Pornography poll

[Skwim]

Nice try. I provided verifiable factual claims, backed by evidence including testimony, research and three separate references.

Two of your sources (posts 284 and 286) have absolutely nothing to do with pornography, the issue of this thread. The other one, as I have pointed out, is so biased as to be worthless. So, even though you may feel your "factual claims" are verifiable, you haven't demonstrated it.

You wish to reject those factual claims. To do so, you need counter-evidence, a counter-claim, or even a specific fact you disagree with and your reasoning for doing so.

No, I don't. All I have to do is be convinced that the source is not objective and reliable, and I am. Why? Well In M.Fs. little diatribe she litters her piece with snide remarks such as

1. In order to view prostitution as a job, and in order to keep the business of sexual exploitation running smoothly, we can not know that prostitution is extremely violent.

2. In order to consider prostitution a job, and in order to keep the business of sexual exploitation running smoothly, we can not know that racism and class prejudice, like sexism, are intrinsic to prostitution

3. In order to consider prostitution a job, and in order to keep the business of sexual exploitation running smoothly, we can not know that prostitution, pornography and trafficking meet or exceed legal definitions of torture
​

This speaks loudly to not only unprofessionalism but to the bitterness she lets intrude into her objectivity, thus sending a loud message of bias---which is well illustrated in her extracurricular protest incidents. It simply comes down to unreliability. Maybe a lot of what she says is quite true, but because it's so laden with a negative predisposition, it's impossible to know where the truth really resides. She's simply unreliable, and hence not worth wasting one's time on.

Just quibbling over the quality of one source doesn't cut it.

Hardly a quibble. But if you don't see the problem with it, so be it.

Particularly when there are three others and you have provided no supporting evidence of any kind supporting your opinion

Three others? I guess I missed one. I thought there were only three, posts 234, 284, and 286. In any case, as I've pointed out, your other two sources are worthless when it comes to the issue of pornography. And that you feel they are germane is puzzling.

 

[Alceste]

Two of your sources (posts 284 and 286) have absolutely nothing to do with pornography, the issue of this thread. The other one, as I have pointed out, is so biased as to be worthless. So, even though you may feel your "factual claims" are verifiable, you haven't demonstrated it.

No, I don't. All I have to do is be convinced that the source is not objective and reliable, and I am. Why? Well In M.Fs. little diatribe she litters her piece with snide remarks such as

1. In order to view prostitution as a job, and in order to keep the business of sexual exploitation running smoothly, we can not know that prostitution is extremely violent.

2. In order to consider prostitution a job, and in order to keep the business of sexual exploitation running smoothly, we can not know that racism and class prejudice, like sexism, are intrinsic to prostitution

3. In order to consider prostitution a job, and in order to keep the business of sexual exploitation running smoothly, we can not know that prostitution, pornography and trafficking meet or exceed legal definitions of torture
​

This speaks loudly to not only unprofessionalism but to the bitterness she lets intrude into her objectivity, thus sending a loud message of bias---which is well illustrated in her extracurricular protest incidents. It simply comes down to unreliability. Maybe a lot of what she says is quite true, but because it's so laden with a negative predisposition, it's impossible to know where the truth really resides. She's simply unreliable, and hence not worth wasting one's time on.

Hardly a quibble. But if you don't see the problem with it, so be it.

Three others? I guess I missed one. I thought there were only three, posts 234, 284, and 286. In any case, as I've pointed out, your other two sources are worthless when it comes to the issue of pornography. And that you feel they are germane is puzzling.

Still no counter-evidence, I see. Thank you for at last delivering what you consider to be reasoning.

Ad hominem just doesn't do it for me though. Regardless of whether you like the author of that paper's choice of words, there are references provided for every one of her factual claims. Among them are numerous university research papers, a study by the Canadian government, direct testimony and statistics collected by numerous organizations, and various other sources.

Whether or not you agree with her arguments and conclusions, she makes them a lot better than your are making yours. Evidence really does help.

So how do you define prostitution so that it specifically excludes people who are paid to have sex with strangers in front of a camera?

 

[Skwim]

Then what are you trying to accomplish here?

Have a friendly discussion.

You're basically just hollering "that's rubbish!" to every post without offering any of your own reasoning, counter-claims, evidence etc. as a rebuttal. You're wasting my time, behaving like a peanut gallery or a heckler, not a person with a legitimate opposing view.

Hey, if no one is holding your feet to the fire I assume your free to leave anytime you wish. Moreover, I feel that my opposing view---pornography has not been shown to be a form of prostitution---is quite legitimate.

Anyway, I'm not asking you to prove a negative.

Sure you are. But rather than point it out again, *sigh* I refer you to the following.

"SHIFTING THE BURDEN OF PROOF

The burden of proof is always on the person making an assertion or proposition. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of argumentum ad ignorantium, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion being made. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise."
source
​

I'm asking you on what basis you have decided that the factual claims in my four completely unrelated but verifiable sources of evidence are all false.

BIG *SIGH* This is getting a bit tiring. I never said your two irrelevant sources were false, just irrelevant. I R R E L E V A N T (look it up if you have to). The other was simply untrustworthy. Not to be snide, because I'm not, but I'm beginning to get the impression that your trouble may be one of reading comprehension.

If you haven't got an answer, stop wasting my time.

Well, I gave you an answer so I guess your time hasn't been wasted.

Admit you just don't like the facts and are not interested in evidence, just like a global warming denier or a creationist.

Well, I might be disappointed, but until you can verify your "facts" with reasonable evidence I'll remain contentedly un-disappointed.


EDITED TO ADD.

So how do you define prostitution so that it specifically excludes people who are paid to have sex with strangers in front of a camera?

Sure. It may not be as good as a lexicographer could put together, but I'd define prostitution as "The business or practice of providing sexual services in which only one person profits." And, no, I'm not considering that getting one's jollies from a prostitute as profiting.

 

[Alceste]

Have a friendly discussion.

Hey, if no one is holding your feet to the fire I assume your free to leave anytime you wish. Moreover, I feel that my opposing view---pornography has not been shown to be a form of prostitution---is quite legitimate.

Sure you are. But rather than point it out again, *sigh* I refer you to the following.

"SHIFTING THE BURDEN OF PROOF

The burden of proof is always on the person making an assertion or proposition. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of argumentum ad ignorantium, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion being made. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise."
source
​

BIG *SIGH* This is getting a bit tiring. I never said your two irrelevant sources were false, just irrelevant. I R R E L E V A N T (look it up if you have to). The other was simply untrustworthy. Not to be snide, because I'm not, but I'm beginning to get the impression that your trouble may be one of reading comprehension.

Well, I gave you an answer so I guess your time hasn't been wasted.

Well, I might be disappointed, but until you can verify your "facts" with reasonable evidence I'll remain contentedly un-disappointed.

You've still refused to state which specific factual claims you're having trouble with or why, so how am I supposed to give you superior evidence for them?

Here's a recap of some of them:

Most women in porn are survivors of childhood abuse.

Whether or not you've come up with a definition of prostitution that specifically (arbitrarily, imo) excludes being paid to screw strangers on camera, porn stars also turn tricks on the side, and these are often arranged by porn producers. Also, many johns film their encounters with prostitutes.

Prostitutes are forty times more likely to die prematurely than the general population.

Most prostitutes are raped and beaten regularly, by their johns, their pimps, and sometimes police.

The majority of prostitutes met the clinical criteria for PTSD.

Start with those. Which of these claims do you take issue with and why?

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

Beats me. Pornographers, probably. Not using protection is usually a contractual requirement.

Also I believe in California pornographers break the regulations all the time. Apparently bodily fluids aren't allowed to touch anyones skin at any time...well that happens all the time in porn.

 

[Alceste]

Also I believe in California pornographers break the regulations all the time. Apparently bodily fluids aren't allowed to touch anyones skin at any time...well that happens all the time in porn.

Really? Hadn't heard that one. When people claim porn is well regulated, I have to wonder what they think the regulations are.

 

[Me Myself]

You've still refused to state which specific factual claims you're having trouble with or why, so how am I supposed to give you superior evidence for them?

Here's a recap of some of them:

Most women in porn are survivors of childhood abuse.

Whether or not you've come up with a definition of prostitution that specifically (arbitrarily, imo) excludes being paid to screw strangers on camera, porn stars also turn tricks on the side, and these are often arranged by porn producers. Also, many johns film their encounters with prostitutes.

Prostitutes are forty times more likely to die prematurely than the general population.

Most prostitutes are raped and beaten regularly, by their johns, their pimps, and sometimes police.

The majority of prostitutes met the clinical criteria for PTSD.

Start with those. Which of these claims do you take issue with and why?

For starters, while I would agree with you that pornstars are a form of prostitutes, I will take a jump and say your study does not talk about that kind of prostitutes.

Care to correct me if I am wrong.

Also, most people that work on assembly lines are very poor and uneducated. Should we ban assembly lines because they are obviously taking advantages of poor uneducated people?

Whether or not prostitutes had this past is irrelevant to whether they should be banned from this job opportunity or not. I take your position was not a ban, so, what on Earth is your position?

We all agree anything non consensual is wrong, and we all agree hitting the worker (unless consensual) is wrong.

We are not discussing that. We are discussing making pornographic material being inherently wrong or not.

And its not.

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

I dont have counter evidence of my guy having been an actual vampire whose saliva seduced girls because of its drug crack quality.

This means he is telling the truth?!

See this is where you fail! You can't compare the two. Porn stars actually exist first of all and the porn star interview she presented to you was of a porn star who was still in the industry at the time she was interviewed. So she was still benefiting financially from the industry. Most likely she was not lying about why she was in the industry or her experiences because she wouldn't gain anything from doing so.

 

[Me Myself]

See this is where you fail! You can't compare the two. Porn stars actually exist first of all and the porn star interview she presented to you was of a porn star who was still in the industry at the time she was interviewed. So she was still benefiting financially from the industry. Most likely she was not lying about why she was in the industry or her experiences because she wouldn't gain anything from doing so.

Most likely why? So you think it would be impossible to find one single dishonest worker in the porn industry?

You are so cute!

 

[Alceste]

For starters, while I would agree with you that pornstars are a form of prostitutes, I will take a jump and say your study does not talk about that kind of prostitutes.

Care to correct me if I am wrong.

Also, most people that work on assembly lines are very poor and uneducated. Should we ban assembly lines because they are obviously taking advantages of poor uneducated people?

Whether or not prostitutes had this past is irrelevant to whether they should be banned from this job opportunity or not. I take your position was not a ban, so, what on Earth is your position?

We all agree anything non consensual is wrong, and we all agree hitting the worker (unless consensual) is wrong.

We are not discussing that. We are discussing making pornographic material being inherently wrong or not.

And its not.

I'm tired of repeating myself. This is an open poll. You can click the results to see who voted for what. My position is explicitly and unambiguously stated in my first few posts in this thread, which you are welcome to respond to if you like.

 

[Alceste]

Most likely why? So you think it would be impossible to find one single dishonest worker in the porn industry?

You are so cute!

If you think she was lying, be specific. Which of her claims was a lie? Why do you think so?

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

Really? Hadn't heard that one. When people claim porn is well regulated, I have to wonder what they think the regulations are.

Check out Shelly Luben she's an ex porn star and activist. She will be written of by these guys as a crazy Christian and therefore unreliable but se campaigns for regulations especially since she got diseases from the industry. If you watch her YouTube she uploads videos about regulations etc.

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

Most likely why? So you think it would be impossible to find one single dishonest worker in the porn industry?

You are so cute!

Recorded personal experiences
such as diaries, or interviewing people who lived at the time are used to support evidence all the time!

 

[Koldo]

Most women in porn are survivors of childhood abuse.

This means you don't have to be abused to work on this field.

Prostitutes are forty times more likely to die prematurely than the general population.

Does this apply to women that work strictly on porn?

Most prostitutes are raped and beaten regularly, by their johns, their pimps, and sometimes police.

Does this apply to women that work strictly on porn?

The majority of prostitutes met the clinical criteria for PTSD.

How many were women that work strictly on porn?

 

[Alceste]

Check out Shelly Luben she's an ex porn star and activist. She will be written of by these guys as a crazy Christian and therefore unreliable but se campaigns for regulations especially since she got diseases from the industry. If you watch her YouTube she uploads videos about regulations etc.

Will do. It's all useful and interesting information. I like to base my opinions on things I can be relatively confident are true. I fact check everybody, so bias, ideology, religion etc. are not particularly problematic for me. I'll hear anybody out for a while, but I'll tune them out eventually if they don't make any claims that can be fact checked. Like the porn connoisseurs in this thread who deny the industry is anything like what I've claimed, but refuse to deliver their own opinion of what it's like instead.

 

[Alceste]

This means you don't have to be abused to work on this field.



Does this apply to women that work strictly on porn?



Does this apply to women that work strictly on porn?



How many were women that work strictly on porn?

Porn is the product. Prostitution is the activity being filmed.

Who is it that you think is working "strictly on porn"? Porn pays about $100 per hour. A porn star can get $1500 per hour off camera from her fans. Either way she's having sex for money. Why on earth would she turn down the bigger paycheque? That makes absolutely no sense.

 

[Koldo]

Porn is the product. Prostitution is the activity being filmed.

Who is it that you think is working "strictly on porn"? Porn pays about $100 per hour. A porn star can get $1500 per hour off camera from her fans. Either way she's having sex for money. Why on earth would she turn down the bigger paycheque? That makes absolutely no sense.

We are talking about pornography, not prostitution as a whole.
As we are also talking about a specific type of pornography, the commercial kind where both parts agreed to be filmed and are doing it for money. We are not talking about amateur porn, nor Playboy magazines.
We must judge pornography on its own merits.

By accepting a $1500 offer from a fan she is taking certain risks, which can not be attributed to the pornography we are talking about in itself.

 

[Alceste]

We are talking about pornography, not prostitution as a whole.
As we are also talking about a specific type of pornography, the commercial kind where both parts agreed to be filmed and are doing it for money. We are not talking about amateur porn, nor Playboy magazines.
We must judge pornography on its own merits.

By accepting a $1500 offer from a fan she is taking certain risks, which can not be attributed to the pornography we are talking about in itself.

What do you mean? She gets to use a condom at least when she's turning tricks. In that sense, being filmed prostituting is more dangerous, since the producers usually refuse to allow condoms to be used.

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

Will do. It's all useful and interesting information. I like to base my opinions on things I can be relatively confident are true. I fact check everybody, so bias, ideology, religion etc. are not particularly problematic for me. I'll hear anybody out for a while, but I'll tune them out eventually if they don't make any claims that can be fact checked. Like the porn connoisseurs in this thread who deny the industry is anything like what I've claimed, but refuse to deliver their own opinion of what it's like instead.

Shelley has a very similar story that can support the studies that you presented.
She was also a victim a rape, after that she became promiscuous, her parents were Christian but pretty much ignored her and threw her out for being a rebellious teen.
She was sitting on the street when she was approached by a pimp who told her that she was beautiful and smart all the things she never heard from her dad. She cried in his arms and he became a father figure to her and he got her into prostitution. Then she eventually became a porn star.
Prostitution and pornography are definitely linked.

 

[oldbadger]

Porn is the product. Prostitution is the activity being filmed.

Therefore...... all persons taking part are prostitutes, but you have not included any stats for the males involved, the risks that they run, nor the pasts that they experienced. In fact you don't seem to have represented them at all.

Your whole presentation appears to have been biased and distorted. There does not appear to be any balance to your arguments, and many of your chosen stats have come from hopelessly one-sided viewpoints and politics. Melissa Farley would be a good example?

On this thread you have suggested (on one hand) that Canadian government motives are, well, 'not good', yet later you have pointed out that part of the stats shown are from government (Wow!). This is called cherrypicking, I think?