The moon is a giant ball of fire.
Fire is, by definition, hot.
The moon is a very hot place.

Valid, and wrong. It’s in the definition. I think most of the people here know this; these little discussions are surprisingly intelligent for internet banter.

I would think that the kind of mindset which nurtures the more radical feminist ideals like “ban all porn because it will reduce sex crimes” is largely based off emotional rather than logical arguments, but that’s just my own analysis on the situation and not really backed up by anything. It is worth saying that any organization anywhere near as big as Equality Now worth their salt generally has a number of leaders able to think in very logical and pragmatic ways, and at least a base grasp on how humans think. Those lacking this are usually unable to establish themselves

You do understand the basic structure. However, any premise is based on other premises and so on (unless you use self-closing premises, but that’s another story…) so the validity of arguments itself is nothing but a matter of one’s perception.

P1: If someone watches porn (in or out of video games), that person will have an increased likelihood of becoming a violent sexual predator
P2: Banning something (specifically digital entertainment products) is an effective method of preventing its creation and distribution
P3: If porn is not created or distributed, people will not be able to view it.

A1: (P2,P3) If porn is banned, people will not be able to view it.

C1: (P1,A2) If porn is banned, people will not have the increased likelihood of becoming a violent sexual predator from watching porn

The argument itself is valid. However, as pointed out, not all valid arguments are sound. In this case, we know that neither P1 nor P2 are correct. So, while the argument is valid, it is also unsound.

The problem I see with stopping right there and calling them logical is the way they arrived at P1 and P2. Sure, if we just assume these as premises, the argument is valid. But that’s missing a number of steps, namely how they arrived at P1 and P2. Those premises are the conclusion of some other arguments – ones that EN made. EN is not getting this stuff from other organizations. From what I have read, the arguments on not based on any sort of statistical analysis but pure emotional appeals. The fallacious kind. Basically, they don’t like porn or other kinds of depictions of naked women, so they argue that these things must cause all sorts of bad things, like an increased tendency to become a violent sexual predator. The only valid conclusion of a statement that starts with “I think” or “I feel” is another statement that starts the same way. Instead, EN concludes that because they feel that these things are wrong, that something bad really does happen in reality. That is invalid reasoning.

I believe in what Equality Now has done in the past to help women in real need. I just wish they’d go back to doing those things and leave innocent otakus like me alone.

The media makers (mangakas, audiovisual producers, or eroge companies) will gravitate towards ideas which will maximize profits while limiting bad Public Relations. The radical feminist agenda has always been on ‘apparent’ or actual equality…. and everything else has been shown to be of secondary importance to that. Oh, aside from children.. Mustn’t forget the children. :\

Logically-speaking, self-interest has for the most point driven the impetus behind both sides in this given debate, which is as old as the idea of freedom and censorship itself. Past history has shown this to be true, and I don’t see it changing rapidly for the better, sadly.

“(outside of getting statistically significant number of alleged rapists to confess it)”

I wouldn’t be convinced. Rapists have a vested interest in displacing the blame for their crimes, and even if their confessions were true, that doesn’t change the fact that many people indulge in rape fantasy (including rape simulator games) and do not go on to commit rape. EN is targeting ideas here, not just behaviors. If they had the power and the ability to enforce it, do you think they would impose a ban on misogynistic thoughts?

Censorship is illogical if you claim to believe in freedom of speech. I am not aware of EN making a statement anywhere that they believe in freedom of speech. And if they do, their current actions clearly betray the lie.

“And since they cannot prove that porn (or ‘rape simulators’ for that matter) degrades women any more than it does men,”

I like how you put that. That porn (or more specifically, rape simulators) degrade men. After all, they frequently depict men as insensitive, sex-crazed, brutish lovers (if they love at all), do they not? I’m offended by that stereotype, but I don’t think it deserves to be silenced (I do believe in freedom in speech, after all). I even think some good can come of it. EN should take note.

Indeed, but more in the sense of “know your enemy and know yourself”. Understanding their motivations and reasoning – and completely opening up to them and considering them like they were our own – is what enables us to clearly see where and why they are wrong, and specifically address these points for effective lobbying. It also makes sure that we really are not erring on the wrong side. I’ve ended up changing my opinion 180° several times in the past after opening up completely to the other side. So far this hasn’t happened on the issue of censorship. And in fact, I think I understand EN better than they understand themselves…

We will not however be able to convince all pro-censorship radfems that their efforts are misguided. It simply won’t happen, no matter how much we understand them and how much understanding we show…

At least that’s how I see it.