Watch and consider V (hillarious)

[OldWiseGuy]

"...looks like it was designed..." What does design look like to you? How do you tell if something "looks designed?"

I'll refer you to the story about the judge who when asked to define pornography said, "I can't define, but I know it when I see it."

 

[Subduction Zone]

If that's the way you took it I can't argue.

You could always apologize.

You have to see it from my point of view. I'm like a coach. I appreciate what my players do correctly. It's what they are missing that really concerns me.

Your "players" are missing the fact that we are evolved beings. That does not negate Christianity, merely some of the creation myth of Genesis. Others, such as the Noah's Ark story, were shown to be myths even longer ago.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'll refer you to the story about the judge who when asked to define pornography said, "I can't define, but I know it when I see it."

And that poor answer is why pornography is legal. He really could not identify it. He was being dishonest.

Now I can explain to you why child porn is wrong. I doubt if you could come up with a good reason for regular porn to be wrong.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

And that poor answer is why pornography is legal. He really could not identify it. He was being dishonest.

I think he was being honest.

Now I can explain to you why child porn is wrong. I doubt if you could come up with a good reason for regular porn to be wrong.

Are you defending 'regular' porn?

Porn is wrong because of the bad effect it has on society, much like pot.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think he was being honest.

He may have thought that he was being honest. He clearly was not.

Are you defending 'regular' porn?

Why not? Countless people enjoy it. It is more than likely a positive source for society on average.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Why not? Countless people enjoy it. It is more than likely a positive source for society on average.

What is the scientific opinion? I would think that any more nonsense and people's heads would explode.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What is the scientific opinion?

That it has obvious benefits. As porn usage goes up, sex crimes go down:

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/28803/title/Porn--Good-for-us-/

 

[Subduction Zone]

A better source that points out the same thing:

Pornography: Beneficial or Detrimental?

I could go on. There have been no real drawbacks to porn. "Porn addiction" is mostly nonsense. There may be a few people out there that can't control themselves, but one has to wonder what they would to to relieve themselves if porn was not available. They could be the people that do not rape when porn is available.

If people do not like porn, they can simply avoid it. Forcing someone to watch or see it that did not want to would be wrong too of course. So if you don't want to see it, don't watch it. And you do not have to feel guilty for not wanting to watch it, nor should others hassle you for that. Of course turnabout is fair play. You should not hassle your friends, coworkers, and neighbors that like porn.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

That it has obvious benefits. As porn usage goes up, sex crimes go down:

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/28803/title/Porn--Good-for-us-/

So correlation does equal causation.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

A better source that points out the same thing:

Pornography: Beneficial or Detrimental?

I could go on. There have been no real drawbacks to porn. "Porn addiction" is mostly nonsense. There may be a few people out there that can't control themselves, but one has to wonder what they would to to relieve themselves if porn was not available. They could be the people that do not rape when porn is available.

If people do not like porn, they can simply avoid it. Forcing someone to watch or see it that did not want to would be wrong too of course. So if you don't want to see it, don't watch it. And you do not have to feel guilty for not wanting to watch it, nor should others hassle you for that. Of course turnabout is fair play. You should not hassle your friends, coworkers, and neighbors that like porn.

There are much more comprehensive studies available that show more of the negative aspects of porn. Men's Health has a good one (I didn't post it because the visuals aren't appropriate here).

 

[Speedwell]

There are much more comprehensive studies available that show more of the negative aspects of porn. Men's Health has a good one (I didn't post it because the visuals aren't appropriate here).

That's all very well, but it won't deflect us from the fact that you have no idea of what "design" is, or what it "looks like."

But you are not alone. The ID position boils down to this:

"We know evolution couldn't do it because that would interfere with our religious beliefs, so it must have been designed--whatever that means (and we really don't care what it means as long as evolution didn't do it)."

 

[OldWiseGuy]

That's all very well, but it won't deflect us from the fact that you have no idea of what "design" is, or what it "looks like."

But you are not alone. The ID position boils down to this:

"We know evolution couldn't do it because that would interfere with our religious beliefs, so it must have been designed--whatever that means (and we really don't care what it means as long as evolution didn't do it)."

Tangents aren't necessarily deflection.

My position has more to do with what is obvious than my beliefs. It's an "eyes to see" thing.

Science articles on the creation are replete with the term "design". I heard it again last evening watching NatGeo. If I hadn't been debating the point I probably wouldn't have noticed. Writers of these shows should be cautioned not to use inappropriate terms when describing the physical world. It might confuse people.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So correlation does equal causation.

Not necessarily. That was not the claim. But the claims of the "evils of pornography" have been shown to be false.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There are much more comprehensive studies available that show more of the negative aspects of porn. Men's Health has a good one (I didn't post it because the visuals aren't appropriate here).

You could still link it, though "Men's Health" does not hold a candle to Psychology Today in respect from the experts in the field. One can find sources that support almost any argument. Then one must look and see how valid the source is and how valid their references are. I will take Psychology Today any day over a magazine such as Men's Health.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Not necessarily. That was not the claim. But the claims of the "evils of pornography" have been shown to be false.

I doubt that this could be 'shown'.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Tangents aren't necessarily deflection.

My position has more to do with what is obvious than my beliefs. It's an "eyes to see" thing.

Science articles on the creation are replete with the term "design". I heard it again last evening watching NatGeo. If I hadn't been debating the point I probably wouldn't have noticed. Writers of these shows should be cautioned not to use inappropriate terms when describing the physical world. It might confuse people.

Yes, but what you are performing is an equivocation error every time that you run across that word.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I doubt that this could be 'shown'.

Then you have not paid attention to the claims of the anti-pornography nuts.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

You could still link it, though "Men's Health" does not hold a candle to Psychology Today in respect from the experts in the field. One can find sources that support almost any argument. Then one must look and see how valid the source is and how valid their references are. I will take Psychology Today any day over a magazine such as Men's Health.

Most articles on the subject rely on credible sources. I read yours and Men's Health. Men's Health was not one-sided like yours was.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Then you have not paid attention to the claims of the anti-pornography nuts.

I prefer the middle ground, not the extremes.