Smut for Smut

[Pippy]

Hey,

That would be an argument from ignorance. How do you know something is not possible to have been brought about through natural processes? "Matter of chance" is a red herring, as everything in life is subject to chance. The actual argument is made when you can't accept a natural process occurring by any other means but some God that magically solves everything.
Again, how do you know it is not possible?

I assure you this isn't an argument from ignorance. You can keep calling it whatever you like, but please allow me to explain a second time. It is not that I am too stupid to understand how this reality we both see came to be. That is not the case. I am not arguing that since I don't understand, it can't be. Random growth, survival of the fittest, even given the modern 4 billion years theory, cannot create something as complex as DNA structure. Not I am too stupid to see that it can. It can not. Proteins and Amino acids are locked in a chicken and egg paradox. That isn't that I am too stupid too see what might have come first. It is a paradox.

I assure you that thinking that ID is some religious trick is wasting your time. The argument for god by design, as I said, is stronger now than ever before. I know you guys have a grudge against the bible, but this is about the creation of the universe, not some book a man wrote.

Evolution is not random chance. It is quite the opposite. It is through the process of natural selection that things evolve and retain survivability. Over 99 percent of ALL living things EVER have gone extinct. If this is a design, it is an extremely inefficient one.
I suggest you read up a bit, as scientists saying evolutionary development is not possible probably aren't the best in their field
The only lack of knowledge here is from your side.

Things evolve and retain survivability with... random chance. The mutations that occur in the DNA and RNA are by definition random. Can you map what they will be? Is there a pattern to it? That is akin to the old argument that humans are a pinnacle of evolution. That evolution is more than it is. Evolution is a side effect of time and change. The whole thing about 99 percent of things ever going extinct is only inefficient if the point of existence is to create as many animals at once. If the point of the world isn't to create as mnay animals at one time as possible, that it is not inefficient. Efficiency involves a presumption of proper function. The presumption you make is that an animal going extinct is a flaw or failure of the system. How do you know that? There is person incredulity.

No, it's calling a spade a spade. It's a billion dollar a year industry. It's not that way by accident.

See, I have to repeat myself often. I said last post that the amount of money it makes is not it's moral value. That many thing make an incredible amount of money, and if it is a sign of any thing, it is that they may have a negative moral value. But that a multi billion dollar industry is not good only because it is a multi billion dollar industry. That was why, you seem to misunderstand, I used the examples I did. Drugs are morally repugnant. Creating junkies out of humans to use their unhealthy needs to profit. The second worse kind of taking advantage. Child sex slaves, a terrible but pertinent example. It makes more money than porn, child sex slaves. I guarantee it. And surely drugs makes an exponent of the profit of porn. Drugs run the world. So are, and please understand this rhetoric, drugs and child sex slaves good because thay make billions of dollars? Or is there moral value independent from their profit?

If you say 'porn makes lots of money, it cant be bad', I say 'OK, there's a market from drugs and slaves'. If you miss my point, feel free too keep saying that porn must be good because it turns a profit, but I will move on.
And please try to pay attention. I am saying that the concept of evolution CAN account for life on earth, but CANNOT account for the universe, or the creation of life in general. Please tell me who to read, and I would be happy. If they are as convincing as Dawkins, I may not convert.

If you can't see a difference between consentual sex between two adults and pedophilia, then I don't know what else to say. The sex slave trade is not anything like a legal prostitution trade. You can't compare the bunny ranch with Thai child sex slaves. It's like comparing plantation slaves in the 18th century with unionized domestic workers today.

You're right, but you're misunderstanding me. I am not comparing porn to pederasty as an action. It is not a comparison between sex of adults and sex with children. I am using child sex as an example that the profit margin alone doesn't a moral value make. That moral value and the amount of money you make are related, but separate. So yes, the sex trade is not wholly like the legal prostitution trade, I never said otherwise. You're allegory is apt, and well spoken, but it is wrong. If I was making the comparison you thought I was, it would be great. But I am not comparing the moral value of porn with the moral value of pederasty. I am using pederasty as an example to counter your argument that porn is not bad because it makes so much money. Don't take an argument from the top and add it too the bottom. Read it as I wrote it and respond as such if you will.

I said: "Porn is not conforming to customers demands, it is like music. It makes it's shit, and customers learn to demand it. Show me some kid who all his life only wanted to see a girl take something out of her rectum and put it in her mouth. I don't believe it is even possible to think that thought without someone first putting it in your head."
Another argument from personal incredulity. Please stop doing this.

I see where the difficulty is now. I have been told by the operator of this web forum that you guys "don't takt kindly" to people who are self righteous. Which in itself is self righteous, but that is another story. I use the phrase 'I don't even beleive it is possible' to qualify my statement, not to show that if I don't think it it isn't real. I mean to say that 'This is what I think, but I might be wrong,' to disclaim my point. Not to say, if I don't see it it isn't there. So please try to understand. I would rather have said 'it is impossible for someone to have a want to see in a sexual way someone take something from their rectum and place it in their mouth. Without first having that idea given to them,'. But I get in trouble for not qualifying everything I say as 'I think' and 'I don't think'. Please stop accusing me of arguing from ignorance when I am not, or sooner or later you will have started to argue from ignorance yourself.

The point you missed was that porn is not selling what the customers what. The customers are learning to want what porn is selling. No one (especially not some secret silent majority) wanted to see so claled ass-to-mouth before the producers of adult films started including it as a lewd act. They did such, and people learned to want it. But I am trying to argue against what you said about how they are just supplying a harmless service, and that the consumer is in charge of the market. Please stop misreading my points and going of on a 'you're stupid' tangent, it makes debating with you trying and time consuming.

One day we will all think the same way without dissent. We will all have objective moral standards and those who choose to go against that standard will be heavily chastised.
You're putting porn, sex slave trade and sexual depravity in the same sentence, and they are mutually exclusive concepts. It offends you, and I'm wondering what happened in your life to make you detest anything sexual.

Interesting theory. The only way to eliminate dissent is to stop fucking with people. Or do you see dissent like you see porn. How dare those poor people be angry at what is being done to them. If we could just get dissenters to calm down, we wouldn't have to solve any of the problems they are dissenting against. Like dissent is the dissenters fault, he lives in a vacuum and no one ever imposed anything upon him. Interesting utopia though, wake me when we get there. The only way we have objective moral standards is if we adhere to the objective moral standards we all already have. Would this dream world of yours with objective moral standards include pornography?

The fact that porn offends me does not conclude that I detest anything sexual. I think sex is charming, in an animalistic way. I think consentual and loving sex between partners is like a symphony, more beautiful than words. But anything sacred, anything beatific has a dark side. Anything sacred can be used for evil, it is the nature of the value of the sacred thing. So I see porn as a fake sex, as badness masquerading as good old fashioned sex, when it is really weakness and depravity. I can't explain to you how funny it is to me that you think I have some deficiency because I hate porn. That there is something wrong with me. What if, theoretically, people that like porn have something wrong with them? May I respond with a question of my own? What happened in your life to make you so need fake sex?

Thank you for listening. This has come up before but I am happy to go over it. If I am the only young person who hates porn, and will have nothing to do with supporting it, so be it. If porn is harmless I will eat my hat.

Thanks. I hope we can continue to debate. I also hope that I can make my point clearly enough for you to understand, I hate going over ground twice because of a simple misunderstanding.

-Pip