|
Post by clockworkgirl21 on Apr 14, 2009 4:01:08 GMT -5
This whole argument pisses me off. Both sides.
The fundies, for being jackasses. And the liberals, for screaming, "It isn't a choice!" They really aren't helping, though they think they are.
Because it shouldn't matter if it's a choice or not. It would still be a valid choice. Homosexuality is homosexuality, and it doesn't matter if the homosexual chose it or was born like that. Personally, I didn't choose it, but if someone said they did(which I have met people like that) I wouldn't think of them as any different than myself.
|
|
|
Post by Sigmaleph on Apr 14, 2009 13:47:00 GMT -5
You have a point there, I suppose. Masturbating to child porn is not directly harmful. Having sex with a child is rape, as a child cannot consent. I suppose a better way of phrasing it is that, of all the ways of acting on a certain sexual attraction, a greater amount of them is harmful in the case of paedophilia compared to homosexuality. You're wrong. Child porn kinda requires that children be, you know, *exploited* sexually... that's quite directly harmful. And the consumers of this shit ENCOURAGE that exploitation. Creating child porn* is directly harmful. Masturbating to it isn't. If it encourages sexual exploitation of children, then it's indirectly harmful. *the kind that's made with actual children, at least, not drawings of children or whatever.
|
|
|
Post by wmdkitty on Apr 14, 2009 13:52:40 GMT -5
clockworkgirl21 -- Personally, I didn't choose it, but if someone said they did (which I have met people like that) I wouldn't think of them as any different than myself.The only people I've *ever* heard claim it was a choice, or that they "chose", are fucking Christfag "ex-gays" in denial. NOBODY CHOOSES TO BE GAY (or bi, trans, whatever.)
|
|
|
Post by wackadoodle on Apr 14, 2009 18:07:37 GMT -5
I don't get how someone can choose it either, the ability to consciously choose who turns you on seems like a very handy skill. I'd make myself like obese uggos, easy pickings if your actually attracted to them.
|
|
|
Post by Sandafluffoid on Apr 14, 2009 18:27:28 GMT -5
You're wrong. Child porn kinda requires that children be, you know, *exploited* sexually... that's quite directly harmful. And the consumers of this shit ENCOURAGE that exploitation. Creating child porn* is directly harmful. Masturbating to it isn't. If it encourages sexual exploitation of children, then it's indirectly harmful. *the kind that's made with actual children, at least, not drawings of children or whatever. I would extend that to say that paying for child porn would also be damaging, as that is effectively financing child abuse. I don't know, but I imagine that most child pornographers would want more motive to risk huge prison sentences than just helping another paedophile toss himself off.
|
|
|
Post by clockworkgirl21 on Apr 14, 2009 21:02:18 GMT -5
How do you know no one chooses to be gay? I don't know if it's a choice for some people or not. But it's be ignorant to say "NO ONE" chooses it, because I haven't met every gay person in the world.
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Apr 14, 2009 21:11:47 GMT -5
The only people I've *ever* heard claim it was a choice, or that they "chose", are fucking Christfag "ex-gays" in denial. NOBODY CHOOSES TO BE GAY (or bi, trans, whatever.) I'd go for being bi if I had the choice.
|
|
|
Post by wmdkitty on Apr 14, 2009 21:24:39 GMT -5
How do you know no one chooses to be gay? I don't know if it's a choice for some people or not. But it's be ignorant to say "NO ONE" chooses it, because I haven't met every gay person in the world. Every gay person I've *ever* talked to has said, emphatically, that it is NOT a choice, and if they could choose, they would have chosen to be straight. NOBODY CHOOSES TO BE GAY.
|
|
Panthera
Full Member
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png)
Here kitty kitty...
Posts: 229
|
Post by Panthera on Apr 14, 2009 23:40:58 GMT -5
I would guess that at least some of the people who claim to "choose" to be gay, are actually bisexuals who are just more strongly attracted to members of the same sex - which, I suppose, could be mistakenly construed as "choosing to be gay."
But that's just my take on it.
|
|
|
Post by perv on Apr 15, 2009 1:53:02 GMT -5
I would extend that to say that paying for child porn would also be damaging, as that is effectively financing child abuse. I don't know, but I imagine that most child pornographers would want more motive to risk huge prison sentences than just helping another paedophile toss himself off. That's what I would think. Paying for it, obviously very directly supports making it. With other types of "consuming" it's harder to say. For instance if two people trade child porn, that makes it more valuable, effectively they get double the their value out of it. So that encourages production in some sense. When it's given away, no strings attached, on <insert p2p service> that increases supply, which arguably makes it less valuable. But again, it's hard to say. How do you know no one chooses to be gay? I don't know if it's a choice for some people or not. But it's be ignorant to say "NO ONE" chooses it, because I haven't met every gay person in the world. It depends on what is meant by "gay". If you define it as an exclusive sexual preference for one's own sex, then it'ss impossible to choose by definition, and anyone did choose would be considered bisexual instead. If you define it as seeking same-sex partners preferentially for some period of time, then it's obvious that it could be choice. If it's something in between... ![???](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/huh.png) It probably depends on how you define "choose" too. I suspect sexuality can be more fluid than many people believe, so it might be a choice in some sense. But I doubt many people can change it with a simple conscious decision.
|
|
|
Post by SaveTheBales on Apr 15, 2009 11:20:20 GMT -5
What pisses me off about this whole goddamn "choice/not a choice" argument is the root assumption: Who the hell are we to assume how another's gender-specific preference is derived?
Answer? It's not our choice! If you can't verify the veracity of an opinion with the whole of humanity, fuck off. NO one can assume another's motives for any given desire. Sure, psychologists might beg to differ. But documented behavioral patterns based on observation are germain to the subjects observed (and then made ancillary to the rest of us). Try to find at least two precisely identical individuals. That's identical in every friggin' potential variable. Not likely.
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Apr 15, 2009 18:41:06 GMT -5
Try to find at least two precisely identical individuals. That's identical in every friggin' potential variable. Not likely. That's not how the social sciences work. Try to find two exactly identical economies, or identical polities. It's just not gonna happen. That doesn't mean that the social sciences are 'weak', it means that their conclusions have to be broader and drawn from history, rather than tests. They can still be equally as objective, it's just much harder.
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Apr 15, 2009 18:57:10 GMT -5
The social sciences never have the same rigidity that the physical sciences do. For one simple reason too, repetition. I can recreate the exact same circumstances for, say, an assay measuring the activity of the mitochondrial membrane (just because I did this recently). I can't do the same for historical events.
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Apr 15, 2009 19:15:48 GMT -5
The social sciences never have the same rigidity that the physical sciences do. For one simple reason too, repetition. I can recreate the exact same circumstances for, say, an assay measuring the activity of the mitochondrial membrane (just because I did this recently). I can't do the same for historical events. Sure they can. Just in a different way, and only for some things. Take what I've been learning in a Journalism course at my uni: the propaganda model. Either Chomsky and Herman are right, and the media tends to not report atrocities or bad stuff of great importance comitted by countries on our side, or they don't. And the same with the media on their side: either Pravda reported the bad stuff done by the Soviet high command, or it didn''t. Either the South China Post does, or it doesn't. We can't test it like the hard sciences, so we look at case studies. And I think that it's pretty much proven. But you can't say 'the media will never report bad stuff done by the good guys', because (even if it were true) you couldn't prove it. The social sciences looks at trends and relationships, not hard data. But it can come up with facts.
|
|
|
Post by devilschaplain2 on Apr 15, 2009 19:34:32 GMT -5
|
|