i was initially joking when i said his mom was probably the woman that raped him but now i think its true. it all makes sense. how a grown man claims to have been unable to defend himself from a woman breaking into his dorm room repeatedly to rape him...unless he was a child at the time.
it would seem that he internalized the abuse and convinced himself it wasn't really abuse, and now his irrational logic on such matters spill out here because he can't accept what happened to him.
As far as irrational logic. He seems to default to a near predictable outcome.
+ He dissmisses and ignores provided discussion if the idea is counter to his belief or may cause a negative feeling. "Dubious research"
You didn't even present sources or elaborate on any of your points though, and typically in an argument if someone leaves their sources out?
It's usually dubious, especially when it's aiming to make a moralist point.
So my hunch is correct that conflicting morality ideas can be dismissed as dubious. Henceforth why I didn't bother providing any information- and will not. Because I don't need to put effort into something you can roll eyes and ignore so you can continue believing whatever it is you believe.
As previously stated- your responses are predictable and can be sarcastically automated by the self if I care to think like "Looney Tunes"
There's research for why porn is bad for people that ranges from surprisingly damning to flimsy and moralist, and if you aren't presenting the damning stuff while keeping it vague, then I can only assume you lack it until I see otherwise.
The "damming stuff". Why play ignorant of what you apparently know?
You point a finger and say "you have not shown your full hand!" ; but neither have you.
Effectively, to have others look up your sources for you is asking them to either strawman you or argue for you, both which makes no sense here. You're just wanting to state your opinion in an unarguable way.
I don't have interest to argue what I believe is common sense. In my perspective I'm not gaining anything but frustration to break down the obvious basics before real discussion could begin. The suggestion to merely google is to give a background on the same source for information that amounts to "common sense"
Its also common sense that very rare is it when scientists all agree on a particular claim. If this is because there is opposing data, or *cringe* feelings, is not even a case of "either or" it can be both.
"Anyone can claim anything"
-duh. This is obvious. But right after he goes on about not understanding that if something is bad for an adult how could it somehow be worse to a more sensitive and not fully developed child.
All I said is that you left it vague. How can it be discussed if it's just "bad" instead of discussing how it's bad?
If something is explained *how* it's bad, the notion of it being bad is automatically assumed, as it is logical. This above comment adds nothing, and nor does mine.
He picks and chooses when to acknowledge common sense, only ever when it is in favor of "being the devil's advocate".
Uncommon sense is sometimes the right answer, and there's enough of a "common" consensus that can argue in favor of porn.
This isn't a common sense argument like how to turn a doorknob or put on pants, this is about if a thing that's wormed it's way into a surprising number of people's lives is unhealthy or not, and to what degrees.
Again. It being unhealthy is a given.(therefore common sense) The degree is in fact debatable; the degree of negative effects are presumed greater for the softer more impressionable mind, (for self) unless the uncommon sense theory's rationalization has been provided so it doesn't come across as baseless trolling.
Offer substance to counter points; rather than giving an unexplained idea, that deserves laughing at. It is just debate on purely sensational suggestion- when opposing ideas are given without proper context.
Some people aren't born to be blessed with tragedy in their blood.
