Originally posted by Robtard
No, it doesn't by default. If it does, then that same rational can be attributed to any industry. (edit: I see Chit made the same piont above as I was responding)Why should the porn industry make only CGI porn (which I bet just happens to be your kink), when there are porn actors willing and happy to perform on camera for a paycheck.
- Ha, that's funny. Barely beat you to it.
- I was going to comment on the CGI thing but I already knew what he would say so yea...
Originally posted by Robtard
LoL.Your making a "parallel" between allowing people to sell their sex in porn and it somehow turning into people selling their lives away.
By that same train of thought, "if we allow two men to marry, then we'll have to allow someone to marry a toaster if they should want."
syntactical parallels dont equal content parallels. what part other than the word MARRIAGE is similar in the two statements? for instance, in making the parallel from straight marriage to gay marriage, you would call out on the point of both being a sexual and emotinal relationship, both having the potential for commitment, both gaining the rightful legal and tax benefits of two SENTIENT HUMANS{sentient humans being key here} living together, there being no distinction as a relationship between gay and straight as the only majorly perceived difference being lack of children which even some straight couples who ARE married cant have, etc etc etc.
THOSE are overlapping points, which overlapping points containing CONTENT can you give me between your two statements which arent just syntactically correct jumble of words which mean nuthing in reality?????? shud i star calling you a post modernist now?
Originally posted by leonheartmm
syntactical parallels dont equal content parallels. what part other than the word MARRIAGE is similar in the two statements? for instance, in making the parallel from straight marriage to gay marriage, you would call out on the point of both being a sexual and emotinal relationship, both having the potential for commitment, both gaining the rightful legal and tax benefits of two SENTIENT HUMANS{sentient humans being key here} living together, there being no distinction as a relationship between gay and straight as the only majorly perceived difference being lack of children which even some straight couples who ARE married cant have, etc etc etc.THOSE are overlapping points, which overlapping points containing CONTENT can you give me between your two statements which arent just syntactically correct jumble of words which mean nuthing in reality?????? shud i star calling you a post modernist now?
Are you willfully ignoring the point.? You equating people being allowed to partake in porn with people being allowed to sell their lives away essentially.
The point was to show that allowing one doesn't intrinsicly mean that another [extremes] will/should happen by default.
I used the gay marriage/toaster as an example of the same flawed thinging which you are using.
1)Allowing people to be paid for porn will = allowing people to sell their life away.
is just as stupid as:
2) Allowing gays to marry will = allowing someone to marry a toaster.
Originally posted by leonheartmmTHOSE are overlapping points, which overlapping points containing CONTENT can you give me between your two statements which arent just syntactically correct jumble of words which mean nuthing in reality?????? shud i star calling you a post modernist now?
Becoming a porn actor/actresses does not require dire economic situations but you are making it intrinsically tied to economic poverty EACH time you make an argument which does not make sense.
We say "porn actor/actress" to begin our statement. Each time, you begin with "victim of circumstance forced to take it in the ass and never had a choice in the first place so they never made a choice!" although there is no possible way to logical or statistically make that assumption.
You continue to name extremes so he mentions marrying a toaster. That was all. We say "Ice La Fox" chose to become a porn star and you will say "she was forced to do so with a broomstick in her ass."
That is all
Originally posted by leonheartmm
anyhows, seeing as neither my old post not my request for rob to sraw a parallel have been fulfilled, i will end this useless discussion for today.
Hahahaahaa, you're ****ing funny. We've all answered your senseless points.
-
See, I told you Chit, this is what he does when he takes a stance on something he can't substantiate.
I'm still laughing at his "I don't watch porn, I just watched it a few times". Which makes me believe he's either a hypocrite and a liar, or that he watched some extremely ****ed up porn the first time and was emotionally scarred.
Edit: I googled Ice La Fox, nice.
Originally posted by Robtard
Are you willfully ignoring the point.? You equating people being allowed to partake in porn with people being allowed to sell their lives away essentially.The point was to show that allowing one doesn't allows mean that another will/should happen by default.
I used the gay marriage/toaster as an example of the same flawed thinging which you are using.
1)Allowing people to be paid for porn will = allowing people to sell their life away.
is just as stupid as:
2) Allowing gays to marry will = allowing someone to marry a toaster.
and AGAIN you can not substantiate your claim by posting EVIDENCE. i.e. points which make the parallel between the toaster and the gay marriage with content. i did provide points for my parallel between torture and porn. since points exist for mine and not for your parallel, therefore, the two can no be equated as one has been validated {by specific overlapping points} while the other has been invalidated by the lack of any overlapping points of content which can be seen as significant to the situation. now please, end this useless rant, its no good for either of us to go in circles.
Originally posted by Robtard
Hahahaahaa, you're ****ing funny. We've all answered your senseless points.See, I told you Chit, this is what he does when he takes a stance on something he can't substantiate.
I'm still laughing at his "I don't watch porn, I just watched it a few times". Which makes me believe he's either a hypocrite and a liar, or that he watched some extremely ****ed up porn the first time and was emotionally scarred.
yeah, im gonna rely on my buddy group to give me solace and a false sense of victory when i cudnt do anything of substance in the actual debate. DAMN STRAIGHT CHIT! 😆
Originally posted by BackFire
Fact: There is choice when a person decides whether or not to do LEGAL porn. There are many porn actors/actresses who chose to do it because they simply love having sex and thought they might as well get paid to do it (this is according to them in interviews).Now back to my exploitative bestiality.
ahh but you forget, nearly ALL porn stars in porn related interview{just like penthouse girls} would act super slutty and horny and say they love dick to please their audience and increase sales and perhaps , give the impression that they really ARE into the thing and not just faking. i dont think that can be used as positive evidence at all, furthermore, whod wanna see a pornstar whose already admitted to faking it and doing it for the money?
who are you exploiting this time, vertebrates of invertebrates{that thing with the octopus still cracks me up}