4 ms·

>A society's standards, including moral standards, are not something that has to pass "evidence". What are you talking about? He is making specific, factual c

>A society's standards, including moral standards, are not something that has to pass "evidence". What are you talking about? He is making specific, factual claims, which I quoted. He is not saying "we should do this for moral reasons", he is saying "we need to do this because porn causes violence". There is no evidence that the claim he is using for justification is accurate. Yes, factual claims 'have to pass "evidence"', you don't get to just make shit up to push your personal beliefs on people. Please take a little more time and care when reading people's posts before you respond to them. When your response is a long tangent based on ignoring the fundamental point of the post you respond to, it doesn't lead to constructive discussion.

coldtea 14y ago
>What are you talking about? He is making specific, factual claims, which I quoted. Sure, and if you read my reply carefully, you'll see that I say that the first is a factual claim that could be verified quantitatively. But the second ("it is bad for children") is not. To know what is bad for children you should also know how a society wants it's children to be and to grow up to, which is not something scientific.
- papsosouid 14y ago
  So, you are saying that you fully understand that your post is irrelevant with regards to the post it is formatted as a reply to, and you posted it anyways? Feel free to post your opinions on their own in the future, rather than as non-sequitur replies.
  - coldtea 14y ago
    >So, you are saying that you fully understand that your post is irrelevant with regards to the post it is formatted as a reply to, and you posted it anyways? How do you got to the outrageous conclusion that "my post is irrelevant with regards to the post it is formatted as a reply to"? What part of my comment above, to which you respond, makes it difficult to you to understand that I agreed with his first example but took issue with his second one? I state my case, that I agree with his first example but not the second in both my original reply and the short comment you responded to. I explicitly write that I disagree with the second example (even use the very words "second example"). It takes a dismal reading comprehension to accuse me of what you did.

coldtea 14y ago

>What are you talking about? He is making specific, factual claims, which I quoted. Sure, and if you read my reply carefully, you'll see that I say that the first is a factual claim that could be verified quantitatively. But the second ("it is bad for children") is not. To know what is bad for children you should also know how a society wants it's children to be and to grow up to, which is not something scientific.

papsosouid 14y ago
So, you are saying that you fully understand that your post is irrelevant with regards to the post it is formatted as a reply to, and you posted it anyways? Feel free to post your opinions on their own in the future, rather than as non-sequitur replies.
- coldtea 14y ago
  >So, you are saying that you fully understand that your post is irrelevant with regards to the post it is formatted as a reply to, and you posted it anyways? How do you got to the outrageous conclusion that "my post is irrelevant with regards to the post it is formatted as a reply to"? What part of my comment above, to which you respond, makes it difficult to you to understand that I agreed with his first example but took issue with his second one? I state my case, that I agree with his first example but not the second in both my original reply and the short comment you responded to. I explicitly write that I disagree with the second example (even use the very words "second example"). It takes a dismal reading comprehension to accuse me of what you did.