Posted on 12/09/2004 1:16:14 PM PST by Lindykim
Um, did you read my post? Apparently not.
And I'm sure you know, or at least have heard of, families that have been destroyed because one of the parties crossed the street at the wrong time and was run over by a truck. I suppose the spouse and children are victims of the offender's reckless and risky decision to cross the street. Do families have the right to use the government to enjoin their members from engaging in risky behavior such as smoking, drinking, or crossing the street?
Of course you know my answer. Please note that this does not preclude them from issuing personal injunctions against such behavior, in the form of, "If you don't stop [drinking|smoking|yanking it to porn|eating those fatty foods|crossing the street], I'm taking the kids and we're outta here". But the minute they start asking the government to get involved, I have a problem with it. Government is force, every government mandate or injunction has an implicit gun behind it. And it's immoral to prevent someone from engaging in a victimless crime because he might offend his loved ones by pointing a gun at him.
There's been plenty of evidence, some sited in this article, that porn utilization contributes to behaviors such as rape, child molestation, even serial murder.
There's plenty of evidence of correlation between consumption of pornography and certain antisocial behaviors. The evidence of causation is far shakier, and is often from sources of questionable neutrality.
Maybe consuming pornography makes you more likely to be a serial killer. Or maybe being a serial killer makes you more likely to consume pornography. Or maybe there are a certain set of mental traits that make one more likely to both consume pornography and commit serial murder. There's really no way to know for sure; the data support all three conclusions. And only the first one would even remotely come close to justifying restrictions on pornography in the name of public safety. In fact, in the other two cases restrictions on pornography might actually be counterproductive and decrease public safety.
Drunk driving is illegal, drinking alcohol is not. Raping somebody while under the "influence" of porn is illegal, porn is not. In both circumstances, it takes an inanimate object (porn, alcohol) plus an additional act to create a crime. You can argue that we should make alcohol illegal in order to prevent the crimes that result from intoxication, but that's not the same as arguing we should make drunk driving legal.
I can see the merits of the argument, but that's a little bit too hardcore for me. I'm fine with the penal code of Libertopia criminalizing reckless endangerment, defined as engaging in conduct which inflicts a substantial and unjustifiable risk of serious injury or death to a nonconsenting other, willfully disregarding or being consciously indifferent to the risk in a manner that grossly deviates from the standard of care a reasonable person would exercise in the circumstances. Phew.
Drunk driving qualifies as reckless endangerment. Engaging in the production, marketing, or consumption of pornography does not.
Pre-conceived notions are frequently true. A study which happens to support my "pre-conceived" notions is not, therefore, false. You seem to imply that any work which supports "old-fashioned" ideas must be a faulty, sloppy and irrelevant "waste of time and money." There are also those who are still convinced that man has not set foot on the moon. No amount of evidence will convince them otherwise, scientific or not. However, the truth of the matter remains, irrespective of their beliefs. The earth remained just as spherical in the years prior to scientific acceptance of the fact.
I'm not really interested in convincing secular skeptics, such as yourself, of facts you don't want to believe. If you are so sure that pornography and its consequences are healthy and strengthening to the American family and culture, then I have no choice but to allow you to live with your delusion.
I suppose there are some who would deny that pain hurts without a study to prove it.
The ones I hope to reach are those who may be living the lie themselves. Those who already know, deep down, they are destroying their family, their career, their lives with pornography and its effects. If anything I say or post helps stop an addict in his tracks long enough to give the matter some serious thought and honestly look at what's happening, then I am satisfied.
And that's fine, but it's not science
No, but it is truth. A repeated, personal experience is often far more convincing than a study, IMO.
But, for the more scientifically persuaded: Dr. Cline's study includes many, if not all, of the elements you want in a study on pornography's effects. Even empirical studies on volunteers proved the negative effects. I'm fully expecting that you won't be convinced, however. Those who don't want to believe something, won't.
Are you openly advocating that we should not allow porn to be legal? If so, do you understand what will be necessary to effect that prohibition?
I'm currrently serving on jury duty and I am considering mentioning "jury nullification" in order to be dismissed for cause instead of suffering more hours of questioning and waiting only to serve as demographic cannon fodder for the lawyers.
Came across your post lately.
I don't think anything should ever be banned if it's use is purely a matter of personal choice and the effects of it's use inure ONLY to the user. Your example is IMO inapposite. More often than not the use/abuse of alcohol has disastrous impacts on everyone other than the user. Just ask victims of drunk drivers or acquaintances of alcoholics who have been assaulted or worse by an out-of-control inebriant.
I strongly suspect the same is true of many other so-called 'Personal Activities' including pornography.
Does that mean tobacco and fatty foods, for example, should be banned?
Your example is IMO inapposite. More often than not the use/abuse of alcohol has disastrous impacts on everyone other than the user.
What do you mean by use/abuse? Are you saying that more often than not the use of alcohol has disastrous impacts on others, or just the abuse of alcohol?
Just ask victims of drunk drivers or acquaintances of alcoholics who have been assaulted or worse by an out-of-control inebriant.
What should be done about alcohol that is not being done now?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.