"Pornography Offends the Holy Ghost"

[Buddha Dharma]

I can't think of a context in which pornography is not bad.

I'm sure we both have our perspectives as to why we'd disagree. You don't have to get detailed if you don't wish

 

[Curious George]

You're crazy if you think I'm doing all that work over a claim a person on a message board made and didn't care to prove. If you don't care about it, I damn sure am not. It's a claim that's wrong going by simple logic, anyway.

I can understand your reluctance. My point is that if you really wanted to gain access to the information there are definitely ways to research it. This is not an inaccessible subject and it is not some wild outlandish claim. You wanted the source because I assume you had never heard that pornography impacts youth and you wanted to learn more. Well you can pursue that.

If the claim does not interest you, then you don't have to pursue it either. It is no skin off my nose either way.

 

[Curious George]

Please provide data showing that children watching porn or adults having sex is harmful for them.

Have you even explained why you think exposing children to this type of content is ok?

 

[Buddha Dharma]

Have you even explained why you think exposing children to this type of content is ok?

I haven't seen too much context established by either side regarding being for and against.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I can understand your reluctance. My point is that if you really wanted to gain access to the information there are definitely ways to research it. This is not an inaccessible subject and it is not some wild outlandish claim. You wanted the source because I assume you had never heard that pornography impacts youth and you wanted to learn more. Well you can pursue that.

If the claim does not interest you, then you don't have to pursue it either. It is no skin off my nose either way.

I'm not naive or unfamiliar with the subject. It's common for religious conservatives to claim that porn is some pernicious force of evil that destroys youth and devours souls. They make the claim that it's harmful to kids all the time. But it's never proven or shown to be true. You're the one who apparently doesn't want to pursue the subject so you might as well not reply to me about it anymore.

 

[Curious George]

I haven't seen too much context established by either side regarding being for and against.

18 U.S. Code § 1470 - Transfer of obscene material to minors

18 U.S. Code § 2252 - Certain activities relating to material involving the sexual exploitation of minors

47 U.S. Code § 223 - Obscene or harassing telephone calls in the District of Columbia or in interstate or foreign communications

I needn't make my case, it has already been made. It is abuse.

 

[Curious George]

I'm not naive or unfamiliar with the subject. It's common for religious conservatives to claim that porn is some pernicious force of evil that destroys youth and devours souls.

I am not making such claims.

They make the claim that it's harmful to kids all the time.

It is not age appropriate by our societies standards. Therefore we have not equipped and do not equipped children with the tools to process or understand it. Why would you think it is ok to expose children to porn?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I am not making such claims.


It is not age appropriate by our societies standards. Therefore we have not equipped and do not equipped children with the tools to process or understand it. Why would you think it is ok to expose children to porn?

Society's standards are stupid since we expose children to violence without a second thought so that argument doesn't work on me. At the end of the day, this is just about our sexually repressed culture and its fears of sex and hatred of the human body.

No one in this thread is supposing making kids watch porn so don't try to spin our words to make it sound like that. I know I'm just saying that it is not inherently harmful or a big deal if a kid sees some porn or accidentally walks in on their parents having sex or whatever. You're acting like it's on par with sexual assault. Give me a break.

 

[Curious George]

Society's standards are stupid since we expose children to violence without a second thought so that argument doesn't work on me. At the end of the day, this is just about our sexually repressed culture and its fears of sex and hatred of the human body.

No one in this thread is supposing making kids watch porn so don't try to spin our words to make it sound like that. I know I'm just saying that it is not inherently harmful or a big deal if a kid sees some porn or accidentally walks in on their parents having sex or whatever. You're acting like it's on par with sexual assault. Give me a break.

I do think it is harmful to expose children to violence that is not age appropriate. And I certainly do not think it is the end of the world if a child sees something that is not age appropriate. Nor am I suggesting that it is the same level of harm as assault or sexual assault. Yet it is on the same scale. Just because it is less traumatizing or harmful does not mean that it is not harmful.

Parents should absolutely be concerned with their young children being exposed to material that is not age appropriate. They should not enable children to continue to access material which is not age appropriate. If there child is exposed to such material they should help by giving the child the tools to process it.

Why do you think that people should be apathetic with regard to children viewing age-innapropriate material?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I do think it is harmful to expose children to violence that is not age appropriate. And I certainly do not think it is the end of the world if a child sees something that is not age appropriate. Nor am I suggesting that it is the same level of harm as assault or sexual assault. Yet it is on the same scale. Just because it is less traumatizing or harmful does not mean that it is not harmful.

Parents should absolutely be concerned with their young children being exposed to material that is not age appropriate. They should not enable children to continue to access material which is not age appropriate. If there child is exposed to such material they should help by giving the child the tools to process it.

Why do you think that people should be apathetic with regard to children viewing age-innapropriate material?

You have not presented any evidence that it is harmful so I am disregarding that claim. I have no reason to entertain it.

Sex itself is not harmful so seeing it cannot be inherently harmful. It's a natural and healthy thing.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

18 U.S. Code § 1470 - Transfer of obscene material to minors

18 U.S. Code § 2252 - Certain activities relating to material involving the sexual exploitation of minors

47 U.S. Code § 223 - Obscene or harassing telephone calls in the District of Columbia or in interstate or foreign communications

I needn't make my case, it has already been made. It is abuse.

Appeals to authority aren't really a case. Especially secular law. I am not taking part in this argument by the way, just offering some constructive criticism as it were. I will say it's odd how it is all about the children with conservatives til it comes to child abuse they agree with like bullying and demonizing certain differences. Like being LGBT.

 

[Thief]

from the op title.....

do you really thinks the Holy Ghost cares what you have seen?

 

[Curious George]

Appeals to authority aren't really a case. Especially secular law. I am not taking part in this argument by the way, just offering some constructive criticism as it were. I will say it's odd how it is all about the children with conservatives til it comes to child abuse they agree with like bullying and demonizing certain differences. Like being LGBT.

I do not understand what the point regarding conservatives has to do with the price of tea.

My point is that the majority of people recognize that exposing children to explicit material that is not age appropriate is harmful. In other words, my case has been made and the majority is convinced.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

I do not understand what the point regarding conservatives has to do with the price of tea.

My point is that the majority of people recognize that exposing children to explicit material that is not age appropriate is harmful. In other words, my case has been made and the majority is convinced.

Great. I don't see anyone here advocating children be given access to such material, though, so what's your point?

 

[Curious George]

You have not presented any evidence that it is harmful so I am disregarding that claim. I have no reason to entertain it.

Sex itself is not harmful so seeing it cannot be inherently harmful. It's a natural and healthy thing.

That does not sound like a good use of logic. Still, I think it is important to note that I have not suggested that seeing sex is inherently harmful. I suggested that given our society exposing young children to porn and sex is harmful. I find it interesting that you and a couple others apparently think that it is not harmful, problematic, or something to guard against.

 

[Curious George]

Great. I don't see anyone here advocating children be given access to such material, though, so what's your point?

That it is harmful. That it is not ok to let young children watch porn. That we should in fact guard against it. It seems to me that saying "oh, there is nothing wrong with an 8 year old watching porn" is arguing that we should give children access to it, or at least we shouldn't be bothered to concern ourselves with young children's exposure to porn.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

That it is harmful. That it is not ok to let young children watch porn. That we should in fact guard against it. It seems to me that saying "oh, there is nothing wrong with an 8 year old watching porn" is arguing that we should give children access to it, or at least we shouldn't be bothered to concern ourselves with young children's exposure to porn.

Uhuh.

 

[Curious George]

Uhuh.

Well, I guess I am glad we got that out of the way.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

That does not sound like a good use of logic. Still, I think it is important to note that I have not suggested that seeing sex is inherently harmful. I suggested that given our society exposing young children to porn and sex is harmful. I find it interesting that you and a couple others apparently think that it is not harmful, problematic, or something to guard against.

That is not what I said. I just said it is not inherently harmful and that our society's sexual mores are repressive, shaming and fearful. That doesn't mean I think it's okay to expose children to porn or have sex in front of them. Porn is fantasy and requires some understanding to put it in its proper context and young kids aren't likely to get it. But not the same as saying it's harmful for them to come across it. You just talk to your kids about it, letting them know that it's a fantasy thing for mature people, there's nothing wrong with it but they'll understand more when they get older.

 

[Curious George]

That is not what I said. I just said it is not inherently harmful and that our society's sexual mores are repressive, shaming and fearful. That doesn't mean I think it's okay to expose children to porn or have sex in front of them.

(bold mine)

Why do you not think it is okay to expose children to porn or have sex in front of them?