Dave Noisy wrote:And i have a problem with people who misrepresent those they are arguing against.
I have yet to see you make any mention besides complete absolutes. If you'd even suggested that you could accept the notion that maybe not all porn stars are exploited, I would not have had such a problem with your post. But, you insisted on bullying everyone who didn't see this as black-and-white into making us out to be stupid for not agreeing, so I'll call it as I see it.
Dave Noisy wrote:My main intention has been to raise awareness that very likely the vast majority of those people in the most commonly acquired porn are unlikely to be in situations any of us would want to be in.
I'm all for awareness. I'm all for facts. But, all your arguments point toward absolutes where you seem to infer that all porn MUST be bad, all porn is exploitative even when completely concensual, and that it's wrong on all levels. Everything you've mentioned regarding it has been 100% against it in every single way possible, never mentioning that there's even a slim chance that it could be seen differently. That is your personal feeling, and I abide by your choice to feel that way. HOWEVER
, you put it out like that's the straight fact, when much of it is your own opinion based on information that caters to your own notions. That's not unbiased in the slightest, and if you can't see that, then I can't discuss this with you. Your choice of the words 'vast majority' are a huge tip-off right there, blatant bias toward only believing the information that says this vs. accepting that maybe, just maybe, many people in porn aren't miserable and aren't exploited more than other industries. Just because your sources for info, which apparently are all anti-porn, say that most people in that industry as exploited and miserable does not make it absolute fact.
Dave Noisy wrote:This was, and remains to get virtually NO discussion, and few wish to realize this.
Not exactly. Discussion comes when people are willing to be open to things other than pre-conceived notions that are based on info biased toward their own opinion vs. absolute fact. You haven't shown the ability to discuss it rationally, as you just show outright anger and disgust with anyone who doesn't side with you 100%. Have you ever considered that maybe you're not always right and all-knowing about situations like this discussion?
Dave Noisy wrote:Rather, every effort is being made to JUSTIFY their access to porn.
Yep, that's why I said I don't watch porn and don't care for it, and I've seen others who share the same sentiment yet you come back with this same flawed statement. I don't know, perhaps you honestly believe that without porn, there will be a major social change toward pro-feminist ideals [you only seem to want to acknowledge man-on-woman porn that has degrading undertones], maybe you think that it will reduce violent crime against women, maybe something else. I don't know what you think, but there's no guarantee that a lack of pornography would make a difference. Porn isn't going away - it's been here in some form or other for a lot longer than we have, and you can't attribute all social injustices to it. You can speculate all day, but let's stick to reality.
Dave Noisy wrote:Is that really such an awful thing, Beck Bristow? That people consider the people in their porn flicks?
Not at all. BUT, we go round and round again. How do you know that the people in a porn movie someone might see are definitely exploited? Just as well, how do I know that they aren't? And therein lies the whole point of my highlighted statement from earlier - we simply don't know, so we have to follow our own preferences for ethics and judgement rather than condemn or condone the entire industry. One final time, say it with me everyone, THIS IS NOT BLACK AND WHITE, THIS IS NOT IN ABSOLUTES, WE DO NOT KNOW THE STORY FOR EVERYONE IN THE BUSINESS.
Really, is that too difficult to consider? If so, let me know now and I'll kindly disregard anything you post from now on that is in response to what I say. It'll tell me right quick if you're able to discuss things rationally, or if you can only dictate orders to people who don't agree with your notions from the get-go. It might just save us both a whole lot of time.
You've dodged accurate parallels and only manged to call them 'justifications for porn access' instead of accepting them. Why is porn such an exceptional hot-button for you in this case while, say, the plight of the underpaid and overworked stockperson at a mega-chain grocery is not worthy of acknowledging as exploitatave in comparison[you dodged all similar comparisons in the past]? I've noted you tend to attack people for purported speciesism in other threads, but somehow, you single out one industry while avoiding acknowledgement of the plight of people in many others, minus the sex that's a target here. Rather hypocritical, don't you think? Had you at least had the ability to acknowledge the potential unfortunate parallels via porn and other industries, we may have never gotten this far, but you've skirted them quite well for this thread. And the beat goes on.