"First and foremost, that ad hominem attack was uncalled for."
You drew first blood with this insulting and sarcastic reply to me:
"Since this is a concept that is, amazingly enough, still taught in elementary-school classes, I felt it wasn't necessary to spell out that point in black and white."
So don't get your shorts in a knot when someone responds to you in kind. (BTW, my response was not an ad hominem attack; you might want to check the definition). You are the one who brought the level of discussion down to this point.
"I'll forgive you this time, but don't do it again."
I was not seeking your forgiveness, so you have none to offer. I don't know who you think you are but you need to step down off your high horse.
"I have never said it's the government's responsibility to handle the issue--you and I both know this."
You said it was the people's responsibility to enact laws to criminalize it. No matter how you describe it, you are talking about involving gov't to implement your solution.
"But, as I've told you, society must be careful what it wishes for, meaning that if it passes too many laws restricting obscenity, more average Joes will be compelled to break the law, effectively putting us below square one. This is exactly why Prohibition failed."
Well, we do agree on that point.
Excuse me, but how was it insulting and sarcastic?
Nowhere, and absolutely nowhere did I imply you were of below-average intelligence. Reread post 122--I just simply stated that since such a concept was taught at a very young age, I consider it to be a universally-known concept that shouldn't have to be stated outright on this thread. Therefore IMO, there was no need to post that statement, and I left it out of my original post.
When you replied in post 121 that: "To effectively pull us out of the garbage dump of popular society, nothing short of a miracle--manifested in Constitutional Amendments and a very conservative, strict-constructionist SCOTUS can effectively right these wrongs." it became clear to me that you misread my post. I politely said in Post 122 to reread my post, and that I believe you misunderstood.
If you consider someone telling you that you misread and took something wrongly out of context to be insulting and sarcastic, then I don't know what to say.
Therefore, your accusation of my drawing first blood doesn't hold weight.
So don't get your shorts in a knot when someone responds to you in kind. (BTW, my response was not an ad hominem attack; you might want to check the definition).
No. If you would have simply reread my original posting, you would have found that I've pretty much addressed your concerns. When you subtly implied that I was illiterate, that's where the cut occurred.
(BTW, my response was not an ad hominem attack; you might want to check the definition)
I did, and the basic definition of an ad hominem is where one attacks their opponent as a person as opposed to the information they present. Most ad hominems are explicit, but this is not a key criterion.
Specifically, your subtle implication of illiteracy and being a moron was an ad hominem abusive argument.
I'm also being a nice guy by letting you off the hook for that ad hominem.
I don't know who you think you are but you need to step down off your high horse.
In all truth, I don't know (and for that matter, nor do I want to know) what qualifies you to judge my comprehension and literacy skills, as well as my level of intelligence. I find that your on-the-spot "assessment" was very insulting.
Thus did you draw the first insult.
You are the one who brought the level of discussion down to this point.
Baloney! At the risk of sounding like a broken record, it was you who started the insults, not me. I'm the one trying to keep this civil, but I see it's beginning to fail.
You said it was the people's responsibility to enact laws to criminalize it. No matter how you describe it, you are talking about involving gov't to implement your solution.
You still aren't getting what I said--the people cannot be afraid to use government if necessary. I also said that this problem is well beyond what society can handle without government interference, thus something that actually has teeth is needed--this is best accomplished by laws. However, you also should note that I added the disclaimer that society must be careful in what it wishes for--overdoing it causes more harm than good.
I'd also recommend reading post 134--that's basically what I'm getting at in my assessment of the smut problem and why it can't just be left to society to resolve.
Finally, until you can present your criticisms constructively and without resorting to mudslinging, I should not and will not reply further.
Thank you and have a Good day.