31–40 of 103 posts
Quoted post unavailable.
Does anybody? Assuming the Abrahamic God exists, the last information we have about them is over 2000 years old. What if they've changed their mind on stuff like murder or mixing fabrics?
> "“It’s really not about pornography,” says Brit, a former user of Accountable2You who asked to only be identified by her first name, due to privacy concerns. “It’s about making you conform to what your pastor wants.”
> "In the quest to curb behavior churches deem immoral..."
Full transparency: Christian male here. The article seems to be addressing multiple topics - on the surface, the concerns around information leaking with "Covenant Eyes" and other programs. But also (based on this quote) an undercurrent: is pornography consumption actually unhealthy?
This adds confusion to a very clear topic.
Pornography comes from "porneia," a Greek word. In ancient Greek "porneia" was understood in the culture as "to buy." A porne or prostitute was often a slave, and often abused. Writings of Horace and Herodas show the cultural attitude of porneia was about treating people as things - to buy, to use, to abuse. In other words, very much accepted culturally. Based on this historical evidence, I conclude that, had WIRED existed in ancient Greece, an expert who studies "the spread of disinformation of sexual health" would have likely said the same thing about porneia consumers as they apparently do now: "there likely isn't something wrong with the owner." Imbibe in some porneia? Don't feel bad, there's nothing wrong with you.
A counterpoint is the letter to Galatians, which despite their failings I'm sure people in the churches mentioned in the article would know of. That letter, starting with the foundations of how God views people and the freedom Christ purchased, draws the conclusion that people should treat other people as people, not things. In fact, this is one of the points of the 19th verse, which says porneia (lit from Greek) is something Christians should realize isn't fitting for Christians. It is, in fact, unhealthy. If my Pastor wants me to "conform" to this (ref second and third quotes above), sign me up!
You may disagree that the letter to Galatians has authority or relevance to you personally, but it's impossible to disagree with the letter's outlook towards people - people as people, not things. In fact, that letter's outlook was radical, based on the cultural norms of that time.
If we don't disagree with the undercurrent espoused in this article - that porneia consumption is actually okay - then what foundation is left for saying it's wrong to treat people as things?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoted post unavailable.
Search engines find lots of things, including misinformation. Also, people can read a source and misunderstand it, or ignore the parts that are inconvenient for them. That's why links to specific pages are useful. For example, let's look at the second link... The study itself explicitly mentions that correlation is not causation. For example, erectile dysfunction correlate with long-term porn use. Okay, but does it p…
You say this like the only people peddling this alleged "misinformation" (which is quickly losing it meaning, anyway) are bible thumping pastors who somehow can afford an army to do so.
In 2001 the porn industry was worth billions [1]. It is not an insane stretch to assume this has tripled, quadrupled, or more with the rise of the modern internet. If we include onlyfans it is likely in the multiple hundreds of billions now. Porn producers can actually afford to peddle such "misinformation" much easier. They do. Often. But to play your game one of the most oft-cited reasons porn is bad is exploitation [2]. The alleged "women-freeing" quality of porn is actually a dramatic negative. Most, if not all, porn actresses are exploited in some form. The recent GirlsDoPorn case that made the news is just one example of thousands. Famous porn star Ron Jeremy turns out to be a serial rapist. We can fermi estimate how much evil is in this industry relatively easily. Perhaps that will fit into your delicate definition of "bad".
Porn addiction is a problem as well [3]. It is a form of hyper-sexuality disorder made worse by anonymity. There are support groups all over these days to handle it. Would these crop up if there wasn't an actual underlying problem? Do you also claim a new drug can't be bad if there's no studies easily "searchable" to prove your point? Sometimes all you need is a few examples and your gut. Recall not even 50 years ago cigarettes were touted as a way to lose weight! I'm sure all those chain smokers would've called people saying it's addictive "misinformation peddlers" if they had such a contrived word to describe a curious correlation.
I find it insane that your post is so common here on HN. Instead of actually providing counter-evidence you dismiss whatever you don't like as "misinformation" and fabricate your own reality to accept so you don't have to be uncomfortable. There are now 6 links worth of evidence to your 0.
[1] https://www.forbes.com/2001/05/25/0524porn.html?sh=34e6d1727...
[2] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/aug/15/why-ar...
I dealt with suicidal thoughts for many years, largely because my rearing amounted to being shoved in a box and told not to come out.
Also, "Covenant Eyes" sounds like it came straight out of The Handmaid's Tale.
Quoted post unavailable.
> as if the author has any insight into God's design or conceptions Does anybody? Assuming the Abrahamic God exists, the last information we have about them is over 2000 years old. What if they've changed their mind on stuff like murder or mixing fabrics?
If anything it is us that have changed our minds, and we continue to do so. How likely is it that our culture will change its mind on what murder is, and what acts it encompasses, and the degree of good or evil... in the next generation, let alone two millenia?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> as if the author has any insight into God's design or conceptions Does anybody? Assuming the Abrahamic God exists, the last information we have about them is over 2000 years old. What if they've changed their mind on stuff like murder or mixing fabrics?
So, if truth was said 2,000 years ago, it certainly can't apply today...interesting. If anything it is us that have changed our minds, and we continue to do so. How likely is it that our culture will change its mind on what murder is, and what acts it encompasses, and the degree of good or evil... in the next generation, let alone two millenia?
It's interesting you automatically assume it's "truth", not random opinions. And yes, we, collectively as humanity, have evolved since two millennia. E.g. we no longer consider slavery normal. So using opinions from 2000 years ago that were made in a drastically different environment simply doesn't make sense. It's like using laws from the 1920s and applying them to Internet stuff. It just doesn't make sense, the writers couldn't have imagined the world we have today, so why is their opinion relevant?
> While these apps claim to have helped many people overcome pornography addictions, experts who study sexual health are skeptical that the apps have a lasting positive effect. “I’ve never seen anyone who’s been on one of these apps feel better about themselves in the long term,” says Nicole Praus, a scientist at the University of California, Los Angeles, who studies the effects of pornography on the brain and the sp…
The reprehensible exploitation of sex workers does not make sex work inherently bad. I have friends who do sex work on the side. They sell their own porn. They explicitly want to be sexualized and, yes, objectified, and they'll tell you as much. Are they being exploited, and by whom?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So, if truth was said 2,000 years ago, it certainly can't apply today...interesting. If anything it is us that have changed our minds, and we continue to do so. How likely is it that our culture will change its mind on what murder is, and what acts it encompasses, and the degree of good or evil... in the next generation, let alone two millenia?
> So, if truth was said 2,000 years ago, it certainly can't apply today...interesting. It's interesting you automatically assume it's "truth", not random opinions. And yes, we, collectively as humanity, have evolved since two millennia. E.g. we no longer consider slavery normal. So using opinions from 2000 years ago that were made in a drastically different environment simply doesn't make sense. It's like using laws…
Well, not automatically. I confess my automatic response is to go with what is easy. It is certainly easier to believe there is no God like the Abrahamic God we must pay attention to, and like you say because things change we just can't trust that some things will never change... but my friend in response to the rest of your comment I've found easier isn't always the best way to think about things.