Posted on 01/16/2011 11:57:40 PM PST by RC one
Why do we use the phrase, “legislating morality,” when it comes to laws against pornography but not laws against murder, rape, domestic violence, etc.?
All one has to do is view the video “Fatal Addiction,” Dr. James Dobson’s interview with serial sexual killer Ted Bundy hours before his Florida execution, to learn how soft-core pornography is the doorway to hard core, which, in too many cases, leads to the above-mentioned crimes. Addiction craves something harder and harder.
Dobson was one of the 11 liberal and conservative members of the U.S. Attorney General’s 1986 Commission on Pornography. They couldn’t agree on anything, said Dobson, except when it came to the link of violence in pornography and violence against women and children. The vote was 11 to 0; everyone saw it.
Bundy said, “I’ve lived in prison for a long time now, and I’ve known a lot of men motivated to commit violence just like me, and without exception, everyone of them was deeply involved in pornography.”
The FBI’s own study on serial homicides shows that the most common interest among serial killers is pornography. Of the 36 convicted serial murderers who had killed multiple numbers of people, 29 of them, or 81 percent, listed pornography as their predominant interest, to the level of compulsion.
What we see influences what we do. If not, why do advertisers spend billions of dollars? Only in pornography do we refuse to make the connection. Almost every day, we read in the newspaper of another woman or child being sexually molested. As Bundy says in “Fatal Addiction”: “And as good a Christian home as I had — there is no protection against the kind of influences that there are loose in a society that tolerates.”
I was agreeing with RC one that porn is bad for our society.
I did not comment on whether I believe it should be banned.
Those lyrics aren’t porn.
Why do you meet an objective argument with a full-up ad hominem attack, using Lil Wayne’s “music” as a non-sequitur counterpoint?
I am NOT addressing the substance of the argument, but only the fact that you have chosen to attack the dissenter, rather than to present evidence refuting their position. It leads to the inescapable conclusion that you cannot defend your position logically.
To dispel this conclusion, refute the SUBSTANCE of the dissenting poster’s statement, that the rise of porn availability on the net has not been accompanied by a rise in violent crime.
Porn should be banned because, among other things, it feeds into the delusional beliefs and constructs of the mentally ill and incites them to commit psychotic acts. You can’t take a psychotic psyche and bombard it with the kind of spiritually/mentally poisonous images that pass for porn these days and expect it to not stimulate psychotic behavior.
So you support 'kiddy porn' just like the filth at the ACLU.
Report: Online Pedophilia up 300 Percent (article from 1995 referring to the previous 3 year period.
http://www.esecurityplanet.com/trends/article.php/3494241/Report-Online-Pedophilia-up-300-Percent.htm
Now, what were you saying?
Add that to your list of society-wrecking addictions.
Oh, and don't forget rock-and-roll
. . and professional sports (Super Bowl coming up soon) . .
. . and Hollyweird movies . .
and the most tragic addiction of all . .
Internet forums.
Again, I was not addressing the substance, but rather the attack-style of argument.
However, I was not aware that pedophilia was considered a “violent crime”.
An assertion was made that porn fostered violent, and a response given that asserted there was not a rise in violent crime that correlated with the availability of porn on the internet. Showing a correlation with pedophilia does not address the issue, because pedophilia is not a “violent crime”. If the definition of that phrase is problematic, I would suggest addressing its use with the original poster.
pedophilia is rape and rape is a violent crime. What’s more, some pedophilia is clearly violent as it ends with a dead child. I have seen an 18 month old baby raped to death for instance as well as numerous other incidents equally horrible. You are wrong about this. Pornography is highly toxic to a society and absolutely contributes to mental illness.
Um, no. Pedophilia, the syndrome, is an unnatural attraction to prepubescent children.
Acting on pedophilia is what you are describing. The argument you have made appears to conflate the illness with acting on the urges of the illness.
Finally, I HAVE NOT ADDRESSED THE ISSUE. Do I need to make that statement clearer? I have in no way addressed the substance of this issue. You have asserted that I am wrong. Sorry - but having not stated an opinion other than “don’t attack the messenger - argue the facts” doesn’t give you any room to tell me I’m wrong.
You and the first poster I replied to have made this a very personal argument - taking it as a personal affront. Please don’t do that. I have not attacked anyone, only flagged where I see your the argument devolving into personal attacks.
Have a good day, FRiend.
I didn’t make it personal, but I think you have taken it personally. I’m content to let it all go but I’m not content to accept that I am in any way wrong about anything I have stated. let’s not waste anymore time on this though. Have a great MLK day partner.
I have to agree with you. Just because Bundy blamed his murderous behavior on pornography does not mean it was his true motivator. I tend to believe he got enjoyment out of his actions, which was all the motive he needed.
People give all sorts of motives for all sorts of behavior. We dont have to believe them, and in some cases, I am sure that even they are deluding themselves (or us).
Actually, looking at the words that we both have written, I was incorrect when I said you took this argument personally, and for that I apologize.
I fell for one of my own rhetorical devices - I most often state that a person’s stated position is wrong, but do not state that they are themselves wrong, just because it can be taken as an affront to the other’s ego. Unfortunately - I let my ego lead with its chin. Sorry if I offended.
Have a great day.
Don't conflate this issue with pornography. Defiling Christian images and calling it "art" is despicable. It is "fightin' words" rendered into images. It isn't pornography.
And your calling Strategerist's arguments "BS" (what a profound reply) does nothing to answer his argument. Pornography is VASTLY more available than it used to be, thus there appears to be zero correlation between porn and violence.
Your ad hominem (and baseless) insults demonstrate the weakness of your arguments.
Where there's porn, something is taking a beating.
Splitting hairs to tangle and mask the point—a classic used by libs.
“Acting on pedophilia is what you are describing. The argument you have made appears to conflate the illness with acting on the urges of the illness.”
Good lord, the classic, let’s take this down into the weeds of incoherence to mask the absolute wrongness involved (all the while continuing to indignantly insist the position is illogical) and create an endless circular spin to nowhere.
Classic lib approach.
Deny reality, deny the point, deny the facts, puff up into a superior (SIC) blatherskite and just generate an endless rushing noise.
Your porn must mean everything to you.
Only a lib believes they are without sin. It is sin that is the cause of violence. When one sins with pornography, they are likely to sin in other areas.
So you think Andrew Lackey of Alabama should be able to blame video games for gouging out the eyes, stabbing and shooting of 80-year old Charlie Newman? Do you blame heavy metal music for the Columbine shootings? That is my point.
One extra point: Should one blame the fork for getting fat?
Words mean things. Changing the definition of a word in order to make it fit the definition that serves your point of view best is a classic fallacy (although I do not recall its name). You have engaged in that here, to your own detriment.
You sendwiched it with ad hominem attacks - accusing me of being a lib, and with “porn being everything to [me]”.
I simply pointed out that you have presented a fact-free response to a factual argument. Your repeat performance here speaks ill of your ability to debate any subject, much less a serious one like this.
As I stated elsewhere, I HAVE NOT ADDRESSED THE SUBJECT OF THE ARTICLE AT ALL. I have simply drawn attention to the fact that you are arguing by attacking the opponent, instead of presenting facts.
I’m sorry you cannot present a cogent argument on the subject. I’ll not bother further with you. You debase yourself by your reliance on personal attacks on other posters. It’s quite the “christian” witness, eh?
And we've got TROUBLE, which starts with "T", and that rhymes with "P" and that stand for POOL, right here in River City. Thank goodness we replaced all the pool halls with midnight basketball.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.