DSTV porn battle intensifies

[burn]

In the process of whining like children because you're afraid you might loose a new avenue to get you're fap on

I can't afford it and rather spend my money else where anyway So not afraid of losing anything...

 

[Robocop]

OK, hang on a minute. If 41 000 people have already voted, howcome the rest of us haven't seen this ballot? Where do we vote? I'm sure we could fix those numbers pretty quickly just from this forum.
OH, what's that you say? There was no ballot, they just sucked that number outta their thumbs.

The 41 000 votes they are talking about is a separate poll than the one by DSTV. This was done by sms to a Solidarity sms line. They will now take that to DSTV to object.
The original DSTV vote was mailed to subscribers to their website, so the amount of people taking part in the original poll was a very small group.
Hopefully a larger percentage of those are normal people.

 

[porchrat]

There are too many quotes to list but I have to say that if most of you are an example of the average MyBB forum member then this place has gone to the idiots. In the process of whining like children because you're afraid you might loose a new avenue to get you're fap on;

That is a pretty big assumption. I personally wouldn't bother with a DSTV porn channel. I just don't see how anyone has the right to say that another human being can't watch it. What right do they have to ask that a company deprive other people of legal content just because they personally don't agree with it?

you make broad sweeping (and dare I say bigotry) comments about political groups, racial groups, religious groups, groups rights to freedom of expression (believe it or not people do have to right to not want porn on their telly, they are aloud to disagree with you *gasp*).

Of course they do and I would never say otherwise. However this channel is not mandatory. At that point they don't have the right to tell others that they cannot have access to a subscription service. If this were being considered as a public access channel I would understand where they (and you) are coming from, but it isn't. What these people are talking about is depriving other people simply because they themselves do not agree with it despite the fact that it is non-mandatory.

And lastly but best of all the logic that gets employed whereby you feel that porn use/pumpkin consumption/air breathing/water drinking etc etc etc could potentially all be equally causal of molestation just caused any philosophy 101 student remotely worth their salt in argument analysis to **** themselves.

Until there is proof that they aren't equally causal you have no argument. Correlation does not equal causation friend and that is all those comments are trying to demonstrate. There is no study that I know of directly linking porn watching to a rise in violent crimes such as rape (or vice versa) whilst eliminating all confounding factors.

 

[burn]

And lastly but best of all the logic that gets employed whereby you feel that porn use/pumpkin consumption/air breathing/water drinking etc etc etc could potentially all be equally causal of molestation just caused any philosophy 101 student remotely worth their salt in argument analysis to **** themselves.

Where is your proof that these things are less likely to cause molestation than porn? Or any that porn is likely to increase the likelihood of molestation?

I believe you just made a PHI101 student **** themselves.

PS. I did first year philosophy and did pretty well, so would that include me in your assumption?

 

[Mars]

(insert stat here)
also,
(insert second stat here)

Those are interesting stats.. but kinda pointless (which I think is your point)

The ones I'm interested in is "what percentage of people who look at porn end up being molesters"
and "what percentage of the molested become molesters"

From this we can deduce the true influence of porn on molestation (if any)

 

[Keeper]

There are too many quotes to list but I have to say that if most of you are an example of the average MyBB forum member then this place has gone to the idiots. In the process of whining like children because you're afraid you might loose a new avenue to get you're fap on; you make broad sweeping (and dare I say bigotry) comments about political groups, racial groups, religious groups, groups rights to freedom of expression (believe it or not people do have the right to not want porn on their telly, they are aloud to disagree with you *gasp*).
And lastly but best of all the logic that gets employed whereby you feel that porn use/pumpkin consumption/air breathing/water drinking etc etc etc could potentially all be equally causal of molestation just caused any philosophy 101 student remotely worth their salt in argument analysis to **** themselves.

Ok, first of all, I don't even have DSTV. like many others, we don't even care for the channel as most of us have internet anyway. It's about the principal.
- OK you don't like porn - so whats the problem of just not subscribing to it?
- OK you say porn causes rape/etc - ok, so prove it. I'm willing to bet we have more rape in SA without a porn channel than the US/UK WITH Porn channels

secondly:

believe it or not people do have the right to not want porn on their telly

Ok, great. So then I have a right not to want Christian Religion pumped down my children's throats? What if I believed in Allah? That channel would seriously be offensive to me and my family

so.....in your suggestion, should we remove the Christian channels because I do not want it? wouldn't YOU simply ask me not to watch it then?

And thirdly, the water/etc are perfect examples - You CAN NOT say because X percent of Molesters/Murders do something, that something is responsible. that is idiocy at it's best.

 

[burn]

Those are interesting stats.. but kinda pointless (which I think is your point)

The one I'm interested in is "what percentage of people who look at porn end up being molesters"

Yes and what about: "What percentage of people who view porn do not become molesters?".

Instead of looking at the molesters look at what is being blamed. If you start form the molester you will always find common triats but it does not mean these triats are the cause...

 

[porchrat]

Those are interesting stats.. but kinda pointless (which I think is your point)

The ones I'm interested in is "what percentage of people who look at porn end up being molesters"
and "what percentage of the molested become molesters"

From this we can deduce the true influence of porn on molestation (if any)

No we can't. That just demonstrates correlation...not causation.

 

[kedul]

I'm mostly pissed off because they increase prices .. so if I could vote somewhere else than via "Solidarity" agains the porn channel I would .. just because I want to ...

 

[burn]

There are Facebook pages

 

[HosstheBoss]

...

Until there is proof that they aren't equally causal you have no argument. Correlation does not equal causation friend. There is no study that I know of directly linking porn watching to a rise in violent crimes such as rape (or vice versa) whilst eliminating all confounding factors.

Let me put my logic to you like this then. Is the cause of your wife's "lack of looks" a result of (a) inbreeder parents (b) overzealous pumpkin consumption or (c) the fact the sun rose on the day of her birth?

Now before you loose the plot bear in mind that I am just pulling the mickey and I would in no way really insult your wife. However, despite a possible lack ( I would not know as that is not my interest here) of evidence that satisfies you to a correlation between porn and kiddy fiddling you must concede that porn would be a more likely cause than water drinking, and trying to make the one seem as trivial as the other is not really the way to go when trying to defend a desire for porn.


*as for the other replies my major point of interest is not porn causing kiddy fiddling or whatever, but the manner in which some you so easily make bigotry comments about other groups.

** and I've read further. The nerdrage of some is over powering, my oh my. Yes Keeper they can remove the other channels to if you want

 

[Smooth Criminal]

Look the only real solution is for the damn competitors to finally launch and offer it to those who want it. Solidarity can then stfu with their 41000 no votes when there are a few million who disagree.

 

[Nerfherder]

believe it or not people do have the right to not want porn on their telly

Believe it or not people actually have the right to watch porn on their Telly, there is no law against porn

 

[Smooth Criminal]

Let me put my logic to you like this then. Is the cause of your wife's "lack of looks" a result of (a) inbreeder parents (b) overzealous pumpkin consumption or (c) the fact the sun rose on the day of her birth?

Now before you loose the plot bear in mind that I am just pulling the mickey and I would no way really insult your wife. However, despite a possible lack ( I would not know as that is not my interest here) of evidence that satisfies you to a correlation between porn and kiddy fiddling you must concede that porn would be a more likely cause than water drinking, and trying to make the one seem as trivial as the other is not really the way to go when trying to defend a desire for porn.

Lots of assumptions but very little facts.

Show us a scientific study that porn is detrimental to society.

 

[Park@82]

I still don't understand what the fuss is about. People with DSTV should be given the option to opt-in if they want the porn channel, end of story. If people want to watch porn they will find a way to watch porn. I feel it is inconsiderate of these people to deny others these channels because of their believes (myself being a Christian). We all should have the right to choose.

 

[porchrat]

Let me put my logic to you like this then. Is the cause of your wife's "lack of looks" a result of (a) inbreeder parents (b) overzealous pumpkin consumption or (c) the fact the sun rose on the day of her birth?

Now before you loose the plot bear in mind that I am just pulling the mickey and I would no way really insult your wife. However, despite a possible lack ( I would not know as that is not my interest here) of evidence that satisfies you to a correlation between porn and kiddy fiddling you must concede that porn would be a more likely cause than water drinking, and trying to make the one seem as trivial as the other is not really the way to go when trying to defend a desire for porn.

Why? What evidence suggests this? FAR more molesters drink water than watch porn.

Stop trying to use correlation as though it were concrete evidence. It is NOT. End of story. just because you have a theory doesn't make it fact...EVER. To even consider that it is fact and then base further action on this is completely unscientific and illogical.

 

[burn]

I still don't understand what the fuss is about. People with DSTV should be given the option to opt-in if they want the porn channel, end of story. If people want to watch porn they will find a way to watch porn. I feel it is inconsiderate of these people to deny others these channels because of their believes (myself being a Christian). We all should have the right to choose.

Afaik, it is not planned to be added to your DSTV channels unless you subscribe to it. So no need to give anyone a choice, you have to actively sign up. Am I correct?

 

[porchrat]

I still don't understand what the fuss is about. People with DSTV should be given the option to opt-in if they want the porn channel, end of story. If people want to watch porn they will find a way to watch porn. I feel it is inconsiderate of these people to deny others these channels because of their believes (myself being a Christian). We all should have the right to choose.

+1. I wish this was the sentiment expressed by all Christians! Bravo!

Afaik, it is not planned to be added to your DSTV channels unless you subscribe to it. So no need to give anyone a choice, you have to actively sign up. Am I correct?

This is how I understand it.

 

[Necuno]

I still don't understand what the fuss is about. People with DSTV should be given the option to opt-in if they want the porn channel, end of story. If people want to watch porn they will find a way to watch porn. I feel it is inconsiderate of these people to deny others these channels because of their believes (myself being a Christian). We all should have the right to choose.

here

problem is most of the "fools" who vote no are under the understanding that the channels will be just available without subscription- that it will be added to the current premium bouquet.

 

[dantex]

So, using the logic that porn on TV increases molestation, rape, ect, this would mean that countries where porn is available on local TV would have higher rape, molestation cases than countries without access to porn?

So countries such as the US, most European countries should have markedly higher cases of these incidents right? A country like SA should have lower instances right?
Have a look at this:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap_percap-crime-rapes-per-capita

Guess which country is number one on the highest rape case per capita in the world? No prizes, South Africa @ 1.19 cases per 1000 and we do not have porn available to the masses on TV. The US is 9th with 0.3 cases per 1000, The Netherlands is 22nd, the UK 13th.

Surely, The Netherlands, with their ultra-liberal approach and easily accessed porn should be swimming with rapists and molesters??? No, South Africa is head and shoulders above anyone else, with no help from porn on TV. This means there are 'other' causes to such behaviour (poverty, education, living conditions, physical and psychological abuse, etc...).

So the 'logic' that porn is a direct cause of rape, molestation holds zero water.

The conservatives are trying to push their agenda, good on them, but their scare tactics aren't going to fool any semi-intelligent people.

Oh, and well done again to MyBB for continuing to post sensationalist stories, journalism is clearly not this establishment's forte.