Lodium: I newer claimed porn WAS A CRIME, take time to read the previous text you yourself have commented with and the responses i have given.
Im starting to wonder if i need to spoon feed you alll text withouth exluding anything because it seams you forget the things you have spoken about moments ago.
kohlrak: Projection much? You used the word crime... "different from other crimes" is a juxtaposition which would come with the implication that it was crime. I don't really believe you're so uninformed to actually think it's a crime, however. Instead, i really do wonder at this point if you're just trolling me.
In reality, not even 100% truly concludes anything???
So this is not a coclusion thats 100*% correct?
kohlrak: The conflation seems strong with you.
Einstein used E = mc^2 to prove that mass and energy are relative to each other. This lesson describes how energy can be converted into mass and mass into energy. Experimental results from particle accelerators are used to demonstrate the relative nature of mass and energy.
kohlrak: Great example, i've read before it changed, and sure enough, now with quantum mechanics it's actually E^2=((MC)^2)^2+(pc)^2, now, to make up for momentum. Kind of like how Ohm's law has become a "general rule" when we start talking about superconductors (divide by 0!?).
No its not because i say so, but anoyone that have a claim that cant be supported by facts and science
they do so because they have an opinion and that opinion is based on the two things i mentioned.
The psygoligist that claimed cartoons leaded to more violence is a perfect example of this.
That claim was not supported by facts and science but his personal opinion based on his personal fellings on the matter.
I cant really be bothered to quote the other contradictions you mentioned , i already gave you one example.
kohlrak: There are no facts in psychology, which is an inherent issue with psychology, but there was a request for the information from psychologists... So the lack of facts comes with the territory. Until neuroscientists can emulate a human brain to the degree of predictive value, don't expect psychology to ever become a "hard science" as it's called.
you need to have loss of innocence defined?
...... How to explain this further than i already did???
kohlrak: Well, if I use a dictionary definition, your statement makes little sense:
1. the state, quality, or fact of being innocent of a crime or offense.
kohlrak: Clearly unrelated to the context, i assume.
2. lack of guile or corruption; purity.
kohlrak: Children have intelligence and corruption. Just ask any psychologist the significance of ACE scores.
3. used euphemistically to refer to a person's virginity.
kohlrak: Porn on one's computer does not mean the loss of virginity.
So... If you're serious, mull it over.
What you were talking ... and society have placed on them
kohlrak:
As for "loss of innocence," that's what i call the "Santa Effect." "Protecting innocence," ... a topic for another discussion.
kohlrak: The underlined text comes with the implication that I'm inventing my own term in this context, which i'm about to name, which i partially defined in the previous clause, but elaborate upon in the rest of the paragraph. So, no, i obviously was not referencing that study, but instead referencing the common phenomena that parents lie to their kids about an old, fat man in a red suit going around and giving them gifts and other things.
Innocence by ... innocence as a notion created and controlled by adults.
kohlrak: A much clearer definition. Thank you. A lack of experience is not a common definition for the word, from my experience. You could say i'm innocent of that definition, then. In which case, of course, your statement was indeed true that parents try to hold onto this much longer than it really lasts. And, when reality hits, it hurts, but that's their own fault for not preparing their child for the real world. Their obligation as parents is to expect that very thing, and be ready for it, or even cause it (which is why we have a problem with parents who don't monitor their children around "strangers").
What is the simplest to write? : porn can lead crime related crimes (this is just an example, im not claiming porn can lead to crime related offenses).
or porn is a crime when the discussion is with the same person and the topic beeeing the same?
For me its just easyer to sometimes shorten what i write especially when wtriting answers to the same person i discussed with before so i dont have to type 10000 words evrytime because i trust the oppisite person to actually remember what we were talking about....
Just for you though il dig up some of the responses i gave before
since it seams to be needed :
Quote : Defending censorship with undocumented claims that it migth affect somone to commit the crime of sexual abuse is pretty outlandish as well as claiming that children can copy the act since that requires somone to actually provide them with said images (unresponsible adults) and until i see some clear evidence that pixelated loli pictures wich doesnt represent reality at all , leads to increase in child sex abuse i wll keep my stance on the matter.
Quote 2 :
As one can read, the youth in the link did not have an issue with porn, in fact some of them saw it as denying potential real humans sex.
The logical thing then woud asume that some people that read loli woud think in the same vein.
They dont have a desire to abuse real children/molest real children.
In other words they dont see the drawings as real children at all.
There have even been cases where fans of loli have reported real child abusers (people sharing real photos)
so its shoud be ovious that im still talking about arguments against the claim that watching porn or reading loli can lead to crime related offenses unless you want me to post 100 % accurate evry post. Il mention that somone actually complained that this trhead had become a Novel wich i why earlier made the comment abouth this migth not be rigth place to discuss it. The forum woud perhaps been better.
And i havent claimed porn on the harddrive can lead to a loss of virginity
i have said its usually percived as a loss of innocence, thats a totally difrent thing than loosing virginity.
The santa effect doesnt have anything to do with protecting loss of innocence
allthough in some cases the act of using the santa effect migth have an effect for a limited period of time to make the kid belive dowloading porn is wrong.
The santa effect is beeing told if you behave in certian ways then good things will happen to you boosted by giving treats or gifts and generally being positive about the subject. For example if you convince somone that fake pills works well and cure you withouth telling them that the pills are fake, theres a good chance that the person being told that will belive the fake pills will work and as a result it migth have an effect. If you told a person that are afraid of higths to take the fake pills, it migth have an effect on curing his aneixity about higths but in reality its the mind thats doing all the work.. In other words instead of calling it the santa effect the term Placeboo is probably a more correct word.
Loss of innocence is not something youre being told or influenced by.
Its simply the person breaking the expectations society and parents have placed on the individual when they reach the age of reason. With the age of the internet this happens much faster and earlier than before and in some cases young people have more knowledgde than adults.
Society and parents dont tell kids to break the law unless the parents are unresposible to make one example
But the kids can choose to rebell and do a crime/braking the rules even though they know its wrong or having being told its wrong and are understanding the concept of it.
Btw, i didnt ask if Ensteins math can evolve and be better/added to by other scientists. I asked if his answer on the math i presented was not 100 % conlusive.
Even if you add quantum mechanics it doesnt deny that einteins math or theory is 100% correct.
The atomic bomb woudnt have existed otherwise,if there was no conclusive evidence. This however doesnt mean there cant be math that add more proven math or theory in the future to other questios in physics and quantum mechanics.
Einstein's formula plays second fiddle in that derivation - it's all about different kinds of energy. Sure, there are some radioactive decay processes following nuclear fission, and, if so inclined, one can view the decay of a neutron decaying into a slightly lighter proton as a transformation of rest energy into other energy forms. But these additional processes contribute a mere 10 per cent of the total energy set free in nuclear fission. The main contribution is due to binding energy being converted to other forms of energy - a consequence not of Einstein's formula, but of the fact that nuclear forces are comparatively strong, and that certain lighter nuclei are much more strongly bound than certain more massive nuclei.
Still, E=mc2 had a supporting role in the story of nuclear fission research. Not as the mechanism behind nuclear power, but as a tool: Because energy and mass are equivalent, highly sensitive measurements of the masses of different atomic nuclei gave the researchers important clues about the strength of the nuclear bond. Einstein's formula does not tell us why the nuclear binding energies are as large as they are, but it opens up one way (among several) to measure these binding energies.