War on porn

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: CSMR

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

One can be concerned about other people. Porn is harmful to people and to society and it is better to restrict it.

How do you figure? If I were to watch porn, recreationally, how is it harming me or anyone else? By recreational, I mean, watching it just for fun. Its not life consuming, harming the family, etc. Still working, still not going to church, etc.

("You will go to hell when you die" or other religious answers are not acceptable.)

 

[Inspector Jihad]

Originally posted by: CSMR

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

One can be concerned about other people. Porn is harmful to people and to society and it is better to restrict it.

how is it harmful?

 

[shira]

I'm wondering how long it will take us to get to the point where, when a couple is whispering kinky nothings to each other in bed while in the throes of passion, the hidden microphones planted in the couples' bedroom by the FBI (because the husband talked to a street hot-dog vendor who has a friend who called his father in Egypt [who has a name vaguely similar with that of a suspected terrorist]) pick up the porn-speech - which right-wingers assert COULD influence susceptible minds to sexually abuse women and children, and the couple is arrested and charged.

But hey, if you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear from the government.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: shira
I'm wondering how long it will take us to get to the point where, when a couple is whispering kinky nothings to each other in bed while in the throes of passion, the hidden microphones planted in the couples' bedroom by the FBI (because the husband talked to a street hot-dog vendor who has a friend who called his father in Egypt [who has a name vaguely similar with that of a suspected terrorist]) pick up the porn-speech - which right-wingers assert COULD influence susceptible minds to sexually abuse women and children, and the couple is arrested and charged.

But hey, if you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear from the government.

Speak up. I didn't catch that.

 

[engineereeyore]

Actually, the internet was designed so that in the case of nuclear war, military leaders would still have access to porn. Link

So how can the government be fighting porn after we spent all that money on the internet?

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: engineereeyore
Actually, the internet was designed so that in the case of nuclear war, military leaders would still have access to porn.

As such it was invented by a Democrat

 

[gimpsoft]

anyone here goes on to bangbus

has anyone seing the Noel episode // Added: 12/05/2001 lol that looked pretty realistic...


tell u what i enjoy it because i know is not real kinda like a fantasy u know meeting a girl fing the sh*t out of them im sure u got you own disturbing thoughts.

but because i watch it does it mean that i will go out and try it on some girl hell NO.

"probability making fool of my self hahahaha"

republicanpoontang

 

[Meuge]

They can have my pr0n, when they pry it from my cold, dead fingers.

 

[CitizenKain]

Originally posted by: CSMR

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

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.

 

[lyssword]

Originally posted by: Meuge
They can have my pr0n, when they pry it from my cold, dead fingers.

ahahha

 

[shortylickens]

Gee, lets look at ol' Georgies enemies.

5-foot hussy
6-foot arab

Which would you rather fight? I think this could be called classic bully syndrome.
We need to kick Dubya out and put a real man in office.
Like Richard Simmons.

 

[shira]

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.

There are so many things that people do that are really, truly destructive, why focus on so debatable an issue as pornography?

If the Bush Administration is going to claim that more studies are needed (before we take action) to establish that, for example, human behavior is having a significant effect on global climate change (an area on which the scientific studies are in near unanimous agreement), then how in world can this Administration advocate cracking down on an area where there's no agreement on harmfulness at all?

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?

Before you start restricting access to material that is a source of such widepread pleasure to so many people, you'd better by damn sure you're right.

Let's be honest here: This isn't about any real "harmfulness" of pornography. This is about ratcheting up the rhetoric to create a pseudo issue. This is about sex and lust and dirty pictures and people giving into their most primitive instincts. This is about red versus blue and election time all over again.

 

[deepred98]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Abstinence and no porn, Texas is gonna turn into a blue state in no time

hmm.. i thought it would be the other way around

 

[Pens1566]

Don't we have bigger fish to fry than a guy transporting porn? I don't know, maybe a 6ft 4in arab guy traveling with a dialysis machine?

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: 1prophet

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: TylerP
I think some are missing the point and misconstruding my statement. The entire article is about laws being broken and the enforcement and punishment (if convicted) of the laws.

What I said was I don't see a problem with them enforcing laws.

This isn't about 'what is the law', because according to the law, this stuff is legal; but get someone in front of a socially conservative jury, and tell them 'this guy makes/sells filthy porn' and you will get a conviction.

That's what this case was about; the war on porn is just a minor branch of the war on the constitution.

Actually if you read the original posters article its about the government not wanting to lose especially the IRS.

Still, Wedelstadt was forced to come to Dallas and pled guilty to illegally transporting pornography and under-reporting his taxes. The case, which started as a tax evasion case under the Clinton administration, morphed into an obscenity distribution case under the Bush administration. Sentencing is set for February 9th.

What's your point?

When it was a tax investigation, it had no material relation to the porn business other than the coincidence of the tax evader working in the porn industry.

 

[TylerP]

I find it super funny that so many get so defensive and threatened by the mear mention of a theory of pornography being potentially banned in one state. All kinds of funny in that.

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: TylerP
I find it super funny that so many get so defensive and threatened by the mear mention of a theory of pornography being potentially banned in one state. All kinds of funny in that.

Some of us get really defensive when free speech is trampled. Porn, like it or not, is free speech.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: TylerP
I find it super funny that so many get so defensive and threatened by the mear mention of a theory of pornography being potentially banned in one state. All kinds of funny in that.

Some of us get really defensive when free speech is trampled. Porn, like it or not, is free speech.

. . . and/or the "pursuit of happiness."

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: TylerP
I find it super funny that so many get so defensive and threatened by the mear mention of a theory of pornography being potentially banned in one state. All kinds of funny in that.

Some of us get really defensive when free speech is trampled. Porn, like it or not, is free speech.

. . . and/or the "pursuit of happiness."

 

[Inspector Jihad]

I'm fighting the war on the war on pornography

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: TylerP
I find it super funny that so many get so defensive and threatened by the mear mention of a theory of pornography being potentially banned in one state. All kinds of funny in that.

:disgust:

I don't think most of us question that, for example, child pornography falls under 'abusing children' and not 'free speech'. However, what you're talking about is making the constitution of the United States subjugate to the tyranny of the majority, which is exactly what it was designed to prevent.

The fact that something offends people is not enough, on its own, to justify restricting liberties.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: raildogg

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

How do you know he is midwestern or that midwesterners think this way?

Nice job of uniting this country, you guys.

Yes, all northerners are open minded and fair while everyone else is a bigot. Yes, all people think alike according to region.

Good going.

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,

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: CSMR

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

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. I have an opinion about a lot of things, yet I feel that very little of it needs to become law. Personally, I think Buddhism is great, and a lot of people would benefit from studying Buddhism. So do I think that should be mandatory? Of course not.

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...

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. To the extent they aren't doing that, whatever ELSE they might want to do is super. Right now, I personally am going to stay up late and drink some Jack Daniels. Neither of those activities is particularly good for me, but I'm not sure I'd appreciate some well meaning do-gooders busting into my apartment to stop me.

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.

 

[Tab]

Jack Daniels? I propose we ban all bad tasting alcoholic beverages! Who's with me! Down with Rainsford!

 

[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.