4 ms·

The person I replied to specifically said "I don't understand people who think this way (about porn)," and I addressed that specific point. The issues of ultra

The person I replied to specifically said "I don't understand people who think this way (about porn)," and I addressed that specific point. The issues of ultraviolence in mainstream movies is its own issue and can be discussed on its own terms. Porn has its own issues and be discussed on its own terms. Yes, both are film media, but that is about all they share in common. It isn't a competition where issue #1 is more severe in some way than issue #2, therefore we can ignore issue #2.

throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
OK, now we get to it. > It isn't a competition where issue #1 is more severe in some way than issue #2, therefore we can ignore issue #2. I'm saying it's exactly that it is. Mainstream nonsexual violence is worse than porn (I'd claim), and I'd also claim, as evidenced by the strangely skewed responses here, that some people are blind to one nonsexual violence but oddly sensitive to the other, porn.
- tasty_freeze 6y ago
  If someone has a fundraiser for cancer, do you tut tut them and say malaria kills more people than cancer, and it is disturbing that your pamphlets about your cancer cause don't even mention mosquitoes? If you think it is a competition, then OK, we simply disagree. If someone has a fundraiser for some cancer cause I may donate even though malaria kills more people every year.
  - throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
    I expressed myself badly. Let me try again. "Mainstream nonsexual violence is worse than porn" is what I said. That is because 'Mainstream nonsexual violence' is bad and pornography has very little harm in it, if any, though there are areas I don't want to see (so what children may see I grant they may find disturbing in their ignorance). Whereas both cancer and malaria are unquestionably very bad things. But that you are willing to equate porn with cancer is to me most disturbing of all. Well, maybe you didn't mean it that way. I don't know. Edit: let me put it a different way; there can be no upside to cancer, unlike porn.

throwaway_pdp09 6y ago

OK, now we get to it. > It isn't a competition where issue #1 is more severe in some way than issue #2, therefore we can ignore issue #2. I'm saying it's exactly that it is. Mainstream nonsexual violence is worse than porn (I'd claim), and I'd also claim, as evidenced by the strangely skewed responses here, that some people are blind to one nonsexual violence but oddly sensitive to the other, porn.

tasty_freeze 6y ago
If someone has a fundraiser for cancer, do you tut tut them and say malaria kills more people than cancer, and it is disturbing that your pamphlets about your cancer cause don't even mention mosquitoes? If you think it is a competition, then OK, we simply disagree. If someone has a fundraiser for some cancer cause I may donate even though malaria kills more people every year.
- throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
  I expressed myself badly. Let me try again. "Mainstream nonsexual violence is worse than porn" is what I said. That is because 'Mainstream nonsexual violence' is bad and pornography has very little harm in it, if any, though there are areas I don't want to see (so what children may see I grant they may find disturbing in their ignorance). Whereas both cancer and malaria are unquestionably very bad things. But that you are willing to equate porn with cancer is to me most disturbing of all. Well, maybe you didn't mean it that way. I don't know. Edit: let me put it a different way; there can be no upside to cancer, unlike porn.