TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Commenter "Bubblepop99" destroys feminist argument regarding the evolution of pornography and belittles internet porn addiction in men. Good guy.-UK Independent.

wooden_suit

September 29, 2013

83 upvotes

/r/MensRights

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/porn-has-changed--for-the-worse-even-men-have-noticed-8846457.html

Archived from /r/MensRights

r/MensRights is a community advocating for the social and legal equality of men and boys since 2008.

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill subreddits and blogs. This page is our copy of the original post.

/r/MensRights archive

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Support the archive

Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.

I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.

Support the archive

Post Information

Title	Commenter "Bubblepop99" destroys feminist argument regarding the evolution of pornography and belittles internet porn addiction in men. Good guy.-UK Independent.
Author	wooden_suit
Upvotes	83
Comments	73
Date	September 29, 2013 3:35 PM UTC (12 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1ndnoc/commenter_bubblepop99_destroys_feminist_argument/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/commenter-bubblepop99-destroys-feminist-argument.1162593 https://theredarchive.com/post/1162593

Comments

[–]wooden_suit 66 points67 points68 points 12 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

Sorry guys, Bubblepop99's comment has now been removed. Another perfect example of how the UK's media is an absolute disgrace and is already censored up the wazoo. So please go ahead and read the article, I have copied Bubblepop's reply here as I had a feeling those bastards at the Independent (doctor evil quotes) would do this...Enjoy...

bubblepop99 Independent.

"A 1974 study by Hariton and Singer found that being "overpowered or forced to surrender" was the second most frequent fantasy in their survey.Some studies have found that women tend to fantasize about being forced or coerced into sexual activity more commonly than men."source:http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/19887428/647252236/name/Specific_Sexual_Fantasy_Themes.pdf

With regards to women's self image, why isn't there a focus in schools on how girls can truly improve their self confidence and self esteem? Go ahead and hide them from images of beautiful, naked women, with breasts...actual breasts! Teach them that a man should never be dominant in bed or request his genuine desires, so that, after 10 years of a sexless marriage, they are still surprised to find that he has been getting his jollies with a number of fetish escorts in the area.

Porn as a whole should be treated as entertainment, a way to fuel fantasy, not reality. In the same way a violent movie does. Porn has been around since people learned to carve cave walls, and not just images of your average loving couple enjoying their monthly 3 minutes of missionary. Take the 2000 year old sculpture of the god Pan having sex with a goat for example. Or the 7,200 year old cave drawings of people engaging in 3-somes,anal sex and fellatio.The adult industry, pour millions upon millions of pounds into creating content that people want, and not just your extreme "niche" stuff but your every-day anal gangbangs, BDSM, Watersports, simulated rape,body worship,role play and every other type of extremely common fantasy. Not with the intention of demeaning women, but with the intention of entertaining people and making as much money as possible by giving them what they WANT. There is no chicken/egg theory at play here, people have had bizarre and twisted fantasies since the dawn of time, the internet has sod all to do with it . Everybody has strange desires and curiosities, the more they are forced under the rug and kept from view, the more extreme they get, take Japanese Hentai stuff for the perfect example. Women aren't viewed as sex objects because us men,were brought up on a diet of pornography and page 3.Our desire to see naked attractive BODIES, yes, the beautiful female form, was already within us from the moment we popped out our mother's vagina,you can blame 60 odd million years of evolution for that dear,but not the internet. Most guys were seeking explicit images, before they even knew what a jazz mag was. Do you even propose a solution to this situation? Or are you just here to vent your thinly veiled hatred towards men and our rapidly evolving society that you no longer feel a part of? Trust me, your grandkids will laugh at you, the same way we now laugh at the views of those in power who used to send homosexuals to Psychiatric Prisons.

[–]igot2pee 19 points20 points21 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Clauderoughly 15 points16 points17 points 12 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]rusty890 9 points10 points11 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Lawtonfogle 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]theozoph 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Stephen_Morgan 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]IS44 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]wooden_suit 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]IS44 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]newmobsforall 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]IS44 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Steampunk_Moustache 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kyndread71 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]xXCptCoolXx24 points 12 years ago [recovered] (14 children) | Copy Link

talking about boys who have been "sexually traumatised" by watching porn diverts attention from girls who are having to deal with demeaning and dangerous sexual demands from young men.

Oh noes! We can't divert attention away from women for even a minute or else people will forget how oppressed they are! It's also totally not possible for people to work on two related problems at once because... ya know. I'm so glad the author also put "sexually traumatised" in quotations to demonstrate that these people didn't really go through sexual trauma and to downplay what they went through. It's sort of like how if we don't call what happens to men rape then it can't be as bad as women who were actually raped (even if the two scenarios only differ by what we choose to call it). /s

What a load of baloney. Porn creates unrealistic standards in the people who watch it who then subject women to their new found unrealistic sexual desires (which porn totally caused)? It's too bad the author believes women don't have enough agency to say no if such a thing were to happen.

[–]typhonblue 13 points14 points15 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]xXCptCoolXx6 points 12 years ago [recovered] (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]NotesAreDispensed 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]xXCptCoolXx 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]NotesAreDispensed 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]xXCptCoolXx 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]angryman22 7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]xXCptCoolXx4 points 12 years ago [recovered] (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue 7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]xXCptCoolXx 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]hecter 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]xXCptCoolXx2 points 12 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]VortexCortex 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SarahC 8 points9 points10 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]hikerdude5 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]PerniciousOne 10 points11 points12 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]theozoph 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]wooden_suit 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MRB2012 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

Porn is under attack as never before. David Cameron says he will force internet providers to filter it out, while women's groups and campaigners against child abuse are arguing that it has a disastrous effect on young people's ideas about sex.

Totally false. Don't get me wrong, David Cameron hasn't done this crap before. But back in the 70s sexually frustrated idiotic whales like Dworkin were bitching about how awful porn was because ~~as long as men had their hands and Playboy she couldn't get laid~~ "it hurt women." Ronald Reagan and Lyndon B. Johnson had commissions set up to see if they could find evidence to support this. It didn't work.

It's an old debate given new urgency by changes in the nature of porn and the way it is delivered; there's no doubt that porn has proliferated on the internet, where teenage boys can access it on their smartphones. It's also become much nastier, introducing us to hideous concepts such as "rape porn".

Ten years ago they blamed violent video games. Now they blame violent porn. Maybe we'll do rap music again soon.

That's one of the reasons, I think, why the consensus that something needs to be done is so much wider than before.

Is it really? Do we have studies on that? Or are you just assuming that it's the case?

In the 1980s, it was more or less left to feminists to argue that some (not all) porn had negative effects; I always tried to make a distinction between sex which was enjoyed by both parties and sex-and-violence.

Because no one enjoys violent sex. Nope. That simply doesn't happen. Except for when it does, but when have feminists ever cared about reality?

These days the latter predominates and the idea that most internet porn has anything to do with women's sexual pleasure is laughable.

And yet about a third of porn consumers are women. Apparently there's something about it that the ladies go for.

The porn industry targets men and increasingly boys, telling them that anal sex and blowjobs are a right, and the terrifying thing is that we don't have high-quality sex education in every school to counter it.

We also don't have gun education to explain to the kids that dual wielding Desert Eagles is a waste of bullets, but for some reason no one cares about that.

We also have popular newspapers which portray women as submissive sex objects every single day, softening men up for the hard stuff they see on the internet.

Who cares?

I am sick of this, and so are a lot of other people. Publishing pictures of women's breasts in newspapers encourages the idea that we're just a collection of body parts, which is why I support the campaign to get rid of Page 3. I don't think half the population should be crudely displayed for the edification of the other half – and to sell newspapers.

Because no one ever uses images of attractive males to sell things. This commercial certainly never aired during the Super Bowl or anything.

I am sick of this, and so are a lot of other people. Publishing pictures of women's breasts in newspapers encourages the idea that we're just a collection of body parts, which is why I support the campaign to get rid of Page 3. I don't think half the population should be crudely displayed for the edification of the other half – and to sell newspapers. Nor do I think women should have to work in supermarkets where they have no choice but to see women's naked bodies on the covers of lads' mags; I love the fact that the feminist organisation Object has pointed out that this practice may be open to legal action under equality legislation.

By that logic supermarkets shouldn't be allowed to sell condoms, because those offend Catholics. Or violent video games, because those offend people to.

I'm pretty sure that the former editor of Loaded, Martin Daubney, wouldn't agree with me about that, but he's undergone a change of heart about porn. He's even made a film about it, which will be shown on Channel 4 tomorrow evening at 10pm.

Who cares?

I couldn't help cringing when I discovered the reason for his conversion; he has a four-year-old son and he's anxious about the effect porn might have on him as he gets older.

You're worried that a guy cares about his kid? What is wrong with you?

It also worries me that the film, called Porn on the Brain, is so focused on the damage it does to men rather than girls and women.

We've already heard the feminist sob story about porn causing rape. We also know that it's bullshit. There are some people who think porn may be causing some guys to have issues with sex. What's wrong with hearing them out? Who does that hurt?

Daubney meets a 19-year-old man who accesses porn more than a dozen times a day; in a startling sequence, the young man suddenly pulls his car into a pub car park so he can nip into the men's toilets and masturbate.

If you're whacking off 12 times a day, odds are pretty good that you've got some issues.

The film is a mess, mixing laddish discussions of "wanking" with forays into neuroscience. But it does show scans comparing the brains of men aged 19 to 34 who consider their lives "controlled by porn" (sigh) with those of "ordinary people". The former display twice as much activity in response to pornographic images and the section of their brains that lights up is the same, apparently, as in people who have problems with drugs and alcohol. It's an interesting piece of research although the neuroscientist who carried it out thinks more work needs to be done to establish what's going on.

But you don't want to do more research, you want to bitch about imaginary problems.

I worry that the notion of porn being addictive lets men off the hook.

Only in the sense that calling nicotine or alcohol "addictive" lets smokers and drunks off the hook. Also, there are female porn addicts. The largest center for porn addiction counseling in Britain says that 1/3 of their clients are female.

In much the same way, talking about boys who have been "sexually traumatised" by watching porn diverts attention from girls who are having to deal with demeaning and dangerous sexual demands from young men.

Feminists always claim equality isn't a zero sum game, until the second someone starts talking about men's issues. Just so we're clear, this guy didn't "hijack" a discussion about women or any of the other bullshit feminists are fond of bitching about. He set up his own discussion about an issue he cared about. And because he focused on men, he's the bad guy. So much for feminists "caring" about men.

I'm glad that Daubney argues for better sex and relationships education, but I'm uncomfortable with the notion that porn is suddenly a bad thing because it damages boys.

You're upset that someone may be worried about harm being done to boys? Really?

What we really need is a cultural shift against the idea that it's OK to exploit women in this way in newspapers, magazines and online.

What about gay porn?

Feminist organisations made this point in their evidence to the Leveson Inquiry, arguing that the daily sexualisation of women in the media legitimises attitudes associated with discrimination and violence.

And yet here in the US, where we have the right to produce, own, and watch porn covered by the First Amendment, rates of sexual violence have fallen over 60% since 1993. So much for porn causing rape.

Lord Justice Leveson seemed to agree, observing in his report that The Sun and the Daily Star have a tendency to "sexualise and demean" women and describing the Daily Sport as "hardly distinguishable" from the softer end of top-shelf porn. When a new regulator is set up, it's vital that it should be able to consider third-party complaints from women's groups, not just about sexist images in the popular press but the reporting of rape trials.

Because we need more media hysteria over rape trials. The Duke Lacrosse case apparently taught us nothing.

My sense is that the tide is finally turning against the routine sexualisation of women and girls. Why should we put up with being objectified every single day? The fight against internet porn is part of that struggle but it shouldn't be treated in isolation, as though it has nothing to do with a wider tolerance of sexism and abuse.

What tolerance?

The old argument which characterised porn as central to free speech has been challenged by a more sophisticated understanding of its mostly dire impact on equality.

Here in the US we still value free speech, thank you.

The kind of porn which shows submissive women and dominant men – and that's just about all of it on the internet – distorts human relationships. It normalises brutality and the notion that women exist solely to do what men want. That isn't tolerable if you want to live in a society that treats both sexes with respect.

And censorship isn't tolerable if you want to live in a free society.

[–]theozoph 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]hikerdude5 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]leftofcentaur 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]GomerPyleUSMC 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]real-boethius 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[+]GomerPyleUSMC 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]blueoak9 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -6 points-5 points-4 points 12 years ago (30 children) | Copy Link

[–]baskandpurr 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link

I actually agree with the articles presentation of porn. Modern porn is almost uniformly aggressive and degrading, often to both sexes. It's also very predictable, fake and kind of mechanical. There can be no emotional attachment, people are not allowed to smile. I do not enjoy that but some people do and I wouldn't deign to tell them its wrong.

There are two problems with the article. Firstly, it suggests that people shouldn't have a choice about watching it. The choice should be taken from them for their own good. Not just from vulnerable people, but all people. Those who want it should be denied, because apparently its wrong.

Secondly, the writer claims that only women are harmed by this, or perhaps only the harm to women matters. If men are harmed they shouldn't be such evil rapists. By saying this, she both blames men and excuses women. Essentially, she denies agency to women and paints all men as perverts.

[–]because_misogyny 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]baskandpurr -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]VortexCortex 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

While I agree with the overall sentiment of your statements you are egregiously wrong on several points due to broad assumptions made without evidence:

Modern porn is almost uniformly aggressive and degrading, often to both sexes.

Prove it. The burden of proof is on you. Now also prove that watchers of said porn:

Adopt a belief that is degrading to women.
Adopt this belief because they watched the porn.

Further you now need to define both 'aggressive' and 'degrading' in objective terms instead of your opinionated shaming language.

Firstly, it suggests that people shouldn't have a choice about watching it.

I agree that's problematic. It's also problematic that you just suggested that people watching said porn don't have a choice about how they will perceive it, and assume they will adopt your opinion, despite having zero evidence they will. Viewers should be allowed to form their own opinions, not just adopt those that YOU assume they will. Those who have different opinions should be allowed to have them, and if they do then apparently you're wrong.

Think about it: Is a WWII film degrading to Germans, The French, or Jews? Is The Shawshank Redemption degrading to prisoners or guards? Is Apocalypse Now degrading to war vets? How is watching anything at all happen between two people degrading to either men or women as a whole? The answer is: It isn't; That is merely a tool of Identity Politics, as used in Feminism, to falsely associate a portrayal or instance of behavior with a group in order to control perception of others and yourself (if you identify with said groups).

E.g.: "aggressive and degrading, often to both sexes" -- Sorry, no. You're saying the acts of pornstars are somehow causing a prevalent opinion among viewers that is "degrading" and that they are applying this opinion to men and/or women as a whole. Classic identity politic bullshit. Prove it's not BS if this is what you truly wish to assert.

This is the same as the problem with "Objectification" -- This term, and terms like it, assume prevalence of opinion. It's insulting to the viewer who will undoubtedly have a differing opinion. Just ask any selection of movie goers about the drives of a given character, they will give a varied set of interpretations, not a uniform response as would be required by the term "objectified".

Essentially, she denies agency to women and paints all men as perverts.

Essentially, you deny agency to viewers of porn and paint the majority of porn as aggressive and degrading. You're just like her.

[–]baskandpurr -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

I didn't say anything about what people believe, in fact I made a disclaimer about not telling people what they should or should not think.

When I use the term degrading, I'm not saying that nudity and sex is degrading. I'm referring to actual degradation. Calling people names, making them kneel, having them say 'I'm a cum whore', making them gag. People of both sexes can find this kind of thing a turn on, I understand that. You can find sub/dom plays, where the desire to degrade is explicit and mutual.

My complaint is that its one sided, I'd like to see more porn where people are loving. Where they actually like each other, where they give pleasure, not take it or force it. I'd like to see gentle, thoughtful, slow sex. But porn is almost always a poor combination of bad acting, athletics, interpretive dance and naked wrestling.

If you want proof, just go look at Redtube, see how much love you can find there.

[+][deleted] 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]wooden_suit 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]baskandpurr -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]baskandpurr -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mitschu 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mitschu 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mitschu 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mitschu 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

You're going to have to do quite a bit better than that to phase me.

Ah good, a challenge.

Solid justification, lots of evidence, clearly articulated beliefs. Compelling stuff here.

One could say the same thing about "So, Mitschu, is cow's dairy green and pink with flecks of lemon wedges naturally squeezed out of their udders with every pull?" "No." "Well argued, sir."

Point being, if you want me to take a conjecture seriously, especially one as outlandish and subjective as that one, the burden of proof lies upon you - or rather, if you prefer, "That which is argued without proof can be dismissed without proof."

The ball never left your court, in other words.

Incidentally, you made an argument when you made an IF-THEN statement. If porn is bad, then it should be subject to government intervention. You argue that it should be, whereas some of us would ask, "Even if porn is bad, why should the government step in to circumvent personal autonomy? Smoking is bad, yet the government doesn't force us to quit smoking. Eating fast food is unhealthy, yet the government doesn't force us to register if we want to eat it. Swallowing gum is bad, but I don't see secret agents in the bushes waiting to arrest me for fucking up my gastrointestinal system."

[+][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mitschu 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted]0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Mitschu2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

No, no, remember, I'm not arguing against porn being bad or good, I'm arguing against the need for government intervention to mandate and regulate porn consumption.

Frankly, I'd say exposure to porn at a young age could very easily have lasting repercussions - for one, I started watching it at a young age, and find that the real stuff isn't as satisfying as the artistic depictions of it. For real, who just lies there and waits for orgasms to drop out of the sky? Not porn stars, they work for it.

Join hands with me in mandating that the government intervene and require people to stop extolling sex as being this end-all amazingly great thing, when frankly masturbating feels better? Or at least, opt-in to a register if they want to be able to say "Ain't nothing like your first time?"

Maybe you're beginning to get the freedom of expression angle, you already picked up on the non government intrusion into private lives when you called me a libertarian, and I have been laying it on a bit thicker each time.

One of the more core tenets of democracy (and yes, I'm aware that the UK, where this registry is involved, is a monarchy), at least here in America, is rule of the people, by the people, for the people. Which requires, at what I'd call the minimum, that the government only intervene when it is a net-benefit to the people, of which the people want, of which the people have asked for. And it'd be nice to have a majority, but that's my bias leaking in.

But really, a small group demanding (and receiving) something that will affect the entire body of the population, and you don't see the problem?

This is part of the issue of the vocal minority, apathetic majority too - when the majority really doesn't care to understand the issue, and you're left with a little group that doesn't represent the whole setting policies that affect the whole.

Who in the fuck says "return query"?

I do.

Jeez, how am I supposed to take you seriously on the big issues when you ask simple questions anybody else observing the chain could answer?

Let me give you a return point, though, by asking my own sarcastic question - what sort of Christian says "fuck?"

On that note, hope you don't mind hostility in argument. I find it to be a tool that either forces the mind to sharpen or to withdraw. Sort of a mental "en guarde!" except that the points scored don't matter, only the goal of furthering truth.

That is to say, since we're discarding a few conventions of debate, I must say I prefer argumentation more anyway. Tis better to have some fun.

For the other part, one can be a Berkeley solipsist and still be a Christian.

Return floor.

[–][deleted]0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Mitschu2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

And who determines that the demands are reasonable and benefit the nation at whole... ah yes, the small group.

My legion of Satanist activists are standing by waiting to pass a law that states people who don't have sex with at least three different women a day should be incarcerated for their own good.

To help with population control, of course, and lead to a stronger tomorrow, as benefits our gloriously hedonistic nation.

Incidentally, they arbitrarily outnumber the politically active anti-sexuality Christians by a small margin. Also, the mainstream body doesn't really care one way or another.

Hrm... seems like a small group with big ideas could enforce tyranny in the name of liberty under this subjective "reasonable" system...

An abrasive one.

Aw, goddamn it...

Fuck you.

Sodomy, Dave. It's a sin.

As for Berkeley, eh - some people cling to outdated methods of thinking long after they've been fairly dismantled by the general public.

[–][deleted]0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Mitschu2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Even in a democracy, small groups can have disproportionate power. Explaining concepts to you seems to be met with > [witty paraphrasing that strips your argument down to just a discountable keyword, as long as one ignores surrounding context], so this time I'll just post a link.

Now, are you really arguing that you cannot see the relevance of one special interest group claiming to be guided by God for the good of man, and one claiming to be guided by Satan for the good of man?

If we allow yon Christian soldiers to set policy because they're "reasonable" to yon Christian soldiers, then we must allow Satanists to set policy as well, as long as it meets Satanist thresholds for "reasonable."

I'll have to look up the Madisonian pitch and see what exactly you're about. It'll be a delightful occurrence if someone has already argued my stance, and somebody else has argued against it - will allow us to establish a framework of reference to begin from, for one, and will allow me to see what has been established as a "winning" argument, and begin looking for holes in both sides.

[–][deleted]0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Explaining

It'd be helpful to grasp the difference between an explanation and an assertion.

If we allow yon Christian soldiers to set policy because they're "reasonable" to yon Christian soldiers, then we must allow Satanists to set policy as well, as long as it meets Satanist thresholds for "reasonable."

This doesn't follow in the slightest. You're making it sound like truth is relative -- presumably, the Christian political platform should be implemented because it is better for the population, whereas the Satanist platform is not better for the population. Now, some people might disagree, and we can have a dialogue about the comparative strengths and weaknesses of various positions, but in a democracy, the position that most closely satisfies the desires of the voting public will be put into motion.

Yes, the tyranny of the majority and the corruption of factions are very real things, and avoiding them means adhering to a delicate system of checks and balances. But your conclusions are hyperbolic and silly.

[–]Mitschu2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Well, if you're going to get semantic about the difference between an explanation and an assertion, I must offer up that you keep calling my offerings conclusions when they're merely arguments.

Now, I'll accept that I haven't been hammering my points home with sources and verifiable citations, in favor of hyperbolic rhetoric that appeals to the argument of absurdity of outcome. For example, my Satanist argument, pointing out that if we allow a minority party to set policy for the majority, by necessity under any metric of equality, other minority parties must be granted the same freedom.

You raise that truth isn't relative, which is technically true from an omniscient platform - and if you're claiming to be God, I'm gonna have to demand proof on that - but as for everything else, what we call truth is merely human consensus. Remember, it used to be considered unquestionable truth that the sun revolved around the Earth, that the planet was flat and sat on the back of a turtle, that Hercules really did the 13 Trials.

Right now, it's a Christian truth that the unchained expression of human sexuality is bad, and that controlling it through legislative shame tactics is good.

And while your average hedonistic Satanist isn't much better, they're not the ones setting national policy through their activism and grassroots efforts.

One thing that I'll ask (but of course, since the gloves are off you are under no obligation to concede to) is that you start attacking my arguments, not the way I present them. Hyperbole and ridiculousness seem to be getting the message across just fine, seeing as how you're capable of hand selecting the parts of it you want to confront.

Returning to the confrontation, though, the position that most closely satisfies the desires of the voting public is a position that inherently appeals to the desires of the minority - the percentage of people who turn up to vote has consistently stayed between 55-60% since 1948, which means unless there were a case of staggeringly overwhelming, near unanimous support (something which is unprecedented in US history), the majority of the population did not express approval of the option selected.

Which ties back into what I mentioned before, the vocal minority, apathetic majority - most people simply don't care about the issues until they have pertinent relevance, which leaves it up to the people who are directly invested to attempt to make unbiased choices (which just happen to always favor their party's, ideology's, or religion's stances - but totally unbiased.) regarding national policy.

Or, to boil it down to an arbitrary example, if you asked 100 people on the street how they felt about pornography, maybe 20 of them would say that it should be banned, 15 would say that it should be encouraged, and the other 65 would collectively shrug their shoulders.

Under a true democracy, no action would be taken since the majority hasn't requested action. Under one similar to what you propose, since there are more people against porn than for porn, porn would be banned.

Now, we can both argue until blue in the face about what is "better for the population", since it's a subjective stance with no clear consensus or metric to measure it by. But what should we give the population, under a democracy? Exactly what they've asked for. Nothing. For now.

Which ties in somewhat to what activism really is - ultimately, boiled down to the gristle, it's about convincing the majority to agree with and support you come policy-making time.

And God bless that freedom of expression. You won't hear an agnostic like me arguing against the church's right to organize and raise awareness of the evils of sin. And what we're doing here, in part, is the same - you're trying to convince, one effort at a time, the majority to believe... rewind rewind rewind that "If porn is bad, it should be discouraged."

And when we return to that, my counter stance will be that "Even if porn is bad, it shouldn't be discouraged by the government body."

Just to finish with a clarification of something you missed - my statement was "if Christians get to set policy because it's reasonable to Christians." - not "reasonable to the majority."

Although even in that vein, if Satanists could come up with a stance that was reasonable to the majority, I'd give it the same number of fair shakes. I don't assign objective value to those two terms to justify dismissing one side while upholding the other, I treat them as "all other things being equal."

And now, after a brief interruption for the weather, we return to 101.1 KGD.

[–]Degraine 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter