NBC News smears pro-life, pro-family org as ‘hate group,’ defends PornHub

[d0gbreath]

That is a failing both sides have, for example you would force me as a Baker to bake a cake for a homosexual wedding.

You're not a baker. I don't care who bakers bake cakes for. Decadence and debauchery are not a failing. They're a way of life for the anti-puritans. Puritans stink of hypocrisy.

Drowned, or tortured, any witches lately?

 

[Rambunctious]

Liberals long ago made a pact with the devil....

 

[JustAGuy1]

That is a failing both sides have, for example you would force me as a Baker to bake a cake for a homosexual wedding.

You're not a baker. I don't care who bakers bake cakes for. Decadence and debauchery are not a failing. They're a way of life for the anti-puritans. Puritans stink of hypocrisy.

Drowned, or tortured, any witches lately?

Decadence and debauchery are indeed a failing but it is a free choice made by free people. Face it, YOU would force your "choices" on others in a heart beat if you thought you could. Why would I hurt a "witch", they have no power over me.
Me?
You are free to choose whatever way you want to live and with it whatever consequences that may come with them.

 

[Pogo]

Let's move on to Round Two.

From the OP:

Then, on December 15, Olivia Solon, co-author of the December 9 story, did a piece tacitly defending PornHub.

Okay I read your link. The entire page. WHERE anywhere in there is the piece "defending PornHub"? I read numerous quotes from numerous sources. I could not find any call to action or value judgment. Where is it?

Start the clock. And stand by for Buddy Holly.

I don't play your game of semantics son. I just laugh at you here, you're trying to play the "it never said" the word defend and yet the entire articles was a tacit Definition of tacit
2: implied or indicated (as by an act or by silence) but not actually expressed
defense of the site, the industry and the sex "workers".

You're not in my league kid, never have been.

So you have no answer. Stand by Buddy Holly, you're on next.

I actually QUOTED your entire line, including "tacit", and challenged you to back it up. To show us ANYWHERE in the article any such implication was laid down. Any quote. Anywhere.
.
And you can't do it. You lose.

So yes I've told you before, you come around plopping bullshit around here, you *WILL* get called on it and see it exposed for the bullshit it is.

And you're damn right I ain't in your league. Think I left that level when I was about five.

You should have actually looked up it's meaning. The ENTIRE NBC article was a "tacit" defensed of the industry. I'm sorry son you should have done your homework. You failed to click n and read the NBC article, or if you did you completely misunderstood what you were reading. I do my homework, you need to do yours.

Once AGAIN stalling for time.

SHOW THE CLASS where there is any "defense" ---- or anything at all on the page other than simple reporting of "he said this, she said that".

You STILL can't do it.

And you WON'T be able to do it because it isn't there. You're a liar and you're now exposed, again.

Poor Pogo so deeply desperate for relevance, so incapable of ANY meaningful debate. The ENTIRE NBC article is a "tacit" defense of Pornhub and it's poor working girls.

And yet ----------------------- you're completely incapable of backing that up.
Even though you've had the article in question longer than anybody. Still can't do it.

That's understandable, since it isn't there to be demonstrated.

What's less understandable is that you're too much of a spineless WIMP to admit you were wrong.

 

[JustAGuy1]

Let's move on to Round Two.

From the OP:

Then, on December 15, Olivia Solon, co-author of the December 9 story, did a piece tacitly defending PornHub.

Okay I read your link. The entire page. WHERE anywhere in there is the piece "defending PornHub"? I read numerous quotes from numerous sources. I could not find any call to action or value judgment. Where is it?

Start the clock. And stand by for Buddy Holly.

I don't play your game of semantics son. I just laugh at you here, you're trying to play the "it never said" the word defend and yet the entire articles was a tacit Definition of tacit
2: implied or indicated (as by an act or by silence) but not actually expressed
defense of the site, the industry and the sex "workers".

You're not in my league kid, never have been.

So you have no answer. Stand by Buddy Holly, you're on next.

I actually QUOTED your entire line, including "tacit", and challenged you to back it up. To show us ANYWHERE in the article any such implication was laid down. Any quote. Anywhere.
.
And you can't do it. You lose.

So yes I've told you before, you come around plopping bullshit around here, you *WILL* get called on it and see it exposed for the bullshit it is.

And you're damn right I ain't in your league. Think I left that level when I was about five.

You should have actually looked up it's meaning. The ENTIRE NBC article was a "tacit" defensed of the industry. I'm sorry son you should have done your homework. You failed to click n and read the NBC article, or if you did you completely misunderstood what you were reading. I do my homework, you need to do yours.

Once AGAIN stalling for time.

SHOW THE CLASS where there is any "defense" ---- or anything at all on the page other than simple reporting of "he said this, she said that".

You STILL can't do it.

And you WON'T be able to do it because it isn't there. You're a liar and you're now exposed, again.

Poor Pogo so deeply desperate for relevance, so incapable of ANY meaningful debate. The ENTIRE NBC article is a "tacit" defense of Pornhub and it's poor working girls.

And yet ----------------------- you're completely incapable of backing that up.
Even though you've had the article in question longer than anybody. Still can't do it.

That's understandable, since it isn't there to be demonstrated.

What's less understandable is that you're too much of a spineless WIMP to admit you were wrong.

I have nothing to back up, the NBC article proves my entire point.....but then....you haven't read it.

 

[Pogo]

Let's move on to Round Two.

From the OP:

Then, on December 15, Olivia Solon, co-author of the December 9 story, did a piece tacitly defending PornHub.

Okay I read your link. The entire page. WHERE anywhere in there is the piece "defending PornHub"? I read numerous quotes from numerous sources. I could not find any call to action or value judgment. Where is it?

Start the clock. And stand by for Buddy Holly.

I don't play your game of semantics son. I just laugh at you here, you're trying to play the "it never said" the word defend and yet the entire articles was a tacit Definition of tacit
2: implied or indicated (as by an act or by silence) but not actually expressed
defense of the site, the industry and the sex "workers".

You're not in my league kid, never have been.

So you have no answer. Stand by Buddy Holly, you're on next.

I actually QUOTED your entire line, including "tacit", and challenged you to back it up. To show us ANYWHERE in the article any such implication was laid down. Any quote. Anywhere.
.
And you can't do it. You lose.

So yes I've told you before, you come around plopping bullshit around here, you *WILL* get called on it and see it exposed for the bullshit it is.

And you're damn right I ain't in your league. Think I left that level when I was about five.

You should have actually looked up it's meaning. The ENTIRE NBC article was a "tacit" defensed of the industry. I'm sorry son you should have done your homework. You failed to click n and read the NBC article, or if you did you completely misunderstood what you were reading. I do my homework, you need to do yours.

Once AGAIN stalling for time.

SHOW THE CLASS where there is any "defense" ---- or anything at all on the page other than simple reporting of "he said this, she said that".

You STILL can't do it.

And you WON'T be able to do it because it isn't there. You're a liar and you're now exposed, again.

Poor Pogo so deeply desperate for relevance, so incapable of ANY meaningful debate. The ENTIRE NBC article is a "tacit" defense of Pornhub and it's poor working girls.

And yet ----------------------- you're completely incapable of backing that up.
Even though you've had the article in question longer than anybody. Still can't do it.

That's understandable, since it isn't there to be demonstrated.

What's less understandable is that you're too much of a spineless WIMP to admit you were wrong.

I have nothing to back up, the NBC article proves my entire point.....but then....you haven't read it.

I read the entire thing. That's how I know there's nothing you can quote that validates your ass-ertion.

What, do you think I challenged you without already knowing where it would go?

What do I look like --- you?

 

[Bush92]

January 4, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – “NBC’s hypocrisy is sickening,” said Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, Ph.D., president of the Ruth Institute. “While it smears the Institute and other pro-family organizations as ‘hate groups,’ it defends PornHub, a major distributor of pedophilia videos.”

Morse reported: “On December 9 and December 12, NBC published stories claiming to expose how ‘anti-gay hate groups,’ including the Ruth Institute, benefited from the Pay Check Protection Program. The network’s stories relied on information from the notoriously partisan, and frequently inaccurate, Southern Poverty Law Center.”

Then, on December 15, Olivia Solon, co-author of the December 9 story, did a piece tacitly defending PornHub. She said “sex workers” were suffering since credit card companies cracked down on Pornhub for allowing videos showing rape and the sexual abuse of children.

NBC News smears pro-life, pro-family org as 'hate group,' defends PornHub - LifeSite

Ruth Institute president: NBC News lost all credibility when it defended PornHub

www.lifesitenews.com

I said not more than 2 days ago that this was coming.

NBC is shit.

 

[Lesh]

January 4, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – “NBC’s hypocrisy is sickening,” said Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, Ph.D., president of the Ruth Institute. “While it smears the Institute and other pro-family organizations as ‘hate groups,’ it defends PornHub, a major distributor of pedophilia videos.”

Morse reported: “On December 9 and December 12, NBC published stories claiming to expose how ‘anti-gay hate groups,’ including the Ruth Institute, benefited from the Pay Check Protection Program. The network’s stories relied on information from the notoriously partisan, and frequently inaccurate, Southern Poverty Law Center.”

Then, on December 15, Olivia Solon, co-author of the December 9 story, did a piece tacitly defending PornHub. She said “sex workers” were suffering since credit card companies cracked down on Pornhub for allowing videos showing rape and the sexual abuse of children.

NBC News smears pro-life, pro-family org as 'hate group,' defends PornHub - LifeSite

Ruth Institute president: NBC News lost all credibility when it defended PornHub

www.lifesitenews.com

I said not more than 2 days ago that this was coming.

90% of the assholes on THIS forum frequent pornhub or a site like it so fuck off

 

[Lesh]

I am a guy, a middle aged dude. So I along with virtually every man on the planet would be lying if they say they don't, at least occasionally, look at porn.

There ya go

 

[JustAGuy1]

January 4, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – “NBC’s hypocrisy is sickening,” said Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, Ph.D., president of the Ruth Institute. “While it smears the Institute and other pro-family organizations as ‘hate groups,’ it defends PornHub, a major distributor of pedophilia videos.”

Morse reported: “On December 9 and December 12, NBC published stories claiming to expose how ‘anti-gay hate groups,’ including the Ruth Institute, benefited from the Pay Check Protection Program. The network’s stories relied on information from the notoriously partisan, and frequently inaccurate, Southern Poverty Law Center.”

Then, on December 15, Olivia Solon, co-author of the December 9 story, did a piece tacitly defending PornHub. She said “sex workers” were suffering since credit card companies cracked down on Pornhub for allowing videos showing rape and the sexual abuse of children.

NBC News smears pro-life, pro-family org as 'hate group,' defends PornHub - LifeSite

Ruth Institute president: NBC News lost all credibility when it defended PornHub

www.lifesitenews.com

I said not more than 2 days ago that this was coming.

90% of the assholes on THIS forum frequent pornhub or a site like it so fuck off

LOL, not the point but then the only point you are familiar with is on top of your head.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Let's move on to Round Two.

From the OP:

Then, on December 15, Olivia Solon, co-author of the December 9 story, did a piece tacitly defending PornHub.

Okay I read your link. The entire page. WHERE anywhere in there is the piece "defending PornHub"? I read numerous quotes from numerous sources. I could not find any call to action or value judgment. Where is it?

Start the clock. And stand by for Buddy Holly.

Hmm... as stated here several times, I find no coincidence in the fact the base of the article is the very same response Pornhub released in an early statement. - the poor ,innocent working girl models won't get paid.
As if that is somehow what is important.
That is an ancillary support to Pornhub. By ignoring the REAL STORY... and instead concentrate on a statement that is good for Pornhub.. is defending. Exactly what a PR firm would do.
The FACT is that the investigation uncovered underage videos, videos depicting rape etc. THAT WAS THE STORY. Not "the poor models won't get paid".

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Also - what the defenders of this are also ignoring is Pornhubs HUGE response.
They had a real shit hit the fan moment. Pornhub, 5 times over the largest porn company in the world was going to be out of business inside of a week.
As if - this itself isn't a story.

 

[Lesh]

Also - what the defenders of this are also ignoring is Pornhubs HUGE response.
They had a real shit hit the fan moment. Pornhub, 5 times over the largest porn company in the world was going to be out of business inside of a week.
As if - this itself isn't a story.

Who gives a shit. There are twenty others just like them to take their place doing exactly the same shit including whatever "good" porn site you frequent

 

[Pogo]

Let's move on to Round Two.

From the OP:

Then, on December 15, Olivia Solon, co-author of the December 9 story, did a piece tacitly defending PornHub.

Okay I read your link. The entire page. WHERE anywhere in there is the piece "defending PornHub"? I read numerous quotes from numerous sources. I could not find any call to action or value judgment. Where is it?

Start the clock. And stand by for Buddy Holly.

Hmm... as stated here several times, I find no coincidence in the fact the base of the article is the very same response Pornhub released in an early statement. - the poor ,innocent working girl models won't get paid.
As if that is somehow what is important.

That's what happens when you quote a subject. That's kind of why it goes "Subject said..." followed by quotation marks.

And that IS the subject of the article --- the workers.

That is an ancillary support to Pornhub.

No, it's a quote. When you quote somebody, you can't just make it up --- you report literally what they said. That's what "quote" MEANS.

By ignoring the REAL STORY... and instead concentrate on a statement that is good for Pornhub.. is defending. Exactly what a PR firm would do.

The quote --- ***IS*** the real story. News articles don't come to conclusions on "what's good for" one of its subjects. YOU do that, as the reader.

The FACT is that the investigation uncovered underage videos, videos depicting rape etc. THAT WAS THE STORY. Not "the poor models won't get paid".

Actually no it wasn't. That's an earlier, different story.
The FACT is that the headline and sub-headline of the NBC article in question reads thus:

>> Pornhub crackdown by credit card companies cuts off sex workers' livelihoods​

Adult performers fear "war on porn" after Visa, Mastercard and Discover block use on Pornhub. <<​

Which is entirely factual and non-judgmental.
THAT'S IT. That's what the story is about, nothing to do with "underage" anything. That part was already cited (and linked), in the article as background info:

>> The payment companies blocked the use of their cards on the site last week after a New York Times investigation into Pornhub on Dec. 4 found that the site was "infested" with videos depicting child sexual abuse, rape and revenge porn. <<​

But the OP's first line claims this NBC "defended" PornHub. To "defend" requires making an argument. The article makes no argument. It simply reports what its headline says, with quotes from applicable parties. If it were setting out to advocate a position, it would not have contained the section above, as that would have weakened that position. The article is not about the New York Times investigation --- that's previous news. It's about the resulting impact on sex workers. You can't just decide the subject of an article "should be" something other than it is. If what you want is the other article, then go read the other article. Not rocket surgery.

Summa y'all have clearly never worked anywhere near journalism. Whining about "waah, they didn't say what I wish they had said" doesn't make it a "defense" of anything.

And by the way this wasn't even your point anyway. I challenged the OP to defend his "defend", and he couldn't do it. You had a different challenge, which you couldn't do either.