Raskolnikov34 said:
Baneat said:
Raskolnikov34 said:
Baneat said:
Raskolnikov34 said:
Eh, it doesn't exploit anyone per se, but it encourages pedophile behavior.
That's quite the statement to make, any factual evidence (Study showing correlation) to back the claim? I got curious about that, and never found evidence pointing to it. If anything it would curb an urge for some.
No, I don't have any factual evidence (I'll look for some in a second), but it seems logical.
If you let someone with anger management issues lose control constantly in harmless ways (punching inanimate objects), it doesn't curb their desire, it just gets them in the habit of giving into it. Eventually, these habits could manifest less harmlessly.
The same could be true for pedophiles, but, like I said, I don't have any studies showing correlations.
The inverse seems equally logical to me, actually, and there's a fancy name for when people get told things and go "Oh, that makes sense" - then they also get told something that's clearly "common sense logic" which contradicts the first, and that makes sense too. Which is why throwing assertions as facts is very risky indeed.
Did I do this?
My first assertion was that it could encourage pedophiles. My second assertion was an slightly more fleshed out form of this; in that I said it could get pedophiles into the habit of giving into their desires and therefore cause them to eventually act on their desires in more drastic ways, ie: actually abuse a child, or view actual pornography involving minors (I said "manifest less harmlessly", so maybe I was a bit unclear).
Those don't contradict each other in my opinion.
I don't think you're following through the logical chain of thought you're being presented with.
Your reply suggests you think it's about you contradicting your own statement, but the point being made about treating assertions as facts, which has to do with situations like the following.
Person A makes an assertion that seems logical, which person B reads and agrees with.
Person C makes another assertion which seems logical, but completely contradicts the assertion made by person A. Person B then reads this, and also agrees with it.
Yet, in having agreed with both person A,
and person C, who hold mutually exclusive ideas, person B is now left with the knowledge that they cannot both be true, irrespective of how they seem logical, and a product of common sense.
If one is true, the other is not. - Therefore, 'common sense' isn't a good measure of anything at all, and assertions shouldn't be accepted as true just because they
seem like they make sense.
That's something quite different from what you seem to have inferred from that explanation.
