Essay talk:Net Nanny's anti-porn article/Archive1

Yeah. the formatting falls apart. Use the sbs template for each section and stick with it. Good try though, hope to see it get cleaned up for mainspace soon.

Hint: if you format the "source" on the left properly using sbs template, then add a few comments and put it in mainspace, the rest of the gang will join in. This is - or was(?) - something we do really well as a community. 03:44, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Argh. I don't see why the formatting is borked. Stupid templates. Flucked talk to me :D 05:26, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Essay space?
Move it? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:08, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I was going to do it in a style similar to the articles on books and Internet articles, and then have it linked to from somewhere. Farter talk to me :D 22:12, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If some people have stopped editwarring, maybe an introduction and see also section could be made. Peter Monomorium antarcticum 00:48, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And you had about as much subtlety as a brick. Which has no subtlety, because it is a brick. Bricks don't have subtlety. They're not people. People have subtlety. Some people, at least. Fucker talk to me :D 01:08, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Not intentionally, no. Fucker talk to me :D 01:13, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I support moving it to essay. While the source article is typical reactionary stuff, the response POV seems rather personal & arbitrary, & not really in line with any of the missions. 01:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I (and whoever else) am working on making it more mainspace-friendly. Flucked talk to me :D 01:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Start by taking out every single first-person reference. P-Foster Talk " Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing. " 01:48, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know -- I think those can work to an article's advantage. Aren't they supposed to read like it was written by a single person, like a real article? Flint talk to me :D 01:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Essays, yes. Articles, no. P-Foster Talk " Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing. " 01:54, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Articles are supposed to read like a hodge-podge of various editors' contributions? Really? Is that what you really meant to say? Fucker talk to me :D 01:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No, articles are supposed to be written as collaborative works. If an articles reads "I" this or "I" that, it would not read as something collectively produced. P-Foster Talk " Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing. " 01:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. If it's intended as a personal POV, it's an essay, not an article.   02:00, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I removed the I ' s and Me ' s. The point of view seems largely to be in line with the general RW attitudes and philosophy to me. Fidgeter talk to me :D 02:12, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Not to me. While there's nothing inherently immoral about pornography per se, the de facto porn industry is particularly exploitative & does promote some very unwholesome attitudes to sex, gender, rape, etc.   02:21, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I argue that's because it's reflecting our culture. If people didn't want to see those kinds of videos, they wouldn't make them. Besides, not all porn is like that, while the article is making it seem that way. Fucker talk to me :D 02:24, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Not all porn is like that, but the bulk of commercial porn is. & The ethics of pornography are rather more complicated than just feeding a market or reflecting the values of society, especially when talking about what an adolescent is exposed to during sexually formative years.  02:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, you got me there. Everything is so damned complicated. This is why I hate thinking.


 * I do think though that if you actually grow up your child/teen right, they likely won't have a problem when they start exploring with porn and masturbation, which they almost inevitably will. Flitzer talk to me :D 02:45, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

It's good that you want to add content to mainspace, but there's no, well, content here -- factual, argumentative, or otherwise. Move to essayspace until it resembles something like an article at least. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Why won't you people add things for me? Flubber talk to me :D 02:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Now you want other people to do the work of making the article for you? You make the Edstub, you lie in it. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:23, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * First sentence: 'Now'? I've always wanted that.
 * Second sentence: Okay, I got the Ed Poor reference, but "you lie in it"? What? And you people accuse me of butchering the English language. Fucker talk to me :D 04:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That is, you made the bed, you lie in it. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought you were referring to lying in shit. Peter Monomorium antarcticum 06:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

the porn industry just feeds off their natural desires, and there's nothing inherently wrong with that."
it's illegal to sell porn to minors, "natural desires" or not. Therefore, there is something inherently wrong with taking into account or feeding off of the "natural desires" of minors. P-Foster Talk " Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing. " 23:49, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you really going to make a 'it's the law so it's wrong' fallacy?


 * While I have no doubt that there are many despicable figures in the porn industry who are perfectly willing to take advantage of kids/teens, I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with {giving it to/allowing it to be accessed by} teens. Flubber talk to me :D 23:53, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That's your opinion. Doesn't make it right. P-Foster Talk " Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing. " 23:55, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, it's your opinion that it's my opinion. What do you say to that, huh? Fucker talk to me :D 23:57, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Whether minors viewing smut is "inherently wrong" or not, an act's illegality does not make it "inherently wrong." 01:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Minors viewing smut on their own terms--curiosity, etc--isn't inherently wrong, but the way the passage was originally worded implied that the porn industry was intentionally targeting underage viewers, and that that wasn't inherently wrong. I maintain that adults creating explicitly pornographic content with the intention of selling to children for profit is inherently wrong. P-Foster Talk " Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing. " 01:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I submit that if "adults creating explicitly pornographic content with the intention of" and "to children" were deleted from that sentence, you would still believe it to be true. 03:22, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I submit that you are trying to change the topic with spurious red-baiting. Surprise me. P-Foster  Talk " Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing. " 03:35, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I was not changing the topic, but attempting to shed some light on how you arrived at your belief, seeing as how the only argument you presented for it was fallacious. As you say you do not believe that the minors viewing the smut is inherently wrong, it may be inferred that your objection to the sale has nothing to do with the nature of what is being sold. 04:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * My belief that minors viewing smut is not inherently wrong is based on understanding that curiosity about sexuality is a natural part of human development, and if there's smut out there, it's going to get looked at by people swimming in hormones and new ideas and sensations. That happens, and nothing is going to stop it; it is contingent on parents to be frank and smart and open and to teach their kids that the kinds of bodies and sex acts depicted in most porn do not necessarily correlate with real-life sexuality. There's a qualitative difference between the natural process of a young person exploring different aspects of sexuality, including smut, and an adult seeing that process as a potential market and producing and marketing product to fill that market. Surely you can see a difference between a case in which a minor is exercising choice and agency and exploring something that exists in the world, a case in which where someone is using a youth's sexual development/sexuality as an opportunity for profit. P-Foster Talk " Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing. " 05:10, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Unless the youths are being strapped down and forced to view the smut, no, I see no difference; they are still exercising "choice and agency," even if they view smut made specifically for them. 05:29, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Really? Wow. That's unbelievable. I wish I wasn't so far on the Asperger's scale that I actually can't tell if you're joking or not. P-Foster Talk " Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing. " 05:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Intent is irrelevant if the outcome is the same. Fucker talk to me :D 05:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Bunk. P-Foster, I am working up a reply to your post. 05:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

All right; let us flesh this out a bit. This is mostly a hypothetical discussion, as most real-life people who actually introduce youths to smut are grade-A creeps, but that is a purely empirical observation. To say that something is any less an exercise of "choice and agency" because it involves a profit motive is akin to saying that eating at a Chinese restaurant is less of an exploration of world cuisine because the restaurant owner is out to turn a profit. 06:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * leaving the morality of it aside the supply of pornographic material to minors is unlawful in most of the USA and certainly the making of porn with minors is also unlawful. A curious minor should be guided to suitable materials that show more accurately the actual relationships betwen adults and not the idea that any girl is going to love doing two guys a goat and a shetland pony, even if girls like ponies. Hamster (talk) 05:59, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The making of smut "with minors" generally involves raping them, in the statutory sense at the very least, so that can safely be denounced. As to showing them what actually goes on in relationships, that is highly inadvisable; the poor little things would probably be put off sex altogether if one did that. 06:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Missing matter
There are a number of sections of this article that our side-by-side does not include. It doesn't mention that they are missing, which is dishonest - can you add them back in, Fallacy? I've put in a couple, but I'm not familiar enough with the article to quite know what I'm doing there. Peter Monomorium antarcticum 01:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't include them in my original post because I didn't have anything to say to them, but I guess. Fucker talk to me :D 01:17, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Much better. Peter Monomorium antarcticum 01:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC)