Prohibiting Pornography -- A Moral Imperative

Morality in Media ^ | 1984 | Paul J. McGeady

[Mockingbird For Short]

Yes, I'm really asking. Shiva is a goddess of fertility or something, right? You asked:

why should we be more concerned about a picture of a naked woman before which a man masturbates than a picture of Shiva before which a man worships?

Actually, I would probably be concerned about both. (Although either man would also probably tell me to "TerAYsa it.") They are apples and oranges, tho' and therefore difficult to compare. If you want to, you could just answer this question instead: What is morally redeeming about an obscene picture of a naked woman? Don't you see that as being exploitive? Degrading to women in general, degrading to SEX itself, and degrading to you for ogling it (as an aside to Tacticlogic, I don't consider this an emotional argument)?

[tacticalogic]

Again, the original document you cite is written forty years after the ratification of the Constitution. The statements of the Founders after that amount of time are of far less reliability than at the time of ratification and the debates because of the political factions that had formed by then. So please cite statements made at the time of adoption of the Constitution.

I'll see what I can come up with. In the meantime, I'd like to know what basis you base your ideas on what they meant by "regulate commerce" on, that you consider more authoritative. As far as the comments about Barnett, they seem entirely consistentent with Madison's comments. His research suggests that when they talked about regulating commerce, they meant regulating trade. Madison merely clarified what the intended purpose of granting that power to the federal government was, and if you read the first point carefully you'll see he's very explicit about this explaination of the commerce power being based on the commonly understood meaning of the words at the time of ratification.

[tacticalogic]

I don't really understand your point. Could you be a bit more concrete? If you could, the above might sink in a bit better. Thanks.

The article maintains that there are no Constitutional issues involved, that the issues has the full support of the President, both houses of Congress, a supermajority of the state legislatures, and the vast majority of the general population. If that's the case, why isn't it already done? It doesn't quite add up. The declaration of "moral imperative" seems to be more a means of avoiding questions than answering them.

[radicalamericannationalist]

My more authoritative source is logic. If what Madison said was true, they could have used that language. To argue that one phrase was used to really mean another (40 years after the fact) is to say that we must parse the Constitution for the hidden meanings of its Framers.

[tacticalogic]

The flaw in your "logic" is the assumption that because "commerce" and "trade" mean different things to you and cannot be used interchangably, the same was true of Madison.

Read this document and you'll see that he uses these words more or less interchangeably, and makes no distinction between them.

[radicalamericannationalist]

While I applaud your use of contemporaneous sources this time, your original quote stated that "The power has been understood and used by all commercial & manufacturing Nations as embracing the object of encouraging manufactures. It is believed that not a single exception can be named."

That is not what he says in the Federalist Papers.

[FightThePower!]

I am for freedom, it sounds like this poster isn't.

[tacticalogic]

What does he say that contradicts it?

[radicalamericannationalist]

Where does he say it. That trade and commerce can be used interchangeably is not in dispute. You appear to have argued that those phrases can only be used to refer to encouraging manufactures. That is a strained definition that is not supported by the Federalist Paper that you cite.

[tacticalogic]

He says it right here. You seem to be asserting that because he said it 40 years after he wrote the clause, this isn't necessarily what he meant at that time, even though he explicitly makes the point that this is exactly the case.

[radicalamericannationalist]

That is precisely what I'm saying. Four decades change a person's perspective. The most accurate measure of a word or phrase's meaning is what is said at the time of its use, not half a century later when the political landscape and motive for saying things have dramatically altered.

If you need further illustrations, see John Kerry. While I am most emphatically not comparing the two men, they are both political actors who faced changed political circumstances over their careers. So tell me, would you accept as the authoritative Kerry view on Vietnam - atrocities and other nonsense - what he says now or what he said then? His motives for speaking today are far different from thirty years ago. The contemporaneous statement is the more telling.

[tacticalogic]

The contemporaneous statement is the more telling.

You might have a point if you had a contemporaneous quote that contradicts it. You're maintaining that since he didn't say it explicitly at the time of the ratification, it can be assumed that he meant something different when he said it 40 years later. You're asking me to believe he advised that the constition should be interpreted according to the commonly held meaning of the words at the time they were written, then immediately proceeded to disregard his own advice.

[djreece]

marking

[Liberal Classic]

steve-b wrote:
This generation will associate the stench of Wahabi terrorism with theocratic politics in general, much as our grandparents' generation associated the stench of Naziism with the genteel anti-Semitism that had previously been accepted in polite society.

To which you replied:
It's straight patriotic Christians who will free the world from Islamic terror, not faggot punks like you.

Thank you for showing your true colors.

[radicalamericannationalist]

I am arguing that meaning not mentioned at the time but arrived at forty years later cannot be seen as authoritative.

[petro45acp]

"Very frightening that anyone supposedly "conservative" would support government mandated morality enforcable by the barrell of a gun!

What consenting adults chose to do should remain a choice. Even God created man with free will, I would hope that you wouldn't ask the government to trump that precious gift!"


Bravo! Fact is, free will is the entire point of mankind. "In his image" refers to spiritual beings with the ability to choose. We are to choose for or against Christ. Our government, any government, is intended to protect our ability to exercise volition........choose.

God save the Republic!!!!!

[tacticalogic]

I am arguing that meaning not mentioned at the time but arrived at forty years later cannot be seen as authoritative.

I am arguing that Madison explicitly says this interpretation is according to the commonly held meaning of the words at the time of ratification, not "arrived at forty years later".

[tacticalogic]

Do you have some problem with this explaination of the nature of the commerce power, some contradictory source you consider more authoritative, other than it doesn't fit your preconceived idea of the nature of that power?

[cjshapi]

The thread that won't die. Subject matter has varied but it just won't die!

[Junior]

It's like a car wreck. People find the oddest things fascinating.