🚀 go-pugleaf

On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 23:55:33 -0600, "Luc Teh Pervrse"
<luc.remo...@comcastCHANGETONET.com> wrote:

>"Ramen Junkie" <Just_...@To_The_Post.com> wrote in message
>news:qAQUc.4033$Y94.1060@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
>> "Luc Teh Pervrse" <luc.remo...@comcastCHANGETONET.com> wrote in
>> message news:l8ydnfLxl8BJCr7cRVn-pw@comcast.com...
>> > http://www.playitcybersafe.com/Poll-August102004.pdf
>>
>>
>> I like how they just call child pornography simply, "Online Pornography".
>> Such a blatant attempt to keep people (of the future) away from porn.
>
>This doesn't necessarily apply here but I find it rather offensive they just
>come out and say that pornography is harmful to children with no scientific
>backing. 

While there isn't scientific backing directly linking pornography to
harming children, there is a related indirect problem.  They pertain to not
educating the children properly about their sexuality and leaving them to
learn without any aid.  As these pornographic images are their only source
of "knowledge", they will learn it incorrectly.  

> It's as bad as the people who say decay of the family is what
>destroyed Greece and Rome - only difference is the latter are people
>babbling in church, the first is an argument used in politics/courtroom etc.

Actually, there's a more important difference.  The latter can easily be
countered by historians that have accurrate information - or reinforced if
it actually (HA!) was the case.  The former is something that hasn't been
investiaged enough (and probably won't since forcing a vice onto a person
isn't consdiered polite) and is rife with incorrect information.

>
>I suppose at 5849.0625 days of age people are no longer harmed by pr0n, 

Those that suddenly become 16?  That's traditionally two years before the
magic restriction.  :)