Who here really believes what they claim to?

[Napoléon]

This thread is convincing.

Talk about blowing your own trumpet eh? Guess he'll need a knife and fork for that egg that's currently on his face.

[Jackalope]

People do irrational things. Film at 11.

[thesummerqueen]

Dude, did you just get done watching the first half of Demolition Man, then?

People want to be able to do things that are bad for them - living in a society where you do things that are only good for you is fucking pointless and stupid. So yeah, even if people "believe" (read, in most of those case: know) that something is bad for them, they're going to do it. That's why my ass is fat, why my boyfriend smokes, why we both drive too fast (or drive at all - we're better drivers than most other people on the road, so they're probably more dangerous to us), why we clamber into places we shouldn't on the sides of mountains, etc.

[Angrboda]

I know I'd love to see an MDK about now





.

[Aractus]

Well in that case I am more christian than most christian's I know considering Ive actually read the bible. lol.

Have you ever bought something new just because you wanted it? You may think its a bad idea but you just can't help yourself. I do it all the time. I believe that I should spend less time on my xbox and more time reading for my course but I still play my xbox as much. It doesnt mean I dont believe I need to read for my course.

So your argument is that people are so stupid that they readily behave contrary to their solemn beliefs?

Porn actors are usually screened for veneral diseases far more frequently than the general popoulation. And condom are impopular among porn consumers.

Incorrect. Or, if you prefer, only a half-truth. They only test for three STI's: Gonorrhea, Chlamydia and HIV link. There is zero protection against other untested STI's. The STI rate among pron stars is substantially higher than the general population:

Chlamydia incidence in adult film performers was 8.5 times higher than the rate in Los Angeles County residents aged 18-29 and 34 times higher than in the general population. Gonorrhea incidence was 18 times higher in porn performers than Los Angeles County residents aged 18-29 and 64 times higher than in the general population.Link.

On your second point - since when do consumers get to decide what risks and hazards reside in the workplace ("manufacturing plant" if you prefer)? If I want to buy a brand new safe packed with asbestos because it produces the best product, does that mean those that make it have to be put at risk because I want asbestos in it? Wouldn't worry me, I'd be at no risk from it being sealed inside the walls of the finished product...

[KichigaiNeko]

So you "believe" rather than find out for yourself?

You are an obedient little slave rather than think for yourself?

Zen and I ride motorcycles....why? BECAUSE we like to ride motorcycles and it gives us pleasure.

When are you going to realise that religion's purpose is to deprive the individual plebian of pleasure so that the "higher-ups" can have it for themselves?

When are you going to have the balls to do something dangerous just because you want to??

[Kirbmarc]

They only test for three STI's: Gonorrhea, Chlamydia and HIV. There is zero protection against other untested STI's. The STI rate among pron stars is substantially higher than the general population:

The rate of deaths by falling is substantially higher among construction workers than the in the general population, despite the protections they wear. Does it mean that they don't believe in gravity?

since when do consumers get to decide what risks and hazards reside in the workplace ("manufacturing plant" if you prefer)?

The safe example doesn't reallly work: you need a safe for specific use, you don't need to watch the workers producing it. Adult filming is part of the show business: their product is what they show.

So, since the public doesn't like condom, producers don't use condoms. You may call the adult movie producers cynical for doing this, but that's just how the industry works. And since the actors accept the risk, there's no need for the state to barge in.

[Aractus]

The safe example doesn't reallly work: you need a safe for specific use, you don't need to watch the workers producing it. Adult filming is part of the show business: their product is what they show.

No, I don't need to "watch" them, but if I'm going to demand that I want asbestos in it because it produces the best possible product (and believe me it does), then I'm telling them to put everyone's health at risk so I can have a safe that has asbestos in it. They're not going to do that. Asbestos is only used when absolutely necessary (in Australia anyway). The only example I can think of off hand is missiles, but I'm sure they'd be more. The point is that the safemaker will give me an inferior quality product because it can be produced safely. It's a perfect example.

So, since the public doesn't like condom, producers don't use condoms. You may call the adult movie producers cynical for doing this, but that's just how the industry works. And since the actors accept the risk, there's no need for the state to barge in.

So if the safemakers are willing to accept the risk of breathing in asbestos, the State should stay out of it?

[Kirbmarc]

The point is that the safemaker will give me an inferior quality product because it can be produced safely. It's a perfect example.

No, it's not, because there isn't a black market of absestos safes (as far as I know), while the consumers of adult films are going to resort to other avenues to fulfill their need (for example, amateur porn).

So if the safemakers are willing to accept the risk of breathing in asbestos, the State should stay out of it?

To put it bluntly, yes.

[Aractus]

No, it's not, because there isn't a black market of absestos safes (as far as I know), while the consumers of adult films are going to resort to other avenues to fulfill their need (for example, amateur porn).

Maybe not, but there's a ready market of used safes that have asbestos that the new products have to "compete" against.

As for your second point - I don't care what the consumers want. What they want to see, largely, is irrelevant. What I'm more concerned about is this. Here's another link. Child pornography isn't the USA's fault though, it came (legally at the time) from Denmark. Goes to show how long a problem will linger on even after it has been "abolished". I'm well aware, BTW, that condoms are just one of the many, many, problems that need to be addressed in porn.