Originally posted by Vector A
Also, lol at the way he portrays the supposedly wondrous new lives of guys who decide to quit porn. This is just the same "high" the body gives most people when they undergo any systematic deprivation of an accustomed physical pleasure. For example, new dieters, or people undergoing a fast, often talk about the same sort of feeling: remarkable "clear-headedness," a new sense of purpose and energy, and so on. That generally lasts somewhere from a week to a month, which funnily enough happens to be when people start falling off the "wagon" in droves. Oh well, enjoy it while it lasts, I guess?
That was when his talk fell apart in my eyes. It no longer seemed particularly scientific, and instead he spent a few minutes setting up a strawman of sorts. [did i use 'strawman' correctly?] It was also a bit troubling when he showed a slide of recent research on the topic and merely said: "look at the dates." I would've liked to hear about the findings of scholars on the topic in greater detail than his curt suggestion that they all fell in line with his "porn is bad" theory.
Jun-29-2012 15:44
DOOMBOT
Supreme tranceaddict
Registered: Sep 2004
Location:
quote:
Originally posted by Arbiter
Can you possibly be this dense?
You've dished out one personal attack after another, without addressing any points made in this entire thread. Why are you being so illogical?
Take note of Vector A's response. Whether anyone agrees with him/her or not, the opinion can at least be respected much easier because it made an argument against the things that the speaker in the video said. You, on the other hand, still haven't done that.
Jun-29-2012 21:39
Halcyon+On+On
Liebchen
Registered: Sep 2004
Location: between her
AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM
___________________
Reduce those darkened forces
From a naked view
When I found blue
Jun-29-2012 22:53
DJ RANN
Supreme tranceaddict
Registered: May 2001
Location: Hollywood....
This dude is just trying to popularize something that has been around for ages:
Originally posted by DOOMBOT
You've dished out one personal attack after another, without addressing any points made in this entire thread. Why are you being so illogical?
What's actually illogical here is your expectation that a rational discourse includes one non-expert's substantive evaluations of the scientific claims of another non-expert.
My arguing against the claims made in the video in the original post would be highly illogical on multiple levels:
I don't know, nor do I claim to know, whether the substance of the talk is true or false (even a stopped clock is right twice a day); and
even if I were making such a claim, I don't have the necessary expertise for that claim to be credible, so I would actually be contributing to precisely the problem I originally set out to rectify (namely, people with no discernable expertise pontificating about subjects on which they are unqualified to speak); and
even if I had the necessary expertise and I knew that the content of the talk was wrong, it would probably be a frustrating waste of time for me to try to explain why that was so to people like yourself, who can't even grasp comparatively simple concepts, like the value of evaluating the credibility of a speaker before accepting what they have to say.
As for my most recent reply, that was no personal attack. It was a genuine question. I thought you couldn't possibly be so stupid as to equate brain surgery and neuroscience with adding 1+1, or to once again ask me to address the substance of the talk despite my insistence that I lack the requisite expertise to properly do so, or to somehow mistake Mr. Wilson's internet searches for "scientific research," or to be impressed that he's taken so many classes which he's evidently unable to pass. I was holding out hope that you were just joking, because I found--and continue to find--the alternative deeply repugnant.
So, although I did not intend to personally attack you when I expressed my disbelief with respect to your previous post, I must now admit that I erred in not having done so. A personal attack is precisely the response that would have been appropriate. Certainly, anything more would have afforded your post a dignity of which it was overwhelmingly undeserving. Further, while not responding at all would have been a solid choice considering that everything you wrote basically rebuts itself, it might have left you woefully oblivious to just how unworthy of a serious response your words really were. That just wouldn’t do. I could have posted:
quote:
Regrettably not posted by Arbiter
I suppose that spending a lot of time in school and never graduating might be an impressive credential to someone who never made it there in the first place.
Or:
quote:
Regrettably not posted by Arbiter
For the analogy to work, you would have to not know whether or not 1+1 equals 2. Well, I can believe that.
Or I could have spared myself a few extra seconds of thinking about what exactly you wrote (the horror!) and just gone with something more generalized, like:
quote:
Regrettably not posted by Arbiter
You just might be the least intelligent multicellular creature I've ever observed. I just wanted you to know that. But hey, at least you're ahead of the protists! Mostly.
But, I blew it. I didn't personally attack you when I should've. For that, I apologize to everyone reading this thread. It was a mistake and I sincerely regret it.
Jun-29-2012 23:56
DOOMBOT
Supreme tranceaddict
Registered: Sep 2004
Location:
quote:
Originally posted by Arbiter
I thought you couldn't possibly be so stupid as to equate brain surgery and neuroscience with adding 1+1,
It's funny that, once again, you call me stupid, yet you are the one who couldn't decipher that I was making an argument based on logic and wasn't actually making a comparison between brain surgery and neuroscience with a math problem.
Carry on.
Jun-30-2012 00:00
Arbiter
Naked Power Organ
Registered: May 2002
Location:
quote:
Originally posted by DOOMBOT
I was making an argument based on logic.
Not really.
Jun-30-2012 00:09
DOOMBOT
Supreme tranceaddict
Registered: Sep 2004
Location:
Like I said, carry on.
Jun-30-2012 00:24
Arbiter
Naked Power Organ
Registered: May 2002
Location:
Oh, good. I was worried I'd have to read another tortured attempt at logic.
Jun-30-2012 00:39
BTG
Go Blues
Registered: Nov 2001
Location: Thornhill, ON
I haven't read a thing you wrote...but you must really believe in internet porn.
Anyway..even if the guy is 'a nutbag'
I don't think it's that ridiculous of a theory.
I've been thinking the same thing for a while. Just look at the way boxers / other athletes don't have sex before the BIG EVENT.
My theory was more on the psychological part of the brain, not the hard wiring of it...but the idea is similar.
Jerking off every night before bed CAN"T be good for your psyche, can it?
I duno. those are my thoughts.
Jun-30-2012 00:50
Lira
Moderator Marcus Secundus
Registered: Nov 2001
Location: Brasilia, Brazil Formerly known as: Maaz
quote:
Originally posted by BTG
Jerking off every night before bed CAN"T be good for your psyche, can it?
