Replies

The reason I used the word "freekin" (yes, I do know how to spell it) is because I am losing my patience with libertarianesque types who think that access to pornography is some kind of inalienable right. Who think that unlimited and intrammeled pornography is some kind of foundational building block of civilization.

The argument "if you don't want YOUR kids screwed up by watching intenet sites that tell them about fisting and how to screw animals, don't let them on the internet, or stand over them at all times" is exatly the same as the pro-abortionist argument: "If you don't like abortions, don't have one".

The problem is that there is such a thing as social decay. Moral decay. It affects everyone.

Addtionally, libraries are staffed with flaming leftists. I say the government should get out of the library business altogher. Let local communities deal with it, either privately or local control.

The problem is that there is such a thing as social decay. Moral decay. It affects everyone. Addtionally, libraries are staffed with flaming leftists. I say the government should get out of the library business altogher. Let local communities deal with it, either privately or local control.

Wow, you took the words right out of my mouth. I have immense fun asking certain staff members of our local library for Ann Coulter's books or Peggy Noonan's. The expression on her face is priceless and she sometimes tries to recommend other books, like Hillary's. Also, I like to ask what measures are being taken to protect our kids from viewing porn, intentionally or not. This librarian gets quite fired up about how she's not a babysitter and it's up to the parents and we can't squelch free speech. One member of the staff is quite freeper minded (she should be a member) and has told me she is glad that someone else besides her is asking these questions.

It's easy to see moral decay in action right at the library. And sad too. Sad, also, how the staff defends the decay.

The argument "if you don't want YOUR kids screwed up by watching intenet sites that tell them about fisting and how to screw animals, don't let them on the internet, or stand over them at all times" is exatly the same as the pro-abortionist argument

Go Ask Alice apparently deleted their couple of articles on 'safe' beastiality. But there is still plenty of discussion on rimming and fisting. I am glad to see they have standards on the vital info they provide children. Quite good reading for kids of all ages.....

I am losing my patience with libertarianesque types who think that access to pornography is some kind of inalienable right. Who think that unlimited and intrammeled pornography is some kind of foundational building block of civilization.

Little Jeremiah, it is this type of exaggerated, hyperbolic nonsense that causes you to lose all credibility with even moderate folks. I personally am conflicted because I am what I would call a socially conservative "small l" libertarian. In other words, I may feel personally that morality is important and that decency and virtue are foundational blocks for a strong society.

However, I also fear greatly anyone that believes my personal choices should be arbitrarily handed over to a totalitarian nanny state. In order to preserve my freedom to make my own moral choices, I resist any additional power being handed over to the government (or a corporate government contractor), even if the singular issue is something with which I might agree.

I don't want Hillary Clinton to one day have the power to decide what should and should not be available on the Internet.

While I maintain this opinion, you would suggest that I "think that unlimited and intrammeled pornography is some kind of foundational building block of civilization." Well that is wholly incorrect and an unfair portrayal of those who oppose your beliefs.

Either you can't see the bigger picture argument because of an obsessive focus on a single issue, or you are intentionally suggesting those who have an issue with too much power in the hands of government are simply want to view porn in order to shift the argument. This means you are either incapable of seeing consequences of satisfying your desire for success with your pet project, or you simply don't care and choose to use sleazy, deceptive and unfair ad hominem attacks to avoid having to address the consequences. It is like calling a non-drug user who fears a police state with respect to the WOD a drug addict for their personal political philosophy.

You should try to address the issue being raised by those who oppose your opinion and have a civil argument. You may then be able to find a reasonable solution to the cause you care about, without sacrificing the freedom we both enjoy.

As for "freekin," I don't care how it is spelled. My point flew right over your head apparently. I was merely pointing out that your use of the word, which is a substitute for a more vulgar one we all know, is somewhat hypocritical, given that you are railing about immorality in a public venue. You should start with censoring yourself, before sending the virture police after the rest of society.