WHAT WOULD YOU SAY: Is Porn Just Harmless Entertainment?

Colson Center’s latest “What Would You Say” video explodes the common idea that pornography is harmless because it’s either a victimless crime or merely another form of entertainment.

Screenshot from “Porn Is Just Harmless Entertainment”

In fact, there is such a thing as porn addiction, no less so than there are alcohol, cocaine and gambling addictions. The physical evidence of porn addiction is measurable in the brain.

It gets comparatively little media coverage these days, but there are millions of Americans who are thoroughly addicted to porn, with disastrous social, emotional and economic consequences. Here are three solid reasons porn is nothing to play around with:


DON’T MISS ANDREW KLAVAN EXPLAINS HOW HE MET MESSIAH


 

Author: Mark Tapscott

Follower of Christ, devoted husband of Claudia, doting father and grandfather, conservative lover of liberty, journalist and First Amendment fanatic, former Hill and Reagan aide, vintage Formula Ford racer, Okie by birth/Texan by blood/proud of both, resident of Maryland. Go here: https://hillfaith.blog/about-hillfaith-2/

4 thoughts on “WHAT WOULD YOU SAY: Is Porn Just Harmless Entertainment?”

  1. This video is a remarkable example of poor argumentation.

    For his first point, he cites a correlation and then claims causation without any evidence at all (and it is obvious that even if their is a causal link between the two correlated points, it is certainly plausible that it is in the other direction, i.e. if you are lonely you are more likely to consume porn.)

    For the second point he is basically saying drugs are bad, porn works like drugs in some ways, therefore porn is bad. Dopamine reactions are present in numerous activities we engage in, one for example is religious experiences.

    His last point is basically just an appeal to authority with no evidence beyond that.

    I expect most people would agree that sometimes for some people porn is quite harmful. This is true of a lot of things. It is possible that porn is uniquely and especially harmful but this particular argument does absolutely nothing to prove that, and I expect it wouldn’t convince anyone who didn’t already believe it to begin with.

    Like

    1. Thanks for your analysis, David, I very much appreciate you taking the time to do so. I have to say, however, that I don’t see where he cites a correlation (without giving us the numerical indication of its strength or weakness), and then claims causation. I think his point simply is that there is a correlation between porn use and loneliness. In a correlation, each pole moves as the other moves according to their relationship, positively or negatively. It would be helpful to have more detail from that 2018 study, to be sure. As for his second point about the impact of porn on the brain’s production of dopamine, I think that’s simply a statement of fact, not a judgement about the morality of porn. As for his third point, to what authority do you think he is appealing other than the quoted psychiatrist? Are you aware of questions about that particular psychiatrist’s credibility? Thanks again for commenting.

      Like

      1. 1) Seconds 28 to 40 or so. He sites the study, which concludes a correlation and then says ‘Pornography use increases loneliness.’ i.e. Porn causes loneliness. We really don’t need to know more about the study at all. Even if we concede that it is perfect and indicates a very strong correlation between porn and loneliness that absolutely would not support the claim that ‘porn causes loneliness.’ Also, a correlation does not mean that moving one moves the other (that would be a causation) it means that in the particular data set observed, the two variables are highly related. Height and weight are correlated, taller people tend to be heavier. However, force feeding a bunch of people to make them gain weight will not make them taller.

        2) Isn’t the entire point of the video debating points about the ‘morality’ of porn, or at least it’s ‘badness’? The second point is several statements of fact

        3) The credibility of the psychiatrist in question doesn’t change whether or not the argument is a naked appear to authority. No actual data is presented at all. We don’t even know why this particular psychiatrist should be considered an authority. Even if we grant that he is an expert as treating this particular condition, we wouldn’t know much else since one would expect a psychiatrist to treat the sick, not the healthy giving him an obviously skewed perspective when it comes to the effects on anyone who didn’t need treatment. In any event. just google ‘appeal to authority fallacy’ and you will see why I claim that that is what this is.

        Certainly I am not saying that the conclusion ‘porn is bad’ is wrong, all I am saying is that the arguments presented are entirely unconvincing and poorly crafted.

        Like

Comments are closed.