At 11/4/08 06:34 PM, Imperator wrote:
"Weasel words are words
I guess you assumed I didn't check anywhere else first.
http://www.canada.com/topics/lifestyle/r elationships/story.html?id=3c0f656f-4d3e -411a-97e2-c63aede3a4b4
From all the sites I can read, this disease seems about as hard to pin down as ADD. Frankly, it sounds made up and it's up to the doctor to decide if he wants to treat it or not, if it counts as a disease all by itself or if it's actually just a sympton of something else. From all the evidence, it seems to me you can get addicted just as hard on Star Wars and collecting Pringles lids as you can get addicted to Porn.
in fact, maybe a diagnosable case right here?: http://gizmodo.com/357908/the-biggest-st ar-wars-collection-in-the-galaxy
Imagine if that guy came to the doctor complaining that he was so obsessed with Star Wars that he spent too much money on it, too much time away from his friends etc. ( basically all the arguments in the article with the porn addicts). I imagine the guy would try to help him, being a doctor. So if he got to treat, say, 300 of them ( wow big numbers!!!!! ) in 20 years, he'd publish a paper on "STAR WARS ADDICTION!!!!".
Hahaha. Then I imagine you'd see those papers and buzzwords recycled and circulated in whatever circles oppose Star Wars for whatever stupid personal reasons.
I know how this game works.
At 11/4/08 06:40 PM, Proteas wrote:
Which is a logical statement as the only studies we have involve adults. But as with violent television and it's studies with teens, it's not much of a stretch of the imagination to show that teens or younger children might react the same way to pornography.
Key word: your imagination.
Especially considering you've been raised in a conservative household that had conservative views about sex. Maybe you have biased opinions? Food for thought.
No shit, you're committing a logical fallacy.And your committing an appeal to ignorance by acting like your own argument is correct because no one can prove it conclusively wrong.
No I don't claim it's right, just like I don't claim there's no Sasquatch. But show him to me cause I'm a skeptic.
If pox isn't willing to accept anything less than a medical journal article on the subject in what is supposed to be a casual internet debate, I suggest you not waste your time.
Huh welcome to the real world, where you need actual proof when you make claims.
It's not an impossible demand to ask for a frickin scientific paper. There's millions in the world. There's even some referred to in the articles, but the conclusions seem twisted by the people who write the articles to serve their own ends, because, just like you, they admit it's "inconclusive" and that the link between porn and violence, pedophiles, women abuse etc. is vague at best.
They are easily influenced, they're kids, and you've shown to believe that they are as well.
I sure do, but my argument is that if they're so easy to influence, then I can start making all sorts of crazy claims about superman making them jump out of buildings and Star Wars making them choke each other with chains. I can push it as far as I want if I'm just speculating, like you.
Kids are obviously easy to influence, but to me, it's quite unclear to which degree and how permanent the effects are going to be for seeing, say, a couple porno movies.
Huh there was nothing about abuse of women in the points I isolated.The study showed that the participants attitudes towards women had changed.
How is that "abuse"? That's not even clear at all. That's just you making wild guesses once again.
You have to be pretty damn bad to reach ABUSE and that word was NOT mentioned.
Viewing a woman as a sexual object not deserving of basic human respect.
"not deserving of basic human respect"? Where did you get that? That sounds like a lie because that would translate into making women not vote, for instance. Which was around before porn.
Please tell me the concrete effects of this. What exactly do those evil "women objectifiers" do?
Why don't you find the guy's e-mail and ASK HIM then?
Maybe I will.
Though that was 30 years ago, he's probably dead by now.
So being an armchair skeptic makes you more qualified than a phd who spends his time researching the subject endlessly?
Huh I don't have to take the word of one single guy on something like complex and controversial like that. That's not skepticism. I'm looking at as many expert statements as I can find and frankly, most of them have really nebulous conclusions on the subjects and differing opinions.
Hence I conclude that it's not in the realm of hard facts, but of moral judgments and opinions.
When the newfound love of porn wrecks your social life, bank account, and marriage, and shows all the similar signs of alcholishm and drug abuse, what would you call it?
I don't remember anything about physical withdrawal or health detriments. Under your definition, people who play Donkey Kong until they beat the world record are addicted. People who watch movies all day are addicted.
If you read the research, it's clear that the only reason he considered it an addiction was because HE and HIS PATIENTS thought it was something to be ASHAMED OF. That's not medical, that's bullshit. And if you check further, he wasn't seeking THEM out, they were SENT TO HIM! He didn't realize they needed help until they were sent to him BY PEOPLE OFTEN OTHER THAN THEM WHO ALSO THOUGHT PORN WAS DISTASTEFUL, BEGGING FOR HELP. People with clear religious and conservative persuasions at that.
Sorry, but there's a plethora of red flags there. If this was an addiction, there would be thousands of people currently addicted to porn, it would wreak many lives and you'd hear about it OUTSIDE THE BIBLE BELT and Feminist rallies.
Ok, going with his point "many people think several of the things on this list to be wrong, but feel that's it's not their duty to do anything about it." I didn't think of this was wrong as most of it involves two consenting adults who know that their actions are.