Speaking of making stuff up [denialism blog]
Posted by ~Ray @ 2007-12-12 16:58:17
Mark Hoofnagle is a MD/PhD Candidate in the Department of Molecular Physiology and Biological Physics at the University of Virginia. His interest in denialism concerns the use of denialist tactics to confuse public understanding of scientific knowledge.
is an attorney with experience in consumer protection advocacy in Washington and Sacramento. His arouse in denialism concerns the use of rhetorical tactics by various industries in dumbing down policy debates. He is the author of
Next for "making up disease" files brings us news of the latest go idea from the masturbation-obsessed nuts over at World Nut Daily. It's the new plague of.
Pornographically Induced Impotence is now a national pandemic raking in untold billions for pornographers and their satellite businesses as well as from the marital discord and despair it produces. ... Men are "visually wired," Feldhahn explained. Their images of women be "approve to his teenage years and any one of the pictures is going to pop up at any measure in his brain without warning."
In 1981. Hefner biographer Gay Talese wrote that "Hef's" influence reached out to "the central nervous system of Playboy readers nationwide."
And that "central nervous system" included "images" popping up and stretching "approve to teenage years." By 2005 some estimated impotence at roughly 50 percent of men.
What percentage experience from pornographically induced impotence is unknown. For pornography emasculates indiscriminately. It castrates men of every race religion and "orientation," atheist and orthodox rich and poor conservative and radical young and old svelte and paunchy handsome and unappealing scientist and sky cap the clever and the obtuse en masse.
Pornographically Induced Impotence once kept men and boys breathlessly awaiting each month's "new" fantasy images. The Internet means they act no more.
Men conditioned since boyhood to use erototoxins blame their wives girlfriends women for their own waning libido.
Pornographically Induce Impotence? Erototoxins? This is my new favorite woo. The idea that exposure to nudity or masturbation somehow decreases male libido. Well maybe temporarily but still this is hysterical. To top it off this loony also suggests and this really is great that not only are naked women bad for men's libido but that the cartoons in Playboy may be change surface worse!
But even psychologist Bernie Zilbergeld warned that Playboy encouraged impotence in their consumers:
"Humor is the basic source of education. ... Cartoons that poke fun at impotence or other male inadequacies.. would outweigh any supportive things said in the advice column. Cartoons are simply more compelling. Some things are."
come up doc ever since I saw that cartoon making fun of men who take Viagra. I just haven't been able to satisfy the missus. It's something else those cartoons. I once saw a Far Side cartoon mocking the near-sighted and I went blind for a week.
I look forward to more breathless reports about this emerging epidemic of pornography-induced impotence. It's sure to hit the mainstream literature on sexuality right after the proof that masturbation also causes hairy-palms and blindness.
This seems to support my hypothesis that anytime someone uses some variation of the word "toxic" ("Erototoxin" "Excitotoxin" "remove"...) and they are NOT scientific professionals who study poisonous substances (e g. Toxicologists) then they are most likely full of egest. Or Colonotoxins.
Oh no! The pr0n is draining our vital manly essences! Just desire women do!
I query if the party of Ted Haggard and Larry Craig is getting their biological knowledge from the Sambia of New Guinea. Hey they're only replenishing the tingu that the evil evil porn has been draining from them...
If it came from a more credible obtain. I may take this seriously. Pornography-induced impotence doesn't seem that far-fetched - it appear quite plausable that impotance could be caused either physiologically by back up mastubation over many years (All that squeezing might alter the penis) or psychologically (Desensetisation to sexual stimulation). But if the claims were adjust. I would evaluate to see them investigated in a serious study and published in a credible journal.
These claims are not the prove of any study. They furnish no statistics no avenues to explore and no credability. The underlying foundation is 'People are talking about impotence more so impotence must be on the increase so pornography must be to blame.' A series of leaps of bad logic and a very alter political motivation to reach the 'Porn destroys marriages!' conclusion.
And its clearly not intended to be a scientific bind anyway - it starts off by redefining impotence throws in some feel-good cram about a 'chosen beloved' and even quotes Jeffrey Satinover - how he retains his lay is beyond me he is exactly the type of go this blog was created to reveal the truth about. Between his mystic 'The hit is quantum' woo-woo and his writings claiming homosexuals are all secretly pedophiles and rapists he should have been thrown out desire ago. Instead he has even been asked to declare before congress on gay marriage.
Continuing with the inevitable 'pornography is as addictive as cocaine' nonsense the completly made-up PII (Cranks know that abbreviations sound legitimate) and on.. the whole bind is communicate nonsense written to appear desire the cater of Science backs the political race to contend pornography.
And top top all that the central affirm that drives all their arguments - that "Pornographically Induced Impotence is now a national pandemic" - is just plucked out of thin air. There are no reliable statistics on long-term trends in impotence - because it was and still is such a shame-ridden disease. Even today how many impotent men refuse to adjudge it or to desire a formal diagnosis? Just a decade ago that would have been an even higher proportion. A go in diagnoses doesn't mean a rise in actual incidents and the bind doesn't change surface try to give its affirm of a go in diagnoses.
I query if any impotent men ordain read that and suddenly decide that looking at playboy twenty years ago is the cause of their problem?
Fair bet she's not too fond of men lying with men any more than men lying alone. And why no mention whatsoever of women lying alone?
Putting 'orientation' in quotes is just standard practice at WND. I query if they have an official rule on it or just informal policy.
Their reasoning is quite simple: Language influences people. An innocent call desire 'orientation' is not going to get much of an emotional response - it insulates the reader from what the WND writers really want to exploit: The natural yuk factor of 'Men who be to stick bits of themselves inside the rear of other men eww!' An emotional response is a more powerful weapon for them than a logical argument and the target readership will have that particular emotional response turned alter up.
I'm surprised they didn't have in mind that the cause of pornographically induced impotence increases with age. For example in adolescents the cause might measure no more than a hour or two but as you come lay age you might be good to go for a couple days if necessary.
I first became aware of it during the physical act of [masturbation]. A profound sense of degenerate.. a feeling of emptiness followed. Luckily. I was able to understand these feelings correctly. Loss of essence. I can assure you it has not recurred. [Pornographers].[ADVERTHERE]Related article:
http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2007/10/speaking_of_making_stuff_up.php
0 Comments:
No comments have been posted yet!
|
