Pastor Claims Porn Is OK, as Long as It's 'Ethically' Sourced

[Polymath257]

Mob-controlled porn DOES NOT eliminate coercion. Poor runaways who grow up as prostitutes and addicts who then move into porn litter porn, just as much as self-willed "free" actors do porn.

If you saw ten men gang rape a girl in public, would you masturbate to it or stop the rape?

Exactly my point. You did not solve the problem of coercion. The immorality is in the coercion (and that no consent is possible for minors), not in the pornography itself.

 

[viole]

I didn't say, "common descent", but rather "...evolution can cause species to reproduce outside their own kind/family, and disagree with the Bible? No." meaning it takes more than one single generation. Evolutionists and Creationists agree here.

Well, what virtually all biologists accept is that all life we observe today derives, via evolotion by natural selection, from a single organism that appeared something like 3 billions years ago.

Ergo, me and any other living being, be it a dog, a carrot, a fungus, a tree, share a common ancestor.

In general, the farther away I am from another species, for instance a spider, the farther away is the common ancestor. And that is why we are so close to chimps and gorillas: it is because our common ancestor is relatively recent.

Ciao

- viole

 

[BilliardsBall]

Exactly my point. You did not solve the problem of coercion. The immorality is in the coercion (and that no consent is possible for minors), not in the pornography itself.

Huh?

1) Sex for pay is illegal--porn is sex for pay.

2) Coercion is a huge part of this industry, respect the performers, respect yourself, advocate against porn.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Well, what virtually all biologists accept is that all life we observe today derives, via evolotion by natural selection, from a single organism that appeared something like 3 billions years ago.

Ergo, me and any other living being, be it a dog, a carrot, a fungus, a tree, share a common ancestor.

In general, the farther away I am from another species, for instance a spider, the farther away is the common ancestor. And that is why we are so close to chimps and gorillas: it is because our common ancestor is relatively recent.

Ciao

- viole

No, it is just-so stories as each species is a uniquely designed creature:

If I believed these diagrams of new forms arising from old forms, then I believed that parts can be lost from a creature and then exactly re-invented in the same creature millions of years later. And that might happen several times! Not only that, the same part might appear independently in unrelated creatures. For example, wings would have had to evolve completely independently four times: in insects, flying reptiles, birds, and bats. Nonsense.

 

[viole]

No, it is just-so stories as each species is a uniquely designed creature:

If I believed these diagrams of new forms arising from old forms, then I believed that parts can be lost from a creature and then exactly re-invented in the same creature millions of years later. And that might happen several times! Not only that, the same part might appear independently in unrelated creatures. For example, wings would have had to evolve completely independently four times: in insects, flying reptiles, birds, and bats. Nonsense.

I just told you what all biologists accept. And the evidence is overwhelming. Without what look so impossible for you, biology would not make sense.

So, we have all biology and all biologists, of different cultures, creeds, Christians, Hindus, Muslims, atheists, etc. who studied the subject deeply to make it their profession, accepting that, and some creationists totally ignorant about biology who say that it is impossible.

I believe this is a similar kind of counterfactual denial not unlike the disbelief that the earth is not flat.

Who is more likely to be right in this scenario?

Ciao

- viole

 

[BilliardsBall]

I just told you what all biologists accept. And the evidence is overwhelming. Without what look so impossible for you, biology would not make sense.

So, we have all biology and all biologists, of different cultures, creeds, Christians, Hindus, Muslims, atheists, etc. who studied the subject deeply to make it their profession, accepting that, and some creationists totally ignorant about biology who say that it is impossible.

I believe this is a similar kind of counterfactual denial not unlike the disbelief that the earth is not flat.

Who is more likely to be right in this scenario?

Ciao

- viole

Besides attempting to make an ad populum of "scientists universally accept" and stating an untruth "all scientists accept"...

...If I believed these diagrams of new forms arising from old forms, then I believed that parts can be lost from a creature and then exactly re-invented in the same creature millions of years later. And that might happen several times! Not only that, the same part might appear independently in unrelated creatures. For example, wings would have had to evolve completely independently four times: in insects, flying reptiles, birds, and bats. Nonsense.

 

[viole]

Besides attempting to make an ad populum of "scientists universally accept" and stating an untruth "all scientists accept"...

Well, you started this discussion by asserting we should not generalize because of one rogue female Lutheran pastor. What did Jesus say about that plank in your eyes?

But you can analize the evidence yourself. Well, that would require to abandon mythological literature studies for a while in order to get some real education in science, but I think God will understand that you will need much better arguments than the ones you are currently using.

...If I believed these diagrams of new forms arising from old forms, then I believed that parts can be lost from a creature and then exactly re-invented in the same creature millions of years later. And that might happen several times! Not only that, the same part might appear independently in unrelated creatures. For example, wings would have had to evolve completely independently four times: in insects, flying reptiles, birds, and bats. Nonsense.

I told you, get yourself a book and study why and how that can happen. You still seem to think that natural selection is a random process, which just betrays your ignorance about the subject. And if you really think the truth is so obvious, present it to the scientific community. And get very famous.

And I don’t intend to offend. I am also ignorant about many things. For instance, I have no clue of the history of chinese theater in the middle age. My ignorance of that is approximately equivalent of your ignorance in science.

The difference between you and me is that I do not advertize it by making ridicolous claims about chinese actors that lived a few hundert years ago.

Ciao

- viole

 

[columbus]

imagery since we could scratch it on the inside of caves ... If we took shame out of the fact that people like to view erotic imagery, the compulsive behavior around consuming pornography would decrease."

This doesn't sound like "Porn is OK" to me, so much as a reasoned and nuanced approach.
Tom

 

[Skwim]

This doesn't sound like "Porn is OK" to me, so much as a reasoned and nuanced approach.
Tom

And why doesn't this reasoned and nuanced approach send the message that porn is okay?

.

 

[columbus]

And why doesn't this reasoned and nuanced approach send the message that porn is okay?

.

Because "some porn is better than others"
and "Shaming is not an effective method for reducing abusive porn"
simply isn't the same as "Porn is ok ".
Tom