Sex Police Cracking Down: Making Masturbation a Crime
Terry Lee Alexander, 20, of Lauderdale Lakes, Florida, was sentenced to a further 60 days in jail on top of the 10-year term he is currently serving for armed robbery, the Miami Herald reported yesterday. ...In reaching their verdict on Tuesday, jurors decided that an inmate's cell was "a limited access public place" where exposing oneself was against the law. ...
The prisoner's lawyer, Kathleen McHugh, failed to get him cleared on the grounds that a cell was a private place and what Alexander was doing was perfectly normal. "Did other inmates start masturbating because of Mr Alexander?" Ms McHugh asked Ms [Coryus] Veal. "Did you call a Swat team?"
"I wish I had," the deputy replied.
Source: BBC
Wait a minute, a SWAT team should be brought in to deal with a masturbating prisoner? Someone's priorities need to be readjusted, in my opinion. It's not as though he stripped down and started doing sexual things in the cafeteria, after all. It's true that a prison cell is not perfectly private — prisoners are necessarily kept under regular surveillance. Unless he was directing his activity at the camera in an effort to be observed, though, his behavior was no less private than what he does on the toilet.
Was Coryus Veal closely watching him use the toilet, too? Did she complain about the "indecency" about urinating and defecating in "public"? I doubt it. Using the toilet is necessary and natural, right? Well, only religious moralists would deny that the same is true with masturbation. It's part of the Christian Right's efforts to suppress sexuality and sexual behavior that leads people to treat masturbation differently from other bodily functions that are done in whatever relative privacy a person might enjoy.
According to news reports, jurors were asked by McHugh if any of them masturbated and no one admitted to doing so. How believable is that? I don't find it the least bit credible, which means that they were too ashamed to admit that they had ever done something natural. Why? Again, we are looking at the corrosive effects of Christian "values" on society. A jury filled with people too ashamed to admit that they had ever masturbated was asked to sit in judgment on someone who had masturbated in what little privacy they had. How did this qualify as a fair trial?
[Fred Grimm in the Miami Herald] questions whether the cure is worse than the disease. Prospective jurors were publicly questioned about their own masturbation habits... Plus, during Alexander's trial, prosecutor Cynthia Lauriston and the female deputy who complained, after observing him on a monitor as he was alone in his cell, "managed to describe Alexander's offense in startling detail, eight times, once with Lauriston approximating the action with arm motions," Grimm notes.
''It was very vulgar. Very indecent,'' the deputy testified, describing the new crime of which Alexander has now been convicted, the column concludes. "But she could have been characterizing the prosecution, the trial, the verdict and the obscene, indecent, vulgar, lascivious, downright stupid waste of time and money."
Source: ABA Journal
This sort of prosecution reminds me of the contradictions in the prosecution of "obscenity," also done at the in the pursuit of Christian suppression of sexuality. Christian moralists in positions of government power seek to argue that certain films or magazines are too indecent for the public to be allowed to purchase, then they force a jury of people picked at random from the public to closely examine the same material in order to agree that the material is too awful for them to see. Huh?
Cynthia Lauriston and Coryus Veal were offended by what the prisoner was doing, but they didn't seem to have a problem with describing and imitating his behavior in great detail. How were their actions not also indecent? Why weren't they charged with indecent behavior in a very public courtroom while the prisoner was convicted for behavior while alone in his cell?
All of this contradicts common sense and reason, but it's precisely what we should expect when traditional Christian ideas about sex and sexuality become enshrined in social and legal standards. Conservative Christians are of course free to refrain from masturbation and engage in denial about doing it themselves, but it's going too far to prosecute prisoners doing it when alone in their prison cells.
Comments
Actually I read more about this story and it is not as outrageous as it sounds. The inmate was not masturbating for his own pleasure. If I remember correctly he was actually doing to harass the female guard. He made sure she was looking at him before he exposed himself and started masturbating while looking directly at her or the video camera.
It still doesn’t merit 60 days in prison, but the guy is not so innocent either.
Actually, what the article says is:
Basically, they were all admitting that they have masturbated.
Was Coryus Veal closely watching him use the toilet, too? Did she complain about the “indecency” about urinating and defecating in “public”?]
If I were to choose between watching a person defecate, or watching a man or woman pleasuring him/herself, I FOR SURE would choose the later. Just exactly WHAT IS THE PROBLEM HERE ANYWAY? Oh, BTW, It’s not true, what they say about growing hair on the palm of your hand, and my uncorrected vision is 20/20. Not bad for 72 years of age, Huh? Now, if y’all will pardon me I think i’m gonna go pound my pickle.
he exposed himself and started masturbating while looking directly at her or the video camera.
All she would have had to do would be to point and laugh. He wouldn’t do it anymore.
Don Pope: He made sure she was looking at him before he exposed himself and started masturbating while looking directly at her or the video camera.
How can he ‘make sure’ she’s looking at him via the video camera? Surely he can’t know whether she’s watching him or not via the camera. He may well have hoped she was, but I don’t see how he could ‘make sure’ she actually was watching.
There used to be a saying among non-Americans that it could only happen in America.I feel inclined to invoke it again.
We had a well known lady here who had worked as a guard in a men’s prison. She was a person of strong personality. Inmates deliberately exposed themselves in front of her not just on a camera. She treated it as a joke and just ignored them. In fact she regarded prisoners who exhibited themselves as pathetic.
Sensitive women shouldn’t even be working in a prison. What would you expect from criminals morality and sensitive behaviour?
Why was time wasted on this? When did guards stop beating the crap out of people?
OH! Snap! You kinda took a pounding on this one Austin…oops no pun intended.
I still liked the article and I do see what you are trying to say. I agree with you.
I think Austin is grasping at straws with this one. Is he implying that a complaint about an obnoxious prisoner who is annoying a guard is comparable to the religious “right” aiming to pass laws on the general community for masturbation?
He obviously hasn’t thought this one out as the legal aspects of making this law nationwide would be unattainable. No Christian would want to go to these extremes as there are far more important issues in life to be concerned about. This is a personal problem which has been dealt with and no doubt in prison there will be many such offences in the future.
Christians want to abolish pornography and explicitly violent and sexual films which have proved to be destructive for many people.
Austin is so keen to discredit Christians that he has to use this as an example of Christian suppression of liberties.
When does that stop anyone from trying? In principle, sodomy is just as private and laws against it should be “unattainable,” but they used to be standard.
Feel free to support this claim.
Ted Bundy (the serial killer) said he was exposed to pornographic material when he worked as a paper boy in a newsagency. He managed to break into some of the magazines which began an obsession for more and more explicit porno and violence material.
He said his parents weren’t to blame as they had been good to him. It was the pornography which caused him to kill women for thrills and sexual gratification.
I have read other accounts of men beating and raping women after reading hard-core pornography. Most paedophiles obtain child pornography on the internet.
And if he said it, it must be true? You base your entire position on the defensive arguments of a serial killer?
“You’ve read”? What kind of support for an argument is that?
I’ll bet most pedophiles also drink milk, but that doesn’t establish a causal connection between pornography and social problems.
Europe and Japan have much more widely available pornography but also less rape. Coincidence?
Why would Ted Bundy lie about reading porno material? He had nothing to lose or gain by saying this as it had nothing to do with his defence. He said this in an interview not long before he was executed.
What I read is as valid as what anyone else reads. It was printed in several reputable newspapers and magazines.
Whether paedophiles drink milk is irrelevant and not as important a social factor as reading pornography would be in affecting a person’s personality. Whether one reads pornography or not is no excuse for raping, paedophilia or killing anyone. It can however contribute to or worsen these actions.
Your defence of pornography would lead one to come to the conclusion you encourage it.
Whether Europe or Japan have more pornography available doesn’t mean anything. It is still unwholesome and doesn’t contribute anything to society.
Why would he tell the truth? It’s the alleged connection between the two that I’m questioning, though.
He also had nothing to gain by the murders.
Peer reviewed scientific studies is what counts, not unidentified articles in unidentified newspapers written by unidentified people with unknown qualifications on the basis of unknown data.
You assume that pornography is relevant, but that’s precisely what you have to prove. Assuming what you have to prove is a fallacy.
Whether the two are even connected or not is the question.
Feel free to provide evidence supporting this claim, or retract it if you cannot.
It might. Then again, you assume a connection between pornography and violence without evidence, so I don’t much trust your ability to discern such implications.
So, when you think the availability of pornography correlates with higher violence you cite that as relevant, but when it appears to correlate with less violence it suddenly “doesn’t mean anything”?
Feel free to support this claim or retract it if you cannot.
You might also want to decide if your position against pornography is based on its alleged negative effects or something else. You’ll need to pick something to defend, not keep shifting your claim as previous positions become indefensible.
To put it another way, is your position something that is defeasible by evidence, logic, and reason, or it is it simply an article of faith that is impervious to anything new you might learn? If the latter, then there is simply no possibility of reasoning or dialogue with you.
My disapproval of pornography is based on proof of how it affects individuals and society in general. You will have to prove to me by logic that it is irrelevant and harmless and has no detrimental effects on people. I have never shifted my claim that pornography is harmful. I am not fully convinced that Europe and Japan are exposed to more pornography in relation to the population. Even if you are correct there may be other factors to discourage men from rape like harsher punishment or stronger community disapproval.
Ted Bundy did have something to gain by the murders. Emotional and sexual gratification and the thrill of outwitting the police. He would hardly have gone to the trouble of risking his life and liberty if there was no emotional reward.
It’s true I didn’t identify the articles as they weren’t immediately available but I still remember the content and I know they were from magazines like the Bulletin and Newsweek, etc. and written by criminologists and well known journalists.
Since when were any of your peers forensic psychiatrists, criminologists or anthropologists? You will have to prove to me that the nameless magazines you read are any more educated than the nameless ones you attribute to me.
No, I’m sorry, but since you are the one making claims about the harmful effects of pornography the burden of proof is entirely yours that there are indeed harmful effects. You don’t get to claim that the harmful effects exist an then demand that others prove you wrong — that’s intellectually dishonest.
If you cannot support your claims, the only intellectually honest course open to you is to retract them and do some work on researching the subject until you can support them.
You brought up the subject about Christian moralists disapproving of pornography. I commented on YOUR article and disagreed with YOUR statement.
I won’t retract my statement that pornography is harmful as it is detrimental to society. This claim has been supported by various groups who are also concerned about the welfare of society. You know this to be true. It is not just Christians but women’s groups and many police are also of the same opinion.
You should do more research on the subject.
Yes, you disagreed with me — but have not substantiated any basis for doing so.
Fine, then the only intellectually honest course open to you is to support it.
Feel free to show how.
I know it is true that many Christians claim that pornography is harmful. I do not know that their claims are true. Since you are taking personal responsibility for making the claim here, it’s is presently up to you to provide a defense for the position.
I have done research on the subject. That, however, doesn’t change the fact that the only intellectually honest courses open to a person in your position is to support or retract their claim.
This is assuming, of course, that you hold care about holding positions on the basis of evidence, logic, and reason. If you adopt beliefs with any regard to such principles, then you won’t care about whether you can support your claims. More importantly — at least from my perspective — is that in such circumstances it wouldn’t matter if I proved your claims wrong. If you don’t care about evidence, logic, and reason, then nothing I could possibly say could ever make any difference. No one could ever say anything that could make any difference. This is why I said that, in such circumstances, reasoning and dialogue with you would be impossible.
In your very first comment here you made a clear, unambiguous claim about pornography. Are you capable of supporting it? Do you care if you can support it? Do you care if it is possible for anyone to support it? Would you care if it could be disproven? Did you make the claim with any intention of supporting it if challenged? What was your purpose in making the claim in the first place?
I have substantiated many times my reasons for disagreeing with you. You have not given me logical reasons for your beliefs. You talk a lot of double-talk about logic but you don’t seem to care that your reasons for supporting pornography can be disproved. Do you care that it is possible that my claims are true? Claiming pornography is harmless and making sarcastic statements about Christians is to support your own agenda.
You argue that anyone who disagrees with you has no logic or reason. This is suppose to devalue their point of view. I have given considerable evidence to support my view. You continually deny this. It is you who isn’t honest. The only reason you keep saying I am intellectually dishonest is because you support pornography and you dislike Christian interference as it may result in the confiscation of something you find desirable.
I will not deny its dangers as it would be dishonest for me to do that. Placing the heavy guilt trip on me and trying to railroad me into denying the truth will not work.
You said once that you had been a Christian and became an atheist as Christians were not logical. I don’t know if you were involved in a cultic church or you did things Christians didn’t approve of but your whole web-site is a denigration of Christian values. This is quite emotional and not showing reason. Since Christians are in the minority I don’t think you have anything to fear. It is the irate non-Christians who don’t like pornography that you have to be concerned about.
Really? Please cite the comment numbers where you have done so.
You haven’t asked me about any of my beliefs, much less asked for reasons for any of them.
I haven’t made any claims about pornography; you are being hypocritical, though, since you have made claims without offering support for them.
Yes. That’s why I asked you for support. Poeople who don’t care about whether claims can be supported or not are the ones who don’t care if they are true or not.
I’ve done neither.
That’s a serious allegation. Please support or retract it.
You have claimed that the evidence exists; that’s not the same as giving “considerable” evidence.
I’ve said that it is intellectually dishonest to make a claim without supporting it or, if that’s not possible, retracting it. Since you insist that you have provided “considerable evidence to support” your view, I couldn’t have been referring to you — could I? The only way you could think that may statement was about you is if you didn’t provide any evidence to support your claim.
So, which is it?
Then provide the evidence of its dangers. What’s so hard about that?
Really? Please quote me or retract the claim.
So, the promotion of reason, scholarship, logic, and science is a denigration of Christian values? OK, you said it — not me. Can I quote you?
You mean, like Jeremy Hall has nothing to fear from Christians?
The comment numbers are 11,13, and 15. There is no point in nit-picking about “considerable” evidence or evidence. Speak to criminologists and victims of men who indulge in pornography. It’s all the same to them.
I don’t need to ask for your beliefs. They are in your editorial.
On Sun 26th August, 2007 you sent me an email. You quoted what I had previously said which was: The values of Christians often seem illogical to the non-Christian world.” You said: The rules of logic do not vary between Christians and non-Christians. If Christians do not value logic, it means they cannot be trusted.” It would be obvious to most people that I was talking about faith and a changed moral life and peace with God. I was not talking about irrational behaviour. Not trusting Christians because you think they do not value logic is irrational in itself. There are people who are untrustworthy who profess to being learned and logical. (Since I am 14 hours ahead of you in time the reference time for sending the email would be 10.36 pm the previous day.)
I never said the promotion of reason, logic, scholarship and science is a denigration of Christian values. This is your statement. I said that you denigrated Christian values in your editorial.
The Christians who were istrumental in the Reformation were learned, well-educated men like Martin Luther and John Calvin. There were many more Christian scholars who fought hard to educate people on the scriptures and freedom of speech.
Your general editorial comment and personal emails indicate that you consider anyone illogical if they disagree with you. You twist comments defensively and become pedantic to the point of absurdity.
I’m sorry, but there is no evidence in those comments supporting your claims. Do note that you said you substantiated your reasons for disagreeing — those comments explain that you disagree with me. To “substantiate” is to “establish by proof or competent evidence; to give substantial evidence to.” In fact, though, you have not given any evidence or proof despite repeated requests that you do so — in the end, you just insist that I should prove you wrong.
So we come down to two very simple questions: can you substantiate your claims and, if so, will you? If the answer to either is “no,” then what is your point in posting here? If the answer to both is “yes,” then why haven’t you?
For example?
You should have written what you meant rather than something completely different. I cannot read your mind and my go by your actual words. In this case, your words were that the values of Christians often seem illogical to the non-Christian world — nothing about “faith” or a “changed moral life.” The fact is, though, that logic does not vary between Christians and non-Christians. Christians must value the same logic as non-Christians; if they do not, then they cannot be trusted.
While we are on that subject, it’s worth noting that in your emails you made repeated use of basic logical fallacies. Do you suppose that a person can be said to value logic if they repeatedly employ logical fallacies in even simple matters?
What you say is true; but you make a false implication by suggesting that I don’t actually trust Christians. You see, this is the problem with simply making assumptions about what I believe rather than asking questions.
Well, that’s what I do on this site: promote reason, logic, scholarship, and science. If my whole web site denigrates Christian values, then… what would you add as the conclusion there?
No, you said that this “whole web-site is a denigration of Christian values.”
Feel free to support that accusation.
That’s a curious accusation given that you don’t even repeat your own comments accurately.
Just to finish off here: if you cannot and/or will not support your claims, then it’s my opinion that you are not posting with the intent of having a serious or sincere dialogue on the issues. I can’t say why exactly you are posting, and maybe you can’t either, but a person can’t desire real conversation on subjects like this if they are consciously unable and/or unwilling to support what they claim. It’s a pretty simple and easy choice from my perspective and I don’t understand why you spend so much time and write so many comments to ultimately say absolutely nothing at all.
Yes, I’m afraid that’s the case: you haven’t really said anything here. You’ve expressed your belief that pornography is bad, but that’s it. You haven’t explain how it’s bad, why it’s bad, what the evidence is that it’s bad, etc. You’ve expressed a feeling — perhaps nothing more than an emotional reaction — and that’s it. In a context like this, however, that’s not enough. Your feelings may be important to you but others don’t necessarily care. If you want them to care, you have to give them a reason to do so; in this sort of situation, that means supporting your claims.
So please, stop posting nothing: either posting something substantive, or just don’t post. There’s no middle ground.
Stop writing illogical blurb about Christians. You come across as paranoid and fearful and do not write anything substantive yourself, only ridiculous assessments of things. Why would it be wrong for the witnesses to make a statement in court about the masturbating prisoner? Surely doing a mock demonstration would be preferable to a man actually doing it in public.
I am posting because what you say is wrong whether you justify it with so called logic. I have given you support of my claims and don’t want to repeat myself continually. I have given logical reasons for my statements. You continually deny my evidence and say I haven’t written it. You claim you are logical but it is all pretentious and you use meaningless expressions to justify pornographic material and public masturbation. You come across as morally bereft. This is not an encouragement to think logically.
For example? I’m surprised you think it would be acceptable to make such a claim without providing examples of it.
What sort of impression do you think is given by a Christian who makes lots of claims and allegations but never even tries to provide arguments or evidence to support any of them?
I think I explained this adequately in the article, but for you I’ll explain it again: If what the prisoner did was obscene, then what the witness did was nearly as obscene. If the guard suffered from having to watch the prisoner, then the entire court suffered from having to watch the guard. If what the prisoner did was offensive, then what the witnesses did was offensive. For some reason, though, only the prisoner was prosecuted.
No, you have not provided any arguments or evidence in support of your many claims. You think you did by referring to an unidentified article in an unknown publication written by unidentified people with unknown qualifications. I could say that I read proof somewhere that pornography is harmless — sorry, just don’t remember who wrote it, where it was, or what exactly it said. But I do remember that it said pornography was proven harmless?
Do you believe me? Do you regard that as support for the claim that pornography is harmless? Of course now — you’d be silly to do so.
You also seem to think that the word of Ted Bundy is “evidence,” as if he could both be trusted and counted on to be an accurate, reliable judge of reality. Given how questionable all that is, this qualifies as a Begging the Question fallacy at the very least, and certainly an ad verecundium fallacy.
What you do not provide is hard evidence — anecdotes and vague references to unknown material isn’t hard evidence. You do not provide any replicable social studies that point to any links between any sort of pornography and any sort of harmful behavior. You know you haven’t provided this and I pointed out several days ago that they are what’s needed. Every post you have made since then is an exercise in avoiding acknowledging that you don’t have what you need, but will persist in holding your position despite a lack of any substantial basis for doing so.
Where’s the evidence? Where are the scientific studies? Where are the meta-studies? Where is the peer review? You don’t have any of it — all you have are logical fallacies behind you.
Tell me, what sort of impression is given when a Christian comes along and openly defends holding a position on the basis of logically fallacious arguments rather than hard, verifiable, and replicable scientific evidence?
Examples, please?
So, if using logic leads you to the conclusion that any of your moral positions is incorrect, you’ll abandon logic in favor of your prejudices?
The prisoner was prosecuted because he actually masturbated and the guard could see his genitals. In court you couldn’t see the genitals of the guard. As uncomfortable as it was for the court to sit through a mock demonstration it would not be nearly as repulsive as actually seeing a man masturbate. This is commonsense. The judge was to blame for allowing it in the first place if there IS anyone to blame during for the court proceedings.
The evidence is hard and verifiable as I have explained. I will not change my moral position as I know pornography and associated behaviour is harmful and morally wrong. Since I do not have my own web-page and can not give much evidence on these postings I will collect evidence and what I can’t email I’ll mail to you.
You have not denied having an interest in pornography which concerns me. To support it is to condone it which is tantamount to indulging in this behaviour. It is your business if you do so in private but having a web-site which fights for the rights of criminals who do sexual acts and debates against the harmfulness of pornography is dangerous.
If you had read social studies on pornography yourself you wouln’t be glibly disregarding the fact that pornographic material (which includes child pornography) is harmful and illegal.
In most Western countries there are police operations which crack down on pornographic and paedophile operations. This often happens in South East Asia as well.
I expect that the genitals were visible when using the toilet, too. That only leaves the masturbatory movements.
No, you have asserted it. You have not actually provided any references to social and scientific studies that provide the evidence you allege to exist.
Knowledge is “true, verified beliefs.” So, please verify the beliefs in question.
Blogs are free and easy to start.
However, saying that you will be collecting and sending me evidence implies that you have not already collected and provided the evidence necessary. So which is it: have you already provided the evidence, or do you plan on providing it in the future?
It is dangerous to debate ideas you disagree with? Please support this claim.
This only makes sense under the assumption that social studies prove that pornography is harmful. You can make this assumption honestly and legitimately if you have read those studies and are familiar with them. If, however, you read and are familiar with them then you should have cited them by now.
Since you have note cited them, I must conclude that you have not read and are not familiar with them. In that case, you cannot honestly or legitimately base any claims on assumptions about what they say.
I should point out that this is extraordinarily simply logic.
Try websites obscenitycrimes.org, NoPornNorthhampton.org where Dr. Victor Cline’s article “Pornography’s Effects on Adults and Children” is informative. (any relation)
LDSR website.
Roger Young FBI (retired)
Patrick Carnes
Dr. R. J. McGuire
Stanley Rachman
The book: Against Pornography:The Evidence of Harm. pp113-148
(Berkley,CA: Russell Publications 1994)
also
NYPD lieutenant commander (retired) Vernon Geberth who wrote a book to assist law enforcement officers solve violent sex crimes.
Roger Young FBI (retired)
These men have studied the harmful effects of reading pornography through counselling or having experience in the police force.
There are many more doctors, psychiatrists and high ranking members of the police force who can testify to pornography’s dangers. I just selected a few because of limited time.
I did come across a few websites where psychologists said there was no marked difference in a person’s behaviour during a three weekly laboratory test.
This is not the same as being exposed to pornography for years starting in childhood.
The only reason I didn’t submit material before was because I didn’t have anything printed available. I told you I had previously read newspapers and magazines regarding pornography and crime. (which have been thrown out) I wasn’t lying!
Even a person urinating in the toilet isn’t ejaculating. This act is even more private than urinating. (I don’t have to prove this statement as it is a valid opinion of many women I know) The women in the court wouldn’t be present in the toilet with the prisoner. Silly answer.
Are these independent, scientific organizations? The names don’t sound like it.
So, these are personal anecdotes rather than scientific studies?
Why didn’t admit right from the beginning that you didn’t have any hard evidence at hand and would have to look for it?
So, you admit that you didn’t actually have evidence to offer originally — despite repeated protests that you had indeed substantiated your claims?
So, the only scientific study you find actually reaches the opposite conclusion of what you believe. Why don’t you look for scientific studies of longer term contact with pronography?
I don’t believe that the record says that the man ejaculated or that the guard witnessed it if it did happen.
There is no independent scientific Organization. They all have a bias. If you are human you are biased. The laboratories that tested men for a short period of time have their own time limitations and expense account. This doesn’t make a qualified study and it doesn’t surprise me that you would approve of the lesser studies and disregard hard evidence that pornography is harmful for people. I have given you evidence compiled by experienced professionals who have worked with the victims and perpetrators of violent crime for many years and there are case histories for reference. I would think the studies of police officials and doctors more professional than the experiments on men who were locked in a laboratory for a few weeks under controlled conditions. (If you want to call this scientific that is up to you.) The information I have supplied is more than just personal anecdotes they are studies on people that have taken years to compile.
This information is on the internet and in books which can be obtained easily. I shouldn’t have to go to the trouble to access it myself. As I mentioned before I had remembered the information I had previously read. I can still post a comment without having to give you proof that YOU already knew about. Other people post comments and do not give websites and other information to prove their position. You only expect it from me because I oppose you more vigorously than most people and you want to downgrade everything I say.
One day you will realize that pornography is harmful and it will be too late.
That’s where the peer review comes in.
Please, do tell me how other evidence showing opposite conclusions is better.
You gave me to web addresses run by people who are, by your own admission, are biased. You have not pointed to any scientific, peer-reviewed studies they have done. Why not?
No one who understands science would think that anecdotal evidence is better or “more professional” than scientific, peer-reviewed studies.
So, personal anecdotes complied over years stop being personal anecdotes?
Then you should be able to point to them.
Yes, you should. You made the claims and this means the burden of proof is yours, not mine. It’s not the obligation of others to go out and find support for your claims.
Yes, I know. Was this information about scientific, peer-reviewed studies?
Then do when they post disputed claims.
I’m sorry if I gave you the impression that you have opposed me “vigorously.” The truth is that posting half-remembered information from unknown sources and anecdotal stories is not really a “vigorous” defense of your position.
One day you will learn the value of science and it will be too late.
I have learned the value of science. It is you who has trouble with scientific evidence.
The information I gave you was from peer-reviewed studies. Case studies of individuals are scientific study.
I have pointed to some books, you just disregarded them.
Evidence showing long term studies is better because it is more thorough. A cursory test of people is flimsy evidence at best.
Everyone posts disputed claims. Some of the postings on the internet are done so hastily that the spelling and punctuation are incorrect. Some use crudeness and assertions that are vulgar as well as anecdotal.
You have never proved to me or given evidence to support the idea that pornography is harmless. You made statements on your website supporting pornography and the right for men to masturbate in front of prison guards. You disapprove of the religious right in wanting to make laws against pornography. You even made the assertion (without proof) that Christians want to make laws against private masturbation using the masturbating prisoner as evidence to support your erroneous claim.
The burden of proof is on you. You are the journalist and it is your website where you made the statements.
I have learned the value of science. It is you who has trouble with scientific evidence.
Please do demonstrate that the URLs you provided go to peer-reviewed studies. I didn’t see any references to that.
I have pointed to some books, you just disregarded them.
This is only true if both are equally rigorous and scientific. Is that the case here?
The burden is entirely yours to prove that you are right, not mine to prove you wrong.
Feel free to provide quotes about this.
Once again, feel free to provide quotes supporting this allegation.
My evidence is actually MORE scientific and rigourous. I said previously that they were long term case histories and studies done by FBI agents, etc.
Just read your own column and inserts. It said the guards should also be charged for doing the masturbation movements in court. I do not want to rehash all that was said again. You seem concerned that Christians will bring in laws to prevent masturbation and other sexual activities. You called them the religious right and made disparaging remarks about them.
Defending an ideal is for all intents and purposes supporting it. Why do you think we have been debating pornography? It led from statements you made about Puritanism and the prisoner whom you had sympathy for.
The burden of proof is yours. As a journalist you have a responsibility to prove statements to your readers.
I will be going down south for a day or so for the long weekend. Don’t expect a reply to your return email till Tuesday.
Well, the peer review should reveal that. The studies were peer reviewed, right?
No, I didn’t say that.
I didn’t say that, either.
We haven’t been “debating” anything. You made some claims and keep refusing to provide evidence to support them.
You can reply here or not at all. Also, you can reply with direct links or citations of peer reviewed, scientific studies or not at all. If you don’t have that, then you have nothing.
I said: “My evidence is actually more scientific and rigourous.”
Your answer was: “Well the peer review should reveal that. The studies were peer reviewed, right?”
The studies were reviewed and accepted by their peers in either the FBI, the medical profession or by behavioural scientists. This is peer reviewed.
I said “Just read your own column and inserts. It said the guards should also be charged for doing masturbation movements in court.”
You said “No, I didn’t say that.
In the second last paragraph of your column, last sentence, you said:
“Why weren’t they (guards) charged with indecent behavior in a very public courtroom…”
This means the same thing as what I said.
I said “You seem concerned that Christians will bring in laws to prevent masturbation and other sexual activies.”
You said “I didn’t say that either”.
In the first paragraph, third sentence, you wrote. “Even masturbation done in privacy can become a target, if the state already has an excuse to exercise authority over one’s life.” This was referring to “Conservative Christians’ assault on all things sexual knows no boundaries.” Opening line of article.
Also, in the last paragraph, second part of the first sentence. …”but it’s precisely what we should expect when traditional Christian ideas about sex and sexuality become enshrined in social and legal standards.”
This means the same thing.
We have been debating pornography. Call it discussion or whatever you want but I have supplied evidence to support my claims and you keep dismissing them.
I can understand your denial of my words but you even deny your own written words for the sake of winning an argument.
In science, “peer review” has a very specific meaning. Do you understand what it is?
By quoting me, you reveal that I didn’t use the words you attributed to me. You interpreted my question to mean the words you put in my mouth. In reality, my words meant something very different: they were a rhetorical question designed to reveal that if what the guards did wasn’t charge-worthy, then what the prisoners did may not be so charge-worthy either.
Once again, you reveal that you are interpreting my words to have some meaning, and then putting that meaning in my mouth. You are not very good at interpreting what others mean; I recommend asking more questions and making fewer assumptions.
I’m still waiting to learn whether the “evidence” you say exists has been through the scientific peer review process or not.
I’m denying that your personal interpretation of my words is what they really mean. It should have occurred to you when you saw that my words weren’t quite the same as what you claimed I said that maybe, just maybe, you interpreted me incorrectly. Or is this just not a possibility that is worth considering?
I understand peer review to be your associates in your profession or line of work examining your work and making a critique. In my case and yours we are not scientists, doctors of medicine or social scientists. We are both relying on work by specialists in the field for our evidence. You are no more equipped to understand the effects of pornography than I am. We are both relying on the evidence of others to support our own claim.
The Collins English dictionary states -peer 3:a person who is an equal in social standing, rank, age, etc: (to be tried by one’s peers)
I can interpret what others mean. Some friends got the same impression as I did. I know it was a rhetorical question about the guards not being charged with indecent behaviour when the prisoner was.
I don’t agree with your “rhetorical question” as it is still a printed statement which will spur people to comment. I don’t think demonstrating a masturbation motion in court even remotely compares with someone masturbating in real life. I have said this before and you argued with me. You cannot force me to agree to things which are absurd.
I know the words were arranged differently in my dialogue as I wanted to show you that I and other people would interpret it in our own words. Your whole column has absurd, extreme examples of supposedly Christian people “victimising” poor criminals and non-Christians. This is how you come across.
I don’t believe I interpreted you incorrectly.
I emailed a journalist and he said that the “burden of proof” is not a term that is often used outside of a court scenario. There is no legal reason why I should have to bear the burden of proof. Your journalistic credibility is at stake if you make absurd statements and can’t prove them.
And I’m looking for scientific, peer-reviewed work — which means that it was created and reviewed by scientists. Do you have any?
Apparently not.
Of course it will spur comment; whether you agree with it or not is immaterial, though.
Except that the contexts were entirely different: a relatively private cell where one does all sorts of very private things versus a very public court room. Or don’t you think that the context matters?
Arranged differently? No — entirely different and new words were used by you.
Ah, so you know me better than I do. I didn’t realize you were a mind reader.
Since this isn’t a legal context, of course there is no legal reason why you have any burden of proof. That’s just a red herring. You have an intellectual obligation, though: you made claims and thus assume an obligation to support them. If you don’t care about your claims enough to support them, then you shouldn’t even bother making them — and you certainly shouldn’t expect others to care enough to try to prove you wrong.
Like what, exactly?
Ron (4) posted a statement saying that the prisoner was deliberately masturbating and facing the guard or the video camera.
This is not a private situation. I know it is a ridiculous court case. The point of my argument which I have stated many times is that it is more offensive to me (and to many people) to see someone masturbate in real life than a mock demonstration in court. The prisoner was trying to upset the guard and succeeded.
The words are different but the context and meaning are the same. This is how your writing appears to others. Extreme, vitriolic statements.
If you care about YOUR claims then you have an intellectual obligation to support them. You have never given me any evidence or references to support the premise that pornography isn’t harmful. There is no point in insulting the information (books and websites, FBI agent studies) I have given you if you can’t supply any evidence yourself.
I have told you what I consider absurd statements in my previous postings. This includes all of your statements that I disagreed with.
I don’t presume to read your mind. I can only assess your mind by how and what you write.
I’m still waiting for your evidence.
That’s a difficult claim to credit unless there is some way to know when someone is watching through the camera.
It’s not perfectly private, but that’s also true if a prisoner is using the toilet. It’s not public like a court room.
You would also probably be offended watching someone defecate in public, but if you are monitoring a camera on someone’s prison cell you have to be prepared to watch things you don’t normally see in fully public places.
Ah, so you are a mind reader. Amazing… how badly you do it.
I’d be happy to. Point me to a specific claim I’ve made which I haven’t supported.
Oh, when will you support yours? You know, the peer-reviewed scientific evidence you suggested exists? If you can’t provide it, you really have no business posting here. You made very specific claims about the harm of pornography. So I have a simple question: can you point to peer-reviewed scientific data supporting this claim or not? That’s a “yes or no” question; no other answer is appropriate.
You disagree with it, so it’s absurd?
You make outrageous statements to provoke people to comment. This promotes your column.
I told you in the last post that I didn’t presume to read your mind. I can only assess your mind by how and what you write.
You made the claim: Conservative Christians’ assault on all things sexual knows no boundaries. EVERY aspect of sexual pleasure or entertainment that isn’t directed at the specific purpose of procreation, and within the context of marriage, WILL inevitably become a target.
To me this is a sweeping statement and you haven’t given me evidence that Christians have or would go that far. Even if they did you would have to prove that they would have the numbers to enforce such a law. Even allowing for hyperbole this is an extreme statement.
In (14) You stated: You assume that pornography is relevant, but that’s precisely what you have to prove. Assuming what you have to prove is a FALLACY.
This interprets that what I want to prove (pornography is harmful) is a fallacy. This reads: you support pornography because you think it’s a fallacy that it’s harmful. The fact that you would argue so vehemently for me to prove that it IS harmful means that you support it. You don’t even have to say anything in its favour. Just by denying the evidence I have given you gives the impression that you do support it. Anyone can see this. It is a circular argument. You are too dishonest to admit the truth. You use flimsy arguments to discredit any attack on pornography and immorality.
The prisoner was deliberately exposing himself or the guards wouldn’t have been browned off.
You still haven’t given me any proof that pornography isn’t harmful.
I am deleting the email that contains this posting. You write a lot of nonsense and I don’t want to waste time debating the issue. I have given you evidence and you have disregarded it and haven’t given me evidence to the contrary.
Feel free to support this accusation.
That’s true, but becoming a “target” isn’t the same as becoming legally banned, you know.
No, that “interpretation” is sheer nonsense. What I meant is precisely what I said: you are assuming the relevance of pornography, but whether pornography is even relevant or not is part of what has to be proven (as part of proving that pornography is harmful). Assuming the truth of that which has to be proven is a logical fallacy.
No, it means that you have made claims you have to support.
The burden is yours to prove that it’s harmful.
I asked you a simple yes/no question which you didn’t answer. Future posts of your which do not contain an answer will be deleted.