Spyder wrote:Yes because we all know that justice and the law is the same thing.
Just so we are clear, are you arguing that 8 year olds
NOT having access to pornography is 'un-just'?
Spyder wrote:Crown wrote:
Einhander Sn0m4n wrote:BIG FUCKING DEAL YOU FUNDAMENTALIST MORONIC ASSHOLE! Go back to worshiping Satan thinly disguised as your god!
Ad Hominem fallacy, wonderful.
Actually that was a request for exaplanation as to the relevance of that little fact. You pointing out the Ad Hominem without adding anything new to the discussion was closer to an Ad Hominem then Ein's statement.
And ad hominem literally means "argument directed at the man", I must have missed Ein's 'request for explanation as the relevance of that little fact' in; 'BIG FUCKING DEAL YOU FUNDAMENTALIST MORONIC ASSHOLE! Go back to worshiping Satan thinly disguised as your god!'
And pointing out and ad hominem fallacy
isn't comitting the fallacy.
But
if Einy really was looking for an explanation as to the 'relevance of that little fact', than he - and you - can read below.
Spyder wrote:Crown wrote:
Einhander Sn0m4n wrote:As I said, TEENAGERS WANT SEX! Demonstrate how this outlet for sexual energy is a Bad Thing!
They lack the mental maturity to comprehend what is being depicted for one, it is illegal for another, this isn't rocket science.
Now there's an interesting argument. You say that they lack the mental maturity required to look at porn. I ask you, what exactly is the minimum required mental maturity for looking at porn and what exactly are the long term harmful effects of lacking it?
Well the first time I saw porn I was 16 and I turned out OK. Strictly speaking physiologically we are 'mature' enough once we past puberty and are able to reproduce. Would that also mean that mentally - psychologically - that we are also mature enough?
The best study was done by Sir Willian Utting in a report published in 1997 for the UK Ministry for Health. You can view a piece from
Ecpat International wich is a society working to eliminate the commercial sexual exploitation of children.
Specifically
this PDF file. I quote;
How sex offenders use child pornography
Utting20 suggests that exposure to pornography desensitises children and it can inflict other psychological harm. Child abusers show both adult pornography and child pornography to children as a means of “lowering their inhibitions”. They will show pictures in which the children have been forced to smile so that it can be claimed, especially to younger children, that they are “having fun”.
With older children pornography, both child pornography and adult pornography, is used to excite them and to show them that what is being done is ‘alright’.
Yes, of course this deals with the much crueler sexual predator angle, of how to brainwash a child and exploit them, but the fundamental underlining principal is the important distinction. That being;
a child can be manipulated in such a fasion because they lack the mental maturity to be able to process such imagery.
Spyder wrote:As for the legality thing, it goes without saying that justice and the law is not the same thing. If something is said to be bad for no other reason then it is illegal then it is time to look at why this thing is illegal and if there is no other reason then scrap the law. It is for this reason that the argument "It's illegal" lacks any real weight. In short, illegality is an effect, a status and sometimes a solution, it can never be a cause or a reason.
Lovely, in all of that I see you failed to show
how the law prohibiting the distribution of adult material to minors is 'unjust'.
Spyder wrote:Crown wrote:Einhander Sn0m4n wrote:It happens. I'll bet 99% of these sexual solicitations are A: Porn Bots or B: Kids their own age. Nice try, fucktard. Try a bigger gun!
"BULLSHIT!!! EVIDENCE PLEASE YOU GAPING VAGINA!" ... Sometimes the words of another work out just fine.
And even if it was just your so called 1%, isn't that worrying considering the sheer number of children on the internet?
Not really, you can apply the same logic to just about anything. A lot of countries of driving death tolls far greater then 1%, doesn't mean we should ban cars. There's a fixed percentage of airlines that have crashed into world trade towers, we still allow people to fly. There are percentages of people that get hurt at rock concerts, parties, bars (prohibition has already been tried), there are STD percentages but we don't ban sex. What I'm trying to say is that you can't call something a major problem because a percentage of people getting hurt isn't 0. If we did this would be a particularly boring world.
First; Red Herring/Strawman. Neither the author - nor I - are suggesting a ban of pornography on the internet (I read the article, and his website), all that they appear to be campaigning for is anti-spam legistlation at this point, everything else is vague.
Second; Are you saying the sexual solicitation of 1% of all children that log onto the internet
isn't a something that needs to be addressed considering the sheer amount of children that are on the internet?
Third; Your analogies are flawed; because they are based on the 'baning' syndrome that you seem to have pulled in from regions yonder.
And Fourth; How dumb can you be on trying to argue the whole 1% which Einy pulled out his ass anyway?
Spyder wrote:Crown wrote:Einhander Sn0m4n wrote:Thanks for the tacit admission that 'us kids' are smarter than you.
Yes, and he suggest that anti-porn software isn't stopping children WHO SHOULDN'T HAVE ACCESS TO PORN, what is so hard to understand?
Valid reasons for such have yet to be established.
They have now, also I note that you haven't established why pornography
should be distributed to minors. Not meaning to ask you to prove a negative here, but the law is already in place, to onus is on
you to prove that it is 'unjust', and not by sophistic resposes on how 'justice' and 'legality' aren't
always the same. You need to specific - not general in this matter, otherwise you aren't arguing anything (or at least certainly aren't proving anything). All your doing is throwing distortions, sophistry and bullshitting your way through the conversaion -- hey kind like Einy was -- or as we like to call it; trolling.
Spyder wrote:Crown wrote:Einhander Sn0m4n wrote:I will be seeing you in Hell when the world rejoices when you kick the bucket.
Oh do sit down you little poser.
Why, your turn on the pedestal is it?
*snicker*
.
