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

[tavarish]

I'll address your points briefly, and I'll number them, as it's easier than cutting and pasting quotes everywhere.

1. It's an argument from ignorance, and willfully so. You make the point that DNA could not have come about any other way than divine means. Please tell me how you know this to be true. It isn't paradoxical, you're just quick to say that because we don't have a viable explanation, god did it. Abiogenesis is a viable theory, but I won't be the person that says it's definitive of anything. Just let me know how you can make the claim that life on Earth could not have come about through any other means. If your argument even includes the term "irreducible complexity" I'll ask you to please go eat an ice cream sandwich, because you've obviously had a long day.

Give me evidence to support your claim.

I don't have a grudge against the bible, I have a qualm with those who need supernatural explanations for natural occurrences.

2. You have a very broken understanding of evolution. Mutations in DNA occur randomly, as self-replicating DNA isn't perfect. MOST mutations are regressive and detrimental to the survivability of the species. The only thing guiding and dictating the survivability of the organism is natural selection - the environment in which it must survive. It's not personal incredulity, this is observable scientific fact. Every single species overpopulates, that's the point. It's horribly inefficient if you believe that we were intelligently designed through some divine means. If it was an intelligent design, God sure had a hell of a lot of rough drafts, and by any measure, it's not done yet.

An animal going extinct is not a failure in the system, I never made that argument. An animal going extinct would be natural selection working, as other species have proven more advantageous. This is how evolution works. It's not survival of the fittest. It's survival of the most advantageous in their environment to provide fertile offspring.

Evolution can ONLY account for the origin of the species and development of life on Earth. It does not have a say in how life began or how the universe came to be. This is like going to English class to solve a math problem. It's simply not the correct subject.

3. You're creating an argument where there is none. Seriously, you should re-read what you post sometimes.

I'm saying it's a billion dollar a year industry and it was made that way on purpose. The only point I was trying to make is that it caters to its customers. You're the one trying to say it's immoral and evil. You're putting your opinion in, then try to pass it off like it's common knowledge, but come off sounding supremely prudish and belligerent.

Moral value has nothing to do with the money an industry makes and everything to do with the actual value you assign to it. I don't think porn is immoral, and neither do millions of others. Obviously you disagree. That's fine. Just don't make it out to be this evil juggernaut when it's just movies of people releasing their sexual inhibitions and fucking for the most part.

Can you give me actual figures to support your claim that child sex slaves make more money than the porn industry?

How about the one where drugs run the world?

4. You began a straw man argument, then continued to say that I was somehow in violation of the argument I never made. Morality and profit are completely independent of each other. I never made an appeal to popularity by somehow stating that because porn makes money, it's not wrong.

5. Jesus tap-dancing Christ. Stop with the personal incredulity.

"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."

You're getting this information where?

Have you ever stopped to think that it was the public who were first aroused by things you would deem sexually deviant, rather than the evil porn industry shoving it down our throats? Throughout history, mankind has been very sexual. Greek orgies, the sexual revolution. Homosexuality, semen, and sodomy were spoken of in the bible. You'd think that since then, we'd have the curiosity to get the girl to take it out of her ass and put it directly into her mouth. Apparently not. Smutty porn producers had to feed it to us, by gunpoint, no less to make us become the crazed perverts we are today.

...

6. My statement was made to be facetious. Apparently you didn't get it. I would absolutely hate a world with objective morals and stifled dissent. Probably something akin to North Korea or something, except no one puts out.

Good thing that there is no such concept in practice as objective morals.

7. You think sex is beautiful and animalistic. That's great. Why then, if you allow others to share their experience with the world, does that become a bane on humanity? Porn is harmless in the same way that a Big Mac is harmless. Moderation is key. If you watch porn and it interferes with your life, you can develop a problem, just like if you eat 10 Big Macs a day, you might have a heart attack pretty soon. It has its purposes, and it serves millions daily, with many satisfied returning customers.

You call porn fake sex, that's fine. I'd say I enjoy fake sex as well as real sex. Actually scratch that, I enjoy real sex a hell of a lot more than fake sex, as there are more people in the room, and there's usually less of a mess afterwards.

Are you a virgin? How old are you, since you said you were young?

[Pippy]

hey again Tavarish,

I appreciate your response. May I try to apologize for being a little thick headed, and attempt to return to a more sociable debate? I do truly appreciate the time it takes to listen to and respond to me. I also fully admit that I can be stubborn, and also hold values and opinions that are very strange to others.

Give me evidence to support your claim.

I always try to avoid this route. I know it is a red cape in a sense, because all the bad theists stop when it comes time to provide quantifiable evidence. I have seen enough of the world to come to my own judgments about my current standing on such philosophical issues as the existence of a higher power and the origons and nature of reality. For me to go and find links on the web would take time I am always so begrudged to spend. I have a lot of work to do, and although I thoroughly enjoy my time here, it would be a daunting and difficult project. To try to find some website that describes me ideas perfectly, I may as well write my own website and cite it (hehe cite the site). And I know it is easy to label this attitude as ignorance, that I choose to deny evidence or ignore the information other people have. But I can only assure you that while others are watching porn and TV and playing video games and all the stuff I say I hate, I have been trying to figure out these eternal questions. I have read more books than I can count... I just don't even want to get into that.

The base of my reason for believing is an understanding of the complexity of this reality, of the thousands of years of albeit blurry information and current scientific results and knowledge about the world. I understand that you said I couldn't mention complexity, but I don't know why. It is my most moving argument (not that I would make to you, but that I make to myself). It seems unfair almost to cut me off before I can assert the complexity issue, unless of course it is because there is a standard argument you agree with that you didn't feel like going over. If so, please do, because I haven't found a compelling argument to disregard the complexity issue... That both the argument from causality and the limits of Darwinian evolution alone convince me that there is no other possibility than "more than meets the eye" in our current reality.

This is just an argument that I tried to avoid on day one with Kyu when I got here ages ago. I beleive in god. You do not. I appreciate that you do not, and although perfectly willing to discuss and debate the issue, I stop short of wanting to try to convert or convince you. Call that bakcing out if you like, but I just don't have the time or drive, and it's already taken this long to say I won't provide evidence...

Moving on.

2. You have a very broken understanding of evolution.

Do I? Without wasting too much of your time, enlighten me if you would. I have always felt that I understood evolution pretty well. I still remember being taught it as a very small child (my mother is a microbiologist) and being kind of unimpressed. Things randomly change in tiny ways. Most changes are bad, and it is unfortunate but necessary as a function of the system. If this random change happens to be advantageous, it will create a slightly newer version of the organism and that newer version may replace the older one. It seemed kind of common sensical for an earth shaking theory. But really this is not a designed system, if there is a god she didn't make evolution just as she didn't make the hurricane or whatever bad thing. She made the system, knowing that it had to have time and change (which is only time, change and time are inseparable, entangled if you will). Knowing that it had to have hurricanes and supernovas. Evolution is a byproduct of time creating noticable change. There are limits to evolution theory, namley things that are too complex for a given time frame, and things whose seperate parts create a fully functioning system that would be absent wiout all of the parts. How does evolution account for (a tired example, and not the best) a flagellan motor? That the organism either evolved each seperate part of the system, and it was somehow selected for? Or that the organism evolved the entire motor systrm in one generation, so as to be selected for. All of the reality around us falls into that paradox, in my humble opinion. That most things here are too complex, myself and my ability to have this conversation with you included, to be wholly attributed to evolution. And if they are, then the creation of the systems that support evolution can not themselves be attributed to it. If I do differ from your understanding of Dawinian evolution theory, please help me out.

It's horribly inefficient if you believe that we were intelligently designed through some divine means. If it was an intelligent design, God sure had a hell of a lot of rough drafts, and by any measure, it's not done yet.

But again, by calling something inefficient you are asserting prepositions between the lines. If the fact that every living thing would overpopulate given the chance is inefficient, you are (I think, but not to be rude) defining efficiency as much more limited than it has to be. The efficiency of the system is only on the largest scale, so the overpopulation 'problem' is really part of the necessary cycles of death and breaking down essential for the continuation of the environment that allows ANY population of said species to survive. Or another is that there may be factors within the system. What if the unfortunate (in a sense) consequence of overpopulation drive is the necessary strength of a species (or life in general) to populate. Life needs to bring a certain amount of veracity to the table, and although it has extenuating difficulties, it is fully necessary...

The only point I was trying to make is that it caters to its customers.

The only disagreement I was trying to make is that is does not. That saying porn is only catering to what depravity people already want natrually is like saying cigarettes only lovingly provide a service for people who are addicted to nicotine (or just have addictive personalities). That porn has no stake in pushing the envelope, and that they are playing catch up to the wants of their consumers, I think is incorrect. I appreciate that you disagree though. That simple disagreement led to quite a volley.

I apologize if you felt that I was arguing points you were not making.

Can you give me actual figures to support your claim that child sex slaves make more money than the porn industry?
How about the one where drugs run the world?

No certainly I cannot, but do you disagree on merit? The only way for me to produce the total revenue of child sex slavery would be to ask all the slavers. That information is not available, but I assert that I'm sure it makes a stunning ton of money. I may be wrong though. Drugs run the world, of course, that one is easier. I still don't feel like looking it up, but I bet all my chips that drugs (especially if you include such dangerous narcotics as SSRI's and mood enhancement drugs) make more money than anything else. Illegal narcotics make more money than guns, food, precious metals, real drugs, houses, cats, and pornography. I bet you it's the case, if you feel like looking it up, and you can disprove that, please do. although the estimates of the total revenue of drug creation and trafficking are just that still, estimates...

I never made an appeal to popularity by somehow stating that because porn makes money, it's not wrong.

But your first response to my hatred for the porn industry was that it makes so much money. What other argument were you making? That it makes so much money, so there must be a lot of people who disagree with my dislike for it, therefore I may be wrong based on the mass appeal? I assumed you weren't. I apologize again if I misunderstood you.

You're getting this information where?

It is a personal assertion, and a generalized one as well. I was trying to reiterate the point I was attempting to make about how I disagree that the porn industry caters to the already present depravity in it's customers. That some things are so foreign and gross to our minds, and that there are so many interesting perversion choices, that most of these extreme (but more and more mainstream) choices in porn are new to us when we encounter them. I know I never imagined the kinds of things I have seen in extreme porn, I simply couldn't have. Allow me to admit defeat though, I missed the mark on the point I was trying to make.

Good thing that there is no such concept in practice as objective morals.

Good poitn, I agree. There may be something out there worth arguing about for the sake of debate, but the only thing that can be called the practice of objective morality seems to be tyrannical. At least until we can all agree on everything...? One day...

Porn is harmless in the same way that a Big Mac is harmless.

I love that sentance. I agree. But we disagree on how harmless a big mac is. In my world (just imagining, not deulsional) if would be criminal to sell big macs. To sell a product as important to quality of life as food, in a knowinlgy unhealthy, deceitful and dangerous way is fraud and almost basic eugenics. If you argue that some people really, really want big macs, then let them. But I see it as poison pretending to be a good healthy hamburger, like porn is poison pretending to be adult videos. Detrimental to the quality of life.

I am not a virgin, although it would be cool. What a line at the bar. Oh wait, I never go to the bar or use lines... I am not old, but not young. I am young enough that old people glower, and old enough that I make teens nervous. Soon I will be 27. But really I am a soul, and it is 6,438 years old. Next life I get to be a bathroom attendant!

Thanks for listening, and please forgive me for being thick in the head. I was born in America, I can't help it. I 'm doing all I can to remedy that situation.

Do I get the longest post award?
-Pip

[fr0d0]

Kudos for the big mac point pip

[Darwinian]

But really I am a soul, and it is 6,438 years old.

How do you know? I mean that's very specific and do you know precisely right down to the day, month and year?

Do I get the longest post award?
-Pip

Nope..

[downbeatplumb]

I am not a virgin, although it would be cool. What a line at the bar. Oh wait, I never go to the bar or use lines... I am not old, but not young. I am young enough that old people glower, and old enough that I make teens nervous. Soon I will be 27. But really I am a soul, and it is 6,438 years old. Next life I get to be a bathroom attendant!

I honestly thought you were about twelve!!

[tavarish]

hey again Tavarish,

I appreciate your response. May I try to apologize for being a little thick headed, and attempt to return to a more sociable debate? I do truly appreciate the time it takes to listen to and respond to me. I also fully admit that I can be stubborn, and also hold values and opinions that are very strange to others.

OK.

I always try to avoid this route. I know it is a red cape in a sense, because all the bad theists stop when it comes time to provide quantifiable evidence. I have seen enough of the world to come to my own judgments about my current standing on such philosophical issues as the existence of a higher power and the origons and nature of reality. For me to go and find links on the web would take time I am always so begrudged to spend. I have a lot of work to do, and although I thoroughly enjoy my time here, it would be a daunting and difficult project. To try to find some website that describes me ideas perfectly, I may as well write my own website and cite it (hehe cite the site). And I know it is easy to label this attitude as ignorance, that I choose to deny evidence or ignore the information other people have. But I can only assure you that while others are watching porn and TV and playing video games and all the stuff I say I hate, I have been trying to figure out these eternal questions. I have read more books than I can count... I just don't even want to get into that.

The base of my reason for believing is an understanding of the complexity of this reality, of the thousands of years of albeit blurry information and current scientific results and knowledge about the world. I understand that you said I couldn't mention complexity, but I don't know why. It is my most moving argument (not that I would make to you, but that I make to myself). It seems unfair almost to cut me off before I can assert the complexity issue, unless of course it is because there is a standard argument you agree with that you didn't feel like going over. If so, please do, because I haven't found a compelling argument to disregard the complexity issue... That both the argument from causality and the limits of Darwinian evolution alone convince me that there is no other possibility than "more than meets the eye" in our current reality.

This is just an argument that I tried to avoid on day one with Kyu when I got here ages ago. I beleive in god. You do not. I appreciate that you do not, and although perfectly willing to discuss and debate the issue, I stop short of wanting to try to convert or convince you. Call that bakcing out if you like, but I just don't have the time or drive, and it's already taken this long to say I won't provide evidence...

So you fail to provide evidence for your claim.

You don't understand that you're solving a problem with an answer that is MORE complex than the factors in the equation. It doesn't make any sense.

"Irreducible complexity" has been laughed out of court and disproven on many accounts. That's why I said don't use it, as it's a shit argument.

When you make an assertion, especially such a bold one, please be sure to back it up.

Next.

Moving on.
Do I? Without wasting too much of your time, enlighten me if you would. I have always felt that I understood evolution pretty well. I still remember being taught it as a very small child (my mother is a microbiologist) and being kind of unimpressed. Things randomly change in tiny ways. Most changes are bad, and it is unfortunate but necessary as a function of the system. If this random change happens to be advantageous, it will create a slightly newer version of the organism and that newer version may replace the older one. It seemed kind of common sensical for an earth shaking theory. But really this is not a designed system, if there is a god she didn't make evolution just as she didn't make the hurricane or whatever bad thing. She made the system, knowing that it had to have time and change (which is only time, change and time are inseparable, entangled if you will). Knowing that it had to have hurricanes and supernovas. Evolution is a byproduct of time creating noticable change. There are limits to evolution theory, namley things that are too complex for a given time frame, and things whose seperate parts create a fully functioning system that would be absent wiout all of the parts. How does evolution account for (a tired example, and not the best) a flagellan motor? That the organism either evolved each seperate part of the system, and it was somehow selected for? Or that the organism evolved the entire motor systrm in one generation, so as to be selected for. All of the reality around us falls into that paradox, in my humble opinion. That most things here are too complex, myself and my ability to have this conversation with you included, to be wholly attributed to evolution. And if they are, then the creation of the systems that support evolution can not themselves be attributed to it. If I do differ from your understanding of Dawinian evolution theory, please help me out.

You're making the exact same point I asked you to elaborate and back up with supporting evidence. And yet you STILL came up with irreducible compexity. Ouch.

Here you go:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQQ7ubVIqo4

The entire 2 hour video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg

By the way, Ken Miller is a devout theist.

But again, by calling something inefficient you are asserting prepositions between the lines. If the fact that every living thing would overpopulate given the chance is inefficient, you are (I think, but not to be rude) defining efficiency as much more limited than it has to be. The efficiency of the system is only on the largest scale, so the overpopulation 'problem' is really part of the necessary cycles of death and breaking down essential for the continuation of the environment that allows ANY population of said species to survive. Or another is that there may be factors within the system. What if the unfortunate (in a sense) consequence of overpopulation drive is the necessary strength of a species (or life in general) to populate. Life needs to bring a certain amount of veracity to the table, and although it has extenuating difficulties, it is fully necessary...

You misunderstand yet again. I'm saying if you believe that beings were intelligently designed by a perfect creator, he sure has a way of making imperfect creations. Naturally, it is very necessary for species populations to overpopulate and adapt to their environment, that's the only way it works. However, with a God directing all of this, you'd think the process wouldn't have such a large percentage of extinction. If God started evolution, he essentially made 100% of animals will the knowledge that 99% of all species would die out. Why not just make that one percent in an environment that does not change? An intelligent design argument would be much more apparent and plausible in such a scenario.

The only disagreement I was trying to make is that is does not. That saying porn is only catering to what depravity people already want natrually is like saying cigarettes only lovingly provide a service for people who are addicted to nicotine (or just have addictive personalities). That porn has no stake in pushing the envelope, and that they are playing catch up to the wants of their consumers, I think is incorrect. I appreciate that you disagree though. That simple disagreement led to quite a volley.

Would you make the point that before porn, there was less perversion in mankind?

No certainly I cannot, but do you disagree on merit? The only way for me to produce the total revenue of child sex slavery would be to ask all the slavers. That information is not available, but I assert that I'm sure it makes a stunning ton of money. I may be wrong though. Drugs run the world, of course, that one is easier. I still don't feel like looking it up, but I bet all my chips that drugs (especially if you include such dangerous narcotics as SSRI's and mood enhancement drugs) make more money than anything else. Illegal narcotics make more money than guns, food, precious metals, real drugs, houses, cats, and pornography. I bet you it's the case, if you feel like looking it up, and you can disprove that, please do. although the estimates of the total revenue of drug creation and trafficking are just that still, estimates...

Again you don't have anything to back this up. Taking your word for it and "I bet you" it's a persuasive argument.

But your first response to my hatred for the porn industry was that it makes so much money. What other argument were you making? That it makes so much money, so there must be a lot of people who disagree with my dislike for it, therefore I may be wrong based on the mass appeal? I assumed you weren't. I apologize again if I misunderstood you.

I addressed this in my last post.

It is a personal assertion, and a generalized one as well. I was trying to reiterate the point I was attempting to make about how I disagree that the porn industry caters to the already present depravity in it's customers. That some things are so foreign and gross to our minds, and that there are so many interesting perversion choices, that most of these extreme (but more and more mainstream) choices in porn are new to us when we encounter them. I know I never imagined the kinds of things I have seen in extreme porn, I simply couldn't have. Allow me to admit defeat though, I missed the mark on the point I was trying to make.

Personal incredulity again. It seems to be the cornerstone of all your arguments.

Next.

Good poitn, I agree. There may be something out there worth arguing about for the sake of debate, but the only thing that can be called the practice of objective morality seems to be tyrannical. At least until we can all agree on everything...? One day...

I love that sentance. I agree. But we disagree on how harmless a big mac is. In my world (just imagining, not deulsional) if would be criminal to sell big macs. To sell a product as important to quality of life as food, in a knowinlgy unhealthy, deceitful and dangerous way is fraud and almost basic eugenics. If you argue that some people really, really want big macs, then let them. But I see it as poison pretending to be a good healthy hamburger, like porn is poison pretending to be adult videos. Detrimental to the quality of life.

I was making the point that Big Macs don't come with inherent moral values. Neither does porn. They're fine in moderation. You won't die from eating a Big Mac if you're taking care of yourself, just like you won't have an addiction to porn if you're psychologically healthy. If you want to equate a Big Mac to genocide, then go ahead. Your claims are a stretch by any facet of imagination. I don't care if people really want Big Macs or not, Mcdonald's makes money, just like the porn industry makes money. It doesn't disguise itself as anything other than what it is. It doesn't pretend to give you life advice, nor does it portray a facade in which it lures you in to get to the goal of becoming some sort of deviant pervert.

I am not a virgin, although it would be cool. What a line at the bar. Oh wait, I never go to the bar or use lines... I am not old, but not young. I am young enough that old people glower, and old enough that I make teens nervous. Soon I will be 27. But really I am a soul, and it is 6,438 years old. Next life I get to be a bathroom attendant!

Thanks for listening, and please forgive me for being thick in the head. I was born in America, I can't help it. I 'm doing all I can to remedy that situation.

Do I get the longest post award?
-Pip

I'm really a butterfly, and my name is Zanzibar.

Spare me.

[Violet]

Do I get the longest post award?

I've seen longer

[Pippy]

"If God started evolution, he essentially made 100% of animals will the knowledge that 99% of all species would die out."

No. God didn't make 100% pf the animals. God made the system and the function of the system made the animals. You're misunderstanding ID. God didn't sit there and think "ummmm, duck billed platypus.... ummm... giraffe!" God, if she exists, created and may sustain the system of life, but not each animal. That's what I mean when I say you define efficiency when you call something inefficient. The world is not inefficient, the world is almost perfectly functioning.

"You're making the exact same point I asked you to elaborate and back up with supporting evidence. And yet you STILL came up with irreducible compexity. Ouch."
Now you lost me. I did not make an "irreducible complexity" argument about darwinism. You must have misunderstood.

I would make the point that there is more perversion now than there was 20 years ago. I can't argue that we are better than the ancient greeks or something because I don't yet have a time machine. It's not that porn makes people perverse in general, but that porn is more and more and more perverse these days. Like the Big Mac. A big mac is food (kind of). Food is not bad for you, it is necessary. Porn is pictures of sex stuff. That is also not too bad for you, but certainly no necessary like food. But modern porn is like the big mac of pictures. It is about as destructive to us as possible. Find a way to make a photograph more destructive to our neural selves. The modern porn has gotten so ubiquitous and extreme that it is now something terrible.

"Again you don't have anything to back this up. Taking your word for it and "I bet you" it's a persuasive argument. "
So you won't take that bet? "The United Nations has reported that the retail market value of illegal drugs is $321.6 billion USD." "The agribusiness/food sector is the second most profitable industry in the United States — following pharmaceuticals — with annual sales over $400 billion." ""The United States has the largest pharmaceutical industry in the world. In 2007, its pharmaceutical revenue totaled at US$ 315 billion." (The food numbers are from '09, the pharma '07)
So if you included a small percentage (or half) of the pharma's as dangerous, should be illegal drugs, then like I said it is estimated that illegal drugs make more money than anything else. I also think the number quoted for illegal drugs profit is low.

"Personal incredulity again. It seems to be the cornerstone of all your arguments.
Next. "
So you had thought of all of the perversions you saw in extreme porn? I mean, dismiss the argument if you want too... But if some of most of those perversions were tings that you didn't consider people doing (I though foot fetish was a joke, no one lives like that!) then how can the market be pandering to the consumer? Unless the porn market is pandering to sexual degenerates, and then normal 12 year olds happen to see it. The majority of people don't demand extreme porn until then know it exists. The slippery slope of porn addiction, needing more and more disturbing material to get the bio chemical rise...

"don't care if people really want Big Macs or not, Mcdonald's makes money, just like the porn industry makes money."
Again, I make a moral judgment on something and you r response is that it makes a lot of money. So do drugs and sex slav-... Oh yeah. I learn. So your response to my moral judgment of a big mac is that McDonald's makes money, so it can't be bad? You got upset last time when I thought you were arguing the morality of profit, so I assume you're not now. McDonald's makes money because it's food is soooo bad.

"t doesn't disguise itself as anything other than what it is. It doesn't pretend to give you life advice, nor does it portray a facade in which it lures you in to get to the goal of becoming some sort of deviant pervert."
But it does. It pretends it's a restaurant. It pretends it a great place to work. It pretends it's clean. If you look at the adverts, it does pretend to give life advice. And talk about a facade that lures you in with a goal in mind, you never considered the happy meal and play structure paradigm. McDonald's is trying to hook (see addict) children, fucking children, to it's unhealthy and dangerous lifestyle, for the sake of making as much money as possible. So no, the only thing you were right about it the McDonald's doesn't want to make us perverts, they want to make us slow and fat and sad and dead. But the porn industry, THEY want to make us perverts.

Thanks.

[tavarish]

"If God started evolution, he essentially made 100% of animals will the knowledge that 99% of all species would die out."

No. God didn't make 100% pf the animals. God made the system and the function of the system made the animals. You're misunderstanding ID. God didn't sit there and think "ummmm, duck billed platypus.... ummm... giraffe!" God, if she exists, created and may sustain the system of life, but not each animal. That's what I mean when I say you define efficiency when you call something inefficient. The world is not inefficient, the world is almost perfectly functioning.

Can you provide evidence for any of this?

"You're making the exact same point I asked you to elaborate and back up with supporting evidence. And yet you STILL came up with irreducible compexity. Ouch."
Now you lost me. I did not make an "irreducible complexity" argument about darwinism. You must have misunderstood.

Did you forget what you wrote?

Here, let me remind you:

How does evolution account for (a tired example, and not the best) a flagellan motor? That the organism either evolved each seperate part of the system, and it was somehow selected for? Or that the organism evolved the entire motor systrm in one generation, so as to be selected for. All of the reality around us falls into that paradox, in my humble opinion. That most things here are too complex, myself and my ability to have this conversation with you included, to be wholly attributed to evolution.

I gave you a specific example of a video DEALING WITH A FREAKING FLAGELLAN MOTOR.

I would make the point that there is more perversion now than there was 20 years ago. I can't argue that we are better than the ancient greeks or something because I don't yet have a time machine. It's not that porn makes people perverse in general, but that porn is more and more and more perverse these days. Like the Big Mac. A big mac is food (kind of). Food is not bad for you, it is necessary. Porn is pictures of sex stuff. That is also not too bad for you, but certainly no necessary like food. But modern porn is like the big mac of pictures. It is about as destructive to us as possible. Find a way to make a photograph more destructive to our neural selves. The modern porn has gotten so ubiquitous and extreme that it is now something terrible.

Do you have evidence to support your claim that humans are more perverse than 20 years ago?

"Again you don't have anything to back this up. Taking your word for it and "I bet you" it's a persuasive argument. "
So you won't take that bet? "The United Nations has reported that the retail market value of illegal drugs is $321.6 billion USD." "The agribusiness/food sector is the second most profitable industry in the United States — following pharmaceuticals — with annual sales over $400 billion." ""The United States has the largest pharmaceutical industry in the world. In 2007, its pharmaceutical revenue totaled at US$ 315 billion." (The food numbers are from '09, the pharma '07)
So if you included a small percentage (or half) of the pharma's as dangerous, should be illegal drugs, then like I said it is estimated that illegal drugs make more money than anything else. I also think the number quoted for illegal drugs profit is low.

Are you actually serious? You said:

"Illegal narcotics make more money than guns, food, precious metals, real drugs, houses, cats, and pornography. I bet you it's the case, if you feel like looking it up, and you can disprove that, please do."

Now, there are a lot of things wrong in this statement.

First, you make an assumption without backing up any of your claims, and trying to shift the burden of proof.
Second, you make a claim that illegal narcotics makes more money than your other criteria. You then try to include pharmaceuticals as dangerous and "should be illegal". What the hell? I'm not here to cater to your assumptions and think that would be illegal in your view of the world.
Third, you say the number for illegal narcotics is low, based on ???

You made a claim, and not only have you failed to back it up, you have disproven it.

So you had thought of all of the perversions you saw in extreme porn? I mean, dismiss the argument if you want too... But if some of most of those perversions were tings that you didn't consider people doing (I though foot fetish was a joke, no one lives like that!) then how can the market be pandering to the consumer? Unless the porn market is pandering to sexual degenerates, and then normal 12 year olds happen to see it. The majority of people don't demand extreme porn until then know it exists. The slippery slope of porn addiction, needing more and more disturbing material to get the bio chemical rise...

"If I couldn't have thought of it, how could it be possible?"

You also make MORE claims with no evidence. It's traversing from intellectual dishonesty into full-on willful ignorance.

"don't care if people really want Big Macs or not, Mcdonald's makes money, just like the porn industry makes money."
Again, I make a moral judgment on something and you r response is that it makes a lot of money. So do drugs and sex slav-... Oh yeah. I learn. So your response to my moral judgment of a big mac is that McDonald's makes money, so it can't be bad? You got upset last time when I thought you were arguing the morality of profit, so I assume you're not now. McDonald's makes money because it's food is soooo bad.

Please show me where I said that if something makes money, it can't be bad.

"t doesn't disguise itself as anything other than what it is. It doesn't pretend to give you life advice, nor does it portray a facade in which it lures you in to get to the goal of becoming some sort of deviant pervert."
But it does. It pretends it's a restaurant. It pretends it a great place to work. It pretends it's clean. If you look at the adverts, it does pretend to give life advice. And talk about a facade that lures you in with a goal in mind, you never considered the happy meal and play structure paradigm. McDonald's is trying to hook (see addict) children, fucking children, to it's unhealthy and dangerous lifestyle, for the sake of making as much money as possible. So no, the only thing you were right about it the McDonald's doesn't want to make us perverts, they want to make us slow and fat and sad and dead. But the porn industry, THEY want to make us perverts.

Thanks.

McDonald's is a lifestyle? Since when did McDonald's give you advice on life? They're in the business of making money. That's it. They make advertisements to make their food enticing so people will come in and eat it. That's how marketing works. It's not like the second you get there, they inject intravenous drugs in your arm. Moderation is key. They also provide nutritional information for their consumers on demand, so you know what you're eating. It can be unhealthy, but so can anything if you practice it in excess.

Did I say McDonald's is good? No. Did I say it had absolutely no outlook or stance on morals? Yes.

The picture you're trying to paint is that porn, like McDonald's, is some kind of wolf in sheep's clothing that pretends to be a shining beacon of moral value. I'm saying you have a seriously skewed view.