[Lindykim]

Sugar, caffeine, and chocolate may be addictive to some people, but those addictions don't lead to sex crimes and murder. Go to a search engine and type in 'porn addiction", and you'll discover just how addictive it is. Here's just one of many sites:
http://www.family.org/lote/lotelive/articles/a0011900.cfm


Do a little more research and discover for yourself that almost every serial killer was a porn addict actualizing his porn induced fantasies.


Porn as "freedom of speech" is a corruption of the term. There is liberty and then there is 'license'. Porn is the latter, not the former.

[oldleft]

The problem with what you're saying is that it's impossible in a secular society to define "porn." Is it people engaged in sexual acts? Is it nudity? Is it images, or does the written word fall into the category?

Porn is protected speech, just as disturbing art is and graphic violence. Go to rotten.com and tell me if you think those images have more of an impact on society than porn.

Trying to control porn is a classic example of trying to legislate morality. The fact is millions and millions of people patronize porn every day and lead normal, happy lives. It may bother you, but that doesn't give you or any one else the right to tell some one what they can or can't read in their own home.

[trek]

Sorry, you fell prey to a common logical fallacy.

• Serial killers like porn.
• Therefore porn viewers can become serial killers.

(A implies B does not mean that B implies A)

The behavior of serial killers is not relevant to the question of whether or not there should be restrictions on the creation and dissemination of porn.

[hleewilder]

I'm sorry, because I know that your heart is in the right place, but the argument that porn creates serial killers as put forth by Dobson in his interviews with Ted Bundy is just plain wrong.

Isn't it true that most serial killers were abandoned by their mothers? Does that mean we have to lock up boy orphans? By the 'porn made me do it' argument, you'd have to say it would.

How about the one that most serial killers were bedwetters as children?

I mean, really, the list goes on.

[newagepublius]

I am not going to dignify equating one who enjoys porn with being a serial killer. Do a Google search on "straw-man arguments" and notice that it is under "logical fallacies." I, for one, am a conservative who reads Playboy, and I'm also an a college honor student. My parents have forgotten more pornographic images than I am ever likely to see, and I will certainly vouch for their character. It is "holier-than-thou" judgmental proselytizers that give conservatives a bad name.

If I wanted to live in a "nanny state," I would have voted for John Kerry.

[Ksnavely]

But there are millions of men who look at porn who never turn into rapist, killers, and child molesters. How do you account for that? If this stuff was as dangerous as you are painting it, then the crime and rape rate should be exponentially higher than it is.

[Paul C. Jesup]

Sugar, caffeine, and chocolate may be addictive to some people, but those addictions don't lead to sex crimes and murder.

Don't kid yourself, there have been wars fought over those foods for cneturies, actually there is one going on right now dealing with the French at the Ivory Coast. The Ivory Coast grow 40% of the world's coco.

Do a little more research and discover for yourself that almost every serial killer was a porn addict actualizing his porn induced fantasies.

It depends, I like to think more positively, that their desire came first and that they were trying to feed their desires through porn so that they would not have to kill anyone; like someone playing a first person shooter game to relief their stress from their daily life.

[Ichneumon]

Do a little more research and discover for yourself that almost every serial killer was a porn addict actualizing his porn induced fantasies.

Yawn. Even if that were true (and I've read a lot about serial killers, there are other things that are linked to serial killing more strongly than porn), you're making the mistake of confusing correlation with causation.

Which is more likely: That porn makes people serial killers (consider that millions of Americans enjoy porn and don't go killing people), or that the same extreme obsessive-compulsive "twist" that makes someone want to repeatedly rape and kill people also makes them use porn to feed their compulsion between opportunities to kill?

[Chances Are]

So you are saying that, in the absence of "porn", these people would not become serial killers? Is that what your argument is?

CA....