(untitled)

Please address rampant violence & facilitating factors.

First and foremost: Ultimately this is not about me. There are much greater matters to be concerned about here than _anything_ about one lone messenger. In the past I posted my own paste covering logically-fallacious diversionary tactics; I shall do so again in the next post. Reply to a post in now-deleted thread No.63272 2022-10-16 15:37:29: >>63272 > Literally just change it into a question for people to answer and keep the same images and you’re less likely to see it removed Unless you speak officially for the Lainchan administration, all I'll say is that I've been here before and had plenty of bad experiences with censorship (chiefly thread deletion along with medical terms of relevance being blocked by a word filter, even by using OCR for images, preventing anything with those terms from being posted in the first place). Numerous old threads were archived on archive.org and archive.today. > assuming you’re right This is not merely a matter of my being right or wrong when I quoted many others in those images posted in the OP. > Your strategy is dumb That is your opinion. Furthermore, anyone else could take some or all of that information from others and use different strategies. > I agree with you on the porn front, the [a-n-o-r-e-c-t-a-l] stuff is too much of a meme now You are putting words into my mouth. > bring it into the discussion under the guise of pornography creating harm by encouraging it. That would be considered one major factor facilitating rampant a-n-o-r-e-c-t-a-l violence. > we can discuss your ideas Discuss what was written by many others as quoted in the OP images: • Material quoted in Trends & Associations covers both the state of a-n-o-r-e-c-t-a-l violence being rampant plus various factors facilitating that situation. Three such factors covered are: 1) pornography being used as a primary source of sexual education, 2) pornography normalizing and often featuring violence, and 3) far too many people being inspired by violent pornography, desiring to emulate it and even doing so. Also implied, but not stated outright by anything quoted, is widespread ignorance especially of traumatic risks associated with receptive a-n-o-r-e-c-t-a-l eroticism. Here is one source covering that: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/aug/11/rise-in-popularity-of-anal-sex-has-led-to-health-problems-for-women • Quotations included in Anorectal Risks 1 cover those traumatic risks along with some relevant anatomy & physiology. Anatomy & Trauma material provides more details on anatomy, also documenting traumatic risks with a specific focus on externally-observable aspects of potential consequences.

>>63292 > In the past I posted my own paste covering logically-fallacious diversionary tactics; I shall do so again in the next post. Or at least try to do so... I forgot how fuarrrking annoying the flood protection crap here is. Ugh.

Logically-fallacious diversionary tactics: • A red herring is a tangential topic introduced intentionally as a distraction or inadvertently. Trying to create an unrelated discussion about a messenger or claimant (e.g. by introducing alleged personal attributes or asking about unstated opinions) is one _very_ common example. • An ad hominem logical fallacy involves arguing or implying that some supposed attribute(s) of a messenger or source somehow affects the validity of one or more claims presented when any such characteristic is completely irrelevant — and this is nonsensical for cases in which information originates from others. (Sometimes such characteristics can be relevant: For example, it may be appropriate to question someone's honesty when she makes a claim about herself or her own experiences. However, a better idea may be to mention the anecdotal evidence logical fallacy, i.e. favoring some personal anecdote(s) over evidence based on science and logic.) • Misrepresentation—introducing a distorted version of something—is another means of creating a diversion. Attacking a fabrication in order to suggest refutal of what was actually presented constitutes a straw man logical fallacy. (A refutation featuring one or more vague, sweeping claims without proof may be related. The burden of proof rests on the claimant.)