4 ms·

The idea that good and evil are up for grabs, and that Christian faith has no say to define it is bigotry.

by clarge1120 4y ago

nvahalik 4y ago
There is ample evidence pointing to the harm porn has on people and families.
- Karunamon 4y ago
  Could you share some of this evidence that hopefully isn't from obviously religious sources or religiously funded?
  - imchillyb 4y ago
    Porn addiction is a treatable mental illness in all first world countries.
    - Karunamon 4y ago
      So is sex addiction, food addiction, videogame addiction and many other kinds of addiction to things which are pleasant and normal yet maladaptive when overdone. GP was asked to substantiate the harm of porn, not the harm of porn addiction.
  - kerp88 4y ago
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - Viliam1234 4y ago
      Search engines find lots of things, including misinformation. Also, people can read a source and misunderstand it, or ignore the parts that are inconvenient for them. That's why links to specific pages are useful. For example, let's look at the second link... The study itself explicitly mentions that correlation is not causation. For example, erectile dysfunction correlate with long-term porn use. Okay, but does it prove that watching porn ruins your erection? Or is it perhaps the other way round, that men with erectile dysfunction have more difficulty finding sex partners or perhaps find sex less enjoyable, and therefore spend more time watching porn? (If you just assume that correlation = bad effect, let me tell you a shocking fact: use of chemotherapy is correlated with having cancer. Perhaps we should also ban chemotherapy. /s) Furthermore, some of the effects are arguably good: "pornography use may reduce risky sexual behaviors", "women involved in long-term relationships that use pornography more frequently may reveal increased sexual desire towards their partners", "shared viewing of pornography in heterosexual couples correlates with increase of sexual satisfaction".
      - Test0129 4y ago
        > Search engines find lots of things, including misinformation You say this like the only people peddling this alleged "misinformation" (which is quickly losing it meaning, anyway) are bible thumping pastors who somehow can afford an army to do so. In 2001 the porn industry was worth billions [1]. It is not an insane stretch to assume this has tripled, quadrupled, or more with the rise of the modern internet. If we include onlyfans it is likely in the multiple hundreds of billions now. Porn producers can actually afford to peddle such "misinformation" much easier. They do. Often. But to play your game one of the most oft-cited reasons porn is bad is exploitation [2]. The alleged "women-freeing" quality of porn is actually a dramatic negative. Most, if not all, porn actresses are exploited in some form. The recent GirlsDoPorn case that made the news is just one example of thousands. Famous porn star Ron Jeremy turns out to be a serial rapist. We can fermi estimate how much evil is in this industry relatively easily. Perhaps that will fit into your delicate definition of "bad". Porn addiction is a problem as well [3]. It is a form of hyper-sexuality disorder made worse by anonymity. There are support groups all over these days to handle it. Would these crop up if there wasn't an actual underlying problem? Do you also claim a new drug can't be bad if there's no studies easily "searchable" to prove your point? Sometimes all you need is a few examples and your gut. Recall not even 50 years ago cigarettes were touted as a way to lose weight! I'm sure all those chain smokers would've called people saying it's addictive "misinformation peddlers" if they had such a contrived word to describe a curious correlation. I find it insane that your post is so common here on HN. Instead of actually providing counter-evidence you dismiss whatever you don't like as "misinformation" and fabricate your own reality to accept so you don't have to be uncomfortable. There are now 6 links worth of evidence to your 0. [1] https://www.forbes.com/2001/05/25/0524porn.html?sh=34e6d1727984 https://www.forbes.com/2001/05/25/0524porn.html?sh=34e6d1727... [2] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/aug/15/why-are-people-silent-about-the-abuses-and-exploitation-in-porn https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/aug/15/why-ar... [3] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6352245/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6352245/
        Viliam1234 4y ago
        > Instead of actually providing counter-evidence you dismiss whatever you don't like as "misinformation" What I actually did was reading an article you linked in your previous comment, and quoting parts of it. Is it my fault that it contained information you did not like?
  - uticus 4y ago
    - antifa 4y ago
      > I guarantee you that religious funding can't hold a candle to funding available to the porn industry. Got any evidence to support this claim? Seems like the opposite would be true, and even if not, still a shit ton of money available to fund some relatively simple studies.
    - trasz 4y ago
      >religious funding can't hold a candle to funding available to the porn industry Let me remind you that Catholic Church literally got its own fake country - two, if you count states without real territory. How many porn companies have that?
ASalazarMX 4y ago
> The idea that good and evil are up for grabs, and that Christian faith has no say to define it is bigotry. Good and evil are very straightforward, you don't need any book to learn it: just do as little harm as possible, and help when you can. That's it. The other kind of good and evil, the one encoded in government laws, should not be involved with religion. Religion is notorious for being biased towards its members, it's not a trustworthy source of justice.
- clarge1120 4y ago
  How do you define harm? I hope you have a straightforward answer.

The idea that good and evil are up for grabs, and that Christian faith has no say to define it is bigotry.

nvahalik 4y ago

There is ample evidence pointing to the harm porn has on people and families.

Karunamon 4y ago
Could you share some of this evidence that hopefully isn't from obviously religious sources or religiously funded?
- imchillyb 4y ago
  Porn addiction is a treatable mental illness in all first world countries.
  - Karunamon 4y ago
    So is sex addiction, food addiction, videogame addiction and many other kinds of addiction to things which are pleasant and normal yet maladaptive when overdone. GP was asked to substantiate the harm of porn, not the harm of porn addiction.
- kerp88 4y ago
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - Viliam1234 4y ago
    Search engines find lots of things, including misinformation. Also, people can read a source and misunderstand it, or ignore the parts that are inconvenient for them. That's why links to specific pages are useful. For example, let's look at the second link... The study itself explicitly mentions that correlation is not causation. For example, erectile dysfunction correlate with long-term porn use. Okay, but does it prove that watching porn ruins your erection? Or is it perhaps the other way round, that men with erectile dysfunction have more difficulty finding sex partners or perhaps find sex less enjoyable, and therefore spend more time watching porn? (If you just assume that correlation = bad effect, let me tell you a shocking fact: use of chemotherapy is correlated with having cancer. Perhaps we should also ban chemotherapy. /s) Furthermore, some of the effects are arguably good: "pornography use may reduce risky sexual behaviors", "women involved in long-term relationships that use pornography more frequently may reveal increased sexual desire towards their partners", "shared viewing of pornography in heterosexual couples correlates with increase of sexual satisfaction".
    - Test0129 4y ago
      > Search engines find lots of things, including misinformation You say this like the only people peddling this alleged "misinformation" (which is quickly losing it meaning, anyway) are bible thumping pastors who somehow can afford an army to do so. In 2001 the porn industry was worth billions [1]. It is not an insane stretch to assume this has tripled, quadrupled, or more with the rise of the modern internet. If we include onlyfans it is likely in the multiple hundreds of billions now. Porn producers can actually afford to peddle such "misinformation" much easier. They do. Often. But to play your game one of the most oft-cited reasons porn is bad is exploitation [2]. The alleged "women-freeing" quality of porn is actually a dramatic negative. Most, if not all, porn actresses are exploited in some form. The recent GirlsDoPorn case that made the news is just one example of thousands. Famous porn star Ron Jeremy turns out to be a serial rapist. We can fermi estimate how much evil is in this industry relatively easily. Perhaps that will fit into your delicate definition of "bad". Porn addiction is a problem as well [3]. It is a form of hyper-sexuality disorder made worse by anonymity. There are support groups all over these days to handle it. Would these crop up if there wasn't an actual underlying problem? Do you also claim a new drug can't be bad if there's no studies easily "searchable" to prove your point? Sometimes all you need is a few examples and your gut. Recall not even 50 years ago cigarettes were touted as a way to lose weight! I'm sure all those chain smokers would've called people saying it's addictive "misinformation peddlers" if they had such a contrived word to describe a curious correlation. I find it insane that your post is so common here on HN. Instead of actually providing counter-evidence you dismiss whatever you don't like as "misinformation" and fabricate your own reality to accept so you don't have to be uncomfortable. There are now 6 links worth of evidence to your 0. [1] https://www.forbes.com/2001/05/25/0524porn.html?sh=34e6d1727984 https://www.forbes.com/2001/05/25/0524porn.html?sh=34e6d1727... [2] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/aug/15/why-are-people-silent-about-the-abuses-and-exploitation-in-porn https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/aug/15/why-ar... [3] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6352245/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6352245/
      - Viliam1234 4y ago
        > Instead of actually providing counter-evidence you dismiss whatever you don't like as "misinformation" What I actually did was reading an article you linked in your previous comment, and quoting parts of it. Is it my fault that it contained information you did not like?
- uticus 4y ago
  - antifa 4y ago
    > I guarantee you that religious funding can't hold a candle to funding available to the porn industry. Got any evidence to support this claim? Seems like the opposite would be true, and even if not, still a shit ton of money available to fund some relatively simple studies.
  - trasz 4y ago
    >religious funding can't hold a candle to funding available to the porn industry Let me remind you that Catholic Church literally got its own fake country - two, if you count states without real territory. How many porn companies have that?

ASalazarMX 4y ago

> The idea that good and evil are up for grabs, and that Christian faith has no say to define it is bigotry. Good and evil are very straightforward, you don't need any book to learn it: just do as little harm as possible, and help when you can. That's it. The other kind of good and evil, the one encoded in government laws, should not be involved with religion. Religion is notorious for being biased towards its members, it's not a trustworthy source of justice.

clarge1120 4y ago
How do you define harm? I hope you have a straightforward answer.