Pornography poll

[Revoltingest]

You republicans offer such hysterically inaccurate and ineffective rebuttals.

Hah! A nerve I struck.
I am the social liberal who grants judgement free liberty for women to do with their
bodies as the please in voluntary relationships. But you take the more femifundie road.
Oh, how I relish the role of being the true progressive in threads such as this!

 

[oldbadger]

I do know she isn't lying. I'm pretty good at detecting lies.

I doubt this very much, due to your next sentences.

There are obvious cues. Body language, evasiveness, repetition or excessive detail, lack of eye contact, stiff or awkward articulation, fidgeting, etc. What reason do you have to think she is lying about anything?

No.... Wrong. Before you can use any of the above, you must first personally hold 'easy' question-answer sequences in conversation with the person. Then, as you approach your interest questions you can begin scrutinise NVG's, etc. All you can do with positive signals is ask for more details, or an enlargement upon a particular claim.
You also need to be aware of a person's levels of varying emotions, which cause massive errors in a questioner's judgement.

I taught this for many years. No....... you could not tell a person, unprepared. Not even a lie detector test can go 'straight in' like that, and lie detectors can go wrong, and they are much better than nearly all humans.

So..... no....... viewers cannot detect lies with any certainty at all.

 

[Apex]

You republicans offer such hysterically inaccurate and ineffective rebuttals.

Lol, I don't think you have any ground to call someone else a Republican right now. At least not in this thread.

 

[Revoltingest]

Lol, I don't think you have any ground to call someone else a Republican right now. At least not in this thread.

Hmmm....she's a socialist (she posts in that DIR) & she's a social conservative (as we see here)
....that sounds like what in the USA would be called a "neo-conservative". George Bush!

OK, we've had fun with label mischief, but I stand by my point in post #437 that these modern
day Puritans all share some common traits, be they considered on the left or right. People of
nominally different labels often aren't so different after all.

Note: This post is certified both gluten & fact free.

 

[Alceste]

Hah! A nerve I struck.
I am the social liberal who grants judgement free liberty for women to do with their
bodies as the please in voluntary relationships. But you take the more femifundie road.
Oh, how I relish the role of being the true progressive in threads such as this!

What exactly do you think my position is? Reminder: this is an open Poll.

Offering women additional services and economic opportunities is not taking their freedoms away.

 

[Alceste]

Lol, I don't think you have any ground to call someone else a Republican right now. At least not in this thread.

It's no different from rev calling me a social conservative. We both know it's a completely false assertion.

 

[Alceste]

Hmmm....she's a socialist (she posts in that DIR) & she's a social conservative (as we see here)
....that sounds like what in the USA would be called a "neo-conservative". George Bush!

OK, we've had fun with label mischief, but I stand by my point in post #437 that these modern
day Puritans all share some common traits, be they considered on the left or right. People of
nominally different labels often aren't so different after all.

Note: This post is certified both gluten & fact free.

All your posts are fact free. That's the trouble with them.

 

[Revoltingest]

All your posts are fact free. That's the trouble with them.

Just because you found it on the internet does not make the opinion a fact.

It's no different from rev calling me a social conservative. We both know it's a completely false assertion.

The difference is that it is an objectively verifiable fact that I do not belong to the Republican party. But you are defending
a puritanical agenda, which comports with the label subjective label "social conservative" (much to their discomfort, I'm sure).

 

[Alceste]

Just because you found it on the internet does not make the opinion a fact.


The difference is that it is an objectively verifiable fact that I do not belong to the Republican party. But you are defending
a puritanical agenda, which comports with the label subjective label "social conservative" (much to their discomfort, I'm sure).

Wouldn't a social conservative advocate a ban on prostitution and pornography rather than legalization and safety regulation?

For the record, in my book, if you vote for republicans you're a Republican. That's not the same thing as "a member of the Republican party", as I'm sure you're aware, since you call everybody and their dog who doesn't vote Republican a Democrat.

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

Sorry but feminists aren't falling for "puritan" the same way they never fell for "lesbian" in the 60's, or till this day "man hater." You have to do better than that.

We refuse to support your phallocentric agenda to keep women in sexual servitude to men

 

[illykitty]

I seriously don't see what the fuss is about with what Alceste is saying. She offered safety, solutions, education, etc, to improve things. A conservative wouldn't do that!
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/members/alceste-15111.html

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

I seriously don't see what the fuss is about with what Alceste is saying. She offered safety, solutions, education, etc, to improve things. A conservative wouldn't do that!
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/members/alceste-15111.html

It's ridiculous isn't it? Every industry can be criticised, including how women are depicted in movies which has been discussed in this forum and that's acceptable, but if you criticise pornography, you are a puritian? :/

 

[Father Heathen]

Again, the important thing is to differentiate between imagery of sex and nudity, and the culture and industry that surrounds it. The former isn't bad in and of itself, but the latter has some serious issues.

 

[Alceste]

I seriously don't see what the fuss is about with what Alceste is saying. She offered safety, solutions, education, etc, to improve things. A conservative wouldn't do that!
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/members/alceste-15111.html

I'm used to it. I consider it a debate victory when my opponents insist on arguing against a straw man or misrepresenting my position - especially this late in the debate. It indicates they haven't got a rebuttal to my actual opinion or the evidence supporting it.

 

[Alceste]

Again, the important thing is to differentiate between imagery of sex and nudity, and the culture and industry that surrounds it. The former isn't bad in and of itself, but the latter has some serious issues.

I agree with this. That's why I say the imagery is porn, while the activity it usually (not always) depicts is prostitution. We should be concerned about the welfare and health of porn actors for all the same reasons we are concerned about the health and welfare of prostitutes. The problems they face are the same. It's just a matter of degree.

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

Since I'm radical I take a different view point, I think there will always be problems with paying for sex.
But I agree with Father Heathen and Alceste that the culture and industry needs to change. And that is what Alceste has been criticising, the culture and industry.

 

[freethinker44]

It's ridiculous isn't it? Every industry can be criticised, including how women are depicted in movies which has been discussed in this forum and that's acceptable, but if you criticise pornography, you are a puritian? :/

The issue isn't that pornography is being criticized. I would criticize porn, and in fact have in this very thread saying it lacks oversight and regulation. The problem is that it is considered bad but no one can do anything about it because it can't be made illegal so it is pushed into the corner and forgotten about. That would hurt employees in any industry, not just porn.

What has been the central topic of this thread, even if it's not exactly the OP, has been whether or not porn is inherently exploitative of women. And not just generally exploitative, work in itself is exploitative in nature, but would porn, even with proper oversight and regulation, be harmful and exploit women to a greater and worse degree than any other job? I would say no.

 

[Revoltingest]

....you call everybody and their dog who doesn't vote Republican a Democrat.

Another example of your slavish devotion to objective facts, eh?

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

The issue isn't that pornography is being criticized. I would criticize porn, and in fact have in this very thread saying it lacks oversight and regulation. The problem is that it is considered bad but no one can do anything about it because it can't be made illegal so it is pushed into the corner and forgotten about. That would hurt employees in any industry, not just porn.

What has been the central topic of this thread, even if it's not exactly the OP, has been whether or not porn is inherently exploitative of women. And not just generally exploitative, work in itself is exploitative in nature, but would porn, even with proper oversight and regulation, be harmful and exploit women to a greater and worse degree than any other job? I would say no.

Oh really? I thought we were talking about the porn industry as it stands now, not some hypothetical future in which it is "regulated." How do suppose it should be regulated? What do you think should actually change? I'm guessing from the posts that DP should stay because of the high pay for it?

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

Another example of your slavish devotion to objective facts, eh?

Yawn.....