No it's not, and argument by analogy is a very poor way of proving your point. The measures put in place to prevent people being shown pornography unwillingly or intentionally are the same.Ostroeuropa wrote:No, it's an entirely apt comparison, especially as the studies only showed negative consequences for unwilling exposure. It's a direct parallel to calling sex evil because rape causes trauma.
Again: I simply can't be arsed to drag through google to look for a mountain of evidence, review it so that it fits your standard, and then present and summarise it here, so that you can pick out every sentence in a giant wall of quotations. This is not how I want to spend my Sunday.Ostroeuropa wrote:Cut to the chase. Your first example was intellectually dishonest nonsense. give me your best fucking shot, and if you can't, then I think we're both fully aware you don't actually have confidence this idea makes society a better place, you're merely too stubborn to admit it publicly.
There is a broad array of evidence suggesting links between pornography accessed by children and negative social and personal otucomes. Some of the evidence is poor, of course, but some is fine. It's also possible that all this evidence is wrong, and that you are right, but as a citizen and a voter, I have to play game theory here. What's more likely, that you are right, or that the government and child agencies and child charities are all wrong? And what's the outcome if we choose the wrong group? The safe option is to assume they are right, even if the chance of them being wrong is actually 50/50.
Also I am in favour of banning pornography for children because I am also in favour of banning pornography for the adult population, entirely and totally. So you can put that up your socially-permissive 1960s pipe and smoke it, eh?
