Inclusive Communities and Representations of Violence against Women

We'd have thought laws then, a way nastier thing than tudding away on a poseball for sure.

Orwell, Orwell, Orwell!

I've been on Usenet. I've been flamed by bigger trolls than this.
Orwell, Orwell, Orwell!

OK, found the text, read it, read the criticisms of it too. The basic premise in the paper is that following the legalisation of pornography in Japan, sex crimes fell. Well, here is the rape data from Japan, read it, and tell me if you think that Diamond's case is proven:

Table 2. Rape in Japan
Percentage Of Victims In Each Age Range For Each Year Examined
Age of victims\Year 1972 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995

0-5 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.1

6-12 7.6 9.5 8.9 12.5 5.4 3.9

13-19 35.4 36.3 33.4 34.7 39.8 36.4

20-24 29.6 22.0 23.0 22.7 24.5 33.0

25-29 9.0 11.5 11.6 8.8 11.4 12.2

Hardly convincing evidence, is it?

Diamond also makes no distinction between the various types of porn. There has been no definitive study on the effects of extremely violent porn on society. The evidence comes mainly from police officers, social workers, victims, hospital workers, councilors, etc. However, there is a definitive study on the link between extreme violence towards women and violent lyrics in music, http://www.apa.org/monitor/julaug03/violent.html

Rock

And if you cannot be bothered to wade through, or understand, the evidence Paracelsus, I will summarise it for you, it reads: blah, blah, blah.

Pics please.

An excellent reposte.

However, would you still defend the freedom of others to engage in this sort of stuff, even if a causal link was definitely proven, or do the rights of these individuals, and the fear of a slippery slope, trump all other concerns?

Rock

No, the problem is in identifying just who you are talking to in an anonymous world and forum.



My intent? Please clarify.

Rock

No!

I doubt it will mean very much to the people who have stated that it is banned. They will repeat it later.

Rock

Yes, because once you begin to make thought crimes illegal, then everyone becomes criminals, and no one thinks anymore.

It is better to educate, so that someone who feels that perhaps their thought might move into reality gets help, rather than feeling like a criminal just for thinking it, and never getting the help, and hurting someone in reality.

[Deleted due to situ being resolved]

Sorry, can't help but step back in for one more comment.

You should learn to read. These are percentages in age groups, considering all rape victims, and of course they do not much differ. These say nothing about the actual number of rape crimes.

I would defend the rights of a murderer (let alone an actual sexual abuser) to the full defense allowed by the law, even if that means the murderer gets off scot free. I would defend the laws that allow this, if changing the law would lead to the bizarre results that have ALREADY HAPPENED. The distinction between one role-player and another is barely visible from where I'm sitting.

So, I'll answer your either-or question with "yes".

One virtue of a very long thread on a contentious issue is that it's interesting (for those who find argumentation to be an intriguing subject of study) to see what basic arguments various individuals adhere to. For you, though it's not the only argument you've employed, 'slippery slope' seems to be prominent.

Implicit in your use of this argument: that it is accepted by all; an absolute; the end of discussion. Any proposed change that is declared to be a slippery slope is, all can agree, off the table!



Is it true that 'slippery slope' is an absolute? Agreed upon by all reasonable people?

If it is, then those who say cannabis must never be legalized because cannabis puts users on the slippery slope toward crack and heroin, have had the final and only word on that topic. No need to discuss---we all agree that the slippery slope is an absolute! Topic off the table!

???

If your wanting to ban on "casual links" then you have to ban the human race and all it's activity.

Also do you think Argent is the only person here who cares about the problem your on about, I'd guess most here do, they just seem to disagree, strongly, with your methods and of the ops.



You can't ban everything, and the way your thinking, you'd have to.

Walking to the shop could induce someone to a sex crime.

You need to educate kids to be able to say no to abuse, don't use computers to babysit them, and learn to respect consensual adults.

People will stop stuff if it hurts them or find help if they need it. You don't need to impose yourself on them.

Good god, you noticed. Yes, I am so concerned about innocents being swept up with the putative guilty that I consider that an overriding issue. The fact that innocents have already been swept up, that we've already gone OVER the edge and are on the way down the slope, seems to have missed your careful attention.
I'm in favor of decriminalizing crack and heroin too. Next?

list numbers, not percentages. Percentages are a good way to obfuscate.


He need not make a distinction between types of porn, either all porn is bad or none is.

And this isn't about the short term effects of music, it's been known since music was first played it would invoke short term emotional responses.

Be fair, he wrote "causal", not "casual".

Australia started giving out free needles and condoms to people when HIV hit and we have a really low rate.

I'm not up for decriminalising drugs, but the prevention of harm is just common sense.

Point still stands though... the only way to stop this is to remove the one component in all of it: humanity, or more specifically humanities lusts and desires

Oh yeh he did too, sorry bout that people.

Criminalizing drug abuse clearly doesn't work. Treating it as a public health issue like dirty tap water is worth trying.

Ummm. Want to try a different study? The one cited has nothing to do with extreme violence towards women.

Neither do a lot of his links... which is why most ignore them as chaff