Posted on 06/17/2002 8:25:38 PM PDT by JMJ333
Well, I didn't say which was worst! They are all bad. Christianity teaches that pride is the worst. You don't have to agree with that, though you might see the wisdom of it.
It's a false comparison, apples and oranges, regardless of one's perceptions about pornography and murder. The depiction of crime and murder in PG entertainment isn't real. Hardcore pornography is.
Nobody is going to take away your little porn stash, don't worry. BUt I know that I will teach my sons that getting into porn will only hurt them.
I saw a program on TV about a woman in a porn video who needed extra money and so had sex with 30 men in that video. She shortly later came down with AIDs.
These people are usually of a religious bent...though to hear
one denomination lathering up about demon rum while
another denomination swills at leisure is reminiscent of
the porn-noporn debate, with a twist of irony.
An interesting assertion--and perhaps it's true. Easy to make such claims, but have you got any quantitative evidence to back it up? Or is this just anecdotal wisdom? Some blithely claim that liberation from society's suppresive norms leads to happier lives. Whom should we believe? Where's the evidence?
Please don't take this as too sarcastic. I only mean to point out that a lot of assertions are made in the course of these arguments. It's very hard to prove things one way or another. But each side argues (or implies) its way is inherently morally superior--whether or not there are unequivocable facts to back it up. Anyway--even if porn and lust are such pernicious scourges, I just can't believe they amount to much compared to other pressing problems. That's MY subjective viewpoint...no evidence to back it up...ok, nevermind.
Abortion is different, since it involves another human being (especially in something like partial birth abortion).
(For the record, I am against "smoking laws").
Trying to refute the vice warriors is a waste of time.
If it's legal, refutation is unnecessary, particularly if
they swear they aren't trying to take your freedom
to do exactly as you please away. Which is how
they start. :)
True.
Anyhow, I agree with you about becoming "freer" when one overcomes sexual animal desires. Sex isn't wrong in the right context... which is between a husband and wife. Outside of this type of arrangement, people often become slaves to sexual desire because there tends to be less obligation and consequences (no children, family, etc., etc.). The body isn't "dirty" (God himself took on a human body) and sex is only wrong when removed from it's proper place and then it becomes a distortion... just like many other things (money, food, etc.). To sum it up, when anything other than God becomes the center of one's existence, it is wrong and leads to many miseries. I see pornography as a severe distortion of what sex was intended to be and it makes me cringe when I hear about children being exposed to it. Currently, it seems a far more common occurence than when I was growing up and it makes me worry about future generations.
I know that some will disagree and that's fine, but I just thought I'd try to state my perspective on it. Hopefully, it made some sense as I'm quite tired at the moment.
And yet it was important enough for you to waste the past hour on this thread.
My apologies. All this time I thought you were talking about porn. My mistake. It is pron that you are attacking. Well, I fully agree with you. I too hate pron. Pron destroys lives and turns people into worthless automatons. I only hope to worthy enough to join you in the righteous crusade to destroy that sicko pron.
I agree that partial birth abortion is murder.
Well, here is gcruse's post #48 and my post #74 that offer some quantitative evidence.
The problem with porn discussions is they generally devolve into criticism of intent rather than legitimate discussion, which is the point to shut down discussion. I know of no other topic which such a large group of people who don't think porn should be dicussed critically at all, on any basis. It's almost like porn is a religion and dissent is blasphemy.
The ARTICLE (not necessarily the poster), from the tone itself, screams out that something should be done.
I didn't get that from reading the article. It seemed just the opposite, that the author was deliberately trying to steer away from proscriptive solutions and instead bring up valid (to him) criticism.
Obviously criticism has inherent in it a measure of proscription. The movie critic may persuade you not to spend your money on a particular movie. Likewise with a music or book or restuarant critic. However, I don't think that can be assumed to be the intent unless explicitely stated "Don't see such and such movie or buy such and such book".
Usually criticism it is more esoteric. Also, it is sometimes meant to goad others into improving the message, which I think could be a legitimate area of criticism in porn.
If I had to insist on one point, it's that porn is utterly trivial compared to other social ills. Just my point of view.
Well, I agree it's relative. All things are relative. Even so, another legitimate area of criticism would be potential links between porn and other "social ills". At least it can be explored through discussion, assuming it it is not (again) preemptively deemed off limits to discuss such things.
It's not hidden to me; it's hidden to you.
Firstly, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness aren't mentioned in the Constitution; they're mentioned in the Declaration Of Independence. (One down.)
Secondly, if your happiness involves beating me over the nose with a tire iron, you don't get to do it. You'll get yourself hurt and you'll go to jail. If your happiness involves having sex with my underage niece, you don't get to do it. You'll get yourself severely hurt and you'll go to jail. If your happiness involves stealing my car for a joyride, you don't get to do it. If you're caught, you'll go to jail.
And, just to be clear about how the Founding Fathers regarded "morals laws": when Thomas Jefferson was alive, if your happiness involved committing sodomy, he thought it proper to have you castrated. (Two down.)
So, as I said, your pursuit of happiness isn't mentioned in the Constitution and it isn't necessarily a right, no matter how much you'd like it to be.
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.