Abortion & Porn Hold That Preeminence

[francisca.chapter3]

. While I agree Porn degrades humanity dignity, I don’t see how it is the root cause of abortion.

Abortion is also another form of degrading human dignity, because apple tree gives apples.

 

[Lysander]

Agreed now we are not talking about forms of degrading human dignity, otherwise I would just give a litany of them. Can you please stay on topic. And actually answer the questions posed to you with data please. Data that says Porn is the root cause of the lack of human dignity that leads to Abortion. Please include a link with some data so I can better understand your position.

 

[Aquinas11]

If the show is promoting that we commit mass murder as entertainment, and if people do follow the behavior shown on the screen thinking that they are entertained, then I would say that the show is as dangerous as the act of murder itself, because it is proven successful in manipulating human behavior unto commiting real murder.

Ok so this explains it. You don’t believe man has free will. You just said someone who watches a violent TV show and then proceeds to engage in a mass shooting is not responsible for that decision since the TV show “manipulated human behavior into committing real murder”

 

[Lysander]

citation needed

 

[TheLittleLady]

According to catholic teaching, porn is as mortal a sin as abortion.

Either MAY be mortal sin if the other conditions are met. For those who do not know it is mortal sin, or who do not do so with free will (which happens in many abortions, they are done because women are pressured into them), the culpability is lessened or completely removed.

 

[francisca.chapter3]

This is The Serial Killer Ted Bundy’s Last Interview (with Dr. James Dobson), one day before his execution.

He explained in his own words how violent porn stole him from his parent’s solid christian home.

I think his last interview shows Ted who in his last day remembered God and want us to learn from what happened to him because of porn.

 

[francisca.chapter3]

francisca.chapter3:

If the show is promoting that we commit mass murder as entertainment, and if people do follow the behavior shown on the screen thinking that they are entertained, then I would say that the show is as dangerous as the act of murder itself, because it is proven successful in manipulating human behavior unto commiting real murder.

Ok so this explains it. You don’t believe man has free will. You just said someone who watches a violent TV show and then proceeds to engage in a mass shooting is not responsible for that decision since the TV show “manipulated human behavior into committing real murder”

I said, “if”. If so, then yes. If not so, then no.

 

[Lysander]

The problem with using if is it is a weasel word. It could go either. It doesn’t prove anything either way. One could make the argument that violent films could decrease violence “if” the movie shows the horrors of lets say war. But without solid data that would just be conjecture.

 

[francisca.chapter3]

solid data

I think Ted Bundy’s last interview is a very solid data that comes from first source in his own words one day before his execution where he mention God and his goodwill to share his experience to warn others the danger of porn.

 

[Lysander]

One example does not count as solid data. Please take quote in full not just two words. Otherwise the quote is out of context.

 

[francisca.chapter3]

I tried to show you my answer is directed specifically to your concern about solid data.

Full quote not very useful because mere redundancy. But it’s just my preference.

 

[Lysander]

Solid data needs more than a sample size of one to conclude how anything affects the whole population. One can find one example to prove practically anything. Don’t know how my original statement was being redundant it was trying to explain the problem with using the word “if” in an argument for ant position.

 

[francisca.chapter3]

One example does not count as solid data.

Quantitative studies (statistics) isn’t always present the best data.
Qualitative studies sometimes more important in cases like this.

Information from first source present deep qualified data to comprehend in depth the case. Sure it has to be cross checked with other cases too

 

[Aquinas11]

I said, “if”. If so, then yes. If not so, then no.

You said IF
(a) the show is promoting violence, AND
(b) the person follows the behavior on the show, THEN
they’re not responsible for the shooting since “it is proven successful in manipulating human behavior”

So no, even WITH the “if” you still dont’ believe in free will.

This is why you’re equating porn (improper sex instinct) with abortion (murder) = because people don’t have moral responsibility for their decisions. So no matter whether they’re murdering a baby or having sex in a porn movie? Same in your mind, since both people not responsible

 

[francisca.chapter3]

You said IF
(a) the show is promoting violence, AND
(b) the person follows the behavior on the show, THEN
they’re not responsible for the shooting since “it is proven successful in manipulating human behavior”

So no, even WITH the “if” you still dont’ believe in free will.

You mix my post with your own.

I said:

If the show is promoting that we commit mass murder as entertainment, and if people do follow the behavior shown on the screen thinking that they are entertained, then I would say that the show is as dangerous as the act of murder itself, because it is proven successful in manipulating human behavior unto commiting real murder.

I did not speak about freewill at all. Rather, I spoke about whether a show can be deemed as dangerous as real murder. And I said yes, if the shows proven successful in getting people commit real murder.

In the case of porn, people do imitate the adulterous behavior on screen for real. In Ted Bundy case, he happens to watched violent porn, and so he imitates that for real.

 

[Aquinas11]

And I said yes, if the shows proven successful in getting people commit real murder.

No, you did not say “if” the shows proven successful in manipulating people into committing murder.

You said “because it is proven…”

because it is proven successful in manipulating human behavior unto commiting real murder.**

I did not speak about freewill at all.

yes you did because you said merely watching a television show “is proven successful in manipulating human behavior into committing real murder”, which nullifies free will.

In the case of porn, people do imitate the adulterous behavior on screen for real.

and per your logic above “it is proven successful in manipulating human behavior into committing porn”, thus no free will in engaging in porn

or regarding having an abortion , being exposed to pro abortion culture “it is proven in manipulating human behavior into committing murder/abortion”, thus no free will in committing murder of abortion

hence why you see porn and abortion as the same = in neither case has the actor done anything wrong, their behavior has been “manipulated” by external cause

 

[francisca.chapter3]

yes you did because you said merely watching a television show “is proven successful in manipulating human behavior into committing real murder”, which nullifies free will

you miss my word “if” again

 

[Lysander]

Lets put it this way, I have watched violent tv shows ans havent killed anyone. And the biggest industry in USA is video games with some of the best sellers being violent video games. If violent videos games led to murder with the amount of people playing them USA should have a lot more killings happening.there has to be something else going on. Therefore one can’t say “because of A (violent movies) leads to B (murdering people)”.

 

[francisca.chapter3]

You said “ because it is proven …”

My word “because…” is to explain the conclusion if yes a show can be as dangerous as real murder

 

[Lysander]

The problem here is the use of weasel words, specifically “If”.