I said "you cannot say..." and you knew full well I meant that you cannot correctly say it (that is, what you said is wrong)
Firstly, let me just say, Idlerich, that I just so happen to take this issue very seriously indeed, being all too familiar with the impact of pornography on society.
As for knowing "full well", not at all: of course I can say "porn is rape". I DID SAY IT!!
And
correctly ... [And as I have already demonstrated in my previous post, it is those who say "porn isn't rape" who are CLEARLY wrong.
you wilfully misunderstood me to pretend that I meant you were physically unable to say (or write) it. I call that pedantic, not to mention a deliberate attempt to avoid the point.
I didn't misunderstand you at all. You want me to
pretend to believe something (that porn ain't rape) that I do not actually believe. I'm not, obviously, physically unable to say it [this is now becoming pedantically ludicrous] ...
It is you and other posters here you are avoiding the point. Are you going to argue that, for instance, CHILD pornography isn't rape? Or has the issue now (all of a sudden) become more problematic, much more disturbing than an idiotic "porn isn't rape" dismissal?
What is it that you will now contend, then, "ALL OTHER porn isn't rape"?? [Unless, of course, you wish to claim that child pornography isn't rape]. In which case, it will be a simple matter for me to demonstrate the falsity of such a contention.
But apart from saying that porn and rape are not the same all my "claims" were simple agreement with what you said - remember? Tell me that you are not now arguing that everything that you yourself said was redundant and somewhat pointless?
Not at all, Idlerich. I wasn't challenging anything else that you wrote, just that one contention above. But it's an extremely important one: after all, the Guybrush-linked report that was the point of departure for this discussion is arguing that (internet) porn reduces rape (or more broadly, sexual violence), the implication being that - though acknowledging wider social factors causing sexual violence [and porn itself] - such factors can be overlooked, and, indeed, must be if the reports principle conclusion is to be accepted .
Obviously I know what rape and porn are,
Obviously? Surely you're aware that both of these terms are continuously being disputed and challenged, here as elsewhere, and which is exactly what I'm doing here: questioning peoples easy assumptions about porn and sexual violence.
the point is I didn't want to get bogged down in some stupid disagreement over definitions. You refused to give a definition too
But getting so "bogged down" is what is otherwise called debate and discussion. I stated, axiomatically, that porn is rape, and nobody here has yet provided any evidence or argument (much less convincing ones) to weaken or undermine such a definition.
I would have thought that the onus was on you to provide that definition that made the two the same because it's an unusual position.
It isn't "unusual" at all; what is unusual - and irresponsibly so - is to claim that porn reduces sexual violence, as I stated above (a problem being its own solution).
It's a shame because I genuinely wanted to know why you thought that, unfortunately a discussion with you can never get anywhere because when challenged on something you always drop it and move on .
But I have been doing just that in posts here [the post above, for example, giving direct evidence of porn as rape], and displacing an issue is what I never do: on the contrary, it is what you have now done, veering from the issue into personal abuse [repeated again in your subsequent post ("we can disregard him"); what you are actually saying here is that you can disregard the issue of whether porn is rape, instead ridiculing anyone who claims so. That is what displacement is.]
[Rest of abuse snipped]
