War on porn

[CSMR]

Originally posted by: shira
If you claim that pornography causes harm, where is the consensus data to back that up? How many excess rapes, molestations, and other sexual abuses are caused each year as a consequence of viewing pornography?

It is harmful because it creates in its viewers wrong ideas of sexuality and marriage. I was expressing my opinion as me and not as a consensus, just as you are expressing your opinion as you and not as a consensus.

 

[CSMR]

Originally posted by: CitizenKain

Originally posted by: CSMR
One can be concerned about other people. Porn is harmful to people and to society and it is better to restrict it.

You can be concerned all you want, stay out of other people's business.

I don't take orders from you thank you very much.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Well, I for one, will agree the midwest is the most uptight in regards to porn. I've lived in 4 other states, and travelled extensively throughout the US, and the midwest is by far the tightest on porn laws. Take my current state for example...Oklahoma. XXX is illegal here. Yes, thats right. The difference between X and XXX is penetration, and "money shots" mainly. Yep. Illegal.

I could go on, but unfortunately sterotypes are true for a reason,

I think you need to tighten your definition of midwest then, because I think you're really talking about the Bible belt southern states. The upper midwest, including Iowa where I live, is actually pretty tolerant of pornography. There are certainly people who get bent about it, but it rarely goes anywhere legally. From a legal perspective, the attitude seems to be that they have more important things to do than enforce a vocal minority's puritan repression on everyone. If you don't like porn, don't buy it or view it. Problem solved.

See also my .sig.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CSMR

Originally posted by: shira
If you claim that pornography causes harm, where is the consensus data to back that up? How many excess rapes, molestations, and other sexual abuses are caused each year as a consequence of viewing pornography?

It is harmful because it creates in its viewers wrong ideas of sexuality and marriage. ...

Bull. Prove it. Find objective evidence from objective sources to support your Puritan dogma.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CSMR

Originally posted by: CitizenKain

Originally posted by: CSMR
One can be concerned about other people. Porn is harmful to people and to society and it is better to restrict it.

You can be concerned all you want, stay out of other people's business.

I don't take orders from you thank you very much.

That's fine. Just don't cry when someone takes a swing at your nose for poking it into their business.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: CSMR

Originally posted by: shira
If you claim that pornography causes harm, where is the consensus data to back that up? How many excess rapes, molestations, and other sexual abuses are caused each year as a consequence of viewing pornography?

It is harmful because it creates in its viewers wrong ideas of sexuality and marriage. I was expressing my opinion as me and not as a consensus, just as you are expressing your opinion as you and not as a consensus.

So, what's the "right" view of sexuality and marriage?

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: CSMR

Originally posted by: shira
If you claim that pornography causes harm, where is the consensus data to back that up? How many excess rapes, molestations, and other sexual abuses are caused each year as a consequence of viewing pornography?

It is harmful because it creates in its viewers wrong ideas of sexuality and marriage. I was expressing my opinion as me and not as a consensus, just as you are expressing your opinion as you and not as a consensus.

So, what's the "right" view of sexuality and marriage?

Why, a married man and woman, copulating for the sole purpose of having children, of course! And they'll both burn in hell if the woman has an orgasm.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: CSMR

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: CSMR
One can be concerned about other people. Porn is harmful to people and to society and it is better to restrict it.

I'm not sure I follow you there. You have an opinion about porn's effect on society...therefore you think we should implement laws based on your opinion. Normally, the "..." would indicate some sort of logical link between those two things, yet your post is seriously missing such a link.

If you want my connection between the two clauses of my sentence, a benefit of restriction is that since porn is harmful restricting it means less harm will be caused by use of it. There may be other indirect benefits and harms and I was not presenting a complete argument.

My point was that if you feel porn is harmful, stay away from it. Hell, urge your friends and family to stay away as well. But there is a serious limit to the amount of nanny-stating we need to engage in, and restricting porn is well past that line. I realize you think it would be good for society if we did, but that's exactly the point...

You mean your point is that it would not be good for society?

Perhaps you disagree with this, but I feel that the purpose of our system of government is to allow people to do whatever the hell they want as long as they don't go around pissing in anyone's Corn Flakes.

If this is what the government ought to do, why is that the case? Why is this the best that government can do for society? Do you have any sort of justification, or is it your personal feeling, irrelevant to me, which perhaps you are challenging me to challenge?

Our society does not exist to provide you with a mechanism to make everyone do everything you think would be good for them. This is the foreign concept I was talking about, a disturbing number of Americans seem to think that the whole purpose of government is to give them a way to mold the perfect society and make sure everyone is getting enough calcium and going to church on Sunday. Maybe I'm crazy, but I'm fairly sure that's not what the founding fathers had in mind.

The government should within its legal limits (beyond which is anarchy to one degree or another) aim for the good of its citizens, whether that good consists in that which its citizens do willingly, in that which its citizens are unwilling to do, in the good that arises from moral reponsibility from freedom, or wherever else it consists.

It would seem I did not state my point clearly enough. "It is good for society" is NOT, in my opinion, a valid argument in favor of the government making a law about something. Personal freedom trumps what would be good for society in nearly every situation in my book. Not because I think individual freedom is good for society, although I do, but because individual freedom is an end in and of itself. It need serve no higher purpose. The only limits that should be placed on that are those necessary for OTHER people to enjoy their freedom as well.

At least that's the theory, but like many theories, it is slightly more complex in real life. But the basic idea is that government limits placed on personal freedom should be well thought out and put in place for some better reason than "for your own good". I guess in that we have a fundamentally different view of government. In your mind, the goal of government is to build a better society. In my perfect world, government's goal is to let us persue whatever individual goals we might have. That's why I'm fundamentally opposed to laws restricting porn, or drugs, or making you wear your seatbelt. Yeah, maybe too much porn isn't good for people, and maybe they shouldn't do drugs, and maybe they should bunckle up before speeding down the highway, talking on their cell phone. But however good those things may be for the average citizen, I don't think it's the government's place to tell them they MUST do them.

As to the "why", there's really nothing more to it than that. There is no higher purpose, no grand plan that can only come to pass if individual freedom is perserved. Some people will do great stuff, some people will wreck their lives doing heroin. Is it "better" than the state running around wiping your nose and making sure you eat healthy and don't watch too much TV? Perhaps not, maybe our state directed society will be a new paradigm for future generations to look back on with admiration. But it won't be free...and whatever else you have, I think any "perfect" society at least needs freedom, or you might as well just burn it down.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: CSMR

Originally posted by: shira
If you claim that pornography causes harm, where is the consensus data to back that up? How many excess rapes, molestations, and other sexual abuses are caused each year as a consequence of viewing pornography?

It is harmful because it creates in its viewers wrong ideas of sexuality and marriage. I was expressing my opinion as me and not as a consensus, just as you are expressing your opinion as you and not as a consensus.

Nobody is arguing that your opinion is "wrong"...it's an opinion after all. Our question is why you feel your views should be forced on everyone else? That's the beauty of our way of looking at things. You're entitled to whatever opinion of porn you want, and I can have a different one, and shira can have one different from either of us, and each person can follow their own views in their own life. The counter to "we should ban porn" is not "we should allow porn" but rather "porn viewing should be mandatory". How in favor of THAT are you? Because it's pretty much along the same lines...

 

[Goosemaster]

ultimately, waging war on morality will fail, because in the ending, the judges will all be fallible.


The U.S., as it is as close to grace as we are ever going to get.

 

[magomago]

While I take CMRS's position on personal view on porn...that it is wrong and messes people up (I don't know how many kids when I was young that viewed girls as sex objects...and still they don't get it in their head; and I'm sure the coutnless videos they got into gave that incorrect impression) I just don't purchase it myself. Problem solved. Unless you count the nakes pictures of guys and girls (even animated!) in my anatomy and physiology book, then you won't find porn (lest my roommates have some ).

I think the issue though is how much do you tolerate it? What if people start going around and advertising it also. Just like it is your right to enjoy it, do I also not have a right to enjoy myself without having to see it all the time? Can I watch commercials without having to have a big chested woman advertise a product, or women depicted in a sexy manner where they are trying to imply "buy this and get laid!". My main concern would be with children who can be influenced so easy at a young age; If I have a kid I don't want him to get the impression that woman are objects because CLEARLY our media and entertainment are doing a smash up job at not objectifying woman (Sarcasm..). Fifty years ago, stuff what people today wear "normally" would be considered too scandalous. Obviously this is the change in societal perceptions. But how far can that skew before it really DOES become a problem and affect itself? I myself am not sure, but I've always beleived in something called "moderation". Covering up all the way doesn't work, but wearing skin tight clothing (for guys or girls) and then trying to show off certain things doesn't help the situation either. Will there come a time when nudity of sexual nature becomes common on TV (and i'm not talking discovery channel) and everyone accepts it?

So go watch your porn, I really don't care

 

[JackStorm]

Originally posted by: CSMR

Originally posted by: CitizenKain

Originally posted by: CSMR
One can be concerned about other people. Porn is harmful to people and to society and it is better to restrict it.

You can be concerned all you want, stay out of other people's business.

I don't take orders from you thank you very much.

Oh, I just love people like you. You don't take order from others. Yet you feel the need to force your moral values on others by having the government ban things you don't like or think is harmful to them.

Do us all a favor, mr nanny state supporter, and don't tell us how to live our lives and we wont tell you how to live yours. Don't save us from ourselves. As long as we live in a free society we should be able to live our lives as we see fit, as long as we aren't infringing on the rights of others. And someone viewing porn sure as hell isn't infringing on anyone elses rights.

 

[ericlp]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: TylerP
I don't see a problem with this. (the waging war on pornography part)

I am sure I am in the minority on this though.

Don't like pornography? Don't look at it. I swear, this is some kind of high brow concept here in the US...everybody is convinced that the appropriate thing to do with things they don't like is to try to ban them. Heaven forbid our nation engages in any activity that makes midwesterners feel icky

Yeah, it's pretty simple. Most boosh phreaks can't figure it out so they go to church ...

If you don't want an abortion, don't have one...

If you don't want to do drugs, then don't....

Use your own brain, your own judgment for a change. Life is full of choices and just be cause boosh thinks its ok, doesn't mean you have to agree...

Ever since boosh got elected seems to me that a lot of people lost out on the ability to "THINK" for themselves. Can the usa be that retarded?


I almost forgot to post on the topic!!!

This is just another scare tactic. I think he would have to shut down the internet before we do away with porn. Guess who is setting the HD standards ? Guess who is choosing the next format of DVD media? Yep! good ol' porn industry.

Oh well... I remember when ashcroft (SP) wanted to shut down bit torrent and share software. First they are gonna have to shut down the news groups. Then they will have to get rid of all the bots in IRC that are serving it up like candy...

Not to mention all the FTP sites. This is about as far fetched as booosh thinking he gonna put a man on mars.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: CSMR

Originally posted by: CitizenKain

Originally posted by: CSMR
One can be concerned about other people. Porn is harmful to people and to society and it is better to restrict it.

You can be concerned all you want, stay out of other people's business.

I don't take orders from you thank you very much.

Please tell me you understand why the above statement is hilarious.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: CSMR

Originally posted by: shira
If you claim that pornography causes harm, where is the consensus data to back that up? How many excess rapes, molestations, and other sexual abuses are caused each year as a consequence of viewing pornography?

It is harmful because it creates in its viewers wrong ideas of sexuality and marriage. I was expressing my opinion as me and not as a consensus, just as you are expressing your opinion as you and not as a consensus.

If it is not a "consensus" as you put it then it is none of anyone's business including yours.

That is what is a core piece of what makes America.

You take that away as you are suggesting as your "opinion" then you destroy America.

You and the rest of the Anti-American Republicans can kiss my porn.

 

[OutHouse]

its pretty f*cked up that bush is more interested in attacking porn by investing all kinds of resources for LEGAL material but wont do a damn thing about securing our borders. does anybody besides me see a priority problem here?

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: CSMR

Originally posted by: shira
If you claim that pornography causes harm, where is the consensus data to back that up? How many excess rapes, molestations, and other sexual abuses are caused each year as a consequence of viewing pornography?

It is harmful because it creates in its viewers wrong ideas of sexuality and marriage. I was expressing my opinion as me and not as a consensus, just as you are expressing your opinion as you and not as a consensus.

So does the Bible. But I am going to go out on a limb here and say that you don't want it banned.....right?

I wonder if, the bible's order for women to submit to their husbands involved S&M?

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: Citrix
its pretty f*cked up that bush is more interested in attacking porn by investing all kinds of resources for LEGAL material but wont do a damn thing about securing our borders. does anybody besides me see a priority problem here?

Yes. Porn creators/rights owners need to start benefitting corporations friendly to him. Then he can go and say he's cracking down on porn, but not do anything but PR for it, and only the old people and fundies believe it, and all is once again normal.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: CSMR

Originally posted by: shira
If you claim that pornography causes harm, where is the consensus data to back that up? How many excess rapes, molestations, and other sexual abuses are caused each year as a consequence of viewing pornography?

It is harmful because it creates in its viewers wrong ideas of sexuality and marriage. I was expressing my opinion as me and not as a consensus, just as you are expressing your opinion as you and not as a consensus.

I don't have any problem with your expressing an opinion as to whether and in what ways pornography might be harmful. I have a grave problem, however, with your advocating that freedoms be restricted based on those opinions. Before you begin depriving people of liberty, you'd better have damned good objective evidence of the harm you claim is caused. Not only that, you'd better be able to demonstrate convincingly that the benefits of restricting a liberty outweigh the disadvantages. "Opinion" just doesn't cut it.

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: CSMR

Originally posted by: CitizenKain

Originally posted by: CSMR
One can be concerned about other people. Porn is harmful to people and to society and it is better to restrict it.

You can be concerned all you want, stay out of other people's business.

I don't take orders from you thank you very much.

Please tell me you understand why the above statement is hilarious.

:thumbsup:

 

[engineereeyore]

I understand and appreciate the fact that it is not the governments job to regulate the morality of it's citizens, nor to determine their morals. However, I can't help but feel that pornography is the source of more problems than anything else. Most criminals responsible for sexual assault have strong pornography additions. I don't see it having a strong enough benefit to overcome such evils.

At the same time, although I despise pornography in all forms, I acknowledge that these are my feelings and my beliefs and are not representative of everyone else. This being said, I wouldn't be losing much with the outlaw of pornography. So in all honesty, I'm not sure how I would feel about outlawing it. I see the benefit, but at the same time, I'm not sure that it wouldn't cross the line into violation of personal rights.

 

[CSMR]

Originally posted by: shira
I don't have any problem with your expressing an opinion as to whether and in what ways pornography might be harmful. I have a grave problem, however, with your advocating that freedoms be restricted based on those opinions. Before you begin depriving people of liberty, you'd better have damned good objective evidence of the harm you claim is caused. Not only that, you'd better be able to demonstrate convincingly that the benefits of restricting a liberty outweigh the disadvantages. "Opinion" just doesn't cut it.

I am not depriving anyone of liberty. I am saying that they should be deprived of liberty. And I am not basing this conclusion on the fact that it is my opinion; that is ridiculous. Also you are presenting your case as if you are not giving an opinion but an "objective" understanding of the need for liberty when in fact we have conflicting opinions. In fact I have given reasons for my view whereas you have not given any reasons for the benefits of liberty in this matter.

 

[CSMR]

Somehow an army of morons has come into this thread and seen fit to make inane remarks on my replies to other people. I am not sure what to do about these people.

 

[CSMR]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
It would seem I did not state my point clearly enough. "It is good for society" is NOT, in my opinion, a valid argument in favor of the government making a law about something. Personal freedom trumps what would be good for society in nearly every situation in my book. Not because I think individual freedom is good for society, although I do, but because individual freedom is an end in and of itself. It need serve no higher purpose. The only limits that should be placed on that are those necessary for OTHER people to enjoy their freedom as well.

At least that's the theory, but like many theories, it is slightly more complex in real life. But the basic idea is that government limits placed on personal freedom should be well thought out and put in place for some better reason than "for your own good". I guess in that we have a fundamentally different view of government. In your mind, the goal of government is to build a better society. In my perfect world, government's goal is to let us persue whatever individual goals we might have. That's why I'm fundamentally opposed to laws restricting porn, or drugs, or making you wear your seatbelt. Yeah, maybe too much porn isn't good for people, and maybe they shouldn't do drugs, and maybe they should bunckle up before speeding down the highway, talking on their cell phone. But however good those things may be for the average citizen, I don't think it's the government's place to tell them they MUST do them.

As to the "why", there's really nothing more to it than that. There is no higher purpose, no grand plan that can only come to pass if individual freedom is perserved. Some people will do great stuff, some people will wreck their lives doing heroin. Is it "better" than the state running around wiping your nose and making sure you eat healthy and don't watch too much TV? Perhaps not, maybe our state directed society will be a new paradigm for future generations to look back on with admiration. But it won't be free...and whatever else you have, I think any "perfect" society at least needs freedom, or you might as well just burn it down.

Thoughtful comments as always. It seems to me you are saying that the government should promote freedom even when this freedom is not beneficial to the people who have it, and another approach would be more beneficial. It seems a bit strange to me to say the government should promote freedom even when it is not beneficial to anyone. And then are you saying that the free man even if his life is really bad is worth something whereas a slave is worthless even if he lives the good life? Is there some distinction between what is good and what is right that you are making, so that it may not be right to do what is good? It seems very strange to me.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: CSMR

Originally posted by: shira
I don't have any problem with your expressing an opinion as to whether and in what ways pornography might be harmful. I have a grave problem, however, with your advocating that freedoms be restricted based on those opinions. Before you begin depriving people of liberty, you'd better have damned good objective evidence of the harm you claim is caused. Not only that, you'd better be able to demonstrate convincingly that the benefits of restricting a liberty outweigh the disadvantages. "Opinion" just doesn't cut it.

I am not depriving anyone of liberty. I am saying that they should be deprived of liberty. And I am not basing this conclusion on the fact that it is my opinion; that is ridiculous. Also you are presenting your case as if you are not giving an opinion but an "objective" understanding of the need for liberty when in fact we have conflicting opinions. In fact I have given reasons for my view whereas you have not given any reasons for the benefits of liberty in this matter.

Actually, you haven't really given any reasons for your view that liberty, in this particular case, does not provide enough of a benefit to offset the "harm" done by pornography. In fact, you haven't really mentioned the freedom side of the issue at all. Like many nanny-state arguments, you argue almost entirely from the supposed benefits your limit on freedom will convey, while the lessing of personal liberty is treated as a non-issue.

This is shira's point, as I understand it. Your view is, apparently, that the benefits derived from having the government act as the sex police outweigh the ethical issues involved with the necessary decrease in personal liberty. You have suggested that there are benefits to be had in restricting porn, and whether or not anyone agrees with you, you haven't even made a full argument yet...you haven't said a word suggesting why these benefits are worth the costs.