Now, I would never assume that you are porn obsessed because you discussed the subject (I'm able to argue my point without ascribing hidden motives to my opponent, a radical concept) but just so you know how hypocritical you sound, let's look at some stats: I've posted in this thread 19 times before now and you've posted 17 times. Also, note that several of each of our posts are not related to pornography (Sean Hannity's marital status, Jim Croce lyrics, the status of your ass, etc.) but it looks like you posted roughly the same number of comments about this issue as I did. While I have discussed logical fallacies, you have exhibited an expert level of knowledge about what porn is used where and by who.
Guess what that says about you? Absolutely nothing, just like it says nothing about me. That said, perhaps you should ask yourself the same question you legitimately asked Jane Austen earlier in the thread: "More accusations? Can't handle reality?"
As for "lecturing" on moral subjects, post 344 is my "moral lecture" on this topic, and you have not responded to a single point in it. Why? Probably because I discuss intellectual concerns, and that doesn't lend itself to your sophomore-in-a-womens'-studies-program view that someone could only disagree with you if they're a sexually repressed hypocrite.
Oh wait, does me telling you that it's not OK to beat people up constitute a "moral lecture?" So sorry, didn't mean to deliver a sermon on the topic.
If my posts are "moral lectures" then aren't your posts "secularist lectures," or more to the point, a secularist shouting someone down by saying they have no right to speak and deserve to be beaten for it?
I'll gladly give you the last word. I'm sure it will be the last word, because if you were going to respond to the specific intellectual criticisms of your position, you would have done so by now. The white flag is already up.
In your world, it's difficult to tell but I would say yes.
You see, morality is often situational.
To you, the situation is someone who defended porn, so you see it as your moral duty to lecture me on my defects. You make judgment because the situation calls for it. Yet being non judgmental is a moral trait....NO?
To me, if someone insults, defames and uses words as a weapon, a Good punch in the nose works wonders. That is how I learned, BTW.
From some of the accusations and comments on this thread, I would say a few nose punchings are in order.
Now...as to all your accusatory nonsense about things said that were neither said nor inferred, those are what we call straw-men!
They are creations of a mind that cannot otherwise defend what it has put forth as a argument. So the mind protects it's self by creating assaults and conflicts that do not exist. This totally screws any logical responses to the original point, and usually results in nothing but anger and resentment.
Getting back to the subject of this thread, which I believe was a divorce, I would say that it has strayed far off topic, and I have just explained why.
Nobody said you were a porn addict....Are you?
I watch it occasionally, but I am pretty selective of the kind, as I like a movie with a plot.
What kind do you like? You know, they have something for every sort of person or personality.
Now getting back again to the subject of this thread, a divorce and what appears to be a nasty one. It seems to me that this woman is going through post partem depression and is doing a lot of stupid things that she will likely regret.
That's my opinion. But if you want to talk about porn, I am prepared to do so.
If my posts are "moral lectures" then aren't your posts "secularist lectures," or more to the point, a secularist shouting someone down by saying they have no right to speak and deserve to be beaten for it?
Ahhhhh....Now we get to the topic that has infuriated you and drawn you to my posts, like a drunken fool who sits next to a guy at a bar and irritates the hell out of him until he gets shoved off the stool.
No, I am not a religious bible thumper. I am not addicted to any dogmas of any kind. My thinking is free of filters and I get to the point without worry of offending. But I do not try to offend. The offense taken was not real and was a creation that made it possible to offend me. A common tactic here.
You want to continue to take me on, then fine. As I said, I will respond.
You can't possibly imagine how distorted your thinking is. If you did, you would stop.
But you can't can you! I have made your day! The entire reason for your existence is to oppose secular thinkers. must be a miserable life, because history shows that every time you folks have bitten off more than you can chew, you have left utter destruction in your wake and accomplished nothing of note. You are responsible, or will be responsible for the Republican loss of power in the House, and the transfer of authority to Pelosi and her ilk. Your moral compass has once again overloaded your logic and you have destroyed your future in the name of perceived wrong. yes, I said perceived, and not real.
You have driven away the swing voters from the party and have guaranteed the transfer of power to the enemy with all this single issue morality nonsense. There is a excellent reason why religion and politics were to be kept apart. This is why we have a secular government. But you cannot accept it.
So, since you told me what you think about me, I just told you what I think about you. So now, what do you want to play. More idiotic accusations for me to defend.,...LOL! It is not worth my time to defend against lies and distortions.....misperceptions and invective.
Carry on.....I am getting more amused.