Posted on 08/15/2007 1:58:32 PM PDT by LightedCandle
But, while anti-porn laws are an interesting topic to debate, the argument here is based on civil trials being brought upon porn producers and online distributors. This, instead of using the dumber than dirt legislative system, uses the damaged beyond repair judicial system with the goal of running porn sites out of business rather than making them illegal. It would be interesting to see a cleverly crafted law though.
bet yer a whole lotta no fun at parties ...
;-)
If you are a porn addict, you should disclose that.
And here we hoped they are all hanging out at the Democrat sites ... FR is infested with them; or maybe they just want to draw attention to themselves the same way the homosexual addicts do.
They have the porn addiction in common, so they really end up at the same place; that is how homosexuality became so mainstream in the last decade.
Intriguing thought. How do you determine what is harmful enough to justify restrictions on liberty without the benefit of hindsight? I’ve got my opinions on the harmfulness of porn, but the science on the subject seems to go both ways. Also, why do you think culture always adapts to make a new innovation less harmful? I would think culture could often become more accepting or tolerant of harm rather than protecting against it. Why do you think responsibility is more likely to form in the presence of protective Gov’t impulses than the absence?
For heaven’s sake, I didn’t knowingly allow my kids to enjoy porn. We gave them all the warnings. We keep the computer in the living room. We installed protective software. We checked the history (still do).
That’s how we found out that Firefox stopped the pop up ads (no clicking necessary for very raunchy stuff - it was just presto, right there on the screen). The kids were already good about not clicking on any come-on ads. But giant floating images would spontaneously arrive on the site of Neopets! Until we installed Firefox.
I cannot fathom how any responsible parent would expose their child to porn. To say it will not harm them is laughable, although it isn’t funny. I think it’s downright abusive, sexually abusive, to deliberately expose your children to pornography.
How does it harm them? What is the harm?
It stirs up lust before it would naturally occur. It sexualizes people who are not yet ready for sexual behavior. It objectifies others, making their first exposure to sex one that is absent of any permanent commitment. It introduces perversions. It lowers sex from a private, intimate encounter to the casual level of eating a hamburger. It decreases children’s natural modesty, making them more vulnerable to exploitation. It sets up (at least on the male side) expectations for physical perfection so high that no average woman can satisfy. It is a venue for adultery (he who looks at a woman to lust after her has already committed adultery with her in his heart, Jesus commented). It teaches indirectly that it is a perfectly fine thing for a woman, or a man, to accept payment for exposing themselves to others, for committing adultery with others, and for seducing others. It scares them. It scars them.
I’d say your broad brush is missing most of its bristles.
I know ... I just wanted to avoid posting the "full address"
ever notice this similarity?
actual Time cover 9/20/04
Warning: other things that you should really avoid googling: lemonparty, tubgirl, and under no circumstances look for the "Mr. Hands" video ...
Maybe I should have used “money shot” instead.
So if it hurts the individual, let them pay the price. Mind your own business.
Porn should not be viewed or displayed in any facility deemed to be a "public accomodation", nor within 25' of any entry to same.
Likewise, it should not be available in any public building, nor in any private dwelling, nor in any conveyance that might ever contain or be visited by anyone under the age of (fill in the blank).
Likewise with booze, beef, pork, jello, "Cheetohs", Coca Cola or any other substance or thing that could be deemed to be pleasurable to any person or group.
I can't wait until the NFL is banned. Those folks resemble gladiators and encourage violence.
It's for the children.
Do you think good judgment requires a certified scientist? Not at all! Scientists are men with a certain set of wisdoms and tools to apply. They don't always apply them well -- witness the global warming "consensus".
Good judgment comes from learning, most learning comes from learning from mistakes, it seems. There's a higher quality of learning that takes much more effort that comes from learning from successes.
What successful man or woman counts porn as his or her success?
So many porn stars end up with workplace afflictions. Some enjoy monetary "success" and fame, sure. But what kind of success is that? It's like the success of the bling-laden drug dealer in the ghetto, or like a mafia don's. Infamy, not fame.
Judgment comes from learning morality -- the world is run according to rules spiritual and physical. But even just measuring by the physical, porn comes out a negative.
It is by freedom that full human development occurs -- and that is both individual and group freedoms, individual and social development. But growth comes only when the individual and the society internalize -- take into their being -- the models of behavior that are long-term successful, that encourage growth in other human strivings.
Porn does not enable growth, it hobbles the being, it hobbles the culture.
Governments do not have impulses -- they are made of people, the people, us. We, the People. That's a "We" in that -- not "me, me me". We act individually and those individual actions are summed, we also act in unison.
The better we act individually, the less we may need to act under the charter of a group, but even in the most sophisticated of cultures, where humans are fully responsible trustworthy and honest there still will be laws and regulations of social behavior.
I am not that calloused. If I may pun.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/porn/
It goes into enough detail to move beyond the abstract, which is where most of the people who think there is no problem like to keep it.
A good place to start is eating a person until they have welts, nailing parts of their bodies to boards, slapping them around until they cry or beg for mercy, depicting them in sexual act with animals, public and humiliating nudity and so on -- for the sexual gratification of others. Need I go on? How about doing anything in a sexual context to one of the "performers" that would make liberals scream "Torture!" if it was done to a prisoner in Gitmo as a good place to start?
Yeah, I know it's nice to imagine fuzzy and glamorous Playboy photos when people say "porn" but things have gotten a lot more coarse since the 1970s. And before you wax poetic about consenting adults, do you really think money and coercion never come into play?
and who gets the final call on that?
The People. That's why we have elections and stuff. If you don't trust The People to be sensible, then why bother giving them a vote?
That my FRiend, is a DEMONSTRATABLY false assertion... let me assure you....
Like an enlarged prostrate, maybe?
BRAVO. I nominate you as poster of the year for that magnificent rant. Thank you!
Bet ya a bag of dope yer wrong.
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.