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.