Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that If pornography silences by shaping male attitudes, the mechanism is perlocutionary, not illocutionary, and perlocutionary effects cannot ground a rights-based silencing claim without proving specific causal harm.

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Silencing need not be illocutionary; systematically shaping receptiveness to certain speakers constitutes epistemic silencing.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Requiring 'specific causal harm' proof sets an impossibly high standard absent for other recognized forms of discrimination or harm.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The illocutionary/perlocutionary distinction doesn't map cleanly to silencing—shaped attitudes directly undermine participatory capacity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Speech rights violations require demonstrable infringement of autonomous choice, not mere influence on attitudes or preferences.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Perlocutionary effects (causing beliefs/attitudes) differ categorically from illocutionary silencing (preventing utterance itself).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Without specific causal mechanisms linking content to concrete harm, attributing silencing to pornography risks circular reasoning.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.