Originally posted by Proper Knobok fine you have not said it but clearly if you have a small percentage of a large number, in this case 10 percent of 72 million?, that quite a lot of people.
I'm not disputing the small percentage is of no consequence and never have done, why you are introducing this into the conversation I have no idea.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
10 Oct 14
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIt would be helpful to this discussion if you describe what measures should be taken.
My own objection to pornography is religious, its anti Biblical, but you people do not accept these religious principles and ideas so i am forced to attempt to use something else that you may accept, statistics, logic, reasoning.
Clearly alcohol in moderation is not a bad thing, but for some people it is. Now if you wish to extend the analogy, ...[text shortened]... ho use it, it causes serious problems. Why this should be difficult to understand i cannot say.
10 Oct 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYes, 7.2million is a lot of people. Again, I've never disputed that. But it is a fraction of the total, ie 10%. This was the point I was making, most people will use pornography with no harm being done. Something you initially rejected until you realised you had your sums all muddled up.
ok fine you have not said it but clearly if you have a small percentage of a large number, in this case 10 percent of 72 million?, that quite a lot of people.
It always amazes me how in such a short space of time you competely lose the thread of a converstaion and end up arguing against something I never said. Bizarre.
10 Oct 14
Originally posted by JS357what measures i would take are not relevant to someone who does not share my religious beliefs, other persons who are not religious have also testified that by 'giving up', indulging in pornography it has improved their lives.
It would be helpful to this discussion of you describe what measures should be taken.
http://www.macleans.ca/society/life/can-swearing-off-porn-improve-your-life/
Originally posted by Proper Knobit happens, anyway I am surprised that the only report i can find on pornography was in 1986? was that really the last time a government commissioned a report? anyway, what do you think of this statement taken from the Meese report,
Yes, 7.2million is a lot of people. Again, I've never disputed that. But it is a fraction of the total, ie 10%. This was the point I was making, most people will use pornography with no harm being done. Something you initially rejected until you realised you had your sums all muddled up.
It always amazes me how in such a short space of time you compet ...[text shortened]... ly lose the thread of a converstaion and end up arguing against something I never said. Bizarre.
Testifying before a U.S. Senate committee, Dr. Judith Reisman, a leading researcher on pornography, said: “Pornographic visual images imprint and alter the brain, triggering an instant, involuntary, but lasting, biochemical memory trail [that is] difficult or impossible to delete.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meese_Report
to those why state that pornography is harmless, can you tell me why the following is not entirely detrimental? why sucking this up into my mind should be good for me?
The values expressed in pornography clash so obviously with the family concept, and they potentially undermine the traditional values that favor marriage, family, and children ... Pornographic scripts dwell on sexual engagements of parties who have just met, who are in no way attached or committed to each other, and who will part shortly, never to meet again ... Sexual gratification in pornography is not a function of emotional attachment, of kindness, of caring, and especially not of continuance of the relationship, as such continuance would translate into responsibilities, curtailments, and costs ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_pornography
Originally posted by Great King Ratcan alcohol do this?
Yeah, alcohol is very bad indeed.
visual images imprint and alter the brain, triggering an instant, involuntary, but lasting, biochemical memory trail [that is] difficult or impossible to delete
no then its not the same thing, is it.
10 Oct 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIf you truly value that ancient book you'd use it and try to teach us something. But you're afraid that that too will fail, which means that yet another piece of your believe system crumbles, so you stay from that and come up with a bunch of nonsense that is clearly not convincing anyone.
too chicken? can you tell me logically, rationally and reasonably, what is the point of advocating Biblical principles to people that do not value them? That is correct, there is no point, therefore your accusation of being chicken is unfounded.
Sad, really.
10 Oct 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobieNo, alcohol clearly does not damage the brain....................
can alcohol do this?
visual images imprint and alter the brain, triggering an instant, involuntary, but lasting, biochemical memory trail [that is] difficult or impossible to delete
no then its not the same thing, is it.
😞
10 Oct 14
Originally posted by Great King Ratclearly the message of ad honimem is not getting through
If you truly value that ancient book you'd use it and try to teach us something. But you're afraid that that too will fail, which means that yet another piece of your believe system crumbles, so you stay from that and come up with a bunch of nonsense that is clearly not convincing anyone.
Sad, really.
ad hominem
adj. Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason: Debaters should avoid ad hominem arguments that question their opponents' motives.
10 Oct 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou're cheating on The Bible, dude. Don't you feel dirrrrrty?
clearly the message of ad honimem is not getting through
ad hominem
adj. Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason: Debaters should avoid ad hominem arguments that question their opponents' motives.