So if life imitates art, and a piece of suppossed art models a destructive form of behavior that we would never want to see indulged, should that piece of art be banned?
Should get interesting - I'll save my two cents for later.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc violation. Every single one of those predators also drank water and ate bread at some point in their lives. This does not mean that bread and water drove them to predation.
Those "iffy" questions are such a pain!
I've been around a fair number of people who -- what's the word, "consume"? "use"?, porn. I guess it depends to some extent how you define porn.
Playboy?
Women's bodice-ripper fiction?
At any rate, I don't think any of them were inspired to commit violence.
I agree that it's better to not expose yourself to certain types of images.
Personally, I don't watch explicit porn or gratuitously violent films, and that's fine by me, but I don't feel I should stop you as long as it's just fantasy.
Certain forms of pornography are already banned. I'm in favor of pushing the line back a lot further.
Ergo - it's existence doesn't cause folks to do evil deeds, it's the existence of those who would do evil deeds that proliferates it.
or sumpin like dat.
Did the Michael Jackson jury see this article?
I think both sides of this are right and wrong. I'm sure that there is a small hardcore group of people that porn leads to commit violent sexual crime. The trouble is, 90% of the people who watch porn will never commit such a crime. I practiced criminal law for 15 years and there is no question in my mind that alcohol was linked in some fashion with the vast majority of violent crimes committed. If alcohol could actually be banished today the crime rate would plummet. BUT....90% of the people who drink alcohol will never committ a violent crime. SO...is it right to try to ban alcohol or porn for the honest majority who sample it just to deal with the 10% who it effects in an incredibly socially destrctive manner? I don't know the answer but the results of prohibition and our current drug laws indicate that banning isn't the answer. (note: I do not drink alcohol, do drugs or view porn other than the occaisional racy e-mail I get)
Coincidence.
Correlation isn't causation.
We have a God-given right to view obscene images.
It's a victimless crime.
Did I miss any other sophistries?
Oh boy another porn thread. The evangelicals will be coming out of the woodwork on this one.
First of all, let's not pretend that pornography in any way, shape or form resembles 'art'.
As far as banning it, I wouldn't have a problem with that at all, but I'd think there were Constitutional issues to contend with in doing so. But I wonder if things like pornography, dope, and other immoral and/or illicit effects don't serve the unintended purpose of building character in those who ignore these things.
Evil has been with us since Lucifer and 1/3 of the angels vacated the Lord's immediate side. Ban pornography and we'd still have murders, thefts, etc.
If anything to be banned it should be liberals and liberalism. They are after all the ones perpetuating the aforementioned vices by instilling lax laws and punishments and even acceptance of them to an extent.
First, is the "piece of art" intrinsically evil. Yes, pornography is intrinsically evil. That people argue over what constitutes pornography only demonstrates that all people recognize the principle.
Second, is it prudent to ban pornography? In other words, does banning pornography do more harm to society than pornography itself? I say no. I remember the days when pornography wasn't widely available, and I don't remember any crimes associated with its criminalization, as there are with drug criminalization.
Are you saying that pornography is art?
banned, as in: made illegal by government?
no.
shunned, as in avoided and castigated by a decorous society?
sure.
wouldn't hugh hefner and larry flynt be multiple offense predators by now?
Funny you should ask. I know Danielle's mother and the parents of other kids who have been raped and murdered. If those who advocate "protection" of this kind of pornography ever looked one of these parents in the eye and seen the awful, tortured pain that never goes away, the issue would be settled.
Unfortunately they never do look them in the eye when the parents come to testify in legisaltive committees. The liberals slink away and hide and then cast their pro-porn, pro-predator votes at the end of the day when committee business is being wrapped up.
It can't continue this way. There is going to be an uprising by parents and all sane people some day soon. Politically it won't be pretty. The time is coming.
Bad assumption, bad conclusion.
So if life imitates art, and a piece of suppossed art models a destructive form of behavior that we would never want to see indulged, should that piece of art be banned?
Child porn is not art, it is a crime. The rest is moot because of that.
What percentage of the population watches "porn"?
What percentage of the population are sexual predators?