Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 5
Posted: 5/19/2005 4:48:55 AM EST
Happy Victims of Pornography Month!

Predators & Pornography
A disturbing link.

By Penny Nance

On February 2, 2003, when seven-year-old Danielle van Dam disappeared from her family home in the middle of the night, every mother’s nightmare was played out on national television for almost a month while authorities searched for the girl. When Danielle’s body was found at the end of that month, the police and prosecutors discovered a frightening story about a neighbor of Danielle’s who had computer files filled with child pornography and even a sickening cartoon video of the rape of a young girl.

According to a report by Robert Peters, president of Morality in Media, on the link between pornography and violent sex crimes, the prosecutor in the Danielle van Dam case said “The video represented [the defendant’s] sexual fantasies and inspired the abduction, rape, and murder of Danielle.” According to Raymond Pierce, a retired NYPD detective who worked on the sex-crimes squad for many years and is now a criminal-profiling consultant, about 80 percent of rapists and serial killers are heavy pornography users. I was a victim of an attempted rape by a disturbed man who turned out to be involved in pornography.

May is Victims of Pornography Month. Today Senator Sam Brownback (R., Kan.), Rep. Katherine Harris (R., Fla.), Rep. Joe Pitts (R., Pa.), and leaders from the values community will participate in a summit to explore the troubling connection between pornography and violence against women and children.

Florida attorney general Charlie Crist advises parents that “we must never lose sight of the fact that sexual predators make the online world a dangerous place for innocent children. Parents must be ever-vigilant to make sure their children are not exposed to images and messages that would have been unthinkable just a generation ago.” Crist warns that we cannot allow the Internet to be a “pipeline for pornography aimed at children.” But while parents can use available means to protect their children when they are in their own homes, there is a cultural climate surrounding our children that threatens them the way Danielle van Dam was threatened. Because of the availability of pornography online, there is no way of knowing what lurks in the hearts of our neighborhoods.

More needs to be done to evaluate the connection between violent predatory behavior and pornography, and to crack down on these violent predators. Police and law-enforcement officers across the country report brutal instances in which those addicted to pornography utilized its sadistic images on their female and child victims.

Just this past February, the New York Times reported a story about a teenage babysitter who had raped three young children he was watching in their homes. According to the Times, his pattern was to watch pornographic videos with the oldest of the children, a 12-year-old boy, and intimidate them all by torturing them with a knife and threats to their family members. Perhaps one of the most notorious serial killers, Ted Bundy, participated in an interview with Dr. James Dobson shortly before he was executed. In the interview, Bundy explained, “I’ve lived in prison for a long time now. And I’ve met a lot of men who were motivated to commit violence like me. And without exception, every one of them was deeply involved in pornography — without exception, without exception — deeply influenced and consumed by an addiction to pornography.”

Since 1956, the Supreme Court has made clear that the First Amendment does not protect obscene materials. If we know from the perpetrators themselves how obscenity contributes to violence against women and children, what can we do?

-We need to fund more studies of the addiction to pornography and its effects on violent behavior.
-Parents can install filters on any computer used by children and keep the family computer in a central location, not in a child's bedroom or someplace where parents might not regularly see it.
-We need to demand tougher law enforcement on the state and federal level. The Bush administration is stepping up federal enforcement of obscenity laws. This is a good first step. Contact the U.S. attorney for your district and ask what they are doing to enforce the laws.
-We need tougher state penalties against both possession and distribution of child porn and passing any kind of pornographic material to kids. Experts indicate that pornography is often used by pedophiles to break down the resistance of child victims.
-Parents should check out their state’s penalties for child rape and make sure offenders are going to jail and staying there for these offenses. Florida, for example, just passed a tough new law after the tragedy involving Jessica Lunsford, whose killer was a recently released violent offender.
-We should pass legislation to address the threat to children on the Internet. This includes chat sites, websites, spam, and peer-to-peer networks. Peer-to-Peer networks are of particular concern because they are widely visited by kids and offer porn for free without any age verification.


As Rep. Katherine Harris has pointed out, "Pornography displays human beings as objects, obliterating the wall between an individual's sick fantasies and the compulsion to act upon them. Often, the monsters who hurt women and children start with this malignant desensitizer." We need to all work together to find better ways to protect women and children against this violence.


www.nationalreview.com/comment/nance200505190815.asp

Didn't the Supreme Court recently hold that virtual child pornography is a constitutional right?
Link Posted: 5/19/2005 4:50:37 AM EST
So people are too intentioanlly dense to understand that if you gas up the car, the next "natural" thing to do is to go for a drive.

Link Posted: 5/19/2005 4:59:09 AM EST

Originally Posted By garandman:
So people are too intentioanlly dense to understand that if you gas up the car, the next "natural" thing to do is to go for a drive.




+1, G-man.

We just had a local pervert convicted of molesting and photgraphing his acts on numerous 8 to 13 yo girls. The cops had pulled him over under a DUI suspision, and found his truck full of pictures of his 'favorites'. They secured warrants, and found all kinds of child porn in his possesion.

He has been convicted and will never get out.

Porn is free speech.
Link Posted: 5/19/2005 5:09:22 AM EST
[Last Edit: 5/19/2005 5:09:58 AM EST by bvmjethead]
Having looked at porn from time to time all my life, I can honestly say I could have and should have lived without it. I make it my business not to look at porn as much as humanly (and with God's help) possible.

I am not a proponent of banning porn, it is part of free speech. Americans should hold themselves to a higher authority and avoid something so destructive to their spiritual being.

I feel that the answer to the porn/child molestation/rape problem in America, (and the correlation does exist) is in the punishment stage. These guys for the most part do not change. They do not want to change.

The punishment should fit the crime.

Death to all 1st time convicted child molersters.

Death to all 1st time convicted rapists.
Link Posted: 5/19/2005 5:09:32 AM EST
[Last Edit: 5/19/2005 5:12:37 AM EST by JIMBEAM]
If every man that viewed porn raped someone, 90% of the male population would be in prison.

I bet a lot of those guys had drinking and drug problem too.

I am not supporting porn particularly child porn (those bastards need to die). These guys were fucked up long before they saw porn.
Link Posted: 5/19/2005 5:11:24 AM EST
Don't you know the next thing you do after loading a gun is go on a shooting spree?

Kent
Link Posted: 5/19/2005 5:25:04 AM EST
[Last Edit: 5/19/2005 5:25:35 AM EST by Scottman]
Repeat after me:
Porn does not affect the mind
Porn does not affect the mind
etc. ad nauseum.


[/sarcasm]
Link Posted: 5/19/2005 5:33:24 AM EST
correlation is necessary but not sufficient for establishing a causal relationship
Link Posted: 5/19/2005 5:37:09 AM EST
Link Posted: 5/19/2005 5:38:11 AM EST

Originally Posted By Ben70:
correlation is necessary but not sufficient for establishing a causal relationship



+1. Intuitively, I do not doubt a causal relationship, but this does little to prove the point.
Link Posted: 5/19/2005 5:42:03 AM EST

Originally Posted By Jarhead_22:
Where does it end? At the point at which the inanimate object being blamed for the actions of human beings happens to be something to which you object?



Porn is not an 'inanimate object'. Porn is action on display.

People emulate what they see on TV. Fact. Why is it any different with porn?
Link Posted: 5/19/2005 5:42:18 AM EST
If there were no porn, there would be no sexual predators?

The assumption is, because sexual predators like porn, anyone who likes porn is a sexual predator.

This is the same fallacy as used by gun control, guns are used in crimes, therefore all gun owners are criminals.

Link Posted: 5/19/2005 5:42:59 AM EST

Originally Posted By Jarhead_22:
Assassins and firearms, a disturbing link...
Child drownings and swimming pools, a disturbing link...
Poisoners and pesticides, a disturbing link...
Arsonists and kerosene, a disturbing link...
Bank robbers and ski masks, a disturbing link...
Kidnappers and rope, a disturbing link...

Where does it end? At the point at which the inanimate object being blamed for the actions of human beings happens to be something to which you object?



Does the rope plant images in the kidnappers mind? Does the kerosene and inspire and motivate the arsonist?

The influence of porn is more active than passive.
Link Posted: 5/19/2005 5:45:54 AM EST

Originally Posted By bvmjethead:
Having looked at porn from time to time all my life, I can honestly say I could have and should have lived without it. I make it my business not to look at porn as much as humanly (and with God's help) possible.

I am not a proponent of banning porn, it is part of free speech. Americans should hold themselves to a higher authority and avoid something so destructive to their spiritual being.

I feel that the answer to the porn/child molestation/rape problem in America, (and the correlation does exist) is in the punishment stage. These guys for the most part do not change. They do not want to change.

The punishment should fit the crime.

Death to all 1st time convicted child molersters.

Death to all 1st time convicted rapists.



I agree with you and that is the reason that more crimes are being committed now days because people see that they can get away with stuff. If they made punishments that would truly deter people from committing them, then we would be well on our way to preventing them from happening in the first place. Someone once told me (and I never did confirm it) that the punishment in Turkey for first offense for drunk driving is execution. I don't know about y'all, but that would sure as hell make me really think twice about driving drunk!!
Link Posted: 5/19/2005 5:46:51 AM EST
If they're going to blame pornography for rape, the next thing you know they'll be blaming guns for murders!


Oh where does it all end?
Link Posted: 5/19/2005 5:48:36 AM EST
Link Posted: 5/19/2005 5:49:19 AM EST
[Last Edit: 5/19/2005 5:50:24 AM EST by Jarhead_22]
Link Posted: 5/19/2005 5:55:35 AM EST

Originally Posted By Jarhead_22:
Porn has never inspired anything more in me than an erection.




Honestly?

Ever learned a sexual position or technique from watching porn?

You shave anywhere other than your face? Where did you first see that done?

Does your girl shave? Did you influence her to do that?

Can you honestly sit there and tell me that nothing (specifically porn) in the world you live in influences you to do anything other that what you conger up in your strong mind?

Right........


Link Posted: 5/19/2005 5:57:20 AM EST

Originally Posted By Jarhead_22:
Porn has never inspired anything more in me than an erection.



You exhibted a response.

A gun, rope or kerosene will inspire nothing in a 'normal' person.

Active or animate vs. passive or inanimate.
Link Posted: 5/19/2005 5:58:05 AM EST
[Last Edit: 5/19/2005 5:59:07 AM EST by SemperParatusEmt]

Originally Posted By fizassist:

Originally Posted By Ben70:
correlation is necessary but not sufficient for establishing a causal relationship



+1. Intuitively, I do not doubt a causal relationship, but this does little to prove the point.



+1. there may bea positive coorelation between the 2, but to say viewing porn makes youa sexual predator , c-mon. In my psychology classes from college, I seem to remember another correaltion, most sexual predators also seemed to like to driv alot, and most have either expressed intreset in law enforcement or had actually gone thru the interview process. To say there is a " Disturbing link" Is just being naieve.
Link Posted: 5/19/2005 5:59:03 AM EST
Link Posted: 5/19/2005 6:00:50 AM EST
Link Posted: 5/19/2005 6:05:02 AM EST
Link Posted: 5/19/2005 6:08:51 AM EST
Link Posted: 5/19/2005 6:13:23 AM EST

Originally Posted By EricTheHun:

Originally Posted By TomJefferson:
OMG! I just realized that 80% of murderers have guns and I own one!


Calm down!

There's no need to get excited!

I will IM you my FFL address and you just quietly send those nasty weapons down to me....

Eric The(I'llKnowWhatToDoWithThem)Hun





Can people send their old Playboy's to you as well?


We wouldn't want those naughty Jezebels to tempt anyone into a life of child molestation or anything.


Link Posted: 5/19/2005 6:14:01 AM EST
Not to be flippant, but what comes first, the chicken or the egg? The viewing of child porn, or the pre-existing and innate desire to have sex with children? To me, the kiddie porn is an offshoot or biproduct of the person being fu**ed up and a pedophile, not the other way around.

Many of us here, that are normal heterosexual men, most likely have some sort of normal smut in our lives...magazines, videos, etc....so it's not a great leap to expect that pedophiles would have kiddie porn in their lives. I don't think for one minute that this is acceptable or protected by the 1st Amendment, I'm just saying I don't believe it *causes* people to become pedophiles or commit child sexual abuse.

There have been studies in the past in Europe that showed that when pedophiles have access to books and movies depicting sex acts with children, they are LESS inclined to actually do them. Some of this came out in all of the hullaballoo over the President's Commission on Pornography or whatever it was called, back in the 70s, iirc.

I used to be a firm believer in the old adage of paying your debt to society and all that...but it's becoming more apparent every year that pedophiles cannot be "rehabilitated", so we're certainly gonna have to rethink how/if we introduce them back into society after they serve time for whatever crime they've gotten convicted of.

Link Posted: 5/19/2005 6:14:04 AM EST

Originally Posted By TomJefferson:
OMG! I just realized that 80% of murderers have guns and I own one!



Again, NOT the same. A firearm is an inanimate object. Pornography, like written material, is designed to transfer information. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are essential pieces of information that define our liberties. The Communist Manifesto is a horrific document created to facilitate the destruction and or enslavement of mankind. The paper that each of these was written on is inanimate. The ink is inanimate. Each individual word is nearly inanimate if removed from the original context. But when you put those words together and create a DOCUMENT and you put forth an idea.....then it becomesa transfereable medium for an idea. Be it love or hate. Be it freedom or slavery.

Pornography exists to dehumanise. It exists to seperate sex from love. Pornography proposes by its' very action that the feeling of sexual pleasure or desire exists independently from the philosophical causes of that desire. It promotes that effect is more important than cause. Pornography by and large is very dangerous in the manner that it allows folks to vicariously enjoy what they have not earned. It proposes that SEX and LOVE are serperable and that LOVE is an unneccessary component of sexual desire. It, in effect, attempts to remove value, repect, love and care from the human equation. Love, desire, a sense of value, a sense of ethics that defines value and or desire and sexual congress and the joys that go with it are NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.
Link Posted: 5/19/2005 6:15:51 AM EST
Link Posted: 5/19/2005 6:16:50 AM EST
Link Posted: 5/19/2005 6:18:46 AM EST
Link Posted: 5/19/2005 6:20:55 AM EST
[Last Edit: 5/19/2005 6:28:15 AM EST by Admiral_Crunch]
Wow! 80% of sexual predators watch porn!

I wonder what percentage of the adult male population watches porn? I'm guessing it's pretty darn close to 80%.


Didn't the Supreme Court recently hold that virtual child pornography is a constitutional right?


I believe the ruling you're referring to was that child-porn laws are designed to prevent and punish the victimization of children. Since animated, simulated, or written depictions of sex with minors don't involve any actual children, the law didn't apply. I don't recall the name of the case, so I don't know exactly what the ruling said.
Link Posted: 5/19/2005 6:25:44 AM EST

about 80 percent of rapists and serial killers are heavy pornography users

How does that 80% compare to the same age and income group that is not in a relationship? I bet now with the Internet (especially w/ Usenet & Bit Torrent) and soft-core porn on cable, over half of the single males not in a relationship of the males under 40 view porn. Porn is too prevalent in society among people in the demographic group we're talking about to make 80% a smoking gun.z
Link Posted: 5/19/2005 6:28:55 AM EST
Oral sex was not only unheard of 40 years ago, it would have been regarded as gross...but along came porn and suddenly everyone was "trying it".

Monkey see, monkey do. Advertisers spend billions on ads to get people to connect happiness with driving a sports car... or buying a product... so we know that visuals have a profound impact on our proclivities and prompt us to act. It's not automatic, it's statistical: run a 60 second spot in an audience of 1 million and you will provoke a couple thousand people to DO something that they would not have done otherwise.

That's how marketting firms get business...

So why would porn suddenly not follow the same human laws of suggestion?

Not everyone who sees a commercial for Land Rovers goes out and buys one. But some do who wouldn't have.

Not everyone who sees porn seeks out prostitutes...but some do. One feature of porn is the law of diminishing returns... guys first get into soft-porn like our BOTD threads...then after awhile it's no longer exciting so get into full nudity...then penetration...then all the fetishes...then....if they don't control it, the more gross stuff.

So it's a mind-drug... "eye candy" says it all... you can get addicted. And the visuals of seeing someone "in extasy" with implausibly awesome babes who just LOVE to get a man's attention even when saying "No" has GOT to have an effect on guys who are addicted and on one range of the bell curve.

Marketting being what it is... and psychology being what it is... guys who otherwise would just have been jerks and loners become monsters thanks to the suggestions and visuals provided by the fantasy world of Porn. Marriages are harmed as guys dream of babes other than their wives...and sex becomes a self-centered sport rather than a sign and summit of romantic love.

So outlawing Porn and its distribution will protect some people from becoming addicts but would fuel a new underground industry like the illegal drug world...

You'll save some people but at a cost. We have to decide if we as a society are ready to pay the price to keep kids safe from such addictive mind-drugs as porn... and unfortunately I don't think we are. I think our generation X and Y are already hooked. It'll take Gen Z to go clean.

Link Posted: 5/19/2005 6:32:40 AM EST

Originally Posted By Green_Canoe:
Don't you know the next thing you do after loading a gun is go on a shooting spree?

Kent



There is no "biological gun drive"

There is a "biological sex drive"

Link Posted: 5/19/2005 6:36:11 AM EST
Saying that porn causes rape is the same as saying guns cause murder.

Give it a rest already.
Link Posted: 5/19/2005 6:38:04 AM EST

Originally Posted By JusAdBellum:
Oral sex was not only unheard of 40 years ago, it would have been regarded as gross...but along came porn and suddenly everyone was "trying it".




40 years ago must have been the dark ages of sex since the Ancient Greeks, Ancient Romans, Ancient Peoples of the Asian subcontinent and Shakespeare's contemporaries were well versed in all manner of sexual intercourse and assorted types of depravity.

As someone else had mentioned, I'd like to see what porn 'usage' is among non "serial killers and rapists" is versus "serial killer and rapist" porn usage before I would concede a correleation, much less causation.
Link Posted: 5/19/2005 6:38:09 AM EST

Originally Posted By JusAdBellum:
Oral sex was not only unheard of 40 years ago, it would have been regarded as gross...but along came porn and suddenly everyone was "trying it".



Umm, never opened a history book have you? It has been very common throughout history, even pre-porn history. Same with shaving, anal sex, and everything else. Nothing has been invented by the porn industry, just mass marketed.
Link Posted: 5/19/2005 6:39:11 AM EST

Originally Posted By Admiral_Crunch:

Didn't the Supreme Court recently hold that virtual child pornography is a constitutional right?


I believe the ruling you're referring to was that child-porn laws are designed to prevent and punish the victimization of children. Since animated, simulated, or written depictions of sex with minors don't involve any actual children, the law didn't apply. I don't recall the name of the case, so I don't know exactly what the ruling said.


I looked this up and the case was a little older than I thought (2002).

There was a federal law that banned virtual porn. The Supreme Court voted 6 to 3 that virtual child porn is protected by the first amendment. Link.
From Justice Kennedy's opinion:

The Government submits further that virtual child pornography whets the appetites of pedophiles and encourages them to engage in illegal conduct. This rationale cannot sustain the provision in question. The mere tendency of speech to encourage unlawful acts is not a sufficient reason for banning it. The government “cannot constitutionally premise legislation on the desirability of controlling a person’s private thoughts.” Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 566 (1969). First Amendment freedoms are most in danger when the government seeks to control thought or to justify its laws for that impermissible end. The right to think is the beginning of freedom, and speech must be protected from the government because speech is the beginning of thought.

To preserve these freedoms, and to protect speech for its own sake, the Court’s First Amendment cases draw vital distinctions between words and deeds, between ideas and conduct. See Kingsley Int’l Pictures Corp., 360 U.S., at 689; see also Bartnicki v. Vopper, 532 U.S. 514, 529 (2001) (“The normal method of deterring unlawful conduct is to impose an appropriate punishment on the person who engages in it”). The government may not prohibit speech because it increases the chance an unlawful act will be committed “at some indefinite future time.” Hess v. Indiana, 414 U.S. 105, 108 (1973) (per curiam). The government may suppress speech for advocating the use of force or a violation of law only if “such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.” Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444395 U.S. 444, 447 (1969) (per curiam). There is here no attempt, incitement, solicitation, or conspiracy. The Government has shown no more than a remote connection between speech that might encourage thoughts or impulses and any resulting child abuse. Without a significantly stronger, more direct connection, the Government may not prohibit speech on the ground that it may encourage pedophiles to engage in illegal conduct.

Link Posted: 5/19/2005 6:39:49 AM EST

Originally Posted By JusAdBellum:
Oral sex was not only unheard of 40 years ago, it would have been regarded as gross...but along came porn and suddenly everyone was "trying it".




Actually, sexually, there is NOTHING new under the sun. Sexual practices from oral sex, to sodomy to pedophila to WHATEVER have been around as long as ( of course much longer than ) recorded history. American society attempted to distance itself from it ( Hedonism ) because early on, despite our many mistakes and intentions both good and otherwise, it ( Hedonism ) was looked on with disdane for what it was: mindless amusement of little to no value. Our Puritanical anscestors felt that we were above such things and attempted to exorcise these things from the collective consciousness of Americans. Humans being what they are, it was a near exercise in futility and I believe they went about it in the wrong way in such a fasion that interest in all things sexual became more popular only for the reason that it was SO "verboten" for so long.
Link Posted: 5/19/2005 6:40:00 AM EST

Originally Posted By garandman:


There is no "biological gun drive"

There is a "biological sex drive"




Would you not concede that man has a biological urge to kill?
Link Posted: 5/19/2005 6:42:57 AM EST

Originally Posted By GetDown_M4A3:
Saying that porn causes rape is the same as saying guns cause murder.

Give it a rest already.



Seeing a gun doesn;t have a chemical reaction in EVERY human like seeing porn does.

Pornogrpahy plays on a biological chemical reaction called the sex drive as a sort of instinctual mechanism for the survival of the species.


Thus your gun to porn comparison doesn't hold.

NO ONE is saying porn is a legit excuse for any behavior.

We;re saying that porn has a PREDICTABLE reaction in every human, and that in 80% of child molestors, pron was a contributing factor.

But as I said initially, some people are too intentionally dense to see this indisputable correlation. YOu are prolly emotionally invested in wanting to see porn, just as I am emotionally invested in advocating Biblical principles.

Link Posted: 5/19/2005 6:44:57 AM EST

Originally Posted By legalese77:

Originally Posted By garandman:


There is no "biological gun drive"

There is a "biological sex drive"




Would you not concede that man has a biological urge to kill?



No. Absolutely not.

And certainly not simply because he is in the presence of a firearm.

Comparatively, there IS a copulation instinct in EVERY normal, healthy adult male when seeing pornography.

There is a self-preservation instinct, but that USUALLY evidences itself in flight, NOT fight.

Link Posted: 5/19/2005 6:47:22 AM EST

Originally Posted By Jarhead_22:
Assassins and firearms, a disturbing link...
Child drownings and swimming pools, a disturbing link...
Poisoners and pesticides, a disturbing link...
Arsonists and kerosene, a disturbing link...
Bank robbers and ski masks, a disturbing link...
Kidnappers and rope, a disturbing link...

Where does it end? At the point at which the inanimate object being blamed for the actions of human beings happens to be something to which you object?


How about "if criminals have guns, then all gun owners are criminals."
Link Posted: 5/19/2005 6:48:21 AM EST

Originally Posted By garandman:

Originally Posted By legalese77:

Originally Posted By garandman:


There is no "biological gun drive"

There is a "biological sex drive"




Would you not concede that man has a biological urge to kill?



No. Absolutely not.

And certainly not simply because he is in the presence of a firearm.

Comparatively, there IS a copulation instinct in EVERY normal, healthy adult male when seeing pornography.

There is a self-preservation instinct, but that USUALLY evidences itself in flight, NOT fight.




Aha, well no sense in arguing conclusions if we can't agree on the premises!
Link Posted: 5/19/2005 6:50:23 AM EST

Originally Posted By legalese77:
Aha, well no sense in arguing conclusions if we can't agree on the premises!



I agree.

Tho it DOES concern me somewhat that being in the presence of a gun makes you want to kill (with your killing instinct ) just like seeing porn makes you want to hump (with your sex drive).

Link Posted: 5/19/2005 6:51:09 AM EST

Originally Posted By bvmjethead:


The punishment should fit the crime.

Death to all 1st time convicted child molersters.

Death to all 1st time convicted rapists.



+1000
Link Posted: 5/19/2005 6:51:55 AM EST
Link Posted: 5/19/2005 6:54:03 AM EST
[Last Edit: 5/19/2005 6:55:41 AM EST by legalese77]

Originally Posted By garandman:

Originally Posted By legalese77:
Aha, well no sense in arguing conclusions if we can't agree on the premises!



I agree.

Tho it DOES concern me somewhat that being in the presence of a gun makes you want to kill (with your killing instinct ) just like seeing porn makes you want to hump (with your sex drive).




Whoa whoa whoa, you're extrapolating too far, my friend.

I NEVER meant to suggest that was the case.

I do think that man has an instinctual drive to kill. (whether it be to eat or to preserve life or to gain territory eliminate rivals or establish power)
I do not think this drive has anything to do with the mere presence of a firearm.
I also think man has an instinctual drive to copulate.
I do not think that this is triggered by the mere presence of porn. (seeing porn does not make me want to hump, as you put it)

These are the premises to which I refer. I do not and would not suggest that handling or viewing a firearm causes me or most ordinary folks to want to kill. I imagine that for some people it does but I would suspect that these people have deep rooted emotional or mental problems
Link Posted: 5/19/2005 6:57:38 AM EST

Originally Posted By TomJefferson:

Hiding from knowledge or evil is nor never was the solution but knowing ones enemy and facing it.

Tj



Yes, and given we KNOW the immense power of the human sex drive it is PREDICTABLE that porn would make that drive a dangerous tool in the hands of man.

Are rapists / child molestors guilty for their sins / crimes? YES.

Does porn increase their appetites? ABSOLUTELY.

Even the legal profession recognizes the concept of depraved indifference and a sort of "winding the watch spring" that causes crime. We prosecute people who commit acts that increase the lieklihood of crime.

And that EXACTLY what porn does.

Should we outlaw porn? I don't really want to go there.


But DO NOT look me in the eye and try to tell me porn doesn;t cause much of the sexual perversion we have today, and expect me to consider you logical.



Link Posted: 5/19/2005 6:59:44 AM EST

Originally Posted By Green_Canoe:
Don't you know the next thing you do after loading a gun is go on a shooting spree?

Kent



Ah, I see, you are saying that the only purpose of guns is to kill.

Go back to DU, Feinstein.
Link Posted: 5/19/2005 7:01:43 AM EST

Originally Posted By legalese77:
I do not and would not suggest that handling or viewing a firearm causes me or most ordinary folks to want to kill.



That's EXACTLY my point, and why the gun to porn comparison doesn't hold.

In the normal adult male, seeing a gun doesn't make you want to kill.

In the normal adult male, seeing porn ALWAYS makes you want to bang. Always.

That is both correlation and causality.

Now...

...as for child molestors, this report is showing 80% have an INDISPUTABLE correlation to porn.

So.....


You want porn? Fine. But live with the foreseeable consequences.



Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 5
Top Top