Posts made by numberfor

@'miro':

no, when I made the statement I in fact stated that it in of it self is not enough evidence, now refute my real argument which is the number of deaths for example caused by addictions such as obesity, gaming, alcohol, gambling, etc vs porn

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_drug-related_deaths

OK. This is one list I could find listing drug related deaths. Can you find one that is caused by drug/substance addiction?

A copy of one recent Coroner's report. If you look at the cause of death, it is certainly not drug addiction

My point, can you point out one that says cause of death is drug addiction?

@'miro':

no, I'm saying it's less harmful

How would you define it is less harmful? I'm curious since all the report I've seen concerning drug related deaths never say drug addiction is the cause of death. This is why i say there is a difference between the impact of addiction and the impact of the material.

@'miro':

what this? sorry… invalid, firstly you already shoved this under the 'addiction' umbrella (which we've dealt with) and secondly this can apply to any addiction not just porn addiction, so no 2nd point

Judging from your stance, I believe you refute the second point.

@'miro':

Porn can be addictive. Porn addiction has far less impact on people than lots of other addictions, that goes for all people including minors.

The 'far less' argument.

If you are referring to your own experiences with porn when you were young as a rule/evidence or proof, it can not be applied as a general rule. Each case and individual are different (personal values, individual susceptibility, presence of a support system).

In this thread alone, by self admission, there are two different statements. Just because you didn't have a negative experience does not mean no one else did. Further more, the existence of negative experiences means we can not simply dismiss the impacts of porn exposure to minors altogether.

The 'impact' argument

People suffering addictive disorders are generally in denial of it. Left undiscovered and untreated, it becomes harder to treat. It might not be directly (physically) harmful, but such behavior can cause problems in various aspects of life. This is the impact of addiction.

It is different to the impact of the addictive materials itself. Consuming too much alcohol/drugs will have physical impacts even if you haven't consumed them before (and thus is not addicted to it)..

The 'compared to other addiction' argument.

Unlike other addictions (eating disorders, internet/computer usage, gaming) porn addiction in minors has definite, legal ramifications. I believe many countries have laws governing the production, sale/distribution and to some extent, consumption. For a minor (someone below the legal age - 18 years old generally), watching pornography is a criminal offense.

Typically first time offenders (those actively seeking pornographic materials on their own volition) will only receive a reprimand. Second offense (basically, repeated) are generally viewed as a more serious matter. It can be an indicator of addiction, implying the inability to control behavior/impulses. More serious is the possible disregard for law and/or law enforcement.

I find that last post intriguing though. You say 'this can apply to any addiction not just porn addiction' and yet uses it to say that porn addiction is different than others.

@'miro':

Porn can be addictive. Porn addiction has far less impact on people than lots of other addictions, that goes for all people including minors.

Addiction in any form is unacceptable and people who are addicted should seek treatment and be helped to find relief. Clear enough?

Now respond to all my points

Nope. It's not clear whether or not you refute the second point. I would categorize a simple yes, i agree or no, i disagree as a straight, direct answer.

Btw, you can't use the argument of porn addiction having less impact as a reason to refute my point.

@'miro':

matt, that won't help you. If you make me list your half point, there's no credibility lost on my part, I'm simply going to list all the many points I've made so far. It's not about getting the other to admit to a semi wrong statement, it's about the presentation of a better list of arguments overall.

What half point? There is no semi-wrong here.

I'm trying to understand what you're saying and the logic behind it. You agree that porn can be considered addictive. Now, from what you're saying about my second point, it can be interpreted that you consider addiction in minors is a normal thing or at the very least acceptable, using impact as a determinative reason (not as destructive/dangerous/harmful).

Here's the my original statement on the matter.

@'matthacker':

Echoing Fasdeviant, exposure at a young age (think formative years) where one is more prone to impulses (due to hormon imbalances) may cause a destructive pattern of behavior to 'sink in' and become a personality trait. More so if there are physical attributes that makes one more susceptible to addictive behaviors.

I ask again for clarity's sake - do you refute this?

@'miro':

well apparently you made one point, which I don't refute, however the important part is that it's not a very strong point if you compare porn addiction to other addictions

I'd like a more straight, direct answer.

Further more, I have made two points. The second point is there in case you refute/disagree with the first one. Since you agree with the first one, you can read the second point like this : 'exposure to addictive materials at a very young age may cause a destructive pattern of behavior'. Worded as such, do you refute the second point?

@'miro':

Well ok fine, but I was hoping you were going to make another point other than addiction, which is only one point then.

And yes I do agree any addiction should be treated regardless of how severe it is. However of course severity will play a role, an addiction that causes 300,000 deaths deserves a lot more attention than one that causes a handful.

Also porn is a very different addictive behaviour than drugs. Porn satisfies the urge to masturbate, which is a natural human trait unlike drugs. In that respect it's more like over eating, which is huge problem, but I don't see society igniting a witch hunt over obesity.

The best comparison are other forms of entertainment like TV or games, extremely addictive yet are we preventing access? World of Warcraft for example has just a Teen rating.

The bottom line is porn, though addictive for some has nowhere near the destructive outcomes as other perfectly legal additive substances or behaviours and yet it garners far more prejudice and hate, a dreadful side effect of society's stigma.

The major destructive outcome comes from religion and society that brain washes (and I don't use the term lightly) people into thinking they should be ashamed of their natural instincts. That's where you get the situation of feeling guilt over something that ought to be a happy human experience. That's when you get figure makers ripping off genitals and selling them as "human" in case little children may be confused over the fact that god forbid a man has penis and a women a vagina. And you get parents that find the thought of sexuality so offensive they forget to tell their kids that porn is just fantasy.

thank you for listening

So just to be completely clear here, does this mean you do not refute both points?

@'hzr':

Btw, for some very good reference on anal morphs that will look sizzling hot, take a look at this benchmark scene of modern porn http://www.vporn.com/fetish/taylor-in-bath/126768/

One of my alltime fav anal scenes I´d say. Taylor Rain is just great.

@'Fred5150':

Off topic but I agree Taylor Rain is a very special pornstar, so petite yet so "accomodating"

Thanks for that. I already have some references of what I'd like to make.

@'miro':

Point 1 we're in agreement here, no need to refute.
Point 2 I will very likely refute this one, but before I do you need to make your case. So far you've made a bold assertion without evidence.

Your evidence for point 2 please. That could in fact be a discussion with substance.

Oh and while I've agreed with point 1, I've already shown that the negative impact of this addictive behaviour is far less severe then many other addictions, even though porn garners likely far more negative feedback for it.

There's no need for evidence for point 2 if you agree on point 1.

The reason? If you agree porn can be addictive, exposure of such materials to a minor (a person below legal age) should not be done.

For example, you do not subject minors to addictive substances such as alcohol, drugs or tobacco unless there is a valid reason to do so. One example would be pain killers to mitigate pain in serious injury or in the event of surgery. Even then, you are required to ask for parental permission since a minor is legally incapable of giving consent. I believe there is very little justification of subjecting minors to tobacco and porn, even if you have parental consent to do so (which I highly doubt will be given).

Since porn is (or if you prefer, can be) addictive, allowing minors access to addictive materials is questionable behavior at the very least and is considered illegal in some countries. Therefore, the degree of impact is in fact, irrelevant and can not be used as an argument (one addictive materials is 'less harmful' than others).

In the case where porn exposure to a minor has occurred, much like with any cases with addictive substances, an assessment must be made of just how much damage/impact is present and steps are taken for rehabilitation. Each case will be different, since there are a lot of factors involved (mental state, personality traits, susceptibility, environment, potential for future exposures etc).

@'SinCyprine':

To put it in line with the thread & your demand, that a religious quote that say sex is bad, "in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." But you may have known about this one.

Sin, I'll be with you in a minute. I'd like to hear miro's answer before discussing those quotes.

@'miro':

Ok here's the deal I'll answer all your statements above, I'm happy to waste a bit of time on this, but I want you to do one thing, tell me in a very quick summary what your point(s) is/ are? point 1, 2, 3 one sentence very simple, I'm especially interested in any points that haven't been refuted. You just said you've made your point, so what is it?

Because I fail to see any point you've made that hasn't been refuted, so I want that clarified before I spend any more time on this. Sound reasonable?

@'matthacker':

My 1st point is that porn can be addictive, even if it's not a drug. My 2nd point is that exposure to porn at a very young age may cause a destructive pattern of behavior.

Do you refute this?

Now, here is what I think is pure conjecture on your part.

@'miro':

If anything you are making my point. You've made up you're mind. You're saying to yourself porn has no value and you're going to defend that at all cost.

After which, you posted these

@'miro':

re 1 - yes correct that is just my assumption, I implied, I didn't say you actually do, essentially I was trying to push your buttons to get an actual counter from you

@'miro':

Let's be clear. I made an assumption not a declaration of fact. I do agree there's wasn't a need for me to do so, it didn't add great value to the discussion. And if you're saying the assumption is not true then I'm happy to say it was a wrong assumption.

Do you admit to making the wrong assumption? Just in case they are true, I've asked you to provide evidence to the contrary - that I have said porn has no value.

@'miro':

matthacker, look at everything you've just written carefully

all you're doing is playing semantics, wrong definitions, contradictions that have nothing to do with the points I'm making, wrong assumptions about you, etc… even if you're right about all the things you have mentioned it does nothing to invalidate the points I've made earlier

you on the other hand are not making any points and you are not providing evidence

once you do, let's continue the discussion

I have made my point. Just look back at my post(s).

On the contrary, I think the evidence - your posts - speaks for itself. You have not answered my questions or my request to point out post and statements made by me saying porn has no value, porn should be banned, porn is bad etc. I think those statements. if there were any, constitutes evidence particularly in relation to this statement:

@'miro':

If anything you are making my point. You've made up you're mind. You're saying to yourself porn has no value and you're going to defend that at all cost.

Made by you, miro.

@'miro':

If you're saying it's addictive, then yes I agree. I would even go as far as saying, of course it's addictive. Because we're sexual beings we think about sex all day, so yes some will overdo it.

My point is, there are lots of addictions as you've pointed out, but considering the extent and effects of all these addictions, porn is one of the weaker addictions and yet receives arguably the highest disdain. Case in point no deaths (or so few it's negligible), deaths from obesity 111,909 to 365,000 in the US alone.

That contradicts your earlier post

@'miro':

porn is not a drug, that's a fact, how can you be addicted to something that is part of your human nature?

Are you admitting you're wrong - you can be addicted to porn even if it is not a drug?

@'miro':

yes, my point is there are basically NO requirements as long as people are entertained

Requirements are not purpose. The purpose of consuming entertainment is to be entertained. The purpose of entertainment is to entertain. The purpose to make entertainment products are numerous.

To consider something as entertainment, it must be entertaining for the viewer. There's an element of subjectivity there. What one doesn't consider entertaining, others may disagree. So one attached a value to them, whether or not they're entertaining to them.

@'miro':

you missed my point, Uwe Boll movies are considered low quality, porn is considered low quality
people don't ask for Uwe Boll movies to get banned, people do ask for porn to get banned
artistic value should not a basis for banning anything

Now, look who's missing the point.

Just a reminder.

@'miro':

I can go into "b grade" movies, like Uwe Boll calibre if you prefer, movies that obviously have no value at all, they're going to be frowned upon, but no one would ever think they ought to be banned because there's no artistic value

You used 'value' here instead of 'quality'.

I never said/wrote porn is low quality, porn has no value, porn should be banned and lastly, banning something because it's apparent lack of quality and/or because it has no value. We've established that these are your wrongfully taken assumptions.

@'miro':

I am open to evidence, if you provide it. I have provided you with evidence for my points above. If you provide me with evidence to the contrary I will consider them fairly.

Let's be clear. I made an assumption not a declaration of fact. I do agree there's wasn't a need for me to do so, it didn't add great value to the discussion. And if you're saying the assumption is not true then I'm happy to say it was a wrong assumption. However I didn't insult you in any way, so I think an apology is asking for too much.

Well, let's see. Wrong assumption, heh? That was the you can't be addicted to porn thing. Plus the whole porn is bad, porn should be banned argument which I never wrote/said.

Let's see your previous statement.
@'miro':

If anything you are making my point. You've made up you're mind. You're saying to yourself porn has no value and you're going to defend that at all cost.

Did I ever say/wrote that porn has no value? I believe no. So, you're making up facts about me. One can call that telling lies about someone.

@'miro':

Ok, look up religion's opinions on homosexual sex. Are you saying homosexual sex is not sex?
And then add to that their opinion on porn, which is sex on camera? Do you need more proof?

Ah, so extra material sex is only sex between people who cheat? What about being single and wanking off? What about sex before marriage? What about homosexual couples having sex, who are not allowed to marry even if they want to?

If I recall, I've asked for a quote from actual religious text from either religion. So far, you have not offered one.

@'miro':

am I the only one providing evidence?

I'd like to submit some evidence.

@'miro':

porn is not a drug, that's a fact, how can you be addicted to something that is part of your human nature?

Just because it's not a chemical substance, doesn't mean porn can not be associated with addictive behavior (ie. gambling, eating disorders, compulsive buying, cell phone use, internet and computer use, gaming, tanning, exercise, self injury).

@'miro':

I think, what has messed you up is that nature is telling us that sex is something to be enjoyed and fun, but society and in particular religion is constantly trying to tell u that it's bad and evil, when it's the exact opposite, sex exists to encourage procreation via the orgasm a naturally awesome experience, it's how you and I exist and we make children … and this is supposed to be bad thing?

@'miro':

let me rephrase, they let us have sex in marriage, thank god, but really not much else, any sex outside of marriage doesn't garner quite as much praise

so if sex is such a beautiful thing in the eye of the church, then lets get started with abstinence and celibacy

I've asked for authentic proof that any religion says sex is bad. You then rephrase. I chose not to chase the issue. You never provided evidence that religion requires 'abstinence' and/or 'celibacy' for its believers and/or followers. I believe those are generally only required for certain roles (priest/sisterhood) and even then, it's not universally adapted.

Also, about extra marital sex - the reason it is generally objected to (and not just in religion) is not the sex per se, but because extra marital sex is often associated with infidelity. Marital vows are not just ceremonial in nature, but in effect, a statement of personal commitment and loyalty. Thus, it can be used as a measure of a person's character, trustworthiness and integrity. It is after all, in effect, a breach of contract.

@'miro':

Terminator, Rambo, Mortal Combat, Grand Theft Auto highlights of deep social commentary or maybe exemplary depictions of social responsibility? … entertainment's purpose is to make you happy that is all

the whole point of entertainment is to ESCAPE reality

From a pure semantics POV, the point, or rather the purpose of entertainment is to entertain. The general purpose on consuming entertainment is to be entertained. What constitutes entertainment is highly subjective, though there are consensus. Since you've cited commercial entertainment products (films and games), the purpose of making those products is certainly not just 'to make you happy'.

For one, it is an expression of an idea, an artistic endeavor and also a financial venture for economic gains of providing the product to audiences.

@'miro':

I can go into "b grade" movies, like Uwe Boll calibre if you prefer, movies that obviously have no value at all, they're going to be frowned upon, but no one would ever think they ought to be banned because there's no artistic value

This is a very highly subjective statement. It serves no value to you, since it doesn't entertain you. But that doesn't mean it has no value at all. You're also generalizing and passing your own values to others which most likely have different tastes and valuations.

@'miro':

If anything you are making my point. You've made up you're mind. You're saying to yourself porn has no value and you're going to defend that at all cost.

If anything, I believe this sentence more aptly applies to you. You've made up your mind, based on your assumptions of me and my views which yourself have admitted are wrong.

Further more, you're accusing me of being close minded and wouldn't accept conflicting views, even when they're based on logical, rational arguments backed by evidence/facts.

So, I think it is more than fair for me to request an apology from you.

It is one of the oldest 3D apps available, so I think it does come with quite a bit of baggage.

About rigging. that's why people pay so much for a professional rigs. I wish somebody is crazy enough to try such a rig in DS or Poser. Maybe I'm crazy enough?

Maya. I always think of that app as more friendly to artists than Max (or any other 3d modeler app). Did you get Motion Builder too?

As you've found out, you can export corrective morphs (or make your own). But I'd say, why use morphs? Particularly since Maya's rigging capabilities and features far outstrips DAZ Studio or Poser. I'd say just start with a fresh rig. Of course, this will take time and quite a bit of effort. In effect, Genesis/Genesis 2 support is limited to just morphs(shapes) and textures.

@'miro':

re 1 - yes correct that is just my assumption, I implied, I didn't say you actually do, essentially I was trying to push your buttons to get an actual counter from you

You answered my post, but not my question. I ask again, Where did I ever say porn has no value? By the statement above, do you admit you made a wrong assumption (not just making an assumption).?

@'miro':

re 4 - point 1 I agree with you, but no grounds for banning, which is the ultimate call here isn't it?

Where did I say/wrote that porn should be banned? You have just made another incorrect assumption.

My point with this post is that, you, miro, incorrectly make assumptions of my views from my post. Funny you ask about logic and reason, because so far your arguments were made with the wrong assumptions.

@'miro':

If anything you are making my point. You've made up you're mind. You're saying to yourself porn has no value and you're going to defend that at all cost. Where is your logic or reasoning?

That is your assumption, wrongfully taken. Why?

1. Where did I ever say porn has no value? Please, point me to the post.

2. I say social responsibility, but in your answer you talk about social value. Do you understand that these two are distinct, different concepts?

3. As I understand it, the topic of this thread is about a documentary on porn, not porn itself.

4. My 1st point is that porn can be addictive, even if it's not a drug. My 2nd point is that exposure to porn at a very young age may cause a destructive pattern of behavior.

5. Are you saying requirements is the same as purpose? I'm asking based on your quotes, here in this thread.

@'miro':

entertainment's purpose is to make you happy that is all

@'miro':

my point is there is not requirement for artistry or awareness of social issues, the fact some do makes no difference it's just a bonus… entertainment is only required to make you happy

You do understand requirements and purpose are two different concepts? By any chance, are you confusing the purpose of entertainment's existence, the purpose entertainment is made, and YOUR own purpose of consuming entertainment?

@'miro':

my point is there is not requirement for artistry or awareness of social issues, the fact some do makes no difference it's just a bonus… entertainment is only required to make you happy, I can go into "b grade" movies, like Uwe Boll calibre if you prefer, movies that obviously have no value at all, they're going to be frowned upon, but no one would ever think they ought to be banned because there's no artistic value

I understand your point. But if you read your post again, there's no mention of 'requirements'. You wrote 'purpose' and that there is only one purpose, 'entertainment's purpose is to make you happy that is all' (underlined by me) which you restated in your last post - '…entertainment is only required to make you happy'.

@'miro':

like Uwe Boll calibre if you prefer, movies that obviously have no value at all, they're going to be frowned upon, but no one would ever think they ought to be banned because there's no artistic value.

No value to you perhaps. I've actually seen Uwe Boll films other than House of the Dead and that Dungeon Siege flick. While I don't agree to his take and do question some of the direction, not all of his movie are downright bad. You could probably say the same thing about Ed Wood.

@'miro':

the beauty of porn comes with the sex act itself, that's enough entertainment right there proven by the fact that millions upon millions of people watch even though porn is supposed to have no social value?

Never said/wrote that porn has no social value. I wrote 'Porn 'gets away' with lack of social responsibility'. I don't know how you came to the conclusion I think that porn has no social value.

@'miro':

and of course porn can have artistic, political, social or any other values you want to add, but as I said those who can add that value, don't because of the social ramification, they're forced to chose between porn and mainstream, it's the social stigma that is holding them back, not porn,
the minute this social stigma is gone amazing pornographic works will be created.

What is actually the topic here? I thought this was a discussion about the documentary and the views/opinions /arguments raised rather than porn itself.

@'miro':

so let me get this straight, mortal combat with extremely detailed depictions of death is socially responsible? and more socially responsible than two adults having some fun?
so just because it has an ESRB rating of 18, no child will ever see it? even youtube has these clips (but they can't show nipples, lol)

I would say that it is socially responsible because it moved the game industry into being more socially responsible about games and the marketing of games.

---

@'SinCyprine':

this one is propaganda. UK is planning to ban porn from their webz (as if they could !). and bad propaganda at that.

Never said they weren't propaganda. But just because it is propaganda, doesn't mean it's completely false or the issues/arguments are completely fabricated to sell the idea.

@'SinCyprine':

that would be a good documentary (and i suppose some do exist somewhere).

Unfortunately, the current trend of documentaries is docudrama. The only documentary generally free of propaganda is the ones on physics or mathematics.

1. UV maps are texture layouts that 'tells' the renderer where to place the textures on the model.
2. This is generally correct. However, textures are usually built with one UV maps in mind. Loading a different UV set other that the intended will cause distortions. Genesis, Genesis 2 and Generation 4 all have different mesh, but Genesis and Genesis 2 have Generation 4 UV map support so you can load textures for Generation 4, use the appropriate UVs (for example, Victoria 4 rather than the Base Female or Victoria 5/6 UV map) and avoid distortions.
3. Yes. You can use both texture on any V4, Genesis and Genesis 2 Female with the V4 UVs.

FYI, you can select UV sets from the 'Surfaces' pane/tab. Just select all surfaces of a figure (or the ones you use V4's textures and find the UV Set drop down box.

@'Fred5150':

Iron Man quotes used to Illustrate a point in a discussion about kids seeing porn too young…...

(trying to lighten the mood before you guys start tearing strips off each other)

Thanks Fred. I believe we're all well adjusted adults here who can discuss things calmly.

@'miro':

Terminator, Rambo, Mortal Combat, Grand Theft Auto highlights of deep social commentary or maybe exemplary depictions of social responsibility? … entertainment's purpose is to make you happy that is all

the whole point of entertainment is to ESCAPE reality, in action movies the hero slays 30 men without a scratch, in fantasy movies we have faeries, orcs and giants in porn the girl demands a facial and double penetration
how many of us go to the movies to watch documentaries because we get a kick out of being "entertained" by reality?

Actually, those examples you quote have a plethora of purposes - profitability (all of them, I think), artistry and yes, even promoting awareness of social issues. It's certainly not just for 'entertainment'.

Terminator 1 & 2 raises the question of over reliance on technology sans morality (pure machine logic). Rambo - First Blood highlights post traumatic stress and the social alienation of Vietnam war veterans. On a personal note, I love it the most because the movie portrays a more 'complete' personality for Rambo.

Grand Theft Auto, I believe, takes a satirical view of contemporary society. Funny thing you should mention Mortal Kombat. That game is often cited as one of the reasons we now have ESRB ratings, a social responsibility initiative from the game industry so parents have some guidelines in determining which games are suitable for (their) children.

Porn 'gets away' with lack of social responsibility by claiming it is only (and should only be) consumed by legal age adults. Exposure to non adults are generally blamed on distribution channels or adults in possession of pornographic materials.

Should children be exposed to porn? I believe no. But unavoidably, they will be. The better equipped they are with the concepts and ramifications, they better they are at making decisions rationally and on their own of what they will do and how it affects them. I believe that's called 'being responsible' and extend not only to sex, but other aspects of life.

Each child and parent(s) will be different and ultimately, the parents must take action in the best interest of the child. My take on such documentaries is the makers are raising the issue so adults (parents and potential parents) are aware of this. Parents can then take measures as they see fit and be more wise in their parenting.