I was under the impression that William James's speculation was based on his observations of Holland, and his (i.e., James's) own knowledge of attitudes towards porn in the LDS Church. Surely we can all agree that Elder Holland's own denunciations and condemnations count as "evidence" in some respect. Perhaps you believe that his shaky-voiced talk is evidence of the fact that he's never, ever looked at porn, and that he merely "knows" about it on the basis of anecdotal evidence. Or, perhaps--like William James--you suspect that his hard-line stance is indicative of some kind of "sampling" on the part of the apostle.
Regardless, I don't think it's fair to wholly dismiss William James's comment as pure speculation.
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
Way to completely ignore the rest of my post, which pretty much decimates everything you just posted here.
What, the bit where you talked about having evidence before speculating? Yes... that totally invalidated the idea that it was ok to speculate based on some evidence. How shall I ever recover from such a beat down?
Scottie wrote:But... I guess anything to "win", huh? Okay, Schmo, I give up. You win.
Seeing someone I generally respect argue like stem or Hoops does not, in any way, feel like a win to me.
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
Did you read the study? The red states have the highest porn consumption. So it's a conservative/religious thing. Did you glance through the study I linked?
Yes, but its the liberals in both the red and blue states doing the lion's share of the porn consumption. There are plenty of liberals in red states, and social pathology follows them wherever they go, regardless of the statistical shading you want to put on a state.
It sounds like there is a solid, empirical basis for this assertion. Let's wait while Droopy provides it.......
I have to admit that I think James inserted a poisonous suicide pill into his own post, when he said about Holland, "...and I have to even privately speculate sometimes, whether he might have a problem with it himself, because he 'protesteth too much'. "
Have you guys actually wondered what would happen if you boycotted their board? These fanatics, who have little if anything in common with Gospel principles, feed on being in control there. Most probably have little power in their real lives and so when you give them the opportunity to be "superior" it is as if you are throwing naked virgins to a pack of hungry vampires.
My opinion is that if you leave the vampires to themselves they will begin to eat each other until the board finally dies.
To address Doctor Scratch's point, I, too, find it a tad bit hypocritical on MD&D's part to suspend a poster and lock his thread for:
A) Concluding that the general authorities are wrong about one or more of their teachings (the Golden Rule of Mopologetics), and B) Speculating that the general authorities might be men with flaws (the Silver Rule of Mopologetics).
People at MD&D do that all the time when it comes to, say, Kimball's teachings about Indians' skin turning white, so why should Holland's teachings about pornography be any more sacrosanct?
"Finally, for your rather strange idea that miracles are somehow linked to the amount of gay sexual gratification that is taking place would require that primitive Christianity was launched by gay sex, would it not?"
Buffalo wrote: But that IS what the research suggests. I know you don't like that information, but you can be brave and accept it instead of sticking your head in the sand and pretending it's not there.
I've made my point and you seem to side step each time. I'm not sure what else to do but offer some repeated ideas. Paying for on-line porn does not suggest as you seem to suggest, necessarily, that there is any more porn patronization in one place moreso than another. It is quite possible for a state to have far more porn patronizing per capita than Utah. The ability to pay for porn, pick it up at a store, is not there in Utah so much as it is in many other places. For some reason the story I typed up didn't make it to print yesterday. I have a friend who patronized porn. He had to head to Wyoming to get his fix. he'd drive an hour or so to Evanston because he couldn't get the same stuff in SL area. Can you not recognize the gaping holes you have yet to be able to address but yet still maintain your conclusion?
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
Did you read the study? The red states have the highest porn consumption. So it's a conservative/religious thing. Did you glance through the study I linked?
Yes, but its the liberals in both the red and blue states doing the lion's share of the porn consumption. There are plenty of liberals in red states, and social pathology follows them wherever they go, regardless of the statistical shading you want to put on a state.
CFR.
This is pretty stupid, even for you. I doubt you even believe it. So liberals are all about porn, but only when they live in red states? You're not much of a thinker, Droop.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.