Emba argues that porn is far from harmless

Analyzing the article

The New York Times
cherry picking
weak man

Our Analysis: 2 Fallacies

​Pornography floods the internet... There are consequences for members of Gen Z, in particular, the first to grow up alongside unlimited and always accessible porn and have their first experiences of sex shaped and mediated by it. ​

Christine Emba presents a compelling critique of pornography's influence on culture and its potential harms, particularly for younger generations, citing relevant studies and examples. However, her argument is somewhat weakened by misrepresentation of opposing arguments, ultimately undermining the overall persuasiveness of the piece despite its raising of several valid concerns.

1. weak man • The author oversimplifies the arguments for pornography by focusing only on "ethical porn," ignoring other potential justifications. ​

Defenders of pornography tend to cite the existence of ethical porn, but that isn't what a majority of users are watching.


This creates a weak target for refutation.The strongest arguments for keeping consensual adult pornography legal center on free speech and privacy rights, asserting that adults should be free to create and consume such content privately. Additionally, proponents argue that broad bans are ineffective, driving the industry underground where it's harder to regulate and potentially increasing exposure to illicit material.

2. cherry picking • The author selectively highlights the negative aspects of Pornhub (profiting from child sexual abuse material) without acknowledging subsequent efforts to address these issues. 


And the sites that supply it aren't concerned with ethics, either. In a column last week, Nick Kristof exposed how Pornhub and its related sites profit off videos of child rape.



Emba doesn't mention that after the allegations of hosting child sexual abuse material and non-consensual content, Pornhub made significant policy changes after initial denials. These included restricting uploads to only verified content partners and members of their "Model Program" and largely removing the public download feature to curb the recirculation of illicit videos. It also included their partnering with child protection organizations. ​ ​By omitting the significant policy changes and partnerships with child protection organizations, the author creates a biased and incomplete picture, supporting their pre-existing negative view of pornography.  This selective presentation of information is a form of cherry-picking, reinforcing Emba's argument unfairly.


References

Comments

In order to participate in the conversation, head over to your account and setup a Screen Name
In order to participate in the conversation, you must sign in.
In order to participate in the conversation, you must sign up or sign in.

Disclaimer

Note that there being one or more apparent fallacies in the arguments presented in this article does not mean that every argument the arguer made was fallacious, nor does it mean there are not other arguments in existence for the same or similar position that are logically valid. Also note that checking for fallacies is not the same as verification of the premises the arguer starts from, such as facts that the arguer asserts or principles that the arguer assumes as the foundation for constructing arguments. For more about this, see our 'What is Fallacy Checking?'

NO AI TRAINING

Without in any way limiting the author’s [and publisher’s] exclusive rights under copyright, any use of this publication to “train” generative artificial intelligence (AI) technologies to generate text is expressly prohibited. The author reserves all rights to license uses of this work for generative AI training and development of machine learning language models.

Greetings! Kindly review our privacy and cookie policies to assess your preferences regarding cookie engagement.