3 ms·
Please don't write comments like this. This comment seems to hit all the bad rhetoric hot points. You've misrepresented parent's point, attacked a straw man, a
by jjaredsimpson 8y ago
Please don't write comments like this.
This comment seems to hit all the bad rhetoric hot points. You've misrepresented parent's point, attacked a straw man, and also somehow made a slightly racist argument that Koreans are interchangeable with Chinese and Japanese.
The point is that banning pornography might be creating a niche market that bad actors are happy to exploit.
I have no idea if it's true. But the argument isn't saying the behavior is rational and there was no claim made about the deep biological needs for porn.
Please engage with good faith and measured tone.
- malmsteen 8y agoI think the comment was Absolutely on point
- taysic 8y agoI thought the comment made great points.
- majewsky 8y agoIf you don't have anything to add to the discussion, use upvotes/downvotes. Responding with comments like this just makes you look like you're just a sock puppet, which you probably don't want.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- threatofrain 8y agoI thought he turned a traditional policy position ("prohibition fuels bad underground activity of worse variety") into a toy, overly emotional argument ("how is it reasonable to discuss legalization in response to sexual film spying?"). After you resolve the rhetorical difficulties, it just collapses back to the old argument still unaddressed (does prohibition fuel bad underground activity? can legalization reduce this phenomena in scope or impact?). That's what makes it a bad point in my mind. It really is taking someone's position and turning it into a strawman, in a way that takes about 2 or 3 back and forth responses to resolve. I think it's totally worth hopping past this branch in discourse.