Pornography leads to rape of toddler (generation, weapons, crime rates, state)

[WesternPilgrim]

Originally Posted by akck

But you didn't address the second sentence of my post:

"Your better proof is that millions view porn and they are not sex offenders."

By your analysis, the millions who view porn are out committing sex crimes. Maybe you need to use a little common sense.

I didn't address it because it's clearly disingenuous. It's the same argument as this:

Most people with military assault rifles don't go on shooting rampages; therefore, there should be no restrictions on possession of assault rifles.

Whatever your position might be on assault rifles, this argument doesn't work.

[Mathguy]

Originally Posted by Gungnir

OK then there should be a simple comparison, and there is.

Utah has the highest average number of online porn subscriptions in the US (1.69/1000 people, or for comparison sake 169/100,000 people). Thus it should have the highest per capita forcible rape statistics in the US (taken from the FBI UCR). If what you are saying is true.

Utah Forcible rape per capita is 34.3/100,000

Is this the highest...?
No

It's about high middling in comparison to the rest of the US, but beaten by Indiana, Oklahoma, South Dakota, New Mexico, Colorado and a bunch of others who all have lower numbers of subscriptions to porn sites than Utah. Indeed the Utah forcible rape statistics aren't even above the average for their region (Western).

Thus this disproves that merely viewing Pornography leads to sexual assaults, or Utah would be leading the field in forcible rape in the US, however it does not disprove that people who have a proclivity to perform sexual assaults also have a higher than average interest in Pornography, which has already been established by various studies of sexual offenders.

Cart before the horse.

The problem with the analysis is that the starting point is quite likely to be biased and a poor proxy for total porn usage..

Highest rate of on-line subscriptions is biased based upon several factors.
More overt porn access like XXX adult shops, adult premium channels and even porn mags are largely not allowed or available in Utah.
There is also more of a social stigma and then you'd also have to normalize for fiscal responsibility etc. that allows you to have a credit card.

So really, your assumption of just one type of porn being representative of total porn usage may not be correct.

I personally do believe that access to violent porn etc. can be bad and influential to kids in puberty, I've read articles that suggest fetishes etc. can be linked to events occuring at that time.

[Mathguy]

Originally Posted by WesternPilgrim

I didn't address it because it's clearly disingenuous. It's the same argument as this:

Most people with military assault rifles don't go on shooting rampages; therefore, there should be no restrictions on possession of assault rifles.

Whatever your position might be on assault rifles, this argument doesn't work.

Have you ever worn underwear?

[Coachgns]

Originally Posted by smash255

sex crimes were around long before porn.....

^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^

[WesternPilgrim]

Originally Posted by Smash255

Sex crimes were around long before porn.....

Lung cancer was around long before cigarettes. So?

[kaimuki]

WesternPilgrim, can you please start a new thread listing everything that you want banned.

[portyhead24]

Originally Posted by WesternPilgrim

Find me one sex offender in the last 50 years who did not indulge in porn. Just one.

Have you ever heard correlation does not equal causation? Does that mean anything to you?

[WesternPilgrim]

Originally Posted by portyhead24

Have you ever heard correlation does not equal causation? Does that mean anything to you?

Never heard of it. Please explain.

[akck]

Originally Posted by WesternPilgrim

I didn't address it because it's clearly disingenuous. It's the same argument as this:

Most people with military assault rifles don't go on shooting rampages; therefore, there should be no restrictions on possession of assault rifles.

Whatever your position might be on assault rifles, this argument doesn't work.

Why doesn't it work? How is it disingenuous?

[lionking]

Originally Posted by WesternPilgrim

I didn't address it because it's clearly disingenuous. It's the same argument as this:

Most people with military assault rifles don't go on shooting rampages; therefore, there should be no restrictions on possession of assault rifles.

Whatever your position might be on assault rifles, this argument doesn't work.

Well there shouldn't be any restrictions to anybody that doesn't have a felony record.