and praise the virtues of prudishness. Does Axe scent spray encourage sexual promiscuity through it's overtly sexual commercials? You still haven't addressed the stratification in the porn world, where niches can express some fairly objectionable material.

Sex on the other way, we try to give them as little information as humanly possible. When they come literally asking what it is, we soften the explanation with metaphors like birds and bees.

I disagree. We were taught about everything from epidydimii to venereal diseases, petting to jerking, oral to anal, gay to transexual, abortions (the law) and abstinence. I got the complete package. I guess I can't relate to the kiddie-glove atmosphere where you live. Could you inform me if you went to public school, or what institutions exactly you're leveling the accusation against.. because it's not the public schools that the majority of Americans attend.

This is justified by that if we are open about sex, the children will start doing it. I'm simply pointing out that this is not the case for anything else, including cars. Children don't start hijacking and driving cars when we tell them what a car is. They can reasonably understand that it's only for grownups.

By that logic, kids don't start raping and having sex when we tell them what each gender's plumbing does? When do kids start raping, drakim? HIjacking is illegal behavior, and not allowable for adults and children alike.

I remember I started getting blowjobs shortly after sex ed, but hey, I was fairly good-looking and honest. Does that mean that I win because I offered equal anecdotal evidence that sex ed encourages sex by informing the uninformed and educating children is a way strikingly similar to driver's ed?

I think it does.

Why aren't we hiding cars away? Why do we openly let children see how we use and operate cars every day?

I don't understand what you're doing here, being sarcastic or whatever.

I think that's because you are slightly challenged, but I'm sure you can make it if you try hard enough! YOU CAN DO IT :o

I am challenged by your incoherent ramblings that don't support the body of your post.

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?

Automobiles are an inevitable part of our culture, like sex is. Not all sex was created equal, and neither are car shows. Would you let your child watch a daredevil tempt his fate, or perhaps a demolition derby where gruesome fatalities are unnaturally likely to occur? Same could be said for porn, as Marchohare pointed out. Comparing cars to cocks is dumb anyways, hence my first reply.

I agree on this. I wouldn't show a daredevil jumping with his car over ten virgins lined up and whatnot.

Meh, the point was that parents have the say in what their underage children can and are exposed to. Sex ed is controversial so school's double-check with guardians to ensure that the beliefs (little 'b') of the family are respected. Parents are offered the option to enroll students in drivers ed as well, but neither are compulsory as far as I've seen.

But that is hardly the same policy we have with sex and porn. We have a much more "you aren't allowed to talk about that" sense over it.

You haven't made that case, so I'll continue to disagree with your assertion that euphemisms and cloak-and-dagger tactics dominate the world of sex education. It's simply not true.

I mean, just look at what happened with GTA. When the public found out they had one little lame hidden sex scene, they went batshit insane.

Yeah, it was a mod, too, right? Only available to be seen if you ratcheted up your ps2? That game had stripteases and implied sex throughout the game, but an animated titty available, even through mods, would've jacked the 'M' rating to 'AO' if my memory serves me correctly. That was the issue there... that embedded coding was left in the game enabling a more graphic version to be seen. The arbitrary rulings of the ratings board is a topic to itself.

The public was largely unaffected by the revelation of animated tits in a notorious game series.

Despite this being a game where you kill hookers and shoot cops. I think demonstrates the absurdity of the situation. It's like the whole society has this mindset where they think "when it comes down to it, sex and nudity is something bad and evil", to the point where murder and violence is seen as lesser evils.

I agree with you here, and the phenomenon seems to be uniquely American. Relatively speaking, the moral elite are amplified on the points of sex and nudity, outshouting their less-oft objections to murder and violence (though they are undeniably present as well).

Hell, in Germany they'd had a 40ft image of a topless denim jeans model plastered over one side of the city's Kaufhaus (walmart). That'd never fly here, but America is the opposite for violence. We display it everywhere with a sense of pride, where others view violence as the greater evil.

This facet of our culture, however, doesn't detract from the objections to particular pornographic material being restricted from children.

I'm not some wacko who thinks we should make children have sex, but I definitely think pretending sex doesn't exist is the worst kind of "solution" you could ever have to such a problem.

I don't know what you are arguing for.

I know you can make it one day. I'll be cheering for you.

You could try to be more clear. You seem to be reinforcing my original observation of delusion.

At 11/4/08 12:06 AM, poxpower wrote: Can you stop changing subject for one second and answer directly to what I say?

You made an appeal to ridicule by comparing my argument to restrict things of a harmful nature to things that are clearly NOT harmful. There is nothing to answer.

Gimme studies, not propaganda pieces that suck out 1 or 2 random sentences from scientific journals.

No. You've ignored the other articles posted in this topic contradicting you're viewpoint, now you're ignoring mine, I'm not going to play this game.

No, you shoot out straight personal insults about how I'm immature, a troll and a dumbass. Again, not that I care, but don't try to pretend like you're not being a douche and I am.

I haven't made any personal attacks on you, just your argument. You're ethical code centers around Egoism pox; you're not concerned with what is a morally or practically good course of action or how it would benefit society, you're concerned with what you think is cool and why everyone should want what you want, and you're irrational when it comes to listening to opposing viewpoints (as the case with the prior articles). You're acting like a 12 year old jackass, and I'm calling you out on it. If that makes me a douche, then so be it I'm a douche.

But what's pathetic about this is that you know you're acting like a jackass by posting crap like this, and you get a lot of personal enjoyment out of acting surprised and pissed off when people respond unfavorably.

Well this is what this thread is about: why should porn and sex be banned for kids?

And you're argument was that it shouldn't be. I answered why I thought it should be, now I want to know why you think it shouldn't be. Enlighten me, refine your points.

Or did you write this topic for the sole purpose being a troll?

Don't dodge, you're asking me to prove a negative. Admit your mistake.

What mistake? You made an argument, I responded, now I'm waiting for you to defend your points.

I can't "prove" there's "no" bad effects from porn. It's impossible. Demanding that proof is a logical fallacy.

Then you have no argument.

At 11/4/08 01:40 PM, Proteas wrote:

You made an appeal to ridicule by comparing my argument to restrict things of a harmful nature to things that are clearly NOT harmful.

Based on your opinion mostly.
How is porn more detrimental, than, say, junk food again? Oh right, you've decided that based on how your parents raised you. Great argument there!

No. You've ignored the other articles posted in this topic contradicting you're viewpoint, now you're ignoring mine, I'm not going to play this game.

I told you nimrods to stop hiding your links in your posts.
And the only one I remember was Imperator's "look at this kid sort of acting out on a clown doll, holy shit I've proven something!" crap that didn't even relate to porn and that would suggest banning a hell of a lot more things than porn under the pretense that kids are dumbasses who'll imitate any behavior.

I haven't made any personal attacks on you,

"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."

busted.
Oops. Give me your address so I can hand your ass back to you.

But what's pathetic about this is that you know you're acting like a jackass by posting crap like this, and you get a lot of personal enjoyment out of acting surprised and pissed off when people respond unfavorably.

Thanks for skipping all my arguments to keep insulting me, hypocrite. You've devoted more text in your post to pull your crappy psychoanalysis of my "motives" and "feelings" than to answering actual points.
That's so fucking sad since you're the one making a whole deal about how it's so bad that I dare insult you. I don't give a shit but I don't pretend like I don't do anything mean. Is that how you were raised? haha

And you're argument was that it shouldn't be. I answered why I thought it should be, now I want to know why you think it shouldn't be. Enlighten me, refine your points.

Because it causes no harm to them or anyone else whatsoever :o
Cue to you demanding "proof that it DOESN'T < hint PROVING A NEGATIVE HINT HINT HINT > harm anyone.

And it's "your" not "you're". I wasn't gonna say anything but you've typed it wrong like 5 times now so I don't believe it's a typo at this point.

Btw, holy shit, you STILL don't understand the concept of proving a negative :o
I mean, fuck's sake, you're politics moderator, you should be smarter than this. What the hell???

Let's see if I can google anything for your side:

========================================
======================
google search: "effect of porn on children"

Let's see, site 1:
http://www.protectkids.com/effects/harms .htm
For having seen enough of this kind of site, I know how to recognize an ultra-biased piece of shit website. Cherry-picked stats, overt agenda, bullet points. Yeah that smells like bullshit to me.

Moving on.

http://www.apa.org/monitor/nov07/webporn .html
Ok a site that doesn't look like a piece of crap. Let's read the article.
Because all published studies about the influence of Internet porn on teen attitudes are correlational, researchers can't say for sure whether access to Internet porn causes certain attitudes and behaviors

Wow look at that, inconclusive results. What a surprise. Moving on.

http://www.stop.org.za/articles/The%20ef fects%20of%20porn%20on%20children.htm
http://www.netnanny.com/learn_center/art icle/144
overt propaganda sites, once again. Netnanny? Go back to China you assholes.

http://www.amazon.com/Soft-Porn-Plays-Ha rdball-Children/dp/091031165X
some book that I won't read. Certainly doesn't sound biased though!

http://www.cief.ca/research_reports/harm .htm
another site that appears serious.
But they start off with the same as the other serious site "well we can't know for sure".
One single good argument:

"Three separate studies demonstrate that exposure to violent pornography may increase males' laboratory aggression toward women.9,10,11"

Ok, I follow the sources. They're all 30 year old studies. I can't find them. I have no way of knowing what "aggression towards women" actually means.
But I would bet you 100 bucks that it's bullshit. Like, maybe they yelled at them a little louder or some shit that they're twisting horribly to serve their biased agenda.

moving on:

http://www.thecpac.com/
another piece of crap propaganda site made by some mad christian mom.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?
qid=20080905115948AAjDtLV
yahoo answers now... The answer isn't that bad. Anyway, once again, completely inconclusive stuff.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment /columnists/rachel_johnson/article488082 1.ece
some chick prattles on about her day. Yawn.

End of google page1. Am now bored of doing your work for you.

========================================
========================================
=========
========================================
=============

I still find nothing conclusive at all, and especially nothing that would apply JUST to porn.

Why would kids imitate bad behavior ONLY from porn? If you admit they imitate all behavior, then you'll have to advocate the ban of a shitload of things. But then that's not beyond you.

At 11/4/08 09:35 AM, LazyDrunk wrote:

Hey, I liked this reply! I take back my previous insults.

Instead of quote replying, I'll try summarize my points in a more understandable way.

A little time back, the McCain camp went out critizings Obama for wanting to "teach sex to kids in kindergarten". As it turned out, the sex education in question here wasn't the whole deal, but just to teach kids about sexual predators and how to know if they are being touched in the wrong way, etc.

But, it pointed out the underlying issue I've been trying to say here. There is a mentality that sex is bad. One could argue that random sex with strangers is indeed bad, or at least, unsafe. However, the mentality stretches further than that. Talking about sex is bad. How many thousand times have you heard complains about the "sex fixated society we live in"? Why is this a bad thing? How is it different from being, say, a fun fixated society or a honor fixated society, short of sex itself being bad and evil in the mind of the complainer?

Playing on sex in an ad, for shampoo, or cars, is also frowned upon. Yet again, is this so horrible? What if they played on childhood memories by playing songs from the 80ies? What if they donated 1% of the income to children in Africa and played on guilt? Nobody complains, and I don't think anybody would, because these things are not seen as inherently evil and dirty, like sex is.

And there is no area but sexual education that this reflect upon. Most likely because it involves children, which makes people buff up their regular opinions ten times as strong. I mean, the very fact that some of the most extreme republicans opposes sexual education makes my case alone, I think. They want "abstinence only" taught instead, which basically says "Sex is evil unless you are married".

At 11/4/08 02:48 PM, poxpower wrote: I still find nothing conclusive at all, and especially nothing that would apply JUST to porn.

Why would kids imitate bad behavior ONLY from porn? If you admit they imitate all behavior, then you'll have to advocate the ban of a shitload of things. But then that's not beyond you.

NO ONE SAID THEY ONLY IMITATE BAD BEHAVIOR FROM PORN.

And yes, we already soft-ban a ton of things based on age -- TV shows (vchip), movies, driving, drinking, smoking, using firearms, signing contracts, etc etc etc etc etc. It isn't about having a "granny state", it's about maturity and responsibility, neither of which children have.

Are you this dumb on purpose or by accident? I haven't seen you post an intelligent topic OR individual reply yet. How the HELL did you get to be a moderator?

I told you nimrods to stop hiding your links in your posts.

And the only one I remember was Imperator's "look at this kid sort of acting out on a clown doll, holy shit I've proven something!" crap that didn't even relate to porn and that would suggest banning a hell of a lot more things than porn under the pretense that kids are dumbasses who'll imitate any behavior.

Because you're too computer inept to look up the links,

The stories:
http://www.wesh.com/news/9497190/detail.
html
http://www.winknews.com/news/local/85565 82.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17980152/

The studies:
http://www.apa.org/monitor/nov07/webporn .html
http://www.newsweek.com/id/162792/page/2

You're done. APA says "it's bad". SCIENCE says you're wrong. Now kindly fuck right off.

At 11/4/08 02:48 PM, poxpower wrote: How is porn more detrimental, than, say, junk food again? Oh right, you've decided that based on how your parents raised you. Great argument there!

Appeal to Ridicule, Straw man, Argumentum Ad Hominen, all as a substitute for an actual argument.

I told you nimrods to stop hiding your links in your posts.

Oh yes, those bright orange letters are so hard to look for against this dammnable grey background and off-white text. I'll let Liljim know.

under the pretense that kids are dumbasses who'll imitate any behavior.

And you're saying they aren't and they don't? Have you ever actually dealt with kids before?

Oops. Give me your address so I can hand your ass back to you.

I made a judgment about you based on your post and called you an idiot for it, oh woe is me, you really handed my ass to me didn't I?

Is that how you were raised? haha

Did your parents drop you on your head as an infant? I mean, so long we're dragging personal lives into this...

I mean, fuck's sake, you're politics moderator, you should be smarter than this. What the hell???

I haven't asked you once to prove a negative, I've asked you to prove a positive, namely; that exposing minors to porno has no potential for harm and therefore there should be restriction on it. There is a law in place keeping people from doing this under penalty of prison time, you want to lift the restriction, you have to come up with a reason for doing so in order to convince people that yours is the correct argument.

You have no argument, you can't/won't defend your points, and you're acting like a child.

I have no way of knowing what "aggression towards women" actually means.

Photographs, videos, magazines, virtual games, and Internet pornography that depict rape and the dehumanization of females in sexual scenes constitute powerful but deforming tools of sex education. The danger to children stems at least partly from the disturbing changes in attitude that are facilitated by pornography. Replicated studiesx have demonstrated that exposure to significant amounts of increasingly graphic forms of pornography has a dramatic effect on how adult consumers view women, sexual abuse, sexual relationships, and sex in general. These studies are virtually unanimous in their conclusions: When male subjects were exposed to as little as six weeks' worth of standard hard-core pornography, they:

* developed an increased sexual callousness toward women

* began to trivialize rape as a criminal offense or no longer considered it a crime at all

* developed distorted perceptions about sexuality

* developed an appetite for more deviant, bizarre, or violent types of pornography (normal sex no longer seemed to do the job)

* devalued the importance of monogamy and lacked confidence in marriage as either a viable or lasting institution

* viewed nonmonogamous relationships as normal and natural behavior

Source; Cline, Pornography's Effects, 8.

Dr.Victor B. Cline is a University of California, Berkley Ph D in Psychology, a research scientist with the George Washington University's Human Resources Research Office, and a Emeritus Professor in Psychology at the University of Utah. His private clinical practice is in Salt Lake City, Utah.

That answer your question?

http://www.apa.org/monitor/nov07/webporn .html

Ok a site that doesn't look like a piece of crap. Let's read the article.
Because all published studies about the influence of Internet porn on teen attitudes are correlational, researchers can't say for sure whether access to Internet porn causes certain attitudes and behaviors

Way to read only what benefits your case, and ignore everything (the vast majority) that doesn't.

This is scientific theory damnit. Stop being a Christian by saying "They said it's not proven, just like gravity! Doesn't count!".

Because you don't actually READ the links:

"Last year, the American Psychological Association put out a compelling report that described the sexualization of young girls: a process that entails being stripped of all value except the sexual use to which they might be put. Once they subscribe to that belief, say some psychologists, those girls begin to self-objectify-with consequences ranging from cognitive problems to depression and eating disorders"

At 11/4/08 03:28 PM, Cornbucket wrote:

Are you this dumb on purpose or by accident? I haven't seen you post an intelligent topic OR individual reply yet. How the HELL did you get to be a moderator?

hint: you're not as smart as you think.

At 11/4/08 03:43 PM, Imperator wrote:

The stories:

Worthless.

The studies:
http://www.apa.org/monitor/nov07/webporn .html

already talked about it in my reply to Proteas.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/162792/page/2

That is not a study, it's a piece of shitty litterature written by what I could describe as "a feminazi". Aka droning old crone.

I find it pretty telling that about 99% of "arguments" use words like "depravity" and "obscene" and are written by people who CLEARLY have a huge problem with people having sex often.

Worthless fear-mongering. The best studies I could find are "inconclusive" at the best. All the arguments that these people present are just their own opinions of what is "decent".

At 11/4/08 03:47 PM, Proteas wrote: Dr.Victor B. Cline is a University of California, Berkley Ph D in Psychology, a research scientist with the George Washington University's Human Resources Research Office, and a Emeritus Professor in Psychology at the University of Utah. His private clinical practice is in Salt Lake City, Utah.

Salt Lake City!?

But isn't that reason-enough to ignore his doctory sciency status and assume he's just a biased Mormon with an obvious agenda? I mean, you know, reason-enough for a person who doesn't operate within the actuals confines of 'reason'.