War on porn

[JackStorm]

Originally posted by: CSMR
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? -

Oh, well EXCUSE me. Guess I just don't like people (You or the government) telling me what I should or shouldn't do, or how I should live my life.

You yourself seem to have a problem with it, as you have shown here:

Originally posted by: CSMR
I don't take orders from you thank you very much.

So, yeah... :roll:

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.

Moronic, eh? Are you honestly going to claim that you AREN'T advocating that the government should tell people how to live their lives? Because judging by your posts, you sure as hell seen to be.

Also, how about you refute those "moronic remarks"? Should be easy for someone so much smarter than all us morons.

 

[CSMR]

Originally posted by: JackStormOh, well EXCUSE me. Guess I just don't like people (You or the government) telling me what I should or shouldn't do, or how I should live my life.

If you wanted to express what you like and don't like you should have said that. No-one can argue with what you like and dislike. However you seem to have been allowing your likes and dislikes to express themselves argumentatively, which must have involved some sort of confusion.

You yourself seem to have a problem with it, as you have shown here:

Originally posted by: CSMR
I don't take orders from you thank you very much.

So, yeah... :roll:

This is where clear thinking is beneficial. That I do not take orders from CitizenKain here does not mean that I do not take orders from anyone. (I do in fact take orders from the government and to a more limited extent from my employer.) Nor does it mean that I think it wrong to say what is right and wrong as you somewhat inconsistently think.

Moronic, eh? Are you honestly going to claim that you AREN'T advocating that the government should tell people how to live their lives? Because judging by your posts, you sure as hell seen to be.

Yes I certainly think the government should give laws. What is this question relevant to?

Also, how about you refute those "moronic remarks"? Should be easy for someone so much smarter than all us morons.

I wrote my post because evidently the people I was referring to do not accept logical thinking. How can you bring someone to reason? Not by reason, if he doesn't accept it? Perhaps an insult might do the trick. Or perhaps not.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CSMR

Originally posted by: JackStorm
Also, how about you refute those "moronic remarks"? Should be easy for someone so much smarter than all us morons.

I wrote my post because evidently the people I was referring to do not accept logical thinking. How can you bring someone to reason? Not by reason, if he doesn't accept it? Perhaps an insult might do the trick. Or perhaps not.

Your so-called "logical thinking" appears to be limited to, "I don't approve of it, therefore it is harmful and the government should ban it." You have yet to provide anything except your unsupported opinion that "porn" -- whatever that is -- is harmful. Unfortunately, the rest of us don't share your high opinion of your opinion. We expect you to provide actual facts and objective evidence. Since you continue to fail to do so, we can dismiss your opinion as illogical, even "moronic" puritanism, an emotional position akin to demanding the government legislate that pi equals 3.0 or the earth is flat.

 

[CSMR]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CSMR

Originally posted by: JackStorm
Also, how about you refute those "moronic remarks"? Should be easy for someone so much smarter than all us morons.

I wrote my post because evidently the people I was referring to do not accept logical thinking. How can you bring someone to reason? Not by reason, if he doesn't accept it? Perhaps an insult might do the trick. Or perhaps not.

Your so-called "logical thinking" appears to be limited to, "I don't approve of it, therefore it is harmful and the government should ban it."

This is how it may appear to you it is hardly my fault if you misinterpret me. Logic is quite enough to understand what I am saying, and your lack of it is something you need to correct.

You have yet to provide anything except your unsupported opinion that "porn" -- whatever that is -- is harmful.

I have given brief comments about the harm that it causes.

We expect you to provide actual facts and objective evidence. Since you continue to fail to do so, we can dismiss your opinion as illogical, even "moronic" puritanism, an emotional position akin to demanding the government legislate that pi equals 3.0 or the earth is flat.

I have provided some argument showing that porn is harmful. (Yes, actually, objectively, and factually.) So you are wrong on that count. And even more wrong as you go on. How can hold puritanism if I am not a puritan? How it puritanism moronic? How is believing that pi=3 an emotional position? In fact, in your jumble of semi-assertions, is there anything that holds together at all?
Logic only goes so far, but it is a minimal criterion not only for argument but for thinking and speech.

 

[Cerb]

AT needs a popcorn emoticon...

 

[LumbergTech]

Originally posted by: CSMR

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CSMR

Originally posted by: JackStorm
Also, how about you refute those "moronic remarks"? Should be easy for someone so much smarter than all us morons.

I wrote my post because evidently the people I was referring to do not accept logical thinking. How can you bring someone to reason? Not by reason, if he doesn't accept it? Perhaps an insult might do the trick. Or perhaps not.

Your so-called "logical thinking" appears to be limited to, "I don't approve of it, therefore it is harmful and the government should ban it."

This is how it may appear to you it is hardly my fault if you misinterpret me. Logic is quite enough to understand what I am saying, and your lack of it is something you need to correct.

You have yet to provide anything except your unsupported opinion that "porn" -- whatever that is -- is harmful.

I have given brief comments about the harm that it causes.

We expect you to provide actual facts and objective evidence. Since you continue to fail to do so, we can dismiss your opinion as illogical, even "moronic" puritanism, an emotional position akin to demanding the government legislate that pi equals 3.0 or the earth is flat.

I have provided some argument showing that porn is harmful. (Yes, actually, objectively, and factually.) So you are wrong on that count. And even more wrong as you go on. How can hold puritanism if I am not a puritan? How it puritanism moronic? How is believing that pi=3 an emotional position? In fact, in your jumble of semi-assertions, is there anything that holds together at all?
Logic only goes so far, but it is a minimal criterion not only for argument but for thinking and speech.

your arguments were not very well founded, you are free to state them, but they seemed just as weak as you claim the other guys response to them were..he probably called you a puritan because of your arguement against porn which states that it promotes that sex is something other than what a religious doctrine claims it is supposed to be..

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CSMR

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CSMR

Originally posted by: JackStorm
Also, how about you refute those "moronic remarks"? Should be easy for someone so much smarter than all us morons.

I wrote my post because evidently the people I was referring to do not accept logical thinking. How can you bring someone to reason? Not by reason, if he doesn't accept it? Perhaps an insult might do the trick. Or perhaps not.

Your so-called "logical thinking" appears to be limited to, "I don't approve of it, therefore it is harmful and the government should ban it."

This is how it may appear to you it is hardly my fault if you misinterpret me. Logic is quite enough to understand what I am saying, and your lack of it is something you need to correct.

You have yet to provide anything except your unsupported opinion that "porn" -- whatever that is -- is harmful.

I have given brief comments about the harm that it causes.

We expect you to provide actual facts and objective evidence. Since you continue to fail to do so, we can dismiss your opinion as illogical, even "moronic" puritanism, an emotional position akin to demanding the government legislate that pi equals 3.0 or the earth is flat.

I have provided some argument showing that porn is harmful. (Yes, actually, objectively, and factually.) So you are wrong on that count. And even more wrong as you go on. How can hold puritanism if I am not a puritan? How it puritanism moronic? How is believing that pi=3 an emotional position? In fact, in your jumble of semi-assertions, is there anything that holds together at all?
Logic only goes so far, but it is a minimal criterion not only for argument but for thinking and speech.

I didn't say you provided no argument. I did, however, point out that your argument consists solely of your personal opinion, unsupported by any objective evidence. You said you feel porn is bad because it leads to A and B, but you've offered absolutely nothing factual to corroborate your feelings. All you've done is repeatedly insist that you're right because you said you're right. Sorry, that's not a sound basis for legislation imposing your puritanical morality upon others. We must not pass laws asserting the earth is flat no matter how earnestly you believe it.

 

[dmcowen674]

Full scale Iraq/ratings diversion on:

3-15-2006 U.S. Charges 27 in Online Porn Sting

In recent days, federal agents have made arrests in Arizona, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Michigan, Nevada, New York, North Carolina and Tennessee, the official said.

Australian, British and Canadian authorities also are part of the investigation, which began in Canada.

Gonzales has said the Justice Department would focus on crimes against children and online pornography.
===================
Because Internet Porn is Evil :roll:

 

[tw1164]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Full scale Iraq/ratings diversion on:

3-15-2006 U.S. Charges 27 in Online Porn Sting

In recent days, federal agents have made arrests in Arizona, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Michigan, Nevada, New York, North Carolina and Tennessee, the official said.

Australian, British and Canadian authorities also are part of the investigation, which began in Canada.

Gonzales has said the Justice Department would focus on crimes against children and online pornography.
===================
Because Internet Porn is Evil :roll:

It was described as an "online child pornography enterprise" in the article.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: CSMR

Originally posted by: shira
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.

Wow. Just wow.

If you deny that pleasure is good, then you are mad.

Do you prefer a more tasty hamburger to a bland one? A more enlightening lecture to a meaningless one? A more comfortable bed to one that gives you back pain? Gazing at a beautiful sunset to a blighted city-scape?

Pleasure is its own justification. The experience of pleasure IS a good, in and of itself.

It may be the case that pursuing a particular source of pleasure has a downside. But the downside is NOT the pleasure itself, it is the consequences of the action of pursuing the source of pleasure (for example, eating too many delicious hamburger may be bad for your health). But the fact that negative consequences may be associated with pursuing a source of pleasure does not negate the "good" of the pleasure itself.

You are confusing the inherent goodness of pleasure with the possibility that that which gives pleasure may have a cost. So it is obvious why you are hung up on pornography: You cannot acknowledge that feeling sexual pleasure is inherently good. You are so confused by the potential negatives that may be associated with pursuing sexual pleasure that you have lost sight of the fact that the sexual pleasure itself is NOT one of those negatives.

And this is why you are unable to do the balancing of cost versus benefit that I claim MUST occur if a society wishes to deprive individuals of liberty: The inherent benefit (and despite your ravings, sexual pleasure of many millions of people IS a benefit) against the costs (by your reasoning, the extent to which minds [how many, and to what extent?] become "perverted" by pornography and the actual negatives associated with that perversion [the number of marriages destroyed, wives beaten, children molested).

On second thought, it's clear why you won't acknowledge that pleasure is an inherent good: Pleasure is the only clearly and consistently demonstrable consequence of viewing pornography. But since all you have as a counterargument is speculation about negative consequences - none of which are clear and demonstrable, you hold a losing hand. What better way to play that losing hand then to see your opponent's aces and claim they're deuces.