War on porn

[CSMR]

Originally posted by: RainsfordNobody 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...

I am not arguing with people who say it should be mandatory. If they come up I will argue with them. And even then am allowed to argue with more than one group of people, no?

You are saying we are "entitled" (legally?) to have whatever opinion of porn we want; and yet we are not entitled (legally?) to have whatever opinion of whether it should be banned? Or rather we are entitled only to have the opinion that it should not be banned? But obviously you don't mean legally since here I am giving my political views and no-one has come to arrest me. You mean something else by "entitled" and I don't know what it could be.

 

[CSMR]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
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.

No, you are reading too much into what I have not said. A quantitive argument is not easy to make. I gave some reasons without arguing that they are outweighed by potential other reasons, and all I am saying about my reasons is that they are more than nothing.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: CSMR

Originally posted by: Rainsford
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.

No, you are reading too much into what I have not said. A quantitive argument is not easy to make. I gave some reasons without arguing that they are outweighed by potential other reasons, and all I am saying about my reasons is that they are more than nothing.

Fair enough...

 

[JackStorm]

Originally posted by: 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.

Oh get off your high horse. People are allowed to reply to whatever post they want. Also, calling morons doesn't help your argument one bit.

You are saying we are "entitled" (legally?) to have whatever opinion of porn we want; and yet we are not entitled (legally?) to have whatever opinion of whether it should be banned?

No. He's saying you are "entitled" to have whatever opinion you want. However, what you CAN'T do is force your opinion and moral values on others against their will. Even if you're trying to 'save' them.

What you are essentially advocating is depriving people of the right to view porn. How would you feel, if for exemple, someone banned you from going to church or practicing a religion, just because they "don't like it" or think religion is "bad"? It's the same damn thing. Yet people like you just can't get that through your heads.

You seem to want to force others to conform your way of living, by having the government dictate their lives, instead of just living as you fit and leaving other people to live as they see fit.

The only conclusion one can come to is that you are an enemy of freedom. Someone who prefers a nanny state where the government dictates peoples dayly lives, and 'protects' them from themselves. It's people like you that cause others to end up living under oppressive governments by giving up EVERYONES rights, not just your own.

If you live in a free society, such as the U.S, then I have nothing but contempt for you. Freedom is lost on people like you. If, however, you live in some authoritarian shithole, then I pity you, for you have obviously not tasted freedom. That or you've been brain washed into giving it up.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: 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.

Can we safely assume you have nothing substantive to support your opinion?

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: 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.

You are not an army.

 

[ValkyrieofHouston]

Most of those who are active in the sex industry are very much aware of this. It is our government trying once again to legislate morality! The feminists and the right wing conservatives have been pushing this for a long time now. They are going after anyone that has a website that is deemed "pornographic". Adult Pornography and its patrons are not the cause of sexual assaults, human trafficking or the creation of child pornography. People need to be more informed of the real issues, and know the money and effort going into this is a waste of taxpayer money and will solve nothing. Why not put that money to better use going after the real criminals who abuse women and children.

 

[ValkyrieofHouston]

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.

Well, I beg to differ from you! Your opinion tells me that you are not very well educated on this subject. and thats my opinion...

 

[Proletariat]

Originally posted by: ValkyrieofHouston

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.

Well, I beg to differ from you! Your opinion tells me that you are not very well educated on this subject. and thats my opinion...

LOL I think you are a wee bit biased according to the link in your profile

 

[ValkyrieofHouston]

Originally posted by: Proletariat

Originally posted by: ValkyrieofHouston

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.

Well, I beg to differ from you! Your opinion tells me that you are not very well educated on this subject. and thats my opinion...

LOL I think you are a wee bit biased according to the link in your profile

Well I like to think I am much more educated on the topic than most! GRIN

"Scapegoating the sex industry for its sexism will trivialize the farreaching impact of the Patriarchy that is present across the board". "when a dominant group forces its version of sexual ideology on the marginalized group, it becomes a sexual oppression".

 

[ValkyrieofHouston]

http://bayosphere.com/blog/dan_gillmor/...aw_enforcement_resources_to_fight_porn

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: CSMR

Originally posted by: Rainsford
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.

No, you are reading too much into what I have not said. A quantitive argument is not easy to make. I gave some reasons without arguing that they are outweighed by potential other reasons, and all I am saying about my reasons is that they are more than nothing.

But you see, you gave more than reasons, you also advocated action:

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.

What is more, the "harm" you claim is vague and unsubstanatiated:

Originally posted by: CSMR
It is harmful because it creates in its viewers wrong ideas of sexuality and marriage.

Furthermore, your write:

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.

So what IS the basis of your conclusion? Where are the facts to back up what you advocate.


Not only don't you explain what you mean by "wrong ideas", but you don't tell us what negatives ensue from "wrong ideas." And you don't provide any science to back up your statements.

I consider your approach highly irresponsible, even negligent. Are you honestly telling us that you are satisfied at your level of discourse? Do you think that social engineering should be based on unsubstantiated opinions? That real freedoms should be restricted on that basis?

The difference between you and me is that I can write down something explicit and undeniable that is good about pornography: It is a source of pleasure for tens of millions -and perhaps over a hundred million - Americans. Yet you think it would be okay to deprive people of that pleasure because you have some lazy beliefs. That's pretty outrageous.

 

[CSMR]

Originally posted by: shira
But you see, you gave more than reasons, you also advocated action:

Strange use of the word "but". What are you trying to show here?

What is more, the "harm" you claim is vague and unsubstanatiated:

Originally posted by: CSMR
It is harmful because it creates in its viewers wrong ideas of sexuality and marriage.

I can be more specific. It encourages the reduction of seuality to the sex act. It encourages the accpetance of the idea that a sexual union is something very temporary and unexclusive. It creates an imaginary union between the viewer and the performers. So it replaces the sexual union of marriage with unrestrained and unexclusive sexuality. Thus it perverts minds and as such is bad.

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.

So what IS the basis of your conclusion? Where are the facts to back up what you advocate.

Not all conclusions have a basis, although this opinion of mine is supported by my arguments above about the harms of pornography.

The difference between you and me is that I can write down something explicit and undeniable that is good about pornography: It is a source of pleasure for tens of millions -and perhaps over a hundred million - Americans. Yet you think it would be okay to deprive people of that pleasure because you have some lazy beliefs. That's pretty outrageous.

Your grandstanding by calling your notions objective and mine "opinions" is ridiculous. You are saying my opinions are subjective, while the only possible opinion, the "undeniable" objective consensus one, is that pleasure is good. How it can be undeniable when I deny it I think you will find difficult to answer. Moreover I think I can give you examples where even you don't think pleasure is good, depending of couse on how far your mind is darkened by this error.

 

[johnnobts]

Most of those who are active in the sex industry are very much aware of this. It is our government trying once again to legislate morality!
________________________

It disturbs me when I hear people use the same old, tiresome argument, "Our government is trying to legislate morality." Well of course they are, silly. The entire criminal code is based on the presupposition that man can and should legislate morality. Think about these examples for a moment:

1. Murder is illegal b/c it is immoral
2. Robbery is illegal b/c it is immoral
3. Perjury is illegal b/c it is immoral
3. Prostitution is illegal (in most states) b/c it is immoral

Pornography should be legislated b/c it is viewed by the majority of Americans as a vice. This is not really a free-speech issue by the way. I don't think that porn will be outrightly outlawed in America from a federal statute, but it is outlawed from the local level. I think it should be further legislated from the federal level, making it more difficult for minors to access websites. It is far too easy for a minor to find porn on the web. I think the porn industry, a multi-billion dollar industry that is less accountable than the "evil oil companies" should be forced to put restrictions on accessing their material. For example, require adults to submit for an adult viewing-liscence to verify age before being granted permission to access material. The benefit of this is two-fold. One, it helps prevent minors from casually accessing porn, and two, it makes porn surfing a less-anonymous affair, and will discourage adults from getting caught up in it. think about this. porn addition is considered to be 5 times more addictive than crack cocaine. Also, Before porn hit the internet, pornography was severely limited in its scope, b/c most adults were ashamed of going to adult bookstores. Its an embarrassing thing.

today, the shame is still there, but most adults hide their shame by staying at home and remaining anonymous.

As a Christian, I have a problem with the porn industry, especially as it is now being considered main-stream adult entertainment, and something that is empowering for women. not for my daughter.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: johnnobts
Most of those who are active in the sex industry are very much aware of this. It is our government trying once again to legislate morality!
________________________

It disturbs me when I hear people use the same old, tiresome argument, "Our government is trying to legislate morality." Well of course they are, silly. The entire criminal code is based on the presupposition that man can and should legislate morality. Think about these examples for a moment:

1. Murder is illegal b/c it is immoral
2. Robbery is illegal b/c it is immoral
3. Perjury is illegal b/c it is immoral
3. Prostitution is illegal (in most states) b/c it is immoral

Pornography should be legislated b/c it is viewed by the majority of Americans as a vice. This is not really a free-speech issue by the way. I don't think that porn will be outrightly outlawed in America from a federal statute, but it is outlawed from the local level. I think it should be further legislated from the federal level, making it more difficult for minors to access websites. It is far too easy for a minor to find porn on the web. I think the porn industry, a multi-billion dollar industry that is less accountable than the "evil oil companies" should be forced to put restrictions on accessing their material. For example, require adults to submit for an adult viewing-liscence to verify age before being granted permission to access material. The benefit of this is two-fold. One, it helps prevent minors from casually accessing porn, and two, it makes porn surfing a less-anonymous affair, and will discourage adults from getting caught up in it. think about this. porn addition is considered to be 5 times more addictive than crack cocaine. Also, Before porn hit the internet, pornography was severely limited in its scope, b/c most adults were ashamed of going to adult bookstores. Its an embarrassing thing.

today, the shame is still there, but most adults hide their shame by staying at home and remaining anonymous.

As a Christian, I have a problem with the porn industry, especially as it is now being considered main-stream adult entertainment, and something that is empowering for women. not for my daughter.

Thats real funny..I though murder, robbery, perjury were illegal because they hurt other people/violated other people directly.

 

[johnnobts]

violated other people directly

______

your argument is that something is wrong only if it harms others, therefore you have cart-blanche to do to yourself as you see fit? Correct? I'm guessing then that you believe in legalizing drugs? Government has no right to legislate mood-altering substances? Just curious...

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: johnnobts
violated other people directly

______

your argument is that something is wrong only if it harms others, therefore you have cart-blanche to do to yourself as you see fit? Correct? I'm guessing then that you believe in legalizing drugs? Government has no right to legislate mood-altering substances? Just curious...

Yes, actually I do, I also believe the government has no right to tell people how they should use a persons there body. Your rights are your rights as long as they do infringe upon the rights of others. Some guy looking at porn, shooting up heroin as he blasts satanic music from his stereo is fine as long as he ensures no one else can see/hear it. Of course if someone goes out of there way to observe what this person does in his privacy, than his rights are void, and he has no right to be offended. I personally should care less what miss betty bo at the weekly church meeting things of my searching for Alba pics on google, or the guy that supplied those pics to me. If they do not like it, stay away from it, plain and simple.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: johnnobts
violated other people directly

______

your argument is that something is wrong only if it harms others, therefore you have cart-blanche to do to yourself as you see fit? Correct? I'm guessing then that you believe in legalizing drugs? Government has no right to legislate mood-altering substances? Just curious...

Yes...what the hell is wrong with you people? Do *I* go around trying to legislate how you live your life? Of course not, as that would be obnoxious and un-American. Do you want to go to church, download porn, do drugs, belong to the NRA, belong to the ACLU, write stupid letters to the editor, engage in BDSM play with your girlfriend...with your boyfriend? Go for it, it's no skin off my back.

Seriously, the only laws we need are those that prevent people from harming each other. We are all adults here, and if we want to do things to ourselves that other people consider harmful, I don't see why anyone should stop us. Take your insipid view to the logical conclusion, and the only allowed activities are those so bland and vanilla that nobody could possibly be offended by them.

I look at it this way, if you have a right to go to church on Sunday, dirty Larry has a right to spend Sunday downloading gay porn. The fact that you find the former activity more acceptable has no relevance at all.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: johnnobts
violated other people directly

______

your argument is that something is wrong only if it harms others, therefore you have cart-blanche to do to yourself as you see fit? Correct? I'm guessing then that you believe in legalizing drugs? Government has no right to legislate mood-altering substances? Just curious...

Pretty much that would be it. There is no reason for drugs or prostitution to be illegal. The only possible reason is the power that dealers and pimps have over hookers and addicts, but these are made much worse by outlawing drugs and postitution, not better, so what is the benefit?

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: johnnobts
Most of those who are active in the sex industry are very much aware of this. It is our government trying once again to legislate morality!
________________________

It disturbs me when I hear people use the same old, tiresome argument, "Our government is trying to legislate morality." Well of course they are, silly. The entire criminal code is based on the presupposition that man can and should legislate morality. Think about these examples for a moment:

1. Murder is illegal b/c it is immoral
2. Robbery is illegal b/c it is immoral
3. Perjury is illegal b/c it is immoral
3. Prostitution is illegal (in most states) b/c it is immoral

Pornography should be legislated b/c it is viewed by the majority of Americans as a vice. This is not really a free-speech issue by the way. I don't think that porn will be outrightly outlawed in America from a federal statute, but it is outlawed from the local level. I think it should be further legislated from the federal level, making it more difficult for minors to access websites. It is far too easy for a minor to find porn on the web. I think the porn industry, a multi-billion dollar industry that is less accountable than the "evil oil companies" should be forced to put restrictions on accessing their material. For example, require adults to submit for an adult viewing-liscence to verify age before being granted permission to access material. The benefit of this is two-fold. One, it helps prevent minors from casually accessing porn, and two, it makes porn surfing a less-anonymous affair, and will discourage adults from getting caught up in it. think about this. porn addition is considered to be 5 times more addictive than crack cocaine. Also, Before porn hit the internet, pornography was severely limited in its scope, b/c most adults were ashamed of going to adult bookstores. Its an embarrassing thing.

today, the shame is still there, but most adults hide their shame by staying at home and remaining anonymous.

As a Christian, I have a problem with the porn industry, especially as it is now being considered main-stream adult entertainment, and something that is empowering for women. not for my daughter.

By the way, I love the implied logic here...

"I personally have a problem with X...therefore, X should be banned!"

Am I the only person who thinks that kind of view belongs more in Saudi Arabia than the USA?

 

[CSMR]

Originally posted by: RainsfordSeriously, the only laws we need are those that prevent people from harming each other.

No that is not your view. You want laws to prevent people from harming or benefiting people without their consent. Whether it is harm or benefit doesn't come into it. Or else your position falls apart if by distributing pornography pornographers harm viewers.

I look at it this way, if you have a right to go to church on Sunday, dirty Larry has a right to spend Sunday downloading gay porn.

That is a very strange conclusion. Presumably you mean "should have a right" or "in the ideal state will have a right", and even then, how does it follow? How do you get from the premise to the conclusion?

 

[CSMR]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
By the way, I love the implied logic here...

"I personally have a problem with X...therefore, X should be banned!"

Am I the only person who thinks that kind of view belongs more in Saudi Arabia than the USA?

Johnnobts' argument is flawed because one can present other reasons for banning the things he mentioned than immorality. (It would have been better to argue that the wrongness of an act is not irrelevant to its illegality, rather than suggesting that only can be the reason.) It is not flawed on your basis because the logic is not implied. You are lowering yourself to the sort of heated reaction that certain other posters use here.

 

[JackStorm]

Originally posted by: CSMR
You are lowering yourself to the sort of heated reaction that certain other posters use here.

Says the one who called the posters here "an army of morons". After comments like that you're lucky people still bother to reply to you in a civil manner.

 

[IdioticBuffoon]

Originally posted by: johnnobts
Most of those who are active in the sex industry are very much aware of this. It is our government trying once again to legislate morality!
________________________

It disturbs me when I hear people use the same old, tiresome argument, "Our government is trying to legislate morality." Well of course they are, silly. The entire criminal code is based on the presupposition that man can and should legislate morality. Think about these examples for a moment:

1. Murder is illegal b/c it is immoral
2. Robbery is illegal b/c it is immoral
3. Perjury is illegal b/c it is immoral
3. Prostitution is illegal (in most states) b/c it is immoral

Pornography should be legislated b/c it is viewed by the majority of Americans as a vice. This is not really a free-speech issue by the way. I don't think that porn will be outrightly outlawed in America from a federal statute, but it is outlawed from the local level. I think it should be further legislated from the federal level, making it more difficult for minors to access websites. It is far too easy for a minor to find porn on the web. I think the porn industry, a multi-billion dollar industry that is less accountable than the "evil oil companies" should be forced to put restrictions on accessing their material. For example, require adults to submit for an adult viewing-liscence to verify age before being granted permission to access material. The benefit of this is two-fold. One, it helps prevent minors from casually accessing porn, and two, it makes porn surfing a less-anonymous affair, and will discourage adults from getting caught up in it. think about this. porn addition is considered to be 5 times more addictive than crack cocaine. Also, Before porn hit the internet, pornography was severely limited in its scope, b/c most adults were ashamed of going to adult bookstores. Its an embarrassing thing.

today, the shame is still there, but most adults hide their shame by staying at home and remaining anonymous.

As a Christian, I have a problem with the porn industry, especially as it is now being considered main-stream adult entertainment, and something that is empowering for women. not for my daughter.

A big props from me. It's not a cliche to say that pornography objectifies women ... because I think it really does. I think most here cannot comprehend this notion unless a female from their immediate family is directly involved in it. But I can only see pornography gaining wider acceptance in the near future.

 

[CSMR]

Originally posted by: JackStorm

Originally posted by: CSMR
You are lowering yourself to the sort of heated reaction that certain other posters use here.

Says the one who called the posters here "an army of morons". After comments like that you're lucky people still bother to reply to you in a civil manner.

Who is replying in a civil manner? Am I to be indebted to you for this comment? Of for the civility or the depth of analysis this one? -

Originally posted by: JackStorm
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.

There were many people that were making moronic remarks addressed to me. I called these people morons because they were making moronic remarks. I think they can change if they think before expressing themselves.