Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: gcruse
Again, there is nothing in the article that mentions cencorship. I know that bugs you guys because it takes away 99.999% of your argument. And the article you posted refutes nor address one item in the article I posted. Can we discuss one of the issues? Perhaps reductionism? I'll be nice and even let you choose which topic covered you want to tackle.
53 posted on 06/17/2002 9:11:39 PM PDT by JMJ333
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies ]


To: JMJ333
Actually, I think this says it very well:

 To attempt to censor [pornography], regulate it, or otherwise altar a freedom to choose what one reads or watches for entertainment, gives a few individuals the power to regulate the arts for the rest of society. What's destroyed in this process may be worse than what's there in the beginning.

61 posted on 06/17/2002 9:18:26 PM PDT by gcruse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies ]

To: JMJ333
Appeals to the reductionism of pornography are meaningless, since free market capitalism is inherently reductionistic rather than personal.

The corporation that I work for cares not a whit about me as a person, but reduces me to a fuction to satisfy its own needs. In the same way, clothing models or actors in television commercials are reduced into depersonalized figures who serve merely to sell the product.

Thus, the reductionist argument advocated by the posted article seems to be more of an idictment of free market capitalism than it does pornography. This is perhaps why the Catholic Church has traditionally contained a large socialist strain...

290 posted on 06/18/2002 8:00:58 AM PDT by Lamont Cranston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson