Teens Against Pornography

It's not up to you to subscribe to a factual definition of the word. The definition is the definition. You don't have the authority to change it. The choice is there - this is not opinion, this is fact.

I didn't make the conclusion that you are saying I did. I didn't say that it actually isn't representative of the industry. I simply said that there being some ex pornstars who act victimized doesn't mean that it IS representative of the industry. They don't speak for the industry, they speak for themselves and only for themselves.

Originally posted by BackFire
It's not up to you to subscribe to a factual definition of the word. The definition is the definition. You don't have the authority to change it. The choice is there - this is not opinion, this is fact.

I didn't make the conclusion that you are saying I did. I didn't say that it actually isn't representative of the industry. I simply said that there being some ex pornstars who act victimized doesn't mean that it IS representative of the industry. They don't speak for the industry, they speak for themselves and only for themselves.

the factual definition of the word has been debated nearly to death in the previous ten pages or so if youd be kind enough to read. t covers everything that you and i may disagree on.

also, what, if not the anecdotes of ex pornstars which describe their experience and the enviornment to every1 in the porn industry will we take to come to conclusion as to its status as exploitive or not, just asking. although this isnt what im basing everything on as ive explained before.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
the factual definition of the word has been debated nearly to death in the previous ten pages or so if youd be kind enough to read. t covers everything that you and i may disagree on.

also, what, if not the anecdotes of ex pornstars which describe their experience and the enviornment to every1 in the porn industry will we take to come to conclusion as to its status as exploitive or not, just asking. although this isnt what im basing everything on as ive explained before.

If they ALL thought it was bad, that would be one thing. Some thinking it is and some thinking that it's not is what prevents their stance of being authoritative. Again, they each speak to their own experiences and nothing more. Obviously, there are several different types of experiences one could have in the porn industry. Their experiences aren't inherently good and they aren't inherently bad, it will depend on several different aspects. This discrepancy in their opinions directly thwarts the idea that the industry is wholly good or bad.

Also, there's nothing to debate about the definition. A woman seeing an ad for porn in the paper or online and CHOOSING to apply, CHOOSING to drive there and have an interview, CHOOSING to go and have sex for money, is factually a choice. This is not subjective. This is supported by the fact that they could have chosen to simply not do it. They could have said "You know, I don't want to get money for having sex." This was possible. It was their choice, whether they regret it later or not.

choice n.

1. The act of choosing; selection.
2. The power, right, or liberty to choose; option.
3. One that is chosen.
4. A number or variety from which to choose: a wide choice of styles and colors.
5. The best or most preferable part.
6. Care in choosing.
7. An alternative.

* dictionary.com

and yet, choice is also see as the opposite of being forced to do sumthing, and yet, many reasons leading upto the choice{i.e. lack of money, etc} also influence it and in many case force the person to make the choice. furthermore, the word choice also implies responsibility for the action in question but that doesnt hold true if it is a forced choice{whether through the paths available or the enviornment prior to the DECISION , or both}. furthermore, many a times, personal DECISION dont imply personal desires, and the word choice is quite often taken to represent desires{and hence reprecussions} . so the definition of CHOICE presented here is incomplete and sumwhat inconcistant. therefore i do not subscribe to it. you really shud read the previous line of argumentation fire.

No, it's perfectly consistent with what the word actually means. You're simply attempting to alter its meaning to fit what you would like it to mean, and that's not how it works.

Choice means that they could have chosen not to do it. Since in every (legal) case this was a possibility for them to say "No, I will not do that." Choice has nothing to do with a desire. But, they could have made the choice to not have enough money. They could have gotten some other work. There is always another option. Just because it's a lousy choice doesn't mean it's not a choice.

^ how often have you heard people accuse other on the base of "it was YOUR CHOICE!" , now how can you make accusations based on choice if the choice never represented your desire or overall intentions to begin with, how can you hold people responsible for forced choice if the definition in completely consistant, and why is forced choice such a big issue in psychological studies?

Sorry, you're asking a loaded question.

You're implying with your question that it has somehow been established that it is a forced choice. Yet this hasn't been agreed on and you have not produced any evidence or reasoning to support it besides "Well, they didn't like the choice, so it must have been forced on them". That's bunk.

It's not a forced choice - they weren't forced to do it. They chose. Just because situations may have presented themselves that made them consider the choice, it is still a choice and they are ultimately responsible for what they decide to do with themselves. Again, a bad choice is still a choice.

Why exactly should people not be allowed to kill themselves?

How is it your decision that they have to continue living, not theirs?

^ then why do you think there is controversy even outside the relegious, surrounding issues like euthanasia? seeing as you have an INFALLIABLE point which trumps the illogical perspective of mine and {the way your making it seem} mine ALONE!

with killing urself, it depends, the situation is different if your terminally ill and in severe pain or just having a mid life crisis. the thing is, suicide is a permanent solution to an often temporary problem. and really what are the merits of suicide, its a terrible thing to just lose your existance, furthermore, sumtimes pain and sadness can overwhelm normal people to the point that they cant stand the world and wanna die, but if they can continue to live, often, they find ways and reasons to live as well as a different perspective on the previously unbearable things. its a long ass topic btw to explain why people shud not be allowed to straight out kill themselves.

Originally posted by BackFire
Sorry, you're asking a loaded question.

You're implying with your question that it has somehow been established that it is a forced choice. Yet this hasn't been agreed on and you have not produced any evidence or reasoning to support it besides "Well, they didn't like the choice, so it must have been forced on them". That's bunk.

It's not a forced choice - they weren't forced to do it. They chose. Just because situations may have presented themselves that made them consider the choice, it is still a choice and they are ultimately responsible for what they decide to do with themselves. Again, a bad choice is still a choice.

do you beleive that the majority of porn workers would continue their career if they could find similar sustainance in another job that they can perform?

also, it is forced choice, they were forced by circumstances to do it and not presented with other viable options, or the knowledge to make those options work. eaither way, it pretty much fits the definition of forced choice.

Originally posted by leonheartmm

also, it is forced choice, they were forced by circumstances to do it and not presented with other [b]viable options, or the knowledge to make those options work. eaither way, it pretty much fits the definition of forced choice. [/B]

Thats an important point, the viability of other choices. Its easy to say the person has the choice to do something or not however it is pretty irrelevant if the choise is to not do it, and face eviction, loosing your children to the CPS or being beaten etc.

Yes, there is a choice, far enough but is it a choice they shouldn't be held culpable for.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Thats an important point, the viability of other choices. Its easy to say the person has the choice to do something or not however it is pretty irrelevant if the choise is to not do it, and face eviction, loosing your children to the CPS or being beaten etc.

Yes, there is a choice, far enough but is it a choice they shouldn't be held culpable for.

exactly, which is where the ambiguity in the meaning of CHOICE comes from, as it is taken as a given for the definition of the word to imply direct responsibility for the choice, which is not possible if its a forced choice. which is also why any arguments for FREEDOM of choice cant be made here as the the ABILITY to choose doesnt get that luxury unless the choices presented are FREE to begin with.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
^ then why do you think there is controversy even outside the relegious, surrounding issues like euthanasia? seeing as you have an INFALLIABLE point which trumps the illogical perspective of mine and {the way your making it seem} mine ALONE!

Because there are many stupid people (like you) who think they have the right to dictate what choices a person can make for themselves. Fascists like you.

Also, my points trump not only your points and yours alone, but everyone's that make the same.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
with killing urself, it depends, the situation is different if your terminally ill and in severe pain or just having a mid life crisis.

No. The standards are the same. If YOU want to end YOUR life YOU should be allowed to do it.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
the thing is, suicide is a permanent solution to an often temporary problem.

So? No one forces you to kill yourself.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
and really what are the merits of suicide, its a terrible thing to just lose your existance,

It doesn't have merits to you. And it is a terrible thing to you. But you (****ing *******) shouldn't force your standards on other people. It has lots of merit to many. It is a good thing for some.

Originally posted by leonheartmm

furthermore, sumtimes pain and sadness can overwhelm normal people to the point that they cant stand the world and wanna die, but if they can continue to live, often, they find ways and reasons to live as well as a different perspective on the previously unbearable things. its a long ass topic btw to explain why people shud not be allowed to straight out kill themselves.

Nah. Your point is just that you don't see the merits. It shouldn't be your decisions for others. It's like the porn thing. You don't like it, so others can't be allowed to do it. ****ing stupid.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Because there are many stupid people (like you) who think they have the right to dictate what choices a person can make for themselves. Fascists like you.

Also, my points trump not only your points and yours alone, but everyone's that make the same.

No. The standards are the same. If YOU want to end YOUR life YOU should be allowed to do it.

So? No one forces you to kill yourself.

It doesn't have merits to you. And it is a terrible thing to you. But you (****ing *******) shouldn't force your standards on other people. It has lots of merit to many. It is a good thing for some.

Nah. Your point is just that you don't see the merits. It shouldn't be your decisions for others. It's like the porn thing. You don't like it, so others can't be allowed to do it. ****ing stupid.

So, if you walked into your main room and your mother was there going to kill herself...you wouldn't try and stop her?

Again, that is not him. His mother is making that decision so of course he would stop her. That would be her choice to try.

What a stupid way to try and prove a point.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
So, if you walked into your main room and your mother was there going to kill herself...you wouldn't try and stop her?

Totally different scenario. Me wanting my mother to live is a personal (and from my side selfish and certainly morally questionable) issue and that I might stop her, but certainly try to convince her otherwise has nothing to do with it being wrong to pass legislation that stop people that do not wish to live anymore from killing themselves with government force.

Originally posted by chithappens
Again, that is not him. His mother is making that decision so of course he would stop her. That would be her choice to try.

What a stupid way to try and prove a point.

How many people who try to commit suicide do you think have children who would try to stop them?

😉

I'm not understanding your point.

The child would likely try to stop the parent. The parent is TRYING THEMSELVES regardless of the wants of the child.

A choice is a choice. Leo was getting "choice" confused for "ultimatum" earlier.

That's as far as this goes

Originally posted by chithappens
I'm not understanding your point.

The child would likely try to stop the parent. The parent is TRYING THEMSELVES regardless of the wants of the child.

A choice is a choice. Leo was getting "choice" confused for "ultimatum" earlier.

That's as far as this goes

Why are you talking about Leo?

Can you please talk about what I said.

Try and extend that love for your mother to all mothers, and subsqeuently all fathers and then all people.