Author Topic: Google takes step against internet pornography  (Read 184980 times)

Man of Steel

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19388
  • Isaiah40:28-31 ✝ Romans10:9 ✝ 1Peter3:15
Google takes step against internet pornography
« on: July 17, 2014, 08:05:00 AM »
http://www.christianheadlines.com/columnists/denison-forum/very-good-news-about-pornography.html

Pornography is a plague that has risen to epidemic proportions.  Of all Internet users, 42.7 percent view porn; 40 percent of adults in the U.S. regularly visit porn websites; by next year, porn video consumption on tablet computers will triple.  As I have written previously, pornography is highly addictive.  It destroys marriages, makes women and children into sex objects, and fuels human trafficking.  Christians are not exempt: 47 percent of believers say porn is a problem in their home.
 
Now there's very good news for those of us who are working to counter this plague: Google has joined the fight.  The company has prohibited apps sold through its app store that contain or promote explicit content.  It is working on technology that would eliminate all images of child pornography and child abuse from the Internet.  And now it has decided to refuse advertisements that contain or lead to pornography.
 
This is a significant decision, for three reasons.  One: casual Internet users will be far less likely to view porn unintentionally.  It is estimated that 90 percent of America's youth, ages 8 to 16, have viewed porn online, most while doing their homework.  Many clicked on an interesting ad with no idea that it would lead to porn.  The Internet just became safer for our kids.
 
Two: other search engine companies may follow suit.  Google maintains the world's largest Internet search engine.  As such, it is a global leader in technology.  The company's decision may encourage and even pressure competitors to follow their example.
 
Three: Google is giving up enormous revenues.  A 2012 study estimated that the company earned $100 million a day from its advertising campaigns.  As much as 12 percent of all websites contain porn; 25 percent of all search engine requests are porn-related.  Google could lose a massive amount of money as a result of its principled decision.
 
When last did it cost you something significant to do the right thing?  Consider Robert Rowling, a Dallas businessman and personal friend.  Bob made the decision in 1999 that his Omni Hotels would remove all pay-per-view adult content from their hotel rooms.  Their marketing director explained: "Not all business decisions should be fiscally driven.  We believe that this is the right thing to do."
 
Truett Cathy chose to close Chick-fil-A restaurants on Sundays so employees could attend worship services.  Tennessee businessman Alan Barnhart lives on one percent of his company's profits and has donated the rest to an irrevocable charitable trust.  Second Chance Coffee Company employs former convicts and provides support to them and their families.  Norm Miller, chairman of Interstate Batteries, worked with e3 Partners to launch "I Am Second," a campaign that shares the faith stories of celebrities and ordinary people around the world.
 
What influence has God entrusted to you?  How are you using that influence to exalt Jesus and help people follow him?  At what price?  C. S. Lewis, when asked how much Christians should give, offered this wisdom: "I am afraid the only safe rule is to give more than we can spare."  Have you?  Will you?

avxo

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5605
  • Iron Pumping University Math Professor
Re: Google takes step against internet pornography
« Reply #1 on: July 21, 2014, 03:00:52 PM »
Oh boy...

http://www.christianheadlines.com/columnists/denison-forum/very-good-news-about-pornography.html

Pornography is a plague that has risen to epidemic proportions.

Pornography is not a plague.


Of all Internet users, 42.7 percent view porn;

Citation needed. And then, even if 42.7% of Internet users do view porn, so what? We can discuss how to keep pornography out of the hands and monitors of children, but what business is it of the author's what percentage of other adults view porn?


40 percent of adults in the U.S. regularly visit porn websites;

Those damn adults... what do they think they are? Some kind of adults who can make their decisions!?!


by next year, porn video consumption on tablet computers will triple.

And the problem is what? Sticky tablets?


As I have written previously, pornography is highly addictive.

Just because he previously wrote it doesn't make it so.


It destroys marriages, makes women and children into sex objects, and fuels human trafficking.

Pornography qua pornography doesn't destroy anything.

As for the objectification of women, I'm not sure what's worse: objectifying them, or controlling their lives. After all, who the fuck is the author to decide what adult women can or cannot do with their bodies?

[And, now, for the following obligatory statement, lest anyone interpret the absence of such as support:] As for the issues of child pornography and human trafficking, we should of course do our best to eliminate both.


Christians are not exempt: 47 percent of believers say porn is a problem in their home.

They should pray harder and take cold showers.


Now there's very good news for those of us who are working to counter this plague: Google has joined the fight.  The company has prohibited apps sold through its app store that contain or promote explicit content.  It is working on technology that would eliminate all images of child pornography and child abuse from the Internet.  And now it has decided to refuse advertisements that contain or lead to pornography.

Eliminating child pornography is a laudable goal and one we can all get behind. As for the rest, you and the people working to "counter this plague" can go fuck yourselves.


One: casual Internet users will be far less likely to view porn unintentionally.

Right, because that's a really big problem. I mean, who hasn't, unintentionally typed fuckedbyhorsecocks.com, amirite?


It is estimated that 90 percent of America's youth, ages 8 to 16, have viewed porn online, most while doing their homework.

It's easy to throw around numbers and statistics. It's harder to back them up. Citation needed for the quoted portion: who made this estimation and based on what data? What's the confidence interval?


Many clicked on an interesting ad with no idea that it would lead to porn.

I have never personally seen such an ad. That's not to say such an ad doesn't exist - only that I find it unlikely, but that's irrelevant. The interesting question here is if you want to protect your precious spawn from seeing such things why don't you (a) supervise their Internet activities or, if that's just too much difficult (b) buy some cyber-nanny software to run on your computer and protect your damn kids and leave the rest of us alone?


The Internet just became safer for our kids.

Fuck you and fuck your kids.

 
Three: Google is giving up enormous revenues.  A 2012 study estimated that the company earned $100 million a day from its advertising campaigns.  As much as 12 percent of all websites contain porn; 25 percent of all search engine requests are porn-related.  Google could lose a massive amount of money as a result of its principled decision.

Google can, of course, choose who to do business with and what kinds of materials they want to advertise; it is their right. Yes, porn is big business but I doubt that the amount of money that Google would lose over this is "massive" - again, the author doesn't cite his sources; he just spouts bullshit.


When last did it cost you something significant to do the right thing?  Consider Robert Rowling, a Dallas businessman and personal friend.  Bob made the decision in 1999 that his Omni Hotels would remove all pay-per-view adult content from their hotel rooms.  Their marketing director explained: "Not all business decisions should be fiscally driven.  We believe that this is the right thing to do."

Good things Omni Hotels is privately held, or that statement would qualify as an admission of breach of fiduciary duty. But do note: Omni Hotels chooses to limit the content they make available on their TV screens; it's not choosing to limit the content available on other people's TV screens.

 
Truett Cathy chose to close Chick-fil-A restaurants on Sundays so employees could attend worship services.

Good for them. But they aren't telling people they can't eat chicken on Sundays, are they?


Tennessee businessman Alan Barnhart lives on one percent of his company's profits and has donated the rest to an irrevocable charitable trust.

Good for him, but he isn't forcing other people to live on 1% of their profits and donate the rest to an irrevocable charitable trust.


Second Chance Coffee Company employs former convicts and provides support to them and their families.

Good for them, but they aren't forcing other companies to fire former convicts and provide support to them and their families.

Are you starting to see a pattern here? These people are not trying to control other people's lives - they aren't trying to tell them what to eat, how much to donate and who to hire. The author is trying to control other people's lives: he believes porn is bad and a sin and that, therefore, nobody should have access to porn.

Man of Steel

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19388
  • Isaiah40:28-31 ✝ Romans10:9 ✝ 1Peter3:15
Re: Google takes step against internet pornography
« Reply #2 on: July 21, 2014, 05:04:58 PM »
Jim Denison wrote the article...fyi.

I can try and locate his e-mail address if you'd like

As far as I'm aware the pornography industry isn't going anywhere, is only growing in popularity and accessibility and will still produce an abundant supply of pornographic materials for you and  your loved ones to enjoy for decades to come.

Good news for lovers of pornography is that Google's efforts won't make a dent.  And who knows?  Perhaps Google will get new leadership in the future and double or triple their support of pornographic material.

In short,  if you enjoy pornography you have the vast majority of the planet supporting it also....it's extremely safe and protected for your children's, your children's children's and your children's children's children's lifelong enjoyment.

avxo

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5605
  • Iron Pumping University Math Professor
Re: Google takes step against internet pornography
« Reply #3 on: July 21, 2014, 05:20:11 PM »
Jim Denison wrote the article...fyi.

I can try and locate his e-mail address if you'd like.

I know - I didn't think you wrote it. And no need; not interested in corresponding directly with a buffoon. If he wants to come on here, we'll oil up and have a pose-down. BOOM!

mik1111

  • Getbig III
  • ***
  • Posts: 765
Re: Google takes step against internet pornography
« Reply #4 on: July 21, 2014, 06:02:38 PM »
if google doesn't want to search for porn, other engines will. and will be n1.

avxo

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5605
  • Iron Pumping University Math Professor
Re: Google takes step against internet pornography
« Reply #5 on: July 21, 2014, 06:31:32 PM »
if google doesn't want to search for porn, other engines will. and will be n1.

They just won't allow porn ads.

mik1111

  • Getbig III
  • ***
  • Posts: 765
Re: Google takes step against internet pornography
« Reply #6 on: July 22, 2014, 02:16:43 AM »
They just won't allow porn ads.
that's cool then. I'm sick of those adds, rarely do they consist of tits and pussy. most are cock enlargers.
the main reason why I installed adBlock.

Man of Steel

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19388
  • Isaiah40:28-31 ✝ Romans10:9 ✝ 1Peter3:15
Re: Google takes step against internet pornography
« Reply #7 on: July 22, 2014, 06:22:49 AM »
Oh boy...

Pornography is not a plague.


Citation needed. And then, even if 42.7% of Internet users do view porn, so what? We can discuss how to keep pornography out of the hands and monitors of children, but what business is it of the author's what percentage of other adults view porn?


Those damn adults... what do they think they are? Some kind of adults who can make their decisions!?!


And the problem is what? Sticky tablets?


Just because he previously wrote it doesn't make it so.


Pornography qua pornography doesn't destroy anything.

As for the objectification of women, I'm not sure what's worse: objectifying them, or controlling their lives. After all, who the fuck is the author to decide what adult women can or cannot do with their bodies?

[And, now, for the following obligatory statement, lest anyone interpret the absence of such as support:] As for the issues of child pornography and human trafficking, we should of course do our best to eliminate both.


They should pray harder and take cold showers.


Eliminating child pornography is a laudable goal and one we can all get behind. As for the rest, you and the people working to "counter this plague" can go fuck yourselves.


Right, because that's a really big problem. I mean, who hasn't, unintentionally typed fuckedbyhorsecocks.com, amirite?


It's easy to throw around numbers and statistics. It's harder to back them up. Citation needed for the quoted portion: who made this estimation and based on what data? What's the confidence interval?


I have never personally seen such an ad. That's not to say such an ad doesn't exist - only that I find it unlikely, but that's irrelevant. The interesting question here is if you want to protect your precious spawn from seeing such things why don't you (a) supervise their Internet activities or, if that's just too much difficult (b) buy some cyber-nanny software to run on your computer and protect your damn kids and leave the rest of us alone?


Fuck you and fuck your kids.

 
Google can, of course, choose who to do business with and what kinds of materials they want to advertise; it is their right. Yes, porn is big business but I doubt that the amount of money that Google would lose over this is "massive" - again, the author doesn't cite his sources; he just spouts bullshit.


Good things Omni Hotels is privately held, or that statement would qualify as an admission of breach of fiduciary duty. But do note: Omni Hotels chooses to limit the content they make available on their TV screens; it's not choosing to limit the content available on other people's TV screens.

 
Good for them. But they aren't telling people they can't eat chicken on Sundays, are they?


Good for him, but he isn't forcing other people to live on 1% of their profits and donate the rest to an irrevocable charitable trust.


Good for them, but they aren't forcing other companies to fire former convicts and provide support to them and their families.

Are you starting to see a pattern here? These people are not trying to control other people's lives - they aren't trying to tell them what to eat, how much to donate and who to hire. The author is trying to control other people's lives: he believes porn is bad and a sin and that, therefore, nobody should have access to porn.

You took the time to "line by line" your response so I thought I should respond; although after going line by line I think the gist of your response and the pattern is simple: "no God, no sin, no problem....keep your religion separate from me and my rights and enjoy it on your time.  And if I so choose I'll enjoy pornography on mine".   Just the standard theist/atheist disagreement with some jabs thrown in.

Even if I provided every citation for the stats presented in the article would it make a difference?  I'm doubting it LOL.  Given the article is theist-based something about the data, collection efforts and/or data analysts would be objected to.

The thing about sex is the vast majority of the world loves it....some live for it...some worship it.  They like to talk about it, take pictures of it, create artistic representations of it, write about it, watch others engage it, make tv and film about it, engage in it alone, engage in it with a partner, engage in it with multiple partners, engage in it with both sexes, engage in it with animals, engage in it with different ages of people, engage in multiple kinds of sex, engage in it with inanimate objects, engage in fetishes and fantasy play, etc.....the world loves sex and the majority will fight with every breathe to protect their right to every past, present and future orgasm.

My only question would be why the
We can discuss how to keep pornography out of the hands and monitors of children
in one breathe and
fuck your kids
in another?  Which is it?

Me personally I get the ole "FU" almost everyday in regards to my faith from someone.....I'm fully immune and expect it.

avxo

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5605
  • Iron Pumping University Math Professor
Re: Google takes step against internet pornography
« Reply #8 on: July 22, 2014, 11:23:23 AM »
My only question would be why the  in one breathe and in another?  Which is it?

Me personally I get the ole "FU" almost everyday in regards to my faith from someone.....I'm fully immune and expect it.

The two aren't mutually exclusive. I'm all for fighting child pornography and protecting children from being abused. What I am not for is bubble-wrapping the Internet and limiting legal non-child-involving porn because "won't someone please think of the children!" that might stumble upon such porn.

Do you see the difference?

loco

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19012
  • loco like a fox
Re: Google takes step against internet pornography
« Reply #9 on: July 22, 2014, 11:23:41 AM »
Serious question for Christians, Jews and Muslims:  Could Song of Solomon be considered soft porn?  Why not?

Man of Steel

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19388
  • Isaiah40:28-31 ✝ Romans10:9 ✝ 1Peter3:15
Re: Google takes step against internet pornography
« Reply #10 on: July 22, 2014, 11:49:11 AM »
Serious question for Christians, Jews and Muslims:  Could Song of Solomon be considered soft porn?  Why not?

No, Song of Solomon is not soft porn LOL (sorry, don't mean to laugh it just reads funny to me), but others have accused it as such...others have said the book is not an inspired text. This book of the bible discusses the romantic intimacy and sexual intimacy between men and women in a marriage and their expression of love via the divine gift of sex.   In essence the Song of Solomon is a more like a love song, but it also ties in the intimacy expressed between God and his church.  Of course the initimacy is different in nature, but the expression of love is the same.  Admitedly the language used in this book is hard for me to do solid exegesis...sometimes I simply have to defer to more mature Christians for more thorough guidance.

Pornography gets its greek roots from the word "porne" which is about selling the "intimate services" of harlots (prostitutes).....the selling of various sexual acts or harlotry. The Song of Solomon has nothing to do with adulterous, initimate sexual encounters with prostitutes (or the selling of sex).  

Others have asked, "Would you teach this biblical material to children?"  You would in terms of how the passages relate to God's relationship with his church.  In second Corinthians Paul notes the jealousy of God and his relationship to his bride the church:

2 Corinthians 11:1-3

11 I hope you will put up with a little more of my foolishness. Please bear with me. 2 For I am jealous for you with the jealousy of God himself. I promised you as a pure bride to one husband—Christ. 3 But I fear that somehow your pure and undivided devotion to Christ will be corrupted, just as Eve was deceived by the cunning ways of the serpent.
 

I would personally save the discussion about sexual intimacy between mom and dad for when they are old enough to understand.  It's not that the material is inappropriate it's just that most children don't possess enough maturity and life experience to understand or appreciate the passages.  Even adults struggle to understand LOL!!

Other have objected to the book by saying, "Didn't Solomon have tons of wives and concubines?"   Yes he did and he was wrong for doing so.  I won't even attempt an apologetic defense LOL. The biblical material is both sound and inspired, but Solomon's personal witness was severely lacking.  We can all relate to those times of personal inadequacy that causes our witness for Christ to suffer.  I've had moments on these boards I'm not proud of.  We see how we pale in comparison to Christ's example.  Even Solomon's father King David had an adulterous relationship with Bathsheba after having her husband - one of David's faithful soldiers and commanders - secretly killed.  And yet Jesus Christ descended from this very family line.  We see examples of believers and nonbelievers acting sinfully all throughout scripture.  Regardless, the divinely inspired message of scripture holds true despite human shortcomings.  



Man of Steel

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19388
  • Isaiah40:28-31 ✝ Romans10:9 ✝ 1Peter3:15
Re: Google takes step against internet pornography
« Reply #11 on: July 22, 2014, 12:37:31 PM »
The two aren't mutually exclusive. I'm all for fighting child pornography and protecting children from being abused. What I am not for is bubble-wrapping the Internet and limiting legal non-child-involving porn because "won't someone please think of the children!" that might stumble upon such porn.

Do you see the difference?


I completely understand what you're suggesting, but I'm also a theist and an evangelical Christian to boot so I stand firm against those materials that can potentially help divide God from his flock.  I know it sounds strange, but I actually care about the spiritual well-being of the members of GB.....it's corny I know LOL!   ;D

You can easily youtube videos about former pornstars that have come to know Jesus Christ or believers in Christ that have been delivered from the bonds of pornography addiction.  Many of these folks journeyed to hell and back via this industry and to deny their testimonies is simple pride and ignorance in my book.  Many would say, "well, they should've been stronger people, avoided the addiction and made better life choices."   Perhaps.  Me, I have no pornographic addiction, but that doesn't make me stronger than someone that does.   There are most likely plenty of sinful things those folks stand firmly against that I fall prey to time and time again.      

It's not that your perspective is warped or skewed it's simply grounded differently than mine.  We'll never see eye to eye, but at the very core I do believe that pornography is wrong and if it were completely eliminated in this moment I wouldn't lose a moment of sleep.  In fact, I'd go to bed with a big, fat grin on my face.  Not because people have less of an option, but because a huge, sinful obstacle has been eliminated.  Still, I know that isn't going to happen and I understand how that notion doesn't mean anything to the community of nonbelievers.  I sincerely wish that it did though ;).

avxo

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5605
  • Iron Pumping University Math Professor
Re: Google takes step against internet pornography
« Reply #12 on: July 22, 2014, 05:08:15 PM »
You can easily youtube videos about former pornstars that have come to know Jesus Christ or believers in Christ that have been delivered from the bonds of pornography addiction.

You can also easily youtube videos of people who, after finding Jesus, claim to have found Muhammad, or some other, superior revelation. Yet you discount those. What makes those videos less convincing? That they don't reinforce your beliefs?


Many of these folks journeyed to hell and back via this industry and to deny their testimonies is simple pride and ignorance in my book.

See above. Do you give the same weight or credence to the testimony of a porn that doesn't align with your beliefs?


It's not that your perspective is warped or skewed it's simply grounded differently than mine.  We'll never see eye to eye, but at the very core I do believe that pornography is wrong and if it were completely eliminated in this moment I wouldn't lose a moment of sleep.  In fact, I'd go to bed with a big, fat grin on my face.  Not because people have less of an option, but because a huge, sinful obstacle has been eliminated.  Still, I know that isn't going to happen and I understand how that notion doesn't mean anything to the community of nonbelievers.  I sincerely wish that it did though ;).

You believe that pornography is wrong, but you provide no sane, rational reason. "I believe it's wrong" isn't a reason. People "believed" marriage between whites and blacks was wrong too. People "believed" that some women were witches and burned them at the stake.

Man of Steel

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19388
  • Isaiah40:28-31 ✝ Romans10:9 ✝ 1Peter3:15
Re: Google takes step against internet pornography
« Reply #13 on: July 22, 2014, 07:21:22 PM »
You can also easily youtube videos of people who, after finding Jesus, claim to have found Muhammad, or some other, superior revelation. Yet you discount those. What makes those videos less convincing? That they don't reinforce your beliefs?


See above. Do you give the same weight or credence to the testimony of a porn that doesn't align with your beliefs?


You believe that pornography is wrong, but you provide no sane, rational reason. "I believe it's wrong" isn't a reason. People "believed" marriage between whites and blacks was wrong too. People "believed" that some women were witches and burned them at the stake.
In this instance my focus is not on salvation in Christ.... that was merely an example of folks bound by addiction to pornography and those folks who's lives were destroyed by participating in the pornography industry.   Your examples of those folks from differing faiths suffering due to the pornography industry reinforces that idea.

My position is grounded in God not MOS.  You finding that irrational doesn't make it so.

avxo

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5605
  • Iron Pumping University Math Professor
Re: Google takes step against internet pornography
« Reply #14 on: July 22, 2014, 08:05:18 PM »
In this instance my focus is not on salvation in Christ.... that was merely an example of folks bound by addiction to pornography and those folks who's lives were destroyed by participating in the pornography industry.   Your examples of those folks from differing faiths suffering due to the pornography industry reinforces that idea.

My position is grounded in God not MOS.  You finding that irrational doesn't make it so.

A position that cannot be rationally supported cannot be a rational. A position for which you can only present evidence after I agree that that the thing you're trying to prove exists actually exists isn't rational.

D.O.A.

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2461
  • Revenge is a dish best served ice cold
Re: Google takes step against internet pornography
« Reply #15 on: July 22, 2014, 08:18:03 PM »
Porn is the greatest thing on the internet. Put a leash on your kids. They are not the only children on this planet

Man of Steel

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19388
  • Isaiah40:28-31 ✝ Romans10:9 ✝ 1Peter3:15
Re: Google takes step against internet pornography
« Reply #16 on: July 23, 2014, 06:02:22 AM »
A position that cannot be rationally supported cannot be a rational. A position for which you can only present evidence after I agree that that the thing you're trying to prove exists actually exists isn't rational.

At this point I'm no longer sure if we're discussing pornography or if we've shifted gears a bit to the topic of God's existence.   I think it's probably a combination, but again I'm not certain which direction you're headed so I'm unsure how to respond.   Need a bit of clarification.  It's all good either way. 

 

loco

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19012
  • loco like a fox
Re: Google takes step against internet pornography
« Reply #17 on: July 23, 2014, 07:05:55 AM »
You believe that pornography is wrong, but you provide no sane, rational reason. "I believe it's wrong" isn't a reason. People "believed" marriage between whites and blacks was wrong too. People "believed" that some women were witches and burned them at the stake.

avxo, forget for a moment about it being "wrong" or "sin."  Agree or disagree with them, are you aware that many secular, educated professionals out there strongly believe that pornography is harmful?  

Heck, even Bill Maher on his show encouraged people to stop looking at it and start having more sex with their significant other more often instead...Maher being an example of secular person who believes this way, not an example of an educated professional.  :)

avxo

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5605
  • Iron Pumping University Math Professor
Re: Google takes step against internet pornography
« Reply #18 on: July 23, 2014, 08:52:39 AM »
avxo, forget for a moment about it being "wrong" or "sin."  Agree or disagree with them, are you aware that many secular, educated professionals out there strongly believe that pornography is harmful?  

Heck, even Bill Maher on his show encouraged people to stop looking at it and start having more sex with their significant other more often instead...Maher being an example of secular person who believes this way, not an example of an educated professional.  :)

My position is simple and boils down to this:

(a) consenting adults should be able to have sexual encounters which are filmed.
(b) other adults should be able to decide to view such recorded consensual sexual encounters.

With these points established, it's irrelevant to me who finds it harmful. If objective evidence exists that pornography is harmful, I'd evaluate that evidence and use it to decide whether I should or should watch (or engage in) pornography.

And Bill Maher's musings on pornography don't change that.


At this point I'm no longer sure if we're discussing pornography or if we've shifted gears a bit to the topic of God's existence.   I think it's probably a combination, but again I'm not certain which direction you're headed so I'm unsure how to respond.   Need a bit of clarification.  It's all good either way.

I'm simply pointing out that saying "my position on this topic is based on God" says nothing of substance but, in fact, stands for "my position on this topic is not supported by objective evidence."

It does challenge the existence of the Christian God, but only as an aside.


Man of Steel

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19388
  • Isaiah40:28-31 ✝ Romans10:9 ✝ 1Peter3:15
Re: Google takes step against internet pornography
« Reply #19 on: July 24, 2014, 07:35:39 AM »
I'm simply pointing out that saying "my position on this topic is based on God" says nothing of substance but, in fact, stands for "my position on this topic is not supported by objective evidence."

It does challenge the existence of the Christian God, but only as an aside.

Well, I never attempted to convince you of anything.  You objected to the article and want me (and anyone else that may side with the opinions expressed in the article) to provide you with facts, figures, measurements, observations, repeatable tests, etc....objective evidence.....to validate the position that pornography is bad.  

Me, I just need to hear the testimonies of former pornographers and current/former pornography addicts to convince me that pornography is harmful.  I don't need statistics and bar charts in relation to their testimonies compiled and expressed on spreadsheets.  I don't need repeatable demonstrations conducted in controlled environments by statisticians, sociologists, psychologists and scientists to convince me that the lives of these folks have been negatively impacted.  What would those tests and test environments consist of?

Now, I can't say this with certainty, but it appears to me that you wouldn't trust the testimonies of victims of pornography because they aren't substantiated by evidence.  This industry is fraught with rape, child abuse, female abuse, criminal activity, physical abuse, mental abuse, drug abuse, addiction, disease and death.  I don't understand why people would want to be party to or support an industry that engages in these types of things.  In terms of evidence, would you need to observe and analyze these situations personally?  Does an unbiased third party need to conduct the research, data collection and analysis?  What would that analysis consist of?  How could you be certain the third party is unbiased?  

The majority of analytics and statistics compiled would most likely originate from the raw testimonies of the individuals that lived out the experiences.   One victim comes forward and then another and another.....that seems like a solid observable demonstration or trend and a repeatable test of the validity of the claim....live and unadultered completed in the rawest, truest environment possible.  Is it scientifically controlled?  No it is not.  You won't like this, but the requirement of specific objective evidence needed to convince folks often comes across as posturing, finger-waving, excuses and good ole fashioned denial.

What objective evidence do you demand (or prefer)?  Further, what subjective constraints will initially be required of the objective evidence to classify it as quality evidence?