Posted on 09/30/2004 1:56:48 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
I don't think Joe hates "the morally inferior" (although I guess I should let him speak for himself; sorry)--- I think he wants himself and his family and neighbor to be protected from "the morally bankrupt." Tell me, do you defend prostitution as well as pornography?
You could try thehun.com. Not a lot of pictures, just a lot of links. Click on whatever looks like it might "float your boat".
Not sure I can agree to that. After seeing what they've done with "commerce among the several states" I shudder to think what they could do with "obscene".
If that would boost your ego, go ahead. But a more likely explanation is that I may have been too busy answering another post. If you're bored with the topic of "Prohibiting Pornography-- A Moral Imperitive," move on to something more worthy of your attention. You can always check your "New Posts to You" for further replies. You're only a ping away!
Actually, I need to scoot for a bit myself.
Yeah, he really clobbered me with that argument.
Sorry, my mistake. I thought your questions were valid. It appears you're just here to play gotcha.
Are you saying that the prohibition or regulation of pornography could be detrimental to the author's or photographer's liberty? Are you going to victimize them?
you are so wrong about people... and I think God's law.
For those people who want to obsessively intrude into and control the private choices of others so, ARE the morally bankrupt ones.
The fruit of the Spirit after all, is not "OTHERS" control.
it's SELF control. It's self governance per your own dictates of conscience, not obedience to an all powerful, all intrusive, all encompassing pseudo diety, made in the likeness of your ridiculous religious denomination.
What area of personal choice, or freedom is beyond the control of governments, in your view? None? To what extent can people be free of government in their lives? Isn't EVERY aspect of your life, somehow, indirectly, of such a nature that it can be shown somehow someway to be of impact on mine?
Your ilk believes that a psychotic fear of offense, gives me the right to assault you, against the dictates of the law as it stands written? So then, I have the right to assault you because you may view porn that by government ruling is not even obscene or illegal? And this is just because I fear your ability to commit sin without my permission?
such thinking is anti american and talibanic in every respect... so very very sick sick sick.
The purpose of the law is to prevent anybody's particular religious group from ever gaining the ability to intrude on the freedoms of anybody else against their consent.
It is not so jthat you can feel safe from the kid next door downloading pictures of heather locklear in a thong. or without one. You have NO right to feel safe from the personal vices of others. none.
and it is NOT government's job to do it for you.
You would be better served to do what is right for yourself, and trust God to keep you safe... and leave the lives of other citizens alone.
God's law as I understand it, is for YOU to govern yourself, not others. and since God's rule is to govern yourself instead of others, and you insist on pursuing that venue... against his instructions in pursuit of your own group of folks, theological construct, I would say that as a pineapple, you are directly involved in various degrees of, anomia, anomas and anosias.
take your antinomian crack and stick it in your own eye, rather than trying to stick it in mine.
Tell me, do you defend prostitution as well as pornography?
Nobody said that. You should not bear false witness.
You read it right.
See what I was replying to:
Now, again... what is morality?
In essence, it is the collective determination of what is good for society.
That is an unambiguously atheist statement.
Whether you believe in God or not, you should care about morality. When the guy who sees your girlfriend and thinks she would look better on his arm decides to club you over the head and drag her off for his own pleasure, I think that "morality" as I have defined it will work in your favor.
Perhaps. Or perhaps the other guy will choose to ignore morality.
A gun will definitely work in my favor.
Now I have used the term "collective" a few times but please don't assume I am a commie as well.
What difference does it make? If you think the origin of morality is merely human you might be a Marxist or a Randian or some other denomination, but your religion is anthropocentrism. You also overthrow all morality, since man is too little to base much of anything on, let alone morality.
I believe in individual rights and liberties
Why?
but I also believe that there are colors between black and white.
Why should I care what "color" something is?
There is a line between totalitarianism and anarchy... we should find it and draw it accordingly.
We should? Why?
OK, are you saying that pornography is not harmful and that is does have some virtue?
[The first time I read this, I misread "subjective"--thought you were saying you were tired of the subject of this thread. Sorry.]
Never. One would have to think herself clever to play that game. I'm the least likely to play mental games!! All of my questions and comments are, if not valid, at least sincere. I'm sorry if I've come across as disingenuous. This is a topic that interests me a lot. I see so much wrong with the right of "free speech" extending to pornography, especially unasked-for pornography like might pop up in an ad at Yahoo! or some place. I know that pornography isn't the impetus for any good behavior and actually causes much harm at the expense of innocent people.
get help.
run don't walk.
Considering the tone of your replies in #489 & #490, I've decided that our exchange of ideas has reached the point of diminishing returns. When someone starts calling me names and sounding vicious, it doesn't make much sense to respond further. It wouldn't do either of us any good.
whatever...
OK, here's a question for everyone. How are exhibitionism and pornography different (other than the obvious... that one takes place in person, while the other takes place in print or on film, etc.)? And why would there be laws against one but not the other?
I'm glad we have an understanding.
YOU have an understanding.
good night loon.
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.