Ron Jeremy Thinks Violent Video Games Are "Worse" Than Porn

[vivalahazy]

http://evavhost.com/i/news/ronjeremy.png

Ron Jeremy was making some interesting comments at the Great Porn Debate during the Consumer Electronics Show, to view the full article check here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8453043.stm).

Violent video games have "a much bigger negative influence on kids" than pornography, a leading porn star has claimed.

He said parents should be more worried about the harmful effects of such games.

Mr Jeremy's comments were made at a session called the Great Porn Debate during the Consumer Electronics Show, CES, in Las Vegas.

His comments angered gamers, who accused him of "ignorance".

I can understand what you're saying Ron but I would rather stop my (imaginary) kids from getting at porn that at games and I'm pretty sure most parents would agree.

[Saracen Pariah]

I think that picture of Ron Jeremy has done more damage than anything else in the debate.

[Taiso]

He's just mixed the two great evils of society, porn and video games, into a single idea by dressing up as Mario.

Ron Jeremy is Cthulu, slumbering destroyer of worlds.

[Kragg]

I believe violent images are much more damaging to children than sexual ones, as long as explained properly, but pornography does not fall into that equation because it's not a natural expression of physical love. I have 26gb of proof on an external hard drive to back up my argument.

Also, anyone's argument becomes instantly less valid if they've ever officially endorsed a dong pump.

[automaton]

Yeah, and I met a crack dealer who thinks that violent video games are worse for kids than crack. I also know a serial killer who thinks that violent video games are worse for kids than spending 10 minutes in dark room with serial killers. Catholic priests also think violent video games are worse for kids than weekend getaways alone with your local priest.

[Sinistar]

I would tend to agree with Ron. Porn, as it relates to life, is *much* less harmful than violent video games. Most of the issues that people have with porn stem from growing up in the US of A. Check you morality at the door.

[Sinistar]

Kragg & Automaton - both have me crying!

[VorianScript]

what is going to fuck up a 12 year old more, ron jeremy naked porking a bitch or gears of war 2?

[Venkman]

Ron Jeremy is an idiot.

[Venkman]

And he's also been accused of many things. The worst of which was rape. Even people that come to his defense still don't paint him in a positive light.

http://www.ryanmcbain.com/forums/showthread.php?t=242

So Ron? Shut the fuck up.

[TheBot]

I think the real issue is how parents do not watch their kids and let them play anything then blame the game when something bad happens. Don't let your kid play a game that isn't rated for them. It's your damn fault Ron Jeremy, it's YOUR DAMN FAULT!

[Suicidal ShiZuru]

Neither of these things should be "harmful" to someone who is underage unless the parents are failures...

[ElfShotTheFood]

Porn has more explosions than Call of Duty.

[pwnophobia]

Porn has more explosions than Call of Duty.

rimshot! er...wait....job maybe?

[brandonjclark]

I would tend to agree with Ron. Porn, as it relates to life, is *much* less harmful than violent video games. Most of the issues that people have with porn stem from growing up in the US of A. Check you morality at the door.


Well, you're the minority, sir. If you weren't, we'd sit our kids down in front of the TV with a box of lube and a towel instead of a Wii-mote.

Something tells me I don't like you.

[gzsfrk]

You pretty much explained Ron's position perfectly there, automaton. Of course he's going to believe that porn isn't as bad as other things, because he's spent his entire life making it. And no one wants to accept that their life's work is a "bad" thing.

That being said, I think both porn AND excessively violent imagery delivered in any format (movies, games, magazines, even books) can have seriously detrimental effects on a young, developing mind. Exposure to any number of extreme imagery can have deep and lasting impacts during the mental developmental stages, when perceived levels of "normalcy" are being established. Think of it as shifting a behavioral baseline before it's locked into place.

Now that doesn't mean there's a certain combination of imagery that leads to any given individual being dysfunctional, much the same was as you're not guaranteed to fail a saving throw even with really low DEX. But that person is increasing the statistical likelihood of suffering from the potential negative effects of exposure. For porn, this can include something as simple as unrealistic expectations of sex or emotional detachment from the physical act, to more serious problems like unhealthy sexual addiction or an increased tendency to engage in risky and/or harmful sexual behavior. For violence, I think it's a fairly straightline progression that the more desensitized a person becomes to violent and shocking imagery, the less increased their capacity for empathy.

The people who would argue otherwise will typically make the blanket generalization, "Well I grew up sneaking peeks at Playboy and watching Friday the 13th movies, and it didn't affect me" (as if they would be in the best position to quantify that fact). That would be like me saying, "Well I played Russian Roulette, and I didn't die." The impact of any media or life experiences are not an on/off switch, but are rather measured in degrees of effect.

[Emp Nu]

I would tend to agree with Ron.....
I'm with Brandon on this one. Porn does the same thing that get's video games in trouble and more. The difference is that Porn is ACTUAL people.

Video games get demonized because they make shooting virtual images look fun. Hmm, what with the 30 or forty school shootings, it could seem that way. That obviously doesn't correlate to make porn a terrible thing in the wrong hands.

Oh, wait what's this. http://www.livestrong.com/article/12504-teen-pregnancy-rates-usa/

[Sinistar]

Well, you're the minority, sir. If you weren't, we'd sit our kids down in front of the TV with a box of lube and a towel instead of a Wii-mote.

Something tells me I don't like you.

It's all good man, you just keep going around in life with those blinders on.

[Dag-Sabot]

Who cares what some dirty old pervert thinks?

[Furious Wang]

Quit lying to yourselves. A kid playing MW2 and gleefully shooting up hundreds of innocent people in a wanton act of airport terrorism is clearly being negatively affected.

We've got to get over this national obsession that violence is ok and sex is bad. Sex is a natural function that only becomes negative when we teach people to be ashamed and embarrassed about it.

Your kids were created via sex, and at some inevitable point they're gonna do it themselves. If you actually think you can shelter your kids from porn or, for that matter, violence, you're delusional. It isn't a debate about keeping kids "safe" from one or the other. Its about changing your own perspective about which is ultimately more damaging and how to discuss both subjects in a frank matter.

Just ask yourself the question: Which is worse, killing someone or having sex? Obviously, killing someone is worse. Recognizing that, it takes a total logical disconnect to believe that a depiction of sex would be worse than a depiction of killing someone. Derivations of functions are not ordered differently than the functions themselves.

[alienchild]

It always amazes me how everyone suddenly becomes a child psychologist when violent games are brought up. Is it because the field of child psychology is so deeply rooted in common sense that "anyone can do it"? Would you trust your troubled child with anyone who got what - 25-30 years (taking thats an average of the people hanging around here) of experience in the art of living?

[Anenome]

And he's also been accused of many things. The worst of which was rape. Even people that come to his defense still don't paint him in a positive light.

http://www.ryanmcbain.com/forums/showthread.php?t=242

So Ron? Shut the fuck up.
http://www.evilavatar.com/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1832030

[gzsfrk]

It always amazes me how everyone suddenly becomes a child psychologist when violent games are brought up. Is it because the field of child psychology is so deeply rooted in common sense that "anyone can do it"?

Umm... I'm going to agree with the "common sense" portion of your hypothesis, but kindly disagree with the "anyone can do it" part. :)

Although to be honest, I think it's amazing how your perspective shifts once you actually have children of your own and you are forced to rapidly move from theory to practice.

The vast majority of parents, even those who--prior to having children--may have been quick to say "There's nothing wrong with porn! Sex isn't bad! It's not gonna hurt the kids to see some boob and dong!", will instinctively realize that exposing children to raw sexuality at a very young age would be inherently harmful to them. There are, of course, always going to be those outliers who will doubtless sit their 6yo in front of a porno to "teach" them about the birds and the bees. Fortunately, though, such parenting techniques remain in the vast minority.

[Ranhert]

Don't violent video games and porn go Hand-in-Hand ... er I mean like Penis in a Pod .. er Peas in a Poon, a crap I can't think again

[HornetAJC]

So what's worse for the 12-year old? The fact that I shot him in the face multiple times on Scrapyard, or that I graphically detailed how I screwed his mother over XBL chat?

[Ranhert]

So what's worse for the 12-year old? The fact that I shot him in the face multiple times on Scrapyard, or that I graphically detailed how I screwed his mother over XBL chat?

Well if there is anything that I have learned on XBL chat, its that all 12 year olds' moms are whores and take it nightly in the a$$ from gamers. So I am guessing the 12 year old is used to the latter.

[gzsfrk]

We've got to get over this national obsession that violence is ok and sex is bad. Sex is a natural function that only becomes negative when we teach people to be ashamed and embarrassed about it.

That's a bit of a strawman you're erecting there. I don't think anyone in this thread is saying that "sex" is bad. In fact, I doubt you can walk into most any fundamentalist church and hear that message. What I think is bad is sex being put on display and in a wrong context, and--particularly when viewed by minors--the potential it holds to warp a young person's perspective and expectations regarding sex, and the impact it can have on their ability to have and maintain a healthy physical relationship with their future partner.

Now what qualifies as a "wrong" context will obviously vary from person to person (or parent to parent in the context of this discussion).

From a Christian perspective, "wrong" would be having sex outside of a monogamistic marriage, not abstaining from any sex whatsoever. (The Bible actually provides a very illicit depiction of eros sexuality in Song of Songs. So remember that any prude who would condemn an active, passionate, and fulfilling sexual life in the name of Christian principles is, in fact, violating Biblical guidance with regard to physical intimacy.) And it's not just rooted in a mindset of "Because the Bible says so"--it also springs from a belief that engaging in casual, non-committed sexuality is harmful to both the body and soul. Thus, the typical Judeo-Christian objections to pornography and casual sex shouldn't be too difficult to understand.

For the progressive, non-religious person, "wrong" sexual context may be engaging in unsafe sexual practicies, or perhaps extend to cheating on or pressuring a current partner into doing something with which they're not comfortable.

The point being, the question isn't about who thinks sex is bad and who thinks it's OK (again, throwing out the prudish outliers)--it's about determining what a given person belives the threshhold is between what's right and what's wrong. Where do you fall on the following scale of where you think it would cross the line of being "wrong" for, say, a 12 year old to see?

- Highly passionate emotional exchanges (a'la Twilight)
- Intense make-out scenes
- Implied sex (e.g. cut-away)
- Visible sex with no nudity
- Visible sex with partial nudity
- Visible sex with full nudity
- Explicit sex
- Exotic sex
- S&M porn
- Role-played or animated tortute/rape porn
- Animated child pornography

Note that I'm not singling out anything above as being "evil", nor did I list anything that qualifies as illegal (although if I recall correctly, the jury is still out on animated kiddie porn). I'm just using it as a frame of reference to show that most EVERYONE has their cut-off for what they would and would not allow a young person to see. So taking a stand of "Sex isn't bad and won't hurt kids" is a very broad and gross over-simplification that you really should qualify with some distinct parameters.

[Phades]

Quit lying to yourselves. A kid playing MW2 and gleefully shooting up hundreds of innocent people in a wanton act of airport terrorism is clearly being negatively affected.

We've got to get over this national obsession that violence is ok and sex is bad. Sex is a natural function that only becomes negative when we teach people to be ashamed and embarrassed about it.

Your kids were created via sex, and at some inevitable point they're gonna do it themselves. If you actually think you can shelter your kids from porn or, for that matter, violence, you're delusional. It isn't a debate about keeping kids "safe" from one or the other. Its about changing your own perspective about which is ultimately more damaging and how to discuss both subjects in a frank matter.

Just ask yourself the question: Which is worse, killing someone or having sex? Obviously, killing someone is worse. Recognizing that, it takes a total logical disconnect to believe that a depiction of sex would be worse than a depiction of killing someone. Derivations of functions are not ordered differently than the functions themselves.

Being against porn does not make one against sex. If you think that porn is a realistic depiction of normal sex, you've got a whole other set of issues. I also don't think that being ok with my kids playing Halo is akin to being ok with my kids watching a movie like Saw or playing a game like Manhunt.

I think the biggest difference here though is that in one, we're seeing actual people do an actual act where in the other we're seeing an act that is clearly not real. If they ever have VR simulators that are practically photorealistic that kids can step into and mow down innocents..... then yeah I'll jump on board with saying that's worse than watching some horribly ugly dude getting it on. But for now, that's simply not the case.

[corwiniii]

I think more kids are harmed by watching a washed-up, bloated, greasy, old man having sex on film with crying 18 year olds than playing a video game. But maybe that's just me.

[UrAllOutofBrillo]

Violent video games nor porn are dangerous. Parents who do not know how to sit down and TALK to their children and educate them are the ones to look at. The acts of sexuality and immerse yourself to blasting off zombie skulls are completely normal and human. (assuming we are talking about 'normal' porn and not freaky hardcore fetish crap.. which in itself is an entirely different kind of talk)

[Venkman]

http://www.evilavatar.com/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1832030

Image link fail

;)

[gzsfrk]

Violent video games nor porn are dangerous. Parents who do not know how to sit down and TALK to their children and educate them are the ones to look at.

Since when is it a mutually exclusive choice to either shield your children from pornography and overtly violent media or meaningfully engage with them on the topics of sexuality and violence? Why can't I (and other parents) do both?

Yet another false (and all too common) dichotomy from the knee-jerk "Porn/violent games don't hurt kids!" crowd.

[Netami]

Because that would make you a very boring parent.

Joking aside, I think we need a similar list for video game violence, just as gzsfrk made one for pornography. I'm legitimately interested to see if we have as many steps down the ladder with all of the rating-concerns in the video game world.

Would this be a different discussion if there were readily available games that allowed you to, in great detail, actually murder and/or torture someone? Does a game like Hitman count when you're choking someone in two seconds as opposed to a 30-60 second ordeal of pained fighting, broken breathing, snot and tears and blood from orifices?

[TekkenZaibatsu]

Disagree. A parent can control video games their children play easier than the TV they watch by simply NOT buying them, for one.

As far as the actual images, I can't really make much of an argument. But IMO, there's none that's really "worse" for small children; they shouldn't see either.

[corwiniii]

Disagree. A parent can control video games their children play easier than the TV they watch by simply NOT buying them, for one..

Although you say "easier," not "completely," a parent can do little to control what happens at other kids' houses. At some point a kid is going to find pron, violence, alcohol, and drugs. All you can really do to help is frame it all with a good foundation and hope for the best.

[brandonjclark]

Check you morality at the door.

So, I should throw out my morality and then I'll see how non-harmful pornography is to kids?

You can't make a more fucking stupid statement. You're steeped in ignorance.

[Anenome]

Image link fail

;)
You must be using IE (or non-firefox), it's invisible in Firefox. It's how to post and defeat the character minimum, post an invalid picture url.

BTW, wtf are you using IE for?

[corwiniii]

You must be using IE (or non-firefox), it's invisible in Firefox. It's how to post and defeat the character minimum, post an invalid picture url.

BTW, wtf are you using IE for?

Shows like that in Chrome too, broken image.

[Shela Monster]

In Soviet Russia, games porn you.

~Shela Monster

[Froggy]

Violent video games have "a much bigger negative influence on kids" than pornography, a leading porn star has claimed.

Well, he is the expert on "much bigger" and "negative influence."

Are those Dickies overalls?

[Anenome]

Well, now Ron Jeremy and Jack Thompson agree. We just need Ron Jeremy to obtain a law license and Jack Thompson to star in a porn movie and this carousel of absurdity will be complete.

[Venkman]

You must be using IE (or non-firefox), it's invisible in Firefox. It's how to post and defeat the character minimum, post an invalid picture url.

BTW, wtf are you using IE for?

I'm on Safari. I know, I know... don't tease me. ;)

[Anenome]

I suppose the better way to put it is "Why would anyone, in this modern age, NOT be using Firefox???" It baffles the mind. The arguments for it are so incredibly strong. Firefox + Noscript on Windows 7 is the safest way to surf, hands down. Hell, I'll bet some of you are still using Adobe for PDF viewing, and if you have the Foxit reader installed have you turned off javascript support yet? >_>

[pwnophobia]

I suppose the better way to put it is "Why would anyone, in this modern age, NOT be using Firefox???" It baffles the mind. The arguments for it are so incredibly strong. Firefox + Noscript on Windows 7 is the safest way to surf, hands down. Hell, I'll bet some of you are still using Adobe for PDF viewing, and if you have the Foxit reader installed have you turned off javascript support yet? >_>

I don't use noscript because I'm not retarded with what I click. OH HEY LOOK, MALFORMED URL. I SHOULD CLICK THAT. LOL IT DIDN'T WORK. NO PROBLEM!!!

[Venkman]

I suppose the better way to put it is "Why would anyone, in this modern age, NOT be using Firefox???" It baffles the mind. The arguments for it are so incredibly strong. Firefox + Noscript on Windows 7 is the safest way to surf, hands down. Hell, I'll bet some of you are still using Adobe for PDF viewing, and if you have the Foxit reader installed have you turned off javascript support yet? >_>

On the my mac, Safari is many times faster and much more stable. Although I use Firefox for testing because of its wonderful add ons, I use Safari for everyday browsing.

[Anenome]

Yeah, but that doesn't save you from mal-javascript that's been placed within ads on a mainstream site. That's been one of the biggest trends in infections in recent years.

Nor from clickjacking and redirects.

And, noscript is a step towards a positive permission based web. Rather than everything being allowed by default which is how the web started, only things I allow are activated.

Another recent attack vector has been virus writers creating fake news about hot topics as they show up on Google Trends. You click there, looking for hot info. Bam. Rootkitted.

I click there? Nothing happens. Page doens't load, I close it, find another news source.

But, I also know that you're smarter than the average bear. For people like my father, Noscript is a great way to keep him from infecting his own computer, even though I had to manually allow all his favorite sites and train him on "the little 'no smoking' sign" >_>

[pwnophobia]

you're smarter than the average bear. For people like my father, Noscript is a great way to keep him from infecting his own computer, even though I had to manually allow all his favorite sites and train him on "the little 'no smoking' sign" >_>

I can agree that noscript is a great tool for stopping different attacks but a little bit of education on what looks safe and what is not can go a long way. :)

[Anenome]

On the my mac, Safari is many times faster and much more stable. Although I use Firefox for testing because of its wonderful add ons, I use Safari for everyday browsing.

Stability is a non-issue on FF, if it crashed once a month on me I'd be surprised. Safari's faster, sure, but what's a few seconds here and there for peace of mind. Safari is not as secure by any means, and does not feature Noscript. Noscript is the key FF feature. Many people refuse to surf even with Chrome because it doesn't have an analogous script blocker and no plugin system to add one.

[Anenome]

I can agree that noscript is a great tool for stopping different attacks but a little bit of education on what looks safe and what is not can go a long way. :)

Right, but again, that alone cannot protect you from malicious ads on trusted sites, one of the most popular new attack vectors.

[gzsfrk]

Leave it to Anemone to take a discussion about Ron Jeremy and kids, and move it to a browser sales pitch. :rolleyes:

[Anenome]

Hey, I get $5 every time someone downloads Firefox!
Don't I wish

[Venkman]

Stability is a non-issue on FF, if it crashed once a month on me I'd be surprised. Safari's faster, sure, but what's a few seconds here and there for peace of mind. Safari is not as secure by any means, and does not feature Noscript. Noscript is the key FF feature. Many people refuse to surf even with Chrome because it doesn't have an analogous script blocker and no plugin system to add one.

I guess I should clarify- a site admin where I have to do about 50% of my work is extremely unstable in Firefox. I think Safari has that capability with plugins:

http://pimpmysafari.com/

Ah well, none of it relates to how nasty Ron Jeremy is. ;)

[Johan]

Where's that "Don't give a fuck-o-meter" nowadays?

[AversionFX]

Oh, America. The only place where sex is more taboo than murdering people.

Quit lying to yourselves. A kid playing MW2 and gleefully shooting up hundreds of innocent people in a wanton act of airport terrorism is clearly being negatively affected.

We've got to get over this national obsession that violence is ok and sex is bad. Sex is a natural function that only becomes negative when we teach people to be ashamed and embarrassed about it.

Smartest thing posted in this thread by far. Shameful, really, that most of you people buy into the "Sex bad! (virtual) murder good!" mentality.

[Anenome]

Shameful, really, that most of you people buy into the "Sex bad! (virtual) murder good!" mentality.

Calling all killing "murder" is farcicle and simple-minded. If you haven't noticed, nearly all video game "killing" (killing or homicide is the term that does not judge rightness) is framed in a morally positive way.

MW2, COD, etc.: Killing in war, for a just cause, is morally correct. Not only is there nothing wrong with it, we need it to exist as a society.

Splinter Cell: Killing to avert terrorism.

Thief: Killing as a form of social justice against bad guys.

Killing, killing, killing--almost all of it framed as morally correct action.

Those who say all violence or war is categorically wrong in all instances are foolish and if anyone seriously disputes that we can go into more detail to prove it.

[Johan]

Calling all killing "murder" is farcical and simple-minded.

Also, stating that sex only "becomes negative when we teach people to be ashamed and embarrassed about it" is incredibly ridiculous, considering the life-changing impact that HIV/AIDS, or HPV/cervical cancer, or herpes, or pregnancy, or any other potential result of sex can have. I suppose if you get one of those diseases it's not really harmful if you feel that sex isn't embarrassing or shameful.

Of course, that's just scaremongering! Sex is harmless fun, and there's no chance anything harmful or permanent can result from sex. :rolleyes:

[Anenome]

Ironically, we in the modern age should understand the reason behind the sexual mores our society developed better than any previous generation because we finally understand why STD's occur. The ancients had no idea that viruses caused these things, the Libertines of the 17th century had no idea. They knew sex passed it, of course, and that's disgusting.

For you to get an STD means that you have to be with someone who got it from someone else. Which means they got it from someone else.

Which, if you really think about it, represents an unbroken chain of sexual contact going back into prehistory. That's fairly horrible.

If even one generation kept it in their pants there'd be no more STD at all.

But no, sex is good, the idiots say. All sex is good? Really? These are the same people saying that sex can be good for children. That's right, there are people out there advocating sex with children.

And then you end up with children dirty dancing. Take a look at this (http://www.parentfail.com/kids-dirty-dancing/) and tell me that sexualizing children is okay. It's despicable. Of course we as a society should protect kids from being sexualized.

[TekkenZaibatsu]

And then you end up with children dirty dancing. Take a look at this (http://www.parentfail.com/kids-dirty-dancing/) and tell me that sexualizing children is okay. It's despicable. Of course we as a society should protect kids from being sexualized.

That's the most appalling and deplorable thing I can remember seeing, at least in a long time.

[Venkman]

That's the most appalling and deplorable thing I can remember seeing, at least in a long time.

But remember, Ron Jeremy, the pillar of all intelligence, says video games are worse!

[Anenome]

But remember, Ron Jeremy, the pillar of all intelligence, says video games are worse!
LMAO
http://www.evilavatar.com/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1832318

[brandonjclark]

First of all, noone here is saying sex is bad, just that a large amount of responsibility comes with it, much more responsibility than playing video games.

I'm going to tell you all a little story, one that I'm not proud of. My son lives with his mother, and every other weekend I drive eight hours to pick him up and drop him off and every second we spend together is oh so important.

Now, when he was with his mother once she took a nap, and him being the curious little six year-old that he is went on the Internet and looked up boobs(An older girl we later found out mentioned that her Dad had some magazines and asked Jaxon if he wanted to see them). Now, he didn't just see boobs, but some rather disgusting porn that Internet Explorer linked to using google.com(;)).

Anyways, his mother called me because she found my son, Jaxon, crying in the corner hysterically. When she asked him what happened he told her and she explained to me the amount of shame he experienced. He is literally scarred for life from that incident.

We as parents tried to downplay it(out of sight out of mind) and move on with his life, grounding him from all computer use for 1 month. Now, you don't have to mention anything about how this was the result of bad parenting, because I KNOW it was. I was fucking livid with his mother that she would even consider taking a nap during the middle of the day with him there. That's not the point of this story.

The point is that another time Jaxon accidentally saw me(walked in) playing Prototype and ripping a body in half. Do you know what he did? He turned away and walked out of the room, knowing he shouldn't see it, and took himself out of the situation.

My long point ends here in the moral that it is much easier for young children to process violence as a wrong thing than it is for them to EVEN COMPREHEND what sex is. When Jaxon saw those images by himself, he didn't have any pre-knowledge of the idea, and it was the first time he was exposed to it, all by his lonesome(I'm going to cry.), and his little, fragile mind just could NOT take it. He didn't know how to handle it because those very important brain connections had just not yet been made. HE WAS TERRIFIED, as if he looked into Pandora's Box and just saw fear because he didn't know what the hell he was looking at.

So, when someone tells me that I should get over my morality and realize that sex is just as natural and easy to understand as a violent videogame, I laugh because I know they truly have no FIRSTHAND knowledge of the subject. But, now you all do by knowing my truthful story.

runs off to write another nasty email to stupid bitch of an ex

[Anenome]

There's only one possible response to that heartfelt and poignant story...

http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2008/11/11/128708753488987469.jpg

http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2007/02/catdick.jpg

http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2008/9/26/128669629629293787.jpg

http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2008/11/15/128712495629025628.jpg

[lockwoodx]

I'd rather have my kids thinking "porn" is fun compared to thinking "killing" is fun.

[lockwoodx]

Ok I could not resist....

http://newsimg.ngfiles.com/92000/92799_poopey.jpg

[Anenome]

Ok I could not resist....

See what happens when you can't resist?
http://files.posterous.com/robertpaterson/aiIJiIaxAtvtwchnlqBeccHfBApayvCubosmjCruegncqqagqo CDfoHBIBkx/media_http4bpblogspotcompCDyiFUv9XUSxkjy1XxjEIAAAA AAAAHd0VyP2JOPPVYks1600Tigerbmp_dsBAsHhzvekzfhc.bm p.scaled1000.jpg?AWSAccessKeyId=1C9REJR1EMRZ83Q7QR G2&Expires=1263363681&Signature=h2oEzHkDG8nQ6rzCuLsuE6bFfI0%3D

[MusashiOf5Rings]

If you really want to have some fun, let's go for numbers. How many kids do something stupid or violent from a video game each year? And how many marriages end with families split in two because of porn? I'd wager that the divorces caused by porn addiction in this country (USA) fucks kids up more than violent video games, and that's looking at an indirect effect.
The debate is largely moot as I wouldn't sit a small child in front of either GTA or Lord of the G-Strings, but even so, children are pretty resilient to media, and can usually tell the difference between reality and fiction. They are usually less resilient to "Mommy made Daddy move out."

[blackzc]

And he's also been accused of many things. The worst of which was rape. Even people that come to his defense still don't paint him in a positive light.

http://www.ryanmcbain.com/forums/showthread.php?t=242

So Ron? Shut the fuck up.

Im quite sure he has raped more than once.


Cinemax porn, sure, ill go with that, softcore pics...ok. But thats as far as ill go with it. He does neither of that. Most of the stuff that out there on the internet is pretty abusive. I have no use for it.

[Isamura]

why is he comparing porn to videogames? Shouldn't he be comparing to violent movies? Apples to apples?

As far as the discussion goes, I would say that none of it should be shown to a young child who is busy grasping a culture and values - age limits seems like a reasonable restriction to this. Once they've reached a certain age, they can understand the concept of what they are being exposed to easier.

Also, context totally matters in this case. A violent movie about the horrors of war is different than a movie which glorifies violence. Just as a porn movie that shows a couple having sex is different from a movie which depicts a woman with multiple partners using her as a sex object.

[Anenome]

If you really want to have some fun, let's go for numbers. How many kids do something stupid or violent from a video game each year? And how many marriages end with families split in two because of porn? I'd wager that the divorces caused by porn addiction in this country (USA) fucks kids up more than violent video games, and that's looking at an indirect effect.
The debate is largely moot as I wouldn't sit a small child in front of either GTA or Lord of the G-Strings, but even so, children are pretty resilient to media, and can usually tell the difference between reality and fiction. They are usually less resilient to "Mommy made Daddy move out."
I agree with you, sir. The facts refute the fear in any case. The murder rate has been going down steadily for the last many decades, since in the 1970's in fact when crime peaked. Clearly there was no GTA or "murder simulators" in the 70's. Now, gaming is at its height, and the murder rate is still falling.

I will refer people to the "Violent Games" episode of Penn & Teller's "Bullshit" tv show.

[lockwoodx]

Warning: Due to irony the second video contains language that is not safe for work but the first one is.

0p6pSi6x46Y

VS

IcU7x-xKqro

[TekkenZaibatsu]

But remember, Ron Jeremy, the pillar of all intelligence, says video games are worse!

That really is sad. Some of those kids will probably be sexually active at a time that was before I even liked women.



http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2008/11/15/128712495629025628.jpg

I LOLed.

[AlfredT]

Just my 2c.

What the hell does Ron Jeremy know about a.) video games and b.) child psychology.

Before he was a porn star he was an English college prof. Then one day he discovered that he could perform auto-fellatio and thus had his foot in the door for the porn industry.

That being said, who gives a fuck about what he thinks is good or bad for kids. He has no frame of reference for his opinions, and nothing to back them up. This is the equivalent of a guy with a sign proclaiming the end of the world. You just smile, nod politely and keep walking.

On a side note, many of the posters here seem to equate sexuality = pornography. I just don't know what to say to that.

[AlfredT]

I'd rather have my kids thinking "porn" is fun compared to thinking "killing" is fun.

Really, you want your kid to think porn is fun? So when some perv picks them up for some "fun" they are gonna think its normal?

Teaching kids about sexuality at an age where they can understand will prepare then and protect them in their future sexual encounters. Teaching kids porn is fun probably isn't the best thing to do as most porn usually is centered around degrading women usually and/or portrays unrealistic expectations of sex.

I work with kids and I can tell from personal experience that most of them know the difference between fantasy violence in gaming and violence in real life. I remember one child who was playing some Call of Duty game at the community center I worked at. He was enjoying himself and grinning every time he blew someone away. Later that day, he saw a squirrel being hit by a car in the parking lot and was inconsolable for a few hours.

I asked him later why he didn't care when he was shooting soldiers in a game but cried when he saw the squirrel get hurt. His reply was classic "They were bad guys and it was a game; but the squirrel was real and it didn't do anything."

[Venkman]

If you really want to have some fun, let's go for numbers. How many kids do something stupid or violent from a video game each year? And how many marriages end with families split in two because of porn? "

I'd wager a lot of marriages end with families split in two because of sex.

[gzsfrk]

I'd wager a lot of marriages end with families split in two because of sex.

Or a lack thereof.

Stupid wedding cake. :mad:

[Venkman]

Or a lack thereof.

Stupid wedding cake. :mad:

That's a little sad. And a little funny. ;)

[gzsfrk]

That's a little sad. And a little funny. ;)

It's not that bad. But I honestly DID notice a huge drop-off in her sex-drive post marriage, to the point that it was always ME that had to instigate. I think it's due to the psychology of the whole thing; physical intimacy shifted from something she could do to "catch" me to being perceived as something that became almost an obligation.

Ah well... Hasn't stopped us from having two beautiful little girls. :)

[Primus]

Both are bad for different reasons, but of course each community will be more lenient on their vice of choice.

[brandonjclark]

Both are bad for different reasons, but of course each community will be more lenient on their vice of choice.


Way to stay completely out of the argument!

+2 Politics

[Shela Monster]

Both are bad for different reasons, but of course each community will be more lenient on their vice of choice.
Unless you're Amish, then they are both wrong.

+2 to random religious thoughts

[Shela Monster]

Unless you're Amish, then they are both wrong.

+2 to random religious thoughts

~Shela Monster

[lockwoodx]

I asked him later why he didn't care when he was shooting soldiers in a game but cried when he saw the squirrel get hurt. His reply was classic "They were bad guys and it was a game; but the squirrel was real and it didn't do anything."

So if he thought the kids were picking on him for real to be bad guys he would shoot them too. Nice. Anyone can percieve life as a game. A squirrel is just a rat with a cuter outfit. That's what bought his sympathy.

[lockwoodx]

I made that last statement too vague.


What I mean to say is....

Porn is like a game version of a natural human experience. They mix it up, have fun with it. No harm.

Killing is an unaccepted version of a natural human experience. We are no longer hunters and gatherers. Wide spread killing and conflict do not exist in the civilized world.

If children are facinated in overseas conflicts and serving our country then more power to them. It's the degenerate unsupervised youths who will suffer more from overexposure to violent video games than porn in my opinion.

That is all.

[blackzc]

So if he thought the kids were picking on him for real to be bad guys he would shoot them too. Nice. Anyone can percieve life as a game. A squirrel is just a rat with a cuter outfit. That's what bought his sympathy.


I dunno, soldiers want to fight why else would they be there fighting? A squirrel is minding its own business. And squirrels are NOT rats with cuter outfits, i had one as a pet, affectionate as a dog, a bit smarter than one, uber ninja skills and keeps your neck warm when you nap. :D

[Anenome]

It's the degenerate unsupervised youths who will suffer more from overexposure to violent video games than porn in my opinion.*
*Citation needed.

You can't simply cop-out by saying "in my opinion." You're making a truth claim, one that has no support. Add "in my opinion" to statements like "blue is a great color" and "coconut ice cream is the best" not to things like this.

Fact is, 99.99% of kids who play games will never kill anyone in their entire life. However, 99.99% of those same kids will have sex during their lifetime. Therefore giving kids a corrupted idea of sex is more harmful by far and will have vast and far reaching consequences in their lives, leading to thing such as divorce, social isolation, even suicide, and even murder itself (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=ayv&q=boyfriend+murder+suicide&aq=f&oq=&aqi=).

While what everyone's said is true, that we'd all rather kids be exposed to neither, I strongly doubt that videogame exposure is worse than porn exposure.

[Johan]

Now, you don't have to mention anything about how this was the result of bad parenting, because I KNOW it was. I was fucking livid with his mother that she would even consider taking a nap during the middle of the day with him there.

I have six kids. I take naps occasionally, as does my wife, during the day. On the weekend, we might even take a nap together! That doesn't make you, or her, a bad parent. He's six, not a toddler. You can't leave a six-year-old at home all alone while you go out, but you can take a nap while he's/she's awake.

[Anenome]

Well, perhaps more importantly, if you have kids with access to your computer, maybe don't turn off Google's adult content filter >_>

Of course even that's by far no guarantee. It's tough. Maybe just hit Windows + "L" when taking naps <_<

[lockwoodx]

*Citation needed.

Citation noted... you're still wrong kid. ;)

5rVQGT01Kzg

I bet he will have to google this to figure it out because it's before his time like star trek lol.

[TeeCakes]

I asked him later why he didn't care when he was shooting soldiers in a game but cried when he saw the squirrel get hurt. His reply was classic "They were bad guys and it was a game; but the squirrel was real and it didn't do anything."

Kid seems to have had decent parents that instilled a good set of values in him.

Which is a phenomena I'm sure Mr. Jeremy rarely gets exposed to in his line of work.

[Anenome]

I bet he will have to google this to figure it out because it's before his time like star trek lol.
Lol, are you sure you're even older than me? As if Demolition Man is before my time, no Google, and he's cussing because there's a law that automatically fines you for cussing and he needs toilet paper. I particularly liked the laughable sex scene between him and SB.

Star Trek wasn't before my time, it was just on reruns by the time I got to it, mostly. At least I don't think they were still producing it in '77. And kids in my generation weren't hooked on it like some of the people I've read about who firmly believed it was a vision of the utopian future we'd surely find ourselves in. By the time the 80's rolled around, the decade I grew up in, communism was already discredited, the Berlin wall dropped, and Reagan was in office.

In that era, Star Trek was already an anachronism.

[Anenome]

Kid seems to have had decent parents that instilled a good set of values in him.

Which is a phenomena I'm sure Mr. Jeremy rarely gets exposed to in his line of work.
I don't think he needed to be trained to be scared by such a sight. Kids are naturally scared by such things, they imagine the hurt happening to themselves, or the like.

[lockwoodx]

Kid seems to have had decent parents that instilled a good set of values in him.

Which is a phenomena I'm sure Mr. Jeremy rarely gets exposed to in his line of work.

Mr. Jeremy grew up to be a teacher and knew when to sieze opportunity when he say it. I'd say that's better than any of the scrubs posting on this forum with myself included.

[lockwoodx]

This.... is your world without porn.

Eh8oVa-DJO8

Unfreeze me when you need the ladies taken care of ;)

[gzsfrk]

"This.... is your world without porn."


"I saw it in a movie, so it must be true!"

Reminds me of a guy who tried to convince me that we were all going to die from global warming within five years using the plot from the movie "The Day After Tomorrow". Seriously--he actually started referencing Dennis Quaid scenes.

That was back in 2004, come to think of it. I guess maybe his movie math was a bit off. :)

(And yes, lwx--I assume you were actually being tongue-in-cheek.)

[Venkman]

Mr. Jeremy grew up to be a teacher and knew when to sieze opportunity when he say it. I'd say that's better than any of the scrubs posting on this forum with myself included.

I'd say pretty much everyone on here is better than Ron Jeremy, actually. Say what you will about porn vs. games, but Ron Jeremy is the worst kind of scum.

[ElPresidente]

I am not concerned by violent games but I am concerned about a society where depitcions of harmless acts of physical pleasure between consenting adults is somehow more taboo than violence against another human being.

It has always puzzled me.

I'm not suggesting children should watch porn... they shouldn't. Nor should they watch equally graphic depictions of violence. It is the social stigma of sex vs violence that worries me. That is severely out of whack.

If they HAD to see one of the options I'd rather my children see a cumshot than a gunshot. :P

[Anenome]

Not really. Kids see violence everyday. It's a cartoon staple. It's done to comedic effect. Kids understand the direct consequences of violence: pain for themselves or for others, and that they shouldn't inflict it on others--well they get taught that.

But there's no context for a kid to understand sex, especially not graphic contact, until they're much, much older, in their teens even. That should be obvious.

As for Americans views of sex, it's funny that people knock us for that. Look into our puritanical past. Then look at the surveys showing we get more sex than any other people group in the world :P

[ElPresidente]

Aye but it isn't very good sex (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/6241440/German-men-are-worlds-worst-lovers-with-English-men-in-second-place.html) ;)

Children do have a context for sex. Their parents.

I'm not arguing that children should be exposed to pornography but I'm arguing they should also not be exposed to violence.

I know seeing a man get his head stomped in real life at the age of 11 messed with my head more than accidentally walking in on my parents during sex at the same age.

Point is that violence is a bad thing. Sex is not. Yet the Western world at large is more upset by nipples than shotguns.

No matter what way you argue it there is something wrong with the way we look at the two subjects.

[Anenome]

Children do have a context for sex. Their parents.
I never saw my parents having sex, thank god :P I'mmmm gonna guess that you have :P Say 'hi' to your therapist for me though :P

[blackzc]

I am not concerned by violent games but I am concerned about a society where depitcions of harmless acts of physical pleasure between consenting adults is somehow more taboo than violence against another human being.



What about when that act is being done so the woman can buy crack to smoke so she can get those nasty reminders out of her head that she was sexually abused as a child by daddy?

This is why i dont like porn. Nudy pics/softcore are i imagine are mostly harmless and about as far as i can go with it.

[Johan]

A kid smacking another kid around is far less harmful long term than a kid getting an STD from another kid. I'd rather have kids that play rough than kids that play sex acts. One makes you a KID (because kids play rough sometimes), the other makes you pregnant or incurably ill.

[ElPresidente]

The equivalent of kids playing rough in sex terms is kids playing kiss-chasey. Just as someone getting killed is more or less the ultimate 'end' of violence sex is more or less the ultimate 'end' of physical affection.

Playing rough is not equatable to kids having sex, how that is even considered on the same level is beyond me. I find it somewhat disturbing that what I've said has been viewed in the light of advocating children fooling around. I mean... seriously... you thought that was a legitimate comparison?

Again... more evidence of how screwed up society's attitude to sex is.

What about when that act is being done so the woman can buy crack to smoke so she can get those nasty reminders out of her head that she was sexually abused as a child by daddy?

This is why i dont like porn. Nudy pics/softcore are i imagine are mostly harmless and about as far as i can go with it.

I hear what your saying (not that I necessarily agree with your assessment of the industry - I've not done any research on the subject) but I'm just talking about the impact on the child. It doesn't even have to be porn. My argument is that I believe watching people having sex is going to have a much less negative affect on a child than watching people kill each other at an equivalent level of graphicness.

Again, I'm not suggesting a child should see either scenario. But if, for whatever hypothetical reason (one million people would die if you didn't - make up your own ridiculous scenario), you had to expose a child to one I know I'd rather expose the child to the one where people aren't ending another person's life in an act of hatred.

[Capt_Thad]

A kid smacking another kid around is far less harmful long term than a kid getting an STD from another kid. I'd rather have kids that play rough than kids that play sex acts. One makes you a KID (because kids play rough sometimes), the other makes you pregnant or incurably ill.

Isn't that sort of a limited take? What about the kid playing with his dad's gun or kids hitting each other with heavy blunt objects? Why limit violence to "smacking around" when there's so many creative ways you could go with it? I knew a couple kids growing up with a fondness for burning things and riding various wheeled objects off rooftops... Plenty of stuff they wouldn't have thought of if it were for shows like 'Jackass.'

Not that I agree one way or the other. Violence and sex are both pretty central things both to our societal values and to our genetics... not easy to avoid either. The importance is in where we come to learn how to live with these things.

[Capt_Thad]

Plenty of stuff they wouldn't have thought of if it were for shows like 'Jackass.'

Should read:

Among plenty of other stuff they wouldn't have thought of it it weren't for shows like 'Jackass.'

[Venkman]

I never saw my parents having sex, thank god :P

I would have to take the position that walking in on your your parents having sex is probably way more damaging than a leisurely stroll into an exposed nuclear reactor core.

[Anenome]

I would have to take the position that walking in on your your parents having sex is probably way more damaging than a leisurely stroll into an exposed nuclear reactor core.
I dunno, that's a tough call. Parent sex image... or slow painful death by radiation burns. Let me think for awhile... nope, the image is burning a hole in my brain just imagining it. Thanks a lot.

[Johan]

Again... more evidence of how screwed up society's attitude to sex is.

I base my position on objective statistics. How about you? Are you just a knee-jerk critic of what you view as "Puritan" sexual views? Far more children are harmed by sexually transmitted diseases and other related sexual ramifications (pregnancy in particular) than are seriously impacted by violence. That is a fact that cannot be disputed by anything other than blind adherence to an insupportable ideology.

One in four American teenage girls has an STD. (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/12/science/12std.html)

75 of every 1,000 girls aged 15-19 become pregnant. (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_ATSRH.html)

Now you're not SERIOUSLY arguing that one in four children in America is the victim of violence that has lifelong ramifications, are you? Because that would have to be the case for violence to have a comparable effect among kids, but it would be STUPID to take that stance, as it wouldn't be based upon any factual data. There IS factual data that one in four American girls carries an STD around, many with lifelong results of sterility or incurability. There's no factual data that one in four American girls is scarred for life by violence, however.

Interesting how some people allow their ideological views to totally interfere with any processing, or acceptance, of the empirical, objective data. Now, if you can provide objective data that shows one in four children (girls) is impacted severely by violence, I'll reevaluate my position based upon new data. I'll go where the facts lead me!

[Anenome]

Kids should not be knowingly exposed to prurient images or graphic violence at an age they cannot contextualize it.

/thread

[ElPresidente]

I base my position on objective statistics. How about you? Are you just a knee-jerk critic of what you view as "Puritan" sexual views? Far more children are harmed by sexually transmitted diseases and other related sexual ramifications (pregnancy in particular) than are seriously impacted by violence. That is a fact that cannot be disputed by anything other than blind adherence to an insupportable ideology.

One in four American teenage girls has an STD. (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/12/science/12std.html)

75 of every 1,000 girls aged 15-19 become pregnant. (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_ATSRH.html)

Now you're not SERIOUSLY arguing that one in four children in America is the victim of violence that has lifelong ramifications, are you? Because that would have to be the case for violence to have a comparable effect among kids, but it would be STUPID to take that stance, as it wouldn't be based upon any factual data. There IS factual data that one in four American girls carries an STD around, many with lifelong results of sterility or incurability. There's no factual data that one in four American girls is scarred for life by violence, however.

Interesting how some people allow their ideological views to totally interfere with any processing, or acceptance, of the empirical, objective data. Now, if you can provide objective data that shows one in four children (girls) is impacted severely by violence, I'll reevaluate my position based upon new data. I'll go where the facts lead me!

Unfortunately I was not talking about whether a kid getting beaten-up or getting an STD was a greater evil.

Instead, as I thought I had made very clear, I was comparing a child viewing an act of violence with a child viewing a sexual act of equivalent potency and which is the better message. There are far too many other factors such as education, socio-economic background, family stability and more than contribute to whether a child becomes a safe sex hating lothario or a dagger wielding psychopath (yes, this is backed up by studies, a fact I'm sure you're already aware of ;)). This is the reason why I limiting my discussion purely to the messages being communicated by violence and be sex.

Now you're right. I am discussing this purely based on my own opinions. The reason for that is that the research on the effects of pornography on children is significantly less advanced than the research of the effects on violence and (last time I checked) there is still significant debate about whether there is any correlation between viewing violent media and aggressive behaviour in children.

Yes I'm more than happy to accept that more children's lives have been stuffed up as a result of a sexually transmitted disease but that doesn't mean that consensual sex is morally wrong... it is a biological imperative. violence on the other hand needs to be justified. It is even reflected in our laws. If violence occurs it is automatically a crime unless it can be justified by the numerous exemptions to laws of battery. Sex on the other hand is not automatically presumed to be a crime until it falls into the category of sexual crimes such as rape.

I'm aware of figures similar to those you presented and I agree that this is currently a greater priority than violence amongst or against children. However what approach to take is a discussion for another day.

Again all I am saying is that the message presented by images of two people engaged in an act of mutual physical pleasure is a more palatable one (or at least it should be) than images of one person graphically killing another. Remember... we need to compare apples to apples here. A kid watching a boulder squash the Road Runner is not equivalent to someone watching pornography.

I think we are at loggerheads here because you are focused on purely on the end results. We differ here because I am of the firm belief that with a society less ashamed about sexuality would also promote much better education which is the best weapon against sexually transmitted diseases in society. Again this is another argument.

To clarify, my argument is 100% focused on the immediate effects on the child's personality and attitude to the world around them. Argue all you want beyond these... I'll leave you to it because I'm not interested in policy discussion (as it would ultimately come down to). I'm interested in whether pleasure or pain is a better message for our world.

[Johan]

I'm aware of figures similar to those you presented and I agree that this is currently a greater priority than violence amongst or against children. However what approach to take is a discussion for another day.


The topic of the thread is which is "worse," if either is worse than the other at all. It's apparent from your latest post that you are avoiding commenting on that, which is fine, but you sure do take a long time to get to the point of not wanting to comment on that aspect! I believe it's pretty clear from the statistical outcomes that sex is far more dangerous for kids than violence.

Ron Jeremy is an idiot. Of course, that goes without saying, really.

[Anenome]

Unfortunately I was not talking about whether a kid getting beaten-up or getting an STD was a greater evil.

Instead, as I thought I had made very clear, I was comparing a child viewing an act of violence with a child viewing a sexual act of equivalent potency and which is the better message. There are far too many other factors such as education, socio-economic background, family stability and more than contribute to whether a child becomes a safe sex hating lothario or a dagger wielding psychopath (yes, this is backed up by studies, a fact I'm sure you're already aware of ;)). This is the reason why I limiting my discussion purely to the messages being communicated by violence and be sex.

Now you're right. I am discussing this purely based on my own opinions. The reason for that is that the research on the effects of pornography on children is significantly less advanced than the research of the effects on violence and (last time I checked) there is still significant debate about whether there is any correlation between viewing violent media and aggressive behaviour in children.

Yes I'm more than happy to accept that more children's lives have been stuffed up as a result of a sexually transmitted disease but that doesn't mean that consensual sex is morally wrong... it is a biological imperative. violence on the other hand needs to be justified. It is even reflected in our laws. If violence occurs it is automatically a crime unless it can be justified by the numerous exemptions to laws of battery. Sex on the other hand is not automatically presumed to be a crime until it falls into the category of sexual crimes such as rape.

I'm aware of figures similar to those you presented and I agree that this is currently a greater priority than violence amongst or against children. However what approach to take is a discussion for another day.

Again all I am saying is that the message presented by images of two people engaged in an act of mutual physical pleasure is a more palatable one (or at least it should be) than images of one person graphically killing another. Remember... we need to compare apples to apples here. A kid watching a boulder squash the Road Runner is not equivalent to someone watching pornography.

I think we are at loggerheads here because you are focused on purely on the end results. We differ here because I am of the firm belief that with a society less ashamed about sexuality would also promote much better education which is the best weapon against sexually transmitted diseases in society. Again this is another argument.

To clarify, my argument is 100% focused on the immediate effects on the child's personality and attitude to the world around them. Argue all you want beyond these... I'll leave you to it because I'm not interested in policy discussion (as it would ultimately come down to). I'm interested in whether pleasure or pain is a better message for our world.[spoiler]

Wall of text crits the precious!!!

[ElPresidente]

Oh man. Can I give you a medal for that?

Still giggling. :P

Too much time on your hands sir and God bless you for it. :D

[Johan]

Too much time on your hands sir...

You're not kidding! Yikes...

[Capt_Thad]

I believe it's pretty clear from the statistical outcomes that sex is far more dangerous for kids than violence.

You provided numbers for underage pregnancy, but no correlation for the cause of said pregnancies to the originally mentioned pornography, so I'm assuming we're just looking at results.

Still not seeing how the possibility of accidental death or severe injury (like from the misuse of firearms I mentioned) is worse than the possibility of pregnancy? You mentioned STD's, but aside from AIDS being a fair death sentence (we'll have to look up the percentage of AIDS victims in the US that contracted as minors), can't see how Mickey shooting Johnny in the back of the head by accident is not worse than Jenny getting genital warts or herpes.

Saying that there's some kind of metric between the two is kind of inane... how many pregnant girls are worth even one dead kid? Not even looking at death, what about disability? Lost eyes, limbs, damaged organs, etc. Easy enough to mention events like Columbine (or just google "student shooting") to compare stuff to as well.

A great example is gang violence. Almost always they are recruited as kids, and the continuation of gangs is done by people raised as kids in that setting. Is a pregnant girl worse off than a bystander shot by accident in a conflict with kids fighting over some nonsense? Here are some fun facts (http://www.violencepreventioninstitute.org/gangs.html) on gang violence. Compare those to your pregnancy stats.

More likely and more dangerous are not the same thing. Not that any of this matters, the principle of this debate is just as ridiculous as the man that started it.

[Anenome]

NO I won't do one for you Capt_Thad, stop trying! ^___~

[Johan]

More likely and more dangerous are not the same thing. Not that any of this matters, the principle of this debate is just as ridiculous as the man that started it.

If you had children, you'd be concerned about the principle of the debate, though I agree that Ron Jeremy is ridiculous.

As for your stats page, most of those numbers are divorced from any connection to hard data regarding kids, specifically in terms of per capita rates of violence. Additionally, the numbers they are using are, to put it mildly, bullshit. For example, from your page:

Of the 24,950 juveniles ages 12-17 who were murdered annually between 1980-2000 12,880 were black 52%) and 11,270 were white (42%). The remaining 620 murdered were combined as American Indian, Alaska Native, Asian, or Pacific Islanders. (Trends in the Murder of Juveniles; 1980-2000)

Hate to break it to you, but... (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/00cius.htm)

The FBI states that in 2000 there were 15,517 murders/non-negligent manslaughters. Woops on your hyperbolic site. :rolleyes:

This site gives a number of 15,586 for the year 2000, well within any potential statistical reporting 'margin of error.' (http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm)

The statistical likelihood of negative sexual outcomes (disease, pregnancy) is much higher than that of negative outcomes from violence. One in four American teenage girls carries an STD. You can't argue with that, especially not with made up numbers from an organization that can't get the number of people murdered in a given year anywhere near correct.

[Anenome]

As far as I know, Stalin never played a single videogame. He's still one of the greatest murderers in history. Hitler too, and Mao, and Lenin, and especially Pol Pot.

Murder is not a modern phenomena. Tying it to videogame violence is ridiculous, especially since the murder rate in the US has been dropping for literally decades. Literally. All the while gaming has been getting bigger, more important, more graphic.

In fact it would make a lot more sense to argue that violent videogames should be correlated with the dropping murder rate than the reverse.

[Capt_Thad]

If you had children, you'd be concerned about the principle of the debate.

That's the crux of what's bothering me... How could anyone think that their child being the victim of extreme violence from another kid (or the cause)


The FBI states that in 2000 there were 15,517 murders/non-negligent manslaughters. Woops on your hyperbolic site. :rolleyes:

You read what you quoted right? Maybe my reading skills are off, but I'm pretty sure what they were saying with that particular stat was that 24,950 kids between 12-17 were murdered between 1980-2000, and the stat they used was the combined annual totals for said years. Guess they could've worded it better, but if nearly 25k kids were being murdered every year for those 20 years in the US, this would be a bigger deal.

The only stats I was really pointing to though were the first ones, collected from:

Source: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, National Youth Gang Survey Trends from 1996 to 2000, by Arlen Egley, Jr. and Aline K. Major.

Not sure what your office of Juvenile Justice does, but around here that's for people under 18. Why they would be the ones interested in the info is a simple correlation, and they provide percentages for those gang populations that are minors. It does show that it's improving, but it's still pretty massive.

I'll find some other sources later though if it's an issue.

[Johan]

You read what you quoted right? Maybe my reading skills are off, but I'm pretty sure what they were saying with that particular stat was that 24,950 kids between 12-17 were murdered between 1980-2000, and the stat they used was the combined annual totals for said years. Guess they could've worded it better

I read for a living. ;) Here's what your site stated:

Of the 24,950 juveniles ages 12-17 who were murdered annually between 1980-2000

There were on the order of 15,000+ murders annually during that period. They need a better editor.

That's the crux of what's bothering me... How could anyone think that their child being the victim of extreme violence from another kid (or the cause)


This is a sentence in search of an ending, as in, you're missing one.

[ElPresidente]

The topic of the thread is which is "worse," if either is worse than the other at all. It's apparent from your latest post that you are avoiding commenting on that, which is fine, but you sure do take a long time to get to the point of not wanting to comment on that aspect! I believe it's pretty clear from the statistical outcomes that sex is far more dangerous for kids than violence.

Ron Jeremy is an idiot. Of course, that goes without saying, really.

Are you serious? I've avoided comment?

If they HAD to see one of the options I'd rather my children see a cumshot than a gunshot.

Point is that violence is a bad thing. Sex is not.

Again, I'm not suggesting a child should see either scenario. But if, for whatever hypothetical reason (one million people would die if you didn't - make up your own ridiculous scenario), you had to expose a child to one I know I'd rather expose the child to the one where people aren't ending another person's life in an act of hatred.

Again all I am saying is that the message presented by images of two people engaged in an act of mutual physical pleasure is a more palatable one (or at least it should be) than images of one person graphically killing another.

How clear do I have to make it?

Let me spell it out for you.

I believe the negative effects of a child viewing a violent act are worse than the negative effects of a child viewing a sexual act of equivalent potency.

I'm pretty sure there is no chance you will miss this one but hey... I was pretty sure you wouldn't have missed the past four times I either explicitly stated or made damned clear through implication.

You raised STDs. That's a fine argument but education, socio-economic background, family stability and more all have a role to play before a child decides to have unprotected sex. I'd be more inclined to put lack of education on the list as something to be worried about since there are no reports to my knowledge that target pornography as a major or even minor contributing factor to underage sex. If you can show such a direct and significant causal link then I would most assuredly agree with your particular stance.

Now just to make this clear (and this will be my last post on the subject since every post seems to be explaining the one prior) I am not suggesting for even one second that children should be exposed to pornography or be having sex before their age of consent (hell, I waited til my 19th birthday :P). I just believe that the message delivered by witnessing a violent act is worse than the message delivered by witnessing a comparative consensual sexual act.

[Johan]

I believe the negative effects of a child viewing a violent act are worse than the negative effects of a child viewing a sexual act of equivalent potency.

And the stats prove you wrong. Unless I missed your evidence showing how one in four teenage girls has a lifelong debilitating outcome from violence, just as I posted the statistics that one in four currently has an STD.

I just believe that the message delivered by witnessing a violent act is worse than the message delivered by witnessing a comparative consensual sexual act.

Stats to back that up, please.

[Capt_Thad]

That's the crux of what's bothering me... How could anyone think that their child being the victim of extreme violence from another kid (or the cause)

heh Didn't even realize I didn't finish my sentence there....

I'd rather my kid be pregnant than the cause/result of extreme violence to/from another kid (without justified circumstances) or in a violent gang. I'd rather be helping raise a grandkid early than visiting my kids in prison or putting flowers on their grave. I guess that's just me though. It might have to do with personal family experiences on both sides of that situation though (which I'm not getting into here).

Side point: Personally, I think sex ed is something that should be taught early. They're going to get exposed to it one or way or the other, the best a parent can do is make sure they're prepared. That's the way I was raised (heh think I was introduced to the "life cycle library" when I was 8 or 9) and that's the way I'll raise my kids.

[Anenome]

I'd rather my kid be pregnant than the cause/result of extreme violence to/from another kid (without justified circumstances) or in a violent gang. I'd rather be helping raise a grandkid early than visiting my kids in prison or putting flowers on their grave.
- And if you could show any causal link between violence and such actions you'd have a point. Did you just ignore my above post?

Side point: Personally, I think sex ed is something that should be taught early.
- Really, so you're okay with the Obama administration handing out fisting kits to 14 year olds (http://biggovernment.com/2009/12/08/fistgate-ii-high-school-students-given-fisting-kits-at-kevin-jennings-2001-glsen-conference/)?

[Anenome]

"Early" is a very general term. I think sex-ed should be taught at right before the mean-age for hitting puberty. I think I was introduced to it at at 11 or so. That seems fine. I'd have a problem with anyone who wanted to teach sex to grade-school kids.

[Capt_Thad]

- And if you could show any causal link between violence and such actions you'd have a point. Did you just ignore my above post?

Cool, you missed the second post I made in here.

You provided numbers for underage pregnancy, but no correlation for the cause of said pregnancies to the originally mentioned pornography, so I'm assuming we're just looking at results.

Just specifically talking about whether sex or violence is 'worse' among kids. I'm saying sex is more common, but violence holds greater 'worse-ness' value, due to the possible end results. I also said in that post how inane this conversation is.

Also, not sure what my thinking sex-ed should be taught by parents at a young age has to do with the GLSEN wanting to hand out fisting kits. That to me is actually kind of creepy... I mean I get their equal rights stuff, but that's got nothing to do with equal rights.

[TekkenZaibatsu]

Are you serious? I've avoided comment?









How clear do I have to make it?

Let me spell it out for you.

I believe the negative effects of a child viewing a violent act are worse than the negative effects of a child viewing a sexual act of equivalent potency.

I'm pretty sure there is no chance you will miss this one but hey... I was pretty sure you wouldn't have missed the past four times I either explicitly stated or made damned clear through implication.


You DO realize you are talking to Johan, right? It's a lost cause, my friend. Let it go. :p

[ElPresidente]

You don't understand argument do you?

Show me the evidence that shows that viewing pornography is a significant contributing factor to underage unprotected sex. As I said in my past post if you can do that then you have an argument I'd necessarily have to agree with you on as a matter of logic.

Until you can show that, we are both arguing in the realms of opinion. This is because you are working off an assumption that the viewing of pornography significantly increases the chances a child will have underage/unprotected sex.

The link is not established (again, I'm more than happy to accept such a link exists but I've seen no research that suggests as such). You're just assuming there is a link.

So no, I don't need to back anything up with stats. I've stated I'm arguing based on opinion because we don't have any studies that conclusively show what the impact of viewing violence OR sex has on children.

All the figures you have shown present that there is a greater impact from underage sex than there is from violence amongst youths. You have not shown that either real life violence or sex is a result of violence in media or pornography. Unless such a link exists then the data is completely irrelevant to the argument of which is worse, violent media or porn.

You're making a classic logical fallacy. Your argument has emotive merit but is invalid since your conclusion does not, by a process of logical deduction, follow from the premise.

Now I can see the real reason for the disagreement (a failure to understand the necessity of causal links) I'm out of this particular discussion until such time as the link between the viewing of sex and underage/unprotected sex can be established. Until such time, we are both arguing our opinions. I'm not saying you're wrong but you're facts do not prove you are right... or wrong. They are irrelevant until a link is provided.

Sorry all for my verbose posting. Yes, it could all do with an edit. :P

You DO realize you are talking to Johan, right? It's a lost cause, my friend. Let it go. :p

I should know better but I love a good argument. I just didn't realise I wasn't engaged in one. ;)

[TekkenZaibatsu]

You don't understand argument do you?

Show me the evidence that shows that viewing pornography is a significant contributing factor to underage unprotected sex. As I said in my past post if you can do that then you have an argument I'd necessarily have to agree with you on as a matter of logic.

Until you can show that, we are both arguing in the realms of opinion. This is because you are working off an assumption that the viewing of pornography significantly increases the chances a child will have underage/unprotected sex.

The link is not established (again, I'm more than happy to accept such a link exists but I've seen no research that suggests as such). You're just assuming there is a link.

So no, I don't need to back anything up with stats. I've stated I'm arguing based on opinion because we don't have any studies that conclusively show what the impact of viewing violence OR sex has on children.

All the figures you have shown present that there is a greater impact from underage sex than there is from violence amongst youths. You have not shown that either real life violence or sex is a result of violence in media or pornography. Unless such a link exists then the data is completely irrelevant to the argument of which is worse, violent media or porn.

You're making a classic logical fallacy. Your argument has emotive merit but is invalid since your conclusion does not, by a process of logical deduction, follow from the premise.

Now I can see the real reason for the disagreement (a failure to understand the necessity of causal links) I'm out of this particular discussion until such time as the link between the viewing of sex and underage/unprotected sex can be established. Until such time, we are both arguing our opinions. I'm not saying you're wrong but you're facts do not prove you are right... or wrong. They are irrelevant until a link is provided.

Sorry all for my verbose posting. Yes, it could all do with an edit. :P



I should know better but I love a good argument. I just didn't realise I wasn't engaged in one. ;)

I love a *good" argument as well. That's why I don't bother with him anymore. :D

[Johan]

I love a *good" argument as well. That's why I don't bother with him anymore. :D

Go back to pissing on MW2 and the Wii. Take some tissues for your nosebleed, way up on high there. :rolleyes:

So no, I don't need to back anything up with stats. I've stated I'm arguing based on opinion because we don't have any studies that conclusively show what the impact of viewing violence OR sex has on children.

You're arguing that there is absolutely no correlation between the media children view and the behaviors they exhibit? Are you truly that stupid? Seriously? Why the hell do you think companies spend billions of dollars a year on advertising? Because the media people are exposed to, including children, impacts behavior!

Wow. You're arguing out your ass, as you so verbosely admit. I, however, am arguing based upon factual data. I've already presented the facts that show the outcomes of sexual behavior among children are more statistically harmful than any violence that occurs among children. The numbers are obvious. One in four teenage girls has an STD; one in four teenage girls is not the victim of a violent crime.

As for a correlation between viewing porn and subsequent behavior, it doesn't take a genius to find that information, because behavior is affected by media.

One of many sites with a number of linked studies on the subject. (http://www.protectkids.com/effects/harms.htm)

Conclusions? Negative behavioral outcomes rise. Not to 100% correlation, certainly, but much higher:

* Exposure to Pornography Threatens to Make Children Victims of Sexual Violence
* Exposure to Pornography Frequently Results in Sexual Illnesses, Unplanned Pregnancies, and Sexual Addiction
* Exposure to Pornography May Incite Children to Act Out Sexually against Other Children
* Exposure to Pornography Shapes Attitudes and Values
* Exposure to Pornography Interferes with a Child's Development and Identity

Support:

i W. L. Marshall, "The Use of Sexually Explicit Stimuli by Rapists, Child Molesters, and Nonoffenders," The Journal of Sex Research 25, no.2 (May 1988): 267-88.
ii See H.J. Eysenck, "Robustness of Experimental Support for the General Theory of Desensitization," in Neil M. Malamuth and Edward Donnerstein, eds., Pornography and Sexual Aggression (Orlando, Florida: Academic Press, 1984), 314. D. Zillmann, "Effects of Prolonged Consumption of Pornography," in Pornography: Research Advances and Policy Considerations, eds. D. Zillman and J. Bryant (Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum, 1989), 129.

iii Take Action Manual (Washington, D.C.: Enough is Enough, 1995-96), 9.

iv Neil Postman, The Disappearance of Childhood (New York: Vintage, 1994), 137.

v Tom Minnery, Pornography: A Human Tragedy (Wheaton: Tyndale House).

vi K.E. Davis and G.N. Braucht, Exposure to Pornography, Character and Sexual Deviance, Technical Reports of the Commission on Obscenity and Pornography (1970), 7.

vii Patrick Carnes, Don't Call It Love: Recovery from Sexual Addictions (New York: Bantam, 1991).

viii Stephen J. Kavanagh, Protecting Children in Cyberspace (Springfield, VA: Behavioral Psychotherapy Center, 1997), 58-59.

ix Victor B. Cline, Pornography's Effects on Adults and Children (New York: Morality in Media, 1990), 11.

x Edward Donnerstein, "Ordinances to Add Pornography to Discrimination against Women," statement at Public Hearing of Minneapolis City Council Session (12 December 1983). See also Luis T. Garcia, "Exposure to Pornography and Attitudes about Women and Rape: A Correlative Study," AG 22 (1986), 382-83. This study found "subjects with a greater degree of exposure to violent sexual materials tended to believe that: (a) women are responsible for preventing their own rape, (b) rapists should not be severely punished, and (c) women should not resist a rape attack. In addition, researchers found that exposure to violent sexual material correlated significantly with the belief that rapists are normal. See also Zillman, "Effects of Prolonged Consumption," 129; and N. Malamuth and J. Ceniti, 129-37. "Study…results consistently showed a relationship between one's reported likelihood to rape and responses associated with convicted rapists such as sexual arousal to rape stimuli, callous attitudes toward rape, beliefs in the rape myths, and hostility towards women."

xi Cline, Pornography's Effects, 8.

xii Kavanagh, Protecting Children in Cyberspace, 58-59.

xiii Interview with Ann Burgess, professor of nursing, University of Pennsylvania, 15 January 1997. "Pornography - Victims and Perpetrators," Symposium on Media Violence & Pornography, Proceedings Resource Book and Research Guide, ed. D. Scott (1984).

xiv Jerry Bergman, Ph.D. , "The Influence of Pornography on Sexual Development: Three Case Histories," Family Therapy IX, no. 3 (1982): 265.
More scientists weigh in on the issue. (http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/resource.php?n=1067)

How does “adult” pornography harm children?

Here’s how Dr. Mary Anne Layden, Director of Education, Center for Cognitive Therapy, at the University of Pennsylvania, described the problem:

The messages of Internet pornography are psychologically toxic, untrue, and difficult to undo… You wouldn’t allow the drug pusher on the corner to come into your home…and teach your child about medication. Why would you allow the sex pusher on the Internet to come into your home…and educate your child about sexuality?

Here’s how Dr. Victor B. Cline, a clinical psychologist and Professor Emeritus at the University of Utah, described the problem:

I have boys in their early teens getting into that stuff with really disastrous consequences. They tell me they actively search for pornography on the Internet, keying in such words as sex, nudity, pornography, obscenity, etc. Once they have found how to access it they go back again and again—just like drug addicts.

Here’s how Dr. Lynn Ponton, a professor of psychiatry at Univ. of California at San Francisco and author of the book, “The Sex Lives of Teenagers,” described the problem:

I see boys who are addicted to sex sites on the Internet that show sadistic behavior toward women. It affects those boys' sexual lives and also what we see with our daughters.

Here’s how Robert Peters, President of Morality in Media, described the problem:

Many men arrested on sexual exploitation of children charges begin their downward spiral by viewing not child pornography but “adult” pornography, and child molesters often use “adult” pornography to arouse, desensitize and instruct their victims. A growing number of children are also acting out with other children what they view in “adult” pornography. Children are also harmed when their parents divorce because of a spouse’s addiction to “adult” pornography and when their own pornography addiction follows them into adulthood, leading or contributing to various harmful results, including ruined marriages, lost jobs and imprisonment.

Even a liberal progressive like Alfred Kinsey, the hero of sexual libertines everywhere, knew damn well that exposing people to sexual material would have an effect upon their behavior, normalizing what was not normal. That's why he did such a shitty job with his research, taking information from known pedophiles and from self-selected perverts and drawing the ridiculous conclusion/correlation that such acts were normal/average, in the hopes that others would view such material/information and allow it to become normalized in their own lives.

You're just stupid. That's okay. Lots of people are. The world needs ditch diggers too. Thanks!

[Anenome]

Cool, you missed the second post I made in here.
You're seriously going to point us to a post that uses %ages are its main rhetorical device? Even though everyone knows how easy it is to mislead using %s?

Let's look at your facts page from your 2nd post then.

Trends in Gangs in the US :
In 1996, 53% of the respondents to the National Youth Gang Survey reported active gangs in their jurisdictions, but by 2000, the percent reporting active gangs dropped to 40%.
- Oh, okay. So, gang activity -has- been dropping.

It is estimated that more than 24,500 gangs were active in the U.S. in 2000, which is a drop of 5% from the number estimated to be active in 1999.
- 5% drop in one year, pretty good.

It is estimated that 772,500 people in the U.S. were members of gangs in 2000, a drop of 8% from the number of active members in 1999
- Very nice.

In 1996, 50% of gang members were under the age of 18, but in 1999 only 37% of gang members were estimated to be under the age of 18.
- So gangs are increasingly failing to recruit the young, that's a very good sign.

In 1999 it is estimated that 47% of gang members were Hispanic, 31% were African American, 13% were white, and 7% were Asian. These percentages seem to remain fairly steady over the years.
- So cultural factors are far and away more important in preventing gang activity than anything else, gotcha.

Great article, Thad, but I thought you were trying to prove that gang activity was getting worse. The article had some anecdotal evidence, people merely saying things had gotten worse in their area, but that's not a real statistic, is it.

Just specifically talking about whether sex or violence is 'worse' among kids. I'm saying sex is more common, but violence holds greater 'worse-ness' value, due to the possible end results. I also said in that post how inane this conversation is.
Again, during the same period that video games became popular, starting late 70's, the murder rate has fallen steadily and is currently at its lowest point in decades. And the article you posted shows further encouraging trends.

Also, not sure what my thinking sex-ed should be taught by parents at a young age has to do with the GLSEN wanting to hand out fisting kits. That to me is actually kind of creepy... I mean I get their equal rights stuff, but that's got nothing to do with equal rights.
- Because, unless I missed it, you didn't say anything about parents.
I agree it's incredibly creepy. That's who Obama put in charge of schools, btw.

[Anenome]

You're just stupid. That's okay. Lots of people are. The world needs ditch diggers too. Thanks!
That didn't need to be said :|

[Johan]

That didn't need to be said :|

I thought we were interested in truth. I speak it. If you're dumb, you'll find a role in society. Ditches need digging.

Also, 99.9999% of everything said here doesn't "need" to be said. When I finally find the .0001% that does need to be said, I'll place it in my sig.

[Anenome]

I thought we were interested in truth. I speak it. If you're dumb, you'll find a role in society. Ditches need digging.

Also, 99.9999% of everything said here doesn't "need" to be said. When I finally find the .0001% that does need to be said, I'll place it in my sig.
No, it's that I felt you had some good points until you removed all sympathy from yourself by attacking the guy :P

[Johan]

No, it's that I felt you had some good points until you removed all sympathy from yourself by attacking the guy :P

I don't want nor need anyone's sympathy because I'm speaking the truth, and frankly, I don't give a shit whether you, or anyone else, approves of my posts or not.

Thanks!

[TekkenZaibatsu]

That didn't need to be said :|

I dunno, IMO stupidity and extreme bias kinda go hand-in-hand. Let him say what he's gonna say, it's not worth diddly-squat! :D

Someone once made a post a while back questioning whether he was ever serious or not, saying he was a Colbert-esque parody. I think that's right on the money, because with some of the generally very intelligent posts he makes, I refuse to believe he's as ignorant as he lets on sometimes.

I'm really past the point of caring, though.


But back on topic, I really don't know if I think one is necessarily "worse" than the other; it just depends on the person. But sexuality is definitely an issue with children. It's clear to see that misguided children in terms of sex end up pregnant at such early ages and whatnot. Violence is the same in a lot of regards, but they are both the same in the sense that if a child is misguided these things can happen from either side early in life.

On the other hand, the 13+ year old kid that shoots up his school because he saw it in a video game is either entirely an idiot or just had idiotic parenting.

[Anenome]

Capt_That is not stupid. He may be incorrect however.

[Johan]

I'm really past the point of caring, though.

No you're not; you keep posting. Dimwit. :D

Capt_That is not stupid. He may be incorrect however.

You need to get your antecedent correct. I was clearly referring to the individual I quoted; ElPresidente.

[lockwoodx]

http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/cartoonists/jlv/lowres/jlvn336l.jpg



http://badluckcity.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/nbc10_flasher.jpg

[Capt_Thad]

Great article, Thad, but I thought you were trying to prove that gang activity was getting worse. The article had some anecdotal evidence, people merely saying things had gotten worse in their area, but that's not a real statistic, is it.

Wasn't suggesting that it was getting worse, even said those stats were improving. I was saying it's something we should still very much be worried about with our children, and an example of what violent influences can turn a child into. Was doing it as a counterpoint to the sexual influences possibly ending up with a pregnant teenager. Saying the possible outcome of one was worse than the possible outcome of the other, and the rates were nothing to scoff at with a statement like "smacking each other around."

At this point though, I'm just going to drop it. The site I referenced was just one of the first I found, and the .gov websites are still a major pain to navigate (and even more to link 'cause of how they do their databases). I'll have to put some of my own time into researching it, just so I can have more valuable numbers at the ready (and maybe learn a thing or two). Sounds like something to do during my next work shift. :D

That's who Obama put in charge of schools, btw.

There was a national mandate for that? Why would it be only happening in the one state then? As I understood, aside from some basic level stuff like integration and truancy, most of the school system law is made from the state capital. You sure that's an Obama thing and not a Mass. thing? No way they'd get away with it here... we're pretty liberal in this town (especially with Gay/Straight/Transgender rights), but not that liberal.

[ElPresidente]

You're arguing that there is absolutely no correlation between the media children view and the behaviors they exhibit? Are you truly that stupid? Seriously?

So by your reasoning a person who has constantly said "I am not suggesting for even one second that children should be exposed to pornography or be having sex before their age of consent" would hold that belief because they think there is absolutely no correlation between the media children watch and the behaviours they exhibit? Some might think that such an ascertation could be defined as 'stupid'.

This could have been a civil and interesting discussion.

As mentioned in my last posts -

"I'm more than happy to accept such a link exists but I've seen no research that suggests as such"

And you provided some research that appears at first glance to point to that. Excellent. That was what I wanted to see. Until that was presented it looked like we were both arguing assertion which I was happy to do so as long as both parties realised that was the case. Turns out I was wrong and I'll happily admit that.

I'm not going to side with you on this just yet because I've not read the reports referred to on that site to determine exactly how significant the impact is versus all the other social factors that could lead to these ills. But I'm prepared to accept they may show me that it is a very significant factor.

Thanks for the info.

Yes my text was frustrated because it took so damned long to get through to you what I was saying and what I was after. I apologise for that and I will now go and read through those studies and form an opinion based on them. You on the other hand... well lets just say I'm curious how quick you are to insult others when not protected by the anonymity of the Internet.

Doesn't hurt to be civil to those around you Johan.

[Anenome]

There was a national mandate for that? Why would it be only happening in the one state then? As I understood, aside from some basic level stuff like integration and truancy, most of the school system law is made from the state capital. You sure that's an Obama thing and not a Mass. thing? No way they'd get away with it here... we're pretty liberal in this town (especially with Gay/Straight/Transgender rights), but not that liberal.
- The guy Obama tapped as schools Czar was the one who ran the fisting conference previously and advocated teaching it to kids, etc.

[Johan]

Doesn't hurt to be civil to those around you Johan.

You're right.

You don't understand argument do you?

civil. :tips hat:

[gzsfrk]

Doesn't hurt to be civil to those around you Johan.

+10 for Implementing Biblical Principles of De-Escalation

"A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger."
- Proverbs 15:1

Nicely done, EP. ;)

[Venkman]

- Really, so you're okay with the Obama administration handing out fisting kits to 14 year olds (http://biggovernment.com/2009/12/08/fistgate-ii-high-school-students-given-fisting-kits-at-kevin-jennings-2001-glsen-conference/)?

God damn, just when I think I can't become more disappointed in our government. They either want to pretend sex doesn't exist, or give you fisting kits. What the fuck? Is there no in between?

[01010]

God damn, just when I think I can't become more disappointed in our government. They either want to pretend sex doesn't exist, or give you fisting kits. What the fuck? Is there no in between?

I wish they'd given me a fisting kit in school.

[Anenome]

God damn, just when I think I can't become more disappointed in our government. They either want to pretend sex doesn't exist, or give you fisting kits. What the fuck? Is there no in between?
I'm sure there's lefties out there who would like sex-ed to be taught in kindergarten. Part and parcel of an ideology that believes the best way to reform society is to first destroy it.

"Never let a good crisis go to waste." said Rahm Emanuel, Obama's Chief of Staff and a former Congressman. As if that wasn't cynical and evil enough, it's a short leap between taking advantage of a crisis and and purposefully creating your own crises for political advantage. Anyone who looks at what actually happened in the housing crash will fins Democrat-advocated and implemented policies and regulations on the industry as the essential reason for the market failure. In fact, Barney Frank himself was responsible for most of them. Etc.

[Venkman]

I'm sure there's lefties out there who would like sex-ed to be taught in kindergarten. Part and parcel of an ideology that believes the best way to reform society is to first destroy it.

"Never let a good crisis go to waste." said Rahm Emanuel, Obama's Chief of Staff and a former Congressman. As if that wasn't cynical and evil enough, it's a short leap between taking advantage of a crisis and and purposefully creating your own crises for political advantage. Anyone who looks at what actually happened in the housing crash will fins Democrat-advocated and implemented policies and regulations on the industry as the essential reason for the market failure. In fact, Barney Frank himself was responsible for most of them. Etc.

Something tells me you'll enjoy "Fall of the Republic" on youtube, if you haven't seen it already. ;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VebOTc-7shU

[Saracen Pariah]

...If even one generation kept it in their pants there'd be no more STD at all...

[smartass nitpick]

There'd also be no more people. :P

[/smartass nitpick]

[Johan]

I wish they'd given me a fisting kit in school.

You have a fist; use it.

: considers offering YOUR MOUTH as the recipient of YOUR FIST:

[ElPresidente]

You're right.



civil. :tips hat:

Which is why I apologised for my role in it you see.

Now off you go... scoot back up to your Ivory Tower. Us serfs have ditches to dig.

[Johan]

Us serfs have ditches to dig.

Sorry...couldn't hear you way up here. Don't get too dirty down there with the riff-raff. :D

[Anenome]

[smartass nitpick]

There'd also be no more people. :P

[/smartass nitpick]
...I meant if they were simply monogamous with their spouses. That would still produce new generations, silly :P