Replies

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.

First of all, I want to thank you for your reasoned reply, and I do appreciate that. I think we will have to agree to disagree. The fear of a "Nanny" government is well-founded; socialism which necessitates totalitarianism is the worst form of government imaginable. OTOH, the pursuit of personal enjoyment with no concern for the resultant desctruction of the basic moral values that keeps civlization from going to the dogs is not an option. Here are a couple of quotes from great thinkers that support my position:

"Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites--in proportion as their love of justice is above their rapacity;--in proportion as their soundness and sobriety of understanding is above their vanity and presumption;--in proportion as they are more disposed to listen to the counsels of the wise and good, in preference to the flattery of knaves. Society cannot exist, unless a controlling power upon the will and appetite is placed somewhere: and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds can not be free. Their passions forge their fetters."
-- Edmund Burke

"Bad men cannot make good citizens. A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience are incompatible with freedom."---Patrick Henry