Should Pornography Be Banned?

[Mountain Man]

I am satisfied that the soundbite was from was well reviewed book, the author of which is an active Protestant Christian with a Ph.D. and who is an experienced psychotherapist specialising in trauma recovery. In short, there’s no reason to suspect bias, especially as it reflects negatively on her own religious parameters. The author's credentials are good.

She herself, finds it "disturbing" given her background: “A disturbing fact continues to surface in sex abuse research. The first best predictor of abuse is alcohol or drug addiction in the father. But the second best predictor is conservative religiosity, accompanied by parental belief in traditional male-female roles. This means that if you want to know which children are most likely to be sexually abused by their father, the second most significant clue is… whether or not the parents belong to a conservative religious group with traditional role beliefs and rigid sexual attitudes.” p. 73 ‘Sexual abuse in Christian Homes and Churches’. - Carolyn Holderread Heggen

Still waiting for a substantive defense of this questionable statistic and the author's poor understanding of scripture. An appeal to authority doesn't cut it.

But of course you can't defend it because you haven't even bothered to read the book.

[demi-conservative]

Child porn is already banned on the basis that it is exploitation of those unable to give informed consent.

So?

Prohibition never works; it doesn’t stop the demand and fuels crime in order to supply the market.

Sad!

[Mountain Man]

Tass arguing against himself. Haha!

[Tassman]

Still waiting for a substantive defense of this questionable statistic and the author's poor understanding of scripture. An appeal to authority doesn't cut it.

But of course you can't defend it because you haven't even bothered to read the book.

Leaving aside that the quote was from an appropriately qualified, professionally experienced, well reviewed, conservative Protestant to what "poor understanding of scripture" are you referring?

[Tassman]

So?

Sad!

The law quite rightly protects from exploitation, those unable to give informed consent to an activity particularly of a sexual nature. For those capable of giving informed consent, education programs have been shown to be more effective in controlling addictions than prohibition, tobacco addiction being a case in point.

[Mountain Man]

Leaving aside that the quote was from an appropriately qualified, professionally experienced, well reviewed, conservative Protestant to what "poor understanding of scripture" are you referring?

So let's see some facts, little man. What study is the author referring to? What was the sample size and demographic? What was the methodology? How was the data verified? Who performed the peer review? Were there any points of contention, and how were they addressed?

Oh, right, you haven't even bothered to read the book, so you have no answers.

As for the author's poor understanding of scripture, try to keep up with the thread, because I'm not rehashing it.

[Charles]

So let's see some facts, little man. What study is the author referring to? What was the sample size and demographic? What was the methodology? How was the data verified? Who performed the peer review? Were there any points of contention, and how were they addressed?

Oh, right, you haven't even bothered to read the book, so you have no answers.

As for the author's poor understanding of scripture, try to keep up with the thread, because I'm not rehashing it.

Let me remind you what she said:

Unfortunately, one can't find specific biblical references which prohibit sexual abuse of children by fathers. Leviticus passages which speak to sexual prohibitions for the Hebrews refer to sexual contact between a man and a female considered the property of another man. Many relationships are identified as inappropriate for sexual relations - son and mother, nephew and aunt, grandfather and granddaughter, brother and sister and so on.

I am still waiting for you to show specific biblical references which prohibit sexual abuse of children by fathers. So far you have shown none but continue your personal attacks on her "poor understanding" without having proven this point wrong. Note that she is not saying it is not prohibitted, she is saying there is no specific reference which prohibit it. Is she right or wrong? And could you please give a factual answer without personal attacks?

[Mountain Man]

Let me remind you what she said...

And let me remind you that you're an illiterate goon if you think she makes a compelling point.

[Charles]

And let me remind you that you're an illiterate goon if you think she makes a compelling point.

So you could not answer without a personal attack. That would not be necesarry if you had a good answer, would it?

[Mountain Man]

So you could not answer without a personal attack. That would not be necesarry if you had a good answer, would it?

I did answer, you mental midget, multiple times, as did One Bad Pig at least once. The fact that all you can do is mindlessly repeat the question instead of engaging with the answers that have already been given is what earns you contempt. Seriously, you argue like my 14-year old who if he doesn't like an answer, just repeats the question.

[Charles]

I did answer, you mental midget, multiple times, as did One Bad Pig at least once. The fact that all you can do is mindlessly repeat the question instead of engaging with the answers that have already been given is what earns you contempt. Seriously, you argue like my 14-year old who if he doesn't like an answer, just repeats the question.

You never answered whether there was a specific reference. She is claiming there is not. Is she right or wrong? If there was you could prove her wrong instead of relying on personal attacks. It is that simple but you try to avoid the question for some reason.

[Joel]

Modern Christians seem to be wedded a lot to Enlightenment ideas like freedom of speech and expression but if you look at the laws God instituted under the Mosaic code, the mindset was very different. This is the exact point my avatar tries to make.

Those Enlightenment ideas were derived from Christian natural rights (and natural law) theory. (Though later utilitarians added some strong utilitarian arguments.)

I tend to agree as someone else said in this thread, the Mosaic code was instituted directly by God over a specific people. Which is different from humans getting together to decide to use/threaten physical force against other humans. Arguing from Mosaic code also opens the door to arguments objecting that then we'd have to ban things like pork and trimming one's beard.

Also equality.

The Enlightenment idea of equality was not that of modern "liberals" which insists on an equality of everything.
Rather it was an equality of specific things: equally created by God, equally bearing the image of God, equality of rights endowed by God to human beings.

E.g. John Locke:

"Though I have said above, Chap. II. That all men by nature are equal, I cannot be supposed to understand all sorts of equality: age or virtue may give men a just precedency: excellency of parts and merit may place others above the common level: birth may subject some, and alliance or benefits others, to pay an observance to those to whom nature, gratitude, or other respects, may have made it due: and yet all this consists with the equality, which all men are in, in respect of jurisdiction or dominion one over another; which was the equality I there spoke of, as proper to the business in hand, being that equal right, that every man hath, to his natural freedom, without being subjected to the will or authority of any other man."
--Second Treatise on Government, Chap VI
http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/lo...ment-hollis-ed

It was this idea of equality that brought us the abolition of slavery, for example.

[Mountain Man]

You never answered whether there was a specific reference.

I did answer, little dog.

[Charles]

I did answer, little dog.

Another personal attack and no answer. I will conclude that you cannot provide a specific reference and that your personal attack on the writer is thus rather weak unless you provide the specific reference she claimed did not exist.

Calling other people stupid or dogs or whatever seems to go rather low but unfortunately this seems to be where way too many Christians find themselves these days.

[demi-conservative]

the equality I there spoke of, as proper to the business in hand, being that equal right, that every man hath, to his natural freedom, without being subjected to the will or authority of any other man."
--Second Treatise on Government, Chap VI
http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/lo...ment-hollis-ed
[/indent]

Yes, 'equal freedom', but poor do not have same freedom, so redistribution as per progs. Also quotas on jobs, women must have rep into everything, etc!!!