comment
stringlengths 1
9.86k
| context
sequencelengths 0
530
|
|---|---|
>
Will the ghost of Mean Gene be his VP? | [
"I would disagree with him of course on almost every issue, BUT he wouldn't give me PTSD.... probably.",
">\n\nHogan believes climate change is real and has signed various laws limiting carbon emissions and pollution; he personally opposes abortion, but wants it to be legal; and he came around on same-sex marriage and now supports it. He even supported some gun control. \nHe's probably to the left of Joe Mancin. By any reasonable modern standard, he's a conservative Democrat, not a Republican. \nThis is also why he stands absolutely zero chance at becoming the Republican nominee.",
">\n\nThe \"personally opposes abortion but still supportive of other people's ability to get one\" tidbit tells me immediately that he at least has some level of genuine integrity, even if it isn't much. \nThe respectable thing to do for any person who doesn't personally support an issue like abortion is to say \"I might not like it, but that doesn't mean people who need it should be discriminated against, or targeted with violence. I do not support forcibly imposing my personal views on the entire populace.\"",
">\n\nHe and the Massachusetts governor vetoed pro-choice bills",
">\n\nAh damn, they got me there. That completely negates their supposed minimal integrity.",
">\n\nFor sure Larry Hogan won't be the GOP nominee. And Trump's chances go up when moderate lightweights like him join the race. Hogan may garner a few points, but he'll take them from De Santis or Haley, not Trump.",
">\n\nPretty much. The GOP is falling into the same trap that handed Trump the nomination in 2016.",
">\n\nTrap? Or plan? Hmm...",
">\n\nHe would fare better in the general, but he has zero chance of making it out of the primary. That’s the corner the GOP has painted itself into.",
">\n\n2016 rerun, to many candidates are going to run and let Trumps solid base sweep. Maybe they will pull a Biden-esk play and have everyone drop out to endorse someone that’s not trump.",
">\n\nAw I thought that was going to be the hulkster, really should put the full name in the title.",
">\n\nHad the same reaction, I was like okay one celebrity to another...",
">\n\n\norange won't be GOP nominee\n\n2015 called. They wanna know how that's going for you.",
">\n\nSo, Republican primary math: Trump 33%, DeSantis 29%, Pompeo 13%, Hogan 13% (note crossover dem voters in open primary states), Haley 8%, Other 4%",
">\n\nneither one of them will be the Republican nominee for very different reasons",
">\n\nWait.\nLarry Hogan?\nThere's no chance. Not radical enough.\n( and still too Republican to get my vote)",
">\n\nDude announced that he wrote in Ronald Reagan for president. He won't even win Maryland.",
">\n\nAs a Marylander I have such mixed feelings about Hogan running, his policies were racist and I disagree with him on most things but after the last 6 years he would be the GOP’s least awful candidate.\nWhat bothers me is I think he beats Biden.\nMy hope is he loses the primary because that’ll be his toughest challenge becoming President and other than him I’m not sure the GOP has anyone currently posed to do well in the general\nNot running of course would be ideal in my opinion.",
">\n\n\nMy hope is he loses the primary because that’ll be his toughest challenge becoming President and other than him I’m not sure the GOP has anyone currently posed to do well in the general\n\nIn a one on one Hogan vs Biden race he may win (I really don't know because I don't know much about him other than what is written in this thread) but I don't think that it will be a two way race if Trump doesn't secure the nomination. He'll run as an independent and split the conservative vote.",
">\n\nLet me tell you something about inflation, brother!",
">\n\nTrump starts off with more votes than any of his numerous contenders. Those votes have been glued to him since 2016. If there are multiple candidates for the republican nominations, Trump wins. Just that simple.",
">\n\nFuck me, you really should have specified that it wasn't Hulk Hogan.\nMaking me read some dumb ass article about a Hogan I've never heard of.",
">\n\nSounds like you had some high hopes but they came crashing down and now it hurts inside",
">\n\nI thought the article would be at least mildly entertaining.",
">\n\nIt's Trump's party, that much is obvious. I don't know what kind of drug Hogan is smoking.",
">\n\nWell, he can help dilute Trump's competition.",
">\n\nWill the ghost of Mean Gene be his VP?",
">\n\nI would at least consider that ticket…",
">\n\nThere's a lane for him until Chris Sununu declares.",
">\n\nConsidering this is the republicans, I assumed it was Hulk Hogan.",
">\n\nThe more the Republicans can’t figure out how not to lose an election the more Trump win.",
">\n\nI stand proudly with the vast majority of Americans who have never heard of him.",
">\n\nI like Hogan but every day I find it harder to believe that anyone who represents themselves as a Republican isn’t morally bankrupt and unamerican.",
">\n\nGreat. Another old guy.",
">\n\nOkay, sure, guy I've never heard of",
">\n\nI would disagree with him of course on almost every issue, BUT he wouldn't give me PTSD.... probably.",
">\n\nHogan believes climate change is real and has signed various laws limiting carbon emissions and pollution; he personally opposes abortion, but wants it to be legal; and he came around on same-sex marriage and now supports it. He even supported some gun control. \nHe's probably to the left of Joe Mancin. By any reasonable modern standard, he's a conservative Democrat, not a Republican. \nThis is also why he stands absolutely zero chance at becoming the Republican nominee.",
">\n\nThe \"personally opposes abortion but still supportive of other people's ability to get one\" tidbit tells me immediately that he at least has some level of genuine integrity, even if it isn't much. \nThe respectable thing to do for any person who doesn't personally support an issue like abortion is to say \"I might not like it, but that doesn't mean people who need it should be discriminated against, or targeted with violence. I do not support forcibly imposing my personal views on the entire populace.\"",
">\n\nHe and the Massachusetts governor vetoed pro-choice bills",
">\n\nAh damn, they got me there. That completely negates their supposed minimal integrity.",
">\n\nFor sure Larry Hogan won't be the GOP nominee. And Trump's chances go up when moderate lightweights like him join the race. Hogan may garner a few points, but he'll take them from De Santis or Haley, not Trump.",
">\n\nPretty much. The GOP is falling into the same trap that handed Trump the nomination in 2016.",
">\n\nTrap? Or plan? Hmm...",
">\n\nHe would fare better in the general, but he has zero chance of making it out of the primary. That’s the corner the GOP has painted itself into.",
">\n\n2016 rerun, to many candidates are going to run and let Trumps solid base sweep. Maybe they will pull a Biden-esk play and have everyone drop out to endorse someone that’s not trump.",
">\n\nAw I thought that was going to be the hulkster, really should put the full name in the title.",
">\n\nHad the same reaction, I was like okay one celebrity to another...",
">\n\n\norange won't be GOP nominee\n\n2015 called. They wanna know how that's going for you.",
">\n\nSo, Republican primary math: Trump 33%, DeSantis 29%, Pompeo 13%, Hogan 13% (note crossover dem voters in open primary states), Haley 8%, Other 4%",
">\n\nneither one of them will be the Republican nominee for very different reasons",
">\n\nWait.\nLarry Hogan?\nThere's no chance. Not radical enough.\n( and still too Republican to get my vote)",
">\n\nDude announced that he wrote in Ronald Reagan for president. He won't even win Maryland.",
">\n\nAs a Marylander I have such mixed feelings about Hogan running, his policies were racist and I disagree with him on most things but after the last 6 years he would be the GOP’s least awful candidate.\nWhat bothers me is I think he beats Biden.\nMy hope is he loses the primary because that’ll be his toughest challenge becoming President and other than him I’m not sure the GOP has anyone currently posed to do well in the general\nNot running of course would be ideal in my opinion.",
">\n\n\nMy hope is he loses the primary because that’ll be his toughest challenge becoming President and other than him I’m not sure the GOP has anyone currently posed to do well in the general\n\nIn a one on one Hogan vs Biden race he may win (I really don't know because I don't know much about him other than what is written in this thread) but I don't think that it will be a two way race if Trump doesn't secure the nomination. He'll run as an independent and split the conservative vote.",
">\n\nLet me tell you something about inflation, brother!",
">\n\nTrump starts off with more votes than any of his numerous contenders. Those votes have been glued to him since 2016. If there are multiple candidates for the republican nominations, Trump wins. Just that simple.",
">\n\nFuck me, you really should have specified that it wasn't Hulk Hogan.\nMaking me read some dumb ass article about a Hogan I've never heard of.",
">\n\nSounds like you had some high hopes but they came crashing down and now it hurts inside",
">\n\nI thought the article would be at least mildly entertaining.",
">\n\nIt's Trump's party, that much is obvious. I don't know what kind of drug Hogan is smoking.",
">\n\nWell, he can help dilute Trump's competition."
] |
>
I would at least consider that ticket… | [
"I would disagree with him of course on almost every issue, BUT he wouldn't give me PTSD.... probably.",
">\n\nHogan believes climate change is real and has signed various laws limiting carbon emissions and pollution; he personally opposes abortion, but wants it to be legal; and he came around on same-sex marriage and now supports it. He even supported some gun control. \nHe's probably to the left of Joe Mancin. By any reasonable modern standard, he's a conservative Democrat, not a Republican. \nThis is also why he stands absolutely zero chance at becoming the Republican nominee.",
">\n\nThe \"personally opposes abortion but still supportive of other people's ability to get one\" tidbit tells me immediately that he at least has some level of genuine integrity, even if it isn't much. \nThe respectable thing to do for any person who doesn't personally support an issue like abortion is to say \"I might not like it, but that doesn't mean people who need it should be discriminated against, or targeted with violence. I do not support forcibly imposing my personal views on the entire populace.\"",
">\n\nHe and the Massachusetts governor vetoed pro-choice bills",
">\n\nAh damn, they got me there. That completely negates their supposed minimal integrity.",
">\n\nFor sure Larry Hogan won't be the GOP nominee. And Trump's chances go up when moderate lightweights like him join the race. Hogan may garner a few points, but he'll take them from De Santis or Haley, not Trump.",
">\n\nPretty much. The GOP is falling into the same trap that handed Trump the nomination in 2016.",
">\n\nTrap? Or plan? Hmm...",
">\n\nHe would fare better in the general, but he has zero chance of making it out of the primary. That’s the corner the GOP has painted itself into.",
">\n\n2016 rerun, to many candidates are going to run and let Trumps solid base sweep. Maybe they will pull a Biden-esk play and have everyone drop out to endorse someone that’s not trump.",
">\n\nAw I thought that was going to be the hulkster, really should put the full name in the title.",
">\n\nHad the same reaction, I was like okay one celebrity to another...",
">\n\n\norange won't be GOP nominee\n\n2015 called. They wanna know how that's going for you.",
">\n\nSo, Republican primary math: Trump 33%, DeSantis 29%, Pompeo 13%, Hogan 13% (note crossover dem voters in open primary states), Haley 8%, Other 4%",
">\n\nneither one of them will be the Republican nominee for very different reasons",
">\n\nWait.\nLarry Hogan?\nThere's no chance. Not radical enough.\n( and still too Republican to get my vote)",
">\n\nDude announced that he wrote in Ronald Reagan for president. He won't even win Maryland.",
">\n\nAs a Marylander I have such mixed feelings about Hogan running, his policies were racist and I disagree with him on most things but after the last 6 years he would be the GOP’s least awful candidate.\nWhat bothers me is I think he beats Biden.\nMy hope is he loses the primary because that’ll be his toughest challenge becoming President and other than him I’m not sure the GOP has anyone currently posed to do well in the general\nNot running of course would be ideal in my opinion.",
">\n\n\nMy hope is he loses the primary because that’ll be his toughest challenge becoming President and other than him I’m not sure the GOP has anyone currently posed to do well in the general\n\nIn a one on one Hogan vs Biden race he may win (I really don't know because I don't know much about him other than what is written in this thread) but I don't think that it will be a two way race if Trump doesn't secure the nomination. He'll run as an independent and split the conservative vote.",
">\n\nLet me tell you something about inflation, brother!",
">\n\nTrump starts off with more votes than any of his numerous contenders. Those votes have been glued to him since 2016. If there are multiple candidates for the republican nominations, Trump wins. Just that simple.",
">\n\nFuck me, you really should have specified that it wasn't Hulk Hogan.\nMaking me read some dumb ass article about a Hogan I've never heard of.",
">\n\nSounds like you had some high hopes but they came crashing down and now it hurts inside",
">\n\nI thought the article would be at least mildly entertaining.",
">\n\nIt's Trump's party, that much is obvious. I don't know what kind of drug Hogan is smoking.",
">\n\nWell, he can help dilute Trump's competition.",
">\n\nWill the ghost of Mean Gene be his VP?",
">\n\nI would at least consider that ticket…",
">\n\nThere's a lane for him until Chris Sununu declares.",
">\n\nConsidering this is the republicans, I assumed it was Hulk Hogan.",
">\n\nThe more the Republicans can’t figure out how not to lose an election the more Trump win.",
">\n\nI stand proudly with the vast majority of Americans who have never heard of him.",
">\n\nI like Hogan but every day I find it harder to believe that anyone who represents themselves as a Republican isn’t morally bankrupt and unamerican.",
">\n\nGreat. Another old guy.",
">\n\nOkay, sure, guy I've never heard of",
">\n\nI would disagree with him of course on almost every issue, BUT he wouldn't give me PTSD.... probably.",
">\n\nHogan believes climate change is real and has signed various laws limiting carbon emissions and pollution; he personally opposes abortion, but wants it to be legal; and he came around on same-sex marriage and now supports it. He even supported some gun control. \nHe's probably to the left of Joe Mancin. By any reasonable modern standard, he's a conservative Democrat, not a Republican. \nThis is also why he stands absolutely zero chance at becoming the Republican nominee.",
">\n\nThe \"personally opposes abortion but still supportive of other people's ability to get one\" tidbit tells me immediately that he at least has some level of genuine integrity, even if it isn't much. \nThe respectable thing to do for any person who doesn't personally support an issue like abortion is to say \"I might not like it, but that doesn't mean people who need it should be discriminated against, or targeted with violence. I do not support forcibly imposing my personal views on the entire populace.\"",
">\n\nHe and the Massachusetts governor vetoed pro-choice bills",
">\n\nAh damn, they got me there. That completely negates their supposed minimal integrity.",
">\n\nFor sure Larry Hogan won't be the GOP nominee. And Trump's chances go up when moderate lightweights like him join the race. Hogan may garner a few points, but he'll take them from De Santis or Haley, not Trump.",
">\n\nPretty much. The GOP is falling into the same trap that handed Trump the nomination in 2016.",
">\n\nTrap? Or plan? Hmm...",
">\n\nHe would fare better in the general, but he has zero chance of making it out of the primary. That’s the corner the GOP has painted itself into.",
">\n\n2016 rerun, to many candidates are going to run and let Trumps solid base sweep. Maybe they will pull a Biden-esk play and have everyone drop out to endorse someone that’s not trump.",
">\n\nAw I thought that was going to be the hulkster, really should put the full name in the title.",
">\n\nHad the same reaction, I was like okay one celebrity to another...",
">\n\n\norange won't be GOP nominee\n\n2015 called. They wanna know how that's going for you.",
">\n\nSo, Republican primary math: Trump 33%, DeSantis 29%, Pompeo 13%, Hogan 13% (note crossover dem voters in open primary states), Haley 8%, Other 4%",
">\n\nneither one of them will be the Republican nominee for very different reasons",
">\n\nWait.\nLarry Hogan?\nThere's no chance. Not radical enough.\n( and still too Republican to get my vote)",
">\n\nDude announced that he wrote in Ronald Reagan for president. He won't even win Maryland.",
">\n\nAs a Marylander I have such mixed feelings about Hogan running, his policies were racist and I disagree with him on most things but after the last 6 years he would be the GOP’s least awful candidate.\nWhat bothers me is I think he beats Biden.\nMy hope is he loses the primary because that’ll be his toughest challenge becoming President and other than him I’m not sure the GOP has anyone currently posed to do well in the general\nNot running of course would be ideal in my opinion.",
">\n\n\nMy hope is he loses the primary because that’ll be his toughest challenge becoming President and other than him I’m not sure the GOP has anyone currently posed to do well in the general\n\nIn a one on one Hogan vs Biden race he may win (I really don't know because I don't know much about him other than what is written in this thread) but I don't think that it will be a two way race if Trump doesn't secure the nomination. He'll run as an independent and split the conservative vote.",
">\n\nLet me tell you something about inflation, brother!",
">\n\nTrump starts off with more votes than any of his numerous contenders. Those votes have been glued to him since 2016. If there are multiple candidates for the republican nominations, Trump wins. Just that simple.",
">\n\nFuck me, you really should have specified that it wasn't Hulk Hogan.\nMaking me read some dumb ass article about a Hogan I've never heard of.",
">\n\nSounds like you had some high hopes but they came crashing down and now it hurts inside",
">\n\nI thought the article would be at least mildly entertaining.",
">\n\nIt's Trump's party, that much is obvious. I don't know what kind of drug Hogan is smoking.",
">\n\nWell, he can help dilute Trump's competition.",
">\n\nWill the ghost of Mean Gene be his VP?"
] |
>
There's a lane for him until Chris Sununu declares. | [
"I would disagree with him of course on almost every issue, BUT he wouldn't give me PTSD.... probably.",
">\n\nHogan believes climate change is real and has signed various laws limiting carbon emissions and pollution; he personally opposes abortion, but wants it to be legal; and he came around on same-sex marriage and now supports it. He even supported some gun control. \nHe's probably to the left of Joe Mancin. By any reasonable modern standard, he's a conservative Democrat, not a Republican. \nThis is also why he stands absolutely zero chance at becoming the Republican nominee.",
">\n\nThe \"personally opposes abortion but still supportive of other people's ability to get one\" tidbit tells me immediately that he at least has some level of genuine integrity, even if it isn't much. \nThe respectable thing to do for any person who doesn't personally support an issue like abortion is to say \"I might not like it, but that doesn't mean people who need it should be discriminated against, or targeted with violence. I do not support forcibly imposing my personal views on the entire populace.\"",
">\n\nHe and the Massachusetts governor vetoed pro-choice bills",
">\n\nAh damn, they got me there. That completely negates their supposed minimal integrity.",
">\n\nFor sure Larry Hogan won't be the GOP nominee. And Trump's chances go up when moderate lightweights like him join the race. Hogan may garner a few points, but he'll take them from De Santis or Haley, not Trump.",
">\n\nPretty much. The GOP is falling into the same trap that handed Trump the nomination in 2016.",
">\n\nTrap? Or plan? Hmm...",
">\n\nHe would fare better in the general, but he has zero chance of making it out of the primary. That’s the corner the GOP has painted itself into.",
">\n\n2016 rerun, to many candidates are going to run and let Trumps solid base sweep. Maybe they will pull a Biden-esk play and have everyone drop out to endorse someone that’s not trump.",
">\n\nAw I thought that was going to be the hulkster, really should put the full name in the title.",
">\n\nHad the same reaction, I was like okay one celebrity to another...",
">\n\n\norange won't be GOP nominee\n\n2015 called. They wanna know how that's going for you.",
">\n\nSo, Republican primary math: Trump 33%, DeSantis 29%, Pompeo 13%, Hogan 13% (note crossover dem voters in open primary states), Haley 8%, Other 4%",
">\n\nneither one of them will be the Republican nominee for very different reasons",
">\n\nWait.\nLarry Hogan?\nThere's no chance. Not radical enough.\n( and still too Republican to get my vote)",
">\n\nDude announced that he wrote in Ronald Reagan for president. He won't even win Maryland.",
">\n\nAs a Marylander I have such mixed feelings about Hogan running, his policies were racist and I disagree with him on most things but after the last 6 years he would be the GOP’s least awful candidate.\nWhat bothers me is I think he beats Biden.\nMy hope is he loses the primary because that’ll be his toughest challenge becoming President and other than him I’m not sure the GOP has anyone currently posed to do well in the general\nNot running of course would be ideal in my opinion.",
">\n\n\nMy hope is he loses the primary because that’ll be his toughest challenge becoming President and other than him I’m not sure the GOP has anyone currently posed to do well in the general\n\nIn a one on one Hogan vs Biden race he may win (I really don't know because I don't know much about him other than what is written in this thread) but I don't think that it will be a two way race if Trump doesn't secure the nomination. He'll run as an independent and split the conservative vote.",
">\n\nLet me tell you something about inflation, brother!",
">\n\nTrump starts off with more votes than any of his numerous contenders. Those votes have been glued to him since 2016. If there are multiple candidates for the republican nominations, Trump wins. Just that simple.",
">\n\nFuck me, you really should have specified that it wasn't Hulk Hogan.\nMaking me read some dumb ass article about a Hogan I've never heard of.",
">\n\nSounds like you had some high hopes but they came crashing down and now it hurts inside",
">\n\nI thought the article would be at least mildly entertaining.",
">\n\nIt's Trump's party, that much is obvious. I don't know what kind of drug Hogan is smoking.",
">\n\nWell, he can help dilute Trump's competition.",
">\n\nWill the ghost of Mean Gene be his VP?",
">\n\nI would at least consider that ticket…",
">\n\nThere's a lane for him until Chris Sununu declares.",
">\n\nConsidering this is the republicans, I assumed it was Hulk Hogan.",
">\n\nThe more the Republicans can’t figure out how not to lose an election the more Trump win.",
">\n\nI stand proudly with the vast majority of Americans who have never heard of him.",
">\n\nI like Hogan but every day I find it harder to believe that anyone who represents themselves as a Republican isn’t morally bankrupt and unamerican.",
">\n\nGreat. Another old guy.",
">\n\nOkay, sure, guy I've never heard of",
">\n\nI would disagree with him of course on almost every issue, BUT he wouldn't give me PTSD.... probably.",
">\n\nHogan believes climate change is real and has signed various laws limiting carbon emissions and pollution; he personally opposes abortion, but wants it to be legal; and he came around on same-sex marriage and now supports it. He even supported some gun control. \nHe's probably to the left of Joe Mancin. By any reasonable modern standard, he's a conservative Democrat, not a Republican. \nThis is also why he stands absolutely zero chance at becoming the Republican nominee.",
">\n\nThe \"personally opposes abortion but still supportive of other people's ability to get one\" tidbit tells me immediately that he at least has some level of genuine integrity, even if it isn't much. \nThe respectable thing to do for any person who doesn't personally support an issue like abortion is to say \"I might not like it, but that doesn't mean people who need it should be discriminated against, or targeted with violence. I do not support forcibly imposing my personal views on the entire populace.\"",
">\n\nHe and the Massachusetts governor vetoed pro-choice bills",
">\n\nAh damn, they got me there. That completely negates their supposed minimal integrity.",
">\n\nFor sure Larry Hogan won't be the GOP nominee. And Trump's chances go up when moderate lightweights like him join the race. Hogan may garner a few points, but he'll take them from De Santis or Haley, not Trump.",
">\n\nPretty much. The GOP is falling into the same trap that handed Trump the nomination in 2016.",
">\n\nTrap? Or plan? Hmm...",
">\n\nHe would fare better in the general, but he has zero chance of making it out of the primary. That’s the corner the GOP has painted itself into.",
">\n\n2016 rerun, to many candidates are going to run and let Trumps solid base sweep. Maybe they will pull a Biden-esk play and have everyone drop out to endorse someone that’s not trump.",
">\n\nAw I thought that was going to be the hulkster, really should put the full name in the title.",
">\n\nHad the same reaction, I was like okay one celebrity to another...",
">\n\n\norange won't be GOP nominee\n\n2015 called. They wanna know how that's going for you.",
">\n\nSo, Republican primary math: Trump 33%, DeSantis 29%, Pompeo 13%, Hogan 13% (note crossover dem voters in open primary states), Haley 8%, Other 4%",
">\n\nneither one of them will be the Republican nominee for very different reasons",
">\n\nWait.\nLarry Hogan?\nThere's no chance. Not radical enough.\n( and still too Republican to get my vote)",
">\n\nDude announced that he wrote in Ronald Reagan for president. He won't even win Maryland.",
">\n\nAs a Marylander I have such mixed feelings about Hogan running, his policies were racist and I disagree with him on most things but after the last 6 years he would be the GOP’s least awful candidate.\nWhat bothers me is I think he beats Biden.\nMy hope is he loses the primary because that’ll be his toughest challenge becoming President and other than him I’m not sure the GOP has anyone currently posed to do well in the general\nNot running of course would be ideal in my opinion.",
">\n\n\nMy hope is he loses the primary because that’ll be his toughest challenge becoming President and other than him I’m not sure the GOP has anyone currently posed to do well in the general\n\nIn a one on one Hogan vs Biden race he may win (I really don't know because I don't know much about him other than what is written in this thread) but I don't think that it will be a two way race if Trump doesn't secure the nomination. He'll run as an independent and split the conservative vote.",
">\n\nLet me tell you something about inflation, brother!",
">\n\nTrump starts off with more votes than any of his numerous contenders. Those votes have been glued to him since 2016. If there are multiple candidates for the republican nominations, Trump wins. Just that simple.",
">\n\nFuck me, you really should have specified that it wasn't Hulk Hogan.\nMaking me read some dumb ass article about a Hogan I've never heard of.",
">\n\nSounds like you had some high hopes but they came crashing down and now it hurts inside",
">\n\nI thought the article would be at least mildly entertaining.",
">\n\nIt's Trump's party, that much is obvious. I don't know what kind of drug Hogan is smoking.",
">\n\nWell, he can help dilute Trump's competition.",
">\n\nWill the ghost of Mean Gene be his VP?",
">\n\nI would at least consider that ticket…"
] |
>
Considering this is the republicans, I assumed it was Hulk Hogan. | [
"I would disagree with him of course on almost every issue, BUT he wouldn't give me PTSD.... probably.",
">\n\nHogan believes climate change is real and has signed various laws limiting carbon emissions and pollution; he personally opposes abortion, but wants it to be legal; and he came around on same-sex marriage and now supports it. He even supported some gun control. \nHe's probably to the left of Joe Mancin. By any reasonable modern standard, he's a conservative Democrat, not a Republican. \nThis is also why he stands absolutely zero chance at becoming the Republican nominee.",
">\n\nThe \"personally opposes abortion but still supportive of other people's ability to get one\" tidbit tells me immediately that he at least has some level of genuine integrity, even if it isn't much. \nThe respectable thing to do for any person who doesn't personally support an issue like abortion is to say \"I might not like it, but that doesn't mean people who need it should be discriminated against, or targeted with violence. I do not support forcibly imposing my personal views on the entire populace.\"",
">\n\nHe and the Massachusetts governor vetoed pro-choice bills",
">\n\nAh damn, they got me there. That completely negates their supposed minimal integrity.",
">\n\nFor sure Larry Hogan won't be the GOP nominee. And Trump's chances go up when moderate lightweights like him join the race. Hogan may garner a few points, but he'll take them from De Santis or Haley, not Trump.",
">\n\nPretty much. The GOP is falling into the same trap that handed Trump the nomination in 2016.",
">\n\nTrap? Or plan? Hmm...",
">\n\nHe would fare better in the general, but he has zero chance of making it out of the primary. That’s the corner the GOP has painted itself into.",
">\n\n2016 rerun, to many candidates are going to run and let Trumps solid base sweep. Maybe they will pull a Biden-esk play and have everyone drop out to endorse someone that’s not trump.",
">\n\nAw I thought that was going to be the hulkster, really should put the full name in the title.",
">\n\nHad the same reaction, I was like okay one celebrity to another...",
">\n\n\norange won't be GOP nominee\n\n2015 called. They wanna know how that's going for you.",
">\n\nSo, Republican primary math: Trump 33%, DeSantis 29%, Pompeo 13%, Hogan 13% (note crossover dem voters in open primary states), Haley 8%, Other 4%",
">\n\nneither one of them will be the Republican nominee for very different reasons",
">\n\nWait.\nLarry Hogan?\nThere's no chance. Not radical enough.\n( and still too Republican to get my vote)",
">\n\nDude announced that he wrote in Ronald Reagan for president. He won't even win Maryland.",
">\n\nAs a Marylander I have such mixed feelings about Hogan running, his policies were racist and I disagree with him on most things but after the last 6 years he would be the GOP’s least awful candidate.\nWhat bothers me is I think he beats Biden.\nMy hope is he loses the primary because that’ll be his toughest challenge becoming President and other than him I’m not sure the GOP has anyone currently posed to do well in the general\nNot running of course would be ideal in my opinion.",
">\n\n\nMy hope is he loses the primary because that’ll be his toughest challenge becoming President and other than him I’m not sure the GOP has anyone currently posed to do well in the general\n\nIn a one on one Hogan vs Biden race he may win (I really don't know because I don't know much about him other than what is written in this thread) but I don't think that it will be a two way race if Trump doesn't secure the nomination. He'll run as an independent and split the conservative vote.",
">\n\nLet me tell you something about inflation, brother!",
">\n\nTrump starts off with more votes than any of his numerous contenders. Those votes have been glued to him since 2016. If there are multiple candidates for the republican nominations, Trump wins. Just that simple.",
">\n\nFuck me, you really should have specified that it wasn't Hulk Hogan.\nMaking me read some dumb ass article about a Hogan I've never heard of.",
">\n\nSounds like you had some high hopes but they came crashing down and now it hurts inside",
">\n\nI thought the article would be at least mildly entertaining.",
">\n\nIt's Trump's party, that much is obvious. I don't know what kind of drug Hogan is smoking.",
">\n\nWell, he can help dilute Trump's competition.",
">\n\nWill the ghost of Mean Gene be his VP?",
">\n\nI would at least consider that ticket…",
">\n\nThere's a lane for him until Chris Sununu declares.",
">\n\nConsidering this is the republicans, I assumed it was Hulk Hogan.",
">\n\nThe more the Republicans can’t figure out how not to lose an election the more Trump win.",
">\n\nI stand proudly with the vast majority of Americans who have never heard of him.",
">\n\nI like Hogan but every day I find it harder to believe that anyone who represents themselves as a Republican isn’t morally bankrupt and unamerican.",
">\n\nGreat. Another old guy.",
">\n\nOkay, sure, guy I've never heard of",
">\n\nI would disagree with him of course on almost every issue, BUT he wouldn't give me PTSD.... probably.",
">\n\nHogan believes climate change is real and has signed various laws limiting carbon emissions and pollution; he personally opposes abortion, but wants it to be legal; and he came around on same-sex marriage and now supports it. He even supported some gun control. \nHe's probably to the left of Joe Mancin. By any reasonable modern standard, he's a conservative Democrat, not a Republican. \nThis is also why he stands absolutely zero chance at becoming the Republican nominee.",
">\n\nThe \"personally opposes abortion but still supportive of other people's ability to get one\" tidbit tells me immediately that he at least has some level of genuine integrity, even if it isn't much. \nThe respectable thing to do for any person who doesn't personally support an issue like abortion is to say \"I might not like it, but that doesn't mean people who need it should be discriminated against, or targeted with violence. I do not support forcibly imposing my personal views on the entire populace.\"",
">\n\nHe and the Massachusetts governor vetoed pro-choice bills",
">\n\nAh damn, they got me there. That completely negates their supposed minimal integrity.",
">\n\nFor sure Larry Hogan won't be the GOP nominee. And Trump's chances go up when moderate lightweights like him join the race. Hogan may garner a few points, but he'll take them from De Santis or Haley, not Trump.",
">\n\nPretty much. The GOP is falling into the same trap that handed Trump the nomination in 2016.",
">\n\nTrap? Or plan? Hmm...",
">\n\nHe would fare better in the general, but he has zero chance of making it out of the primary. That’s the corner the GOP has painted itself into.",
">\n\n2016 rerun, to many candidates are going to run and let Trumps solid base sweep. Maybe they will pull a Biden-esk play and have everyone drop out to endorse someone that’s not trump.",
">\n\nAw I thought that was going to be the hulkster, really should put the full name in the title.",
">\n\nHad the same reaction, I was like okay one celebrity to another...",
">\n\n\norange won't be GOP nominee\n\n2015 called. They wanna know how that's going for you.",
">\n\nSo, Republican primary math: Trump 33%, DeSantis 29%, Pompeo 13%, Hogan 13% (note crossover dem voters in open primary states), Haley 8%, Other 4%",
">\n\nneither one of them will be the Republican nominee for very different reasons",
">\n\nWait.\nLarry Hogan?\nThere's no chance. Not radical enough.\n( and still too Republican to get my vote)",
">\n\nDude announced that he wrote in Ronald Reagan for president. He won't even win Maryland.",
">\n\nAs a Marylander I have such mixed feelings about Hogan running, his policies were racist and I disagree with him on most things but after the last 6 years he would be the GOP’s least awful candidate.\nWhat bothers me is I think he beats Biden.\nMy hope is he loses the primary because that’ll be his toughest challenge becoming President and other than him I’m not sure the GOP has anyone currently posed to do well in the general\nNot running of course would be ideal in my opinion.",
">\n\n\nMy hope is he loses the primary because that’ll be his toughest challenge becoming President and other than him I’m not sure the GOP has anyone currently posed to do well in the general\n\nIn a one on one Hogan vs Biden race he may win (I really don't know because I don't know much about him other than what is written in this thread) but I don't think that it will be a two way race if Trump doesn't secure the nomination. He'll run as an independent and split the conservative vote.",
">\n\nLet me tell you something about inflation, brother!",
">\n\nTrump starts off with more votes than any of his numerous contenders. Those votes have been glued to him since 2016. If there are multiple candidates for the republican nominations, Trump wins. Just that simple.",
">\n\nFuck me, you really should have specified that it wasn't Hulk Hogan.\nMaking me read some dumb ass article about a Hogan I've never heard of.",
">\n\nSounds like you had some high hopes but they came crashing down and now it hurts inside",
">\n\nI thought the article would be at least mildly entertaining.",
">\n\nIt's Trump's party, that much is obvious. I don't know what kind of drug Hogan is smoking.",
">\n\nWell, he can help dilute Trump's competition.",
">\n\nWill the ghost of Mean Gene be his VP?",
">\n\nI would at least consider that ticket…",
">\n\nThere's a lane for him until Chris Sununu declares."
] |
>
The more the Republicans can’t figure out how not to lose an election the more Trump win. | [
"I would disagree with him of course on almost every issue, BUT he wouldn't give me PTSD.... probably.",
">\n\nHogan believes climate change is real and has signed various laws limiting carbon emissions and pollution; he personally opposes abortion, but wants it to be legal; and he came around on same-sex marriage and now supports it. He even supported some gun control. \nHe's probably to the left of Joe Mancin. By any reasonable modern standard, he's a conservative Democrat, not a Republican. \nThis is also why he stands absolutely zero chance at becoming the Republican nominee.",
">\n\nThe \"personally opposes abortion but still supportive of other people's ability to get one\" tidbit tells me immediately that he at least has some level of genuine integrity, even if it isn't much. \nThe respectable thing to do for any person who doesn't personally support an issue like abortion is to say \"I might not like it, but that doesn't mean people who need it should be discriminated against, or targeted with violence. I do not support forcibly imposing my personal views on the entire populace.\"",
">\n\nHe and the Massachusetts governor vetoed pro-choice bills",
">\n\nAh damn, they got me there. That completely negates their supposed minimal integrity.",
">\n\nFor sure Larry Hogan won't be the GOP nominee. And Trump's chances go up when moderate lightweights like him join the race. Hogan may garner a few points, but he'll take them from De Santis or Haley, not Trump.",
">\n\nPretty much. The GOP is falling into the same trap that handed Trump the nomination in 2016.",
">\n\nTrap? Or plan? Hmm...",
">\n\nHe would fare better in the general, but he has zero chance of making it out of the primary. That’s the corner the GOP has painted itself into.",
">\n\n2016 rerun, to many candidates are going to run and let Trumps solid base sweep. Maybe they will pull a Biden-esk play and have everyone drop out to endorse someone that’s not trump.",
">\n\nAw I thought that was going to be the hulkster, really should put the full name in the title.",
">\n\nHad the same reaction, I was like okay one celebrity to another...",
">\n\n\norange won't be GOP nominee\n\n2015 called. They wanna know how that's going for you.",
">\n\nSo, Republican primary math: Trump 33%, DeSantis 29%, Pompeo 13%, Hogan 13% (note crossover dem voters in open primary states), Haley 8%, Other 4%",
">\n\nneither one of them will be the Republican nominee for very different reasons",
">\n\nWait.\nLarry Hogan?\nThere's no chance. Not radical enough.\n( and still too Republican to get my vote)",
">\n\nDude announced that he wrote in Ronald Reagan for president. He won't even win Maryland.",
">\n\nAs a Marylander I have such mixed feelings about Hogan running, his policies were racist and I disagree with him on most things but after the last 6 years he would be the GOP’s least awful candidate.\nWhat bothers me is I think he beats Biden.\nMy hope is he loses the primary because that’ll be his toughest challenge becoming President and other than him I’m not sure the GOP has anyone currently posed to do well in the general\nNot running of course would be ideal in my opinion.",
">\n\n\nMy hope is he loses the primary because that’ll be his toughest challenge becoming President and other than him I’m not sure the GOP has anyone currently posed to do well in the general\n\nIn a one on one Hogan vs Biden race he may win (I really don't know because I don't know much about him other than what is written in this thread) but I don't think that it will be a two way race if Trump doesn't secure the nomination. He'll run as an independent and split the conservative vote.",
">\n\nLet me tell you something about inflation, brother!",
">\n\nTrump starts off with more votes than any of his numerous contenders. Those votes have been glued to him since 2016. If there are multiple candidates for the republican nominations, Trump wins. Just that simple.",
">\n\nFuck me, you really should have specified that it wasn't Hulk Hogan.\nMaking me read some dumb ass article about a Hogan I've never heard of.",
">\n\nSounds like you had some high hopes but they came crashing down and now it hurts inside",
">\n\nI thought the article would be at least mildly entertaining.",
">\n\nIt's Trump's party, that much is obvious. I don't know what kind of drug Hogan is smoking.",
">\n\nWell, he can help dilute Trump's competition.",
">\n\nWill the ghost of Mean Gene be his VP?",
">\n\nI would at least consider that ticket…",
">\n\nThere's a lane for him until Chris Sununu declares.",
">\n\nConsidering this is the republicans, I assumed it was Hulk Hogan.",
">\n\nThe more the Republicans can’t figure out how not to lose an election the more Trump win.",
">\n\nI stand proudly with the vast majority of Americans who have never heard of him.",
">\n\nI like Hogan but every day I find it harder to believe that anyone who represents themselves as a Republican isn’t morally bankrupt and unamerican.",
">\n\nGreat. Another old guy.",
">\n\nOkay, sure, guy I've never heard of",
">\n\nI would disagree with him of course on almost every issue, BUT he wouldn't give me PTSD.... probably.",
">\n\nHogan believes climate change is real and has signed various laws limiting carbon emissions and pollution; he personally opposes abortion, but wants it to be legal; and he came around on same-sex marriage and now supports it. He even supported some gun control. \nHe's probably to the left of Joe Mancin. By any reasonable modern standard, he's a conservative Democrat, not a Republican. \nThis is also why he stands absolutely zero chance at becoming the Republican nominee.",
">\n\nThe \"personally opposes abortion but still supportive of other people's ability to get one\" tidbit tells me immediately that he at least has some level of genuine integrity, even if it isn't much. \nThe respectable thing to do for any person who doesn't personally support an issue like abortion is to say \"I might not like it, but that doesn't mean people who need it should be discriminated against, or targeted with violence. I do not support forcibly imposing my personal views on the entire populace.\"",
">\n\nHe and the Massachusetts governor vetoed pro-choice bills",
">\n\nAh damn, they got me there. That completely negates their supposed minimal integrity.",
">\n\nFor sure Larry Hogan won't be the GOP nominee. And Trump's chances go up when moderate lightweights like him join the race. Hogan may garner a few points, but he'll take them from De Santis or Haley, not Trump.",
">\n\nPretty much. The GOP is falling into the same trap that handed Trump the nomination in 2016.",
">\n\nTrap? Or plan? Hmm...",
">\n\nHe would fare better in the general, but he has zero chance of making it out of the primary. That’s the corner the GOP has painted itself into.",
">\n\n2016 rerun, to many candidates are going to run and let Trumps solid base sweep. Maybe they will pull a Biden-esk play and have everyone drop out to endorse someone that’s not trump.",
">\n\nAw I thought that was going to be the hulkster, really should put the full name in the title.",
">\n\nHad the same reaction, I was like okay one celebrity to another...",
">\n\n\norange won't be GOP nominee\n\n2015 called. They wanna know how that's going for you.",
">\n\nSo, Republican primary math: Trump 33%, DeSantis 29%, Pompeo 13%, Hogan 13% (note crossover dem voters in open primary states), Haley 8%, Other 4%",
">\n\nneither one of them will be the Republican nominee for very different reasons",
">\n\nWait.\nLarry Hogan?\nThere's no chance. Not radical enough.\n( and still too Republican to get my vote)",
">\n\nDude announced that he wrote in Ronald Reagan for president. He won't even win Maryland.",
">\n\nAs a Marylander I have such mixed feelings about Hogan running, his policies were racist and I disagree with him on most things but after the last 6 years he would be the GOP’s least awful candidate.\nWhat bothers me is I think he beats Biden.\nMy hope is he loses the primary because that’ll be his toughest challenge becoming President and other than him I’m not sure the GOP has anyone currently posed to do well in the general\nNot running of course would be ideal in my opinion.",
">\n\n\nMy hope is he loses the primary because that’ll be his toughest challenge becoming President and other than him I’m not sure the GOP has anyone currently posed to do well in the general\n\nIn a one on one Hogan vs Biden race he may win (I really don't know because I don't know much about him other than what is written in this thread) but I don't think that it will be a two way race if Trump doesn't secure the nomination. He'll run as an independent and split the conservative vote.",
">\n\nLet me tell you something about inflation, brother!",
">\n\nTrump starts off with more votes than any of his numerous contenders. Those votes have been glued to him since 2016. If there are multiple candidates for the republican nominations, Trump wins. Just that simple.",
">\n\nFuck me, you really should have specified that it wasn't Hulk Hogan.\nMaking me read some dumb ass article about a Hogan I've never heard of.",
">\n\nSounds like you had some high hopes but they came crashing down and now it hurts inside",
">\n\nI thought the article would be at least mildly entertaining.",
">\n\nIt's Trump's party, that much is obvious. I don't know what kind of drug Hogan is smoking.",
">\n\nWell, he can help dilute Trump's competition.",
">\n\nWill the ghost of Mean Gene be his VP?",
">\n\nI would at least consider that ticket…",
">\n\nThere's a lane for him until Chris Sununu declares.",
">\n\nConsidering this is the republicans, I assumed it was Hulk Hogan."
] |
>
I stand proudly with the vast majority of Americans who have never heard of him. | [
"I would disagree with him of course on almost every issue, BUT he wouldn't give me PTSD.... probably.",
">\n\nHogan believes climate change is real and has signed various laws limiting carbon emissions and pollution; he personally opposes abortion, but wants it to be legal; and he came around on same-sex marriage and now supports it. He even supported some gun control. \nHe's probably to the left of Joe Mancin. By any reasonable modern standard, he's a conservative Democrat, not a Republican. \nThis is also why he stands absolutely zero chance at becoming the Republican nominee.",
">\n\nThe \"personally opposes abortion but still supportive of other people's ability to get one\" tidbit tells me immediately that he at least has some level of genuine integrity, even if it isn't much. \nThe respectable thing to do for any person who doesn't personally support an issue like abortion is to say \"I might not like it, but that doesn't mean people who need it should be discriminated against, or targeted with violence. I do not support forcibly imposing my personal views on the entire populace.\"",
">\n\nHe and the Massachusetts governor vetoed pro-choice bills",
">\n\nAh damn, they got me there. That completely negates their supposed minimal integrity.",
">\n\nFor sure Larry Hogan won't be the GOP nominee. And Trump's chances go up when moderate lightweights like him join the race. Hogan may garner a few points, but he'll take them from De Santis or Haley, not Trump.",
">\n\nPretty much. The GOP is falling into the same trap that handed Trump the nomination in 2016.",
">\n\nTrap? Or plan? Hmm...",
">\n\nHe would fare better in the general, but he has zero chance of making it out of the primary. That’s the corner the GOP has painted itself into.",
">\n\n2016 rerun, to many candidates are going to run and let Trumps solid base sweep. Maybe they will pull a Biden-esk play and have everyone drop out to endorse someone that’s not trump.",
">\n\nAw I thought that was going to be the hulkster, really should put the full name in the title.",
">\n\nHad the same reaction, I was like okay one celebrity to another...",
">\n\n\norange won't be GOP nominee\n\n2015 called. They wanna know how that's going for you.",
">\n\nSo, Republican primary math: Trump 33%, DeSantis 29%, Pompeo 13%, Hogan 13% (note crossover dem voters in open primary states), Haley 8%, Other 4%",
">\n\nneither one of them will be the Republican nominee for very different reasons",
">\n\nWait.\nLarry Hogan?\nThere's no chance. Not radical enough.\n( and still too Republican to get my vote)",
">\n\nDude announced that he wrote in Ronald Reagan for president. He won't even win Maryland.",
">\n\nAs a Marylander I have such mixed feelings about Hogan running, his policies were racist and I disagree with him on most things but after the last 6 years he would be the GOP’s least awful candidate.\nWhat bothers me is I think he beats Biden.\nMy hope is he loses the primary because that’ll be his toughest challenge becoming President and other than him I’m not sure the GOP has anyone currently posed to do well in the general\nNot running of course would be ideal in my opinion.",
">\n\n\nMy hope is he loses the primary because that’ll be his toughest challenge becoming President and other than him I’m not sure the GOP has anyone currently posed to do well in the general\n\nIn a one on one Hogan vs Biden race he may win (I really don't know because I don't know much about him other than what is written in this thread) but I don't think that it will be a two way race if Trump doesn't secure the nomination. He'll run as an independent and split the conservative vote.",
">\n\nLet me tell you something about inflation, brother!",
">\n\nTrump starts off with more votes than any of his numerous contenders. Those votes have been glued to him since 2016. If there are multiple candidates for the republican nominations, Trump wins. Just that simple.",
">\n\nFuck me, you really should have specified that it wasn't Hulk Hogan.\nMaking me read some dumb ass article about a Hogan I've never heard of.",
">\n\nSounds like you had some high hopes but they came crashing down and now it hurts inside",
">\n\nI thought the article would be at least mildly entertaining.",
">\n\nIt's Trump's party, that much is obvious. I don't know what kind of drug Hogan is smoking.",
">\n\nWell, he can help dilute Trump's competition.",
">\n\nWill the ghost of Mean Gene be his VP?",
">\n\nI would at least consider that ticket…",
">\n\nThere's a lane for him until Chris Sununu declares.",
">\n\nConsidering this is the republicans, I assumed it was Hulk Hogan.",
">\n\nThe more the Republicans can’t figure out how not to lose an election the more Trump win.",
">\n\nI stand proudly with the vast majority of Americans who have never heard of him.",
">\n\nI like Hogan but every day I find it harder to believe that anyone who represents themselves as a Republican isn’t morally bankrupt and unamerican.",
">\n\nGreat. Another old guy.",
">\n\nOkay, sure, guy I've never heard of",
">\n\nI would disagree with him of course on almost every issue, BUT he wouldn't give me PTSD.... probably.",
">\n\nHogan believes climate change is real and has signed various laws limiting carbon emissions and pollution; he personally opposes abortion, but wants it to be legal; and he came around on same-sex marriage and now supports it. He even supported some gun control. \nHe's probably to the left of Joe Mancin. By any reasonable modern standard, he's a conservative Democrat, not a Republican. \nThis is also why he stands absolutely zero chance at becoming the Republican nominee.",
">\n\nThe \"personally opposes abortion but still supportive of other people's ability to get one\" tidbit tells me immediately that he at least has some level of genuine integrity, even if it isn't much. \nThe respectable thing to do for any person who doesn't personally support an issue like abortion is to say \"I might not like it, but that doesn't mean people who need it should be discriminated against, or targeted with violence. I do not support forcibly imposing my personal views on the entire populace.\"",
">\n\nHe and the Massachusetts governor vetoed pro-choice bills",
">\n\nAh damn, they got me there. That completely negates their supposed minimal integrity.",
">\n\nFor sure Larry Hogan won't be the GOP nominee. And Trump's chances go up when moderate lightweights like him join the race. Hogan may garner a few points, but he'll take them from De Santis or Haley, not Trump.",
">\n\nPretty much. The GOP is falling into the same trap that handed Trump the nomination in 2016.",
">\n\nTrap? Or plan? Hmm...",
">\n\nHe would fare better in the general, but he has zero chance of making it out of the primary. That’s the corner the GOP has painted itself into.",
">\n\n2016 rerun, to many candidates are going to run and let Trumps solid base sweep. Maybe they will pull a Biden-esk play and have everyone drop out to endorse someone that’s not trump.",
">\n\nAw I thought that was going to be the hulkster, really should put the full name in the title.",
">\n\nHad the same reaction, I was like okay one celebrity to another...",
">\n\n\norange won't be GOP nominee\n\n2015 called. They wanna know how that's going for you.",
">\n\nSo, Republican primary math: Trump 33%, DeSantis 29%, Pompeo 13%, Hogan 13% (note crossover dem voters in open primary states), Haley 8%, Other 4%",
">\n\nneither one of them will be the Republican nominee for very different reasons",
">\n\nWait.\nLarry Hogan?\nThere's no chance. Not radical enough.\n( and still too Republican to get my vote)",
">\n\nDude announced that he wrote in Ronald Reagan for president. He won't even win Maryland.",
">\n\nAs a Marylander I have such mixed feelings about Hogan running, his policies were racist and I disagree with him on most things but after the last 6 years he would be the GOP’s least awful candidate.\nWhat bothers me is I think he beats Biden.\nMy hope is he loses the primary because that’ll be his toughest challenge becoming President and other than him I’m not sure the GOP has anyone currently posed to do well in the general\nNot running of course would be ideal in my opinion.",
">\n\n\nMy hope is he loses the primary because that’ll be his toughest challenge becoming President and other than him I’m not sure the GOP has anyone currently posed to do well in the general\n\nIn a one on one Hogan vs Biden race he may win (I really don't know because I don't know much about him other than what is written in this thread) but I don't think that it will be a two way race if Trump doesn't secure the nomination. He'll run as an independent and split the conservative vote.",
">\n\nLet me tell you something about inflation, brother!",
">\n\nTrump starts off with more votes than any of his numerous contenders. Those votes have been glued to him since 2016. If there are multiple candidates for the republican nominations, Trump wins. Just that simple.",
">\n\nFuck me, you really should have specified that it wasn't Hulk Hogan.\nMaking me read some dumb ass article about a Hogan I've never heard of.",
">\n\nSounds like you had some high hopes but they came crashing down and now it hurts inside",
">\n\nI thought the article would be at least mildly entertaining.",
">\n\nIt's Trump's party, that much is obvious. I don't know what kind of drug Hogan is smoking.",
">\n\nWell, he can help dilute Trump's competition.",
">\n\nWill the ghost of Mean Gene be his VP?",
">\n\nI would at least consider that ticket…",
">\n\nThere's a lane for him until Chris Sununu declares.",
">\n\nConsidering this is the republicans, I assumed it was Hulk Hogan.",
">\n\nThe more the Republicans can’t figure out how not to lose an election the more Trump win."
] |
>
I like Hogan but every day I find it harder to believe that anyone who represents themselves as a Republican isn’t morally bankrupt and unamerican. | [
"I would disagree with him of course on almost every issue, BUT he wouldn't give me PTSD.... probably.",
">\n\nHogan believes climate change is real and has signed various laws limiting carbon emissions and pollution; he personally opposes abortion, but wants it to be legal; and he came around on same-sex marriage and now supports it. He even supported some gun control. \nHe's probably to the left of Joe Mancin. By any reasonable modern standard, he's a conservative Democrat, not a Republican. \nThis is also why he stands absolutely zero chance at becoming the Republican nominee.",
">\n\nThe \"personally opposes abortion but still supportive of other people's ability to get one\" tidbit tells me immediately that he at least has some level of genuine integrity, even if it isn't much. \nThe respectable thing to do for any person who doesn't personally support an issue like abortion is to say \"I might not like it, but that doesn't mean people who need it should be discriminated against, or targeted with violence. I do not support forcibly imposing my personal views on the entire populace.\"",
">\n\nHe and the Massachusetts governor vetoed pro-choice bills",
">\n\nAh damn, they got me there. That completely negates their supposed minimal integrity.",
">\n\nFor sure Larry Hogan won't be the GOP nominee. And Trump's chances go up when moderate lightweights like him join the race. Hogan may garner a few points, but he'll take them from De Santis or Haley, not Trump.",
">\n\nPretty much. The GOP is falling into the same trap that handed Trump the nomination in 2016.",
">\n\nTrap? Or plan? Hmm...",
">\n\nHe would fare better in the general, but he has zero chance of making it out of the primary. That’s the corner the GOP has painted itself into.",
">\n\n2016 rerun, to many candidates are going to run and let Trumps solid base sweep. Maybe they will pull a Biden-esk play and have everyone drop out to endorse someone that’s not trump.",
">\n\nAw I thought that was going to be the hulkster, really should put the full name in the title.",
">\n\nHad the same reaction, I was like okay one celebrity to another...",
">\n\n\norange won't be GOP nominee\n\n2015 called. They wanna know how that's going for you.",
">\n\nSo, Republican primary math: Trump 33%, DeSantis 29%, Pompeo 13%, Hogan 13% (note crossover dem voters in open primary states), Haley 8%, Other 4%",
">\n\nneither one of them will be the Republican nominee for very different reasons",
">\n\nWait.\nLarry Hogan?\nThere's no chance. Not radical enough.\n( and still too Republican to get my vote)",
">\n\nDude announced that he wrote in Ronald Reagan for president. He won't even win Maryland.",
">\n\nAs a Marylander I have such mixed feelings about Hogan running, his policies were racist and I disagree with him on most things but after the last 6 years he would be the GOP’s least awful candidate.\nWhat bothers me is I think he beats Biden.\nMy hope is he loses the primary because that’ll be his toughest challenge becoming President and other than him I’m not sure the GOP has anyone currently posed to do well in the general\nNot running of course would be ideal in my opinion.",
">\n\n\nMy hope is he loses the primary because that’ll be his toughest challenge becoming President and other than him I’m not sure the GOP has anyone currently posed to do well in the general\n\nIn a one on one Hogan vs Biden race he may win (I really don't know because I don't know much about him other than what is written in this thread) but I don't think that it will be a two way race if Trump doesn't secure the nomination. He'll run as an independent and split the conservative vote.",
">\n\nLet me tell you something about inflation, brother!",
">\n\nTrump starts off with more votes than any of his numerous contenders. Those votes have been glued to him since 2016. If there are multiple candidates for the republican nominations, Trump wins. Just that simple.",
">\n\nFuck me, you really should have specified that it wasn't Hulk Hogan.\nMaking me read some dumb ass article about a Hogan I've never heard of.",
">\n\nSounds like you had some high hopes but they came crashing down and now it hurts inside",
">\n\nI thought the article would be at least mildly entertaining.",
">\n\nIt's Trump's party, that much is obvious. I don't know what kind of drug Hogan is smoking.",
">\n\nWell, he can help dilute Trump's competition.",
">\n\nWill the ghost of Mean Gene be his VP?",
">\n\nI would at least consider that ticket…",
">\n\nThere's a lane for him until Chris Sununu declares.",
">\n\nConsidering this is the republicans, I assumed it was Hulk Hogan.",
">\n\nThe more the Republicans can’t figure out how not to lose an election the more Trump win.",
">\n\nI stand proudly with the vast majority of Americans who have never heard of him.",
">\n\nI like Hogan but every day I find it harder to believe that anyone who represents themselves as a Republican isn’t morally bankrupt and unamerican.",
">\n\nGreat. Another old guy.",
">\n\nOkay, sure, guy I've never heard of",
">\n\nI would disagree with him of course on almost every issue, BUT he wouldn't give me PTSD.... probably.",
">\n\nHogan believes climate change is real and has signed various laws limiting carbon emissions and pollution; he personally opposes abortion, but wants it to be legal; and he came around on same-sex marriage and now supports it. He even supported some gun control. \nHe's probably to the left of Joe Mancin. By any reasonable modern standard, he's a conservative Democrat, not a Republican. \nThis is also why he stands absolutely zero chance at becoming the Republican nominee.",
">\n\nThe \"personally opposes abortion but still supportive of other people's ability to get one\" tidbit tells me immediately that he at least has some level of genuine integrity, even if it isn't much. \nThe respectable thing to do for any person who doesn't personally support an issue like abortion is to say \"I might not like it, but that doesn't mean people who need it should be discriminated against, or targeted with violence. I do not support forcibly imposing my personal views on the entire populace.\"",
">\n\nHe and the Massachusetts governor vetoed pro-choice bills",
">\n\nAh damn, they got me there. That completely negates their supposed minimal integrity.",
">\n\nFor sure Larry Hogan won't be the GOP nominee. And Trump's chances go up when moderate lightweights like him join the race. Hogan may garner a few points, but he'll take them from De Santis or Haley, not Trump.",
">\n\nPretty much. The GOP is falling into the same trap that handed Trump the nomination in 2016.",
">\n\nTrap? Or plan? Hmm...",
">\n\nHe would fare better in the general, but he has zero chance of making it out of the primary. That’s the corner the GOP has painted itself into.",
">\n\n2016 rerun, to many candidates are going to run and let Trumps solid base sweep. Maybe they will pull a Biden-esk play and have everyone drop out to endorse someone that’s not trump.",
">\n\nAw I thought that was going to be the hulkster, really should put the full name in the title.",
">\n\nHad the same reaction, I was like okay one celebrity to another...",
">\n\n\norange won't be GOP nominee\n\n2015 called. They wanna know how that's going for you.",
">\n\nSo, Republican primary math: Trump 33%, DeSantis 29%, Pompeo 13%, Hogan 13% (note crossover dem voters in open primary states), Haley 8%, Other 4%",
">\n\nneither one of them will be the Republican nominee for very different reasons",
">\n\nWait.\nLarry Hogan?\nThere's no chance. Not radical enough.\n( and still too Republican to get my vote)",
">\n\nDude announced that he wrote in Ronald Reagan for president. He won't even win Maryland.",
">\n\nAs a Marylander I have such mixed feelings about Hogan running, his policies were racist and I disagree with him on most things but after the last 6 years he would be the GOP’s least awful candidate.\nWhat bothers me is I think he beats Biden.\nMy hope is he loses the primary because that’ll be his toughest challenge becoming President and other than him I’m not sure the GOP has anyone currently posed to do well in the general\nNot running of course would be ideal in my opinion.",
">\n\n\nMy hope is he loses the primary because that’ll be his toughest challenge becoming President and other than him I’m not sure the GOP has anyone currently posed to do well in the general\n\nIn a one on one Hogan vs Biden race he may win (I really don't know because I don't know much about him other than what is written in this thread) but I don't think that it will be a two way race if Trump doesn't secure the nomination. He'll run as an independent and split the conservative vote.",
">\n\nLet me tell you something about inflation, brother!",
">\n\nTrump starts off with more votes than any of his numerous contenders. Those votes have been glued to him since 2016. If there are multiple candidates for the republican nominations, Trump wins. Just that simple.",
">\n\nFuck me, you really should have specified that it wasn't Hulk Hogan.\nMaking me read some dumb ass article about a Hogan I've never heard of.",
">\n\nSounds like you had some high hopes but they came crashing down and now it hurts inside",
">\n\nI thought the article would be at least mildly entertaining.",
">\n\nIt's Trump's party, that much is obvious. I don't know what kind of drug Hogan is smoking.",
">\n\nWell, he can help dilute Trump's competition.",
">\n\nWill the ghost of Mean Gene be his VP?",
">\n\nI would at least consider that ticket…",
">\n\nThere's a lane for him until Chris Sununu declares.",
">\n\nConsidering this is the republicans, I assumed it was Hulk Hogan.",
">\n\nThe more the Republicans can’t figure out how not to lose an election the more Trump win.",
">\n\nI stand proudly with the vast majority of Americans who have never heard of him."
] |
>
Great. Another old guy. | [
"I would disagree with him of course on almost every issue, BUT he wouldn't give me PTSD.... probably.",
">\n\nHogan believes climate change is real and has signed various laws limiting carbon emissions and pollution; he personally opposes abortion, but wants it to be legal; and he came around on same-sex marriage and now supports it. He even supported some gun control. \nHe's probably to the left of Joe Mancin. By any reasonable modern standard, he's a conservative Democrat, not a Republican. \nThis is also why he stands absolutely zero chance at becoming the Republican nominee.",
">\n\nThe \"personally opposes abortion but still supportive of other people's ability to get one\" tidbit tells me immediately that he at least has some level of genuine integrity, even if it isn't much. \nThe respectable thing to do for any person who doesn't personally support an issue like abortion is to say \"I might not like it, but that doesn't mean people who need it should be discriminated against, or targeted with violence. I do not support forcibly imposing my personal views on the entire populace.\"",
">\n\nHe and the Massachusetts governor vetoed pro-choice bills",
">\n\nAh damn, they got me there. That completely negates their supposed minimal integrity.",
">\n\nFor sure Larry Hogan won't be the GOP nominee. And Trump's chances go up when moderate lightweights like him join the race. Hogan may garner a few points, but he'll take them from De Santis or Haley, not Trump.",
">\n\nPretty much. The GOP is falling into the same trap that handed Trump the nomination in 2016.",
">\n\nTrap? Or plan? Hmm...",
">\n\nHe would fare better in the general, but he has zero chance of making it out of the primary. That’s the corner the GOP has painted itself into.",
">\n\n2016 rerun, to many candidates are going to run and let Trumps solid base sweep. Maybe they will pull a Biden-esk play and have everyone drop out to endorse someone that’s not trump.",
">\n\nAw I thought that was going to be the hulkster, really should put the full name in the title.",
">\n\nHad the same reaction, I was like okay one celebrity to another...",
">\n\n\norange won't be GOP nominee\n\n2015 called. They wanna know how that's going for you.",
">\n\nSo, Republican primary math: Trump 33%, DeSantis 29%, Pompeo 13%, Hogan 13% (note crossover dem voters in open primary states), Haley 8%, Other 4%",
">\n\nneither one of them will be the Republican nominee for very different reasons",
">\n\nWait.\nLarry Hogan?\nThere's no chance. Not radical enough.\n( and still too Republican to get my vote)",
">\n\nDude announced that he wrote in Ronald Reagan for president. He won't even win Maryland.",
">\n\nAs a Marylander I have such mixed feelings about Hogan running, his policies were racist and I disagree with him on most things but after the last 6 years he would be the GOP’s least awful candidate.\nWhat bothers me is I think he beats Biden.\nMy hope is he loses the primary because that’ll be his toughest challenge becoming President and other than him I’m not sure the GOP has anyone currently posed to do well in the general\nNot running of course would be ideal in my opinion.",
">\n\n\nMy hope is he loses the primary because that’ll be his toughest challenge becoming President and other than him I’m not sure the GOP has anyone currently posed to do well in the general\n\nIn a one on one Hogan vs Biden race he may win (I really don't know because I don't know much about him other than what is written in this thread) but I don't think that it will be a two way race if Trump doesn't secure the nomination. He'll run as an independent and split the conservative vote.",
">\n\nLet me tell you something about inflation, brother!",
">\n\nTrump starts off with more votes than any of his numerous contenders. Those votes have been glued to him since 2016. If there are multiple candidates for the republican nominations, Trump wins. Just that simple.",
">\n\nFuck me, you really should have specified that it wasn't Hulk Hogan.\nMaking me read some dumb ass article about a Hogan I've never heard of.",
">\n\nSounds like you had some high hopes but they came crashing down and now it hurts inside",
">\n\nI thought the article would be at least mildly entertaining.",
">\n\nIt's Trump's party, that much is obvious. I don't know what kind of drug Hogan is smoking.",
">\n\nWell, he can help dilute Trump's competition.",
">\n\nWill the ghost of Mean Gene be his VP?",
">\n\nI would at least consider that ticket…",
">\n\nThere's a lane for him until Chris Sununu declares.",
">\n\nConsidering this is the republicans, I assumed it was Hulk Hogan.",
">\n\nThe more the Republicans can’t figure out how not to lose an election the more Trump win.",
">\n\nI stand proudly with the vast majority of Americans who have never heard of him.",
">\n\nI like Hogan but every day I find it harder to believe that anyone who represents themselves as a Republican isn’t morally bankrupt and unamerican.",
">\n\nGreat. Another old guy.",
">\n\nOkay, sure, guy I've never heard of",
">\n\nI would disagree with him of course on almost every issue, BUT he wouldn't give me PTSD.... probably.",
">\n\nHogan believes climate change is real and has signed various laws limiting carbon emissions and pollution; he personally opposes abortion, but wants it to be legal; and he came around on same-sex marriage and now supports it. He even supported some gun control. \nHe's probably to the left of Joe Mancin. By any reasonable modern standard, he's a conservative Democrat, not a Republican. \nThis is also why he stands absolutely zero chance at becoming the Republican nominee.",
">\n\nThe \"personally opposes abortion but still supportive of other people's ability to get one\" tidbit tells me immediately that he at least has some level of genuine integrity, even if it isn't much. \nThe respectable thing to do for any person who doesn't personally support an issue like abortion is to say \"I might not like it, but that doesn't mean people who need it should be discriminated against, or targeted with violence. I do not support forcibly imposing my personal views on the entire populace.\"",
">\n\nHe and the Massachusetts governor vetoed pro-choice bills",
">\n\nAh damn, they got me there. That completely negates their supposed minimal integrity.",
">\n\nFor sure Larry Hogan won't be the GOP nominee. And Trump's chances go up when moderate lightweights like him join the race. Hogan may garner a few points, but he'll take them from De Santis or Haley, not Trump.",
">\n\nPretty much. The GOP is falling into the same trap that handed Trump the nomination in 2016.",
">\n\nTrap? Or plan? Hmm...",
">\n\nHe would fare better in the general, but he has zero chance of making it out of the primary. That’s the corner the GOP has painted itself into.",
">\n\n2016 rerun, to many candidates are going to run and let Trumps solid base sweep. Maybe they will pull a Biden-esk play and have everyone drop out to endorse someone that’s not trump.",
">\n\nAw I thought that was going to be the hulkster, really should put the full name in the title.",
">\n\nHad the same reaction, I was like okay one celebrity to another...",
">\n\n\norange won't be GOP nominee\n\n2015 called. They wanna know how that's going for you.",
">\n\nSo, Republican primary math: Trump 33%, DeSantis 29%, Pompeo 13%, Hogan 13% (note crossover dem voters in open primary states), Haley 8%, Other 4%",
">\n\nneither one of them will be the Republican nominee for very different reasons",
">\n\nWait.\nLarry Hogan?\nThere's no chance. Not radical enough.\n( and still too Republican to get my vote)",
">\n\nDude announced that he wrote in Ronald Reagan for president. He won't even win Maryland.",
">\n\nAs a Marylander I have such mixed feelings about Hogan running, his policies were racist and I disagree with him on most things but after the last 6 years he would be the GOP’s least awful candidate.\nWhat bothers me is I think he beats Biden.\nMy hope is he loses the primary because that’ll be his toughest challenge becoming President and other than him I’m not sure the GOP has anyone currently posed to do well in the general\nNot running of course would be ideal in my opinion.",
">\n\n\nMy hope is he loses the primary because that’ll be his toughest challenge becoming President and other than him I’m not sure the GOP has anyone currently posed to do well in the general\n\nIn a one on one Hogan vs Biden race he may win (I really don't know because I don't know much about him other than what is written in this thread) but I don't think that it will be a two way race if Trump doesn't secure the nomination. He'll run as an independent and split the conservative vote.",
">\n\nLet me tell you something about inflation, brother!",
">\n\nTrump starts off with more votes than any of his numerous contenders. Those votes have been glued to him since 2016. If there are multiple candidates for the republican nominations, Trump wins. Just that simple.",
">\n\nFuck me, you really should have specified that it wasn't Hulk Hogan.\nMaking me read some dumb ass article about a Hogan I've never heard of.",
">\n\nSounds like you had some high hopes but they came crashing down and now it hurts inside",
">\n\nI thought the article would be at least mildly entertaining.",
">\n\nIt's Trump's party, that much is obvious. I don't know what kind of drug Hogan is smoking.",
">\n\nWell, he can help dilute Trump's competition.",
">\n\nWill the ghost of Mean Gene be his VP?",
">\n\nI would at least consider that ticket…",
">\n\nThere's a lane for him until Chris Sununu declares.",
">\n\nConsidering this is the republicans, I assumed it was Hulk Hogan.",
">\n\nThe more the Republicans can’t figure out how not to lose an election the more Trump win.",
">\n\nI stand proudly with the vast majority of Americans who have never heard of him.",
">\n\nI like Hogan but every day I find it harder to believe that anyone who represents themselves as a Republican isn’t morally bankrupt and unamerican."
] |
>
Okay, sure, guy I've never heard of | [
"I would disagree with him of course on almost every issue, BUT he wouldn't give me PTSD.... probably.",
">\n\nHogan believes climate change is real and has signed various laws limiting carbon emissions and pollution; he personally opposes abortion, but wants it to be legal; and he came around on same-sex marriage and now supports it. He even supported some gun control. \nHe's probably to the left of Joe Mancin. By any reasonable modern standard, he's a conservative Democrat, not a Republican. \nThis is also why he stands absolutely zero chance at becoming the Republican nominee.",
">\n\nThe \"personally opposes abortion but still supportive of other people's ability to get one\" tidbit tells me immediately that he at least has some level of genuine integrity, even if it isn't much. \nThe respectable thing to do for any person who doesn't personally support an issue like abortion is to say \"I might not like it, but that doesn't mean people who need it should be discriminated against, or targeted with violence. I do not support forcibly imposing my personal views on the entire populace.\"",
">\n\nHe and the Massachusetts governor vetoed pro-choice bills",
">\n\nAh damn, they got me there. That completely negates their supposed minimal integrity.",
">\n\nFor sure Larry Hogan won't be the GOP nominee. And Trump's chances go up when moderate lightweights like him join the race. Hogan may garner a few points, but he'll take them from De Santis or Haley, not Trump.",
">\n\nPretty much. The GOP is falling into the same trap that handed Trump the nomination in 2016.",
">\n\nTrap? Or plan? Hmm...",
">\n\nHe would fare better in the general, but he has zero chance of making it out of the primary. That’s the corner the GOP has painted itself into.",
">\n\n2016 rerun, to many candidates are going to run and let Trumps solid base sweep. Maybe they will pull a Biden-esk play and have everyone drop out to endorse someone that’s not trump.",
">\n\nAw I thought that was going to be the hulkster, really should put the full name in the title.",
">\n\nHad the same reaction, I was like okay one celebrity to another...",
">\n\n\norange won't be GOP nominee\n\n2015 called. They wanna know how that's going for you.",
">\n\nSo, Republican primary math: Trump 33%, DeSantis 29%, Pompeo 13%, Hogan 13% (note crossover dem voters in open primary states), Haley 8%, Other 4%",
">\n\nneither one of them will be the Republican nominee for very different reasons",
">\n\nWait.\nLarry Hogan?\nThere's no chance. Not radical enough.\n( and still too Republican to get my vote)",
">\n\nDude announced that he wrote in Ronald Reagan for president. He won't even win Maryland.",
">\n\nAs a Marylander I have such mixed feelings about Hogan running, his policies were racist and I disagree with him on most things but after the last 6 years he would be the GOP’s least awful candidate.\nWhat bothers me is I think he beats Biden.\nMy hope is he loses the primary because that’ll be his toughest challenge becoming President and other than him I’m not sure the GOP has anyone currently posed to do well in the general\nNot running of course would be ideal in my opinion.",
">\n\n\nMy hope is he loses the primary because that’ll be his toughest challenge becoming President and other than him I’m not sure the GOP has anyone currently posed to do well in the general\n\nIn a one on one Hogan vs Biden race he may win (I really don't know because I don't know much about him other than what is written in this thread) but I don't think that it will be a two way race if Trump doesn't secure the nomination. He'll run as an independent and split the conservative vote.",
">\n\nLet me tell you something about inflation, brother!",
">\n\nTrump starts off with more votes than any of his numerous contenders. Those votes have been glued to him since 2016. If there are multiple candidates for the republican nominations, Trump wins. Just that simple.",
">\n\nFuck me, you really should have specified that it wasn't Hulk Hogan.\nMaking me read some dumb ass article about a Hogan I've never heard of.",
">\n\nSounds like you had some high hopes but they came crashing down and now it hurts inside",
">\n\nI thought the article would be at least mildly entertaining.",
">\n\nIt's Trump's party, that much is obvious. I don't know what kind of drug Hogan is smoking.",
">\n\nWell, he can help dilute Trump's competition.",
">\n\nWill the ghost of Mean Gene be his VP?",
">\n\nI would at least consider that ticket…",
">\n\nThere's a lane for him until Chris Sununu declares.",
">\n\nConsidering this is the republicans, I assumed it was Hulk Hogan.",
">\n\nThe more the Republicans can’t figure out how not to lose an election the more Trump win.",
">\n\nI stand proudly with the vast majority of Americans who have never heard of him.",
">\n\nI like Hogan but every day I find it harder to believe that anyone who represents themselves as a Republican isn’t morally bankrupt and unamerican.",
">\n\nGreat. Another old guy.",
">\n\nOkay, sure, guy I've never heard of",
">\n\nI would disagree with him of course on almost every issue, BUT he wouldn't give me PTSD.... probably.",
">\n\nHogan believes climate change is real and has signed various laws limiting carbon emissions and pollution; he personally opposes abortion, but wants it to be legal; and he came around on same-sex marriage and now supports it. He even supported some gun control. \nHe's probably to the left of Joe Mancin. By any reasonable modern standard, he's a conservative Democrat, not a Republican. \nThis is also why he stands absolutely zero chance at becoming the Republican nominee.",
">\n\nThe \"personally opposes abortion but still supportive of other people's ability to get one\" tidbit tells me immediately that he at least has some level of genuine integrity, even if it isn't much. \nThe respectable thing to do for any person who doesn't personally support an issue like abortion is to say \"I might not like it, but that doesn't mean people who need it should be discriminated against, or targeted with violence. I do not support forcibly imposing my personal views on the entire populace.\"",
">\n\nHe and the Massachusetts governor vetoed pro-choice bills",
">\n\nAh damn, they got me there. That completely negates their supposed minimal integrity.",
">\n\nFor sure Larry Hogan won't be the GOP nominee. And Trump's chances go up when moderate lightweights like him join the race. Hogan may garner a few points, but he'll take them from De Santis or Haley, not Trump.",
">\n\nPretty much. The GOP is falling into the same trap that handed Trump the nomination in 2016.",
">\n\nTrap? Or plan? Hmm...",
">\n\nHe would fare better in the general, but he has zero chance of making it out of the primary. That’s the corner the GOP has painted itself into.",
">\n\n2016 rerun, to many candidates are going to run and let Trumps solid base sweep. Maybe they will pull a Biden-esk play and have everyone drop out to endorse someone that’s not trump.",
">\n\nAw I thought that was going to be the hulkster, really should put the full name in the title.",
">\n\nHad the same reaction, I was like okay one celebrity to another...",
">\n\n\norange won't be GOP nominee\n\n2015 called. They wanna know how that's going for you.",
">\n\nSo, Republican primary math: Trump 33%, DeSantis 29%, Pompeo 13%, Hogan 13% (note crossover dem voters in open primary states), Haley 8%, Other 4%",
">\n\nneither one of them will be the Republican nominee for very different reasons",
">\n\nWait.\nLarry Hogan?\nThere's no chance. Not radical enough.\n( and still too Republican to get my vote)",
">\n\nDude announced that he wrote in Ronald Reagan for president. He won't even win Maryland.",
">\n\nAs a Marylander I have such mixed feelings about Hogan running, his policies were racist and I disagree with him on most things but after the last 6 years he would be the GOP’s least awful candidate.\nWhat bothers me is I think he beats Biden.\nMy hope is he loses the primary because that’ll be his toughest challenge becoming President and other than him I’m not sure the GOP has anyone currently posed to do well in the general\nNot running of course would be ideal in my opinion.",
">\n\n\nMy hope is he loses the primary because that’ll be his toughest challenge becoming President and other than him I’m not sure the GOP has anyone currently posed to do well in the general\n\nIn a one on one Hogan vs Biden race he may win (I really don't know because I don't know much about him other than what is written in this thread) but I don't think that it will be a two way race if Trump doesn't secure the nomination. He'll run as an independent and split the conservative vote.",
">\n\nLet me tell you something about inflation, brother!",
">\n\nTrump starts off with more votes than any of his numerous contenders. Those votes have been glued to him since 2016. If there are multiple candidates for the republican nominations, Trump wins. Just that simple.",
">\n\nFuck me, you really should have specified that it wasn't Hulk Hogan.\nMaking me read some dumb ass article about a Hogan I've never heard of.",
">\n\nSounds like you had some high hopes but they came crashing down and now it hurts inside",
">\n\nI thought the article would be at least mildly entertaining.",
">\n\nIt's Trump's party, that much is obvious. I don't know what kind of drug Hogan is smoking.",
">\n\nWell, he can help dilute Trump's competition.",
">\n\nWill the ghost of Mean Gene be his VP?",
">\n\nI would at least consider that ticket…",
">\n\nThere's a lane for him until Chris Sununu declares.",
">\n\nConsidering this is the republicans, I assumed it was Hulk Hogan.",
">\n\nThe more the Republicans can’t figure out how not to lose an election the more Trump win.",
">\n\nI stand proudly with the vast majority of Americans who have never heard of him.",
">\n\nI like Hogan but every day I find it harder to believe that anyone who represents themselves as a Republican isn’t morally bankrupt and unamerican.",
">\n\nGreat. Another old guy."
] |
> | [
"I would disagree with him of course on almost every issue, BUT he wouldn't give me PTSD.... probably.",
">\n\nHogan believes climate change is real and has signed various laws limiting carbon emissions and pollution; he personally opposes abortion, but wants it to be legal; and he came around on same-sex marriage and now supports it. He even supported some gun control. \nHe's probably to the left of Joe Mancin. By any reasonable modern standard, he's a conservative Democrat, not a Republican. \nThis is also why he stands absolutely zero chance at becoming the Republican nominee.",
">\n\nThe \"personally opposes abortion but still supportive of other people's ability to get one\" tidbit tells me immediately that he at least has some level of genuine integrity, even if it isn't much. \nThe respectable thing to do for any person who doesn't personally support an issue like abortion is to say \"I might not like it, but that doesn't mean people who need it should be discriminated against, or targeted with violence. I do not support forcibly imposing my personal views on the entire populace.\"",
">\n\nHe and the Massachusetts governor vetoed pro-choice bills",
">\n\nAh damn, they got me there. That completely negates their supposed minimal integrity.",
">\n\nFor sure Larry Hogan won't be the GOP nominee. And Trump's chances go up when moderate lightweights like him join the race. Hogan may garner a few points, but he'll take them from De Santis or Haley, not Trump.",
">\n\nPretty much. The GOP is falling into the same trap that handed Trump the nomination in 2016.",
">\n\nTrap? Or plan? Hmm...",
">\n\nHe would fare better in the general, but he has zero chance of making it out of the primary. That’s the corner the GOP has painted itself into.",
">\n\n2016 rerun, to many candidates are going to run and let Trumps solid base sweep. Maybe they will pull a Biden-esk play and have everyone drop out to endorse someone that’s not trump.",
">\n\nAw I thought that was going to be the hulkster, really should put the full name in the title.",
">\n\nHad the same reaction, I was like okay one celebrity to another...",
">\n\n\norange won't be GOP nominee\n\n2015 called. They wanna know how that's going for you.",
">\n\nSo, Republican primary math: Trump 33%, DeSantis 29%, Pompeo 13%, Hogan 13% (note crossover dem voters in open primary states), Haley 8%, Other 4%",
">\n\nneither one of them will be the Republican nominee for very different reasons",
">\n\nWait.\nLarry Hogan?\nThere's no chance. Not radical enough.\n( and still too Republican to get my vote)",
">\n\nDude announced that he wrote in Ronald Reagan for president. He won't even win Maryland.",
">\n\nAs a Marylander I have such mixed feelings about Hogan running, his policies were racist and I disagree with him on most things but after the last 6 years he would be the GOP’s least awful candidate.\nWhat bothers me is I think he beats Biden.\nMy hope is he loses the primary because that’ll be his toughest challenge becoming President and other than him I’m not sure the GOP has anyone currently posed to do well in the general\nNot running of course would be ideal in my opinion.",
">\n\n\nMy hope is he loses the primary because that’ll be his toughest challenge becoming President and other than him I’m not sure the GOP has anyone currently posed to do well in the general\n\nIn a one on one Hogan vs Biden race he may win (I really don't know because I don't know much about him other than what is written in this thread) but I don't think that it will be a two way race if Trump doesn't secure the nomination. He'll run as an independent and split the conservative vote.",
">\n\nLet me tell you something about inflation, brother!",
">\n\nTrump starts off with more votes than any of his numerous contenders. Those votes have been glued to him since 2016. If there are multiple candidates for the republican nominations, Trump wins. Just that simple.",
">\n\nFuck me, you really should have specified that it wasn't Hulk Hogan.\nMaking me read some dumb ass article about a Hogan I've never heard of.",
">\n\nSounds like you had some high hopes but they came crashing down and now it hurts inside",
">\n\nI thought the article would be at least mildly entertaining.",
">\n\nIt's Trump's party, that much is obvious. I don't know what kind of drug Hogan is smoking.",
">\n\nWell, he can help dilute Trump's competition.",
">\n\nWill the ghost of Mean Gene be his VP?",
">\n\nI would at least consider that ticket…",
">\n\nThere's a lane for him until Chris Sununu declares.",
">\n\nConsidering this is the republicans, I assumed it was Hulk Hogan.",
">\n\nThe more the Republicans can’t figure out how not to lose an election the more Trump win.",
">\n\nI stand proudly with the vast majority of Americans who have never heard of him.",
">\n\nI like Hogan but every day I find it harder to believe that anyone who represents themselves as a Republican isn’t morally bankrupt and unamerican.",
">\n\nGreat. Another old guy.",
">\n\nOkay, sure, guy I've never heard of",
">\n\nI would disagree with him of course on almost every issue, BUT he wouldn't give me PTSD.... probably.",
">\n\nHogan believes climate change is real and has signed various laws limiting carbon emissions and pollution; he personally opposes abortion, but wants it to be legal; and he came around on same-sex marriage and now supports it. He even supported some gun control. \nHe's probably to the left of Joe Mancin. By any reasonable modern standard, he's a conservative Democrat, not a Republican. \nThis is also why he stands absolutely zero chance at becoming the Republican nominee.",
">\n\nThe \"personally opposes abortion but still supportive of other people's ability to get one\" tidbit tells me immediately that he at least has some level of genuine integrity, even if it isn't much. \nThe respectable thing to do for any person who doesn't personally support an issue like abortion is to say \"I might not like it, but that doesn't mean people who need it should be discriminated against, or targeted with violence. I do not support forcibly imposing my personal views on the entire populace.\"",
">\n\nHe and the Massachusetts governor vetoed pro-choice bills",
">\n\nAh damn, they got me there. That completely negates their supposed minimal integrity.",
">\n\nFor sure Larry Hogan won't be the GOP nominee. And Trump's chances go up when moderate lightweights like him join the race. Hogan may garner a few points, but he'll take them from De Santis or Haley, not Trump.",
">\n\nPretty much. The GOP is falling into the same trap that handed Trump the nomination in 2016.",
">\n\nTrap? Or plan? Hmm...",
">\n\nHe would fare better in the general, but he has zero chance of making it out of the primary. That’s the corner the GOP has painted itself into.",
">\n\n2016 rerun, to many candidates are going to run and let Trumps solid base sweep. Maybe they will pull a Biden-esk play and have everyone drop out to endorse someone that’s not trump.",
">\n\nAw I thought that was going to be the hulkster, really should put the full name in the title.",
">\n\nHad the same reaction, I was like okay one celebrity to another...",
">\n\n\norange won't be GOP nominee\n\n2015 called. They wanna know how that's going for you.",
">\n\nSo, Republican primary math: Trump 33%, DeSantis 29%, Pompeo 13%, Hogan 13% (note crossover dem voters in open primary states), Haley 8%, Other 4%",
">\n\nneither one of them will be the Republican nominee for very different reasons",
">\n\nWait.\nLarry Hogan?\nThere's no chance. Not radical enough.\n( and still too Republican to get my vote)",
">\n\nDude announced that he wrote in Ronald Reagan for president. He won't even win Maryland.",
">\n\nAs a Marylander I have such mixed feelings about Hogan running, his policies were racist and I disagree with him on most things but after the last 6 years he would be the GOP’s least awful candidate.\nWhat bothers me is I think he beats Biden.\nMy hope is he loses the primary because that’ll be his toughest challenge becoming President and other than him I’m not sure the GOP has anyone currently posed to do well in the general\nNot running of course would be ideal in my opinion.",
">\n\n\nMy hope is he loses the primary because that’ll be his toughest challenge becoming President and other than him I’m not sure the GOP has anyone currently posed to do well in the general\n\nIn a one on one Hogan vs Biden race he may win (I really don't know because I don't know much about him other than what is written in this thread) but I don't think that it will be a two way race if Trump doesn't secure the nomination. He'll run as an independent and split the conservative vote.",
">\n\nLet me tell you something about inflation, brother!",
">\n\nTrump starts off with more votes than any of his numerous contenders. Those votes have been glued to him since 2016. If there are multiple candidates for the republican nominations, Trump wins. Just that simple.",
">\n\nFuck me, you really should have specified that it wasn't Hulk Hogan.\nMaking me read some dumb ass article about a Hogan I've never heard of.",
">\n\nSounds like you had some high hopes but they came crashing down and now it hurts inside",
">\n\nI thought the article would be at least mildly entertaining.",
">\n\nIt's Trump's party, that much is obvious. I don't know what kind of drug Hogan is smoking.",
">\n\nWell, he can help dilute Trump's competition.",
">\n\nWill the ghost of Mean Gene be his VP?",
">\n\nI would at least consider that ticket…",
">\n\nThere's a lane for him until Chris Sununu declares.",
">\n\nConsidering this is the republicans, I assumed it was Hulk Hogan.",
">\n\nThe more the Republicans can’t figure out how not to lose an election the more Trump win.",
">\n\nI stand proudly with the vast majority of Americans who have never heard of him.",
">\n\nI like Hogan but every day I find it harder to believe that anyone who represents themselves as a Republican isn’t morally bankrupt and unamerican.",
">\n\nGreat. Another old guy.",
">\n\nOkay, sure, guy I've never heard of"
] |
/u/derangermouse (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards | [] |
>
This seems to be more of a semantic pivot than anything.
Cocaine, as your example is physically and psychologically addictive and contributes to multiple serious health issues. Saying it's not the drug, or the porn but your relationship to it is like saying it's not falling off a mountain that kills you, it's hitting something on the way down. It's a useless distinction. | [
"/u/derangermouse (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards"
] |
>
When that person falls off the mountain, is it the mountain’s fault? Because plenty of people blame porn for their partners use of it | [
"/u/derangermouse (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nThis seems to be more of a semantic pivot than anything.\nCocaine, as your example is physically and psychologically addictive and contributes to multiple serious health issues. Saying it's not the drug, or the porn but your relationship to it is like saying it's not falling off a mountain that kills you, it's hitting something on the way down. It's a useless distinction."
] |
>
You replied to my comment that "porn isn't guns"
Well a mountain isn't cocaine addiction, is it? | [
"/u/derangermouse (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nThis seems to be more of a semantic pivot than anything.\nCocaine, as your example is physically and psychologically addictive and contributes to multiple serious health issues. Saying it's not the drug, or the porn but your relationship to it is like saying it's not falling off a mountain that kills you, it's hitting something on the way down. It's a useless distinction.",
">\n\nWhen that person falls off the mountain, is it the mountain’s fault? Because plenty of people blame porn for their partners use of it"
] |
>
According to their analogy, they tried to make the equivalency. | [
"/u/derangermouse (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nThis seems to be more of a semantic pivot than anything.\nCocaine, as your example is physically and psychologically addictive and contributes to multiple serious health issues. Saying it's not the drug, or the porn but your relationship to it is like saying it's not falling off a mountain that kills you, it's hitting something on the way down. It's a useless distinction.",
">\n\nWhen that person falls off the mountain, is it the mountain’s fault? Because plenty of people blame porn for their partners use of it",
">\n\nYou replied to my comment that \"porn isn't guns\"\nWell a mountain isn't cocaine addiction, is it?"
] |
>
Porn did not change your partner.
I mean, we know at the very least that this isn’t true. We can go back and forth on the moral implications, but it has been demonstrated time and time again that porn affects both individual and societal views towards sex and sexual power dynamics. | [
"/u/derangermouse (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nThis seems to be more of a semantic pivot than anything.\nCocaine, as your example is physically and psychologically addictive and contributes to multiple serious health issues. Saying it's not the drug, or the porn but your relationship to it is like saying it's not falling off a mountain that kills you, it's hitting something on the way down. It's a useless distinction.",
">\n\nWhen that person falls off the mountain, is it the mountain’s fault? Because plenty of people blame porn for their partners use of it",
">\n\nYou replied to my comment that \"porn isn't guns\"\nWell a mountain isn't cocaine addiction, is it?",
">\n\nAccording to their analogy, they tried to make the equivalency."
] |
>
That doesn’t prove that the individual in question is changed. And it doesn’t prove that porn is inherently bad. | [
"/u/derangermouse (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nThis seems to be more of a semantic pivot than anything.\nCocaine, as your example is physically and psychologically addictive and contributes to multiple serious health issues. Saying it's not the drug, or the porn but your relationship to it is like saying it's not falling off a mountain that kills you, it's hitting something on the way down. It's a useless distinction.",
">\n\nWhen that person falls off the mountain, is it the mountain’s fault? Because plenty of people blame porn for their partners use of it",
">\n\nYou replied to my comment that \"porn isn't guns\"\nWell a mountain isn't cocaine addiction, is it?",
">\n\nAccording to their analogy, they tried to make the equivalency.",
">\n\n\nPorn did not change your partner.\n\nI mean, we know at the very least that this isn’t true. We can go back and forth on the moral implications, but it has been demonstrated time and time again that porn affects both individual and societal views towards sex and sexual power dynamics."
] |
>
I’m not saying porn is inherently bad, I’m saying it can change people, at least sometimes, and that can be bad, at least sometimes. | [
"/u/derangermouse (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nThis seems to be more of a semantic pivot than anything.\nCocaine, as your example is physically and psychologically addictive and contributes to multiple serious health issues. Saying it's not the drug, or the porn but your relationship to it is like saying it's not falling off a mountain that kills you, it's hitting something on the way down. It's a useless distinction.",
">\n\nWhen that person falls off the mountain, is it the mountain’s fault? Because plenty of people blame porn for their partners use of it",
">\n\nYou replied to my comment that \"porn isn't guns\"\nWell a mountain isn't cocaine addiction, is it?",
">\n\nAccording to their analogy, they tried to make the equivalency.",
">\n\n\nPorn did not change your partner.\n\nI mean, we know at the very least that this isn’t true. We can go back and forth on the moral implications, but it has been demonstrated time and time again that porn affects both individual and societal views towards sex and sexual power dynamics.",
">\n\nThat doesn’t prove that the individual in question is changed. And it doesn’t prove that porn is inherently bad."
] |
>
Ok, while your point did not contradict my original premise, I admit that you did contradict one of my points of argument. “!delta” | [
"/u/derangermouse (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nThis seems to be more of a semantic pivot than anything.\nCocaine, as your example is physically and psychologically addictive and contributes to multiple serious health issues. Saying it's not the drug, or the porn but your relationship to it is like saying it's not falling off a mountain that kills you, it's hitting something on the way down. It's a useless distinction.",
">\n\nWhen that person falls off the mountain, is it the mountain’s fault? Because plenty of people blame porn for their partners use of it",
">\n\nYou replied to my comment that \"porn isn't guns\"\nWell a mountain isn't cocaine addiction, is it?",
">\n\nAccording to their analogy, they tried to make the equivalency.",
">\n\n\nPorn did not change your partner.\n\nI mean, we know at the very least that this isn’t true. We can go back and forth on the moral implications, but it has been demonstrated time and time again that porn affects both individual and societal views towards sex and sexual power dynamics.",
">\n\nThat doesn’t prove that the individual in question is changed. And it doesn’t prove that porn is inherently bad.",
">\n\nI’m not saying porn is inherently bad, I’m saying it can change people, at least sometimes, and that can be bad, at least sometimes."
] |
>
I guess I’m a bit confused about your view, then. Is it that porn is never bad? Or that porn may sometimes be bad but isn’t always bad? Or that, while porn may sometimes be bad, in the scheme of things there are bigger problems?
At various points in your OP and replies you seem to take each of those stances. Which is the view you want changed? | [
"/u/derangermouse (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nThis seems to be more of a semantic pivot than anything.\nCocaine, as your example is physically and psychologically addictive and contributes to multiple serious health issues. Saying it's not the drug, or the porn but your relationship to it is like saying it's not falling off a mountain that kills you, it's hitting something on the way down. It's a useless distinction.",
">\n\nWhen that person falls off the mountain, is it the mountain’s fault? Because plenty of people blame porn for their partners use of it",
">\n\nYou replied to my comment that \"porn isn't guns\"\nWell a mountain isn't cocaine addiction, is it?",
">\n\nAccording to their analogy, they tried to make the equivalency.",
">\n\n\nPorn did not change your partner.\n\nI mean, we know at the very least that this isn’t true. We can go back and forth on the moral implications, but it has been demonstrated time and time again that porn affects both individual and societal views towards sex and sexual power dynamics.",
">\n\nThat doesn’t prove that the individual in question is changed. And it doesn’t prove that porn is inherently bad.",
">\n\nI’m not saying porn is inherently bad, I’m saying it can change people, at least sometimes, and that can be bad, at least sometimes.",
">\n\nOk, while your point did not contradict my original premise, I admit that you did contradict one of my points of argument. “!delta”"
] |
>
he must be young and just moves the goalposts when he feels like it. | [
"/u/derangermouse (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nThis seems to be more of a semantic pivot than anything.\nCocaine, as your example is physically and psychologically addictive and contributes to multiple serious health issues. Saying it's not the drug, or the porn but your relationship to it is like saying it's not falling off a mountain that kills you, it's hitting something on the way down. It's a useless distinction.",
">\n\nWhen that person falls off the mountain, is it the mountain’s fault? Because plenty of people blame porn for their partners use of it",
">\n\nYou replied to my comment that \"porn isn't guns\"\nWell a mountain isn't cocaine addiction, is it?",
">\n\nAccording to their analogy, they tried to make the equivalency.",
">\n\n\nPorn did not change your partner.\n\nI mean, we know at the very least that this isn’t true. We can go back and forth on the moral implications, but it has been demonstrated time and time again that porn affects both individual and societal views towards sex and sexual power dynamics.",
">\n\nThat doesn’t prove that the individual in question is changed. And it doesn’t prove that porn is inherently bad.",
">\n\nI’m not saying porn is inherently bad, I’m saying it can change people, at least sometimes, and that can be bad, at least sometimes.",
">\n\nOk, while your point did not contradict my original premise, I admit that you did contradict one of my points of argument. “!delta”",
">\n\nI guess I’m a bit confused about your view, then. Is it that porn is never bad? Or that porn may sometimes be bad but isn’t always bad? Or that, while porn may sometimes be bad, in the scheme of things there are bigger problems?\nAt various points in your OP and replies you seem to take each of those stances. Which is the view you want changed?"
] |
>
Agree with most points but the last one.
Porn did not change your partner.
Your partner is who they are,
Noone is born who they are, everyone is constantly changing who they are, and being changed, especially by mass media. | [
"/u/derangermouse (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nThis seems to be more of a semantic pivot than anything.\nCocaine, as your example is physically and psychologically addictive and contributes to multiple serious health issues. Saying it's not the drug, or the porn but your relationship to it is like saying it's not falling off a mountain that kills you, it's hitting something on the way down. It's a useless distinction.",
">\n\nWhen that person falls off the mountain, is it the mountain’s fault? Because plenty of people blame porn for their partners use of it",
">\n\nYou replied to my comment that \"porn isn't guns\"\nWell a mountain isn't cocaine addiction, is it?",
">\n\nAccording to their analogy, they tried to make the equivalency.",
">\n\n\nPorn did not change your partner.\n\nI mean, we know at the very least that this isn’t true. We can go back and forth on the moral implications, but it has been demonstrated time and time again that porn affects both individual and societal views towards sex and sexual power dynamics.",
">\n\nThat doesn’t prove that the individual in question is changed. And it doesn’t prove that porn is inherently bad.",
">\n\nI’m not saying porn is inherently bad, I’m saying it can change people, at least sometimes, and that can be bad, at least sometimes.",
">\n\nOk, while your point did not contradict my original premise, I admit that you did contradict one of my points of argument. “!delta”",
">\n\nI guess I’m a bit confused about your view, then. Is it that porn is never bad? Or that porn may sometimes be bad but isn’t always bad? Or that, while porn may sometimes be bad, in the scheme of things there are bigger problems?\nAt various points in your OP and replies you seem to take each of those stances. Which is the view you want changed?",
">\n\nhe must be young and just moves the goalposts when he feels like it."
] |
>
If mass media changes them, then that is who they are. The partner that blames media is blaming the wrong thing. | [
"/u/derangermouse (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nThis seems to be more of a semantic pivot than anything.\nCocaine, as your example is physically and psychologically addictive and contributes to multiple serious health issues. Saying it's not the drug, or the porn but your relationship to it is like saying it's not falling off a mountain that kills you, it's hitting something on the way down. It's a useless distinction.",
">\n\nWhen that person falls off the mountain, is it the mountain’s fault? Because plenty of people blame porn for their partners use of it",
">\n\nYou replied to my comment that \"porn isn't guns\"\nWell a mountain isn't cocaine addiction, is it?",
">\n\nAccording to their analogy, they tried to make the equivalency.",
">\n\n\nPorn did not change your partner.\n\nI mean, we know at the very least that this isn’t true. We can go back and forth on the moral implications, but it has been demonstrated time and time again that porn affects both individual and societal views towards sex and sexual power dynamics.",
">\n\nThat doesn’t prove that the individual in question is changed. And it doesn’t prove that porn is inherently bad.",
">\n\nI’m not saying porn is inherently bad, I’m saying it can change people, at least sometimes, and that can be bad, at least sometimes.",
">\n\nOk, while your point did not contradict my original premise, I admit that you did contradict one of my points of argument. “!delta”",
">\n\nI guess I’m a bit confused about your view, then. Is it that porn is never bad? Or that porn may sometimes be bad but isn’t always bad? Or that, while porn may sometimes be bad, in the scheme of things there are bigger problems?\nAt various points in your OP and replies you seem to take each of those stances. Which is the view you want changed?",
">\n\nhe must be young and just moves the goalposts when he feels like it.",
">\n\nAgree with most points but the last one.\n\nPorn did not change your partner.\nYour partner is who they are,\n\nNoone is born who they are, everyone is constantly changing who they are, and being changed, especially by mass media."
] |
>
No, it means that they were one thing, and now the person that they were is dead and now they are another thing, and in a year they'll be different again, because of what information and impressions they are consuming.
I am not arguing the blame point i am arguing that it DOES change people. | [
"/u/derangermouse (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nThis seems to be more of a semantic pivot than anything.\nCocaine, as your example is physically and psychologically addictive and contributes to multiple serious health issues. Saying it's not the drug, or the porn but your relationship to it is like saying it's not falling off a mountain that kills you, it's hitting something on the way down. It's a useless distinction.",
">\n\nWhen that person falls off the mountain, is it the mountain’s fault? Because plenty of people blame porn for their partners use of it",
">\n\nYou replied to my comment that \"porn isn't guns\"\nWell a mountain isn't cocaine addiction, is it?",
">\n\nAccording to their analogy, they tried to make the equivalency.",
">\n\n\nPorn did not change your partner.\n\nI mean, we know at the very least that this isn’t true. We can go back and forth on the moral implications, but it has been demonstrated time and time again that porn affects both individual and societal views towards sex and sexual power dynamics.",
">\n\nThat doesn’t prove that the individual in question is changed. And it doesn’t prove that porn is inherently bad.",
">\n\nI’m not saying porn is inherently bad, I’m saying it can change people, at least sometimes, and that can be bad, at least sometimes.",
">\n\nOk, while your point did not contradict my original premise, I admit that you did contradict one of my points of argument. “!delta”",
">\n\nI guess I’m a bit confused about your view, then. Is it that porn is never bad? Or that porn may sometimes be bad but isn’t always bad? Or that, while porn may sometimes be bad, in the scheme of things there are bigger problems?\nAt various points in your OP and replies you seem to take each of those stances. Which is the view you want changed?",
">\n\nhe must be young and just moves the goalposts when he feels like it.",
">\n\nAgree with most points but the last one.\n\nPorn did not change your partner.\nYour partner is who they are,\n\nNoone is born who they are, everyone is constantly changing who they are, and being changed, especially by mass media.",
">\n\nIf mass media changes them, then that is who they are. The partner that blames media is blaming the wrong thing."
] |
>
A haircut changes someone, but a person made a choice to get the haircut. | [
"/u/derangermouse (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nThis seems to be more of a semantic pivot than anything.\nCocaine, as your example is physically and psychologically addictive and contributes to multiple serious health issues. Saying it's not the drug, or the porn but your relationship to it is like saying it's not falling off a mountain that kills you, it's hitting something on the way down. It's a useless distinction.",
">\n\nWhen that person falls off the mountain, is it the mountain’s fault? Because plenty of people blame porn for their partners use of it",
">\n\nYou replied to my comment that \"porn isn't guns\"\nWell a mountain isn't cocaine addiction, is it?",
">\n\nAccording to their analogy, they tried to make the equivalency.",
">\n\n\nPorn did not change your partner.\n\nI mean, we know at the very least that this isn’t true. We can go back and forth on the moral implications, but it has been demonstrated time and time again that porn affects both individual and societal views towards sex and sexual power dynamics.",
">\n\nThat doesn’t prove that the individual in question is changed. And it doesn’t prove that porn is inherently bad.",
">\n\nI’m not saying porn is inherently bad, I’m saying it can change people, at least sometimes, and that can be bad, at least sometimes.",
">\n\nOk, while your point did not contradict my original premise, I admit that you did contradict one of my points of argument. “!delta”",
">\n\nI guess I’m a bit confused about your view, then. Is it that porn is never bad? Or that porn may sometimes be bad but isn’t always bad? Or that, while porn may sometimes be bad, in the scheme of things there are bigger problems?\nAt various points in your OP and replies you seem to take each of those stances. Which is the view you want changed?",
">\n\nhe must be young and just moves the goalposts when he feels like it.",
">\n\nAgree with most points but the last one.\n\nPorn did not change your partner.\nYour partner is who they are,\n\nNoone is born who they are, everyone is constantly changing who they are, and being changed, especially by mass media.",
">\n\nIf mass media changes them, then that is who they are. The partner that blames media is blaming the wrong thing.",
">\n\nNo, it means that they were one thing, and now the person that they were is dead and now they are another thing, and in a year they'll be different again, because of what information and impressions they are consuming.\nI am not arguing the blame point i am arguing that it DOES change people."
] |
>
I am talking about changes to their brain, to their personality, to their way of thinking. Changes about how they make decisions.
That's literally what brainwashing/propaganda/education/information gathering is. | [
"/u/derangermouse (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nThis seems to be more of a semantic pivot than anything.\nCocaine, as your example is physically and psychologically addictive and contributes to multiple serious health issues. Saying it's not the drug, or the porn but your relationship to it is like saying it's not falling off a mountain that kills you, it's hitting something on the way down. It's a useless distinction.",
">\n\nWhen that person falls off the mountain, is it the mountain’s fault? Because plenty of people blame porn for their partners use of it",
">\n\nYou replied to my comment that \"porn isn't guns\"\nWell a mountain isn't cocaine addiction, is it?",
">\n\nAccording to their analogy, they tried to make the equivalency.",
">\n\n\nPorn did not change your partner.\n\nI mean, we know at the very least that this isn’t true. We can go back and forth on the moral implications, but it has been demonstrated time and time again that porn affects both individual and societal views towards sex and sexual power dynamics.",
">\n\nThat doesn’t prove that the individual in question is changed. And it doesn’t prove that porn is inherently bad.",
">\n\nI’m not saying porn is inherently bad, I’m saying it can change people, at least sometimes, and that can be bad, at least sometimes.",
">\n\nOk, while your point did not contradict my original premise, I admit that you did contradict one of my points of argument. “!delta”",
">\n\nI guess I’m a bit confused about your view, then. Is it that porn is never bad? Or that porn may sometimes be bad but isn’t always bad? Or that, while porn may sometimes be bad, in the scheme of things there are bigger problems?\nAt various points in your OP and replies you seem to take each of those stances. Which is the view you want changed?",
">\n\nhe must be young and just moves the goalposts when he feels like it.",
">\n\nAgree with most points but the last one.\n\nPorn did not change your partner.\nYour partner is who they are,\n\nNoone is born who they are, everyone is constantly changing who they are, and being changed, especially by mass media.",
">\n\nIf mass media changes them, then that is who they are. The partner that blames media is blaming the wrong thing.",
">\n\nNo, it means that they were one thing, and now the person that they were is dead and now they are another thing, and in a year they'll be different again, because of what information and impressions they are consuming.\nI am not arguing the blame point i am arguing that it DOES change people.",
">\n\nA haircut changes someone, but a person made a choice to get the haircut."
] |
>
Personal experiences also change how you make future decisions. We still have choice. | [
"/u/derangermouse (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nThis seems to be more of a semantic pivot than anything.\nCocaine, as your example is physically and psychologically addictive and contributes to multiple serious health issues. Saying it's not the drug, or the porn but your relationship to it is like saying it's not falling off a mountain that kills you, it's hitting something on the way down. It's a useless distinction.",
">\n\nWhen that person falls off the mountain, is it the mountain’s fault? Because plenty of people blame porn for their partners use of it",
">\n\nYou replied to my comment that \"porn isn't guns\"\nWell a mountain isn't cocaine addiction, is it?",
">\n\nAccording to their analogy, they tried to make the equivalency.",
">\n\n\nPorn did not change your partner.\n\nI mean, we know at the very least that this isn’t true. We can go back and forth on the moral implications, but it has been demonstrated time and time again that porn affects both individual and societal views towards sex and sexual power dynamics.",
">\n\nThat doesn’t prove that the individual in question is changed. And it doesn’t prove that porn is inherently bad.",
">\n\nI’m not saying porn is inherently bad, I’m saying it can change people, at least sometimes, and that can be bad, at least sometimes.",
">\n\nOk, while your point did not contradict my original premise, I admit that you did contradict one of my points of argument. “!delta”",
">\n\nI guess I’m a bit confused about your view, then. Is it that porn is never bad? Or that porn may sometimes be bad but isn’t always bad? Or that, while porn may sometimes be bad, in the scheme of things there are bigger problems?\nAt various points in your OP and replies you seem to take each of those stances. Which is the view you want changed?",
">\n\nhe must be young and just moves the goalposts when he feels like it.",
">\n\nAgree with most points but the last one.\n\nPorn did not change your partner.\nYour partner is who they are,\n\nNoone is born who they are, everyone is constantly changing who they are, and being changed, especially by mass media.",
">\n\nIf mass media changes them, then that is who they are. The partner that blames media is blaming the wrong thing.",
">\n\nNo, it means that they were one thing, and now the person that they were is dead and now they are another thing, and in a year they'll be different again, because of what information and impressions they are consuming.\nI am not arguing the blame point i am arguing that it DOES change people.",
">\n\nA haircut changes someone, but a person made a choice to get the haircut.",
">\n\nI am talking about changes to their brain, to their personality, to their way of thinking. Changes about how they make decisions.\nThat's literally what brainwashing/propaganda/education/information gathering is."
] |
>
Personal experiences also change how you make future decisions
Exactly, that's my point. Everyone is changed by everything they witness. And can be changed by changing what they witness. What is yours? | [
"/u/derangermouse (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nThis seems to be more of a semantic pivot than anything.\nCocaine, as your example is physically and psychologically addictive and contributes to multiple serious health issues. Saying it's not the drug, or the porn but your relationship to it is like saying it's not falling off a mountain that kills you, it's hitting something on the way down. It's a useless distinction.",
">\n\nWhen that person falls off the mountain, is it the mountain’s fault? Because plenty of people blame porn for their partners use of it",
">\n\nYou replied to my comment that \"porn isn't guns\"\nWell a mountain isn't cocaine addiction, is it?",
">\n\nAccording to their analogy, they tried to make the equivalency.",
">\n\n\nPorn did not change your partner.\n\nI mean, we know at the very least that this isn’t true. We can go back and forth on the moral implications, but it has been demonstrated time and time again that porn affects both individual and societal views towards sex and sexual power dynamics.",
">\n\nThat doesn’t prove that the individual in question is changed. And it doesn’t prove that porn is inherently bad.",
">\n\nI’m not saying porn is inherently bad, I’m saying it can change people, at least sometimes, and that can be bad, at least sometimes.",
">\n\nOk, while your point did not contradict my original premise, I admit that you did contradict one of my points of argument. “!delta”",
">\n\nI guess I’m a bit confused about your view, then. Is it that porn is never bad? Or that porn may sometimes be bad but isn’t always bad? Or that, while porn may sometimes be bad, in the scheme of things there are bigger problems?\nAt various points in your OP and replies you seem to take each of those stances. Which is the view you want changed?",
">\n\nhe must be young and just moves the goalposts when he feels like it.",
">\n\nAgree with most points but the last one.\n\nPorn did not change your partner.\nYour partner is who they are,\n\nNoone is born who they are, everyone is constantly changing who they are, and being changed, especially by mass media.",
">\n\nIf mass media changes them, then that is who they are. The partner that blames media is blaming the wrong thing.",
">\n\nNo, it means that they were one thing, and now the person that they were is dead and now they are another thing, and in a year they'll be different again, because of what information and impressions they are consuming.\nI am not arguing the blame point i am arguing that it DOES change people.",
">\n\nA haircut changes someone, but a person made a choice to get the haircut.",
">\n\nI am talking about changes to their brain, to their personality, to their way of thinking. Changes about how they make decisions.\nThat's literally what brainwashing/propaganda/education/information gathering is.",
">\n\nPersonal experiences also change how you make future decisions. We still have choice."
] |
>
I think we’re agreeing more than anything. I’m saying that the thing they’re witnessing isn’t inherently wrong. | [
"/u/derangermouse (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nThis seems to be more of a semantic pivot than anything.\nCocaine, as your example is physically and psychologically addictive and contributes to multiple serious health issues. Saying it's not the drug, or the porn but your relationship to it is like saying it's not falling off a mountain that kills you, it's hitting something on the way down. It's a useless distinction.",
">\n\nWhen that person falls off the mountain, is it the mountain’s fault? Because plenty of people blame porn for their partners use of it",
">\n\nYou replied to my comment that \"porn isn't guns\"\nWell a mountain isn't cocaine addiction, is it?",
">\n\nAccording to their analogy, they tried to make the equivalency.",
">\n\n\nPorn did not change your partner.\n\nI mean, we know at the very least that this isn’t true. We can go back and forth on the moral implications, but it has been demonstrated time and time again that porn affects both individual and societal views towards sex and sexual power dynamics.",
">\n\nThat doesn’t prove that the individual in question is changed. And it doesn’t prove that porn is inherently bad.",
">\n\nI’m not saying porn is inherently bad, I’m saying it can change people, at least sometimes, and that can be bad, at least sometimes.",
">\n\nOk, while your point did not contradict my original premise, I admit that you did contradict one of my points of argument. “!delta”",
">\n\nI guess I’m a bit confused about your view, then. Is it that porn is never bad? Or that porn may sometimes be bad but isn’t always bad? Or that, while porn may sometimes be bad, in the scheme of things there are bigger problems?\nAt various points in your OP and replies you seem to take each of those stances. Which is the view you want changed?",
">\n\nhe must be young and just moves the goalposts when he feels like it.",
">\n\nAgree with most points but the last one.\n\nPorn did not change your partner.\nYour partner is who they are,\n\nNoone is born who they are, everyone is constantly changing who they are, and being changed, especially by mass media.",
">\n\nIf mass media changes them, then that is who they are. The partner that blames media is blaming the wrong thing.",
">\n\nNo, it means that they were one thing, and now the person that they were is dead and now they are another thing, and in a year they'll be different again, because of what information and impressions they are consuming.\nI am not arguing the blame point i am arguing that it DOES change people.",
">\n\nA haircut changes someone, but a person made a choice to get the haircut.",
">\n\nI am talking about changes to their brain, to their personality, to their way of thinking. Changes about how they make decisions.\nThat's literally what brainwashing/propaganda/education/information gathering is.",
">\n\nPersonal experiences also change how you make future decisions. We still have choice.",
">\n\n\nPersonal experiences also change how you make future decisions\n\nExactly, that's my point. Everyone is changed by everything they witness. And can be changed by changing what they witness. What is yours?"
] |
>
Just because it is not a problem for everyone doesn't mean it's not a problem at all. Lots of people view porn and are fine. Some people view porn and it makes them worse in some way. You are correct that is not grounds for banning porn, but we should have a conversation about responsible use of it and how it can affect people. That means acknowledging that for at least some people, it is a problem. | [
"/u/derangermouse (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nThis seems to be more of a semantic pivot than anything.\nCocaine, as your example is physically and psychologically addictive and contributes to multiple serious health issues. Saying it's not the drug, or the porn but your relationship to it is like saying it's not falling off a mountain that kills you, it's hitting something on the way down. It's a useless distinction.",
">\n\nWhen that person falls off the mountain, is it the mountain’s fault? Because plenty of people blame porn for their partners use of it",
">\n\nYou replied to my comment that \"porn isn't guns\"\nWell a mountain isn't cocaine addiction, is it?",
">\n\nAccording to their analogy, they tried to make the equivalency.",
">\n\n\nPorn did not change your partner.\n\nI mean, we know at the very least that this isn’t true. We can go back and forth on the moral implications, but it has been demonstrated time and time again that porn affects both individual and societal views towards sex and sexual power dynamics.",
">\n\nThat doesn’t prove that the individual in question is changed. And it doesn’t prove that porn is inherently bad.",
">\n\nI’m not saying porn is inherently bad, I’m saying it can change people, at least sometimes, and that can be bad, at least sometimes.",
">\n\nOk, while your point did not contradict my original premise, I admit that you did contradict one of my points of argument. “!delta”",
">\n\nI guess I’m a bit confused about your view, then. Is it that porn is never bad? Or that porn may sometimes be bad but isn’t always bad? Or that, while porn may sometimes be bad, in the scheme of things there are bigger problems?\nAt various points in your OP and replies you seem to take each of those stances. Which is the view you want changed?",
">\n\nhe must be young and just moves the goalposts when he feels like it.",
">\n\nAgree with most points but the last one.\n\nPorn did not change your partner.\nYour partner is who they are,\n\nNoone is born who they are, everyone is constantly changing who they are, and being changed, especially by mass media.",
">\n\nIf mass media changes them, then that is who they are. The partner that blames media is blaming the wrong thing.",
">\n\nNo, it means that they were one thing, and now the person that they were is dead and now they are another thing, and in a year they'll be different again, because of what information and impressions they are consuming.\nI am not arguing the blame point i am arguing that it DOES change people.",
">\n\nA haircut changes someone, but a person made a choice to get the haircut.",
">\n\nI am talking about changes to their brain, to their personality, to their way of thinking. Changes about how they make decisions.\nThat's literally what brainwashing/propaganda/education/information gathering is.",
">\n\nPersonal experiences also change how you make future decisions. We still have choice.",
">\n\n\nPersonal experiences also change how you make future decisions\n\nExactly, that's my point. Everyone is changed by everything they witness. And can be changed by changing what they witness. What is yours?",
">\n\nI think we’re agreeing more than anything. I’m saying that the thing they’re witnessing isn’t inherently wrong."
] |
>
I don’t argue any of that. But porn is not inherently wrong just because it can be abused. The partner who chooses to stay in a toxic situation caused by porn addiction doesn’t just get to blame porn | [
"/u/derangermouse (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nThis seems to be more of a semantic pivot than anything.\nCocaine, as your example is physically and psychologically addictive and contributes to multiple serious health issues. Saying it's not the drug, or the porn but your relationship to it is like saying it's not falling off a mountain that kills you, it's hitting something on the way down. It's a useless distinction.",
">\n\nWhen that person falls off the mountain, is it the mountain’s fault? Because plenty of people blame porn for their partners use of it",
">\n\nYou replied to my comment that \"porn isn't guns\"\nWell a mountain isn't cocaine addiction, is it?",
">\n\nAccording to their analogy, they tried to make the equivalency.",
">\n\n\nPorn did not change your partner.\n\nI mean, we know at the very least that this isn’t true. We can go back and forth on the moral implications, but it has been demonstrated time and time again that porn affects both individual and societal views towards sex and sexual power dynamics.",
">\n\nThat doesn’t prove that the individual in question is changed. And it doesn’t prove that porn is inherently bad.",
">\n\nI’m not saying porn is inherently bad, I’m saying it can change people, at least sometimes, and that can be bad, at least sometimes.",
">\n\nOk, while your point did not contradict my original premise, I admit that you did contradict one of my points of argument. “!delta”",
">\n\nI guess I’m a bit confused about your view, then. Is it that porn is never bad? Or that porn may sometimes be bad but isn’t always bad? Or that, while porn may sometimes be bad, in the scheme of things there are bigger problems?\nAt various points in your OP and replies you seem to take each of those stances. Which is the view you want changed?",
">\n\nhe must be young and just moves the goalposts when he feels like it.",
">\n\nAgree with most points but the last one.\n\nPorn did not change your partner.\nYour partner is who they are,\n\nNoone is born who they are, everyone is constantly changing who they are, and being changed, especially by mass media.",
">\n\nIf mass media changes them, then that is who they are. The partner that blames media is blaming the wrong thing.",
">\n\nNo, it means that they were one thing, and now the person that they were is dead and now they are another thing, and in a year they'll be different again, because of what information and impressions they are consuming.\nI am not arguing the blame point i am arguing that it DOES change people.",
">\n\nA haircut changes someone, but a person made a choice to get the haircut.",
">\n\nI am talking about changes to their brain, to their personality, to their way of thinking. Changes about how they make decisions.\nThat's literally what brainwashing/propaganda/education/information gathering is.",
">\n\nPersonal experiences also change how you make future decisions. We still have choice.",
">\n\n\nPersonal experiences also change how you make future decisions\n\nExactly, that's my point. Everyone is changed by everything they witness. And can be changed by changing what they witness. What is yours?",
">\n\nI think we’re agreeing more than anything. I’m saying that the thing they’re witnessing isn’t inherently wrong.",
">\n\nJust because it is not a problem for everyone doesn't mean it's not a problem at all. Lots of people view porn and are fine. Some people view porn and it makes them worse in some way. You are correct that is not grounds for banning porn, but we should have a conversation about responsible use of it and how it can affect people. That means acknowledging that for at least some people, it is a problem."
] |
>
Porn did not make your partner impotent.
You sure?
While non-organic sexual dysfunctions have been presumed psychological in origin, and therefore the province of mental health experts, the unexplained sexual dysfunctions now rising sharply in young men (ED, difficulty orgasming, low sexual desire) are, to the extent they are reversible by quitting Internet pornography, not arising from “performance anxiety” (that is, psychosexual dysfunction, ICD-9 code 302.7), although performance anxiety may certainly accompany them. | [
"/u/derangermouse (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nThis seems to be more of a semantic pivot than anything.\nCocaine, as your example is physically and psychologically addictive and contributes to multiple serious health issues. Saying it's not the drug, or the porn but your relationship to it is like saying it's not falling off a mountain that kills you, it's hitting something on the way down. It's a useless distinction.",
">\n\nWhen that person falls off the mountain, is it the mountain’s fault? Because plenty of people blame porn for their partners use of it",
">\n\nYou replied to my comment that \"porn isn't guns\"\nWell a mountain isn't cocaine addiction, is it?",
">\n\nAccording to their analogy, they tried to make the equivalency.",
">\n\n\nPorn did not change your partner.\n\nI mean, we know at the very least that this isn’t true. We can go back and forth on the moral implications, but it has been demonstrated time and time again that porn affects both individual and societal views towards sex and sexual power dynamics.",
">\n\nThat doesn’t prove that the individual in question is changed. And it doesn’t prove that porn is inherently bad.",
">\n\nI’m not saying porn is inherently bad, I’m saying it can change people, at least sometimes, and that can be bad, at least sometimes.",
">\n\nOk, while your point did not contradict my original premise, I admit that you did contradict one of my points of argument. “!delta”",
">\n\nI guess I’m a bit confused about your view, then. Is it that porn is never bad? Or that porn may sometimes be bad but isn’t always bad? Or that, while porn may sometimes be bad, in the scheme of things there are bigger problems?\nAt various points in your OP and replies you seem to take each of those stances. Which is the view you want changed?",
">\n\nhe must be young and just moves the goalposts when he feels like it.",
">\n\nAgree with most points but the last one.\n\nPorn did not change your partner.\nYour partner is who they are,\n\nNoone is born who they are, everyone is constantly changing who they are, and being changed, especially by mass media.",
">\n\nIf mass media changes them, then that is who they are. The partner that blames media is blaming the wrong thing.",
">\n\nNo, it means that they were one thing, and now the person that they were is dead and now they are another thing, and in a year they'll be different again, because of what information and impressions they are consuming.\nI am not arguing the blame point i am arguing that it DOES change people.",
">\n\nA haircut changes someone, but a person made a choice to get the haircut.",
">\n\nI am talking about changes to their brain, to their personality, to their way of thinking. Changes about how they make decisions.\nThat's literally what brainwashing/propaganda/education/information gathering is.",
">\n\nPersonal experiences also change how you make future decisions. We still have choice.",
">\n\n\nPersonal experiences also change how you make future decisions\n\nExactly, that's my point. Everyone is changed by everything they witness. And can be changed by changing what they witness. What is yours?",
">\n\nI think we’re agreeing more than anything. I’m saying that the thing they’re witnessing isn’t inherently wrong.",
">\n\nJust because it is not a problem for everyone doesn't mean it's not a problem at all. Lots of people view porn and are fine. Some people view porn and it makes them worse in some way. You are correct that is not grounds for banning porn, but we should have a conversation about responsible use of it and how it can affect people. That means acknowledging that for at least some people, it is a problem.",
">\n\nI don’t argue any of that. But porn is not inherently wrong just because it can be abused. The partner who chooses to stay in a toxic situation caused by porn addiction doesn’t just get to blame porn"
] |
>
Perhaps I phrased that incorrectly. I should have said that their partner’s choice is what made them impotent. Porn itself has no designs on the partner. | [
"/u/derangermouse (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nThis seems to be more of a semantic pivot than anything.\nCocaine, as your example is physically and psychologically addictive and contributes to multiple serious health issues. Saying it's not the drug, or the porn but your relationship to it is like saying it's not falling off a mountain that kills you, it's hitting something on the way down. It's a useless distinction.",
">\n\nWhen that person falls off the mountain, is it the mountain’s fault? Because plenty of people blame porn for their partners use of it",
">\n\nYou replied to my comment that \"porn isn't guns\"\nWell a mountain isn't cocaine addiction, is it?",
">\n\nAccording to their analogy, they tried to make the equivalency.",
">\n\n\nPorn did not change your partner.\n\nI mean, we know at the very least that this isn’t true. We can go back and forth on the moral implications, but it has been demonstrated time and time again that porn affects both individual and societal views towards sex and sexual power dynamics.",
">\n\nThat doesn’t prove that the individual in question is changed. And it doesn’t prove that porn is inherently bad.",
">\n\nI’m not saying porn is inherently bad, I’m saying it can change people, at least sometimes, and that can be bad, at least sometimes.",
">\n\nOk, while your point did not contradict my original premise, I admit that you did contradict one of my points of argument. “!delta”",
">\n\nI guess I’m a bit confused about your view, then. Is it that porn is never bad? Or that porn may sometimes be bad but isn’t always bad? Or that, while porn may sometimes be bad, in the scheme of things there are bigger problems?\nAt various points in your OP and replies you seem to take each of those stances. Which is the view you want changed?",
">\n\nhe must be young and just moves the goalposts when he feels like it.",
">\n\nAgree with most points but the last one.\n\nPorn did not change your partner.\nYour partner is who they are,\n\nNoone is born who they are, everyone is constantly changing who they are, and being changed, especially by mass media.",
">\n\nIf mass media changes them, then that is who they are. The partner that blames media is blaming the wrong thing.",
">\n\nNo, it means that they were one thing, and now the person that they were is dead and now they are another thing, and in a year they'll be different again, because of what information and impressions they are consuming.\nI am not arguing the blame point i am arguing that it DOES change people.",
">\n\nA haircut changes someone, but a person made a choice to get the haircut.",
">\n\nI am talking about changes to their brain, to their personality, to their way of thinking. Changes about how they make decisions.\nThat's literally what brainwashing/propaganda/education/information gathering is.",
">\n\nPersonal experiences also change how you make future decisions. We still have choice.",
">\n\n\nPersonal experiences also change how you make future decisions\n\nExactly, that's my point. Everyone is changed by everything they witness. And can be changed by changing what they witness. What is yours?",
">\n\nI think we’re agreeing more than anything. I’m saying that the thing they’re witnessing isn’t inherently wrong.",
">\n\nJust because it is not a problem for everyone doesn't mean it's not a problem at all. Lots of people view porn and are fine. Some people view porn and it makes them worse in some way. You are correct that is not grounds for banning porn, but we should have a conversation about responsible use of it and how it can affect people. That means acknowledging that for at least some people, it is a problem.",
">\n\nI don’t argue any of that. But porn is not inherently wrong just because it can be abused. The partner who chooses to stay in a toxic situation caused by porn addiction doesn’t just get to blame porn",
">\n\n\nPorn did not make your partner impotent.\n\nYou sure?\nWhile non-organic sexual dysfunctions have been presumed psychological in origin, and therefore the province of mental health experts, the unexplained sexual dysfunctions now rising sharply in young men (ED, difficulty orgasming, low sexual desire) are, to the extent they are reversible by quitting Internet pornography, not arising from “performance anxiety” (that is, psychosexual dysfunction, ICD-9 code 302.7), although performance anxiety may certainly accompany them."
] |
>
their partner’s choice is what made them impotent.
Is it?
Online Porn Addiction: What We Know and What We Don’t—A Systematic Review
Is a behavioral addiction, and the subsequent effects, really the result result of an errant choice made by the partner? We are not really sure why certain people are more or less prone to addictive behaviors, so a person could be choosing to use porn in an occasional manner, and then falling victim to their own faults. I wouldn't lay the blame at the feet of the choice, but their own predilection for addiction. | [
"/u/derangermouse (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nThis seems to be more of a semantic pivot than anything.\nCocaine, as your example is physically and psychologically addictive and contributes to multiple serious health issues. Saying it's not the drug, or the porn but your relationship to it is like saying it's not falling off a mountain that kills you, it's hitting something on the way down. It's a useless distinction.",
">\n\nWhen that person falls off the mountain, is it the mountain’s fault? Because plenty of people blame porn for their partners use of it",
">\n\nYou replied to my comment that \"porn isn't guns\"\nWell a mountain isn't cocaine addiction, is it?",
">\n\nAccording to their analogy, they tried to make the equivalency.",
">\n\n\nPorn did not change your partner.\n\nI mean, we know at the very least that this isn’t true. We can go back and forth on the moral implications, but it has been demonstrated time and time again that porn affects both individual and societal views towards sex and sexual power dynamics.",
">\n\nThat doesn’t prove that the individual in question is changed. And it doesn’t prove that porn is inherently bad.",
">\n\nI’m not saying porn is inherently bad, I’m saying it can change people, at least sometimes, and that can be bad, at least sometimes.",
">\n\nOk, while your point did not contradict my original premise, I admit that you did contradict one of my points of argument. “!delta”",
">\n\nI guess I’m a bit confused about your view, then. Is it that porn is never bad? Or that porn may sometimes be bad but isn’t always bad? Or that, while porn may sometimes be bad, in the scheme of things there are bigger problems?\nAt various points in your OP and replies you seem to take each of those stances. Which is the view you want changed?",
">\n\nhe must be young and just moves the goalposts when he feels like it.",
">\n\nAgree with most points but the last one.\n\nPorn did not change your partner.\nYour partner is who they are,\n\nNoone is born who they are, everyone is constantly changing who they are, and being changed, especially by mass media.",
">\n\nIf mass media changes them, then that is who they are. The partner that blames media is blaming the wrong thing.",
">\n\nNo, it means that they were one thing, and now the person that they were is dead and now they are another thing, and in a year they'll be different again, because of what information and impressions they are consuming.\nI am not arguing the blame point i am arguing that it DOES change people.",
">\n\nA haircut changes someone, but a person made a choice to get the haircut.",
">\n\nI am talking about changes to their brain, to their personality, to their way of thinking. Changes about how they make decisions.\nThat's literally what brainwashing/propaganda/education/information gathering is.",
">\n\nPersonal experiences also change how you make future decisions. We still have choice.",
">\n\n\nPersonal experiences also change how you make future decisions\n\nExactly, that's my point. Everyone is changed by everything they witness. And can be changed by changing what they witness. What is yours?",
">\n\nI think we’re agreeing more than anything. I’m saying that the thing they’re witnessing isn’t inherently wrong.",
">\n\nJust because it is not a problem for everyone doesn't mean it's not a problem at all. Lots of people view porn and are fine. Some people view porn and it makes them worse in some way. You are correct that is not grounds for banning porn, but we should have a conversation about responsible use of it and how it can affect people. That means acknowledging that for at least some people, it is a problem.",
">\n\nI don’t argue any of that. But porn is not inherently wrong just because it can be abused. The partner who chooses to stay in a toxic situation caused by porn addiction doesn’t just get to blame porn",
">\n\n\nPorn did not make your partner impotent.\n\nYou sure?\nWhile non-organic sexual dysfunctions have been presumed psychological in origin, and therefore the province of mental health experts, the unexplained sexual dysfunctions now rising sharply in young men (ED, difficulty orgasming, low sexual desire) are, to the extent they are reversible by quitting Internet pornography, not arising from “performance anxiety” (that is, psychosexual dysfunction, ICD-9 code 302.7), although performance anxiety may certainly accompany them.",
">\n\nPerhaps I phrased that incorrectly. I should have said that their partner’s choice is what made them impotent. Porn itself has no designs on the partner."
] |
>
It’s always about choice. One of the steps of addiction recovery is taking personal responsibility for their addiction. | [
"/u/derangermouse (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nThis seems to be more of a semantic pivot than anything.\nCocaine, as your example is physically and psychologically addictive and contributes to multiple serious health issues. Saying it's not the drug, or the porn but your relationship to it is like saying it's not falling off a mountain that kills you, it's hitting something on the way down. It's a useless distinction.",
">\n\nWhen that person falls off the mountain, is it the mountain’s fault? Because plenty of people blame porn for their partners use of it",
">\n\nYou replied to my comment that \"porn isn't guns\"\nWell a mountain isn't cocaine addiction, is it?",
">\n\nAccording to their analogy, they tried to make the equivalency.",
">\n\n\nPorn did not change your partner.\n\nI mean, we know at the very least that this isn’t true. We can go back and forth on the moral implications, but it has been demonstrated time and time again that porn affects both individual and societal views towards sex and sexual power dynamics.",
">\n\nThat doesn’t prove that the individual in question is changed. And it doesn’t prove that porn is inherently bad.",
">\n\nI’m not saying porn is inherently bad, I’m saying it can change people, at least sometimes, and that can be bad, at least sometimes.",
">\n\nOk, while your point did not contradict my original premise, I admit that you did contradict one of my points of argument. “!delta”",
">\n\nI guess I’m a bit confused about your view, then. Is it that porn is never bad? Or that porn may sometimes be bad but isn’t always bad? Or that, while porn may sometimes be bad, in the scheme of things there are bigger problems?\nAt various points in your OP and replies you seem to take each of those stances. Which is the view you want changed?",
">\n\nhe must be young and just moves the goalposts when he feels like it.",
">\n\nAgree with most points but the last one.\n\nPorn did not change your partner.\nYour partner is who they are,\n\nNoone is born who they are, everyone is constantly changing who they are, and being changed, especially by mass media.",
">\n\nIf mass media changes them, then that is who they are. The partner that blames media is blaming the wrong thing.",
">\n\nNo, it means that they were one thing, and now the person that they were is dead and now they are another thing, and in a year they'll be different again, because of what information and impressions they are consuming.\nI am not arguing the blame point i am arguing that it DOES change people.",
">\n\nA haircut changes someone, but a person made a choice to get the haircut.",
">\n\nI am talking about changes to their brain, to their personality, to their way of thinking. Changes about how they make decisions.\nThat's literally what brainwashing/propaganda/education/information gathering is.",
">\n\nPersonal experiences also change how you make future decisions. We still have choice.",
">\n\n\nPersonal experiences also change how you make future decisions\n\nExactly, that's my point. Everyone is changed by everything they witness. And can be changed by changing what they witness. What is yours?",
">\n\nI think we’re agreeing more than anything. I’m saying that the thing they’re witnessing isn’t inherently wrong.",
">\n\nJust because it is not a problem for everyone doesn't mean it's not a problem at all. Lots of people view porn and are fine. Some people view porn and it makes them worse in some way. You are correct that is not grounds for banning porn, but we should have a conversation about responsible use of it and how it can affect people. That means acknowledging that for at least some people, it is a problem.",
">\n\nI don’t argue any of that. But porn is not inherently wrong just because it can be abused. The partner who chooses to stay in a toxic situation caused by porn addiction doesn’t just get to blame porn",
">\n\n\nPorn did not make your partner impotent.\n\nYou sure?\nWhile non-organic sexual dysfunctions have been presumed psychological in origin, and therefore the province of mental health experts, the unexplained sexual dysfunctions now rising sharply in young men (ED, difficulty orgasming, low sexual desire) are, to the extent they are reversible by quitting Internet pornography, not arising from “performance anxiety” (that is, psychosexual dysfunction, ICD-9 code 302.7), although performance anxiety may certainly accompany them.",
">\n\nPerhaps I phrased that incorrectly. I should have said that their partner’s choice is what made them impotent. Porn itself has no designs on the partner.",
">\n\n\ntheir partner’s choice is what made them impotent.\n\nIs it? \nOnline Porn Addiction: What We Know and What We Don’t—A Systematic Review\nIs a behavioral addiction, and the subsequent effects, really the result result of an errant choice made by the partner? We are not really sure why certain people are more or less prone to addictive behaviors, so a person could be choosing to use porn in an occasional manner, and then falling victim to their own faults. I wouldn't lay the blame at the feet of the choice, but their own predilection for addiction."
] |
>
Okay, but porn addiction isn't the same as something like heroin addiction, because porn is much more normalized. Far more people use porn without problems than use hard drugs without a problem. Making the choice to view porn is not necessarily bad, so we should not blame people for it. And you can slip into addiction without realizing. We should show people more compassion and try to educate people about the potential dangers of porn. | [
"/u/derangermouse (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nThis seems to be more of a semantic pivot than anything.\nCocaine, as your example is physically and psychologically addictive and contributes to multiple serious health issues. Saying it's not the drug, or the porn but your relationship to it is like saying it's not falling off a mountain that kills you, it's hitting something on the way down. It's a useless distinction.",
">\n\nWhen that person falls off the mountain, is it the mountain’s fault? Because plenty of people blame porn for their partners use of it",
">\n\nYou replied to my comment that \"porn isn't guns\"\nWell a mountain isn't cocaine addiction, is it?",
">\n\nAccording to their analogy, they tried to make the equivalency.",
">\n\n\nPorn did not change your partner.\n\nI mean, we know at the very least that this isn’t true. We can go back and forth on the moral implications, but it has been demonstrated time and time again that porn affects both individual and societal views towards sex and sexual power dynamics.",
">\n\nThat doesn’t prove that the individual in question is changed. And it doesn’t prove that porn is inherently bad.",
">\n\nI’m not saying porn is inherently bad, I’m saying it can change people, at least sometimes, and that can be bad, at least sometimes.",
">\n\nOk, while your point did not contradict my original premise, I admit that you did contradict one of my points of argument. “!delta”",
">\n\nI guess I’m a bit confused about your view, then. Is it that porn is never bad? Or that porn may sometimes be bad but isn’t always bad? Or that, while porn may sometimes be bad, in the scheme of things there are bigger problems?\nAt various points in your OP and replies you seem to take each of those stances. Which is the view you want changed?",
">\n\nhe must be young and just moves the goalposts when he feels like it.",
">\n\nAgree with most points but the last one.\n\nPorn did not change your partner.\nYour partner is who they are,\n\nNoone is born who they are, everyone is constantly changing who they are, and being changed, especially by mass media.",
">\n\nIf mass media changes them, then that is who they are. The partner that blames media is blaming the wrong thing.",
">\n\nNo, it means that they were one thing, and now the person that they were is dead and now they are another thing, and in a year they'll be different again, because of what information and impressions they are consuming.\nI am not arguing the blame point i am arguing that it DOES change people.",
">\n\nA haircut changes someone, but a person made a choice to get the haircut.",
">\n\nI am talking about changes to their brain, to their personality, to their way of thinking. Changes about how they make decisions.\nThat's literally what brainwashing/propaganda/education/information gathering is.",
">\n\nPersonal experiences also change how you make future decisions. We still have choice.",
">\n\n\nPersonal experiences also change how you make future decisions\n\nExactly, that's my point. Everyone is changed by everything they witness. And can be changed by changing what they witness. What is yours?",
">\n\nI think we’re agreeing more than anything. I’m saying that the thing they’re witnessing isn’t inherently wrong.",
">\n\nJust because it is not a problem for everyone doesn't mean it's not a problem at all. Lots of people view porn and are fine. Some people view porn and it makes them worse in some way. You are correct that is not grounds for banning porn, but we should have a conversation about responsible use of it and how it can affect people. That means acknowledging that for at least some people, it is a problem.",
">\n\nI don’t argue any of that. But porn is not inherently wrong just because it can be abused. The partner who chooses to stay in a toxic situation caused by porn addiction doesn’t just get to blame porn",
">\n\n\nPorn did not make your partner impotent.\n\nYou sure?\nWhile non-organic sexual dysfunctions have been presumed psychological in origin, and therefore the province of mental health experts, the unexplained sexual dysfunctions now rising sharply in young men (ED, difficulty orgasming, low sexual desire) are, to the extent they are reversible by quitting Internet pornography, not arising from “performance anxiety” (that is, psychosexual dysfunction, ICD-9 code 302.7), although performance anxiety may certainly accompany them.",
">\n\nPerhaps I phrased that incorrectly. I should have said that their partner’s choice is what made them impotent. Porn itself has no designs on the partner.",
">\n\n\ntheir partner’s choice is what made them impotent.\n\nIs it? \nOnline Porn Addiction: What We Know and What We Don’t—A Systematic Review\nIs a behavioral addiction, and the subsequent effects, really the result result of an errant choice made by the partner? We are not really sure why certain people are more or less prone to addictive behaviors, so a person could be choosing to use porn in an occasional manner, and then falling victim to their own faults. I wouldn't lay the blame at the feet of the choice, but their own predilection for addiction.",
">\n\nIt’s always about choice. One of the steps of addiction recovery is taking personal responsibility for their addiction."
] |
>
Sure. But porn is not the reason the person ruined their relationship. Their addiction is. They are two different things. | [
"/u/derangermouse (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nThis seems to be more of a semantic pivot than anything.\nCocaine, as your example is physically and psychologically addictive and contributes to multiple serious health issues. Saying it's not the drug, or the porn but your relationship to it is like saying it's not falling off a mountain that kills you, it's hitting something on the way down. It's a useless distinction.",
">\n\nWhen that person falls off the mountain, is it the mountain’s fault? Because plenty of people blame porn for their partners use of it",
">\n\nYou replied to my comment that \"porn isn't guns\"\nWell a mountain isn't cocaine addiction, is it?",
">\n\nAccording to their analogy, they tried to make the equivalency.",
">\n\n\nPorn did not change your partner.\n\nI mean, we know at the very least that this isn’t true. We can go back and forth on the moral implications, but it has been demonstrated time and time again that porn affects both individual and societal views towards sex and sexual power dynamics.",
">\n\nThat doesn’t prove that the individual in question is changed. And it doesn’t prove that porn is inherently bad.",
">\n\nI’m not saying porn is inherently bad, I’m saying it can change people, at least sometimes, and that can be bad, at least sometimes.",
">\n\nOk, while your point did not contradict my original premise, I admit that you did contradict one of my points of argument. “!delta”",
">\n\nI guess I’m a bit confused about your view, then. Is it that porn is never bad? Or that porn may sometimes be bad but isn’t always bad? Or that, while porn may sometimes be bad, in the scheme of things there are bigger problems?\nAt various points in your OP and replies you seem to take each of those stances. Which is the view you want changed?",
">\n\nhe must be young and just moves the goalposts when he feels like it.",
">\n\nAgree with most points but the last one.\n\nPorn did not change your partner.\nYour partner is who they are,\n\nNoone is born who they are, everyone is constantly changing who they are, and being changed, especially by mass media.",
">\n\nIf mass media changes them, then that is who they are. The partner that blames media is blaming the wrong thing.",
">\n\nNo, it means that they were one thing, and now the person that they were is dead and now they are another thing, and in a year they'll be different again, because of what information and impressions they are consuming.\nI am not arguing the blame point i am arguing that it DOES change people.",
">\n\nA haircut changes someone, but a person made a choice to get the haircut.",
">\n\nI am talking about changes to their brain, to their personality, to their way of thinking. Changes about how they make decisions.\nThat's literally what brainwashing/propaganda/education/information gathering is.",
">\n\nPersonal experiences also change how you make future decisions. We still have choice.",
">\n\n\nPersonal experiences also change how you make future decisions\n\nExactly, that's my point. Everyone is changed by everything they witness. And can be changed by changing what they witness. What is yours?",
">\n\nI think we’re agreeing more than anything. I’m saying that the thing they’re witnessing isn’t inherently wrong.",
">\n\nJust because it is not a problem for everyone doesn't mean it's not a problem at all. Lots of people view porn and are fine. Some people view porn and it makes them worse in some way. You are correct that is not grounds for banning porn, but we should have a conversation about responsible use of it and how it can affect people. That means acknowledging that for at least some people, it is a problem.",
">\n\nI don’t argue any of that. But porn is not inherently wrong just because it can be abused. The partner who chooses to stay in a toxic situation caused by porn addiction doesn’t just get to blame porn",
">\n\n\nPorn did not make your partner impotent.\n\nYou sure?\nWhile non-organic sexual dysfunctions have been presumed psychological in origin, and therefore the province of mental health experts, the unexplained sexual dysfunctions now rising sharply in young men (ED, difficulty orgasming, low sexual desire) are, to the extent they are reversible by quitting Internet pornography, not arising from “performance anxiety” (that is, psychosexual dysfunction, ICD-9 code 302.7), although performance anxiety may certainly accompany them.",
">\n\nPerhaps I phrased that incorrectly. I should have said that their partner’s choice is what made them impotent. Porn itself has no designs on the partner.",
">\n\n\ntheir partner’s choice is what made them impotent.\n\nIs it? \nOnline Porn Addiction: What We Know and What We Don’t—A Systematic Review\nIs a behavioral addiction, and the subsequent effects, really the result result of an errant choice made by the partner? We are not really sure why certain people are more or less prone to addictive behaviors, so a person could be choosing to use porn in an occasional manner, and then falling victim to their own faults. I wouldn't lay the blame at the feet of the choice, but their own predilection for addiction.",
">\n\nIt’s always about choice. One of the steps of addiction recovery is taking personal responsibility for their addiction.",
">\n\nOkay, but porn addiction isn't the same as something like heroin addiction, because porn is much more normalized. Far more people use porn without problems than use hard drugs without a problem. Making the choice to view porn is not necessarily bad, so we should not blame people for it. And you can slip into addiction without realizing. We should show people more compassion and try to educate people about the potential dangers of porn."
] |
>
You cannot have the addiction without porn. They are different but related. Porn is one of the causes of that addiction. | [
"/u/derangermouse (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nThis seems to be more of a semantic pivot than anything.\nCocaine, as your example is physically and psychologically addictive and contributes to multiple serious health issues. Saying it's not the drug, or the porn but your relationship to it is like saying it's not falling off a mountain that kills you, it's hitting something on the way down. It's a useless distinction.",
">\n\nWhen that person falls off the mountain, is it the mountain’s fault? Because plenty of people blame porn for their partners use of it",
">\n\nYou replied to my comment that \"porn isn't guns\"\nWell a mountain isn't cocaine addiction, is it?",
">\n\nAccording to their analogy, they tried to make the equivalency.",
">\n\n\nPorn did not change your partner.\n\nI mean, we know at the very least that this isn’t true. We can go back and forth on the moral implications, but it has been demonstrated time and time again that porn affects both individual and societal views towards sex and sexual power dynamics.",
">\n\nThat doesn’t prove that the individual in question is changed. And it doesn’t prove that porn is inherently bad.",
">\n\nI’m not saying porn is inherently bad, I’m saying it can change people, at least sometimes, and that can be bad, at least sometimes.",
">\n\nOk, while your point did not contradict my original premise, I admit that you did contradict one of my points of argument. “!delta”",
">\n\nI guess I’m a bit confused about your view, then. Is it that porn is never bad? Or that porn may sometimes be bad but isn’t always bad? Or that, while porn may sometimes be bad, in the scheme of things there are bigger problems?\nAt various points in your OP and replies you seem to take each of those stances. Which is the view you want changed?",
">\n\nhe must be young and just moves the goalposts when he feels like it.",
">\n\nAgree with most points but the last one.\n\nPorn did not change your partner.\nYour partner is who they are,\n\nNoone is born who they are, everyone is constantly changing who they are, and being changed, especially by mass media.",
">\n\nIf mass media changes them, then that is who they are. The partner that blames media is blaming the wrong thing.",
">\n\nNo, it means that they were one thing, and now the person that they were is dead and now they are another thing, and in a year they'll be different again, because of what information and impressions they are consuming.\nI am not arguing the blame point i am arguing that it DOES change people.",
">\n\nA haircut changes someone, but a person made a choice to get the haircut.",
">\n\nI am talking about changes to their brain, to their personality, to their way of thinking. Changes about how they make decisions.\nThat's literally what brainwashing/propaganda/education/information gathering is.",
">\n\nPersonal experiences also change how you make future decisions. We still have choice.",
">\n\n\nPersonal experiences also change how you make future decisions\n\nExactly, that's my point. Everyone is changed by everything they witness. And can be changed by changing what they witness. What is yours?",
">\n\nI think we’re agreeing more than anything. I’m saying that the thing they’re witnessing isn’t inherently wrong.",
">\n\nJust because it is not a problem for everyone doesn't mean it's not a problem at all. Lots of people view porn and are fine. Some people view porn and it makes them worse in some way. You are correct that is not grounds for banning porn, but we should have a conversation about responsible use of it and how it can affect people. That means acknowledging that for at least some people, it is a problem.",
">\n\nI don’t argue any of that. But porn is not inherently wrong just because it can be abused. The partner who chooses to stay in a toxic situation caused by porn addiction doesn’t just get to blame porn",
">\n\n\nPorn did not make your partner impotent.\n\nYou sure?\nWhile non-organic sexual dysfunctions have been presumed psychological in origin, and therefore the province of mental health experts, the unexplained sexual dysfunctions now rising sharply in young men (ED, difficulty orgasming, low sexual desire) are, to the extent they are reversible by quitting Internet pornography, not arising from “performance anxiety” (that is, psychosexual dysfunction, ICD-9 code 302.7), although performance anxiety may certainly accompany them.",
">\n\nPerhaps I phrased that incorrectly. I should have said that their partner’s choice is what made them impotent. Porn itself has no designs on the partner.",
">\n\n\ntheir partner’s choice is what made them impotent.\n\nIs it? \nOnline Porn Addiction: What We Know and What We Don’t—A Systematic Review\nIs a behavioral addiction, and the subsequent effects, really the result result of an errant choice made by the partner? We are not really sure why certain people are more or less prone to addictive behaviors, so a person could be choosing to use porn in an occasional manner, and then falling victim to their own faults. I wouldn't lay the blame at the feet of the choice, but their own predilection for addiction.",
">\n\nIt’s always about choice. One of the steps of addiction recovery is taking personal responsibility for their addiction.",
">\n\nOkay, but porn addiction isn't the same as something like heroin addiction, because porn is much more normalized. Far more people use porn without problems than use hard drugs without a problem. Making the choice to view porn is not necessarily bad, so we should not blame people for it. And you can slip into addiction without realizing. We should show people more compassion and try to educate people about the potential dangers of porn.",
">\n\nSure. But porn is not the reason the person ruined their relationship. Their addiction is. They are two different things."
] |
>
If this was the work of a professional, I would hope to see a paragraph structure at the very least. The stream-of-consciousness style seems to suggest more inanity than influence. | [
"/u/derangermouse (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nThis seems to be more of a semantic pivot than anything.\nCocaine, as your example is physically and psychologically addictive and contributes to multiple serious health issues. Saying it's not the drug, or the porn but your relationship to it is like saying it's not falling off a mountain that kills you, it's hitting something on the way down. It's a useless distinction.",
">\n\nWhen that person falls off the mountain, is it the mountain’s fault? Because plenty of people blame porn for their partners use of it",
">\n\nYou replied to my comment that \"porn isn't guns\"\nWell a mountain isn't cocaine addiction, is it?",
">\n\nAccording to their analogy, they tried to make the equivalency.",
">\n\n\nPorn did not change your partner.\n\nI mean, we know at the very least that this isn’t true. We can go back and forth on the moral implications, but it has been demonstrated time and time again that porn affects both individual and societal views towards sex and sexual power dynamics.",
">\n\nThat doesn’t prove that the individual in question is changed. And it doesn’t prove that porn is inherently bad.",
">\n\nI’m not saying porn is inherently bad, I’m saying it can change people, at least sometimes, and that can be bad, at least sometimes.",
">\n\nOk, while your point did not contradict my original premise, I admit that you did contradict one of my points of argument. “!delta”",
">\n\nI guess I’m a bit confused about your view, then. Is it that porn is never bad? Or that porn may sometimes be bad but isn’t always bad? Or that, while porn may sometimes be bad, in the scheme of things there are bigger problems?\nAt various points in your OP and replies you seem to take each of those stances. Which is the view you want changed?",
">\n\nhe must be young and just moves the goalposts when he feels like it.",
">\n\nAgree with most points but the last one.\n\nPorn did not change your partner.\nYour partner is who they are,\n\nNoone is born who they are, everyone is constantly changing who they are, and being changed, especially by mass media.",
">\n\nIf mass media changes them, then that is who they are. The partner that blames media is blaming the wrong thing.",
">\n\nNo, it means that they were one thing, and now the person that they were is dead and now they are another thing, and in a year they'll be different again, because of what information and impressions they are consuming.\nI am not arguing the blame point i am arguing that it DOES change people.",
">\n\nA haircut changes someone, but a person made a choice to get the haircut.",
">\n\nI am talking about changes to their brain, to their personality, to their way of thinking. Changes about how they make decisions.\nThat's literally what brainwashing/propaganda/education/information gathering is.",
">\n\nPersonal experiences also change how you make future decisions. We still have choice.",
">\n\n\nPersonal experiences also change how you make future decisions\n\nExactly, that's my point. Everyone is changed by everything they witness. And can be changed by changing what they witness. What is yours?",
">\n\nI think we’re agreeing more than anything. I’m saying that the thing they’re witnessing isn’t inherently wrong.",
">\n\nJust because it is not a problem for everyone doesn't mean it's not a problem at all. Lots of people view porn and are fine. Some people view porn and it makes them worse in some way. You are correct that is not grounds for banning porn, but we should have a conversation about responsible use of it and how it can affect people. That means acknowledging that for at least some people, it is a problem.",
">\n\nI don’t argue any of that. But porn is not inherently wrong just because it can be abused. The partner who chooses to stay in a toxic situation caused by porn addiction doesn’t just get to blame porn",
">\n\n\nPorn did not make your partner impotent.\n\nYou sure?\nWhile non-organic sexual dysfunctions have been presumed psychological in origin, and therefore the province of mental health experts, the unexplained sexual dysfunctions now rising sharply in young men (ED, difficulty orgasming, low sexual desire) are, to the extent they are reversible by quitting Internet pornography, not arising from “performance anxiety” (that is, psychosexual dysfunction, ICD-9 code 302.7), although performance anxiety may certainly accompany them.",
">\n\nPerhaps I phrased that incorrectly. I should have said that their partner’s choice is what made them impotent. Porn itself has no designs on the partner.",
">\n\n\ntheir partner’s choice is what made them impotent.\n\nIs it? \nOnline Porn Addiction: What We Know and What We Don’t—A Systematic Review\nIs a behavioral addiction, and the subsequent effects, really the result result of an errant choice made by the partner? We are not really sure why certain people are more or less prone to addictive behaviors, so a person could be choosing to use porn in an occasional manner, and then falling victim to their own faults. I wouldn't lay the blame at the feet of the choice, but their own predilection for addiction.",
">\n\nIt’s always about choice. One of the steps of addiction recovery is taking personal responsibility for their addiction.",
">\n\nOkay, but porn addiction isn't the same as something like heroin addiction, because porn is much more normalized. Far more people use porn without problems than use hard drugs without a problem. Making the choice to view porn is not necessarily bad, so we should not blame people for it. And you can slip into addiction without realizing. We should show people more compassion and try to educate people about the potential dangers of porn.",
">\n\nSure. But porn is not the reason the person ruined their relationship. Their addiction is. They are two different things.",
">\n\nYou cannot have the addiction without porn. They are different but related. Porn is one of the causes of that addiction."
] |
>
Please refrain from trying to insult. Presenting the argument as simply as possible keeps people from needlessly nitpicking parts of it without actually disproving the central argument. | [
"/u/derangermouse (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nThis seems to be more of a semantic pivot than anything.\nCocaine, as your example is physically and psychologically addictive and contributes to multiple serious health issues. Saying it's not the drug, or the porn but your relationship to it is like saying it's not falling off a mountain that kills you, it's hitting something on the way down. It's a useless distinction.",
">\n\nWhen that person falls off the mountain, is it the mountain’s fault? Because plenty of people blame porn for their partners use of it",
">\n\nYou replied to my comment that \"porn isn't guns\"\nWell a mountain isn't cocaine addiction, is it?",
">\n\nAccording to their analogy, they tried to make the equivalency.",
">\n\n\nPorn did not change your partner.\n\nI mean, we know at the very least that this isn’t true. We can go back and forth on the moral implications, but it has been demonstrated time and time again that porn affects both individual and societal views towards sex and sexual power dynamics.",
">\n\nThat doesn’t prove that the individual in question is changed. And it doesn’t prove that porn is inherently bad.",
">\n\nI’m not saying porn is inherently bad, I’m saying it can change people, at least sometimes, and that can be bad, at least sometimes.",
">\n\nOk, while your point did not contradict my original premise, I admit that you did contradict one of my points of argument. “!delta”",
">\n\nI guess I’m a bit confused about your view, then. Is it that porn is never bad? Or that porn may sometimes be bad but isn’t always bad? Or that, while porn may sometimes be bad, in the scheme of things there are bigger problems?\nAt various points in your OP and replies you seem to take each of those stances. Which is the view you want changed?",
">\n\nhe must be young and just moves the goalposts when he feels like it.",
">\n\nAgree with most points but the last one.\n\nPorn did not change your partner.\nYour partner is who they are,\n\nNoone is born who they are, everyone is constantly changing who they are, and being changed, especially by mass media.",
">\n\nIf mass media changes them, then that is who they are. The partner that blames media is blaming the wrong thing.",
">\n\nNo, it means that they were one thing, and now the person that they were is dead and now they are another thing, and in a year they'll be different again, because of what information and impressions they are consuming.\nI am not arguing the blame point i am arguing that it DOES change people.",
">\n\nA haircut changes someone, but a person made a choice to get the haircut.",
">\n\nI am talking about changes to their brain, to their personality, to their way of thinking. Changes about how they make decisions.\nThat's literally what brainwashing/propaganda/education/information gathering is.",
">\n\nPersonal experiences also change how you make future decisions. We still have choice.",
">\n\n\nPersonal experiences also change how you make future decisions\n\nExactly, that's my point. Everyone is changed by everything they witness. And can be changed by changing what they witness. What is yours?",
">\n\nI think we’re agreeing more than anything. I’m saying that the thing they’re witnessing isn’t inherently wrong.",
">\n\nJust because it is not a problem for everyone doesn't mean it's not a problem at all. Lots of people view porn and are fine. Some people view porn and it makes them worse in some way. You are correct that is not grounds for banning porn, but we should have a conversation about responsible use of it and how it can affect people. That means acknowledging that for at least some people, it is a problem.",
">\n\nI don’t argue any of that. But porn is not inherently wrong just because it can be abused. The partner who chooses to stay in a toxic situation caused by porn addiction doesn’t just get to blame porn",
">\n\n\nPorn did not make your partner impotent.\n\nYou sure?\nWhile non-organic sexual dysfunctions have been presumed psychological in origin, and therefore the province of mental health experts, the unexplained sexual dysfunctions now rising sharply in young men (ED, difficulty orgasming, low sexual desire) are, to the extent they are reversible by quitting Internet pornography, not arising from “performance anxiety” (that is, psychosexual dysfunction, ICD-9 code 302.7), although performance anxiety may certainly accompany them.",
">\n\nPerhaps I phrased that incorrectly. I should have said that their partner’s choice is what made them impotent. Porn itself has no designs on the partner.",
">\n\n\ntheir partner’s choice is what made them impotent.\n\nIs it? \nOnline Porn Addiction: What We Know and What We Don’t—A Systematic Review\nIs a behavioral addiction, and the subsequent effects, really the result result of an errant choice made by the partner? We are not really sure why certain people are more or less prone to addictive behaviors, so a person could be choosing to use porn in an occasional manner, and then falling victim to their own faults. I wouldn't lay the blame at the feet of the choice, but their own predilection for addiction.",
">\n\nIt’s always about choice. One of the steps of addiction recovery is taking personal responsibility for their addiction.",
">\n\nOkay, but porn addiction isn't the same as something like heroin addiction, because porn is much more normalized. Far more people use porn without problems than use hard drugs without a problem. Making the choice to view porn is not necessarily bad, so we should not blame people for it. And you can slip into addiction without realizing. We should show people more compassion and try to educate people about the potential dangers of porn.",
">\n\nSure. But porn is not the reason the person ruined their relationship. Their addiction is. They are two different things.",
">\n\nYou cannot have the addiction without porn. They are different but related. Porn is one of the causes of that addiction.",
">\n\nIf this was the work of a professional, I would hope to see a paragraph structure at the very least. The stream-of-consciousness style seems to suggest more inanity than influence."
] |
>
Porn did not change your partner.
Porn literally changes your brain. | [
"/u/derangermouse (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nThis seems to be more of a semantic pivot than anything.\nCocaine, as your example is physically and psychologically addictive and contributes to multiple serious health issues. Saying it's not the drug, or the porn but your relationship to it is like saying it's not falling off a mountain that kills you, it's hitting something on the way down. It's a useless distinction.",
">\n\nWhen that person falls off the mountain, is it the mountain’s fault? Because plenty of people blame porn for their partners use of it",
">\n\nYou replied to my comment that \"porn isn't guns\"\nWell a mountain isn't cocaine addiction, is it?",
">\n\nAccording to their analogy, they tried to make the equivalency.",
">\n\n\nPorn did not change your partner.\n\nI mean, we know at the very least that this isn’t true. We can go back and forth on the moral implications, but it has been demonstrated time and time again that porn affects both individual and societal views towards sex and sexual power dynamics.",
">\n\nThat doesn’t prove that the individual in question is changed. And it doesn’t prove that porn is inherently bad.",
">\n\nI’m not saying porn is inherently bad, I’m saying it can change people, at least sometimes, and that can be bad, at least sometimes.",
">\n\nOk, while your point did not contradict my original premise, I admit that you did contradict one of my points of argument. “!delta”",
">\n\nI guess I’m a bit confused about your view, then. Is it that porn is never bad? Or that porn may sometimes be bad but isn’t always bad? Or that, while porn may sometimes be bad, in the scheme of things there are bigger problems?\nAt various points in your OP and replies you seem to take each of those stances. Which is the view you want changed?",
">\n\nhe must be young and just moves the goalposts when he feels like it.",
">\n\nAgree with most points but the last one.\n\nPorn did not change your partner.\nYour partner is who they are,\n\nNoone is born who they are, everyone is constantly changing who they are, and being changed, especially by mass media.",
">\n\nIf mass media changes them, then that is who they are. The partner that blames media is blaming the wrong thing.",
">\n\nNo, it means that they were one thing, and now the person that they were is dead and now they are another thing, and in a year they'll be different again, because of what information and impressions they are consuming.\nI am not arguing the blame point i am arguing that it DOES change people.",
">\n\nA haircut changes someone, but a person made a choice to get the haircut.",
">\n\nI am talking about changes to their brain, to their personality, to their way of thinking. Changes about how they make decisions.\nThat's literally what brainwashing/propaganda/education/information gathering is.",
">\n\nPersonal experiences also change how you make future decisions. We still have choice.",
">\n\n\nPersonal experiences also change how you make future decisions\n\nExactly, that's my point. Everyone is changed by everything they witness. And can be changed by changing what they witness. What is yours?",
">\n\nI think we’re agreeing more than anything. I’m saying that the thing they’re witnessing isn’t inherently wrong.",
">\n\nJust because it is not a problem for everyone doesn't mean it's not a problem at all. Lots of people view porn and are fine. Some people view porn and it makes them worse in some way. You are correct that is not grounds for banning porn, but we should have a conversation about responsible use of it and how it can affect people. That means acknowledging that for at least some people, it is a problem.",
">\n\nI don’t argue any of that. But porn is not inherently wrong just because it can be abused. The partner who chooses to stay in a toxic situation caused by porn addiction doesn’t just get to blame porn",
">\n\n\nPorn did not make your partner impotent.\n\nYou sure?\nWhile non-organic sexual dysfunctions have been presumed psychological in origin, and therefore the province of mental health experts, the unexplained sexual dysfunctions now rising sharply in young men (ED, difficulty orgasming, low sexual desire) are, to the extent they are reversible by quitting Internet pornography, not arising from “performance anxiety” (that is, psychosexual dysfunction, ICD-9 code 302.7), although performance anxiety may certainly accompany them.",
">\n\nPerhaps I phrased that incorrectly. I should have said that their partner’s choice is what made them impotent. Porn itself has no designs on the partner.",
">\n\n\ntheir partner’s choice is what made them impotent.\n\nIs it? \nOnline Porn Addiction: What We Know and What We Don’t—A Systematic Review\nIs a behavioral addiction, and the subsequent effects, really the result result of an errant choice made by the partner? We are not really sure why certain people are more or less prone to addictive behaviors, so a person could be choosing to use porn in an occasional manner, and then falling victim to their own faults. I wouldn't lay the blame at the feet of the choice, but their own predilection for addiction.",
">\n\nIt’s always about choice. One of the steps of addiction recovery is taking personal responsibility for their addiction.",
">\n\nOkay, but porn addiction isn't the same as something like heroin addiction, because porn is much more normalized. Far more people use porn without problems than use hard drugs without a problem. Making the choice to view porn is not necessarily bad, so we should not blame people for it. And you can slip into addiction without realizing. We should show people more compassion and try to educate people about the potential dangers of porn.",
">\n\nSure. But porn is not the reason the person ruined their relationship. Their addiction is. They are two different things.",
">\n\nYou cannot have the addiction without porn. They are different but related. Porn is one of the causes of that addiction.",
">\n\nIf this was the work of a professional, I would hope to see a paragraph structure at the very least. The stream-of-consciousness style seems to suggest more inanity than influence.",
">\n\nPlease refrain from trying to insult. Presenting the argument as simply as possible keeps people from needlessly nitpicking parts of it without actually disproving the central argument."
] |
>
So do new experiences. So does age. So does physical trauma. | [
"/u/derangermouse (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nThis seems to be more of a semantic pivot than anything.\nCocaine, as your example is physically and psychologically addictive and contributes to multiple serious health issues. Saying it's not the drug, or the porn but your relationship to it is like saying it's not falling off a mountain that kills you, it's hitting something on the way down. It's a useless distinction.",
">\n\nWhen that person falls off the mountain, is it the mountain’s fault? Because plenty of people blame porn for their partners use of it",
">\n\nYou replied to my comment that \"porn isn't guns\"\nWell a mountain isn't cocaine addiction, is it?",
">\n\nAccording to their analogy, they tried to make the equivalency.",
">\n\n\nPorn did not change your partner.\n\nI mean, we know at the very least that this isn’t true. We can go back and forth on the moral implications, but it has been demonstrated time and time again that porn affects both individual and societal views towards sex and sexual power dynamics.",
">\n\nThat doesn’t prove that the individual in question is changed. And it doesn’t prove that porn is inherently bad.",
">\n\nI’m not saying porn is inherently bad, I’m saying it can change people, at least sometimes, and that can be bad, at least sometimes.",
">\n\nOk, while your point did not contradict my original premise, I admit that you did contradict one of my points of argument. “!delta”",
">\n\nI guess I’m a bit confused about your view, then. Is it that porn is never bad? Or that porn may sometimes be bad but isn’t always bad? Or that, while porn may sometimes be bad, in the scheme of things there are bigger problems?\nAt various points in your OP and replies you seem to take each of those stances. Which is the view you want changed?",
">\n\nhe must be young and just moves the goalposts when he feels like it.",
">\n\nAgree with most points but the last one.\n\nPorn did not change your partner.\nYour partner is who they are,\n\nNoone is born who they are, everyone is constantly changing who they are, and being changed, especially by mass media.",
">\n\nIf mass media changes them, then that is who they are. The partner that blames media is blaming the wrong thing.",
">\n\nNo, it means that they were one thing, and now the person that they were is dead and now they are another thing, and in a year they'll be different again, because of what information and impressions they are consuming.\nI am not arguing the blame point i am arguing that it DOES change people.",
">\n\nA haircut changes someone, but a person made a choice to get the haircut.",
">\n\nI am talking about changes to their brain, to their personality, to their way of thinking. Changes about how they make decisions.\nThat's literally what brainwashing/propaganda/education/information gathering is.",
">\n\nPersonal experiences also change how you make future decisions. We still have choice.",
">\n\n\nPersonal experiences also change how you make future decisions\n\nExactly, that's my point. Everyone is changed by everything they witness. And can be changed by changing what they witness. What is yours?",
">\n\nI think we’re agreeing more than anything. I’m saying that the thing they’re witnessing isn’t inherently wrong.",
">\n\nJust because it is not a problem for everyone doesn't mean it's not a problem at all. Lots of people view porn and are fine. Some people view porn and it makes them worse in some way. You are correct that is not grounds for banning porn, but we should have a conversation about responsible use of it and how it can affect people. That means acknowledging that for at least some people, it is a problem.",
">\n\nI don’t argue any of that. But porn is not inherently wrong just because it can be abused. The partner who chooses to stay in a toxic situation caused by porn addiction doesn’t just get to blame porn",
">\n\n\nPorn did not make your partner impotent.\n\nYou sure?\nWhile non-organic sexual dysfunctions have been presumed psychological in origin, and therefore the province of mental health experts, the unexplained sexual dysfunctions now rising sharply in young men (ED, difficulty orgasming, low sexual desire) are, to the extent they are reversible by quitting Internet pornography, not arising from “performance anxiety” (that is, psychosexual dysfunction, ICD-9 code 302.7), although performance anxiety may certainly accompany them.",
">\n\nPerhaps I phrased that incorrectly. I should have said that their partner’s choice is what made them impotent. Porn itself has no designs on the partner.",
">\n\n\ntheir partner’s choice is what made them impotent.\n\nIs it? \nOnline Porn Addiction: What We Know and What We Don’t—A Systematic Review\nIs a behavioral addiction, and the subsequent effects, really the result result of an errant choice made by the partner? We are not really sure why certain people are more or less prone to addictive behaviors, so a person could be choosing to use porn in an occasional manner, and then falling victim to their own faults. I wouldn't lay the blame at the feet of the choice, but their own predilection for addiction.",
">\n\nIt’s always about choice. One of the steps of addiction recovery is taking personal responsibility for their addiction.",
">\n\nOkay, but porn addiction isn't the same as something like heroin addiction, because porn is much more normalized. Far more people use porn without problems than use hard drugs without a problem. Making the choice to view porn is not necessarily bad, so we should not blame people for it. And you can slip into addiction without realizing. We should show people more compassion and try to educate people about the potential dangers of porn.",
">\n\nSure. But porn is not the reason the person ruined their relationship. Their addiction is. They are two different things.",
">\n\nYou cannot have the addiction without porn. They are different but related. Porn is one of the causes of that addiction.",
">\n\nIf this was the work of a professional, I would hope to see a paragraph structure at the very least. The stream-of-consciousness style seems to suggest more inanity than influence.",
">\n\nPlease refrain from trying to insult. Presenting the argument as simply as possible keeps people from needlessly nitpicking parts of it without actually disproving the central argument.",
">\n\n\nPorn did not change your partner. \n\nPorn literally changes your brain."
] |
>
Not a counterpoint, you’re agreeing that things people experience change who they are. | [
"/u/derangermouse (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nThis seems to be more of a semantic pivot than anything.\nCocaine, as your example is physically and psychologically addictive and contributes to multiple serious health issues. Saying it's not the drug, or the porn but your relationship to it is like saying it's not falling off a mountain that kills you, it's hitting something on the way down. It's a useless distinction.",
">\n\nWhen that person falls off the mountain, is it the mountain’s fault? Because plenty of people blame porn for their partners use of it",
">\n\nYou replied to my comment that \"porn isn't guns\"\nWell a mountain isn't cocaine addiction, is it?",
">\n\nAccording to their analogy, they tried to make the equivalency.",
">\n\n\nPorn did not change your partner.\n\nI mean, we know at the very least that this isn’t true. We can go back and forth on the moral implications, but it has been demonstrated time and time again that porn affects both individual and societal views towards sex and sexual power dynamics.",
">\n\nThat doesn’t prove that the individual in question is changed. And it doesn’t prove that porn is inherently bad.",
">\n\nI’m not saying porn is inherently bad, I’m saying it can change people, at least sometimes, and that can be bad, at least sometimes.",
">\n\nOk, while your point did not contradict my original premise, I admit that you did contradict one of my points of argument. “!delta”",
">\n\nI guess I’m a bit confused about your view, then. Is it that porn is never bad? Or that porn may sometimes be bad but isn’t always bad? Or that, while porn may sometimes be bad, in the scheme of things there are bigger problems?\nAt various points in your OP and replies you seem to take each of those stances. Which is the view you want changed?",
">\n\nhe must be young and just moves the goalposts when he feels like it.",
">\n\nAgree with most points but the last one.\n\nPorn did not change your partner.\nYour partner is who they are,\n\nNoone is born who they are, everyone is constantly changing who they are, and being changed, especially by mass media.",
">\n\nIf mass media changes them, then that is who they are. The partner that blames media is blaming the wrong thing.",
">\n\nNo, it means that they were one thing, and now the person that they were is dead and now they are another thing, and in a year they'll be different again, because of what information and impressions they are consuming.\nI am not arguing the blame point i am arguing that it DOES change people.",
">\n\nA haircut changes someone, but a person made a choice to get the haircut.",
">\n\nI am talking about changes to their brain, to their personality, to their way of thinking. Changes about how they make decisions.\nThat's literally what brainwashing/propaganda/education/information gathering is.",
">\n\nPersonal experiences also change how you make future decisions. We still have choice.",
">\n\n\nPersonal experiences also change how you make future decisions\n\nExactly, that's my point. Everyone is changed by everything they witness. And can be changed by changing what they witness. What is yours?",
">\n\nI think we’re agreeing more than anything. I’m saying that the thing they’re witnessing isn’t inherently wrong.",
">\n\nJust because it is not a problem for everyone doesn't mean it's not a problem at all. Lots of people view porn and are fine. Some people view porn and it makes them worse in some way. You are correct that is not grounds for banning porn, but we should have a conversation about responsible use of it and how it can affect people. That means acknowledging that for at least some people, it is a problem.",
">\n\nI don’t argue any of that. But porn is not inherently wrong just because it can be abused. The partner who chooses to stay in a toxic situation caused by porn addiction doesn’t just get to blame porn",
">\n\n\nPorn did not make your partner impotent.\n\nYou sure?\nWhile non-organic sexual dysfunctions have been presumed psychological in origin, and therefore the province of mental health experts, the unexplained sexual dysfunctions now rising sharply in young men (ED, difficulty orgasming, low sexual desire) are, to the extent they are reversible by quitting Internet pornography, not arising from “performance anxiety” (that is, psychosexual dysfunction, ICD-9 code 302.7), although performance anxiety may certainly accompany them.",
">\n\nPerhaps I phrased that incorrectly. I should have said that their partner’s choice is what made them impotent. Porn itself has no designs on the partner.",
">\n\n\ntheir partner’s choice is what made them impotent.\n\nIs it? \nOnline Porn Addiction: What We Know and What We Don’t—A Systematic Review\nIs a behavioral addiction, and the subsequent effects, really the result result of an errant choice made by the partner? We are not really sure why certain people are more or less prone to addictive behaviors, so a person could be choosing to use porn in an occasional manner, and then falling victim to their own faults. I wouldn't lay the blame at the feet of the choice, but their own predilection for addiction.",
">\n\nIt’s always about choice. One of the steps of addiction recovery is taking personal responsibility for their addiction.",
">\n\nOkay, but porn addiction isn't the same as something like heroin addiction, because porn is much more normalized. Far more people use porn without problems than use hard drugs without a problem. Making the choice to view porn is not necessarily bad, so we should not blame people for it. And you can slip into addiction without realizing. We should show people more compassion and try to educate people about the potential dangers of porn.",
">\n\nSure. But porn is not the reason the person ruined their relationship. Their addiction is. They are two different things.",
">\n\nYou cannot have the addiction without porn. They are different but related. Porn is one of the causes of that addiction.",
">\n\nIf this was the work of a professional, I would hope to see a paragraph structure at the very least. The stream-of-consciousness style seems to suggest more inanity than influence.",
">\n\nPlease refrain from trying to insult. Presenting the argument as simply as possible keeps people from needlessly nitpicking parts of it without actually disproving the central argument.",
">\n\n\nPorn did not change your partner. \n\nPorn literally changes your brain.",
">\n\nSo do new experiences. So does age. So does physical trauma."
] |
>
If you are in a relationship with someone who watches porn, that is 100% on you.
If you find out that your partner hid their porn habit from you, staying in that relationship is 100% on you.
If your partner lies about ending their habit, what you do with that information is 100% on you.
How is the hiding, lying, etc., not on the person doing it?
You're saying what you do with the info when you find out is on you --ok.... how is the issue not the lying, hiding, etc?
You're saying like 'what you do when you find out your SO is a molester is up to you, that's a problem with your relationship.'
Maybe the person has a problem? | [
"/u/derangermouse (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nThis seems to be more of a semantic pivot than anything.\nCocaine, as your example is physically and psychologically addictive and contributes to multiple serious health issues. Saying it's not the drug, or the porn but your relationship to it is like saying it's not falling off a mountain that kills you, it's hitting something on the way down. It's a useless distinction.",
">\n\nWhen that person falls off the mountain, is it the mountain’s fault? Because plenty of people blame porn for their partners use of it",
">\n\nYou replied to my comment that \"porn isn't guns\"\nWell a mountain isn't cocaine addiction, is it?",
">\n\nAccording to their analogy, they tried to make the equivalency.",
">\n\n\nPorn did not change your partner.\n\nI mean, we know at the very least that this isn’t true. We can go back and forth on the moral implications, but it has been demonstrated time and time again that porn affects both individual and societal views towards sex and sexual power dynamics.",
">\n\nThat doesn’t prove that the individual in question is changed. And it doesn’t prove that porn is inherently bad.",
">\n\nI’m not saying porn is inherently bad, I’m saying it can change people, at least sometimes, and that can be bad, at least sometimes.",
">\n\nOk, while your point did not contradict my original premise, I admit that you did contradict one of my points of argument. “!delta”",
">\n\nI guess I’m a bit confused about your view, then. Is it that porn is never bad? Or that porn may sometimes be bad but isn’t always bad? Or that, while porn may sometimes be bad, in the scheme of things there are bigger problems?\nAt various points in your OP and replies you seem to take each of those stances. Which is the view you want changed?",
">\n\nhe must be young and just moves the goalposts when he feels like it.",
">\n\nAgree with most points but the last one.\n\nPorn did not change your partner.\nYour partner is who they are,\n\nNoone is born who they are, everyone is constantly changing who they are, and being changed, especially by mass media.",
">\n\nIf mass media changes them, then that is who they are. The partner that blames media is blaming the wrong thing.",
">\n\nNo, it means that they were one thing, and now the person that they were is dead and now they are another thing, and in a year they'll be different again, because of what information and impressions they are consuming.\nI am not arguing the blame point i am arguing that it DOES change people.",
">\n\nA haircut changes someone, but a person made a choice to get the haircut.",
">\n\nI am talking about changes to their brain, to their personality, to their way of thinking. Changes about how they make decisions.\nThat's literally what brainwashing/propaganda/education/information gathering is.",
">\n\nPersonal experiences also change how you make future decisions. We still have choice.",
">\n\n\nPersonal experiences also change how you make future decisions\n\nExactly, that's my point. Everyone is changed by everything they witness. And can be changed by changing what they witness. What is yours?",
">\n\nI think we’re agreeing more than anything. I’m saying that the thing they’re witnessing isn’t inherently wrong.",
">\n\nJust because it is not a problem for everyone doesn't mean it's not a problem at all. Lots of people view porn and are fine. Some people view porn and it makes them worse in some way. You are correct that is not grounds for banning porn, but we should have a conversation about responsible use of it and how it can affect people. That means acknowledging that for at least some people, it is a problem.",
">\n\nI don’t argue any of that. But porn is not inherently wrong just because it can be abused. The partner who chooses to stay in a toxic situation caused by porn addiction doesn’t just get to blame porn",
">\n\n\nPorn did not make your partner impotent.\n\nYou sure?\nWhile non-organic sexual dysfunctions have been presumed psychological in origin, and therefore the province of mental health experts, the unexplained sexual dysfunctions now rising sharply in young men (ED, difficulty orgasming, low sexual desire) are, to the extent they are reversible by quitting Internet pornography, not arising from “performance anxiety” (that is, psychosexual dysfunction, ICD-9 code 302.7), although performance anxiety may certainly accompany them.",
">\n\nPerhaps I phrased that incorrectly. I should have said that their partner’s choice is what made them impotent. Porn itself has no designs on the partner.",
">\n\n\ntheir partner’s choice is what made them impotent.\n\nIs it? \nOnline Porn Addiction: What We Know and What We Don’t—A Systematic Review\nIs a behavioral addiction, and the subsequent effects, really the result result of an errant choice made by the partner? We are not really sure why certain people are more or less prone to addictive behaviors, so a person could be choosing to use porn in an occasional manner, and then falling victim to their own faults. I wouldn't lay the blame at the feet of the choice, but their own predilection for addiction.",
">\n\nIt’s always about choice. One of the steps of addiction recovery is taking personal responsibility for their addiction.",
">\n\nOkay, but porn addiction isn't the same as something like heroin addiction, because porn is much more normalized. Far more people use porn without problems than use hard drugs without a problem. Making the choice to view porn is not necessarily bad, so we should not blame people for it. And you can slip into addiction without realizing. We should show people more compassion and try to educate people about the potential dangers of porn.",
">\n\nSure. But porn is not the reason the person ruined their relationship. Their addiction is. They are two different things.",
">\n\nYou cannot have the addiction without porn. They are different but related. Porn is one of the causes of that addiction.",
">\n\nIf this was the work of a professional, I would hope to see a paragraph structure at the very least. The stream-of-consciousness style seems to suggest more inanity than influence.",
">\n\nPlease refrain from trying to insult. Presenting the argument as simply as possible keeps people from needlessly nitpicking parts of it without actually disproving the central argument.",
">\n\n\nPorn did not change your partner. \n\nPorn literally changes your brain.",
">\n\nSo do new experiences. So does age. So does physical trauma.",
">\n\nNot a counterpoint, you’re agreeing that things people experience change who they are."
] |
>
I believe there is nothing inherently wrong with porn just like there is nothing inherently wrong with cocaine, with weed, or with heroin. It is all dependent on the user.
I think it's safe to say that we recognise that the companies that sell cigarettes are profiting from poisoning their customer base. There are no repercussions from their consumers because they're already addicted and we can't stop them from selling because they've been in business for too long and there would be an outcry.
I want to say that if cigarettes were invented today they'd very quickly be made illegal specifically because this practice is predatory. You can claim that it is entirely the fault of the user, but the user can be misled and they will be for financial gain. | [
"/u/derangermouse (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nThis seems to be more of a semantic pivot than anything.\nCocaine, as your example is physically and psychologically addictive and contributes to multiple serious health issues. Saying it's not the drug, or the porn but your relationship to it is like saying it's not falling off a mountain that kills you, it's hitting something on the way down. It's a useless distinction.",
">\n\nWhen that person falls off the mountain, is it the mountain’s fault? Because plenty of people blame porn for their partners use of it",
">\n\nYou replied to my comment that \"porn isn't guns\"\nWell a mountain isn't cocaine addiction, is it?",
">\n\nAccording to their analogy, they tried to make the equivalency.",
">\n\n\nPorn did not change your partner.\n\nI mean, we know at the very least that this isn’t true. We can go back and forth on the moral implications, but it has been demonstrated time and time again that porn affects both individual and societal views towards sex and sexual power dynamics.",
">\n\nThat doesn’t prove that the individual in question is changed. And it doesn’t prove that porn is inherently bad.",
">\n\nI’m not saying porn is inherently bad, I’m saying it can change people, at least sometimes, and that can be bad, at least sometimes.",
">\n\nOk, while your point did not contradict my original premise, I admit that you did contradict one of my points of argument. “!delta”",
">\n\nI guess I’m a bit confused about your view, then. Is it that porn is never bad? Or that porn may sometimes be bad but isn’t always bad? Or that, while porn may sometimes be bad, in the scheme of things there are bigger problems?\nAt various points in your OP and replies you seem to take each of those stances. Which is the view you want changed?",
">\n\nhe must be young and just moves the goalposts when he feels like it.",
">\n\nAgree with most points but the last one.\n\nPorn did not change your partner.\nYour partner is who they are,\n\nNoone is born who they are, everyone is constantly changing who they are, and being changed, especially by mass media.",
">\n\nIf mass media changes them, then that is who they are. The partner that blames media is blaming the wrong thing.",
">\n\nNo, it means that they were one thing, and now the person that they were is dead and now they are another thing, and in a year they'll be different again, because of what information and impressions they are consuming.\nI am not arguing the blame point i am arguing that it DOES change people.",
">\n\nA haircut changes someone, but a person made a choice to get the haircut.",
">\n\nI am talking about changes to their brain, to their personality, to their way of thinking. Changes about how they make decisions.\nThat's literally what brainwashing/propaganda/education/information gathering is.",
">\n\nPersonal experiences also change how you make future decisions. We still have choice.",
">\n\n\nPersonal experiences also change how you make future decisions\n\nExactly, that's my point. Everyone is changed by everything they witness. And can be changed by changing what they witness. What is yours?",
">\n\nI think we’re agreeing more than anything. I’m saying that the thing they’re witnessing isn’t inherently wrong.",
">\n\nJust because it is not a problem for everyone doesn't mean it's not a problem at all. Lots of people view porn and are fine. Some people view porn and it makes them worse in some way. You are correct that is not grounds for banning porn, but we should have a conversation about responsible use of it and how it can affect people. That means acknowledging that for at least some people, it is a problem.",
">\n\nI don’t argue any of that. But porn is not inherently wrong just because it can be abused. The partner who chooses to stay in a toxic situation caused by porn addiction doesn’t just get to blame porn",
">\n\n\nPorn did not make your partner impotent.\n\nYou sure?\nWhile non-organic sexual dysfunctions have been presumed psychological in origin, and therefore the province of mental health experts, the unexplained sexual dysfunctions now rising sharply in young men (ED, difficulty orgasming, low sexual desire) are, to the extent they are reversible by quitting Internet pornography, not arising from “performance anxiety” (that is, psychosexual dysfunction, ICD-9 code 302.7), although performance anxiety may certainly accompany them.",
">\n\nPerhaps I phrased that incorrectly. I should have said that their partner’s choice is what made them impotent. Porn itself has no designs on the partner.",
">\n\n\ntheir partner’s choice is what made them impotent.\n\nIs it? \nOnline Porn Addiction: What We Know and What We Don’t—A Systematic Review\nIs a behavioral addiction, and the subsequent effects, really the result result of an errant choice made by the partner? We are not really sure why certain people are more or less prone to addictive behaviors, so a person could be choosing to use porn in an occasional manner, and then falling victim to their own faults. I wouldn't lay the blame at the feet of the choice, but their own predilection for addiction.",
">\n\nIt’s always about choice. One of the steps of addiction recovery is taking personal responsibility for their addiction.",
">\n\nOkay, but porn addiction isn't the same as something like heroin addiction, because porn is much more normalized. Far more people use porn without problems than use hard drugs without a problem. Making the choice to view porn is not necessarily bad, so we should not blame people for it. And you can slip into addiction without realizing. We should show people more compassion and try to educate people about the potential dangers of porn.",
">\n\nSure. But porn is not the reason the person ruined their relationship. Their addiction is. They are two different things.",
">\n\nYou cannot have the addiction without porn. They are different but related. Porn is one of the causes of that addiction.",
">\n\nIf this was the work of a professional, I would hope to see a paragraph structure at the very least. The stream-of-consciousness style seems to suggest more inanity than influence.",
">\n\nPlease refrain from trying to insult. Presenting the argument as simply as possible keeps people from needlessly nitpicking parts of it without actually disproving the central argument.",
">\n\n\nPorn did not change your partner. \n\nPorn literally changes your brain.",
">\n\nSo do new experiences. So does age. So does physical trauma.",
">\n\nNot a counterpoint, you’re agreeing that things people experience change who they are.",
">\n\n\nIf you are in a relationship with someone who watches porn, that is 100% on you. \nIf you find out that your partner hid their porn habit from you, staying in that relationship is 100% on you. \nIf your partner lies about ending their habit, what you do with that information is 100% on you.\n\nHow is the hiding, lying, etc., not on the person doing it?\nYou're saying what you do with the info when you find out is on you --ok.... how is the issue not the lying, hiding, etc?\nYou're saying like 'what you do when you find out your SO is a molester is up to you, that's a problem with your relationship.'\nMaybe the person has a problem?"
] |
>
I can disagree with you on the heroin thing. I grew up with a heroin addict, it sucks balls. Fuck that.
Edit: I was a child/teen, it was out of my control to help the parent. Everyday was horrible because it was like they were dying (it was traumatizing too) and I was just a child. Heroin shouldn't be legal at all. Are you aware of the children in danger? It's a lot. And lots already are in danger already due to a heroin addicted parent/family member. | [
"/u/derangermouse (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nThis seems to be more of a semantic pivot than anything.\nCocaine, as your example is physically and psychologically addictive and contributes to multiple serious health issues. Saying it's not the drug, or the porn but your relationship to it is like saying it's not falling off a mountain that kills you, it's hitting something on the way down. It's a useless distinction.",
">\n\nWhen that person falls off the mountain, is it the mountain’s fault? Because plenty of people blame porn for their partners use of it",
">\n\nYou replied to my comment that \"porn isn't guns\"\nWell a mountain isn't cocaine addiction, is it?",
">\n\nAccording to their analogy, they tried to make the equivalency.",
">\n\n\nPorn did not change your partner.\n\nI mean, we know at the very least that this isn’t true. We can go back and forth on the moral implications, but it has been demonstrated time and time again that porn affects both individual and societal views towards sex and sexual power dynamics.",
">\n\nThat doesn’t prove that the individual in question is changed. And it doesn’t prove that porn is inherently bad.",
">\n\nI’m not saying porn is inherently bad, I’m saying it can change people, at least sometimes, and that can be bad, at least sometimes.",
">\n\nOk, while your point did not contradict my original premise, I admit that you did contradict one of my points of argument. “!delta”",
">\n\nI guess I’m a bit confused about your view, then. Is it that porn is never bad? Or that porn may sometimes be bad but isn’t always bad? Or that, while porn may sometimes be bad, in the scheme of things there are bigger problems?\nAt various points in your OP and replies you seem to take each of those stances. Which is the view you want changed?",
">\n\nhe must be young and just moves the goalposts when he feels like it.",
">\n\nAgree with most points but the last one.\n\nPorn did not change your partner.\nYour partner is who they are,\n\nNoone is born who they are, everyone is constantly changing who they are, and being changed, especially by mass media.",
">\n\nIf mass media changes them, then that is who they are. The partner that blames media is blaming the wrong thing.",
">\n\nNo, it means that they were one thing, and now the person that they were is dead and now they are another thing, and in a year they'll be different again, because of what information and impressions they are consuming.\nI am not arguing the blame point i am arguing that it DOES change people.",
">\n\nA haircut changes someone, but a person made a choice to get the haircut.",
">\n\nI am talking about changes to their brain, to their personality, to their way of thinking. Changes about how they make decisions.\nThat's literally what brainwashing/propaganda/education/information gathering is.",
">\n\nPersonal experiences also change how you make future decisions. We still have choice.",
">\n\n\nPersonal experiences also change how you make future decisions\n\nExactly, that's my point. Everyone is changed by everything they witness. And can be changed by changing what they witness. What is yours?",
">\n\nI think we’re agreeing more than anything. I’m saying that the thing they’re witnessing isn’t inherently wrong.",
">\n\nJust because it is not a problem for everyone doesn't mean it's not a problem at all. Lots of people view porn and are fine. Some people view porn and it makes them worse in some way. You are correct that is not grounds for banning porn, but we should have a conversation about responsible use of it and how it can affect people. That means acknowledging that for at least some people, it is a problem.",
">\n\nI don’t argue any of that. But porn is not inherently wrong just because it can be abused. The partner who chooses to stay in a toxic situation caused by porn addiction doesn’t just get to blame porn",
">\n\n\nPorn did not make your partner impotent.\n\nYou sure?\nWhile non-organic sexual dysfunctions have been presumed psychological in origin, and therefore the province of mental health experts, the unexplained sexual dysfunctions now rising sharply in young men (ED, difficulty orgasming, low sexual desire) are, to the extent they are reversible by quitting Internet pornography, not arising from “performance anxiety” (that is, psychosexual dysfunction, ICD-9 code 302.7), although performance anxiety may certainly accompany them.",
">\n\nPerhaps I phrased that incorrectly. I should have said that their partner’s choice is what made them impotent. Porn itself has no designs on the partner.",
">\n\n\ntheir partner’s choice is what made them impotent.\n\nIs it? \nOnline Porn Addiction: What We Know and What We Don’t—A Systematic Review\nIs a behavioral addiction, and the subsequent effects, really the result result of an errant choice made by the partner? We are not really sure why certain people are more or less prone to addictive behaviors, so a person could be choosing to use porn in an occasional manner, and then falling victim to their own faults. I wouldn't lay the blame at the feet of the choice, but their own predilection for addiction.",
">\n\nIt’s always about choice. One of the steps of addiction recovery is taking personal responsibility for their addiction.",
">\n\nOkay, but porn addiction isn't the same as something like heroin addiction, because porn is much more normalized. Far more people use porn without problems than use hard drugs without a problem. Making the choice to view porn is not necessarily bad, so we should not blame people for it. And you can slip into addiction without realizing. We should show people more compassion and try to educate people about the potential dangers of porn.",
">\n\nSure. But porn is not the reason the person ruined their relationship. Their addiction is. They are two different things.",
">\n\nYou cannot have the addiction without porn. They are different but related. Porn is one of the causes of that addiction.",
">\n\nIf this was the work of a professional, I would hope to see a paragraph structure at the very least. The stream-of-consciousness style seems to suggest more inanity than influence.",
">\n\nPlease refrain from trying to insult. Presenting the argument as simply as possible keeps people from needlessly nitpicking parts of it without actually disproving the central argument.",
">\n\n\nPorn did not change your partner. \n\nPorn literally changes your brain.",
">\n\nSo do new experiences. So does age. So does physical trauma.",
">\n\nNot a counterpoint, you’re agreeing that things people experience change who they are.",
">\n\n\nIf you are in a relationship with someone who watches porn, that is 100% on you. \nIf you find out that your partner hid their porn habit from you, staying in that relationship is 100% on you. \nIf your partner lies about ending their habit, what you do with that information is 100% on you.\n\nHow is the hiding, lying, etc., not on the person doing it?\nYou're saying what you do with the info when you find out is on you --ok.... how is the issue not the lying, hiding, etc?\nYou're saying like 'what you do when you find out your SO is a molester is up to you, that's a problem with your relationship.'\nMaybe the person has a problem?",
">\n\n\nI believe there is nothing inherently wrong with porn just like there is nothing inherently wrong with cocaine, with weed, or with heroin. It is all dependent on the user.\n\nI think it's safe to say that we recognise that the companies that sell cigarettes are profiting from poisoning their customer base. There are no repercussions from their consumers because they're already addicted and we can't stop them from selling because they've been in business for too long and there would be an outcry.\nI want to say that if cigarettes were invented today they'd very quickly be made illegal specifically because this practice is predatory. You can claim that it is entirely the fault of the user, but the user can be misled and they will be for financial gain."
] |
>
.
Porn is not the enemy. Porn is what it is. You may not agree with it, or all of it, but it is what it is, and millions of people have enjoyed it in many forms for centuries.
Porn did not make your partner impotent.
Porn did not make your partner not have sex with you.
Porn did not change your partner.
I kind of suspect my actual view is quite similar to yours but if it is I would argue this is poorly worded. It seems to imply that porn doesn't really have a significant effect on people which I would argue is false. However it could also be interpreted as there have to be character flaws unrelated to porn for porn to be an real problem which is something I think I would agree with in pretty much any case I can be up with. For example porn could influence people to request more extreme sex acts or someone who gets used to porn might find sex with another human exhausting. However someone who cares about their partner will not push for sex their partner doesn't want so I would argue the real problem is selfishness lack of consideration for the partner. Likewise not being interested in sex shouldn't be considered a problem whether the uninterested person is a man or woman. Yes people should be honest about it and say I'm not interested in sex rather than constantly talking it up and then backing etc out if they're not interested but nobody should be shamed for not wanting sex. The person with a higher libido should decide how important they consider sex and take that onto consideration in making a decision whether to stay or leave rather than shaming someone for not wanting sex. | [
"/u/derangermouse (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nThis seems to be more of a semantic pivot than anything.\nCocaine, as your example is physically and psychologically addictive and contributes to multiple serious health issues. Saying it's not the drug, or the porn but your relationship to it is like saying it's not falling off a mountain that kills you, it's hitting something on the way down. It's a useless distinction.",
">\n\nWhen that person falls off the mountain, is it the mountain’s fault? Because plenty of people blame porn for their partners use of it",
">\n\nYou replied to my comment that \"porn isn't guns\"\nWell a mountain isn't cocaine addiction, is it?",
">\n\nAccording to their analogy, they tried to make the equivalency.",
">\n\n\nPorn did not change your partner.\n\nI mean, we know at the very least that this isn’t true. We can go back and forth on the moral implications, but it has been demonstrated time and time again that porn affects both individual and societal views towards sex and sexual power dynamics.",
">\n\nThat doesn’t prove that the individual in question is changed. And it doesn’t prove that porn is inherently bad.",
">\n\nI’m not saying porn is inherently bad, I’m saying it can change people, at least sometimes, and that can be bad, at least sometimes.",
">\n\nOk, while your point did not contradict my original premise, I admit that you did contradict one of my points of argument. “!delta”",
">\n\nI guess I’m a bit confused about your view, then. Is it that porn is never bad? Or that porn may sometimes be bad but isn’t always bad? Or that, while porn may sometimes be bad, in the scheme of things there are bigger problems?\nAt various points in your OP and replies you seem to take each of those stances. Which is the view you want changed?",
">\n\nhe must be young and just moves the goalposts when he feels like it.",
">\n\nAgree with most points but the last one.\n\nPorn did not change your partner.\nYour partner is who they are,\n\nNoone is born who they are, everyone is constantly changing who they are, and being changed, especially by mass media.",
">\n\nIf mass media changes them, then that is who they are. The partner that blames media is blaming the wrong thing.",
">\n\nNo, it means that they were one thing, and now the person that they were is dead and now they are another thing, and in a year they'll be different again, because of what information and impressions they are consuming.\nI am not arguing the blame point i am arguing that it DOES change people.",
">\n\nA haircut changes someone, but a person made a choice to get the haircut.",
">\n\nI am talking about changes to their brain, to their personality, to their way of thinking. Changes about how they make decisions.\nThat's literally what brainwashing/propaganda/education/information gathering is.",
">\n\nPersonal experiences also change how you make future decisions. We still have choice.",
">\n\n\nPersonal experiences also change how you make future decisions\n\nExactly, that's my point. Everyone is changed by everything they witness. And can be changed by changing what they witness. What is yours?",
">\n\nI think we’re agreeing more than anything. I’m saying that the thing they’re witnessing isn’t inherently wrong.",
">\n\nJust because it is not a problem for everyone doesn't mean it's not a problem at all. Lots of people view porn and are fine. Some people view porn and it makes them worse in some way. You are correct that is not grounds for banning porn, but we should have a conversation about responsible use of it and how it can affect people. That means acknowledging that for at least some people, it is a problem.",
">\n\nI don’t argue any of that. But porn is not inherently wrong just because it can be abused. The partner who chooses to stay in a toxic situation caused by porn addiction doesn’t just get to blame porn",
">\n\n\nPorn did not make your partner impotent.\n\nYou sure?\nWhile non-organic sexual dysfunctions have been presumed psychological in origin, and therefore the province of mental health experts, the unexplained sexual dysfunctions now rising sharply in young men (ED, difficulty orgasming, low sexual desire) are, to the extent they are reversible by quitting Internet pornography, not arising from “performance anxiety” (that is, psychosexual dysfunction, ICD-9 code 302.7), although performance anxiety may certainly accompany them.",
">\n\nPerhaps I phrased that incorrectly. I should have said that their partner’s choice is what made them impotent. Porn itself has no designs on the partner.",
">\n\n\ntheir partner’s choice is what made them impotent.\n\nIs it? \nOnline Porn Addiction: What We Know and What We Don’t—A Systematic Review\nIs a behavioral addiction, and the subsequent effects, really the result result of an errant choice made by the partner? We are not really sure why certain people are more or less prone to addictive behaviors, so a person could be choosing to use porn in an occasional manner, and then falling victim to their own faults. I wouldn't lay the blame at the feet of the choice, but their own predilection for addiction.",
">\n\nIt’s always about choice. One of the steps of addiction recovery is taking personal responsibility for their addiction.",
">\n\nOkay, but porn addiction isn't the same as something like heroin addiction, because porn is much more normalized. Far more people use porn without problems than use hard drugs without a problem. Making the choice to view porn is not necessarily bad, so we should not blame people for it. And you can slip into addiction without realizing. We should show people more compassion and try to educate people about the potential dangers of porn.",
">\n\nSure. But porn is not the reason the person ruined their relationship. Their addiction is. They are two different things.",
">\n\nYou cannot have the addiction without porn. They are different but related. Porn is one of the causes of that addiction.",
">\n\nIf this was the work of a professional, I would hope to see a paragraph structure at the very least. The stream-of-consciousness style seems to suggest more inanity than influence.",
">\n\nPlease refrain from trying to insult. Presenting the argument as simply as possible keeps people from needlessly nitpicking parts of it without actually disproving the central argument.",
">\n\n\nPorn did not change your partner. \n\nPorn literally changes your brain.",
">\n\nSo do new experiences. So does age. So does physical trauma.",
">\n\nNot a counterpoint, you’re agreeing that things people experience change who they are.",
">\n\n\nIf you are in a relationship with someone who watches porn, that is 100% on you. \nIf you find out that your partner hid their porn habit from you, staying in that relationship is 100% on you. \nIf your partner lies about ending their habit, what you do with that information is 100% on you.\n\nHow is the hiding, lying, etc., not on the person doing it?\nYou're saying what you do with the info when you find out is on you --ok.... how is the issue not the lying, hiding, etc?\nYou're saying like 'what you do when you find out your SO is a molester is up to you, that's a problem with your relationship.'\nMaybe the person has a problem?",
">\n\n\nI believe there is nothing inherently wrong with porn just like there is nothing inherently wrong with cocaine, with weed, or with heroin. It is all dependent on the user.\n\nI think it's safe to say that we recognise that the companies that sell cigarettes are profiting from poisoning their customer base. There are no repercussions from their consumers because they're already addicted and we can't stop them from selling because they've been in business for too long and there would be an outcry.\nI want to say that if cigarettes were invented today they'd very quickly be made illegal specifically because this practice is predatory. You can claim that it is entirely the fault of the user, but the user can be misled and they will be for financial gain.",
">\n\nI can disagree with you on the heroin thing. I grew up with a heroin addict, it sucks balls. Fuck that.\nEdit: I was a child/teen, it was out of my control to help the parent. Everyday was horrible because it was like they were dying (it was traumatizing too) and I was just a child. Heroin shouldn't be legal at all. Are you aware of the children in danger? It's a lot. And lots already are in danger already due to a heroin addicted parent/family member."
] |
>
All human users are only human. Saying heroin isn't the problem, humans are the problem is pointless. You can't "outthink" the addictive qualities of heroin.
Your argument seems to be a guns don't kill people, people kill people rhetoric, and shares the same fallacies. | [
"/u/derangermouse (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nThis seems to be more of a semantic pivot than anything.\nCocaine, as your example is physically and psychologically addictive and contributes to multiple serious health issues. Saying it's not the drug, or the porn but your relationship to it is like saying it's not falling off a mountain that kills you, it's hitting something on the way down. It's a useless distinction.",
">\n\nWhen that person falls off the mountain, is it the mountain’s fault? Because plenty of people blame porn for their partners use of it",
">\n\nYou replied to my comment that \"porn isn't guns\"\nWell a mountain isn't cocaine addiction, is it?",
">\n\nAccording to their analogy, they tried to make the equivalency.",
">\n\n\nPorn did not change your partner.\n\nI mean, we know at the very least that this isn’t true. We can go back and forth on the moral implications, but it has been demonstrated time and time again that porn affects both individual and societal views towards sex and sexual power dynamics.",
">\n\nThat doesn’t prove that the individual in question is changed. And it doesn’t prove that porn is inherently bad.",
">\n\nI’m not saying porn is inherently bad, I’m saying it can change people, at least sometimes, and that can be bad, at least sometimes.",
">\n\nOk, while your point did not contradict my original premise, I admit that you did contradict one of my points of argument. “!delta”",
">\n\nI guess I’m a bit confused about your view, then. Is it that porn is never bad? Or that porn may sometimes be bad but isn’t always bad? Or that, while porn may sometimes be bad, in the scheme of things there are bigger problems?\nAt various points in your OP and replies you seem to take each of those stances. Which is the view you want changed?",
">\n\nhe must be young and just moves the goalposts when he feels like it.",
">\n\nAgree with most points but the last one.\n\nPorn did not change your partner.\nYour partner is who they are,\n\nNoone is born who they are, everyone is constantly changing who they are, and being changed, especially by mass media.",
">\n\nIf mass media changes them, then that is who they are. The partner that blames media is blaming the wrong thing.",
">\n\nNo, it means that they were one thing, and now the person that they were is dead and now they are another thing, and in a year they'll be different again, because of what information and impressions they are consuming.\nI am not arguing the blame point i am arguing that it DOES change people.",
">\n\nA haircut changes someone, but a person made a choice to get the haircut.",
">\n\nI am talking about changes to their brain, to their personality, to their way of thinking. Changes about how they make decisions.\nThat's literally what brainwashing/propaganda/education/information gathering is.",
">\n\nPersonal experiences also change how you make future decisions. We still have choice.",
">\n\n\nPersonal experiences also change how you make future decisions\n\nExactly, that's my point. Everyone is changed by everything they witness. And can be changed by changing what they witness. What is yours?",
">\n\nI think we’re agreeing more than anything. I’m saying that the thing they’re witnessing isn’t inherently wrong.",
">\n\nJust because it is not a problem for everyone doesn't mean it's not a problem at all. Lots of people view porn and are fine. Some people view porn and it makes them worse in some way. You are correct that is not grounds for banning porn, but we should have a conversation about responsible use of it and how it can affect people. That means acknowledging that for at least some people, it is a problem.",
">\n\nI don’t argue any of that. But porn is not inherently wrong just because it can be abused. The partner who chooses to stay in a toxic situation caused by porn addiction doesn’t just get to blame porn",
">\n\n\nPorn did not make your partner impotent.\n\nYou sure?\nWhile non-organic sexual dysfunctions have been presumed psychological in origin, and therefore the province of mental health experts, the unexplained sexual dysfunctions now rising sharply in young men (ED, difficulty orgasming, low sexual desire) are, to the extent they are reversible by quitting Internet pornography, not arising from “performance anxiety” (that is, psychosexual dysfunction, ICD-9 code 302.7), although performance anxiety may certainly accompany them.",
">\n\nPerhaps I phrased that incorrectly. I should have said that their partner’s choice is what made them impotent. Porn itself has no designs on the partner.",
">\n\n\ntheir partner’s choice is what made them impotent.\n\nIs it? \nOnline Porn Addiction: What We Know and What We Don’t—A Systematic Review\nIs a behavioral addiction, and the subsequent effects, really the result result of an errant choice made by the partner? We are not really sure why certain people are more or less prone to addictive behaviors, so a person could be choosing to use porn in an occasional manner, and then falling victim to their own faults. I wouldn't lay the blame at the feet of the choice, but their own predilection for addiction.",
">\n\nIt’s always about choice. One of the steps of addiction recovery is taking personal responsibility for their addiction.",
">\n\nOkay, but porn addiction isn't the same as something like heroin addiction, because porn is much more normalized. Far more people use porn without problems than use hard drugs without a problem. Making the choice to view porn is not necessarily bad, so we should not blame people for it. And you can slip into addiction without realizing. We should show people more compassion and try to educate people about the potential dangers of porn.",
">\n\nSure. But porn is not the reason the person ruined their relationship. Their addiction is. They are two different things.",
">\n\nYou cannot have the addiction without porn. They are different but related. Porn is one of the causes of that addiction.",
">\n\nIf this was the work of a professional, I would hope to see a paragraph structure at the very least. The stream-of-consciousness style seems to suggest more inanity than influence.",
">\n\nPlease refrain from trying to insult. Presenting the argument as simply as possible keeps people from needlessly nitpicking parts of it without actually disproving the central argument.",
">\n\n\nPorn did not change your partner. \n\nPorn literally changes your brain.",
">\n\nSo do new experiences. So does age. So does physical trauma.",
">\n\nNot a counterpoint, you’re agreeing that things people experience change who they are.",
">\n\n\nIf you are in a relationship with someone who watches porn, that is 100% on you. \nIf you find out that your partner hid their porn habit from you, staying in that relationship is 100% on you. \nIf your partner lies about ending their habit, what you do with that information is 100% on you.\n\nHow is the hiding, lying, etc., not on the person doing it?\nYou're saying what you do with the info when you find out is on you --ok.... how is the issue not the lying, hiding, etc?\nYou're saying like 'what you do when you find out your SO is a molester is up to you, that's a problem with your relationship.'\nMaybe the person has a problem?",
">\n\n\nI believe there is nothing inherently wrong with porn just like there is nothing inherently wrong with cocaine, with weed, or with heroin. It is all dependent on the user.\n\nI think it's safe to say that we recognise that the companies that sell cigarettes are profiting from poisoning their customer base. There are no repercussions from their consumers because they're already addicted and we can't stop them from selling because they've been in business for too long and there would be an outcry.\nI want to say that if cigarettes were invented today they'd very quickly be made illegal specifically because this practice is predatory. You can claim that it is entirely the fault of the user, but the user can be misled and they will be for financial gain.",
">\n\nI can disagree with you on the heroin thing. I grew up with a heroin addict, it sucks balls. Fuck that.\nEdit: I was a child/teen, it was out of my control to help the parent. Everyday was horrible because it was like they were dying (it was traumatizing too) and I was just a child. Heroin shouldn't be legal at all. Are you aware of the children in danger? It's a lot. And lots already are in danger already due to a heroin addicted parent/family member.",
">\n\n\n.\nPorn is not the enemy. Porn is what it is. You may not agree with it, or all of it, but it is what it is, and millions of people have enjoyed it in many forms for centuries. \nPorn did not make your partner impotent.\nPorn did not make your partner not have sex with you.\nPorn did not change your partner.\n\nI kind of suspect my actual view is quite similar to yours but if it is I would argue this is poorly worded. It seems to imply that porn doesn't really have a significant effect on people which I would argue is false. However it could also be interpreted as there have to be character flaws unrelated to porn for porn to be an real problem which is something I think I would agree with in pretty much any case I can be up with. For example porn could influence people to request more extreme sex acts or someone who gets used to porn might find sex with another human exhausting. However someone who cares about their partner will not push for sex their partner doesn't want so I would argue the real problem is selfishness lack of consideration for the partner. Likewise not being interested in sex shouldn't be considered a problem whether the uninterested person is a man or woman. Yes people should be honest about it and say I'm not interested in sex rather than constantly talking it up and then backing etc out if they're not interested but nobody should be shamed for not wanting sex. The person with a higher libido should decide how important they consider sex and take that onto consideration in making a decision whether to stay or leave rather than shaming someone for not wanting sex."
] |
>
I don’t know about any of that. Porn isn’t guns. | [
"/u/derangermouse (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nThis seems to be more of a semantic pivot than anything.\nCocaine, as your example is physically and psychologically addictive and contributes to multiple serious health issues. Saying it's not the drug, or the porn but your relationship to it is like saying it's not falling off a mountain that kills you, it's hitting something on the way down. It's a useless distinction.",
">\n\nWhen that person falls off the mountain, is it the mountain’s fault? Because plenty of people blame porn for their partners use of it",
">\n\nYou replied to my comment that \"porn isn't guns\"\nWell a mountain isn't cocaine addiction, is it?",
">\n\nAccording to their analogy, they tried to make the equivalency.",
">\n\n\nPorn did not change your partner.\n\nI mean, we know at the very least that this isn’t true. We can go back and forth on the moral implications, but it has been demonstrated time and time again that porn affects both individual and societal views towards sex and sexual power dynamics.",
">\n\nThat doesn’t prove that the individual in question is changed. And it doesn’t prove that porn is inherently bad.",
">\n\nI’m not saying porn is inherently bad, I’m saying it can change people, at least sometimes, and that can be bad, at least sometimes.",
">\n\nOk, while your point did not contradict my original premise, I admit that you did contradict one of my points of argument. “!delta”",
">\n\nI guess I’m a bit confused about your view, then. Is it that porn is never bad? Or that porn may sometimes be bad but isn’t always bad? Or that, while porn may sometimes be bad, in the scheme of things there are bigger problems?\nAt various points in your OP and replies you seem to take each of those stances. Which is the view you want changed?",
">\n\nhe must be young and just moves the goalposts when he feels like it.",
">\n\nAgree with most points but the last one.\n\nPorn did not change your partner.\nYour partner is who they are,\n\nNoone is born who they are, everyone is constantly changing who they are, and being changed, especially by mass media.",
">\n\nIf mass media changes them, then that is who they are. The partner that blames media is blaming the wrong thing.",
">\n\nNo, it means that they were one thing, and now the person that they were is dead and now they are another thing, and in a year they'll be different again, because of what information and impressions they are consuming.\nI am not arguing the blame point i am arguing that it DOES change people.",
">\n\nA haircut changes someone, but a person made a choice to get the haircut.",
">\n\nI am talking about changes to their brain, to their personality, to their way of thinking. Changes about how they make decisions.\nThat's literally what brainwashing/propaganda/education/information gathering is.",
">\n\nPersonal experiences also change how you make future decisions. We still have choice.",
">\n\n\nPersonal experiences also change how you make future decisions\n\nExactly, that's my point. Everyone is changed by everything they witness. And can be changed by changing what they witness. What is yours?",
">\n\nI think we’re agreeing more than anything. I’m saying that the thing they’re witnessing isn’t inherently wrong.",
">\n\nJust because it is not a problem for everyone doesn't mean it's not a problem at all. Lots of people view porn and are fine. Some people view porn and it makes them worse in some way. You are correct that is not grounds for banning porn, but we should have a conversation about responsible use of it and how it can affect people. That means acknowledging that for at least some people, it is a problem.",
">\n\nI don’t argue any of that. But porn is not inherently wrong just because it can be abused. The partner who chooses to stay in a toxic situation caused by porn addiction doesn’t just get to blame porn",
">\n\n\nPorn did not make your partner impotent.\n\nYou sure?\nWhile non-organic sexual dysfunctions have been presumed psychological in origin, and therefore the province of mental health experts, the unexplained sexual dysfunctions now rising sharply in young men (ED, difficulty orgasming, low sexual desire) are, to the extent they are reversible by quitting Internet pornography, not arising from “performance anxiety” (that is, psychosexual dysfunction, ICD-9 code 302.7), although performance anxiety may certainly accompany them.",
">\n\nPerhaps I phrased that incorrectly. I should have said that their partner’s choice is what made them impotent. Porn itself has no designs on the partner.",
">\n\n\ntheir partner’s choice is what made them impotent.\n\nIs it? \nOnline Porn Addiction: What We Know and What We Don’t—A Systematic Review\nIs a behavioral addiction, and the subsequent effects, really the result result of an errant choice made by the partner? We are not really sure why certain people are more or less prone to addictive behaviors, so a person could be choosing to use porn in an occasional manner, and then falling victim to their own faults. I wouldn't lay the blame at the feet of the choice, but their own predilection for addiction.",
">\n\nIt’s always about choice. One of the steps of addiction recovery is taking personal responsibility for their addiction.",
">\n\nOkay, but porn addiction isn't the same as something like heroin addiction, because porn is much more normalized. Far more people use porn without problems than use hard drugs without a problem. Making the choice to view porn is not necessarily bad, so we should not blame people for it. And you can slip into addiction without realizing. We should show people more compassion and try to educate people about the potential dangers of porn.",
">\n\nSure. But porn is not the reason the person ruined their relationship. Their addiction is. They are two different things.",
">\n\nYou cannot have the addiction without porn. They are different but related. Porn is one of the causes of that addiction.",
">\n\nIf this was the work of a professional, I would hope to see a paragraph structure at the very least. The stream-of-consciousness style seems to suggest more inanity than influence.",
">\n\nPlease refrain from trying to insult. Presenting the argument as simply as possible keeps people from needlessly nitpicking parts of it without actually disproving the central argument.",
">\n\n\nPorn did not change your partner. \n\nPorn literally changes your brain.",
">\n\nSo do new experiences. So does age. So does physical trauma.",
">\n\nNot a counterpoint, you’re agreeing that things people experience change who they are.",
">\n\n\nIf you are in a relationship with someone who watches porn, that is 100% on you. \nIf you find out that your partner hid their porn habit from you, staying in that relationship is 100% on you. \nIf your partner lies about ending their habit, what you do with that information is 100% on you.\n\nHow is the hiding, lying, etc., not on the person doing it?\nYou're saying what you do with the info when you find out is on you --ok.... how is the issue not the lying, hiding, etc?\nYou're saying like 'what you do when you find out your SO is a molester is up to you, that's a problem with your relationship.'\nMaybe the person has a problem?",
">\n\n\nI believe there is nothing inherently wrong with porn just like there is nothing inherently wrong with cocaine, with weed, or with heroin. It is all dependent on the user.\n\nI think it's safe to say that we recognise that the companies that sell cigarettes are profiting from poisoning their customer base. There are no repercussions from their consumers because they're already addicted and we can't stop them from selling because they've been in business for too long and there would be an outcry.\nI want to say that if cigarettes were invented today they'd very quickly be made illegal specifically because this practice is predatory. You can claim that it is entirely the fault of the user, but the user can be misled and they will be for financial gain.",
">\n\nI can disagree with you on the heroin thing. I grew up with a heroin addict, it sucks balls. Fuck that.\nEdit: I was a child/teen, it was out of my control to help the parent. Everyday was horrible because it was like they were dying (it was traumatizing too) and I was just a child. Heroin shouldn't be legal at all. Are you aware of the children in danger? It's a lot. And lots already are in danger already due to a heroin addicted parent/family member.",
">\n\n\n.\nPorn is not the enemy. Porn is what it is. You may not agree with it, or all of it, but it is what it is, and millions of people have enjoyed it in many forms for centuries. \nPorn did not make your partner impotent.\nPorn did not make your partner not have sex with you.\nPorn did not change your partner.\n\nI kind of suspect my actual view is quite similar to yours but if it is I would argue this is poorly worded. It seems to imply that porn doesn't really have a significant effect on people which I would argue is false. However it could also be interpreted as there have to be character flaws unrelated to porn for porn to be an real problem which is something I think I would agree with in pretty much any case I can be up with. For example porn could influence people to request more extreme sex acts or someone who gets used to porn might find sex with another human exhausting. However someone who cares about their partner will not push for sex their partner doesn't want so I would argue the real problem is selfishness lack of consideration for the partner. Likewise not being interested in sex shouldn't be considered a problem whether the uninterested person is a man or woman. Yes people should be honest about it and say I'm not interested in sex rather than constantly talking it up and then backing etc out if they're not interested but nobody should be shamed for not wanting sex. The person with a higher libido should decide how important they consider sex and take that onto consideration in making a decision whether to stay or leave rather than shaming someone for not wanting sex.",
">\n\nAll human users are only human. Saying heroin isn't the problem, humans are the problem is pointless. You can't \"outthink\" the addictive qualities of heroin.\nYour argument seems to be a guns don't kill people, people kill people rhetoric, and shares the same fallacies."
] |
>
You don't know that humans are human? | [
"/u/derangermouse (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nThis seems to be more of a semantic pivot than anything.\nCocaine, as your example is physically and psychologically addictive and contributes to multiple serious health issues. Saying it's not the drug, or the porn but your relationship to it is like saying it's not falling off a mountain that kills you, it's hitting something on the way down. It's a useless distinction.",
">\n\nWhen that person falls off the mountain, is it the mountain’s fault? Because plenty of people blame porn for their partners use of it",
">\n\nYou replied to my comment that \"porn isn't guns\"\nWell a mountain isn't cocaine addiction, is it?",
">\n\nAccording to their analogy, they tried to make the equivalency.",
">\n\n\nPorn did not change your partner.\n\nI mean, we know at the very least that this isn’t true. We can go back and forth on the moral implications, but it has been demonstrated time and time again that porn affects both individual and societal views towards sex and sexual power dynamics.",
">\n\nThat doesn’t prove that the individual in question is changed. And it doesn’t prove that porn is inherently bad.",
">\n\nI’m not saying porn is inherently bad, I’m saying it can change people, at least sometimes, and that can be bad, at least sometimes.",
">\n\nOk, while your point did not contradict my original premise, I admit that you did contradict one of my points of argument. “!delta”",
">\n\nI guess I’m a bit confused about your view, then. Is it that porn is never bad? Or that porn may sometimes be bad but isn’t always bad? Or that, while porn may sometimes be bad, in the scheme of things there are bigger problems?\nAt various points in your OP and replies you seem to take each of those stances. Which is the view you want changed?",
">\n\nhe must be young and just moves the goalposts when he feels like it.",
">\n\nAgree with most points but the last one.\n\nPorn did not change your partner.\nYour partner is who they are,\n\nNoone is born who they are, everyone is constantly changing who they are, and being changed, especially by mass media.",
">\n\nIf mass media changes them, then that is who they are. The partner that blames media is blaming the wrong thing.",
">\n\nNo, it means that they were one thing, and now the person that they were is dead and now they are another thing, and in a year they'll be different again, because of what information and impressions they are consuming.\nI am not arguing the blame point i am arguing that it DOES change people.",
">\n\nA haircut changes someone, but a person made a choice to get the haircut.",
">\n\nI am talking about changes to their brain, to their personality, to their way of thinking. Changes about how they make decisions.\nThat's literally what brainwashing/propaganda/education/information gathering is.",
">\n\nPersonal experiences also change how you make future decisions. We still have choice.",
">\n\n\nPersonal experiences also change how you make future decisions\n\nExactly, that's my point. Everyone is changed by everything they witness. And can be changed by changing what they witness. What is yours?",
">\n\nI think we’re agreeing more than anything. I’m saying that the thing they’re witnessing isn’t inherently wrong.",
">\n\nJust because it is not a problem for everyone doesn't mean it's not a problem at all. Lots of people view porn and are fine. Some people view porn and it makes them worse in some way. You are correct that is not grounds for banning porn, but we should have a conversation about responsible use of it and how it can affect people. That means acknowledging that for at least some people, it is a problem.",
">\n\nI don’t argue any of that. But porn is not inherently wrong just because it can be abused. The partner who chooses to stay in a toxic situation caused by porn addiction doesn’t just get to blame porn",
">\n\n\nPorn did not make your partner impotent.\n\nYou sure?\nWhile non-organic sexual dysfunctions have been presumed psychological in origin, and therefore the province of mental health experts, the unexplained sexual dysfunctions now rising sharply in young men (ED, difficulty orgasming, low sexual desire) are, to the extent they are reversible by quitting Internet pornography, not arising from “performance anxiety” (that is, psychosexual dysfunction, ICD-9 code 302.7), although performance anxiety may certainly accompany them.",
">\n\nPerhaps I phrased that incorrectly. I should have said that their partner’s choice is what made them impotent. Porn itself has no designs on the partner.",
">\n\n\ntheir partner’s choice is what made them impotent.\n\nIs it? \nOnline Porn Addiction: What We Know and What We Don’t—A Systematic Review\nIs a behavioral addiction, and the subsequent effects, really the result result of an errant choice made by the partner? We are not really sure why certain people are more or less prone to addictive behaviors, so a person could be choosing to use porn in an occasional manner, and then falling victim to their own faults. I wouldn't lay the blame at the feet of the choice, but their own predilection for addiction.",
">\n\nIt’s always about choice. One of the steps of addiction recovery is taking personal responsibility for their addiction.",
">\n\nOkay, but porn addiction isn't the same as something like heroin addiction, because porn is much more normalized. Far more people use porn without problems than use hard drugs without a problem. Making the choice to view porn is not necessarily bad, so we should not blame people for it. And you can slip into addiction without realizing. We should show people more compassion and try to educate people about the potential dangers of porn.",
">\n\nSure. But porn is not the reason the person ruined their relationship. Their addiction is. They are two different things.",
">\n\nYou cannot have the addiction without porn. They are different but related. Porn is one of the causes of that addiction.",
">\n\nIf this was the work of a professional, I would hope to see a paragraph structure at the very least. The stream-of-consciousness style seems to suggest more inanity than influence.",
">\n\nPlease refrain from trying to insult. Presenting the argument as simply as possible keeps people from needlessly nitpicking parts of it without actually disproving the central argument.",
">\n\n\nPorn did not change your partner. \n\nPorn literally changes your brain.",
">\n\nSo do new experiences. So does age. So does physical trauma.",
">\n\nNot a counterpoint, you’re agreeing that things people experience change who they are.",
">\n\n\nIf you are in a relationship with someone who watches porn, that is 100% on you. \nIf you find out that your partner hid their porn habit from you, staying in that relationship is 100% on you. \nIf your partner lies about ending their habit, what you do with that information is 100% on you.\n\nHow is the hiding, lying, etc., not on the person doing it?\nYou're saying what you do with the info when you find out is on you --ok.... how is the issue not the lying, hiding, etc?\nYou're saying like 'what you do when you find out your SO is a molester is up to you, that's a problem with your relationship.'\nMaybe the person has a problem?",
">\n\n\nI believe there is nothing inherently wrong with porn just like there is nothing inherently wrong with cocaine, with weed, or with heroin. It is all dependent on the user.\n\nI think it's safe to say that we recognise that the companies that sell cigarettes are profiting from poisoning their customer base. There are no repercussions from their consumers because they're already addicted and we can't stop them from selling because they've been in business for too long and there would be an outcry.\nI want to say that if cigarettes were invented today they'd very quickly be made illegal specifically because this practice is predatory. You can claim that it is entirely the fault of the user, but the user can be misled and they will be for financial gain.",
">\n\nI can disagree with you on the heroin thing. I grew up with a heroin addict, it sucks balls. Fuck that.\nEdit: I was a child/teen, it was out of my control to help the parent. Everyday was horrible because it was like they were dying (it was traumatizing too) and I was just a child. Heroin shouldn't be legal at all. Are you aware of the children in danger? It's a lot. And lots already are in danger already due to a heroin addicted parent/family member.",
">\n\n\n.\nPorn is not the enemy. Porn is what it is. You may not agree with it, or all of it, but it is what it is, and millions of people have enjoyed it in many forms for centuries. \nPorn did not make your partner impotent.\nPorn did not make your partner not have sex with you.\nPorn did not change your partner.\n\nI kind of suspect my actual view is quite similar to yours but if it is I would argue this is poorly worded. It seems to imply that porn doesn't really have a significant effect on people which I would argue is false. However it could also be interpreted as there have to be character flaws unrelated to porn for porn to be an real problem which is something I think I would agree with in pretty much any case I can be up with. For example porn could influence people to request more extreme sex acts or someone who gets used to porn might find sex with another human exhausting. However someone who cares about their partner will not push for sex their partner doesn't want so I would argue the real problem is selfishness lack of consideration for the partner. Likewise not being interested in sex shouldn't be considered a problem whether the uninterested person is a man or woman. Yes people should be honest about it and say I'm not interested in sex rather than constantly talking it up and then backing etc out if they're not interested but nobody should be shamed for not wanting sex. The person with a higher libido should decide how important they consider sex and take that onto consideration in making a decision whether to stay or leave rather than shaming someone for not wanting sex.",
">\n\nAll human users are only human. Saying heroin isn't the problem, humans are the problem is pointless. You can't \"outthink\" the addictive qualities of heroin.\nYour argument seems to be a guns don't kill people, people kill people rhetoric, and shares the same fallacies.",
">\n\nI don’t know about any of that. Porn isn’t guns."
] |
>
I apologize. I will elaborate: Porn is not guns. Humans abusing porn is not the same as humans abusing guns. | [
"/u/derangermouse (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nThis seems to be more of a semantic pivot than anything.\nCocaine, as your example is physically and psychologically addictive and contributes to multiple serious health issues. Saying it's not the drug, or the porn but your relationship to it is like saying it's not falling off a mountain that kills you, it's hitting something on the way down. It's a useless distinction.",
">\n\nWhen that person falls off the mountain, is it the mountain’s fault? Because plenty of people blame porn for their partners use of it",
">\n\nYou replied to my comment that \"porn isn't guns\"\nWell a mountain isn't cocaine addiction, is it?",
">\n\nAccording to their analogy, they tried to make the equivalency.",
">\n\n\nPorn did not change your partner.\n\nI mean, we know at the very least that this isn’t true. We can go back and forth on the moral implications, but it has been demonstrated time and time again that porn affects both individual and societal views towards sex and sexual power dynamics.",
">\n\nThat doesn’t prove that the individual in question is changed. And it doesn’t prove that porn is inherently bad.",
">\n\nI’m not saying porn is inherently bad, I’m saying it can change people, at least sometimes, and that can be bad, at least sometimes.",
">\n\nOk, while your point did not contradict my original premise, I admit that you did contradict one of my points of argument. “!delta”",
">\n\nI guess I’m a bit confused about your view, then. Is it that porn is never bad? Or that porn may sometimes be bad but isn’t always bad? Or that, while porn may sometimes be bad, in the scheme of things there are bigger problems?\nAt various points in your OP and replies you seem to take each of those stances. Which is the view you want changed?",
">\n\nhe must be young and just moves the goalposts when he feels like it.",
">\n\nAgree with most points but the last one.\n\nPorn did not change your partner.\nYour partner is who they are,\n\nNoone is born who they are, everyone is constantly changing who they are, and being changed, especially by mass media.",
">\n\nIf mass media changes them, then that is who they are. The partner that blames media is blaming the wrong thing.",
">\n\nNo, it means that they were one thing, and now the person that they were is dead and now they are another thing, and in a year they'll be different again, because of what information and impressions they are consuming.\nI am not arguing the blame point i am arguing that it DOES change people.",
">\n\nA haircut changes someone, but a person made a choice to get the haircut.",
">\n\nI am talking about changes to their brain, to their personality, to their way of thinking. Changes about how they make decisions.\nThat's literally what brainwashing/propaganda/education/information gathering is.",
">\n\nPersonal experiences also change how you make future decisions. We still have choice.",
">\n\n\nPersonal experiences also change how you make future decisions\n\nExactly, that's my point. Everyone is changed by everything they witness. And can be changed by changing what they witness. What is yours?",
">\n\nI think we’re agreeing more than anything. I’m saying that the thing they’re witnessing isn’t inherently wrong.",
">\n\nJust because it is not a problem for everyone doesn't mean it's not a problem at all. Lots of people view porn and are fine. Some people view porn and it makes them worse in some way. You are correct that is not grounds for banning porn, but we should have a conversation about responsible use of it and how it can affect people. That means acknowledging that for at least some people, it is a problem.",
">\n\nI don’t argue any of that. But porn is not inherently wrong just because it can be abused. The partner who chooses to stay in a toxic situation caused by porn addiction doesn’t just get to blame porn",
">\n\n\nPorn did not make your partner impotent.\n\nYou sure?\nWhile non-organic sexual dysfunctions have been presumed psychological in origin, and therefore the province of mental health experts, the unexplained sexual dysfunctions now rising sharply in young men (ED, difficulty orgasming, low sexual desire) are, to the extent they are reversible by quitting Internet pornography, not arising from “performance anxiety” (that is, psychosexual dysfunction, ICD-9 code 302.7), although performance anxiety may certainly accompany them.",
">\n\nPerhaps I phrased that incorrectly. I should have said that their partner’s choice is what made them impotent. Porn itself has no designs on the partner.",
">\n\n\ntheir partner’s choice is what made them impotent.\n\nIs it? \nOnline Porn Addiction: What We Know and What We Don’t—A Systematic Review\nIs a behavioral addiction, and the subsequent effects, really the result result of an errant choice made by the partner? We are not really sure why certain people are more or less prone to addictive behaviors, so a person could be choosing to use porn in an occasional manner, and then falling victim to their own faults. I wouldn't lay the blame at the feet of the choice, but their own predilection for addiction.",
">\n\nIt’s always about choice. One of the steps of addiction recovery is taking personal responsibility for their addiction.",
">\n\nOkay, but porn addiction isn't the same as something like heroin addiction, because porn is much more normalized. Far more people use porn without problems than use hard drugs without a problem. Making the choice to view porn is not necessarily bad, so we should not blame people for it. And you can slip into addiction without realizing. We should show people more compassion and try to educate people about the potential dangers of porn.",
">\n\nSure. But porn is not the reason the person ruined their relationship. Their addiction is. They are two different things.",
">\n\nYou cannot have the addiction without porn. They are different but related. Porn is one of the causes of that addiction.",
">\n\nIf this was the work of a professional, I would hope to see a paragraph structure at the very least. The stream-of-consciousness style seems to suggest more inanity than influence.",
">\n\nPlease refrain from trying to insult. Presenting the argument as simply as possible keeps people from needlessly nitpicking parts of it without actually disproving the central argument.",
">\n\n\nPorn did not change your partner. \n\nPorn literally changes your brain.",
">\n\nSo do new experiences. So does age. So does physical trauma.",
">\n\nNot a counterpoint, you’re agreeing that things people experience change who they are.",
">\n\n\nIf you are in a relationship with someone who watches porn, that is 100% on you. \nIf you find out that your partner hid their porn habit from you, staying in that relationship is 100% on you. \nIf your partner lies about ending their habit, what you do with that information is 100% on you.\n\nHow is the hiding, lying, etc., not on the person doing it?\nYou're saying what you do with the info when you find out is on you --ok.... how is the issue not the lying, hiding, etc?\nYou're saying like 'what you do when you find out your SO is a molester is up to you, that's a problem with your relationship.'\nMaybe the person has a problem?",
">\n\n\nI believe there is nothing inherently wrong with porn just like there is nothing inherently wrong with cocaine, with weed, or with heroin. It is all dependent on the user.\n\nI think it's safe to say that we recognise that the companies that sell cigarettes are profiting from poisoning their customer base. There are no repercussions from their consumers because they're already addicted and we can't stop them from selling because they've been in business for too long and there would be an outcry.\nI want to say that if cigarettes were invented today they'd very quickly be made illegal specifically because this practice is predatory. You can claim that it is entirely the fault of the user, but the user can be misled and they will be for financial gain.",
">\n\nI can disagree with you on the heroin thing. I grew up with a heroin addict, it sucks balls. Fuck that.\nEdit: I was a child/teen, it was out of my control to help the parent. Everyday was horrible because it was like they were dying (it was traumatizing too) and I was just a child. Heroin shouldn't be legal at all. Are you aware of the children in danger? It's a lot. And lots already are in danger already due to a heroin addicted parent/family member.",
">\n\n\n.\nPorn is not the enemy. Porn is what it is. You may not agree with it, or all of it, but it is what it is, and millions of people have enjoyed it in many forms for centuries. \nPorn did not make your partner impotent.\nPorn did not make your partner not have sex with you.\nPorn did not change your partner.\n\nI kind of suspect my actual view is quite similar to yours but if it is I would argue this is poorly worded. It seems to imply that porn doesn't really have a significant effect on people which I would argue is false. However it could also be interpreted as there have to be character flaws unrelated to porn for porn to be an real problem which is something I think I would agree with in pretty much any case I can be up with. For example porn could influence people to request more extreme sex acts or someone who gets used to porn might find sex with another human exhausting. However someone who cares about their partner will not push for sex their partner doesn't want so I would argue the real problem is selfishness lack of consideration for the partner. Likewise not being interested in sex shouldn't be considered a problem whether the uninterested person is a man or woman. Yes people should be honest about it and say I'm not interested in sex rather than constantly talking it up and then backing etc out if they're not interested but nobody should be shamed for not wanting sex. The person with a higher libido should decide how important they consider sex and take that onto consideration in making a decision whether to stay or leave rather than shaming someone for not wanting sex.",
">\n\nAll human users are only human. Saying heroin isn't the problem, humans are the problem is pointless. You can't \"outthink\" the addictive qualities of heroin.\nYour argument seems to be a guns don't kill people, people kill people rhetoric, and shares the same fallacies.",
">\n\nI don’t know about any of that. Porn isn’t guns.",
">\n\nYou don't know that humans are human?"
] |
>
Okay? “Porn isn’t as bad as guns” is a very different view from “porn can never be a problem.” | [
"/u/derangermouse (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nThis seems to be more of a semantic pivot than anything.\nCocaine, as your example is physically and psychologically addictive and contributes to multiple serious health issues. Saying it's not the drug, or the porn but your relationship to it is like saying it's not falling off a mountain that kills you, it's hitting something on the way down. It's a useless distinction.",
">\n\nWhen that person falls off the mountain, is it the mountain’s fault? Because plenty of people blame porn for their partners use of it",
">\n\nYou replied to my comment that \"porn isn't guns\"\nWell a mountain isn't cocaine addiction, is it?",
">\n\nAccording to their analogy, they tried to make the equivalency.",
">\n\n\nPorn did not change your partner.\n\nI mean, we know at the very least that this isn’t true. We can go back and forth on the moral implications, but it has been demonstrated time and time again that porn affects both individual and societal views towards sex and sexual power dynamics.",
">\n\nThat doesn’t prove that the individual in question is changed. And it doesn’t prove that porn is inherently bad.",
">\n\nI’m not saying porn is inherently bad, I’m saying it can change people, at least sometimes, and that can be bad, at least sometimes.",
">\n\nOk, while your point did not contradict my original premise, I admit that you did contradict one of my points of argument. “!delta”",
">\n\nI guess I’m a bit confused about your view, then. Is it that porn is never bad? Or that porn may sometimes be bad but isn’t always bad? Or that, while porn may sometimes be bad, in the scheme of things there are bigger problems?\nAt various points in your OP and replies you seem to take each of those stances. Which is the view you want changed?",
">\n\nhe must be young and just moves the goalposts when he feels like it.",
">\n\nAgree with most points but the last one.\n\nPorn did not change your partner.\nYour partner is who they are,\n\nNoone is born who they are, everyone is constantly changing who they are, and being changed, especially by mass media.",
">\n\nIf mass media changes them, then that is who they are. The partner that blames media is blaming the wrong thing.",
">\n\nNo, it means that they were one thing, and now the person that they were is dead and now they are another thing, and in a year they'll be different again, because of what information and impressions they are consuming.\nI am not arguing the blame point i am arguing that it DOES change people.",
">\n\nA haircut changes someone, but a person made a choice to get the haircut.",
">\n\nI am talking about changes to their brain, to their personality, to their way of thinking. Changes about how they make decisions.\nThat's literally what brainwashing/propaganda/education/information gathering is.",
">\n\nPersonal experiences also change how you make future decisions. We still have choice.",
">\n\n\nPersonal experiences also change how you make future decisions\n\nExactly, that's my point. Everyone is changed by everything they witness. And can be changed by changing what they witness. What is yours?",
">\n\nI think we’re agreeing more than anything. I’m saying that the thing they’re witnessing isn’t inherently wrong.",
">\n\nJust because it is not a problem for everyone doesn't mean it's not a problem at all. Lots of people view porn and are fine. Some people view porn and it makes them worse in some way. You are correct that is not grounds for banning porn, but we should have a conversation about responsible use of it and how it can affect people. That means acknowledging that for at least some people, it is a problem.",
">\n\nI don’t argue any of that. But porn is not inherently wrong just because it can be abused. The partner who chooses to stay in a toxic situation caused by porn addiction doesn’t just get to blame porn",
">\n\n\nPorn did not make your partner impotent.\n\nYou sure?\nWhile non-organic sexual dysfunctions have been presumed psychological in origin, and therefore the province of mental health experts, the unexplained sexual dysfunctions now rising sharply in young men (ED, difficulty orgasming, low sexual desire) are, to the extent they are reversible by quitting Internet pornography, not arising from “performance anxiety” (that is, psychosexual dysfunction, ICD-9 code 302.7), although performance anxiety may certainly accompany them.",
">\n\nPerhaps I phrased that incorrectly. I should have said that their partner’s choice is what made them impotent. Porn itself has no designs on the partner.",
">\n\n\ntheir partner’s choice is what made them impotent.\n\nIs it? \nOnline Porn Addiction: What We Know and What We Don’t—A Systematic Review\nIs a behavioral addiction, and the subsequent effects, really the result result of an errant choice made by the partner? We are not really sure why certain people are more or less prone to addictive behaviors, so a person could be choosing to use porn in an occasional manner, and then falling victim to their own faults. I wouldn't lay the blame at the feet of the choice, but their own predilection for addiction.",
">\n\nIt’s always about choice. One of the steps of addiction recovery is taking personal responsibility for their addiction.",
">\n\nOkay, but porn addiction isn't the same as something like heroin addiction, because porn is much more normalized. Far more people use porn without problems than use hard drugs without a problem. Making the choice to view porn is not necessarily bad, so we should not blame people for it. And you can slip into addiction without realizing. We should show people more compassion and try to educate people about the potential dangers of porn.",
">\n\nSure. But porn is not the reason the person ruined their relationship. Their addiction is. They are two different things.",
">\n\nYou cannot have the addiction without porn. They are different but related. Porn is one of the causes of that addiction.",
">\n\nIf this was the work of a professional, I would hope to see a paragraph structure at the very least. The stream-of-consciousness style seems to suggest more inanity than influence.",
">\n\nPlease refrain from trying to insult. Presenting the argument as simply as possible keeps people from needlessly nitpicking parts of it without actually disproving the central argument.",
">\n\n\nPorn did not change your partner. \n\nPorn literally changes your brain.",
">\n\nSo do new experiences. So does age. So does physical trauma.",
">\n\nNot a counterpoint, you’re agreeing that things people experience change who they are.",
">\n\n\nIf you are in a relationship with someone who watches porn, that is 100% on you. \nIf you find out that your partner hid their porn habit from you, staying in that relationship is 100% on you. \nIf your partner lies about ending their habit, what you do with that information is 100% on you.\n\nHow is the hiding, lying, etc., not on the person doing it?\nYou're saying what you do with the info when you find out is on you --ok.... how is the issue not the lying, hiding, etc?\nYou're saying like 'what you do when you find out your SO is a molester is up to you, that's a problem with your relationship.'\nMaybe the person has a problem?",
">\n\n\nI believe there is nothing inherently wrong with porn just like there is nothing inherently wrong with cocaine, with weed, or with heroin. It is all dependent on the user.\n\nI think it's safe to say that we recognise that the companies that sell cigarettes are profiting from poisoning their customer base. There are no repercussions from their consumers because they're already addicted and we can't stop them from selling because they've been in business for too long and there would be an outcry.\nI want to say that if cigarettes were invented today they'd very quickly be made illegal specifically because this practice is predatory. You can claim that it is entirely the fault of the user, but the user can be misled and they will be for financial gain.",
">\n\nI can disagree with you on the heroin thing. I grew up with a heroin addict, it sucks balls. Fuck that.\nEdit: I was a child/teen, it was out of my control to help the parent. Everyday was horrible because it was like they were dying (it was traumatizing too) and I was just a child. Heroin shouldn't be legal at all. Are you aware of the children in danger? It's a lot. And lots already are in danger already due to a heroin addicted parent/family member.",
">\n\n\n.\nPorn is not the enemy. Porn is what it is. You may not agree with it, or all of it, but it is what it is, and millions of people have enjoyed it in many forms for centuries. \nPorn did not make your partner impotent.\nPorn did not make your partner not have sex with you.\nPorn did not change your partner.\n\nI kind of suspect my actual view is quite similar to yours but if it is I would argue this is poorly worded. It seems to imply that porn doesn't really have a significant effect on people which I would argue is false. However it could also be interpreted as there have to be character flaws unrelated to porn for porn to be an real problem which is something I think I would agree with in pretty much any case I can be up with. For example porn could influence people to request more extreme sex acts or someone who gets used to porn might find sex with another human exhausting. However someone who cares about their partner will not push for sex their partner doesn't want so I would argue the real problem is selfishness lack of consideration for the partner. Likewise not being interested in sex shouldn't be considered a problem whether the uninterested person is a man or woman. Yes people should be honest about it and say I'm not interested in sex rather than constantly talking it up and then backing etc out if they're not interested but nobody should be shamed for not wanting sex. The person with a higher libido should decide how important they consider sex and take that onto consideration in making a decision whether to stay or leave rather than shaming someone for not wanting sex.",
">\n\nAll human users are only human. Saying heroin isn't the problem, humans are the problem is pointless. You can't \"outthink\" the addictive qualities of heroin.\nYour argument seems to be a guns don't kill people, people kill people rhetoric, and shares the same fallacies.",
">\n\nI don’t know about any of that. Porn isn’t guns.",
">\n\nYou don't know that humans are human?",
">\n\nI apologize. I will elaborate: Porn is not guns. Humans abusing porn is not the same as humans abusing guns."
] |
>
But we’re tangling two separate lines of reasoning together. Abusing porn does not have the same collateral damage as abusing guns. On a SEPARATE AND COMPLETELY UNRELATED POINT, porn itself did not ruin a relationship | [
"/u/derangermouse (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nThis seems to be more of a semantic pivot than anything.\nCocaine, as your example is physically and psychologically addictive and contributes to multiple serious health issues. Saying it's not the drug, or the porn but your relationship to it is like saying it's not falling off a mountain that kills you, it's hitting something on the way down. It's a useless distinction.",
">\n\nWhen that person falls off the mountain, is it the mountain’s fault? Because plenty of people blame porn for their partners use of it",
">\n\nYou replied to my comment that \"porn isn't guns\"\nWell a mountain isn't cocaine addiction, is it?",
">\n\nAccording to their analogy, they tried to make the equivalency.",
">\n\n\nPorn did not change your partner.\n\nI mean, we know at the very least that this isn’t true. We can go back and forth on the moral implications, but it has been demonstrated time and time again that porn affects both individual and societal views towards sex and sexual power dynamics.",
">\n\nThat doesn’t prove that the individual in question is changed. And it doesn’t prove that porn is inherently bad.",
">\n\nI’m not saying porn is inherently bad, I’m saying it can change people, at least sometimes, and that can be bad, at least sometimes.",
">\n\nOk, while your point did not contradict my original premise, I admit that you did contradict one of my points of argument. “!delta”",
">\n\nI guess I’m a bit confused about your view, then. Is it that porn is never bad? Or that porn may sometimes be bad but isn’t always bad? Or that, while porn may sometimes be bad, in the scheme of things there are bigger problems?\nAt various points in your OP and replies you seem to take each of those stances. Which is the view you want changed?",
">\n\nhe must be young and just moves the goalposts when he feels like it.",
">\n\nAgree with most points but the last one.\n\nPorn did not change your partner.\nYour partner is who they are,\n\nNoone is born who they are, everyone is constantly changing who they are, and being changed, especially by mass media.",
">\n\nIf mass media changes them, then that is who they are. The partner that blames media is blaming the wrong thing.",
">\n\nNo, it means that they were one thing, and now the person that they were is dead and now they are another thing, and in a year they'll be different again, because of what information and impressions they are consuming.\nI am not arguing the blame point i am arguing that it DOES change people.",
">\n\nA haircut changes someone, but a person made a choice to get the haircut.",
">\n\nI am talking about changes to their brain, to their personality, to their way of thinking. Changes about how they make decisions.\nThat's literally what brainwashing/propaganda/education/information gathering is.",
">\n\nPersonal experiences also change how you make future decisions. We still have choice.",
">\n\n\nPersonal experiences also change how you make future decisions\n\nExactly, that's my point. Everyone is changed by everything they witness. And can be changed by changing what they witness. What is yours?",
">\n\nI think we’re agreeing more than anything. I’m saying that the thing they’re witnessing isn’t inherently wrong.",
">\n\nJust because it is not a problem for everyone doesn't mean it's not a problem at all. Lots of people view porn and are fine. Some people view porn and it makes them worse in some way. You are correct that is not grounds for banning porn, but we should have a conversation about responsible use of it and how it can affect people. That means acknowledging that for at least some people, it is a problem.",
">\n\nI don’t argue any of that. But porn is not inherently wrong just because it can be abused. The partner who chooses to stay in a toxic situation caused by porn addiction doesn’t just get to blame porn",
">\n\n\nPorn did not make your partner impotent.\n\nYou sure?\nWhile non-organic sexual dysfunctions have been presumed psychological in origin, and therefore the province of mental health experts, the unexplained sexual dysfunctions now rising sharply in young men (ED, difficulty orgasming, low sexual desire) are, to the extent they are reversible by quitting Internet pornography, not arising from “performance anxiety” (that is, psychosexual dysfunction, ICD-9 code 302.7), although performance anxiety may certainly accompany them.",
">\n\nPerhaps I phrased that incorrectly. I should have said that their partner’s choice is what made them impotent. Porn itself has no designs on the partner.",
">\n\n\ntheir partner’s choice is what made them impotent.\n\nIs it? \nOnline Porn Addiction: What We Know and What We Don’t—A Systematic Review\nIs a behavioral addiction, and the subsequent effects, really the result result of an errant choice made by the partner? We are not really sure why certain people are more or less prone to addictive behaviors, so a person could be choosing to use porn in an occasional manner, and then falling victim to their own faults. I wouldn't lay the blame at the feet of the choice, but their own predilection for addiction.",
">\n\nIt’s always about choice. One of the steps of addiction recovery is taking personal responsibility for their addiction.",
">\n\nOkay, but porn addiction isn't the same as something like heroin addiction, because porn is much more normalized. Far more people use porn without problems than use hard drugs without a problem. Making the choice to view porn is not necessarily bad, so we should not blame people for it. And you can slip into addiction without realizing. We should show people more compassion and try to educate people about the potential dangers of porn.",
">\n\nSure. But porn is not the reason the person ruined their relationship. Their addiction is. They are two different things.",
">\n\nYou cannot have the addiction without porn. They are different but related. Porn is one of the causes of that addiction.",
">\n\nIf this was the work of a professional, I would hope to see a paragraph structure at the very least. The stream-of-consciousness style seems to suggest more inanity than influence.",
">\n\nPlease refrain from trying to insult. Presenting the argument as simply as possible keeps people from needlessly nitpicking parts of it without actually disproving the central argument.",
">\n\n\nPorn did not change your partner. \n\nPorn literally changes your brain.",
">\n\nSo do new experiences. So does age. So does physical trauma.",
">\n\nNot a counterpoint, you’re agreeing that things people experience change who they are.",
">\n\n\nIf you are in a relationship with someone who watches porn, that is 100% on you. \nIf you find out that your partner hid their porn habit from you, staying in that relationship is 100% on you. \nIf your partner lies about ending their habit, what you do with that information is 100% on you.\n\nHow is the hiding, lying, etc., not on the person doing it?\nYou're saying what you do with the info when you find out is on you --ok.... how is the issue not the lying, hiding, etc?\nYou're saying like 'what you do when you find out your SO is a molester is up to you, that's a problem with your relationship.'\nMaybe the person has a problem?",
">\n\n\nI believe there is nothing inherently wrong with porn just like there is nothing inherently wrong with cocaine, with weed, or with heroin. It is all dependent on the user.\n\nI think it's safe to say that we recognise that the companies that sell cigarettes are profiting from poisoning their customer base. There are no repercussions from their consumers because they're already addicted and we can't stop them from selling because they've been in business for too long and there would be an outcry.\nI want to say that if cigarettes were invented today they'd very quickly be made illegal specifically because this practice is predatory. You can claim that it is entirely the fault of the user, but the user can be misled and they will be for financial gain.",
">\n\nI can disagree with you on the heroin thing. I grew up with a heroin addict, it sucks balls. Fuck that.\nEdit: I was a child/teen, it was out of my control to help the parent. Everyday was horrible because it was like they were dying (it was traumatizing too) and I was just a child. Heroin shouldn't be legal at all. Are you aware of the children in danger? It's a lot. And lots already are in danger already due to a heroin addicted parent/family member.",
">\n\n\n.\nPorn is not the enemy. Porn is what it is. You may not agree with it, or all of it, but it is what it is, and millions of people have enjoyed it in many forms for centuries. \nPorn did not make your partner impotent.\nPorn did not make your partner not have sex with you.\nPorn did not change your partner.\n\nI kind of suspect my actual view is quite similar to yours but if it is I would argue this is poorly worded. It seems to imply that porn doesn't really have a significant effect on people which I would argue is false. However it could also be interpreted as there have to be character flaws unrelated to porn for porn to be an real problem which is something I think I would agree with in pretty much any case I can be up with. For example porn could influence people to request more extreme sex acts or someone who gets used to porn might find sex with another human exhausting. However someone who cares about their partner will not push for sex their partner doesn't want so I would argue the real problem is selfishness lack of consideration for the partner. Likewise not being interested in sex shouldn't be considered a problem whether the uninterested person is a man or woman. Yes people should be honest about it and say I'm not interested in sex rather than constantly talking it up and then backing etc out if they're not interested but nobody should be shamed for not wanting sex. The person with a higher libido should decide how important they consider sex and take that onto consideration in making a decision whether to stay or leave rather than shaming someone for not wanting sex.",
">\n\nAll human users are only human. Saying heroin isn't the problem, humans are the problem is pointless. You can't \"outthink\" the addictive qualities of heroin.\nYour argument seems to be a guns don't kill people, people kill people rhetoric, and shares the same fallacies.",
">\n\nI don’t know about any of that. Porn isn’t guns.",
">\n\nYou don't know that humans are human?",
">\n\nI apologize. I will elaborate: Porn is not guns. Humans abusing porn is not the same as humans abusing guns.",
">\n\nOkay? “Porn isn’t as bad as guns” is a very different view from “porn can never be a problem.”"
] |
>
If you are in a relationship with someone who watches porn, that is 100% on you.
If you find out that your partner hid their porn habit from you, staying in that relationship is 100% on you.
If your partner lies about ending their habit, what you do with that information is 100% on you.
Could you please clarify how you are responsible for your partners addiction? Wouldn't the partner be responsible for their own addiction? | [
"/u/derangermouse (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nThis seems to be more of a semantic pivot than anything.\nCocaine, as your example is physically and psychologically addictive and contributes to multiple serious health issues. Saying it's not the drug, or the porn but your relationship to it is like saying it's not falling off a mountain that kills you, it's hitting something on the way down. It's a useless distinction.",
">\n\nWhen that person falls off the mountain, is it the mountain’s fault? Because plenty of people blame porn for their partners use of it",
">\n\nYou replied to my comment that \"porn isn't guns\"\nWell a mountain isn't cocaine addiction, is it?",
">\n\nAccording to their analogy, they tried to make the equivalency.",
">\n\n\nPorn did not change your partner.\n\nI mean, we know at the very least that this isn’t true. We can go back and forth on the moral implications, but it has been demonstrated time and time again that porn affects both individual and societal views towards sex and sexual power dynamics.",
">\n\nThat doesn’t prove that the individual in question is changed. And it doesn’t prove that porn is inherently bad.",
">\n\nI’m not saying porn is inherently bad, I’m saying it can change people, at least sometimes, and that can be bad, at least sometimes.",
">\n\nOk, while your point did not contradict my original premise, I admit that you did contradict one of my points of argument. “!delta”",
">\n\nI guess I’m a bit confused about your view, then. Is it that porn is never bad? Or that porn may sometimes be bad but isn’t always bad? Or that, while porn may sometimes be bad, in the scheme of things there are bigger problems?\nAt various points in your OP and replies you seem to take each of those stances. Which is the view you want changed?",
">\n\nhe must be young and just moves the goalposts when he feels like it.",
">\n\nAgree with most points but the last one.\n\nPorn did not change your partner.\nYour partner is who they are,\n\nNoone is born who they are, everyone is constantly changing who they are, and being changed, especially by mass media.",
">\n\nIf mass media changes them, then that is who they are. The partner that blames media is blaming the wrong thing.",
">\n\nNo, it means that they were one thing, and now the person that they were is dead and now they are another thing, and in a year they'll be different again, because of what information and impressions they are consuming.\nI am not arguing the blame point i am arguing that it DOES change people.",
">\n\nA haircut changes someone, but a person made a choice to get the haircut.",
">\n\nI am talking about changes to their brain, to their personality, to their way of thinking. Changes about how they make decisions.\nThat's literally what brainwashing/propaganda/education/information gathering is.",
">\n\nPersonal experiences also change how you make future decisions. We still have choice.",
">\n\n\nPersonal experiences also change how you make future decisions\n\nExactly, that's my point. Everyone is changed by everything they witness. And can be changed by changing what they witness. What is yours?",
">\n\nI think we’re agreeing more than anything. I’m saying that the thing they’re witnessing isn’t inherently wrong.",
">\n\nJust because it is not a problem for everyone doesn't mean it's not a problem at all. Lots of people view porn and are fine. Some people view porn and it makes them worse in some way. You are correct that is not grounds for banning porn, but we should have a conversation about responsible use of it and how it can affect people. That means acknowledging that for at least some people, it is a problem.",
">\n\nI don’t argue any of that. But porn is not inherently wrong just because it can be abused. The partner who chooses to stay in a toxic situation caused by porn addiction doesn’t just get to blame porn",
">\n\n\nPorn did not make your partner impotent.\n\nYou sure?\nWhile non-organic sexual dysfunctions have been presumed psychological in origin, and therefore the province of mental health experts, the unexplained sexual dysfunctions now rising sharply in young men (ED, difficulty orgasming, low sexual desire) are, to the extent they are reversible by quitting Internet pornography, not arising from “performance anxiety” (that is, psychosexual dysfunction, ICD-9 code 302.7), although performance anxiety may certainly accompany them.",
">\n\nPerhaps I phrased that incorrectly. I should have said that their partner’s choice is what made them impotent. Porn itself has no designs on the partner.",
">\n\n\ntheir partner’s choice is what made them impotent.\n\nIs it? \nOnline Porn Addiction: What We Know and What We Don’t—A Systematic Review\nIs a behavioral addiction, and the subsequent effects, really the result result of an errant choice made by the partner? We are not really sure why certain people are more or less prone to addictive behaviors, so a person could be choosing to use porn in an occasional manner, and then falling victim to their own faults. I wouldn't lay the blame at the feet of the choice, but their own predilection for addiction.",
">\n\nIt’s always about choice. One of the steps of addiction recovery is taking personal responsibility for their addiction.",
">\n\nOkay, but porn addiction isn't the same as something like heroin addiction, because porn is much more normalized. Far more people use porn without problems than use hard drugs without a problem. Making the choice to view porn is not necessarily bad, so we should not blame people for it. And you can slip into addiction without realizing. We should show people more compassion and try to educate people about the potential dangers of porn.",
">\n\nSure. But porn is not the reason the person ruined their relationship. Their addiction is. They are two different things.",
">\n\nYou cannot have the addiction without porn. They are different but related. Porn is one of the causes of that addiction.",
">\n\nIf this was the work of a professional, I would hope to see a paragraph structure at the very least. The stream-of-consciousness style seems to suggest more inanity than influence.",
">\n\nPlease refrain from trying to insult. Presenting the argument as simply as possible keeps people from needlessly nitpicking parts of it without actually disproving the central argument.",
">\n\n\nPorn did not change your partner. \n\nPorn literally changes your brain.",
">\n\nSo do new experiences. So does age. So does physical trauma.",
">\n\nNot a counterpoint, you’re agreeing that things people experience change who they are.",
">\n\n\nIf you are in a relationship with someone who watches porn, that is 100% on you. \nIf you find out that your partner hid their porn habit from you, staying in that relationship is 100% on you. \nIf your partner lies about ending their habit, what you do with that information is 100% on you.\n\nHow is the hiding, lying, etc., not on the person doing it?\nYou're saying what you do with the info when you find out is on you --ok.... how is the issue not the lying, hiding, etc?\nYou're saying like 'what you do when you find out your SO is a molester is up to you, that's a problem with your relationship.'\nMaybe the person has a problem?",
">\n\n\nI believe there is nothing inherently wrong with porn just like there is nothing inherently wrong with cocaine, with weed, or with heroin. It is all dependent on the user.\n\nI think it's safe to say that we recognise that the companies that sell cigarettes are profiting from poisoning their customer base. There are no repercussions from their consumers because they're already addicted and we can't stop them from selling because they've been in business for too long and there would be an outcry.\nI want to say that if cigarettes were invented today they'd very quickly be made illegal specifically because this practice is predatory. You can claim that it is entirely the fault of the user, but the user can be misled and they will be for financial gain.",
">\n\nI can disagree with you on the heroin thing. I grew up with a heroin addict, it sucks balls. Fuck that.\nEdit: I was a child/teen, it was out of my control to help the parent. Everyday was horrible because it was like they were dying (it was traumatizing too) and I was just a child. Heroin shouldn't be legal at all. Are you aware of the children in danger? It's a lot. And lots already are in danger already due to a heroin addicted parent/family member.",
">\n\n\n.\nPorn is not the enemy. Porn is what it is. You may not agree with it, or all of it, but it is what it is, and millions of people have enjoyed it in many forms for centuries. \nPorn did not make your partner impotent.\nPorn did not make your partner not have sex with you.\nPorn did not change your partner.\n\nI kind of suspect my actual view is quite similar to yours but if it is I would argue this is poorly worded. It seems to imply that porn doesn't really have a significant effect on people which I would argue is false. However it could also be interpreted as there have to be character flaws unrelated to porn for porn to be an real problem which is something I think I would agree with in pretty much any case I can be up with. For example porn could influence people to request more extreme sex acts or someone who gets used to porn might find sex with another human exhausting. However someone who cares about their partner will not push for sex their partner doesn't want so I would argue the real problem is selfishness lack of consideration for the partner. Likewise not being interested in sex shouldn't be considered a problem whether the uninterested person is a man or woman. Yes people should be honest about it and say I'm not interested in sex rather than constantly talking it up and then backing etc out if they're not interested but nobody should be shamed for not wanting sex. The person with a higher libido should decide how important they consider sex and take that onto consideration in making a decision whether to stay or leave rather than shaming someone for not wanting sex.",
">\n\nAll human users are only human. Saying heroin isn't the problem, humans are the problem is pointless. You can't \"outthink\" the addictive qualities of heroin.\nYour argument seems to be a guns don't kill people, people kill people rhetoric, and shares the same fallacies.",
">\n\nI don’t know about any of that. Porn isn’t guns.",
">\n\nYou don't know that humans are human?",
">\n\nI apologize. I will elaborate: Porn is not guns. Humans abusing porn is not the same as humans abusing guns.",
">\n\nOkay? “Porn isn’t as bad as guns” is a very different view from “porn can never be a problem.”",
">\n\nBut we’re tangling two separate lines of reasoning together. Abusing porn does not have the same collateral damage as abusing guns. On a SEPARATE AND COMPLETELY UNRELATED POINT, porn itself did not ruin a relationship"
] |
>
Yes. But people do blame porn. | [
"/u/derangermouse (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nThis seems to be more of a semantic pivot than anything.\nCocaine, as your example is physically and psychologically addictive and contributes to multiple serious health issues. Saying it's not the drug, or the porn but your relationship to it is like saying it's not falling off a mountain that kills you, it's hitting something on the way down. It's a useless distinction.",
">\n\nWhen that person falls off the mountain, is it the mountain’s fault? Because plenty of people blame porn for their partners use of it",
">\n\nYou replied to my comment that \"porn isn't guns\"\nWell a mountain isn't cocaine addiction, is it?",
">\n\nAccording to their analogy, they tried to make the equivalency.",
">\n\n\nPorn did not change your partner.\n\nI mean, we know at the very least that this isn’t true. We can go back and forth on the moral implications, but it has been demonstrated time and time again that porn affects both individual and societal views towards sex and sexual power dynamics.",
">\n\nThat doesn’t prove that the individual in question is changed. And it doesn’t prove that porn is inherently bad.",
">\n\nI’m not saying porn is inherently bad, I’m saying it can change people, at least sometimes, and that can be bad, at least sometimes.",
">\n\nOk, while your point did not contradict my original premise, I admit that you did contradict one of my points of argument. “!delta”",
">\n\nI guess I’m a bit confused about your view, then. Is it that porn is never bad? Or that porn may sometimes be bad but isn’t always bad? Or that, while porn may sometimes be bad, in the scheme of things there are bigger problems?\nAt various points in your OP and replies you seem to take each of those stances. Which is the view you want changed?",
">\n\nhe must be young and just moves the goalposts when he feels like it.",
">\n\nAgree with most points but the last one.\n\nPorn did not change your partner.\nYour partner is who they are,\n\nNoone is born who they are, everyone is constantly changing who they are, and being changed, especially by mass media.",
">\n\nIf mass media changes them, then that is who they are. The partner that blames media is blaming the wrong thing.",
">\n\nNo, it means that they were one thing, and now the person that they were is dead and now they are another thing, and in a year they'll be different again, because of what information and impressions they are consuming.\nI am not arguing the blame point i am arguing that it DOES change people.",
">\n\nA haircut changes someone, but a person made a choice to get the haircut.",
">\n\nI am talking about changes to their brain, to their personality, to their way of thinking. Changes about how they make decisions.\nThat's literally what brainwashing/propaganda/education/information gathering is.",
">\n\nPersonal experiences also change how you make future decisions. We still have choice.",
">\n\n\nPersonal experiences also change how you make future decisions\n\nExactly, that's my point. Everyone is changed by everything they witness. And can be changed by changing what they witness. What is yours?",
">\n\nI think we’re agreeing more than anything. I’m saying that the thing they’re witnessing isn’t inherently wrong.",
">\n\nJust because it is not a problem for everyone doesn't mean it's not a problem at all. Lots of people view porn and are fine. Some people view porn and it makes them worse in some way. You are correct that is not grounds for banning porn, but we should have a conversation about responsible use of it and how it can affect people. That means acknowledging that for at least some people, it is a problem.",
">\n\nI don’t argue any of that. But porn is not inherently wrong just because it can be abused. The partner who chooses to stay in a toxic situation caused by porn addiction doesn’t just get to blame porn",
">\n\n\nPorn did not make your partner impotent.\n\nYou sure?\nWhile non-organic sexual dysfunctions have been presumed psychological in origin, and therefore the province of mental health experts, the unexplained sexual dysfunctions now rising sharply in young men (ED, difficulty orgasming, low sexual desire) are, to the extent they are reversible by quitting Internet pornography, not arising from “performance anxiety” (that is, psychosexual dysfunction, ICD-9 code 302.7), although performance anxiety may certainly accompany them.",
">\n\nPerhaps I phrased that incorrectly. I should have said that their partner’s choice is what made them impotent. Porn itself has no designs on the partner.",
">\n\n\ntheir partner’s choice is what made them impotent.\n\nIs it? \nOnline Porn Addiction: What We Know and What We Don’t—A Systematic Review\nIs a behavioral addiction, and the subsequent effects, really the result result of an errant choice made by the partner? We are not really sure why certain people are more or less prone to addictive behaviors, so a person could be choosing to use porn in an occasional manner, and then falling victim to their own faults. I wouldn't lay the blame at the feet of the choice, but their own predilection for addiction.",
">\n\nIt’s always about choice. One of the steps of addiction recovery is taking personal responsibility for their addiction.",
">\n\nOkay, but porn addiction isn't the same as something like heroin addiction, because porn is much more normalized. Far more people use porn without problems than use hard drugs without a problem. Making the choice to view porn is not necessarily bad, so we should not blame people for it. And you can slip into addiction without realizing. We should show people more compassion and try to educate people about the potential dangers of porn.",
">\n\nSure. But porn is not the reason the person ruined their relationship. Their addiction is. They are two different things.",
">\n\nYou cannot have the addiction without porn. They are different but related. Porn is one of the causes of that addiction.",
">\n\nIf this was the work of a professional, I would hope to see a paragraph structure at the very least. The stream-of-consciousness style seems to suggest more inanity than influence.",
">\n\nPlease refrain from trying to insult. Presenting the argument as simply as possible keeps people from needlessly nitpicking parts of it without actually disproving the central argument.",
">\n\n\nPorn did not change your partner. \n\nPorn literally changes your brain.",
">\n\nSo do new experiences. So does age. So does physical trauma.",
">\n\nNot a counterpoint, you’re agreeing that things people experience change who they are.",
">\n\n\nIf you are in a relationship with someone who watches porn, that is 100% on you. \nIf you find out that your partner hid their porn habit from you, staying in that relationship is 100% on you. \nIf your partner lies about ending their habit, what you do with that information is 100% on you.\n\nHow is the hiding, lying, etc., not on the person doing it?\nYou're saying what you do with the info when you find out is on you --ok.... how is the issue not the lying, hiding, etc?\nYou're saying like 'what you do when you find out your SO is a molester is up to you, that's a problem with your relationship.'\nMaybe the person has a problem?",
">\n\n\nI believe there is nothing inherently wrong with porn just like there is nothing inherently wrong with cocaine, with weed, or with heroin. It is all dependent on the user.\n\nI think it's safe to say that we recognise that the companies that sell cigarettes are profiting from poisoning their customer base. There are no repercussions from their consumers because they're already addicted and we can't stop them from selling because they've been in business for too long and there would be an outcry.\nI want to say that if cigarettes were invented today they'd very quickly be made illegal specifically because this practice is predatory. You can claim that it is entirely the fault of the user, but the user can be misled and they will be for financial gain.",
">\n\nI can disagree with you on the heroin thing. I grew up with a heroin addict, it sucks balls. Fuck that.\nEdit: I was a child/teen, it was out of my control to help the parent. Everyday was horrible because it was like they were dying (it was traumatizing too) and I was just a child. Heroin shouldn't be legal at all. Are you aware of the children in danger? It's a lot. And lots already are in danger already due to a heroin addicted parent/family member.",
">\n\n\n.\nPorn is not the enemy. Porn is what it is. You may not agree with it, or all of it, but it is what it is, and millions of people have enjoyed it in many forms for centuries. \nPorn did not make your partner impotent.\nPorn did not make your partner not have sex with you.\nPorn did not change your partner.\n\nI kind of suspect my actual view is quite similar to yours but if it is I would argue this is poorly worded. It seems to imply that porn doesn't really have a significant effect on people which I would argue is false. However it could also be interpreted as there have to be character flaws unrelated to porn for porn to be an real problem which is something I think I would agree with in pretty much any case I can be up with. For example porn could influence people to request more extreme sex acts or someone who gets used to porn might find sex with another human exhausting. However someone who cares about their partner will not push for sex their partner doesn't want so I would argue the real problem is selfishness lack of consideration for the partner. Likewise not being interested in sex shouldn't be considered a problem whether the uninterested person is a man or woman. Yes people should be honest about it and say I'm not interested in sex rather than constantly talking it up and then backing etc out if they're not interested but nobody should be shamed for not wanting sex. The person with a higher libido should decide how important they consider sex and take that onto consideration in making a decision whether to stay or leave rather than shaming someone for not wanting sex.",
">\n\nAll human users are only human. Saying heroin isn't the problem, humans are the problem is pointless. You can't \"outthink\" the addictive qualities of heroin.\nYour argument seems to be a guns don't kill people, people kill people rhetoric, and shares the same fallacies.",
">\n\nI don’t know about any of that. Porn isn’t guns.",
">\n\nYou don't know that humans are human?",
">\n\nI apologize. I will elaborate: Porn is not guns. Humans abusing porn is not the same as humans abusing guns.",
">\n\nOkay? “Porn isn’t as bad as guns” is a very different view from “porn can never be a problem.”",
">\n\nBut we’re tangling two separate lines of reasoning together. Abusing porn does not have the same collateral damage as abusing guns. On a SEPARATE AND COMPLETELY UNRELATED POINT, porn itself did not ruin a relationship",
">\n\n\nIf you are in a relationship with someone who watches porn, that is 100% on you.\nIf you find out that your partner hid their porn habit from you, staying in that relationship is 100% on you.\nIf your partner lies about ending their habit, what you do with that information is 100% on you.\n\nCould you please clarify how you are responsible for your partners addiction? Wouldn't the partner be responsible for their own addiction?"
] |
>
Whether or not the non-addict is blaming the porn or their partner, it isn't the non-addict fault is it? If it is, how? | [
"/u/derangermouse (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nThis seems to be more of a semantic pivot than anything.\nCocaine, as your example is physically and psychologically addictive and contributes to multiple serious health issues. Saying it's not the drug, or the porn but your relationship to it is like saying it's not falling off a mountain that kills you, it's hitting something on the way down. It's a useless distinction.",
">\n\nWhen that person falls off the mountain, is it the mountain’s fault? Because plenty of people blame porn for their partners use of it",
">\n\nYou replied to my comment that \"porn isn't guns\"\nWell a mountain isn't cocaine addiction, is it?",
">\n\nAccording to their analogy, they tried to make the equivalency.",
">\n\n\nPorn did not change your partner.\n\nI mean, we know at the very least that this isn’t true. We can go back and forth on the moral implications, but it has been demonstrated time and time again that porn affects both individual and societal views towards sex and sexual power dynamics.",
">\n\nThat doesn’t prove that the individual in question is changed. And it doesn’t prove that porn is inherently bad.",
">\n\nI’m not saying porn is inherently bad, I’m saying it can change people, at least sometimes, and that can be bad, at least sometimes.",
">\n\nOk, while your point did not contradict my original premise, I admit that you did contradict one of my points of argument. “!delta”",
">\n\nI guess I’m a bit confused about your view, then. Is it that porn is never bad? Or that porn may sometimes be bad but isn’t always bad? Or that, while porn may sometimes be bad, in the scheme of things there are bigger problems?\nAt various points in your OP and replies you seem to take each of those stances. Which is the view you want changed?",
">\n\nhe must be young and just moves the goalposts when he feels like it.",
">\n\nAgree with most points but the last one.\n\nPorn did not change your partner.\nYour partner is who they are,\n\nNoone is born who they are, everyone is constantly changing who they are, and being changed, especially by mass media.",
">\n\nIf mass media changes them, then that is who they are. The partner that blames media is blaming the wrong thing.",
">\n\nNo, it means that they were one thing, and now the person that they were is dead and now they are another thing, and in a year they'll be different again, because of what information and impressions they are consuming.\nI am not arguing the blame point i am arguing that it DOES change people.",
">\n\nA haircut changes someone, but a person made a choice to get the haircut.",
">\n\nI am talking about changes to their brain, to their personality, to their way of thinking. Changes about how they make decisions.\nThat's literally what brainwashing/propaganda/education/information gathering is.",
">\n\nPersonal experiences also change how you make future decisions. We still have choice.",
">\n\n\nPersonal experiences also change how you make future decisions\n\nExactly, that's my point. Everyone is changed by everything they witness. And can be changed by changing what they witness. What is yours?",
">\n\nI think we’re agreeing more than anything. I’m saying that the thing they’re witnessing isn’t inherently wrong.",
">\n\nJust because it is not a problem for everyone doesn't mean it's not a problem at all. Lots of people view porn and are fine. Some people view porn and it makes them worse in some way. You are correct that is not grounds for banning porn, but we should have a conversation about responsible use of it and how it can affect people. That means acknowledging that for at least some people, it is a problem.",
">\n\nI don’t argue any of that. But porn is not inherently wrong just because it can be abused. The partner who chooses to stay in a toxic situation caused by porn addiction doesn’t just get to blame porn",
">\n\n\nPorn did not make your partner impotent.\n\nYou sure?\nWhile non-organic sexual dysfunctions have been presumed psychological in origin, and therefore the province of mental health experts, the unexplained sexual dysfunctions now rising sharply in young men (ED, difficulty orgasming, low sexual desire) are, to the extent they are reversible by quitting Internet pornography, not arising from “performance anxiety” (that is, psychosexual dysfunction, ICD-9 code 302.7), although performance anxiety may certainly accompany them.",
">\n\nPerhaps I phrased that incorrectly. I should have said that their partner’s choice is what made them impotent. Porn itself has no designs on the partner.",
">\n\n\ntheir partner’s choice is what made them impotent.\n\nIs it? \nOnline Porn Addiction: What We Know and What We Don’t—A Systematic Review\nIs a behavioral addiction, and the subsequent effects, really the result result of an errant choice made by the partner? We are not really sure why certain people are more or less prone to addictive behaviors, so a person could be choosing to use porn in an occasional manner, and then falling victim to their own faults. I wouldn't lay the blame at the feet of the choice, but their own predilection for addiction.",
">\n\nIt’s always about choice. One of the steps of addiction recovery is taking personal responsibility for their addiction.",
">\n\nOkay, but porn addiction isn't the same as something like heroin addiction, because porn is much more normalized. Far more people use porn without problems than use hard drugs without a problem. Making the choice to view porn is not necessarily bad, so we should not blame people for it. And you can slip into addiction without realizing. We should show people more compassion and try to educate people about the potential dangers of porn.",
">\n\nSure. But porn is not the reason the person ruined their relationship. Their addiction is. They are two different things.",
">\n\nYou cannot have the addiction without porn. They are different but related. Porn is one of the causes of that addiction.",
">\n\nIf this was the work of a professional, I would hope to see a paragraph structure at the very least. The stream-of-consciousness style seems to suggest more inanity than influence.",
">\n\nPlease refrain from trying to insult. Presenting the argument as simply as possible keeps people from needlessly nitpicking parts of it without actually disproving the central argument.",
">\n\n\nPorn did not change your partner. \n\nPorn literally changes your brain.",
">\n\nSo do new experiences. So does age. So does physical trauma.",
">\n\nNot a counterpoint, you’re agreeing that things people experience change who they are.",
">\n\n\nIf you are in a relationship with someone who watches porn, that is 100% on you. \nIf you find out that your partner hid their porn habit from you, staying in that relationship is 100% on you. \nIf your partner lies about ending their habit, what you do with that information is 100% on you.\n\nHow is the hiding, lying, etc., not on the person doing it?\nYou're saying what you do with the info when you find out is on you --ok.... how is the issue not the lying, hiding, etc?\nYou're saying like 'what you do when you find out your SO is a molester is up to you, that's a problem with your relationship.'\nMaybe the person has a problem?",
">\n\n\nI believe there is nothing inherently wrong with porn just like there is nothing inherently wrong with cocaine, with weed, or with heroin. It is all dependent on the user.\n\nI think it's safe to say that we recognise that the companies that sell cigarettes are profiting from poisoning their customer base. There are no repercussions from their consumers because they're already addicted and we can't stop them from selling because they've been in business for too long and there would be an outcry.\nI want to say that if cigarettes were invented today they'd very quickly be made illegal specifically because this practice is predatory. You can claim that it is entirely the fault of the user, but the user can be misled and they will be for financial gain.",
">\n\nI can disagree with you on the heroin thing. I grew up with a heroin addict, it sucks balls. Fuck that.\nEdit: I was a child/teen, it was out of my control to help the parent. Everyday was horrible because it was like they were dying (it was traumatizing too) and I was just a child. Heroin shouldn't be legal at all. Are you aware of the children in danger? It's a lot. And lots already are in danger already due to a heroin addicted parent/family member.",
">\n\n\n.\nPorn is not the enemy. Porn is what it is. You may not agree with it, or all of it, but it is what it is, and millions of people have enjoyed it in many forms for centuries. \nPorn did not make your partner impotent.\nPorn did not make your partner not have sex with you.\nPorn did not change your partner.\n\nI kind of suspect my actual view is quite similar to yours but if it is I would argue this is poorly worded. It seems to imply that porn doesn't really have a significant effect on people which I would argue is false. However it could also be interpreted as there have to be character flaws unrelated to porn for porn to be an real problem which is something I think I would agree with in pretty much any case I can be up with. For example porn could influence people to request more extreme sex acts or someone who gets used to porn might find sex with another human exhausting. However someone who cares about their partner will not push for sex their partner doesn't want so I would argue the real problem is selfishness lack of consideration for the partner. Likewise not being interested in sex shouldn't be considered a problem whether the uninterested person is a man or woman. Yes people should be honest about it and say I'm not interested in sex rather than constantly talking it up and then backing etc out if they're not interested but nobody should be shamed for not wanting sex. The person with a higher libido should decide how important they consider sex and take that onto consideration in making a decision whether to stay or leave rather than shaming someone for not wanting sex.",
">\n\nAll human users are only human. Saying heroin isn't the problem, humans are the problem is pointless. You can't \"outthink\" the addictive qualities of heroin.\nYour argument seems to be a guns don't kill people, people kill people rhetoric, and shares the same fallacies.",
">\n\nI don’t know about any of that. Porn isn’t guns.",
">\n\nYou don't know that humans are human?",
">\n\nI apologize. I will elaborate: Porn is not guns. Humans abusing porn is not the same as humans abusing guns.",
">\n\nOkay? “Porn isn’t as bad as guns” is a very different view from “porn can never be a problem.”",
">\n\nBut we’re tangling two separate lines of reasoning together. Abusing porn does not have the same collateral damage as abusing guns. On a SEPARATE AND COMPLETELY UNRELATED POINT, porn itself did not ruin a relationship",
">\n\n\nIf you are in a relationship with someone who watches porn, that is 100% on you.\nIf you find out that your partner hid their porn habit from you, staying in that relationship is 100% on you.\nIf your partner lies about ending their habit, what you do with that information is 100% on you.\n\nCould you please clarify how you are responsible for your partners addiction? Wouldn't the partner be responsible for their own addiction?",
">\n\nYes. But people do blame porn."
] |
>
It’s the partner’s fault if they stay in a situation they consider toxic, all the while blaming porn for their situation | [
"/u/derangermouse (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nThis seems to be more of a semantic pivot than anything.\nCocaine, as your example is physically and psychologically addictive and contributes to multiple serious health issues. Saying it's not the drug, or the porn but your relationship to it is like saying it's not falling off a mountain that kills you, it's hitting something on the way down. It's a useless distinction.",
">\n\nWhen that person falls off the mountain, is it the mountain’s fault? Because plenty of people blame porn for their partners use of it",
">\n\nYou replied to my comment that \"porn isn't guns\"\nWell a mountain isn't cocaine addiction, is it?",
">\n\nAccording to their analogy, they tried to make the equivalency.",
">\n\n\nPorn did not change your partner.\n\nI mean, we know at the very least that this isn’t true. We can go back and forth on the moral implications, but it has been demonstrated time and time again that porn affects both individual and societal views towards sex and sexual power dynamics.",
">\n\nThat doesn’t prove that the individual in question is changed. And it doesn’t prove that porn is inherently bad.",
">\n\nI’m not saying porn is inherently bad, I’m saying it can change people, at least sometimes, and that can be bad, at least sometimes.",
">\n\nOk, while your point did not contradict my original premise, I admit that you did contradict one of my points of argument. “!delta”",
">\n\nI guess I’m a bit confused about your view, then. Is it that porn is never bad? Or that porn may sometimes be bad but isn’t always bad? Or that, while porn may sometimes be bad, in the scheme of things there are bigger problems?\nAt various points in your OP and replies you seem to take each of those stances. Which is the view you want changed?",
">\n\nhe must be young and just moves the goalposts when he feels like it.",
">\n\nAgree with most points but the last one.\n\nPorn did not change your partner.\nYour partner is who they are,\n\nNoone is born who they are, everyone is constantly changing who they are, and being changed, especially by mass media.",
">\n\nIf mass media changes them, then that is who they are. The partner that blames media is blaming the wrong thing.",
">\n\nNo, it means that they were one thing, and now the person that they were is dead and now they are another thing, and in a year they'll be different again, because of what information and impressions they are consuming.\nI am not arguing the blame point i am arguing that it DOES change people.",
">\n\nA haircut changes someone, but a person made a choice to get the haircut.",
">\n\nI am talking about changes to their brain, to their personality, to their way of thinking. Changes about how they make decisions.\nThat's literally what brainwashing/propaganda/education/information gathering is.",
">\n\nPersonal experiences also change how you make future decisions. We still have choice.",
">\n\n\nPersonal experiences also change how you make future decisions\n\nExactly, that's my point. Everyone is changed by everything they witness. And can be changed by changing what they witness. What is yours?",
">\n\nI think we’re agreeing more than anything. I’m saying that the thing they’re witnessing isn’t inherently wrong.",
">\n\nJust because it is not a problem for everyone doesn't mean it's not a problem at all. Lots of people view porn and are fine. Some people view porn and it makes them worse in some way. You are correct that is not grounds for banning porn, but we should have a conversation about responsible use of it and how it can affect people. That means acknowledging that for at least some people, it is a problem.",
">\n\nI don’t argue any of that. But porn is not inherently wrong just because it can be abused. The partner who chooses to stay in a toxic situation caused by porn addiction doesn’t just get to blame porn",
">\n\n\nPorn did not make your partner impotent.\n\nYou sure?\nWhile non-organic sexual dysfunctions have been presumed psychological in origin, and therefore the province of mental health experts, the unexplained sexual dysfunctions now rising sharply in young men (ED, difficulty orgasming, low sexual desire) are, to the extent they are reversible by quitting Internet pornography, not arising from “performance anxiety” (that is, psychosexual dysfunction, ICD-9 code 302.7), although performance anxiety may certainly accompany them.",
">\n\nPerhaps I phrased that incorrectly. I should have said that their partner’s choice is what made them impotent. Porn itself has no designs on the partner.",
">\n\n\ntheir partner’s choice is what made them impotent.\n\nIs it? \nOnline Porn Addiction: What We Know and What We Don’t—A Systematic Review\nIs a behavioral addiction, and the subsequent effects, really the result result of an errant choice made by the partner? We are not really sure why certain people are more or less prone to addictive behaviors, so a person could be choosing to use porn in an occasional manner, and then falling victim to their own faults. I wouldn't lay the blame at the feet of the choice, but their own predilection for addiction.",
">\n\nIt’s always about choice. One of the steps of addiction recovery is taking personal responsibility for their addiction.",
">\n\nOkay, but porn addiction isn't the same as something like heroin addiction, because porn is much more normalized. Far more people use porn without problems than use hard drugs without a problem. Making the choice to view porn is not necessarily bad, so we should not blame people for it. And you can slip into addiction without realizing. We should show people more compassion and try to educate people about the potential dangers of porn.",
">\n\nSure. But porn is not the reason the person ruined their relationship. Their addiction is. They are two different things.",
">\n\nYou cannot have the addiction without porn. They are different but related. Porn is one of the causes of that addiction.",
">\n\nIf this was the work of a professional, I would hope to see a paragraph structure at the very least. The stream-of-consciousness style seems to suggest more inanity than influence.",
">\n\nPlease refrain from trying to insult. Presenting the argument as simply as possible keeps people from needlessly nitpicking parts of it without actually disproving the central argument.",
">\n\n\nPorn did not change your partner. \n\nPorn literally changes your brain.",
">\n\nSo do new experiences. So does age. So does physical trauma.",
">\n\nNot a counterpoint, you’re agreeing that things people experience change who they are.",
">\n\n\nIf you are in a relationship with someone who watches porn, that is 100% on you. \nIf you find out that your partner hid their porn habit from you, staying in that relationship is 100% on you. \nIf your partner lies about ending their habit, what you do with that information is 100% on you.\n\nHow is the hiding, lying, etc., not on the person doing it?\nYou're saying what you do with the info when you find out is on you --ok.... how is the issue not the lying, hiding, etc?\nYou're saying like 'what you do when you find out your SO is a molester is up to you, that's a problem with your relationship.'\nMaybe the person has a problem?",
">\n\n\nI believe there is nothing inherently wrong with porn just like there is nothing inherently wrong with cocaine, with weed, or with heroin. It is all dependent on the user.\n\nI think it's safe to say that we recognise that the companies that sell cigarettes are profiting from poisoning their customer base. There are no repercussions from their consumers because they're already addicted and we can't stop them from selling because they've been in business for too long and there would be an outcry.\nI want to say that if cigarettes were invented today they'd very quickly be made illegal specifically because this practice is predatory. You can claim that it is entirely the fault of the user, but the user can be misled and they will be for financial gain.",
">\n\nI can disagree with you on the heroin thing. I grew up with a heroin addict, it sucks balls. Fuck that.\nEdit: I was a child/teen, it was out of my control to help the parent. Everyday was horrible because it was like they were dying (it was traumatizing too) and I was just a child. Heroin shouldn't be legal at all. Are you aware of the children in danger? It's a lot. And lots already are in danger already due to a heroin addicted parent/family member.",
">\n\n\n.\nPorn is not the enemy. Porn is what it is. You may not agree with it, or all of it, but it is what it is, and millions of people have enjoyed it in many forms for centuries. \nPorn did not make your partner impotent.\nPorn did not make your partner not have sex with you.\nPorn did not change your partner.\n\nI kind of suspect my actual view is quite similar to yours but if it is I would argue this is poorly worded. It seems to imply that porn doesn't really have a significant effect on people which I would argue is false. However it could also be interpreted as there have to be character flaws unrelated to porn for porn to be an real problem which is something I think I would agree with in pretty much any case I can be up with. For example porn could influence people to request more extreme sex acts or someone who gets used to porn might find sex with another human exhausting. However someone who cares about their partner will not push for sex their partner doesn't want so I would argue the real problem is selfishness lack of consideration for the partner. Likewise not being interested in sex shouldn't be considered a problem whether the uninterested person is a man or woman. Yes people should be honest about it and say I'm not interested in sex rather than constantly talking it up and then backing etc out if they're not interested but nobody should be shamed for not wanting sex. The person with a higher libido should decide how important they consider sex and take that onto consideration in making a decision whether to stay or leave rather than shaming someone for not wanting sex.",
">\n\nAll human users are only human. Saying heroin isn't the problem, humans are the problem is pointless. You can't \"outthink\" the addictive qualities of heroin.\nYour argument seems to be a guns don't kill people, people kill people rhetoric, and shares the same fallacies.",
">\n\nI don’t know about any of that. Porn isn’t guns.",
">\n\nYou don't know that humans are human?",
">\n\nI apologize. I will elaborate: Porn is not guns. Humans abusing porn is not the same as humans abusing guns.",
">\n\nOkay? “Porn isn’t as bad as guns” is a very different view from “porn can never be a problem.”",
">\n\nBut we’re tangling two separate lines of reasoning together. Abusing porn does not have the same collateral damage as abusing guns. On a SEPARATE AND COMPLETELY UNRELATED POINT, porn itself did not ruin a relationship",
">\n\n\nIf you are in a relationship with someone who watches porn, that is 100% on you.\nIf you find out that your partner hid their porn habit from you, staying in that relationship is 100% on you.\nIf your partner lies about ending their habit, what you do with that information is 100% on you.\n\nCould you please clarify how you are responsible for your partners addiction? Wouldn't the partner be responsible for their own addiction?",
">\n\nYes. But people do blame porn.",
">\n\nWhether or not the non-addict is blaming the porn or their partner, it isn't the non-addict fault is it? If it is, how?"
] |
>
But that's not something you've said in your post, "staying in a situation" isn't an aspect of your CMV. You just said it's the partners fault if their counterpart becomes addicted. | [
"/u/derangermouse (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nThis seems to be more of a semantic pivot than anything.\nCocaine, as your example is physically and psychologically addictive and contributes to multiple serious health issues. Saying it's not the drug, or the porn but your relationship to it is like saying it's not falling off a mountain that kills you, it's hitting something on the way down. It's a useless distinction.",
">\n\nWhen that person falls off the mountain, is it the mountain’s fault? Because plenty of people blame porn for their partners use of it",
">\n\nYou replied to my comment that \"porn isn't guns\"\nWell a mountain isn't cocaine addiction, is it?",
">\n\nAccording to their analogy, they tried to make the equivalency.",
">\n\n\nPorn did not change your partner.\n\nI mean, we know at the very least that this isn’t true. We can go back and forth on the moral implications, but it has been demonstrated time and time again that porn affects both individual and societal views towards sex and sexual power dynamics.",
">\n\nThat doesn’t prove that the individual in question is changed. And it doesn’t prove that porn is inherently bad.",
">\n\nI’m not saying porn is inherently bad, I’m saying it can change people, at least sometimes, and that can be bad, at least sometimes.",
">\n\nOk, while your point did not contradict my original premise, I admit that you did contradict one of my points of argument. “!delta”",
">\n\nI guess I’m a bit confused about your view, then. Is it that porn is never bad? Or that porn may sometimes be bad but isn’t always bad? Or that, while porn may sometimes be bad, in the scheme of things there are bigger problems?\nAt various points in your OP and replies you seem to take each of those stances. Which is the view you want changed?",
">\n\nhe must be young and just moves the goalposts when he feels like it.",
">\n\nAgree with most points but the last one.\n\nPorn did not change your partner.\nYour partner is who they are,\n\nNoone is born who they are, everyone is constantly changing who they are, and being changed, especially by mass media.",
">\n\nIf mass media changes them, then that is who they are. The partner that blames media is blaming the wrong thing.",
">\n\nNo, it means that they were one thing, and now the person that they were is dead and now they are another thing, and in a year they'll be different again, because of what information and impressions they are consuming.\nI am not arguing the blame point i am arguing that it DOES change people.",
">\n\nA haircut changes someone, but a person made a choice to get the haircut.",
">\n\nI am talking about changes to their brain, to their personality, to their way of thinking. Changes about how they make decisions.\nThat's literally what brainwashing/propaganda/education/information gathering is.",
">\n\nPersonal experiences also change how you make future decisions. We still have choice.",
">\n\n\nPersonal experiences also change how you make future decisions\n\nExactly, that's my point. Everyone is changed by everything they witness. And can be changed by changing what they witness. What is yours?",
">\n\nI think we’re agreeing more than anything. I’m saying that the thing they’re witnessing isn’t inherently wrong.",
">\n\nJust because it is not a problem for everyone doesn't mean it's not a problem at all. Lots of people view porn and are fine. Some people view porn and it makes them worse in some way. You are correct that is not grounds for banning porn, but we should have a conversation about responsible use of it and how it can affect people. That means acknowledging that for at least some people, it is a problem.",
">\n\nI don’t argue any of that. But porn is not inherently wrong just because it can be abused. The partner who chooses to stay in a toxic situation caused by porn addiction doesn’t just get to blame porn",
">\n\n\nPorn did not make your partner impotent.\n\nYou sure?\nWhile non-organic sexual dysfunctions have been presumed psychological in origin, and therefore the province of mental health experts, the unexplained sexual dysfunctions now rising sharply in young men (ED, difficulty orgasming, low sexual desire) are, to the extent they are reversible by quitting Internet pornography, not arising from “performance anxiety” (that is, psychosexual dysfunction, ICD-9 code 302.7), although performance anxiety may certainly accompany them.",
">\n\nPerhaps I phrased that incorrectly. I should have said that their partner’s choice is what made them impotent. Porn itself has no designs on the partner.",
">\n\n\ntheir partner’s choice is what made them impotent.\n\nIs it? \nOnline Porn Addiction: What We Know and What We Don’t—A Systematic Review\nIs a behavioral addiction, and the subsequent effects, really the result result of an errant choice made by the partner? We are not really sure why certain people are more or less prone to addictive behaviors, so a person could be choosing to use porn in an occasional manner, and then falling victim to their own faults. I wouldn't lay the blame at the feet of the choice, but their own predilection for addiction.",
">\n\nIt’s always about choice. One of the steps of addiction recovery is taking personal responsibility for their addiction.",
">\n\nOkay, but porn addiction isn't the same as something like heroin addiction, because porn is much more normalized. Far more people use porn without problems than use hard drugs without a problem. Making the choice to view porn is not necessarily bad, so we should not blame people for it. And you can slip into addiction without realizing. We should show people more compassion and try to educate people about the potential dangers of porn.",
">\n\nSure. But porn is not the reason the person ruined their relationship. Their addiction is. They are two different things.",
">\n\nYou cannot have the addiction without porn. They are different but related. Porn is one of the causes of that addiction.",
">\n\nIf this was the work of a professional, I would hope to see a paragraph structure at the very least. The stream-of-consciousness style seems to suggest more inanity than influence.",
">\n\nPlease refrain from trying to insult. Presenting the argument as simply as possible keeps people from needlessly nitpicking parts of it without actually disproving the central argument.",
">\n\n\nPorn did not change your partner. \n\nPorn literally changes your brain.",
">\n\nSo do new experiences. So does age. So does physical trauma.",
">\n\nNot a counterpoint, you’re agreeing that things people experience change who they are.",
">\n\n\nIf you are in a relationship with someone who watches porn, that is 100% on you. \nIf you find out that your partner hid their porn habit from you, staying in that relationship is 100% on you. \nIf your partner lies about ending their habit, what you do with that information is 100% on you.\n\nHow is the hiding, lying, etc., not on the person doing it?\nYou're saying what you do with the info when you find out is on you --ok.... how is the issue not the lying, hiding, etc?\nYou're saying like 'what you do when you find out your SO is a molester is up to you, that's a problem with your relationship.'\nMaybe the person has a problem?",
">\n\n\nI believe there is nothing inherently wrong with porn just like there is nothing inherently wrong with cocaine, with weed, or with heroin. It is all dependent on the user.\n\nI think it's safe to say that we recognise that the companies that sell cigarettes are profiting from poisoning their customer base. There are no repercussions from their consumers because they're already addicted and we can't stop them from selling because they've been in business for too long and there would be an outcry.\nI want to say that if cigarettes were invented today they'd very quickly be made illegal specifically because this practice is predatory. You can claim that it is entirely the fault of the user, but the user can be misled and they will be for financial gain.",
">\n\nI can disagree with you on the heroin thing. I grew up with a heroin addict, it sucks balls. Fuck that.\nEdit: I was a child/teen, it was out of my control to help the parent. Everyday was horrible because it was like they were dying (it was traumatizing too) and I was just a child. Heroin shouldn't be legal at all. Are you aware of the children in danger? It's a lot. And lots already are in danger already due to a heroin addicted parent/family member.",
">\n\n\n.\nPorn is not the enemy. Porn is what it is. You may not agree with it, or all of it, but it is what it is, and millions of people have enjoyed it in many forms for centuries. \nPorn did not make your partner impotent.\nPorn did not make your partner not have sex with you.\nPorn did not change your partner.\n\nI kind of suspect my actual view is quite similar to yours but if it is I would argue this is poorly worded. It seems to imply that porn doesn't really have a significant effect on people which I would argue is false. However it could also be interpreted as there have to be character flaws unrelated to porn for porn to be an real problem which is something I think I would agree with in pretty much any case I can be up with. For example porn could influence people to request more extreme sex acts or someone who gets used to porn might find sex with another human exhausting. However someone who cares about their partner will not push for sex their partner doesn't want so I would argue the real problem is selfishness lack of consideration for the partner. Likewise not being interested in sex shouldn't be considered a problem whether the uninterested person is a man or woman. Yes people should be honest about it and say I'm not interested in sex rather than constantly talking it up and then backing etc out if they're not interested but nobody should be shamed for not wanting sex. The person with a higher libido should decide how important they consider sex and take that onto consideration in making a decision whether to stay or leave rather than shaming someone for not wanting sex.",
">\n\nAll human users are only human. Saying heroin isn't the problem, humans are the problem is pointless. You can't \"outthink\" the addictive qualities of heroin.\nYour argument seems to be a guns don't kill people, people kill people rhetoric, and shares the same fallacies.",
">\n\nI don’t know about any of that. Porn isn’t guns.",
">\n\nYou don't know that humans are human?",
">\n\nI apologize. I will elaborate: Porn is not guns. Humans abusing porn is not the same as humans abusing guns.",
">\n\nOkay? “Porn isn’t as bad as guns” is a very different view from “porn can never be a problem.”",
">\n\nBut we’re tangling two separate lines of reasoning together. Abusing porn does not have the same collateral damage as abusing guns. On a SEPARATE AND COMPLETELY UNRELATED POINT, porn itself did not ruin a relationship",
">\n\n\nIf you are in a relationship with someone who watches porn, that is 100% on you.\nIf you find out that your partner hid their porn habit from you, staying in that relationship is 100% on you.\nIf your partner lies about ending their habit, what you do with that information is 100% on you.\n\nCould you please clarify how you are responsible for your partners addiction? Wouldn't the partner be responsible for their own addiction?",
">\n\nYes. But people do blame porn.",
">\n\nWhether or not the non-addict is blaming the porn or their partner, it isn't the non-addict fault is it? If it is, how?",
">\n\nIt’s the partner’s fault if they stay in a situation they consider toxic, all the while blaming porn for their situation"
] |
>
Every part of what you said is incorrect. Please reread my post. | [
"/u/derangermouse (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nThis seems to be more of a semantic pivot than anything.\nCocaine, as your example is physically and psychologically addictive and contributes to multiple serious health issues. Saying it's not the drug, or the porn but your relationship to it is like saying it's not falling off a mountain that kills you, it's hitting something on the way down. It's a useless distinction.",
">\n\nWhen that person falls off the mountain, is it the mountain’s fault? Because plenty of people blame porn for their partners use of it",
">\n\nYou replied to my comment that \"porn isn't guns\"\nWell a mountain isn't cocaine addiction, is it?",
">\n\nAccording to their analogy, they tried to make the equivalency.",
">\n\n\nPorn did not change your partner.\n\nI mean, we know at the very least that this isn’t true. We can go back and forth on the moral implications, but it has been demonstrated time and time again that porn affects both individual and societal views towards sex and sexual power dynamics.",
">\n\nThat doesn’t prove that the individual in question is changed. And it doesn’t prove that porn is inherently bad.",
">\n\nI’m not saying porn is inherently bad, I’m saying it can change people, at least sometimes, and that can be bad, at least sometimes.",
">\n\nOk, while your point did not contradict my original premise, I admit that you did contradict one of my points of argument. “!delta”",
">\n\nI guess I’m a bit confused about your view, then. Is it that porn is never bad? Or that porn may sometimes be bad but isn’t always bad? Or that, while porn may sometimes be bad, in the scheme of things there are bigger problems?\nAt various points in your OP and replies you seem to take each of those stances. Which is the view you want changed?",
">\n\nhe must be young and just moves the goalposts when he feels like it.",
">\n\nAgree with most points but the last one.\n\nPorn did not change your partner.\nYour partner is who they are,\n\nNoone is born who they are, everyone is constantly changing who they are, and being changed, especially by mass media.",
">\n\nIf mass media changes them, then that is who they are. The partner that blames media is blaming the wrong thing.",
">\n\nNo, it means that they were one thing, and now the person that they were is dead and now they are another thing, and in a year they'll be different again, because of what information and impressions they are consuming.\nI am not arguing the blame point i am arguing that it DOES change people.",
">\n\nA haircut changes someone, but a person made a choice to get the haircut.",
">\n\nI am talking about changes to their brain, to their personality, to their way of thinking. Changes about how they make decisions.\nThat's literally what brainwashing/propaganda/education/information gathering is.",
">\n\nPersonal experiences also change how you make future decisions. We still have choice.",
">\n\n\nPersonal experiences also change how you make future decisions\n\nExactly, that's my point. Everyone is changed by everything they witness. And can be changed by changing what they witness. What is yours?",
">\n\nI think we’re agreeing more than anything. I’m saying that the thing they’re witnessing isn’t inherently wrong.",
">\n\nJust because it is not a problem for everyone doesn't mean it's not a problem at all. Lots of people view porn and are fine. Some people view porn and it makes them worse in some way. You are correct that is not grounds for banning porn, but we should have a conversation about responsible use of it and how it can affect people. That means acknowledging that for at least some people, it is a problem.",
">\n\nI don’t argue any of that. But porn is not inherently wrong just because it can be abused. The partner who chooses to stay in a toxic situation caused by porn addiction doesn’t just get to blame porn",
">\n\n\nPorn did not make your partner impotent.\n\nYou sure?\nWhile non-organic sexual dysfunctions have been presumed psychological in origin, and therefore the province of mental health experts, the unexplained sexual dysfunctions now rising sharply in young men (ED, difficulty orgasming, low sexual desire) are, to the extent they are reversible by quitting Internet pornography, not arising from “performance anxiety” (that is, psychosexual dysfunction, ICD-9 code 302.7), although performance anxiety may certainly accompany them.",
">\n\nPerhaps I phrased that incorrectly. I should have said that their partner’s choice is what made them impotent. Porn itself has no designs on the partner.",
">\n\n\ntheir partner’s choice is what made them impotent.\n\nIs it? \nOnline Porn Addiction: What We Know and What We Don’t—A Systematic Review\nIs a behavioral addiction, and the subsequent effects, really the result result of an errant choice made by the partner? We are not really sure why certain people are more or less prone to addictive behaviors, so a person could be choosing to use porn in an occasional manner, and then falling victim to their own faults. I wouldn't lay the blame at the feet of the choice, but their own predilection for addiction.",
">\n\nIt’s always about choice. One of the steps of addiction recovery is taking personal responsibility for their addiction.",
">\n\nOkay, but porn addiction isn't the same as something like heroin addiction, because porn is much more normalized. Far more people use porn without problems than use hard drugs without a problem. Making the choice to view porn is not necessarily bad, so we should not blame people for it. And you can slip into addiction without realizing. We should show people more compassion and try to educate people about the potential dangers of porn.",
">\n\nSure. But porn is not the reason the person ruined their relationship. Their addiction is. They are two different things.",
">\n\nYou cannot have the addiction without porn. They are different but related. Porn is one of the causes of that addiction.",
">\n\nIf this was the work of a professional, I would hope to see a paragraph structure at the very least. The stream-of-consciousness style seems to suggest more inanity than influence.",
">\n\nPlease refrain from trying to insult. Presenting the argument as simply as possible keeps people from needlessly nitpicking parts of it without actually disproving the central argument.",
">\n\n\nPorn did not change your partner. \n\nPorn literally changes your brain.",
">\n\nSo do new experiences. So does age. So does physical trauma.",
">\n\nNot a counterpoint, you’re agreeing that things people experience change who they are.",
">\n\n\nIf you are in a relationship with someone who watches porn, that is 100% on you. \nIf you find out that your partner hid their porn habit from you, staying in that relationship is 100% on you. \nIf your partner lies about ending their habit, what you do with that information is 100% on you.\n\nHow is the hiding, lying, etc., not on the person doing it?\nYou're saying what you do with the info when you find out is on you --ok.... how is the issue not the lying, hiding, etc?\nYou're saying like 'what you do when you find out your SO is a molester is up to you, that's a problem with your relationship.'\nMaybe the person has a problem?",
">\n\n\nI believe there is nothing inherently wrong with porn just like there is nothing inherently wrong with cocaine, with weed, or with heroin. It is all dependent on the user.\n\nI think it's safe to say that we recognise that the companies that sell cigarettes are profiting from poisoning their customer base. There are no repercussions from their consumers because they're already addicted and we can't stop them from selling because they've been in business for too long and there would be an outcry.\nI want to say that if cigarettes were invented today they'd very quickly be made illegal specifically because this practice is predatory. You can claim that it is entirely the fault of the user, but the user can be misled and they will be for financial gain.",
">\n\nI can disagree with you on the heroin thing. I grew up with a heroin addict, it sucks balls. Fuck that.\nEdit: I was a child/teen, it was out of my control to help the parent. Everyday was horrible because it was like they were dying (it was traumatizing too) and I was just a child. Heroin shouldn't be legal at all. Are you aware of the children in danger? It's a lot. And lots already are in danger already due to a heroin addicted parent/family member.",
">\n\n\n.\nPorn is not the enemy. Porn is what it is. You may not agree with it, or all of it, but it is what it is, and millions of people have enjoyed it in many forms for centuries. \nPorn did not make your partner impotent.\nPorn did not make your partner not have sex with you.\nPorn did not change your partner.\n\nI kind of suspect my actual view is quite similar to yours but if it is I would argue this is poorly worded. It seems to imply that porn doesn't really have a significant effect on people which I would argue is false. However it could also be interpreted as there have to be character flaws unrelated to porn for porn to be an real problem which is something I think I would agree with in pretty much any case I can be up with. For example porn could influence people to request more extreme sex acts or someone who gets used to porn might find sex with another human exhausting. However someone who cares about their partner will not push for sex their partner doesn't want so I would argue the real problem is selfishness lack of consideration for the partner. Likewise not being interested in sex shouldn't be considered a problem whether the uninterested person is a man or woman. Yes people should be honest about it and say I'm not interested in sex rather than constantly talking it up and then backing etc out if they're not interested but nobody should be shamed for not wanting sex. The person with a higher libido should decide how important they consider sex and take that onto consideration in making a decision whether to stay or leave rather than shaming someone for not wanting sex.",
">\n\nAll human users are only human. Saying heroin isn't the problem, humans are the problem is pointless. You can't \"outthink\" the addictive qualities of heroin.\nYour argument seems to be a guns don't kill people, people kill people rhetoric, and shares the same fallacies.",
">\n\nI don’t know about any of that. Porn isn’t guns.",
">\n\nYou don't know that humans are human?",
">\n\nI apologize. I will elaborate: Porn is not guns. Humans abusing porn is not the same as humans abusing guns.",
">\n\nOkay? “Porn isn’t as bad as guns” is a very different view from “porn can never be a problem.”",
">\n\nBut we’re tangling two separate lines of reasoning together. Abusing porn does not have the same collateral damage as abusing guns. On a SEPARATE AND COMPLETELY UNRELATED POINT, porn itself did not ruin a relationship",
">\n\n\nIf you are in a relationship with someone who watches porn, that is 100% on you.\nIf you find out that your partner hid their porn habit from you, staying in that relationship is 100% on you.\nIf your partner lies about ending their habit, what you do with that information is 100% on you.\n\nCould you please clarify how you are responsible for your partners addiction? Wouldn't the partner be responsible for their own addiction?",
">\n\nYes. But people do blame porn.",
">\n\nWhether or not the non-addict is blaming the porn or their partner, it isn't the non-addict fault is it? If it is, how?",
">\n\nIt’s the partner’s fault if they stay in a situation they consider toxic, all the while blaming porn for their situation",
">\n\nBut that's not something you've said in your post, \"staying in a situation\" isn't an aspect of your CMV. You just said it's the partners fault if their counterpart becomes addicted."
] |
>
What about people who have porn addictions and are single? You only look at this from the perspective of someone in a relationship with a porn addict, but what about from their perspective? They may feel isolated and hurt by an addition to something that does in fact chemically change your brain. Can we not acknowledge that as a problem? | [
"/u/derangermouse (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nThis seems to be more of a semantic pivot than anything.\nCocaine, as your example is physically and psychologically addictive and contributes to multiple serious health issues. Saying it's not the drug, or the porn but your relationship to it is like saying it's not falling off a mountain that kills you, it's hitting something on the way down. It's a useless distinction.",
">\n\nWhen that person falls off the mountain, is it the mountain’s fault? Because plenty of people blame porn for their partners use of it",
">\n\nYou replied to my comment that \"porn isn't guns\"\nWell a mountain isn't cocaine addiction, is it?",
">\n\nAccording to their analogy, they tried to make the equivalency.",
">\n\n\nPorn did not change your partner.\n\nI mean, we know at the very least that this isn’t true. We can go back and forth on the moral implications, but it has been demonstrated time and time again that porn affects both individual and societal views towards sex and sexual power dynamics.",
">\n\nThat doesn’t prove that the individual in question is changed. And it doesn’t prove that porn is inherently bad.",
">\n\nI’m not saying porn is inherently bad, I’m saying it can change people, at least sometimes, and that can be bad, at least sometimes.",
">\n\nOk, while your point did not contradict my original premise, I admit that you did contradict one of my points of argument. “!delta”",
">\n\nI guess I’m a bit confused about your view, then. Is it that porn is never bad? Or that porn may sometimes be bad but isn’t always bad? Or that, while porn may sometimes be bad, in the scheme of things there are bigger problems?\nAt various points in your OP and replies you seem to take each of those stances. Which is the view you want changed?",
">\n\nhe must be young and just moves the goalposts when he feels like it.",
">\n\nAgree with most points but the last one.\n\nPorn did not change your partner.\nYour partner is who they are,\n\nNoone is born who they are, everyone is constantly changing who they are, and being changed, especially by mass media.",
">\n\nIf mass media changes them, then that is who they are. The partner that blames media is blaming the wrong thing.",
">\n\nNo, it means that they were one thing, and now the person that they were is dead and now they are another thing, and in a year they'll be different again, because of what information and impressions they are consuming.\nI am not arguing the blame point i am arguing that it DOES change people.",
">\n\nA haircut changes someone, but a person made a choice to get the haircut.",
">\n\nI am talking about changes to their brain, to their personality, to their way of thinking. Changes about how they make decisions.\nThat's literally what brainwashing/propaganda/education/information gathering is.",
">\n\nPersonal experiences also change how you make future decisions. We still have choice.",
">\n\n\nPersonal experiences also change how you make future decisions\n\nExactly, that's my point. Everyone is changed by everything they witness. And can be changed by changing what they witness. What is yours?",
">\n\nI think we’re agreeing more than anything. I’m saying that the thing they’re witnessing isn’t inherently wrong.",
">\n\nJust because it is not a problem for everyone doesn't mean it's not a problem at all. Lots of people view porn and are fine. Some people view porn and it makes them worse in some way. You are correct that is not grounds for banning porn, but we should have a conversation about responsible use of it and how it can affect people. That means acknowledging that for at least some people, it is a problem.",
">\n\nI don’t argue any of that. But porn is not inherently wrong just because it can be abused. The partner who chooses to stay in a toxic situation caused by porn addiction doesn’t just get to blame porn",
">\n\n\nPorn did not make your partner impotent.\n\nYou sure?\nWhile non-organic sexual dysfunctions have been presumed psychological in origin, and therefore the province of mental health experts, the unexplained sexual dysfunctions now rising sharply in young men (ED, difficulty orgasming, low sexual desire) are, to the extent they are reversible by quitting Internet pornography, not arising from “performance anxiety” (that is, psychosexual dysfunction, ICD-9 code 302.7), although performance anxiety may certainly accompany them.",
">\n\nPerhaps I phrased that incorrectly. I should have said that their partner’s choice is what made them impotent. Porn itself has no designs on the partner.",
">\n\n\ntheir partner’s choice is what made them impotent.\n\nIs it? \nOnline Porn Addiction: What We Know and What We Don’t—A Systematic Review\nIs a behavioral addiction, and the subsequent effects, really the result result of an errant choice made by the partner? We are not really sure why certain people are more or less prone to addictive behaviors, so a person could be choosing to use porn in an occasional manner, and then falling victim to their own faults. I wouldn't lay the blame at the feet of the choice, but their own predilection for addiction.",
">\n\nIt’s always about choice. One of the steps of addiction recovery is taking personal responsibility for their addiction.",
">\n\nOkay, but porn addiction isn't the same as something like heroin addiction, because porn is much more normalized. Far more people use porn without problems than use hard drugs without a problem. Making the choice to view porn is not necessarily bad, so we should not blame people for it. And you can slip into addiction without realizing. We should show people more compassion and try to educate people about the potential dangers of porn.",
">\n\nSure. But porn is not the reason the person ruined their relationship. Their addiction is. They are two different things.",
">\n\nYou cannot have the addiction without porn. They are different but related. Porn is one of the causes of that addiction.",
">\n\nIf this was the work of a professional, I would hope to see a paragraph structure at the very least. The stream-of-consciousness style seems to suggest more inanity than influence.",
">\n\nPlease refrain from trying to insult. Presenting the argument as simply as possible keeps people from needlessly nitpicking parts of it without actually disproving the central argument.",
">\n\n\nPorn did not change your partner. \n\nPorn literally changes your brain.",
">\n\nSo do new experiences. So does age. So does physical trauma.",
">\n\nNot a counterpoint, you’re agreeing that things people experience change who they are.",
">\n\n\nIf you are in a relationship with someone who watches porn, that is 100% on you. \nIf you find out that your partner hid their porn habit from you, staying in that relationship is 100% on you. \nIf your partner lies about ending their habit, what you do with that information is 100% on you.\n\nHow is the hiding, lying, etc., not on the person doing it?\nYou're saying what you do with the info when you find out is on you --ok.... how is the issue not the lying, hiding, etc?\nYou're saying like 'what you do when you find out your SO is a molester is up to you, that's a problem with your relationship.'\nMaybe the person has a problem?",
">\n\n\nI believe there is nothing inherently wrong with porn just like there is nothing inherently wrong with cocaine, with weed, or with heroin. It is all dependent on the user.\n\nI think it's safe to say that we recognise that the companies that sell cigarettes are profiting from poisoning their customer base. There are no repercussions from their consumers because they're already addicted and we can't stop them from selling because they've been in business for too long and there would be an outcry.\nI want to say that if cigarettes were invented today they'd very quickly be made illegal specifically because this practice is predatory. You can claim that it is entirely the fault of the user, but the user can be misled and they will be for financial gain.",
">\n\nI can disagree with you on the heroin thing. I grew up with a heroin addict, it sucks balls. Fuck that.\nEdit: I was a child/teen, it was out of my control to help the parent. Everyday was horrible because it was like they were dying (it was traumatizing too) and I was just a child. Heroin shouldn't be legal at all. Are you aware of the children in danger? It's a lot. And lots already are in danger already due to a heroin addicted parent/family member.",
">\n\n\n.\nPorn is not the enemy. Porn is what it is. You may not agree with it, or all of it, but it is what it is, and millions of people have enjoyed it in many forms for centuries. \nPorn did not make your partner impotent.\nPorn did not make your partner not have sex with you.\nPorn did not change your partner.\n\nI kind of suspect my actual view is quite similar to yours but if it is I would argue this is poorly worded. It seems to imply that porn doesn't really have a significant effect on people which I would argue is false. However it could also be interpreted as there have to be character flaws unrelated to porn for porn to be an real problem which is something I think I would agree with in pretty much any case I can be up with. For example porn could influence people to request more extreme sex acts or someone who gets used to porn might find sex with another human exhausting. However someone who cares about their partner will not push for sex their partner doesn't want so I would argue the real problem is selfishness lack of consideration for the partner. Likewise not being interested in sex shouldn't be considered a problem whether the uninterested person is a man or woman. Yes people should be honest about it and say I'm not interested in sex rather than constantly talking it up and then backing etc out if they're not interested but nobody should be shamed for not wanting sex. The person with a higher libido should decide how important they consider sex and take that onto consideration in making a decision whether to stay or leave rather than shaming someone for not wanting sex.",
">\n\nAll human users are only human. Saying heroin isn't the problem, humans are the problem is pointless. You can't \"outthink\" the addictive qualities of heroin.\nYour argument seems to be a guns don't kill people, people kill people rhetoric, and shares the same fallacies.",
">\n\nI don’t know about any of that. Porn isn’t guns.",
">\n\nYou don't know that humans are human?",
">\n\nI apologize. I will elaborate: Porn is not guns. Humans abusing porn is not the same as humans abusing guns.",
">\n\nOkay? “Porn isn’t as bad as guns” is a very different view from “porn can never be a problem.”",
">\n\nBut we’re tangling two separate lines of reasoning together. Abusing porn does not have the same collateral damage as abusing guns. On a SEPARATE AND COMPLETELY UNRELATED POINT, porn itself did not ruin a relationship",
">\n\n\nIf you are in a relationship with someone who watches porn, that is 100% on you.\nIf you find out that your partner hid their porn habit from you, staying in that relationship is 100% on you.\nIf your partner lies about ending their habit, what you do with that information is 100% on you.\n\nCould you please clarify how you are responsible for your partners addiction? Wouldn't the partner be responsible for their own addiction?",
">\n\nYes. But people do blame porn.",
">\n\nWhether or not the non-addict is blaming the porn or their partner, it isn't the non-addict fault is it? If it is, how?",
">\n\nIt’s the partner’s fault if they stay in a situation they consider toxic, all the while blaming porn for their situation",
">\n\nBut that's not something you've said in your post, \"staying in a situation\" isn't an aspect of your CMV. You just said it's the partners fault if their counterpart becomes addicted.",
">\n\nEvery part of what you said is incorrect. Please reread my post."
] |
>
But that’s not my premise. I’m saying that people who blame porn for a relationship’s end or their relationship issues is blaming the wrong thing. Porn is not wrong. | [
"/u/derangermouse (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nThis seems to be more of a semantic pivot than anything.\nCocaine, as your example is physically and psychologically addictive and contributes to multiple serious health issues. Saying it's not the drug, or the porn but your relationship to it is like saying it's not falling off a mountain that kills you, it's hitting something on the way down. It's a useless distinction.",
">\n\nWhen that person falls off the mountain, is it the mountain’s fault? Because plenty of people blame porn for their partners use of it",
">\n\nYou replied to my comment that \"porn isn't guns\"\nWell a mountain isn't cocaine addiction, is it?",
">\n\nAccording to their analogy, they tried to make the equivalency.",
">\n\n\nPorn did not change your partner.\n\nI mean, we know at the very least that this isn’t true. We can go back and forth on the moral implications, but it has been demonstrated time and time again that porn affects both individual and societal views towards sex and sexual power dynamics.",
">\n\nThat doesn’t prove that the individual in question is changed. And it doesn’t prove that porn is inherently bad.",
">\n\nI’m not saying porn is inherently bad, I’m saying it can change people, at least sometimes, and that can be bad, at least sometimes.",
">\n\nOk, while your point did not contradict my original premise, I admit that you did contradict one of my points of argument. “!delta”",
">\n\nI guess I’m a bit confused about your view, then. Is it that porn is never bad? Or that porn may sometimes be bad but isn’t always bad? Or that, while porn may sometimes be bad, in the scheme of things there are bigger problems?\nAt various points in your OP and replies you seem to take each of those stances. Which is the view you want changed?",
">\n\nhe must be young and just moves the goalposts when he feels like it.",
">\n\nAgree with most points but the last one.\n\nPorn did not change your partner.\nYour partner is who they are,\n\nNoone is born who they are, everyone is constantly changing who they are, and being changed, especially by mass media.",
">\n\nIf mass media changes them, then that is who they are. The partner that blames media is blaming the wrong thing.",
">\n\nNo, it means that they were one thing, and now the person that they were is dead and now they are another thing, and in a year they'll be different again, because of what information and impressions they are consuming.\nI am not arguing the blame point i am arguing that it DOES change people.",
">\n\nA haircut changes someone, but a person made a choice to get the haircut.",
">\n\nI am talking about changes to their brain, to their personality, to their way of thinking. Changes about how they make decisions.\nThat's literally what brainwashing/propaganda/education/information gathering is.",
">\n\nPersonal experiences also change how you make future decisions. We still have choice.",
">\n\n\nPersonal experiences also change how you make future decisions\n\nExactly, that's my point. Everyone is changed by everything they witness. And can be changed by changing what they witness. What is yours?",
">\n\nI think we’re agreeing more than anything. I’m saying that the thing they’re witnessing isn’t inherently wrong.",
">\n\nJust because it is not a problem for everyone doesn't mean it's not a problem at all. Lots of people view porn and are fine. Some people view porn and it makes them worse in some way. You are correct that is not grounds for banning porn, but we should have a conversation about responsible use of it and how it can affect people. That means acknowledging that for at least some people, it is a problem.",
">\n\nI don’t argue any of that. But porn is not inherently wrong just because it can be abused. The partner who chooses to stay in a toxic situation caused by porn addiction doesn’t just get to blame porn",
">\n\n\nPorn did not make your partner impotent.\n\nYou sure?\nWhile non-organic sexual dysfunctions have been presumed psychological in origin, and therefore the province of mental health experts, the unexplained sexual dysfunctions now rising sharply in young men (ED, difficulty orgasming, low sexual desire) are, to the extent they are reversible by quitting Internet pornography, not arising from “performance anxiety” (that is, psychosexual dysfunction, ICD-9 code 302.7), although performance anxiety may certainly accompany them.",
">\n\nPerhaps I phrased that incorrectly. I should have said that their partner’s choice is what made them impotent. Porn itself has no designs on the partner.",
">\n\n\ntheir partner’s choice is what made them impotent.\n\nIs it? \nOnline Porn Addiction: What We Know and What We Don’t—A Systematic Review\nIs a behavioral addiction, and the subsequent effects, really the result result of an errant choice made by the partner? We are not really sure why certain people are more or less prone to addictive behaviors, so a person could be choosing to use porn in an occasional manner, and then falling victim to their own faults. I wouldn't lay the blame at the feet of the choice, but their own predilection for addiction.",
">\n\nIt’s always about choice. One of the steps of addiction recovery is taking personal responsibility for their addiction.",
">\n\nOkay, but porn addiction isn't the same as something like heroin addiction, because porn is much more normalized. Far more people use porn without problems than use hard drugs without a problem. Making the choice to view porn is not necessarily bad, so we should not blame people for it. And you can slip into addiction without realizing. We should show people more compassion and try to educate people about the potential dangers of porn.",
">\n\nSure. But porn is not the reason the person ruined their relationship. Their addiction is. They are two different things.",
">\n\nYou cannot have the addiction without porn. They are different but related. Porn is one of the causes of that addiction.",
">\n\nIf this was the work of a professional, I would hope to see a paragraph structure at the very least. The stream-of-consciousness style seems to suggest more inanity than influence.",
">\n\nPlease refrain from trying to insult. Presenting the argument as simply as possible keeps people from needlessly nitpicking parts of it without actually disproving the central argument.",
">\n\n\nPorn did not change your partner. \n\nPorn literally changes your brain.",
">\n\nSo do new experiences. So does age. So does physical trauma.",
">\n\nNot a counterpoint, you’re agreeing that things people experience change who they are.",
">\n\n\nIf you are in a relationship with someone who watches porn, that is 100% on you. \nIf you find out that your partner hid their porn habit from you, staying in that relationship is 100% on you. \nIf your partner lies about ending their habit, what you do with that information is 100% on you.\n\nHow is the hiding, lying, etc., not on the person doing it?\nYou're saying what you do with the info when you find out is on you --ok.... how is the issue not the lying, hiding, etc?\nYou're saying like 'what you do when you find out your SO is a molester is up to you, that's a problem with your relationship.'\nMaybe the person has a problem?",
">\n\n\nI believe there is nothing inherently wrong with porn just like there is nothing inherently wrong with cocaine, with weed, or with heroin. It is all dependent on the user.\n\nI think it's safe to say that we recognise that the companies that sell cigarettes are profiting from poisoning their customer base. There are no repercussions from their consumers because they're already addicted and we can't stop them from selling because they've been in business for too long and there would be an outcry.\nI want to say that if cigarettes were invented today they'd very quickly be made illegal specifically because this practice is predatory. You can claim that it is entirely the fault of the user, but the user can be misled and they will be for financial gain.",
">\n\nI can disagree with you on the heroin thing. I grew up with a heroin addict, it sucks balls. Fuck that.\nEdit: I was a child/teen, it was out of my control to help the parent. Everyday was horrible because it was like they were dying (it was traumatizing too) and I was just a child. Heroin shouldn't be legal at all. Are you aware of the children in danger? It's a lot. And lots already are in danger already due to a heroin addicted parent/family member.",
">\n\n\n.\nPorn is not the enemy. Porn is what it is. You may not agree with it, or all of it, but it is what it is, and millions of people have enjoyed it in many forms for centuries. \nPorn did not make your partner impotent.\nPorn did not make your partner not have sex with you.\nPorn did not change your partner.\n\nI kind of suspect my actual view is quite similar to yours but if it is I would argue this is poorly worded. It seems to imply that porn doesn't really have a significant effect on people which I would argue is false. However it could also be interpreted as there have to be character flaws unrelated to porn for porn to be an real problem which is something I think I would agree with in pretty much any case I can be up with. For example porn could influence people to request more extreme sex acts or someone who gets used to porn might find sex with another human exhausting. However someone who cares about their partner will not push for sex their partner doesn't want so I would argue the real problem is selfishness lack of consideration for the partner. Likewise not being interested in sex shouldn't be considered a problem whether the uninterested person is a man or woman. Yes people should be honest about it and say I'm not interested in sex rather than constantly talking it up and then backing etc out if they're not interested but nobody should be shamed for not wanting sex. The person with a higher libido should decide how important they consider sex and take that onto consideration in making a decision whether to stay or leave rather than shaming someone for not wanting sex.",
">\n\nAll human users are only human. Saying heroin isn't the problem, humans are the problem is pointless. You can't \"outthink\" the addictive qualities of heroin.\nYour argument seems to be a guns don't kill people, people kill people rhetoric, and shares the same fallacies.",
">\n\nI don’t know about any of that. Porn isn’t guns.",
">\n\nYou don't know that humans are human?",
">\n\nI apologize. I will elaborate: Porn is not guns. Humans abusing porn is not the same as humans abusing guns.",
">\n\nOkay? “Porn isn’t as bad as guns” is a very different view from “porn can never be a problem.”",
">\n\nBut we’re tangling two separate lines of reasoning together. Abusing porn does not have the same collateral damage as abusing guns. On a SEPARATE AND COMPLETELY UNRELATED POINT, porn itself did not ruin a relationship",
">\n\n\nIf you are in a relationship with someone who watches porn, that is 100% on you.\nIf you find out that your partner hid their porn habit from you, staying in that relationship is 100% on you.\nIf your partner lies about ending their habit, what you do with that information is 100% on you.\n\nCould you please clarify how you are responsible for your partners addiction? Wouldn't the partner be responsible for their own addiction?",
">\n\nYes. But people do blame porn.",
">\n\nWhether or not the non-addict is blaming the porn or their partner, it isn't the non-addict fault is it? If it is, how?",
">\n\nIt’s the partner’s fault if they stay in a situation they consider toxic, all the while blaming porn for their situation",
">\n\nBut that's not something you've said in your post, \"staying in a situation\" isn't an aspect of your CMV. You just said it's the partners fault if their counterpart becomes addicted.",
">\n\nEvery part of what you said is incorrect. Please reread my post.",
">\n\nWhat about people who have porn addictions and are single? You only look at this from the perspective of someone in a relationship with a porn addict, but what about from their perspective? They may feel isolated and hurt by an addition to something that does in fact chemically change your brain. Can we not acknowledge that as a problem?"
] |
>
Heroin isn't a recreational drug.
Mdma/ecstacy / weed / coke to a degree are.
Mdma and weed aren't nearly as addictive as heroin or coke. With heroin being by far the worst.
There isn't a world in which heroin should be legalised and purchasable on the high street, that's stupid | [
"/u/derangermouse (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nThis seems to be more of a semantic pivot than anything.\nCocaine, as your example is physically and psychologically addictive and contributes to multiple serious health issues. Saying it's not the drug, or the porn but your relationship to it is like saying it's not falling off a mountain that kills you, it's hitting something on the way down. It's a useless distinction.",
">\n\nWhen that person falls off the mountain, is it the mountain’s fault? Because plenty of people blame porn for their partners use of it",
">\n\nYou replied to my comment that \"porn isn't guns\"\nWell a mountain isn't cocaine addiction, is it?",
">\n\nAccording to their analogy, they tried to make the equivalency.",
">\n\n\nPorn did not change your partner.\n\nI mean, we know at the very least that this isn’t true. We can go back and forth on the moral implications, but it has been demonstrated time and time again that porn affects both individual and societal views towards sex and sexual power dynamics.",
">\n\nThat doesn’t prove that the individual in question is changed. And it doesn’t prove that porn is inherently bad.",
">\n\nI’m not saying porn is inherently bad, I’m saying it can change people, at least sometimes, and that can be bad, at least sometimes.",
">\n\nOk, while your point did not contradict my original premise, I admit that you did contradict one of my points of argument. “!delta”",
">\n\nI guess I’m a bit confused about your view, then. Is it that porn is never bad? Or that porn may sometimes be bad but isn’t always bad? Or that, while porn may sometimes be bad, in the scheme of things there are bigger problems?\nAt various points in your OP and replies you seem to take each of those stances. Which is the view you want changed?",
">\n\nhe must be young and just moves the goalposts when he feels like it.",
">\n\nAgree with most points but the last one.\n\nPorn did not change your partner.\nYour partner is who they are,\n\nNoone is born who they are, everyone is constantly changing who they are, and being changed, especially by mass media.",
">\n\nIf mass media changes them, then that is who they are. The partner that blames media is blaming the wrong thing.",
">\n\nNo, it means that they were one thing, and now the person that they were is dead and now they are another thing, and in a year they'll be different again, because of what information and impressions they are consuming.\nI am not arguing the blame point i am arguing that it DOES change people.",
">\n\nA haircut changes someone, but a person made a choice to get the haircut.",
">\n\nI am talking about changes to their brain, to their personality, to their way of thinking. Changes about how they make decisions.\nThat's literally what brainwashing/propaganda/education/information gathering is.",
">\n\nPersonal experiences also change how you make future decisions. We still have choice.",
">\n\n\nPersonal experiences also change how you make future decisions\n\nExactly, that's my point. Everyone is changed by everything they witness. And can be changed by changing what they witness. What is yours?",
">\n\nI think we’re agreeing more than anything. I’m saying that the thing they’re witnessing isn’t inherently wrong.",
">\n\nJust because it is not a problem for everyone doesn't mean it's not a problem at all. Lots of people view porn and are fine. Some people view porn and it makes them worse in some way. You are correct that is not grounds for banning porn, but we should have a conversation about responsible use of it and how it can affect people. That means acknowledging that for at least some people, it is a problem.",
">\n\nI don’t argue any of that. But porn is not inherently wrong just because it can be abused. The partner who chooses to stay in a toxic situation caused by porn addiction doesn’t just get to blame porn",
">\n\n\nPorn did not make your partner impotent.\n\nYou sure?\nWhile non-organic sexual dysfunctions have been presumed psychological in origin, and therefore the province of mental health experts, the unexplained sexual dysfunctions now rising sharply in young men (ED, difficulty orgasming, low sexual desire) are, to the extent they are reversible by quitting Internet pornography, not arising from “performance anxiety” (that is, psychosexual dysfunction, ICD-9 code 302.7), although performance anxiety may certainly accompany them.",
">\n\nPerhaps I phrased that incorrectly. I should have said that their partner’s choice is what made them impotent. Porn itself has no designs on the partner.",
">\n\n\ntheir partner’s choice is what made them impotent.\n\nIs it? \nOnline Porn Addiction: What We Know and What We Don’t—A Systematic Review\nIs a behavioral addiction, and the subsequent effects, really the result result of an errant choice made by the partner? We are not really sure why certain people are more or less prone to addictive behaviors, so a person could be choosing to use porn in an occasional manner, and then falling victim to their own faults. I wouldn't lay the blame at the feet of the choice, but their own predilection for addiction.",
">\n\nIt’s always about choice. One of the steps of addiction recovery is taking personal responsibility for their addiction.",
">\n\nOkay, but porn addiction isn't the same as something like heroin addiction, because porn is much more normalized. Far more people use porn without problems than use hard drugs without a problem. Making the choice to view porn is not necessarily bad, so we should not blame people for it. And you can slip into addiction without realizing. We should show people more compassion and try to educate people about the potential dangers of porn.",
">\n\nSure. But porn is not the reason the person ruined their relationship. Their addiction is. They are two different things.",
">\n\nYou cannot have the addiction without porn. They are different but related. Porn is one of the causes of that addiction.",
">\n\nIf this was the work of a professional, I would hope to see a paragraph structure at the very least. The stream-of-consciousness style seems to suggest more inanity than influence.",
">\n\nPlease refrain from trying to insult. Presenting the argument as simply as possible keeps people from needlessly nitpicking parts of it without actually disproving the central argument.",
">\n\n\nPorn did not change your partner. \n\nPorn literally changes your brain.",
">\n\nSo do new experiences. So does age. So does physical trauma.",
">\n\nNot a counterpoint, you’re agreeing that things people experience change who they are.",
">\n\n\nIf you are in a relationship with someone who watches porn, that is 100% on you. \nIf you find out that your partner hid their porn habit from you, staying in that relationship is 100% on you. \nIf your partner lies about ending their habit, what you do with that information is 100% on you.\n\nHow is the hiding, lying, etc., not on the person doing it?\nYou're saying what you do with the info when you find out is on you --ok.... how is the issue not the lying, hiding, etc?\nYou're saying like 'what you do when you find out your SO is a molester is up to you, that's a problem with your relationship.'\nMaybe the person has a problem?",
">\n\n\nI believe there is nothing inherently wrong with porn just like there is nothing inherently wrong with cocaine, with weed, or with heroin. It is all dependent on the user.\n\nI think it's safe to say that we recognise that the companies that sell cigarettes are profiting from poisoning their customer base. There are no repercussions from their consumers because they're already addicted and we can't stop them from selling because they've been in business for too long and there would be an outcry.\nI want to say that if cigarettes were invented today they'd very quickly be made illegal specifically because this practice is predatory. You can claim that it is entirely the fault of the user, but the user can be misled and they will be for financial gain.",
">\n\nI can disagree with you on the heroin thing. I grew up with a heroin addict, it sucks balls. Fuck that.\nEdit: I was a child/teen, it was out of my control to help the parent. Everyday was horrible because it was like they were dying (it was traumatizing too) and I was just a child. Heroin shouldn't be legal at all. Are you aware of the children in danger? It's a lot. And lots already are in danger already due to a heroin addicted parent/family member.",
">\n\n\n.\nPorn is not the enemy. Porn is what it is. You may not agree with it, or all of it, but it is what it is, and millions of people have enjoyed it in many forms for centuries. \nPorn did not make your partner impotent.\nPorn did not make your partner not have sex with you.\nPorn did not change your partner.\n\nI kind of suspect my actual view is quite similar to yours but if it is I would argue this is poorly worded. It seems to imply that porn doesn't really have a significant effect on people which I would argue is false. However it could also be interpreted as there have to be character flaws unrelated to porn for porn to be an real problem which is something I think I would agree with in pretty much any case I can be up with. For example porn could influence people to request more extreme sex acts or someone who gets used to porn might find sex with another human exhausting. However someone who cares about their partner will not push for sex their partner doesn't want so I would argue the real problem is selfishness lack of consideration for the partner. Likewise not being interested in sex shouldn't be considered a problem whether the uninterested person is a man or woman. Yes people should be honest about it and say I'm not interested in sex rather than constantly talking it up and then backing etc out if they're not interested but nobody should be shamed for not wanting sex. The person with a higher libido should decide how important they consider sex and take that onto consideration in making a decision whether to stay or leave rather than shaming someone for not wanting sex.",
">\n\nAll human users are only human. Saying heroin isn't the problem, humans are the problem is pointless. You can't \"outthink\" the addictive qualities of heroin.\nYour argument seems to be a guns don't kill people, people kill people rhetoric, and shares the same fallacies.",
">\n\nI don’t know about any of that. Porn isn’t guns.",
">\n\nYou don't know that humans are human?",
">\n\nI apologize. I will elaborate: Porn is not guns. Humans abusing porn is not the same as humans abusing guns.",
">\n\nOkay? “Porn isn’t as bad as guns” is a very different view from “porn can never be a problem.”",
">\n\nBut we’re tangling two separate lines of reasoning together. Abusing porn does not have the same collateral damage as abusing guns. On a SEPARATE AND COMPLETELY UNRELATED POINT, porn itself did not ruin a relationship",
">\n\n\nIf you are in a relationship with someone who watches porn, that is 100% on you.\nIf you find out that your partner hid their porn habit from you, staying in that relationship is 100% on you.\nIf your partner lies about ending their habit, what you do with that information is 100% on you.\n\nCould you please clarify how you are responsible for your partners addiction? Wouldn't the partner be responsible for their own addiction?",
">\n\nYes. But people do blame porn.",
">\n\nWhether or not the non-addict is blaming the porn or their partner, it isn't the non-addict fault is it? If it is, how?",
">\n\nIt’s the partner’s fault if they stay in a situation they consider toxic, all the while blaming porn for their situation",
">\n\nBut that's not something you've said in your post, \"staying in a situation\" isn't an aspect of your CMV. You just said it's the partners fault if their counterpart becomes addicted.",
">\n\nEvery part of what you said is incorrect. Please reread my post.",
">\n\nWhat about people who have porn addictions and are single? You only look at this from the perspective of someone in a relationship with a porn addict, but what about from their perspective? They may feel isolated and hurt by an addition to something that does in fact chemically change your brain. Can we not acknowledge that as a problem?",
">\n\nBut that’s not my premise. I’m saying that people who blame porn for a relationship’s end or their relationship issues is blaming the wrong thing. Porn is not wrong."
] |
>
I think saying there's nothing ultimately wrong with porn is a different thing than saying porn isn't a destructive force, and you confuse the two.
We can say that people have the freedom to take heroine as they wish. We can say that it is good to have freedoms to explore new ideas and behaviors. We cannot say that heroine is generally good for an individual's social and physical well being. There is sufficient evidence to say that a high number of heroine users, not all, but more than not, will experience significant physical decline. For a good portion, this will become an addiction, and they will consume heroine to a point of thier personal, financial, physical, mental, social detriment. It's hard to really argue that heroine is a good thing for society.
Pornography is surely not as destructive a force as heroine, but you could say similar things for it.
If you were to ask yourself the question of why you choose to watch pornography instead of pursuing a human relationship, you might recognize that pornography propagates antisocial behavior, in the same way that much addictive behavior is maladaptive avoidance.
Another thing to consider is the creation of pornography. The forces that drive the creation of pornography are nearly certainly bad for individuals and societies as a whole. You should try to learn more about how porn is made. I think you would change your mind on porn from this alone.
In a utopian society, there would almost certainly not exist pornography. It | [
"/u/derangermouse (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nThis seems to be more of a semantic pivot than anything.\nCocaine, as your example is physically and psychologically addictive and contributes to multiple serious health issues. Saying it's not the drug, or the porn but your relationship to it is like saying it's not falling off a mountain that kills you, it's hitting something on the way down. It's a useless distinction.",
">\n\nWhen that person falls off the mountain, is it the mountain’s fault? Because plenty of people blame porn for their partners use of it",
">\n\nYou replied to my comment that \"porn isn't guns\"\nWell a mountain isn't cocaine addiction, is it?",
">\n\nAccording to their analogy, they tried to make the equivalency.",
">\n\n\nPorn did not change your partner.\n\nI mean, we know at the very least that this isn’t true. We can go back and forth on the moral implications, but it has been demonstrated time and time again that porn affects both individual and societal views towards sex and sexual power dynamics.",
">\n\nThat doesn’t prove that the individual in question is changed. And it doesn’t prove that porn is inherently bad.",
">\n\nI’m not saying porn is inherently bad, I’m saying it can change people, at least sometimes, and that can be bad, at least sometimes.",
">\n\nOk, while your point did not contradict my original premise, I admit that you did contradict one of my points of argument. “!delta”",
">\n\nI guess I’m a bit confused about your view, then. Is it that porn is never bad? Or that porn may sometimes be bad but isn’t always bad? Or that, while porn may sometimes be bad, in the scheme of things there are bigger problems?\nAt various points in your OP and replies you seem to take each of those stances. Which is the view you want changed?",
">\n\nhe must be young and just moves the goalposts when he feels like it.",
">\n\nAgree with most points but the last one.\n\nPorn did not change your partner.\nYour partner is who they are,\n\nNoone is born who they are, everyone is constantly changing who they are, and being changed, especially by mass media.",
">\n\nIf mass media changes them, then that is who they are. The partner that blames media is blaming the wrong thing.",
">\n\nNo, it means that they were one thing, and now the person that they were is dead and now they are another thing, and in a year they'll be different again, because of what information and impressions they are consuming.\nI am not arguing the blame point i am arguing that it DOES change people.",
">\n\nA haircut changes someone, but a person made a choice to get the haircut.",
">\n\nI am talking about changes to their brain, to their personality, to their way of thinking. Changes about how they make decisions.\nThat's literally what brainwashing/propaganda/education/information gathering is.",
">\n\nPersonal experiences also change how you make future decisions. We still have choice.",
">\n\n\nPersonal experiences also change how you make future decisions\n\nExactly, that's my point. Everyone is changed by everything they witness. And can be changed by changing what they witness. What is yours?",
">\n\nI think we’re agreeing more than anything. I’m saying that the thing they’re witnessing isn’t inherently wrong.",
">\n\nJust because it is not a problem for everyone doesn't mean it's not a problem at all. Lots of people view porn and are fine. Some people view porn and it makes them worse in some way. You are correct that is not grounds for banning porn, but we should have a conversation about responsible use of it and how it can affect people. That means acknowledging that for at least some people, it is a problem.",
">\n\nI don’t argue any of that. But porn is not inherently wrong just because it can be abused. The partner who chooses to stay in a toxic situation caused by porn addiction doesn’t just get to blame porn",
">\n\n\nPorn did not make your partner impotent.\n\nYou sure?\nWhile non-organic sexual dysfunctions have been presumed psychological in origin, and therefore the province of mental health experts, the unexplained sexual dysfunctions now rising sharply in young men (ED, difficulty orgasming, low sexual desire) are, to the extent they are reversible by quitting Internet pornography, not arising from “performance anxiety” (that is, psychosexual dysfunction, ICD-9 code 302.7), although performance anxiety may certainly accompany them.",
">\n\nPerhaps I phrased that incorrectly. I should have said that their partner’s choice is what made them impotent. Porn itself has no designs on the partner.",
">\n\n\ntheir partner’s choice is what made them impotent.\n\nIs it? \nOnline Porn Addiction: What We Know and What We Don’t—A Systematic Review\nIs a behavioral addiction, and the subsequent effects, really the result result of an errant choice made by the partner? We are not really sure why certain people are more or less prone to addictive behaviors, so a person could be choosing to use porn in an occasional manner, and then falling victim to their own faults. I wouldn't lay the blame at the feet of the choice, but their own predilection for addiction.",
">\n\nIt’s always about choice. One of the steps of addiction recovery is taking personal responsibility for their addiction.",
">\n\nOkay, but porn addiction isn't the same as something like heroin addiction, because porn is much more normalized. Far more people use porn without problems than use hard drugs without a problem. Making the choice to view porn is not necessarily bad, so we should not blame people for it. And you can slip into addiction without realizing. We should show people more compassion and try to educate people about the potential dangers of porn.",
">\n\nSure. But porn is not the reason the person ruined their relationship. Their addiction is. They are two different things.",
">\n\nYou cannot have the addiction without porn. They are different but related. Porn is one of the causes of that addiction.",
">\n\nIf this was the work of a professional, I would hope to see a paragraph structure at the very least. The stream-of-consciousness style seems to suggest more inanity than influence.",
">\n\nPlease refrain from trying to insult. Presenting the argument as simply as possible keeps people from needlessly nitpicking parts of it without actually disproving the central argument.",
">\n\n\nPorn did not change your partner. \n\nPorn literally changes your brain.",
">\n\nSo do new experiences. So does age. So does physical trauma.",
">\n\nNot a counterpoint, you’re agreeing that things people experience change who they are.",
">\n\n\nIf you are in a relationship with someone who watches porn, that is 100% on you. \nIf you find out that your partner hid their porn habit from you, staying in that relationship is 100% on you. \nIf your partner lies about ending their habit, what you do with that information is 100% on you.\n\nHow is the hiding, lying, etc., not on the person doing it?\nYou're saying what you do with the info when you find out is on you --ok.... how is the issue not the lying, hiding, etc?\nYou're saying like 'what you do when you find out your SO is a molester is up to you, that's a problem with your relationship.'\nMaybe the person has a problem?",
">\n\n\nI believe there is nothing inherently wrong with porn just like there is nothing inherently wrong with cocaine, with weed, or with heroin. It is all dependent on the user.\n\nI think it's safe to say that we recognise that the companies that sell cigarettes are profiting from poisoning their customer base. There are no repercussions from their consumers because they're already addicted and we can't stop them from selling because they've been in business for too long and there would be an outcry.\nI want to say that if cigarettes were invented today they'd very quickly be made illegal specifically because this practice is predatory. You can claim that it is entirely the fault of the user, but the user can be misled and they will be for financial gain.",
">\n\nI can disagree with you on the heroin thing. I grew up with a heroin addict, it sucks balls. Fuck that.\nEdit: I was a child/teen, it was out of my control to help the parent. Everyday was horrible because it was like they were dying (it was traumatizing too) and I was just a child. Heroin shouldn't be legal at all. Are you aware of the children in danger? It's a lot. And lots already are in danger already due to a heroin addicted parent/family member.",
">\n\n\n.\nPorn is not the enemy. Porn is what it is. You may not agree with it, or all of it, but it is what it is, and millions of people have enjoyed it in many forms for centuries. \nPorn did not make your partner impotent.\nPorn did not make your partner not have sex with you.\nPorn did not change your partner.\n\nI kind of suspect my actual view is quite similar to yours but if it is I would argue this is poorly worded. It seems to imply that porn doesn't really have a significant effect on people which I would argue is false. However it could also be interpreted as there have to be character flaws unrelated to porn for porn to be an real problem which is something I think I would agree with in pretty much any case I can be up with. For example porn could influence people to request more extreme sex acts or someone who gets used to porn might find sex with another human exhausting. However someone who cares about their partner will not push for sex their partner doesn't want so I would argue the real problem is selfishness lack of consideration for the partner. Likewise not being interested in sex shouldn't be considered a problem whether the uninterested person is a man or woman. Yes people should be honest about it and say I'm not interested in sex rather than constantly talking it up and then backing etc out if they're not interested but nobody should be shamed for not wanting sex. The person with a higher libido should decide how important they consider sex and take that onto consideration in making a decision whether to stay or leave rather than shaming someone for not wanting sex.",
">\n\nAll human users are only human. Saying heroin isn't the problem, humans are the problem is pointless. You can't \"outthink\" the addictive qualities of heroin.\nYour argument seems to be a guns don't kill people, people kill people rhetoric, and shares the same fallacies.",
">\n\nI don’t know about any of that. Porn isn’t guns.",
">\n\nYou don't know that humans are human?",
">\n\nI apologize. I will elaborate: Porn is not guns. Humans abusing porn is not the same as humans abusing guns.",
">\n\nOkay? “Porn isn’t as bad as guns” is a very different view from “porn can never be a problem.”",
">\n\nBut we’re tangling two separate lines of reasoning together. Abusing porn does not have the same collateral damage as abusing guns. On a SEPARATE AND COMPLETELY UNRELATED POINT, porn itself did not ruin a relationship",
">\n\n\nIf you are in a relationship with someone who watches porn, that is 100% on you.\nIf you find out that your partner hid their porn habit from you, staying in that relationship is 100% on you.\nIf your partner lies about ending their habit, what you do with that information is 100% on you.\n\nCould you please clarify how you are responsible for your partners addiction? Wouldn't the partner be responsible for their own addiction?",
">\n\nYes. But people do blame porn.",
">\n\nWhether or not the non-addict is blaming the porn or their partner, it isn't the non-addict fault is it? If it is, how?",
">\n\nIt’s the partner’s fault if they stay in a situation they consider toxic, all the while blaming porn for their situation",
">\n\nBut that's not something you've said in your post, \"staying in a situation\" isn't an aspect of your CMV. You just said it's the partners fault if their counterpart becomes addicted.",
">\n\nEvery part of what you said is incorrect. Please reread my post.",
">\n\nWhat about people who have porn addictions and are single? You only look at this from the perspective of someone in a relationship with a porn addict, but what about from their perspective? They may feel isolated and hurt by an addition to something that does in fact chemically change your brain. Can we not acknowledge that as a problem?",
">\n\nBut that’s not my premise. I’m saying that people who blame porn for a relationship’s end or their relationship issues is blaming the wrong thing. Porn is not wrong.",
">\n\nHeroin isn't a recreational drug.\nMdma/ecstacy / weed / coke to a degree are.\nMdma and weed aren't nearly as addictive as heroin or coke. With heroin being by far the worst.\nThere isn't a world in which heroin should be legalised and purchasable on the high street, that's stupid"
] |
>
I don't agree with the point about recreational drugs but I agree with your point on porn and I'm tired of anti-porn people. | [
"/u/derangermouse (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nThis seems to be more of a semantic pivot than anything.\nCocaine, as your example is physically and psychologically addictive and contributes to multiple serious health issues. Saying it's not the drug, or the porn but your relationship to it is like saying it's not falling off a mountain that kills you, it's hitting something on the way down. It's a useless distinction.",
">\n\nWhen that person falls off the mountain, is it the mountain’s fault? Because plenty of people blame porn for their partners use of it",
">\n\nYou replied to my comment that \"porn isn't guns\"\nWell a mountain isn't cocaine addiction, is it?",
">\n\nAccording to their analogy, they tried to make the equivalency.",
">\n\n\nPorn did not change your partner.\n\nI mean, we know at the very least that this isn’t true. We can go back and forth on the moral implications, but it has been demonstrated time and time again that porn affects both individual and societal views towards sex and sexual power dynamics.",
">\n\nThat doesn’t prove that the individual in question is changed. And it doesn’t prove that porn is inherently bad.",
">\n\nI’m not saying porn is inherently bad, I’m saying it can change people, at least sometimes, and that can be bad, at least sometimes.",
">\n\nOk, while your point did not contradict my original premise, I admit that you did contradict one of my points of argument. “!delta”",
">\n\nI guess I’m a bit confused about your view, then. Is it that porn is never bad? Or that porn may sometimes be bad but isn’t always bad? Or that, while porn may sometimes be bad, in the scheme of things there are bigger problems?\nAt various points in your OP and replies you seem to take each of those stances. Which is the view you want changed?",
">\n\nhe must be young and just moves the goalposts when he feels like it.",
">\n\nAgree with most points but the last one.\n\nPorn did not change your partner.\nYour partner is who they are,\n\nNoone is born who they are, everyone is constantly changing who they are, and being changed, especially by mass media.",
">\n\nIf mass media changes them, then that is who they are. The partner that blames media is blaming the wrong thing.",
">\n\nNo, it means that they were one thing, and now the person that they were is dead and now they are another thing, and in a year they'll be different again, because of what information and impressions they are consuming.\nI am not arguing the blame point i am arguing that it DOES change people.",
">\n\nA haircut changes someone, but a person made a choice to get the haircut.",
">\n\nI am talking about changes to their brain, to their personality, to their way of thinking. Changes about how they make decisions.\nThat's literally what brainwashing/propaganda/education/information gathering is.",
">\n\nPersonal experiences also change how you make future decisions. We still have choice.",
">\n\n\nPersonal experiences also change how you make future decisions\n\nExactly, that's my point. Everyone is changed by everything they witness. And can be changed by changing what they witness. What is yours?",
">\n\nI think we’re agreeing more than anything. I’m saying that the thing they’re witnessing isn’t inherently wrong.",
">\n\nJust because it is not a problem for everyone doesn't mean it's not a problem at all. Lots of people view porn and are fine. Some people view porn and it makes them worse in some way. You are correct that is not grounds for banning porn, but we should have a conversation about responsible use of it and how it can affect people. That means acknowledging that for at least some people, it is a problem.",
">\n\nI don’t argue any of that. But porn is not inherently wrong just because it can be abused. The partner who chooses to stay in a toxic situation caused by porn addiction doesn’t just get to blame porn",
">\n\n\nPorn did not make your partner impotent.\n\nYou sure?\nWhile non-organic sexual dysfunctions have been presumed psychological in origin, and therefore the province of mental health experts, the unexplained sexual dysfunctions now rising sharply in young men (ED, difficulty orgasming, low sexual desire) are, to the extent they are reversible by quitting Internet pornography, not arising from “performance anxiety” (that is, psychosexual dysfunction, ICD-9 code 302.7), although performance anxiety may certainly accompany them.",
">\n\nPerhaps I phrased that incorrectly. I should have said that their partner’s choice is what made them impotent. Porn itself has no designs on the partner.",
">\n\n\ntheir partner’s choice is what made them impotent.\n\nIs it? \nOnline Porn Addiction: What We Know and What We Don’t—A Systematic Review\nIs a behavioral addiction, and the subsequent effects, really the result result of an errant choice made by the partner? We are not really sure why certain people are more or less prone to addictive behaviors, so a person could be choosing to use porn in an occasional manner, and then falling victim to their own faults. I wouldn't lay the blame at the feet of the choice, but their own predilection for addiction.",
">\n\nIt’s always about choice. One of the steps of addiction recovery is taking personal responsibility for their addiction.",
">\n\nOkay, but porn addiction isn't the same as something like heroin addiction, because porn is much more normalized. Far more people use porn without problems than use hard drugs without a problem. Making the choice to view porn is not necessarily bad, so we should not blame people for it. And you can slip into addiction without realizing. We should show people more compassion and try to educate people about the potential dangers of porn.",
">\n\nSure. But porn is not the reason the person ruined their relationship. Their addiction is. They are two different things.",
">\n\nYou cannot have the addiction without porn. They are different but related. Porn is one of the causes of that addiction.",
">\n\nIf this was the work of a professional, I would hope to see a paragraph structure at the very least. The stream-of-consciousness style seems to suggest more inanity than influence.",
">\n\nPlease refrain from trying to insult. Presenting the argument as simply as possible keeps people from needlessly nitpicking parts of it without actually disproving the central argument.",
">\n\n\nPorn did not change your partner. \n\nPorn literally changes your brain.",
">\n\nSo do new experiences. So does age. So does physical trauma.",
">\n\nNot a counterpoint, you’re agreeing that things people experience change who they are.",
">\n\n\nIf you are in a relationship with someone who watches porn, that is 100% on you. \nIf you find out that your partner hid their porn habit from you, staying in that relationship is 100% on you. \nIf your partner lies about ending their habit, what you do with that information is 100% on you.\n\nHow is the hiding, lying, etc., not on the person doing it?\nYou're saying what you do with the info when you find out is on you --ok.... how is the issue not the lying, hiding, etc?\nYou're saying like 'what you do when you find out your SO is a molester is up to you, that's a problem with your relationship.'\nMaybe the person has a problem?",
">\n\n\nI believe there is nothing inherently wrong with porn just like there is nothing inherently wrong with cocaine, with weed, or with heroin. It is all dependent on the user.\n\nI think it's safe to say that we recognise that the companies that sell cigarettes are profiting from poisoning their customer base. There are no repercussions from their consumers because they're already addicted and we can't stop them from selling because they've been in business for too long and there would be an outcry.\nI want to say that if cigarettes were invented today they'd very quickly be made illegal specifically because this practice is predatory. You can claim that it is entirely the fault of the user, but the user can be misled and they will be for financial gain.",
">\n\nI can disagree with you on the heroin thing. I grew up with a heroin addict, it sucks balls. Fuck that.\nEdit: I was a child/teen, it was out of my control to help the parent. Everyday was horrible because it was like they were dying (it was traumatizing too) and I was just a child. Heroin shouldn't be legal at all. Are you aware of the children in danger? It's a lot. And lots already are in danger already due to a heroin addicted parent/family member.",
">\n\n\n.\nPorn is not the enemy. Porn is what it is. You may not agree with it, or all of it, but it is what it is, and millions of people have enjoyed it in many forms for centuries. \nPorn did not make your partner impotent.\nPorn did not make your partner not have sex with you.\nPorn did not change your partner.\n\nI kind of suspect my actual view is quite similar to yours but if it is I would argue this is poorly worded. It seems to imply that porn doesn't really have a significant effect on people which I would argue is false. However it could also be interpreted as there have to be character flaws unrelated to porn for porn to be an real problem which is something I think I would agree with in pretty much any case I can be up with. For example porn could influence people to request more extreme sex acts or someone who gets used to porn might find sex with another human exhausting. However someone who cares about their partner will not push for sex their partner doesn't want so I would argue the real problem is selfishness lack of consideration for the partner. Likewise not being interested in sex shouldn't be considered a problem whether the uninterested person is a man or woman. Yes people should be honest about it and say I'm not interested in sex rather than constantly talking it up and then backing etc out if they're not interested but nobody should be shamed for not wanting sex. The person with a higher libido should decide how important they consider sex and take that onto consideration in making a decision whether to stay or leave rather than shaming someone for not wanting sex.",
">\n\nAll human users are only human. Saying heroin isn't the problem, humans are the problem is pointless. You can't \"outthink\" the addictive qualities of heroin.\nYour argument seems to be a guns don't kill people, people kill people rhetoric, and shares the same fallacies.",
">\n\nI don’t know about any of that. Porn isn’t guns.",
">\n\nYou don't know that humans are human?",
">\n\nI apologize. I will elaborate: Porn is not guns. Humans abusing porn is not the same as humans abusing guns.",
">\n\nOkay? “Porn isn’t as bad as guns” is a very different view from “porn can never be a problem.”",
">\n\nBut we’re tangling two separate lines of reasoning together. Abusing porn does not have the same collateral damage as abusing guns. On a SEPARATE AND COMPLETELY UNRELATED POINT, porn itself did not ruin a relationship",
">\n\n\nIf you are in a relationship with someone who watches porn, that is 100% on you.\nIf you find out that your partner hid their porn habit from you, staying in that relationship is 100% on you.\nIf your partner lies about ending their habit, what you do with that information is 100% on you.\n\nCould you please clarify how you are responsible for your partners addiction? Wouldn't the partner be responsible for their own addiction?",
">\n\nYes. But people do blame porn.",
">\n\nWhether or not the non-addict is blaming the porn or their partner, it isn't the non-addict fault is it? If it is, how?",
">\n\nIt’s the partner’s fault if they stay in a situation they consider toxic, all the while blaming porn for their situation",
">\n\nBut that's not something you've said in your post, \"staying in a situation\" isn't an aspect of your CMV. You just said it's the partners fault if their counterpart becomes addicted.",
">\n\nEvery part of what you said is incorrect. Please reread my post.",
">\n\nWhat about people who have porn addictions and are single? You only look at this from the perspective of someone in a relationship with a porn addict, but what about from their perspective? They may feel isolated and hurt by an addition to something that does in fact chemically change your brain. Can we not acknowledge that as a problem?",
">\n\nBut that’s not my premise. I’m saying that people who blame porn for a relationship’s end or their relationship issues is blaming the wrong thing. Porn is not wrong.",
">\n\nHeroin isn't a recreational drug.\nMdma/ecstacy / weed / coke to a degree are.\nMdma and weed aren't nearly as addictive as heroin or coke. With heroin being by far the worst.\nThere isn't a world in which heroin should be legalised and purchasable on the high street, that's stupid",
">\n\nI think saying there's nothing ultimately wrong with porn is a different thing than saying porn isn't a destructive force, and you confuse the two.\nWe can say that people have the freedom to take heroine as they wish. We can say that it is good to have freedoms to explore new ideas and behaviors. We cannot say that heroine is generally good for an individual's social and physical well being. There is sufficient evidence to say that a high number of heroine users, not all, but more than not, will experience significant physical decline. For a good portion, this will become an addiction, and they will consume heroine to a point of thier personal, financial, physical, mental, social detriment. It's hard to really argue that heroine is a good thing for society.\nPornography is surely not as destructive a force as heroine, but you could say similar things for it. \n If you were to ask yourself the question of why you choose to watch pornography instead of pursuing a human relationship, you might recognize that pornography propagates antisocial behavior, in the same way that much addictive behavior is maladaptive avoidance. \nAnother thing to consider is the creation of pornography. The forces that drive the creation of pornography are nearly certainly bad for individuals and societies as a whole. You should try to learn more about how porn is made. I think you would change your mind on porn from this alone.\nIn a utopian society, there would almost certainly not exist pornography. It"
] |
>
You've severely misunderstood basic argument structure; premise > reasoning and supporting evidence > conclusion derived from the premise
Premise #1: porn is, for the most part, legal (fact), there is nothing inherently wrong with porn (assumption/opinion that is not so black and white as you seem to believe).
You've assumed there is nothing inherently wrong with porn. A premise cannot contain an assumption or belief. It contains facts to build off.
Conclusion #1: recreational drugs should be legal because there is nothing inherently wrong with drugs (assumption #2).
Again, you're carrying over the assumption from the p rule mise which is still invalid and you've completely skipped the reasoning and supporting evidence for the premise insteading jumping straight to the conclusion.
Your premise is flawed from the start, makes assumptions, uses personal beliefs and strays away from facts. The premise is supposed to be not up for debate whereas yours is. Not only that, but your premise can't even be proven due to it being opinion based.
You carry this same fallacy over intivthe assumption and personal belief conclusion #1 that there is nothing inherently wrong with drugs based on the bold claim that drugs and porn arenewual simply because they both can be consumed and abused in order for your argument to work drugs and porn must be considered equal in your fantasy scenario. There are plenty of objects that share two or more conditions would never be considered equal by the public apples are red and some in grocery stores. Tomatoes are red and sold in grocery stores. They will never be considered equal or comparable in some inherent way.in your attempt to go into the reasoning and supporting evidence you create a second premise...
Premise #2 anything consumed in excess can be considered bad but it I'd the individual, not substance consumed in excess that is to blame.
Reasoning and supporting evidence:it is your fault that you're in a relationship with someonenthay watched lorn, it is your fault if you stay in that relationship, it is your fault hoe you react to moving forward with the relationship, porn does not make one impotent, it did not make your partner not have sex with you, it does not change your partner, it is no to you on his you proceed with the relationship knowing they watch porn.
Conclusion #2: porn is not the problem, your relationship is.
What us supposed to be your reasoning that leads us from your initial premise to initial conclusion is a secondary premise to a entirely newconclusion. Not only that. But the reasoning andnevjdencd I'd a weak attempt to remove all blame and responsibility from the partner watching porn and shifting it to the other. There should be open communication early on in the relationship to establish and agreement between both partners that one or both watch porn and it's cool to do every once in a while as long as it's not a daily thing and one partner is getting off to porn daily over having sex with you. Then both partners need to agree to be ok with it with some boundaries set in place. If one partner isn't ok with it there should either be a compromise from the other end or it's bothindividuals responsibility ro end the relationship, not ones responsibility. I'd one partner is caught lying and watching pornvbeind theborher partnere back they must take responsibility for lying and are equally responsible for either tending things to not further lie to and hurt their partner or compromise and no longer watch porn behind their partners back if they have any remorse and care for the others feelings.
Just like drug abuse, other addictive activities such as overindulgence in porn, food, gambling, energy drink consumption, exercise, workaholics, etc. Relesse higher than normal levels if dopamine in the brain which in turn does change the individuals brain chemistry and thinking to a degree. These activities are known to also interfere not only with the individuals life but impact the lives of those around them.
Bit bummed you stopped responding to posts cuz in curious to see if you understand your argument structure is flawed and doesn't make sense. | [
"/u/derangermouse (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nThis seems to be more of a semantic pivot than anything.\nCocaine, as your example is physically and psychologically addictive and contributes to multiple serious health issues. Saying it's not the drug, or the porn but your relationship to it is like saying it's not falling off a mountain that kills you, it's hitting something on the way down. It's a useless distinction.",
">\n\nWhen that person falls off the mountain, is it the mountain’s fault? Because plenty of people blame porn for their partners use of it",
">\n\nYou replied to my comment that \"porn isn't guns\"\nWell a mountain isn't cocaine addiction, is it?",
">\n\nAccording to their analogy, they tried to make the equivalency.",
">\n\n\nPorn did not change your partner.\n\nI mean, we know at the very least that this isn’t true. We can go back and forth on the moral implications, but it has been demonstrated time and time again that porn affects both individual and societal views towards sex and sexual power dynamics.",
">\n\nThat doesn’t prove that the individual in question is changed. And it doesn’t prove that porn is inherently bad.",
">\n\nI’m not saying porn is inherently bad, I’m saying it can change people, at least sometimes, and that can be bad, at least sometimes.",
">\n\nOk, while your point did not contradict my original premise, I admit that you did contradict one of my points of argument. “!delta”",
">\n\nI guess I’m a bit confused about your view, then. Is it that porn is never bad? Or that porn may sometimes be bad but isn’t always bad? Or that, while porn may sometimes be bad, in the scheme of things there are bigger problems?\nAt various points in your OP and replies you seem to take each of those stances. Which is the view you want changed?",
">\n\nhe must be young and just moves the goalposts when he feels like it.",
">\n\nAgree with most points but the last one.\n\nPorn did not change your partner.\nYour partner is who they are,\n\nNoone is born who they are, everyone is constantly changing who they are, and being changed, especially by mass media.",
">\n\nIf mass media changes them, then that is who they are. The partner that blames media is blaming the wrong thing.",
">\n\nNo, it means that they were one thing, and now the person that they were is dead and now they are another thing, and in a year they'll be different again, because of what information and impressions they are consuming.\nI am not arguing the blame point i am arguing that it DOES change people.",
">\n\nA haircut changes someone, but a person made a choice to get the haircut.",
">\n\nI am talking about changes to their brain, to their personality, to their way of thinking. Changes about how they make decisions.\nThat's literally what brainwashing/propaganda/education/information gathering is.",
">\n\nPersonal experiences also change how you make future decisions. We still have choice.",
">\n\n\nPersonal experiences also change how you make future decisions\n\nExactly, that's my point. Everyone is changed by everything they witness. And can be changed by changing what they witness. What is yours?",
">\n\nI think we’re agreeing more than anything. I’m saying that the thing they’re witnessing isn’t inherently wrong.",
">\n\nJust because it is not a problem for everyone doesn't mean it's not a problem at all. Lots of people view porn and are fine. Some people view porn and it makes them worse in some way. You are correct that is not grounds for banning porn, but we should have a conversation about responsible use of it and how it can affect people. That means acknowledging that for at least some people, it is a problem.",
">\n\nI don’t argue any of that. But porn is not inherently wrong just because it can be abused. The partner who chooses to stay in a toxic situation caused by porn addiction doesn’t just get to blame porn",
">\n\n\nPorn did not make your partner impotent.\n\nYou sure?\nWhile non-organic sexual dysfunctions have been presumed psychological in origin, and therefore the province of mental health experts, the unexplained sexual dysfunctions now rising sharply in young men (ED, difficulty orgasming, low sexual desire) are, to the extent they are reversible by quitting Internet pornography, not arising from “performance anxiety” (that is, psychosexual dysfunction, ICD-9 code 302.7), although performance anxiety may certainly accompany them.",
">\n\nPerhaps I phrased that incorrectly. I should have said that their partner’s choice is what made them impotent. Porn itself has no designs on the partner.",
">\n\n\ntheir partner’s choice is what made them impotent.\n\nIs it? \nOnline Porn Addiction: What We Know and What We Don’t—A Systematic Review\nIs a behavioral addiction, and the subsequent effects, really the result result of an errant choice made by the partner? We are not really sure why certain people are more or less prone to addictive behaviors, so a person could be choosing to use porn in an occasional manner, and then falling victim to their own faults. I wouldn't lay the blame at the feet of the choice, but their own predilection for addiction.",
">\n\nIt’s always about choice. One of the steps of addiction recovery is taking personal responsibility for their addiction.",
">\n\nOkay, but porn addiction isn't the same as something like heroin addiction, because porn is much more normalized. Far more people use porn without problems than use hard drugs without a problem. Making the choice to view porn is not necessarily bad, so we should not blame people for it. And you can slip into addiction without realizing. We should show people more compassion and try to educate people about the potential dangers of porn.",
">\n\nSure. But porn is not the reason the person ruined their relationship. Their addiction is. They are two different things.",
">\n\nYou cannot have the addiction without porn. They are different but related. Porn is one of the causes of that addiction.",
">\n\nIf this was the work of a professional, I would hope to see a paragraph structure at the very least. The stream-of-consciousness style seems to suggest more inanity than influence.",
">\n\nPlease refrain from trying to insult. Presenting the argument as simply as possible keeps people from needlessly nitpicking parts of it without actually disproving the central argument.",
">\n\n\nPorn did not change your partner. \n\nPorn literally changes your brain.",
">\n\nSo do new experiences. So does age. So does physical trauma.",
">\n\nNot a counterpoint, you’re agreeing that things people experience change who they are.",
">\n\n\nIf you are in a relationship with someone who watches porn, that is 100% on you. \nIf you find out that your partner hid their porn habit from you, staying in that relationship is 100% on you. \nIf your partner lies about ending their habit, what you do with that information is 100% on you.\n\nHow is the hiding, lying, etc., not on the person doing it?\nYou're saying what you do with the info when you find out is on you --ok.... how is the issue not the lying, hiding, etc?\nYou're saying like 'what you do when you find out your SO is a molester is up to you, that's a problem with your relationship.'\nMaybe the person has a problem?",
">\n\n\nI believe there is nothing inherently wrong with porn just like there is nothing inherently wrong with cocaine, with weed, or with heroin. It is all dependent on the user.\n\nI think it's safe to say that we recognise that the companies that sell cigarettes are profiting from poisoning their customer base. There are no repercussions from their consumers because they're already addicted and we can't stop them from selling because they've been in business for too long and there would be an outcry.\nI want to say that if cigarettes were invented today they'd very quickly be made illegal specifically because this practice is predatory. You can claim that it is entirely the fault of the user, but the user can be misled and they will be for financial gain.",
">\n\nI can disagree with you on the heroin thing. I grew up with a heroin addict, it sucks balls. Fuck that.\nEdit: I was a child/teen, it was out of my control to help the parent. Everyday was horrible because it was like they were dying (it was traumatizing too) and I was just a child. Heroin shouldn't be legal at all. Are you aware of the children in danger? It's a lot. And lots already are in danger already due to a heroin addicted parent/family member.",
">\n\n\n.\nPorn is not the enemy. Porn is what it is. You may not agree with it, or all of it, but it is what it is, and millions of people have enjoyed it in many forms for centuries. \nPorn did not make your partner impotent.\nPorn did not make your partner not have sex with you.\nPorn did not change your partner.\n\nI kind of suspect my actual view is quite similar to yours but if it is I would argue this is poorly worded. It seems to imply that porn doesn't really have a significant effect on people which I would argue is false. However it could also be interpreted as there have to be character flaws unrelated to porn for porn to be an real problem which is something I think I would agree with in pretty much any case I can be up with. For example porn could influence people to request more extreme sex acts or someone who gets used to porn might find sex with another human exhausting. However someone who cares about their partner will not push for sex their partner doesn't want so I would argue the real problem is selfishness lack of consideration for the partner. Likewise not being interested in sex shouldn't be considered a problem whether the uninterested person is a man or woman. Yes people should be honest about it and say I'm not interested in sex rather than constantly talking it up and then backing etc out if they're not interested but nobody should be shamed for not wanting sex. The person with a higher libido should decide how important they consider sex and take that onto consideration in making a decision whether to stay or leave rather than shaming someone for not wanting sex.",
">\n\nAll human users are only human. Saying heroin isn't the problem, humans are the problem is pointless. You can't \"outthink\" the addictive qualities of heroin.\nYour argument seems to be a guns don't kill people, people kill people rhetoric, and shares the same fallacies.",
">\n\nI don’t know about any of that. Porn isn’t guns.",
">\n\nYou don't know that humans are human?",
">\n\nI apologize. I will elaborate: Porn is not guns. Humans abusing porn is not the same as humans abusing guns.",
">\n\nOkay? “Porn isn’t as bad as guns” is a very different view from “porn can never be a problem.”",
">\n\nBut we’re tangling two separate lines of reasoning together. Abusing porn does not have the same collateral damage as abusing guns. On a SEPARATE AND COMPLETELY UNRELATED POINT, porn itself did not ruin a relationship",
">\n\n\nIf you are in a relationship with someone who watches porn, that is 100% on you.\nIf you find out that your partner hid their porn habit from you, staying in that relationship is 100% on you.\nIf your partner lies about ending their habit, what you do with that information is 100% on you.\n\nCould you please clarify how you are responsible for your partners addiction? Wouldn't the partner be responsible for their own addiction?",
">\n\nYes. But people do blame porn.",
">\n\nWhether or not the non-addict is blaming the porn or their partner, it isn't the non-addict fault is it? If it is, how?",
">\n\nIt’s the partner’s fault if they stay in a situation they consider toxic, all the while blaming porn for their situation",
">\n\nBut that's not something you've said in your post, \"staying in a situation\" isn't an aspect of your CMV. You just said it's the partners fault if their counterpart becomes addicted.",
">\n\nEvery part of what you said is incorrect. Please reread my post.",
">\n\nWhat about people who have porn addictions and are single? You only look at this from the perspective of someone in a relationship with a porn addict, but what about from their perspective? They may feel isolated and hurt by an addition to something that does in fact chemically change your brain. Can we not acknowledge that as a problem?",
">\n\nBut that’s not my premise. I’m saying that people who blame porn for a relationship’s end or their relationship issues is blaming the wrong thing. Porn is not wrong.",
">\n\nHeroin isn't a recreational drug.\nMdma/ecstacy / weed / coke to a degree are.\nMdma and weed aren't nearly as addictive as heroin or coke. With heroin being by far the worst.\nThere isn't a world in which heroin should be legalised and purchasable on the high street, that's stupid",
">\n\nI think saying there's nothing ultimately wrong with porn is a different thing than saying porn isn't a destructive force, and you confuse the two.\nWe can say that people have the freedom to take heroine as they wish. We can say that it is good to have freedoms to explore new ideas and behaviors. We cannot say that heroine is generally good for an individual's social and physical well being. There is sufficient evidence to say that a high number of heroine users, not all, but more than not, will experience significant physical decline. For a good portion, this will become an addiction, and they will consume heroine to a point of thier personal, financial, physical, mental, social detriment. It's hard to really argue that heroine is a good thing for society.\nPornography is surely not as destructive a force as heroine, but you could say similar things for it. \n If you were to ask yourself the question of why you choose to watch pornography instead of pursuing a human relationship, you might recognize that pornography propagates antisocial behavior, in the same way that much addictive behavior is maladaptive avoidance. \nAnother thing to consider is the creation of pornography. The forces that drive the creation of pornography are nearly certainly bad for individuals and societies as a whole. You should try to learn more about how porn is made. I think you would change your mind on porn from this alone.\nIn a utopian society, there would almost certainly not exist pornography. It",
">\n\nI don't agree with the point about recreational drugs but I agree with your point on porn and I'm tired of anti-porn people."
] |
> | [
"/u/derangermouse (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nThis seems to be more of a semantic pivot than anything.\nCocaine, as your example is physically and psychologically addictive and contributes to multiple serious health issues. Saying it's not the drug, or the porn but your relationship to it is like saying it's not falling off a mountain that kills you, it's hitting something on the way down. It's a useless distinction.",
">\n\nWhen that person falls off the mountain, is it the mountain’s fault? Because plenty of people blame porn for their partners use of it",
">\n\nYou replied to my comment that \"porn isn't guns\"\nWell a mountain isn't cocaine addiction, is it?",
">\n\nAccording to their analogy, they tried to make the equivalency.",
">\n\n\nPorn did not change your partner.\n\nI mean, we know at the very least that this isn’t true. We can go back and forth on the moral implications, but it has been demonstrated time and time again that porn affects both individual and societal views towards sex and sexual power dynamics.",
">\n\nThat doesn’t prove that the individual in question is changed. And it doesn’t prove that porn is inherently bad.",
">\n\nI’m not saying porn is inherently bad, I’m saying it can change people, at least sometimes, and that can be bad, at least sometimes.",
">\n\nOk, while your point did not contradict my original premise, I admit that you did contradict one of my points of argument. “!delta”",
">\n\nI guess I’m a bit confused about your view, then. Is it that porn is never bad? Or that porn may sometimes be bad but isn’t always bad? Or that, while porn may sometimes be bad, in the scheme of things there are bigger problems?\nAt various points in your OP and replies you seem to take each of those stances. Which is the view you want changed?",
">\n\nhe must be young and just moves the goalposts when he feels like it.",
">\n\nAgree with most points but the last one.\n\nPorn did not change your partner.\nYour partner is who they are,\n\nNoone is born who they are, everyone is constantly changing who they are, and being changed, especially by mass media.",
">\n\nIf mass media changes them, then that is who they are. The partner that blames media is blaming the wrong thing.",
">\n\nNo, it means that they were one thing, and now the person that they were is dead and now they are another thing, and in a year they'll be different again, because of what information and impressions they are consuming.\nI am not arguing the blame point i am arguing that it DOES change people.",
">\n\nA haircut changes someone, but a person made a choice to get the haircut.",
">\n\nI am talking about changes to their brain, to their personality, to their way of thinking. Changes about how they make decisions.\nThat's literally what brainwashing/propaganda/education/information gathering is.",
">\n\nPersonal experiences also change how you make future decisions. We still have choice.",
">\n\n\nPersonal experiences also change how you make future decisions\n\nExactly, that's my point. Everyone is changed by everything they witness. And can be changed by changing what they witness. What is yours?",
">\n\nI think we’re agreeing more than anything. I’m saying that the thing they’re witnessing isn’t inherently wrong.",
">\n\nJust because it is not a problem for everyone doesn't mean it's not a problem at all. Lots of people view porn and are fine. Some people view porn and it makes them worse in some way. You are correct that is not grounds for banning porn, but we should have a conversation about responsible use of it and how it can affect people. That means acknowledging that for at least some people, it is a problem.",
">\n\nI don’t argue any of that. But porn is not inherently wrong just because it can be abused. The partner who chooses to stay in a toxic situation caused by porn addiction doesn’t just get to blame porn",
">\n\n\nPorn did not make your partner impotent.\n\nYou sure?\nWhile non-organic sexual dysfunctions have been presumed psychological in origin, and therefore the province of mental health experts, the unexplained sexual dysfunctions now rising sharply in young men (ED, difficulty orgasming, low sexual desire) are, to the extent they are reversible by quitting Internet pornography, not arising from “performance anxiety” (that is, psychosexual dysfunction, ICD-9 code 302.7), although performance anxiety may certainly accompany them.",
">\n\nPerhaps I phrased that incorrectly. I should have said that their partner’s choice is what made them impotent. Porn itself has no designs on the partner.",
">\n\n\ntheir partner’s choice is what made them impotent.\n\nIs it? \nOnline Porn Addiction: What We Know and What We Don’t—A Systematic Review\nIs a behavioral addiction, and the subsequent effects, really the result result of an errant choice made by the partner? We are not really sure why certain people are more or less prone to addictive behaviors, so a person could be choosing to use porn in an occasional manner, and then falling victim to their own faults. I wouldn't lay the blame at the feet of the choice, but their own predilection for addiction.",
">\n\nIt’s always about choice. One of the steps of addiction recovery is taking personal responsibility for their addiction.",
">\n\nOkay, but porn addiction isn't the same as something like heroin addiction, because porn is much more normalized. Far more people use porn without problems than use hard drugs without a problem. Making the choice to view porn is not necessarily bad, so we should not blame people for it. And you can slip into addiction without realizing. We should show people more compassion and try to educate people about the potential dangers of porn.",
">\n\nSure. But porn is not the reason the person ruined their relationship. Their addiction is. They are two different things.",
">\n\nYou cannot have the addiction without porn. They are different but related. Porn is one of the causes of that addiction.",
">\n\nIf this was the work of a professional, I would hope to see a paragraph structure at the very least. The stream-of-consciousness style seems to suggest more inanity than influence.",
">\n\nPlease refrain from trying to insult. Presenting the argument as simply as possible keeps people from needlessly nitpicking parts of it without actually disproving the central argument.",
">\n\n\nPorn did not change your partner. \n\nPorn literally changes your brain.",
">\n\nSo do new experiences. So does age. So does physical trauma.",
">\n\nNot a counterpoint, you’re agreeing that things people experience change who they are.",
">\n\n\nIf you are in a relationship with someone who watches porn, that is 100% on you. \nIf you find out that your partner hid their porn habit from you, staying in that relationship is 100% on you. \nIf your partner lies about ending their habit, what you do with that information is 100% on you.\n\nHow is the hiding, lying, etc., not on the person doing it?\nYou're saying what you do with the info when you find out is on you --ok.... how is the issue not the lying, hiding, etc?\nYou're saying like 'what you do when you find out your SO is a molester is up to you, that's a problem with your relationship.'\nMaybe the person has a problem?",
">\n\n\nI believe there is nothing inherently wrong with porn just like there is nothing inherently wrong with cocaine, with weed, or with heroin. It is all dependent on the user.\n\nI think it's safe to say that we recognise that the companies that sell cigarettes are profiting from poisoning their customer base. There are no repercussions from their consumers because they're already addicted and we can't stop them from selling because they've been in business for too long and there would be an outcry.\nI want to say that if cigarettes were invented today they'd very quickly be made illegal specifically because this practice is predatory. You can claim that it is entirely the fault of the user, but the user can be misled and they will be for financial gain.",
">\n\nI can disagree with you on the heroin thing. I grew up with a heroin addict, it sucks balls. Fuck that.\nEdit: I was a child/teen, it was out of my control to help the parent. Everyday was horrible because it was like they were dying (it was traumatizing too) and I was just a child. Heroin shouldn't be legal at all. Are you aware of the children in danger? It's a lot. And lots already are in danger already due to a heroin addicted parent/family member.",
">\n\n\n.\nPorn is not the enemy. Porn is what it is. You may not agree with it, or all of it, but it is what it is, and millions of people have enjoyed it in many forms for centuries. \nPorn did not make your partner impotent.\nPorn did not make your partner not have sex with you.\nPorn did not change your partner.\n\nI kind of suspect my actual view is quite similar to yours but if it is I would argue this is poorly worded. It seems to imply that porn doesn't really have a significant effect on people which I would argue is false. However it could also be interpreted as there have to be character flaws unrelated to porn for porn to be an real problem which is something I think I would agree with in pretty much any case I can be up with. For example porn could influence people to request more extreme sex acts or someone who gets used to porn might find sex with another human exhausting. However someone who cares about their partner will not push for sex their partner doesn't want so I would argue the real problem is selfishness lack of consideration for the partner. Likewise not being interested in sex shouldn't be considered a problem whether the uninterested person is a man or woman. Yes people should be honest about it and say I'm not interested in sex rather than constantly talking it up and then backing etc out if they're not interested but nobody should be shamed for not wanting sex. The person with a higher libido should decide how important they consider sex and take that onto consideration in making a decision whether to stay or leave rather than shaming someone for not wanting sex.",
">\n\nAll human users are only human. Saying heroin isn't the problem, humans are the problem is pointless. You can't \"outthink\" the addictive qualities of heroin.\nYour argument seems to be a guns don't kill people, people kill people rhetoric, and shares the same fallacies.",
">\n\nI don’t know about any of that. Porn isn’t guns.",
">\n\nYou don't know that humans are human?",
">\n\nI apologize. I will elaborate: Porn is not guns. Humans abusing porn is not the same as humans abusing guns.",
">\n\nOkay? “Porn isn’t as bad as guns” is a very different view from “porn can never be a problem.”",
">\n\nBut we’re tangling two separate lines of reasoning together. Abusing porn does not have the same collateral damage as abusing guns. On a SEPARATE AND COMPLETELY UNRELATED POINT, porn itself did not ruin a relationship",
">\n\n\nIf you are in a relationship with someone who watches porn, that is 100% on you.\nIf you find out that your partner hid their porn habit from you, staying in that relationship is 100% on you.\nIf your partner lies about ending their habit, what you do with that information is 100% on you.\n\nCould you please clarify how you are responsible for your partners addiction? Wouldn't the partner be responsible for their own addiction?",
">\n\nYes. But people do blame porn.",
">\n\nWhether or not the non-addict is blaming the porn or their partner, it isn't the non-addict fault is it? If it is, how?",
">\n\nIt’s the partner’s fault if they stay in a situation they consider toxic, all the while blaming porn for their situation",
">\n\nBut that's not something you've said in your post, \"staying in a situation\" isn't an aspect of your CMV. You just said it's the partners fault if their counterpart becomes addicted.",
">\n\nEvery part of what you said is incorrect. Please reread my post.",
">\n\nWhat about people who have porn addictions and are single? You only look at this from the perspective of someone in a relationship with a porn addict, but what about from their perspective? They may feel isolated and hurt by an addition to something that does in fact chemically change your brain. Can we not acknowledge that as a problem?",
">\n\nBut that’s not my premise. I’m saying that people who blame porn for a relationship’s end or their relationship issues is blaming the wrong thing. Porn is not wrong.",
">\n\nHeroin isn't a recreational drug.\nMdma/ecstacy / weed / coke to a degree are.\nMdma and weed aren't nearly as addictive as heroin or coke. With heroin being by far the worst.\nThere isn't a world in which heroin should be legalised and purchasable on the high street, that's stupid",
">\n\nI think saying there's nothing ultimately wrong with porn is a different thing than saying porn isn't a destructive force, and you confuse the two.\nWe can say that people have the freedom to take heroine as they wish. We can say that it is good to have freedoms to explore new ideas and behaviors. We cannot say that heroine is generally good for an individual's social and physical well being. There is sufficient evidence to say that a high number of heroine users, not all, but more than not, will experience significant physical decline. For a good portion, this will become an addiction, and they will consume heroine to a point of thier personal, financial, physical, mental, social detriment. It's hard to really argue that heroine is a good thing for society.\nPornography is surely not as destructive a force as heroine, but you could say similar things for it. \n If you were to ask yourself the question of why you choose to watch pornography instead of pursuing a human relationship, you might recognize that pornography propagates antisocial behavior, in the same way that much addictive behavior is maladaptive avoidance. \nAnother thing to consider is the creation of pornography. The forces that drive the creation of pornography are nearly certainly bad for individuals and societies as a whole. You should try to learn more about how porn is made. I think you would change your mind on porn from this alone.\nIn a utopian society, there would almost certainly not exist pornography. It",
">\n\nI don't agree with the point about recreational drugs but I agree with your point on porn and I'm tired of anti-porn people.",
">\n\nYou've severely misunderstood basic argument structure; premise > reasoning and supporting evidence > conclusion derived from the premise\nPremise #1: porn is, for the most part, legal (fact), there is nothing inherently wrong with porn (assumption/opinion that is not so black and white as you seem to believe).\nYou've assumed there is nothing inherently wrong with porn. A premise cannot contain an assumption or belief. It contains facts to build off.\nConclusion #1: recreational drugs should be legal because there is nothing inherently wrong with drugs (assumption #2).\nAgain, you're carrying over the assumption from the p rule mise which is still invalid and you've completely skipped the reasoning and supporting evidence for the premise insteading jumping straight to the conclusion.\nYour premise is flawed from the start, makes assumptions, uses personal beliefs and strays away from facts. The premise is supposed to be not up for debate whereas yours is. Not only that, but your premise can't even be proven due to it being opinion based.\nYou carry this same fallacy over intivthe assumption and personal belief conclusion #1 that there is nothing inherently wrong with drugs based on the bold claim that drugs and porn arenewual simply because they both can be consumed and abused in order for your argument to work drugs and porn must be considered equal in your fantasy scenario. There are plenty of objects that share two or more conditions would never be considered equal by the public apples are red and some in grocery stores. Tomatoes are red and sold in grocery stores. They will never be considered equal or comparable in some inherent way.in your attempt to go into the reasoning and supporting evidence you create a second premise...\nPremise #2 anything consumed in excess can be considered bad but it I'd the individual, not substance consumed in excess that is to blame.\nReasoning and supporting evidence:it is your fault that you're in a relationship with someonenthay watched lorn, it is your fault if you stay in that relationship, it is your fault hoe you react to moving forward with the relationship, porn does not make one impotent, it did not make your partner not have sex with you, it does not change your partner, it is no to you on his you proceed with the relationship knowing they watch porn. \nConclusion #2: porn is not the problem, your relationship is.\nWhat us supposed to be your reasoning that leads us from your initial premise to initial conclusion is a secondary premise to a entirely newconclusion. Not only that. But the reasoning andnevjdencd I'd a weak attempt to remove all blame and responsibility from the partner watching porn and shifting it to the other. There should be open communication early on in the relationship to establish and agreement between both partners that one or both watch porn and it's cool to do every once in a while as long as it's not a daily thing and one partner is getting off to porn daily over having sex with you. Then both partners need to agree to be ok with it with some boundaries set in place. If one partner isn't ok with it there should either be a compromise from the other end or it's bothindividuals responsibility ro end the relationship, not ones responsibility. I'd one partner is caught lying and watching pornvbeind theborher partnere back they must take responsibility for lying and are equally responsible for either tending things to not further lie to and hurt their partner or compromise and no longer watch porn behind their partners back if they have any remorse and care for the others feelings.\nJust like drug abuse, other addictive activities such as overindulgence in porn, food, gambling, energy drink consumption, exercise, workaholics, etc. Relesse higher than normal levels if dopamine in the brain which in turn does change the individuals brain chemistry and thinking to a degree. These activities are known to also interfere not only with the individuals life but impact the lives of those around them.\nBit bummed you stopped responding to posts cuz in curious to see if you understand your argument structure is flawed and doesn't make sense."
] |
The announcement follows months of scrutiny of FDA over contamination at a Michigan factory that led to a nationwide infant formula shortage. And it follows a scathing report that found FDA’s food division was plagued by decentralized leadership, indecisiveness and a culture of “constant turmoil” that impeded actions to protect public health. For years, the agency has been criticized for responding too slowly to outbreaks in produce, heavy metals in baby food and the need to reduce sodium in the U.S. diet, among other issues.
It's a step in the right direction, but more needs to be done to address the dysfunction at the FDA. | [] |
>
"Regulatory Capture", is the term. Time shall tell if it's a publicity stunt, or a material effort to become independent. | [
"The announcement follows months of scrutiny of FDA over contamination at a Michigan factory that led to a nationwide infant formula shortage. And it follows a scathing report that found FDA’s food division was plagued by decentralized leadership, indecisiveness and a culture of “constant turmoil” that impeded actions to protect public health. For years, the agency has been criticized for responding too slowly to outbreaks in produce, heavy metals in baby food and the need to reduce sodium in the U.S. diet, among other issues. \n\nIt's a step in the right direction, but more needs to be done to address the dysfunction at the FDA."
] |
>
Tapping a single leader “unifies and elevates the program while removing redundancies, enabling the agency to oversee human food in a more effective and efficient way,” Califf said.
In other words, they're slashing the part of the government that makes sure our foods aren't made entirely of pesticides and lead, and calling it a "streamlining" and "a boost to efficiency". | [
"The announcement follows months of scrutiny of FDA over contamination at a Michigan factory that led to a nationwide infant formula shortage. And it follows a scathing report that found FDA’s food division was plagued by decentralized leadership, indecisiveness and a culture of “constant turmoil” that impeded actions to protect public health. For years, the agency has been criticized for responding too slowly to outbreaks in produce, heavy metals in baby food and the need to reduce sodium in the U.S. diet, among other issues. \n\nIt's a step in the right direction, but more needs to be done to address the dysfunction at the FDA.",
">\n\n\"Regulatory Capture\", is the term. Time shall tell if it's a publicity stunt, or a material effort to become independent."
] |
>
I understand where you're coming from, but centralizing operations is necessary to reduce the bureaucratic nightmare that is the current FDA. | [
"The announcement follows months of scrutiny of FDA over contamination at a Michigan factory that led to a nationwide infant formula shortage. And it follows a scathing report that found FDA’s food division was plagued by decentralized leadership, indecisiveness and a culture of “constant turmoil” that impeded actions to protect public health. For years, the agency has been criticized for responding too slowly to outbreaks in produce, heavy metals in baby food and the need to reduce sodium in the U.S. diet, among other issues. \n\nIt's a step in the right direction, but more needs to be done to address the dysfunction at the FDA.",
">\n\n\"Regulatory Capture\", is the term. Time shall tell if it's a publicity stunt, or a material effort to become independent.",
">\n\n\nTapping a single leader “unifies and elevates the program while removing redundancies, enabling the agency to oversee human food in a more effective and efficient way,” Califf said. \n\nIn other words, they're slashing the part of the government that makes sure our foods aren't made entirely of pesticides and lead, and calling it a \"streamlining\" and \"a boost to efficiency\"."
] |
>
It would also make it so it's only required that one person be corrupt to cause the same problems. | [
"The announcement follows months of scrutiny of FDA over contamination at a Michigan factory that led to a nationwide infant formula shortage. And it follows a scathing report that found FDA’s food division was plagued by decentralized leadership, indecisiveness and a culture of “constant turmoil” that impeded actions to protect public health. For years, the agency has been criticized for responding too slowly to outbreaks in produce, heavy metals in baby food and the need to reduce sodium in the U.S. diet, among other issues. \n\nIt's a step in the right direction, but more needs to be done to address the dysfunction at the FDA.",
">\n\n\"Regulatory Capture\", is the term. Time shall tell if it's a publicity stunt, or a material effort to become independent.",
">\n\n\nTapping a single leader “unifies and elevates the program while removing redundancies, enabling the agency to oversee human food in a more effective and efficient way,” Califf said. \n\nIn other words, they're slashing the part of the government that makes sure our foods aren't made entirely of pesticides and lead, and calling it a \"streamlining\" and \"a boost to efficiency\".",
">\n\nI understand where you're coming from, but centralizing operations is necessary to reduce the bureaucratic nightmare that is the current FDA."
] |
>
See, more efficient. | [
"The announcement follows months of scrutiny of FDA over contamination at a Michigan factory that led to a nationwide infant formula shortage. And it follows a scathing report that found FDA’s food division was plagued by decentralized leadership, indecisiveness and a culture of “constant turmoil” that impeded actions to protect public health. For years, the agency has been criticized for responding too slowly to outbreaks in produce, heavy metals in baby food and the need to reduce sodium in the U.S. diet, among other issues. \n\nIt's a step in the right direction, but more needs to be done to address the dysfunction at the FDA.",
">\n\n\"Regulatory Capture\", is the term. Time shall tell if it's a publicity stunt, or a material effort to become independent.",
">\n\n\nTapping a single leader “unifies and elevates the program while removing redundancies, enabling the agency to oversee human food in a more effective and efficient way,” Califf said. \n\nIn other words, they're slashing the part of the government that makes sure our foods aren't made entirely of pesticides and lead, and calling it a \"streamlining\" and \"a boost to efficiency\".",
">\n\nI understand where you're coming from, but centralizing operations is necessary to reduce the bureaucratic nightmare that is the current FDA.",
">\n\nIt would also make it so it's only required that one person be corrupt to cause the same problems."
] |
> | [
"The announcement follows months of scrutiny of FDA over contamination at a Michigan factory that led to a nationwide infant formula shortage. And it follows a scathing report that found FDA’s food division was plagued by decentralized leadership, indecisiveness and a culture of “constant turmoil” that impeded actions to protect public health. For years, the agency has been criticized for responding too slowly to outbreaks in produce, heavy metals in baby food and the need to reduce sodium in the U.S. diet, among other issues. \n\nIt's a step in the right direction, but more needs to be done to address the dysfunction at the FDA.",
">\n\n\"Regulatory Capture\", is the term. Time shall tell if it's a publicity stunt, or a material effort to become independent.",
">\n\n\nTapping a single leader “unifies and elevates the program while removing redundancies, enabling the agency to oversee human food in a more effective and efficient way,” Califf said. \n\nIn other words, they're slashing the part of the government that makes sure our foods aren't made entirely of pesticides and lead, and calling it a \"streamlining\" and \"a boost to efficiency\".",
">\n\nI understand where you're coming from, but centralizing operations is necessary to reduce the bureaucratic nightmare that is the current FDA.",
">\n\nIt would also make it so it's only required that one person be corrupt to cause the same problems.",
">\n\nSee, more efficient."
] |
“Prior to 1973, doctors who performed abortions could lose their licenses and go to jail. In 1950, Samuel Alito’s mother did not have options,” Helian said. “The clinic’s name serves to remind people just how important it is to have the right to control one’s body and the potential ramifications of losing that right.”
Holeeeeeeee Fuck!!!! | [] |
>
For anyone that doesn't get it...Samuel Alito is one of the Supreme Court Justices that voted to repeal Roe V Wade. They're saying his mother should have had the option to abort him.
Brutal and fucking amazing at the same time. I love it. | [
"“Prior to 1973, doctors who performed abortions could lose their licenses and go to jail. In 1950, Samuel Alito’s mother did not have options,” Helian said. “The clinic’s name serves to remind people just how important it is to have the right to control one’s body and the potential ramifications of losing that right.”\nHoleeeeeeee Fuck!!!!"
] |
>
Next one should be named after the corrupt chief Justice. He deserves a full court press. | [
"“Prior to 1973, doctors who performed abortions could lose their licenses and go to jail. In 1950, Samuel Alito’s mother did not have options,” Helian said. “The clinic’s name serves to remind people just how important it is to have the right to control one’s body and the potential ramifications of losing that right.”\nHoleeeeeeee Fuck!!!!",
">\n\nFor anyone that doesn't get it...Samuel Alito is one of the Supreme Court Justices that voted to repeal Roe V Wade. They're saying his mother should have had the option to abort him. \nBrutal and fucking amazing at the same time. I love it."
] |
>
Which one? There's a few. | [
"“Prior to 1973, doctors who performed abortions could lose their licenses and go to jail. In 1950, Samuel Alito’s mother did not have options,” Helian said. “The clinic’s name serves to remind people just how important it is to have the right to control one’s body and the potential ramifications of losing that right.”\nHoleeeeeeee Fuck!!!!",
">\n\nFor anyone that doesn't get it...Samuel Alito is one of the Supreme Court Justices that voted to repeal Roe V Wade. They're saying his mother should have had the option to abort him. \nBrutal and fucking amazing at the same time. I love it.",
">\n\nNext one should be named after the corrupt chief Justice. He deserves a full court press."
] |
>
I think there's only one chief justice | [
"“Prior to 1973, doctors who performed abortions could lose their licenses and go to jail. In 1950, Samuel Alito’s mother did not have options,” Helian said. “The clinic’s name serves to remind people just how important it is to have the right to control one’s body and the potential ramifications of losing that right.”\nHoleeeeeeee Fuck!!!!",
">\n\nFor anyone that doesn't get it...Samuel Alito is one of the Supreme Court Justices that voted to repeal Roe V Wade. They're saying his mother should have had the option to abort him. \nBrutal and fucking amazing at the same time. I love it.",
">\n\nNext one should be named after the corrupt chief Justice. He deserves a full court press.",
">\n\nWhich one? There's a few."
] |
>
Ope, yep. My brain a word when reading sometimes. | [
"“Prior to 1973, doctors who performed abortions could lose their licenses and go to jail. In 1950, Samuel Alito’s mother did not have options,” Helian said. “The clinic’s name serves to remind people just how important it is to have the right to control one’s body and the potential ramifications of losing that right.”\nHoleeeeeeee Fuck!!!!",
">\n\nFor anyone that doesn't get it...Samuel Alito is one of the Supreme Court Justices that voted to repeal Roe V Wade. They're saying his mother should have had the option to abort him. \nBrutal and fucking amazing at the same time. I love it.",
">\n\nNext one should be named after the corrupt chief Justice. He deserves a full court press.",
">\n\nWhich one? There's a few.",
">\n\nI think there's only one chief justice"
] |
>
I accidentally a Coca-Cola bottle when I read that comment. | [
"“Prior to 1973, doctors who performed abortions could lose their licenses and go to jail. In 1950, Samuel Alito’s mother did not have options,” Helian said. “The clinic’s name serves to remind people just how important it is to have the right to control one’s body and the potential ramifications of losing that right.”\nHoleeeeeeee Fuck!!!!",
">\n\nFor anyone that doesn't get it...Samuel Alito is one of the Supreme Court Justices that voted to repeal Roe V Wade. They're saying his mother should have had the option to abort him. \nBrutal and fucking amazing at the same time. I love it.",
">\n\nNext one should be named after the corrupt chief Justice. He deserves a full court press.",
">\n\nWhich one? There's a few.",
">\n\nI think there's only one chief justice",
">\n\nOpe, yep. My brain a word when reading sometimes."
] |
>
I heard they have a 2 for 1 going on for their opening - with every abortion you get a leaked future court opinion | [
"“Prior to 1973, doctors who performed abortions could lose their licenses and go to jail. In 1950, Samuel Alito’s mother did not have options,” Helian said. “The clinic’s name serves to remind people just how important it is to have the right to control one’s body and the potential ramifications of losing that right.”\nHoleeeeeeee Fuck!!!!",
">\n\nFor anyone that doesn't get it...Samuel Alito is one of the Supreme Court Justices that voted to repeal Roe V Wade. They're saying his mother should have had the option to abort him. \nBrutal and fucking amazing at the same time. I love it.",
">\n\nNext one should be named after the corrupt chief Justice. He deserves a full court press.",
">\n\nWhich one? There's a few.",
">\n\nI think there's only one chief justice",
">\n\nOpe, yep. My brain a word when reading sometimes.",
">\n\nI accidentally a Coca-Cola bottle when I read that comment."
] |
>
More Alito humor. He really needs to stop dragging the court down. He is pathetic. | [
"“Prior to 1973, doctors who performed abortions could lose their licenses and go to jail. In 1950, Samuel Alito’s mother did not have options,” Helian said. “The clinic’s name serves to remind people just how important it is to have the right to control one’s body and the potential ramifications of losing that right.”\nHoleeeeeeee Fuck!!!!",
">\n\nFor anyone that doesn't get it...Samuel Alito is one of the Supreme Court Justices that voted to repeal Roe V Wade. They're saying his mother should have had the option to abort him. \nBrutal and fucking amazing at the same time. I love it.",
">\n\nNext one should be named after the corrupt chief Justice. He deserves a full court press.",
">\n\nWhich one? There's a few.",
">\n\nI think there's only one chief justice",
">\n\nOpe, yep. My brain a word when reading sometimes.",
">\n\nI accidentally a Coca-Cola bottle when I read that comment.",
">\n\nI heard they have a 2 for 1 going on for their opening - with every abortion you get a leaked future court opinion"
] |
>
I don’t know why but the LIKLEY in
“The Samuel Alito’s Mom’s Abortion Clinic” likely in reference to Supreme Court Justice Alito”
absolutely killed me | [
"“Prior to 1973, doctors who performed abortions could lose their licenses and go to jail. In 1950, Samuel Alito’s mother did not have options,” Helian said. “The clinic’s name serves to remind people just how important it is to have the right to control one’s body and the potential ramifications of losing that right.”\nHoleeeeeeee Fuck!!!!",
">\n\nFor anyone that doesn't get it...Samuel Alito is one of the Supreme Court Justices that voted to repeal Roe V Wade. They're saying his mother should have had the option to abort him. \nBrutal and fucking amazing at the same time. I love it.",
">\n\nNext one should be named after the corrupt chief Justice. He deserves a full court press.",
">\n\nWhich one? There's a few.",
">\n\nI think there's only one chief justice",
">\n\nOpe, yep. My brain a word when reading sometimes.",
">\n\nI accidentally a Coca-Cola bottle when I read that comment.",
">\n\nI heard they have a 2 for 1 going on for their opening - with every abortion you get a leaked future court opinion",
">\n\nMore Alito humor. He really needs to stop dragging the court down. He is pathetic."
] |
>
I love these folks so much. | [
"“Prior to 1973, doctors who performed abortions could lose their licenses and go to jail. In 1950, Samuel Alito’s mother did not have options,” Helian said. “The clinic’s name serves to remind people just how important it is to have the right to control one’s body and the potential ramifications of losing that right.”\nHoleeeeeeee Fuck!!!!",
">\n\nFor anyone that doesn't get it...Samuel Alito is one of the Supreme Court Justices that voted to repeal Roe V Wade. They're saying his mother should have had the option to abort him. \nBrutal and fucking amazing at the same time. I love it.",
">\n\nNext one should be named after the corrupt chief Justice. He deserves a full court press.",
">\n\nWhich one? There's a few.",
">\n\nI think there's only one chief justice",
">\n\nOpe, yep. My brain a word when reading sometimes.",
">\n\nI accidentally a Coca-Cola bottle when I read that comment.",
">\n\nI heard they have a 2 for 1 going on for their opening - with every abortion you get a leaked future court opinion",
">\n\nMore Alito humor. He really needs to stop dragging the court down. He is pathetic.",
">\n\nI don’t know why but the LIKLEY in\n“The Samuel Alito’s Mom’s Abortion Clinic” likely in reference to Supreme Court Justice Alito”\nabsolutely killed me"
] |
>
Their ethos is actually straightforward and wholesome. AND THEY PAY TAXES! | [
"“Prior to 1973, doctors who performed abortions could lose their licenses and go to jail. In 1950, Samuel Alito’s mother did not have options,” Helian said. “The clinic’s name serves to remind people just how important it is to have the right to control one’s body and the potential ramifications of losing that right.”\nHoleeeeeeee Fuck!!!!",
">\n\nFor anyone that doesn't get it...Samuel Alito is one of the Supreme Court Justices that voted to repeal Roe V Wade. They're saying his mother should have had the option to abort him. \nBrutal and fucking amazing at the same time. I love it.",
">\n\nNext one should be named after the corrupt chief Justice. He deserves a full court press.",
">\n\nWhich one? There's a few.",
">\n\nI think there's only one chief justice",
">\n\nOpe, yep. My brain a word when reading sometimes.",
">\n\nI accidentally a Coca-Cola bottle when I read that comment.",
">\n\nI heard they have a 2 for 1 going on for their opening - with every abortion you get a leaked future court opinion",
">\n\nMore Alito humor. He really needs to stop dragging the court down. He is pathetic.",
">\n\nI don’t know why but the LIKLEY in\n“The Samuel Alito’s Mom’s Abortion Clinic” likely in reference to Supreme Court Justice Alito”\nabsolutely killed me",
">\n\nI love these folks so much."
] |
>
There goes the TST making me smile again | [
"“Prior to 1973, doctors who performed abortions could lose their licenses and go to jail. In 1950, Samuel Alito’s mother did not have options,” Helian said. “The clinic’s name serves to remind people just how important it is to have the right to control one’s body and the potential ramifications of losing that right.”\nHoleeeeeeee Fuck!!!!",
">\n\nFor anyone that doesn't get it...Samuel Alito is one of the Supreme Court Justices that voted to repeal Roe V Wade. They're saying his mother should have had the option to abort him. \nBrutal and fucking amazing at the same time. I love it.",
">\n\nNext one should be named after the corrupt chief Justice. He deserves a full court press.",
">\n\nWhich one? There's a few.",
">\n\nI think there's only one chief justice",
">\n\nOpe, yep. My brain a word when reading sometimes.",
">\n\nI accidentally a Coca-Cola bottle when I read that comment.",
">\n\nI heard they have a 2 for 1 going on for their opening - with every abortion you get a leaked future court opinion",
">\n\nMore Alito humor. He really needs to stop dragging the court down. He is pathetic.",
">\n\nI don’t know why but the LIKLEY in\n“The Samuel Alito’s Mom’s Abortion Clinic” likely in reference to Supreme Court Justice Alito”\nabsolutely killed me",
">\n\nI love these folks so much.",
">\n\nTheir ethos is actually straightforward and wholesome. AND THEY PAY TAXES!"
] |
>
I love free speech and freedom of religion. :) (I also love freedom from religion.) | [
"“Prior to 1973, doctors who performed abortions could lose their licenses and go to jail. In 1950, Samuel Alito’s mother did not have options,” Helian said. “The clinic’s name serves to remind people just how important it is to have the right to control one’s body and the potential ramifications of losing that right.”\nHoleeeeeeee Fuck!!!!",
">\n\nFor anyone that doesn't get it...Samuel Alito is one of the Supreme Court Justices that voted to repeal Roe V Wade. They're saying his mother should have had the option to abort him. \nBrutal and fucking amazing at the same time. I love it.",
">\n\nNext one should be named after the corrupt chief Justice. He deserves a full court press.",
">\n\nWhich one? There's a few.",
">\n\nI think there's only one chief justice",
">\n\nOpe, yep. My brain a word when reading sometimes.",
">\n\nI accidentally a Coca-Cola bottle when I read that comment.",
">\n\nI heard they have a 2 for 1 going on for their opening - with every abortion you get a leaked future court opinion",
">\n\nMore Alito humor. He really needs to stop dragging the court down. He is pathetic.",
">\n\nI don’t know why but the LIKLEY in\n“The Samuel Alito’s Mom’s Abortion Clinic” likely in reference to Supreme Court Justice Alito”\nabsolutely killed me",
">\n\nI love these folks so much.",
">\n\nTheir ethos is actually straightforward and wholesome. AND THEY PAY TAXES!",
">\n\nThere goes the TST making me smile again"
] |
>
I've said it before and I'll say it again...
HAIL SATAN !!!!!!!!! | [
"“Prior to 1973, doctors who performed abortions could lose their licenses and go to jail. In 1950, Samuel Alito’s mother did not have options,” Helian said. “The clinic’s name serves to remind people just how important it is to have the right to control one’s body and the potential ramifications of losing that right.”\nHoleeeeeeee Fuck!!!!",
">\n\nFor anyone that doesn't get it...Samuel Alito is one of the Supreme Court Justices that voted to repeal Roe V Wade. They're saying his mother should have had the option to abort him. \nBrutal and fucking amazing at the same time. I love it.",
">\n\nNext one should be named after the corrupt chief Justice. He deserves a full court press.",
">\n\nWhich one? There's a few.",
">\n\nI think there's only one chief justice",
">\n\nOpe, yep. My brain a word when reading sometimes.",
">\n\nI accidentally a Coca-Cola bottle when I read that comment.",
">\n\nI heard they have a 2 for 1 going on for their opening - with every abortion you get a leaked future court opinion",
">\n\nMore Alito humor. He really needs to stop dragging the court down. He is pathetic.",
">\n\nI don’t know why but the LIKLEY in\n“The Samuel Alito’s Mom’s Abortion Clinic” likely in reference to Supreme Court Justice Alito”\nabsolutely killed me",
">\n\nI love these folks so much.",
">\n\nTheir ethos is actually straightforward and wholesome. AND THEY PAY TAXES!",
">\n\nThere goes the TST making me smile again",
">\n\nI love free speech and freedom of religion. :) (I also love freedom from religion.)"
] |
>
Satan says Hail yourself. | [
"“Prior to 1973, doctors who performed abortions could lose their licenses and go to jail. In 1950, Samuel Alito’s mother did not have options,” Helian said. “The clinic’s name serves to remind people just how important it is to have the right to control one’s body and the potential ramifications of losing that right.”\nHoleeeeeeee Fuck!!!!",
">\n\nFor anyone that doesn't get it...Samuel Alito is one of the Supreme Court Justices that voted to repeal Roe V Wade. They're saying his mother should have had the option to abort him. \nBrutal and fucking amazing at the same time. I love it.",
">\n\nNext one should be named after the corrupt chief Justice. He deserves a full court press.",
">\n\nWhich one? There's a few.",
">\n\nI think there's only one chief justice",
">\n\nOpe, yep. My brain a word when reading sometimes.",
">\n\nI accidentally a Coca-Cola bottle when I read that comment.",
">\n\nI heard they have a 2 for 1 going on for their opening - with every abortion you get a leaked future court opinion",
">\n\nMore Alito humor. He really needs to stop dragging the court down. He is pathetic.",
">\n\nI don’t know why but the LIKLEY in\n“The Samuel Alito’s Mom’s Abortion Clinic” likely in reference to Supreme Court Justice Alito”\nabsolutely killed me",
">\n\nI love these folks so much.",
">\n\nTheir ethos is actually straightforward and wholesome. AND THEY PAY TAXES!",
">\n\nThere goes the TST making me smile again",
">\n\nI love free speech and freedom of religion. :) (I also love freedom from religion.)",
">\n\nI've said it before and I'll say it again... \nHAIL SATAN !!!!!!!!!"
] |
>
Hail Gein! | [
"“Prior to 1973, doctors who performed abortions could lose their licenses and go to jail. In 1950, Samuel Alito’s mother did not have options,” Helian said. “The clinic’s name serves to remind people just how important it is to have the right to control one’s body and the potential ramifications of losing that right.”\nHoleeeeeeee Fuck!!!!",
">\n\nFor anyone that doesn't get it...Samuel Alito is one of the Supreme Court Justices that voted to repeal Roe V Wade. They're saying his mother should have had the option to abort him. \nBrutal and fucking amazing at the same time. I love it.",
">\n\nNext one should be named after the corrupt chief Justice. He deserves a full court press.",
">\n\nWhich one? There's a few.",
">\n\nI think there's only one chief justice",
">\n\nOpe, yep. My brain a word when reading sometimes.",
">\n\nI accidentally a Coca-Cola bottle when I read that comment.",
">\n\nI heard they have a 2 for 1 going on for their opening - with every abortion you get a leaked future court opinion",
">\n\nMore Alito humor. He really needs to stop dragging the court down. He is pathetic.",
">\n\nI don’t know why but the LIKLEY in\n“The Samuel Alito’s Mom’s Abortion Clinic” likely in reference to Supreme Court Justice Alito”\nabsolutely killed me",
">\n\nI love these folks so much.",
">\n\nTheir ethos is actually straightforward and wholesome. AND THEY PAY TAXES!",
">\n\nThere goes the TST making me smile again",
">\n\nI love free speech and freedom of religion. :) (I also love freedom from religion.)",
">\n\nI've said it before and I'll say it again... \nHAIL SATAN !!!!!!!!!",
">\n\nSatan says Hail yourself."
] |
>
Triple L | [
"“Prior to 1973, doctors who performed abortions could lose their licenses and go to jail. In 1950, Samuel Alito’s mother did not have options,” Helian said. “The clinic’s name serves to remind people just how important it is to have the right to control one’s body and the potential ramifications of losing that right.”\nHoleeeeeeee Fuck!!!!",
">\n\nFor anyone that doesn't get it...Samuel Alito is one of the Supreme Court Justices that voted to repeal Roe V Wade. They're saying his mother should have had the option to abort him. \nBrutal and fucking amazing at the same time. I love it.",
">\n\nNext one should be named after the corrupt chief Justice. He deserves a full court press.",
">\n\nWhich one? There's a few.",
">\n\nI think there's only one chief justice",
">\n\nOpe, yep. My brain a word when reading sometimes.",
">\n\nI accidentally a Coca-Cola bottle when I read that comment.",
">\n\nI heard they have a 2 for 1 going on for their opening - with every abortion you get a leaked future court opinion",
">\n\nMore Alito humor. He really needs to stop dragging the court down. He is pathetic.",
">\n\nI don’t know why but the LIKLEY in\n“The Samuel Alito’s Mom’s Abortion Clinic” likely in reference to Supreme Court Justice Alito”\nabsolutely killed me",
">\n\nI love these folks so much.",
">\n\nTheir ethos is actually straightforward and wholesome. AND THEY PAY TAXES!",
">\n\nThere goes the TST making me smile again",
">\n\nI love free speech and freedom of religion. :) (I also love freedom from religion.)",
">\n\nI've said it before and I'll say it again... \nHAIL SATAN !!!!!!!!!",
">\n\nSatan says Hail yourself.",
">\n\nHail Gein!"
] |
>
Samuel Alito is trying to use 17th century law that existed before our country was a twinkle in Washington’s ballsack to control modern humans, like an old, rich, well-read control freak with little to no knowledge of what average Americans live like. He thinks he is above us and knows what’s best for us. My ancient boomer relatives have the same level of mental entitlement. | [
"“Prior to 1973, doctors who performed abortions could lose their licenses and go to jail. In 1950, Samuel Alito’s mother did not have options,” Helian said. “The clinic’s name serves to remind people just how important it is to have the right to control one’s body and the potential ramifications of losing that right.”\nHoleeeeeeee Fuck!!!!",
">\n\nFor anyone that doesn't get it...Samuel Alito is one of the Supreme Court Justices that voted to repeal Roe V Wade. They're saying his mother should have had the option to abort him. \nBrutal and fucking amazing at the same time. I love it.",
">\n\nNext one should be named after the corrupt chief Justice. He deserves a full court press.",
">\n\nWhich one? There's a few.",
">\n\nI think there's only one chief justice",
">\n\nOpe, yep. My brain a word when reading sometimes.",
">\n\nI accidentally a Coca-Cola bottle when I read that comment.",
">\n\nI heard they have a 2 for 1 going on for their opening - with every abortion you get a leaked future court opinion",
">\n\nMore Alito humor. He really needs to stop dragging the court down. He is pathetic.",
">\n\nI don’t know why but the LIKLEY in\n“The Samuel Alito’s Mom’s Abortion Clinic” likely in reference to Supreme Court Justice Alito”\nabsolutely killed me",
">\n\nI love these folks so much.",
">\n\nTheir ethos is actually straightforward and wholesome. AND THEY PAY TAXES!",
">\n\nThere goes the TST making me smile again",
">\n\nI love free speech and freedom of religion. :) (I also love freedom from religion.)",
">\n\nI've said it before and I'll say it again... \nHAIL SATAN !!!!!!!!!",
">\n\nSatan says Hail yourself.",
">\n\nHail Gein!",
">\n\nTriple L"
] |
>
That does it. I’m poor as hell, but I’m going to donate some money to the satanic temple. | [
"“Prior to 1973, doctors who performed abortions could lose their licenses and go to jail. In 1950, Samuel Alito’s mother did not have options,” Helian said. “The clinic’s name serves to remind people just how important it is to have the right to control one’s body and the potential ramifications of losing that right.”\nHoleeeeeeee Fuck!!!!",
">\n\nFor anyone that doesn't get it...Samuel Alito is one of the Supreme Court Justices that voted to repeal Roe V Wade. They're saying his mother should have had the option to abort him. \nBrutal and fucking amazing at the same time. I love it.",
">\n\nNext one should be named after the corrupt chief Justice. He deserves a full court press.",
">\n\nWhich one? There's a few.",
">\n\nI think there's only one chief justice",
">\n\nOpe, yep. My brain a word when reading sometimes.",
">\n\nI accidentally a Coca-Cola bottle when I read that comment.",
">\n\nI heard they have a 2 for 1 going on for their opening - with every abortion you get a leaked future court opinion",
">\n\nMore Alito humor. He really needs to stop dragging the court down. He is pathetic.",
">\n\nI don’t know why but the LIKLEY in\n“The Samuel Alito’s Mom’s Abortion Clinic” likely in reference to Supreme Court Justice Alito”\nabsolutely killed me",
">\n\nI love these folks so much.",
">\n\nTheir ethos is actually straightforward and wholesome. AND THEY PAY TAXES!",
">\n\nThere goes the TST making me smile again",
">\n\nI love free speech and freedom of religion. :) (I also love freedom from religion.)",
">\n\nI've said it before and I'll say it again... \nHAIL SATAN !!!!!!!!!",
">\n\nSatan says Hail yourself.",
">\n\nHail Gein!",
">\n\nTriple L",
">\n\nSamuel Alito is trying to use 17th century law that existed before our country was a twinkle in Washington’s ballsack to control modern humans, like an old, rich, well-read control freak with little to no knowledge of what average Americans live like. He thinks he is above us and knows what’s best for us. My ancient boomer relatives have the same level of mental entitlement."
] |
>
The charity thing Amazon has going on (for a bit longer anyway) has TST as one of the charity options. Too bad they're canceling the entire program. | [
"“Prior to 1973, doctors who performed abortions could lose their licenses and go to jail. In 1950, Samuel Alito’s mother did not have options,” Helian said. “The clinic’s name serves to remind people just how important it is to have the right to control one’s body and the potential ramifications of losing that right.”\nHoleeeeeeee Fuck!!!!",
">\n\nFor anyone that doesn't get it...Samuel Alito is one of the Supreme Court Justices that voted to repeal Roe V Wade. They're saying his mother should have had the option to abort him. \nBrutal and fucking amazing at the same time. I love it.",
">\n\nNext one should be named after the corrupt chief Justice. He deserves a full court press.",
">\n\nWhich one? There's a few.",
">\n\nI think there's only one chief justice",
">\n\nOpe, yep. My brain a word when reading sometimes.",
">\n\nI accidentally a Coca-Cola bottle when I read that comment.",
">\n\nI heard they have a 2 for 1 going on for their opening - with every abortion you get a leaked future court opinion",
">\n\nMore Alito humor. He really needs to stop dragging the court down. He is pathetic.",
">\n\nI don’t know why but the LIKLEY in\n“The Samuel Alito’s Mom’s Abortion Clinic” likely in reference to Supreme Court Justice Alito”\nabsolutely killed me",
">\n\nI love these folks so much.",
">\n\nTheir ethos is actually straightforward and wholesome. AND THEY PAY TAXES!",
">\n\nThere goes the TST making me smile again",
">\n\nI love free speech and freedom of religion. :) (I also love freedom from religion.)",
">\n\nI've said it before and I'll say it again... \nHAIL SATAN !!!!!!!!!",
">\n\nSatan says Hail yourself.",
">\n\nHail Gein!",
">\n\nTriple L",
">\n\nSamuel Alito is trying to use 17th century law that existed before our country was a twinkle in Washington’s ballsack to control modern humans, like an old, rich, well-read control freak with little to no knowledge of what average Americans live like. He thinks he is above us and knows what’s best for us. My ancient boomer relatives have the same level of mental entitlement.",
">\n\nThat does it. I’m poor as hell, but I’m going to donate some money to the satanic temple."
] |
>
They're truly doing the Lord's work. | [
"“Prior to 1973, doctors who performed abortions could lose their licenses and go to jail. In 1950, Samuel Alito’s mother did not have options,” Helian said. “The clinic’s name serves to remind people just how important it is to have the right to control one’s body and the potential ramifications of losing that right.”\nHoleeeeeeee Fuck!!!!",
">\n\nFor anyone that doesn't get it...Samuel Alito is one of the Supreme Court Justices that voted to repeal Roe V Wade. They're saying his mother should have had the option to abort him. \nBrutal and fucking amazing at the same time. I love it.",
">\n\nNext one should be named after the corrupt chief Justice. He deserves a full court press.",
">\n\nWhich one? There's a few.",
">\n\nI think there's only one chief justice",
">\n\nOpe, yep. My brain a word when reading sometimes.",
">\n\nI accidentally a Coca-Cola bottle when I read that comment.",
">\n\nI heard they have a 2 for 1 going on for their opening - with every abortion you get a leaked future court opinion",
">\n\nMore Alito humor. He really needs to stop dragging the court down. He is pathetic.",
">\n\nI don’t know why but the LIKLEY in\n“The Samuel Alito’s Mom’s Abortion Clinic” likely in reference to Supreme Court Justice Alito”\nabsolutely killed me",
">\n\nI love these folks so much.",
">\n\nTheir ethos is actually straightforward and wholesome. AND THEY PAY TAXES!",
">\n\nThere goes the TST making me smile again",
">\n\nI love free speech and freedom of religion. :) (I also love freedom from religion.)",
">\n\nI've said it before and I'll say it again... \nHAIL SATAN !!!!!!!!!",
">\n\nSatan says Hail yourself.",
">\n\nHail Gein!",
">\n\nTriple L",
">\n\nSamuel Alito is trying to use 17th century law that existed before our country was a twinkle in Washington’s ballsack to control modern humans, like an old, rich, well-read control freak with little to no knowledge of what average Americans live like. He thinks he is above us and knows what’s best for us. My ancient boomer relatives have the same level of mental entitlement.",
">\n\nThat does it. I’m poor as hell, but I’m going to donate some money to the satanic temple.",
">\n\nThe charity thing Amazon has going on (for a bit longer anyway) has TST as one of the charity options. Too bad they're canceling the entire program."
] |
>
God Bless the Satanists! There is no Hate like Christian Love... | [
"“Prior to 1973, doctors who performed abortions could lose their licenses and go to jail. In 1950, Samuel Alito’s mother did not have options,” Helian said. “The clinic’s name serves to remind people just how important it is to have the right to control one’s body and the potential ramifications of losing that right.”\nHoleeeeeeee Fuck!!!!",
">\n\nFor anyone that doesn't get it...Samuel Alito is one of the Supreme Court Justices that voted to repeal Roe V Wade. They're saying his mother should have had the option to abort him. \nBrutal and fucking amazing at the same time. I love it.",
">\n\nNext one should be named after the corrupt chief Justice. He deserves a full court press.",
">\n\nWhich one? There's a few.",
">\n\nI think there's only one chief justice",
">\n\nOpe, yep. My brain a word when reading sometimes.",
">\n\nI accidentally a Coca-Cola bottle when I read that comment.",
">\n\nI heard they have a 2 for 1 going on for their opening - with every abortion you get a leaked future court opinion",
">\n\nMore Alito humor. He really needs to stop dragging the court down. He is pathetic.",
">\n\nI don’t know why but the LIKLEY in\n“The Samuel Alito’s Mom’s Abortion Clinic” likely in reference to Supreme Court Justice Alito”\nabsolutely killed me",
">\n\nI love these folks so much.",
">\n\nTheir ethos is actually straightforward and wholesome. AND THEY PAY TAXES!",
">\n\nThere goes the TST making me smile again",
">\n\nI love free speech and freedom of religion. :) (I also love freedom from religion.)",
">\n\nI've said it before and I'll say it again... \nHAIL SATAN !!!!!!!!!",
">\n\nSatan says Hail yourself.",
">\n\nHail Gein!",
">\n\nTriple L",
">\n\nSamuel Alito is trying to use 17th century law that existed before our country was a twinkle in Washington’s ballsack to control modern humans, like an old, rich, well-read control freak with little to no knowledge of what average Americans live like. He thinks he is above us and knows what’s best for us. My ancient boomer relatives have the same level of mental entitlement.",
">\n\nThat does it. I’m poor as hell, but I’m going to donate some money to the satanic temple.",
">\n\nThe charity thing Amazon has going on (for a bit longer anyway) has TST as one of the charity options. Too bad they're canceling the entire program.",
">\n\nThey're truly doing the Lord's work."
] |
>
Those guys (and gals) are good. Love them and their burns. | [
"“Prior to 1973, doctors who performed abortions could lose their licenses and go to jail. In 1950, Samuel Alito’s mother did not have options,” Helian said. “The clinic’s name serves to remind people just how important it is to have the right to control one’s body and the potential ramifications of losing that right.”\nHoleeeeeeee Fuck!!!!",
">\n\nFor anyone that doesn't get it...Samuel Alito is one of the Supreme Court Justices that voted to repeal Roe V Wade. They're saying his mother should have had the option to abort him. \nBrutal and fucking amazing at the same time. I love it.",
">\n\nNext one should be named after the corrupt chief Justice. He deserves a full court press.",
">\n\nWhich one? There's a few.",
">\n\nI think there's only one chief justice",
">\n\nOpe, yep. My brain a word when reading sometimes.",
">\n\nI accidentally a Coca-Cola bottle when I read that comment.",
">\n\nI heard they have a 2 for 1 going on for their opening - with every abortion you get a leaked future court opinion",
">\n\nMore Alito humor. He really needs to stop dragging the court down. He is pathetic.",
">\n\nI don’t know why but the LIKLEY in\n“The Samuel Alito’s Mom’s Abortion Clinic” likely in reference to Supreme Court Justice Alito”\nabsolutely killed me",
">\n\nI love these folks so much.",
">\n\nTheir ethos is actually straightforward and wholesome. AND THEY PAY TAXES!",
">\n\nThere goes the TST making me smile again",
">\n\nI love free speech and freedom of religion. :) (I also love freedom from religion.)",
">\n\nI've said it before and I'll say it again... \nHAIL SATAN !!!!!!!!!",
">\n\nSatan says Hail yourself.",
">\n\nHail Gein!",
">\n\nTriple L",
">\n\nSamuel Alito is trying to use 17th century law that existed before our country was a twinkle in Washington’s ballsack to control modern humans, like an old, rich, well-read control freak with little to no knowledge of what average Americans live like. He thinks he is above us and knows what’s best for us. My ancient boomer relatives have the same level of mental entitlement.",
">\n\nThat does it. I’m poor as hell, but I’m going to donate some money to the satanic temple.",
">\n\nThe charity thing Amazon has going on (for a bit longer anyway) has TST as one of the charity options. Too bad they're canceling the entire program.",
">\n\nThey're truly doing the Lord's work.",
">\n\nGod Bless the Satanists! There is no Hate like Christian Love..."
] |
>
Just when I thought I couldn't become an even prouder card carrying member of TST | [
"“Prior to 1973, doctors who performed abortions could lose their licenses and go to jail. In 1950, Samuel Alito’s mother did not have options,” Helian said. “The clinic’s name serves to remind people just how important it is to have the right to control one’s body and the potential ramifications of losing that right.”\nHoleeeeeeee Fuck!!!!",
">\n\nFor anyone that doesn't get it...Samuel Alito is one of the Supreme Court Justices that voted to repeal Roe V Wade. They're saying his mother should have had the option to abort him. \nBrutal and fucking amazing at the same time. I love it.",
">\n\nNext one should be named after the corrupt chief Justice. He deserves a full court press.",
">\n\nWhich one? There's a few.",
">\n\nI think there's only one chief justice",
">\n\nOpe, yep. My brain a word when reading sometimes.",
">\n\nI accidentally a Coca-Cola bottle when I read that comment.",
">\n\nI heard they have a 2 for 1 going on for their opening - with every abortion you get a leaked future court opinion",
">\n\nMore Alito humor. He really needs to stop dragging the court down. He is pathetic.",
">\n\nI don’t know why but the LIKLEY in\n“The Samuel Alito’s Mom’s Abortion Clinic” likely in reference to Supreme Court Justice Alito”\nabsolutely killed me",
">\n\nI love these folks so much.",
">\n\nTheir ethos is actually straightforward and wholesome. AND THEY PAY TAXES!",
">\n\nThere goes the TST making me smile again",
">\n\nI love free speech and freedom of religion. :) (I also love freedom from religion.)",
">\n\nI've said it before and I'll say it again... \nHAIL SATAN !!!!!!!!!",
">\n\nSatan says Hail yourself.",
">\n\nHail Gein!",
">\n\nTriple L",
">\n\nSamuel Alito is trying to use 17th century law that existed before our country was a twinkle in Washington’s ballsack to control modern humans, like an old, rich, well-read control freak with little to no knowledge of what average Americans live like. He thinks he is above us and knows what’s best for us. My ancient boomer relatives have the same level of mental entitlement.",
">\n\nThat does it. I’m poor as hell, but I’m going to donate some money to the satanic temple.",
">\n\nThe charity thing Amazon has going on (for a bit longer anyway) has TST as one of the charity options. Too bad they're canceling the entire program.",
">\n\nThey're truly doing the Lord's work.",
">\n\nGod Bless the Satanists! There is no Hate like Christian Love...",
">\n\nThose guys (and gals) are good. Love them and their burns."
] |
>
Tracy Jordan's Aunt Phatso's Jack Donaghy's We at it Again! | [
"“Prior to 1973, doctors who performed abortions could lose their licenses and go to jail. In 1950, Samuel Alito’s mother did not have options,” Helian said. “The clinic’s name serves to remind people just how important it is to have the right to control one’s body and the potential ramifications of losing that right.”\nHoleeeeeeee Fuck!!!!",
">\n\nFor anyone that doesn't get it...Samuel Alito is one of the Supreme Court Justices that voted to repeal Roe V Wade. They're saying his mother should have had the option to abort him. \nBrutal and fucking amazing at the same time. I love it.",
">\n\nNext one should be named after the corrupt chief Justice. He deserves a full court press.",
">\n\nWhich one? There's a few.",
">\n\nI think there's only one chief justice",
">\n\nOpe, yep. My brain a word when reading sometimes.",
">\n\nI accidentally a Coca-Cola bottle when I read that comment.",
">\n\nI heard they have a 2 for 1 going on for their opening - with every abortion you get a leaked future court opinion",
">\n\nMore Alito humor. He really needs to stop dragging the court down. He is pathetic.",
">\n\nI don’t know why but the LIKLEY in\n“The Samuel Alito’s Mom’s Abortion Clinic” likely in reference to Supreme Court Justice Alito”\nabsolutely killed me",
">\n\nI love these folks so much.",
">\n\nTheir ethos is actually straightforward and wholesome. AND THEY PAY TAXES!",
">\n\nThere goes the TST making me smile again",
">\n\nI love free speech and freedom of religion. :) (I also love freedom from religion.)",
">\n\nI've said it before and I'll say it again... \nHAIL SATAN !!!!!!!!!",
">\n\nSatan says Hail yourself.",
">\n\nHail Gein!",
">\n\nTriple L",
">\n\nSamuel Alito is trying to use 17th century law that existed before our country was a twinkle in Washington’s ballsack to control modern humans, like an old, rich, well-read control freak with little to no knowledge of what average Americans live like. He thinks he is above us and knows what’s best for us. My ancient boomer relatives have the same level of mental entitlement.",
">\n\nThat does it. I’m poor as hell, but I’m going to donate some money to the satanic temple.",
">\n\nThe charity thing Amazon has going on (for a bit longer anyway) has TST as one of the charity options. Too bad they're canceling the entire program.",
">\n\nThey're truly doing the Lord's work.",
">\n\nGod Bless the Satanists! There is no Hate like Christian Love...",
">\n\nThose guys (and gals) are good. Love them and their burns.",
">\n\nJust when I thought I couldn't become an even prouder card carrying member of TST"
] |
>
Slow clap | [
"“Prior to 1973, doctors who performed abortions could lose their licenses and go to jail. In 1950, Samuel Alito’s mother did not have options,” Helian said. “The clinic’s name serves to remind people just how important it is to have the right to control one’s body and the potential ramifications of losing that right.”\nHoleeeeeeee Fuck!!!!",
">\n\nFor anyone that doesn't get it...Samuel Alito is one of the Supreme Court Justices that voted to repeal Roe V Wade. They're saying his mother should have had the option to abort him. \nBrutal and fucking amazing at the same time. I love it.",
">\n\nNext one should be named after the corrupt chief Justice. He deserves a full court press.",
">\n\nWhich one? There's a few.",
">\n\nI think there's only one chief justice",
">\n\nOpe, yep. My brain a word when reading sometimes.",
">\n\nI accidentally a Coca-Cola bottle when I read that comment.",
">\n\nI heard they have a 2 for 1 going on for their opening - with every abortion you get a leaked future court opinion",
">\n\nMore Alito humor. He really needs to stop dragging the court down. He is pathetic.",
">\n\nI don’t know why but the LIKLEY in\n“The Samuel Alito’s Mom’s Abortion Clinic” likely in reference to Supreme Court Justice Alito”\nabsolutely killed me",
">\n\nI love these folks so much.",
">\n\nTheir ethos is actually straightforward and wholesome. AND THEY PAY TAXES!",
">\n\nThere goes the TST making me smile again",
">\n\nI love free speech and freedom of religion. :) (I also love freedom from religion.)",
">\n\nI've said it before and I'll say it again... \nHAIL SATAN !!!!!!!!!",
">\n\nSatan says Hail yourself.",
">\n\nHail Gein!",
">\n\nTriple L",
">\n\nSamuel Alito is trying to use 17th century law that existed before our country was a twinkle in Washington’s ballsack to control modern humans, like an old, rich, well-read control freak with little to no knowledge of what average Americans live like. He thinks he is above us and knows what’s best for us. My ancient boomer relatives have the same level of mental entitlement.",
">\n\nThat does it. I’m poor as hell, but I’m going to donate some money to the satanic temple.",
">\n\nThe charity thing Amazon has going on (for a bit longer anyway) has TST as one of the charity options. Too bad they're canceling the entire program.",
">\n\nThey're truly doing the Lord's work.",
">\n\nGod Bless the Satanists! There is no Hate like Christian Love...",
">\n\nThose guys (and gals) are good. Love them and their burns.",
">\n\nJust when I thought I couldn't become an even prouder card carrying member of TST",
">\n\nTracy Jordan's Aunt Phatso's Jack Donaghy's We at it Again!"
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.