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

Skip to comments.

Battle Brews As Porn Moves Into Mainstream
Breitbrat ^ | 04/01/2006 | David Crary

Posted on 04/01/2006 5:37:42 PM PST by Panerai

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 301-305 next last
To: Scotswife

whoops...make that "meth" not "met"

Good night


101 posted on 04/01/2006 8:54:44 PM PST by Scotswife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic
Would you feel better if she did this for free?

While I'm not sure it would make it OK by me, I do think it would make a big difference. With respect to the libertarian argument about consent, there would be no question that a woman doing such things for free wasn't doing it because of financial coercion or desperation, though there would still be the question of other forms of coercion. For example, a Japanese drama I once watched had a scene playing on the reputation the yakuza has in Japan for forgiving debt for women who can't pay back loan shark loans if she'll make a porn movie for them. Not sure if that really happens or how often it happens, but I don't think that qualifies as "consensual" any more than statements hostages make seemingly willingly are "consensual".

102 posted on 04/01/2006 8:57:05 PM PST by Question_Assumptions
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

"I knew it "taxing." Taxes, taxes, taxes. At least you admit you are a socialist. Because if anyone who earns their money gets to keep it, you just couldn't sleep at night."

I'm far from a socialist my friend. I only assume we'd tax the hell out of it, just like we do to cigs, and beer.


103 posted on 04/01/2006 8:58:12 PM PST by RHINO369
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: RHINO369
So do a good job at parenting and your kids won't be exposed.

Define a "good job at parenting"? What are my obligations?

1) The roads were built and are owned by teh government, I have to follow their rules to use their roads, i accept that.

The country you live in is government by the government. You have to follow plenty of rules that have nothing to do with who owns the roads.

2) Uh, your trying to take away our freedoms so you have the freedom to not raise your kid? Nice try.

Uh, no. I'm trying to take away your freedoms so I don't have to hide my kids in my house with the curtains drawn to avoid pornography. To be perfectly honest, I care about my own liberty more than I care about your liberty. Sorry about that but I'm selfish that way, just as you are. Can you give me a good reason why I should care about your liberty in this matter?

104 posted on 04/01/2006 9:03:04 PM PST by Question_Assumptions
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Question_Assumptions
By the way, if you want to see where widespread use of pornography by males lead, you should take a good look at the marriage and birth rates in Japan.

Correlation isn't causation. There's a long history of porn in Japan, that just doesn't seem to make it into mainstream museums for some reason...

There's a heck of a low birthrate in Russia, as well, and they went through years of porn being suppresed by the Soviets. I think the factor that causes low birthrates is despair for the future, more than porn.

Sure it does. You'll notice that we arrest people for drunk driving because of the harm that drunk drivers often do, even if the drunk driver hasn't actually caused an accident or hurt anyone.

Actually, we arrest people for drunk driving because they're driving in a threatening manner. A person who manages to drive well, while legally drunk, isn't going to get pulled over and arrested.

What makes a gun different from alcohol, drugs, or sex is that unlike those activities, the gun does not directly affect the chemistry of the brain of the user. Shooting a gun doesn't cause an orgasm, a high, or mentail impariment the way alcohol, drugs, and sex do. It wasn't the gun that enabled those murders or encouraged them. Guns don't rob people of their ability to make sound and responsible judgements. Alcohol, drugs, and sometimes even sex can.

Give some people a gun and they turn from mild-mannered guy to swaggering bully. While a gun hasn't done that to me, I have to say the occasions I've gone target shooting at a local range has given me a bit of a high. Incrased adreneiline or testosterone, perhaps.

That's also why we ban child pornography and adult-child sex across the board rather than wondering whether a particular child is mature enough to make those choices for themselves (after all, Tracy Lords turned out OK, right?). We know that adults can't be trusted to no coerce children into sex and that sex can mess children up.

Well, we ban sex under a certain age, because for the law to be enforcable it needs to have a specific age, rather than judgement calls on maturity.

105 posted on 04/01/2006 9:04:37 PM PST by Celtjew Libertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: Celtjew Libertarian
Correlation isn't causation. There's a long history of porn in Japan, that just doesn't seem to make it into mainstream museums for some reason...

That would be a better argument if relationships between the sexes weren't also pretty messed up during those other periods of history, too. Do you think those conditions were ever what Japanese woman would have chosen if they had any say in the matter?

There's a heck of a low birthrate in Russia, as well, and they went through years of porn being suppresed by the Soviets. I think the factor that causes low birthrates is despair for the future, more than porn.

Should I point out the role that Eastern Europe and Russia now play in the coerced sex trade?

Actually, we arrest people for drunk driving because they're driving in a threatening manner. A person who manages to drive well, while legally drunk, isn't going to get pulled over and arrested.

Ever hear of drunk driving checkpoints?

Give some people a gun and they turn from mild-mannered guy to swaggering bully. While a gun hasn't done that to me, I have to say the occasions I've gone target shooting at a local range has given me a bit of a high. Incrased adreneiline or testosterone, perhaps.

Not direct. There may be a lesser effect. The important thing to notice here, though, is that people don't wreck their families over a crossword puzzle addiction or loose their jobs because they like chocolate. There are activities and substances that tend to reduce a person's ability to make rational decisions. Some people can deal with that. Other people can't. For those that can't, it's a big problem.

Well, we ban sex under a certain age, because for the law to be enforcable it needs to have a specific age, rather than judgement calls on maturity.

Does it have to be that way or do we simply do it out of convenience? If we can give millions of American teenagers a written and practical test to see if we'll let them drive, would it really be that much more difficult to give them a written and practical test to see if they are mature enough to sigh contracts, vote, etc. as adults?

106 posted on 04/01/2006 9:17:52 PM PST by Question_Assumptions
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: Scotswife

I know men and families who have been wrecked by porn addiction, too. I would have never guessed it could be addictive and so mentally and spiritually stunting.

Look at all those men caught up in that recent internet sting operation taking their internet porn show on the road to molest kids. Some of them even suspected a police set up but could not stop themselves from approaching the house because they could not overcome their sex drive. It is not a victimless activity.

The pornagraphy of my youth - Play Boy - was nothing like what is known as internet porn.


107 posted on 04/01/2006 9:18:46 PM PST by Galveston Grl (Getting angry and abandoning power to the Democrats is not a choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: bluefish

**You are now even with the guy cruising some xxx site at this moment!**

What Little Jeremiah said is true. Anyone who under- estimates the damage caused by internet porn is a fool.


108 posted on 04/01/2006 9:21:27 PM PST by Galveston Grl (Getting angry and abandoning power to the Democrats is not a choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Question_Assumptions
Uh, no. I'm trying to take away your freedoms so I don't have to hide my kids in my house with the curtains drawn to avoid pornography.

Sorry, but you don't have a right to a society that doesn't offend you.

To be perfectly honest, I care about my own liberty more than I care about your liberty. Sorry about that but I'm selfish that way, just as you are. Can you give me a good reason why I should care about your liberty in this matter?

I'm almost tempted to say that in that case, we don't have much more to discuss. You defend what you want; I'll defend what I want.

But the reason to care about another's liberty is that it makes it easier to protect your own. You seek to limit my liberty by limiting porn, believing that increases your liberty. Someone else, however, might not want their children exposed to religion and seek to keep more extreme examples of religion. Heck, in some cases that's what's happening.

Please note that I have no problem with religious displays. I think the effort to remove the 10 Commandments from courtrooms and crosses from city seals are wrong-headed. Maybe it's that I'm hard to offend, at least visually, but creches and crosses don't bother me, even though I'm not Christian. But there are people who complain about religion on television. While that's not a serious threat right now, it may be if they get religion banned from other parts of the public square.

From a strategic standpoint, I find it easier to defend freedom as a whole. You protect my right to look at porn if you're worried about your children seeing it, you close the metaphorical curtains. By the same token, someone who might be offended by preachers being on TV and worry about their children seeing it, can take the same steps.

Or we can go down the path of anything that has the potential to offend someone has the potential to be banned....

I gotta go, too.... later.

109 posted on 04/01/2006 9:25:18 PM PST by Celtjew Libertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: Question_Assumptions
"The country you live in is government by the government. You have to follow plenty of rules that have nothing to do with who owns the roads."

The government doesn't own me, nor does it own my property. The government exists as a union of the people of America. If the government oversteps its bounds we have a duty to end it. Right now there are things that our government does which do infringe on my rights but not enough to kill over or die over.

"Uh, no. I'm trying to take away your freedoms so I don't have to hide my kids in my house with the curtains drawn to avoid pornography. To be perfectly honest, I care about my own liberty more than I care about your liberty. Sorry about that but I'm selfish that way, just as you are. Can you give me a good reason why I should care about your liberty in this matter?"

You don't want to ban public pornography you want to ban me owning pornography. Unless your child lives in my laptop there's zero chance thats going to effect your child. And if you only care about your liberty, then none of us our free. If you support using government to force the world to be how you want it your not a conservative, you are a liberal by definition. Once the government comes for the drug addicts, the gun owners, the adulterers, the gays, the porno watchers, the speeders, the people who don't go to church, the people who swear, who the hell is going to be left when they make up some crazy law that makes you a criminal?

Plus who do you think is going to win if you turn america into a dictatorship of the mob, 70% of america doesn't go to church.

110 posted on 04/01/2006 9:28:11 PM PST by RHINO369
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: Scotswife
It's an interesting theory, although I doubt it - because prostitution has always existed. As long as men are willing to pay for sex, there will be women to sell it - even women who are not drug addicts.

Agreed. It's just too easy and pays too well. Some women even claim to enjoy it. It has been around since ancient times and it's a fool's errand to try to stamp it out.

Right now the hazmat teams are trying to see if the wells in the neighborhood were contaminated. So - I'm not sympathetic to this idea that cheap and legal drugs are going to be a good thing.

I don't follow you. Drug legalization would take meth labs totally out of residential neighborhoods, and put them in industrial parks.

Actually, meth and crack use would probably fall off dramatically in favor of pot and snorts of powder cocaine, just as people went off gin and back to beer and wine when Prohibition ended. When drugs or alcohol are illegal, the producers and consumers have an incentive to keep them as concentrated, portable and concealable as possible.

-ccm

111 posted on 04/01/2006 9:39:27 PM PST by ccmay (Too much Law; not enough Order)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
How extreme does it have to get for liberaltarians to say that it's over the line?

I would turn the question around and ask how tame it has to be before blue nosed Puritans say it's NOT over the line? Are we to go back to the days when Howl and Tropic of Cancer and Playboy were considered pornography? No thanks, chum, take it to Saudia Arabia 'cause it ain't going to fly in a free country...

The onus is on *you* as a would-be censor to prove harm, not on the rest of us to show why what we're reading should pass inspection with a handful of prigs and pecksniffs. Tell us exactly what you think is obscene and why you think it should be banned.

-ccm

112 posted on 04/01/2006 9:46:32 PM PST by ccmay (Too much Law; not enough Order)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Panerai

bump for later read


113 posted on 04/01/2006 9:47:13 PM PST by Cacique (quos Deus vult perdere, prius dementat ( Islamia Delenda Est ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Celtjew Libertarian
Sorry, but you don't have a right to a society that doesn't offend you.

No, but I do have a right, as a voter in a Republic, to vote to restrict those things that do offend me, just as you have the right to vote against those restrictions.

I'm almost tempted to say that in that case, we don't have much more to discuss. You defend what you want; I'll defend what I want.

That's exactly what I'm saying. That's why the Founders chose to make our government a Republic within a Federal system. And if these matters were determined locally rather than Federally for everyone, things would probably work a lot better.

But the reason to care about another's liberty is that it makes it easier to protect your own. You seek to limit my liberty by limiting porn, believing that increases your liberty. Someone else, however, might not want their children exposed to religion and seek to keep more extreme examples of religion. Heck, in some cases that's what's happening.

In other words, people are going to try to restrict my liberty whether I try to restrict their liberty or not. That's why I don't buy this whole idea that I need to tolerate someone walking around with a pornographic T-Shirt if I don't want someone else to try to ban my religious T-Shirt (or whatever). All that does is pretend that the details are irrelevant and they aren't. People passed a Constitutional Amendment banning alcohol, repealed that Amendment, etc. They didn't pass and repeal a Constitutional Amendment banning the sale of orange juice. Why? Because orange juice and alcohol are not the same thing and preserving my right to drink orange juice has nothing to do with preserving someone else's right to drink alcohol, any more than we have to preserve the right of adults to have sex with children out of fear that if we don't, they'll ban adults having sex with each other.

Please note that I have no problem with religious displays. I think the effort to remove the 10 Commandments from courtrooms and crosses from city seals are wrong-headed. Maybe it's that I'm hard to offend, at least visually, but creches and crosses don't bother me, even though I'm not Christian. But there are people who complain about religion on television. While that's not a serious threat right now, it may be if they get religion banned from other parts of the public square.

Please note that my objection to pornography is not simplistic. I'm not particular offended by basic nudity, nor do I want to ban all pornography from adults. I would, however, like to see the public space be more child friendly the way it once was. That means that I don't want to take your Playboy away but would prefer you'd read it at home and not on a subway. I'm also concerned about the more vile forms of pornography that involve the actual abuse and torture of those performing in it. Finally, I'm concerned about the effects that particularly violent and deviant pornography might have on those who consume it. We can't have a dicussion of that without talking about the details of each of those points, thus I don't have a lot of use for abstract discussions of "liberty". To me, liberty is a means to an end and even libertarians would restrict the liberty of others in the interest of property rights and safety, thus even libertarians understand that too much liberty, abused liberty, and liberty without responsibility are bad things.

From a strategic standpoint, I find it easier to defend freedom as a whole.

I think that's a strategy doomed to failure because such abstract defenses of liberty invariably defend the indefensible to just about everyone. There is a reason why the number of libertarians remains so small. Few people are willing to accept the full implications of libertarianism for a variety of reasons that probably wouldn't be fruitful to discuss here.

You protect my right to look at porn if you're worried about your children seeing it, you close the metaphorical curtains. By the same token, someone who might be offended by preachers being on TV and worry about their children seeing it, can take the same steps.

Yet the United States managed to do just fine banning pornography but not banning preachers. The reason I don't find this argument particularly persuasive is that I don't expect the preacher banners to ever get the numbers necessary to do it. If society ever shifted in that direction, I wouldn't see the problem in terms of liberty.

Or we can go down the path of anything that has the potential to offend someone has the potential to be banned....

In practice, that's the way it is. Remember, they banned alcohol by Constitutional Amendment. Then the repealed the ban. You either trust the democratic processes of our Republic or you don't. I do. The great lesson of Prohibition was that the people, after seeing it didn't work, repealed it. The system corrects itself but needs to move.

114 posted on 04/01/2006 9:50:20 PM PST by Question_Assumptions
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: Celtjew Libertarian

Believe it or not, I've never personally seen any porn, although as a teenager (rebellious idiot that I was) I read a little de Sade and it utterly nauseated me. Hard to imagine that in the Victorian era they had rampant bestiality, torture and homosexual porn... Although i wouldn't know one way or another.

The difference is this: in previous times, porn was written, or in the early days of photography, a few still pictures. It was illegal, and/or shameful. It was behind closed and locked doors.

Now? Living color, live action, and potentially in every home. "Adult" stores everywhere you turn. Society is saturated with it, and stuff that is now on regular TV is rife with highly charged sexual content.


115 posted on 04/01/2006 9:51:46 PM PST by little jeremiah (Tolerating evil IS evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: bluefish

You're ridiculous. You think I say that out of pride?

I say it for the simple reason that it's the truth. Anyone who doesn't see the results of sex saturation especially on children, and families, either thinks it's okay for families to be destroyed, or needs to stop looking at the screen for a while.

It pains me that children's lives are destroyed because of sexual libertinism. It bothers me that husbands and wives are torn apart because someone can't control his d**k. It bothers me that women are persuaded that being a slut is cool and that "saving yourself for marriage" is considered not only old-fashioned but mentally dangerous. It causes me heartache that sexuality is considered merely a commodity rather than a precious and private act to be shared by a husband and wife with a lifelong commitment, and a promise to care for any children who may come.

It grieves me that society is sliding into the abyss. Feral humans are the result - unwanted children, born to single mothers or parents who divorced, who are just the unwanted by-product of selfish self gratification.

The undeniable fact that pregnancy and sex cannot be separated, other than by the sugeon's knife, dangerous chemicals, or the abortionist's butchery. When sex has nothing to do with marriage, and everything to do with selfish gratification, children become unwanted trash. It's disgusting and it's ruining our society.


116 posted on 04/01/2006 10:03:01 PM PST by little jeremiah (Tolerating evil IS evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Scotswife

Years ago, I read that vice cops who been out on the streets a long time will you that anytime they bust a sex offender, they will find reams of porn in his house and that the crimes he committed were inspired by his porn collection.


117 posted on 04/01/2006 10:04:41 PM PST by Ban Draoi Marbh Draoi ( Gen. 12:3: a warning to all anti-semites.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: ccmay

"how tame it has to be before blue nosed Puritans say it's NOT over the line?" - a burka would not be over the line


118 posted on 04/01/2006 10:07:02 PM PST by Panerai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: ccmay

The only reason no states or local communities (what to speak of the fedgov) can make any laws (practically speaking) to infringe the "rights" of pornographers or the losers who "use" it is because Larry Flynt and the ACLU teamed up, and the SCOTUS saw stuff in the Constitution that no one had seen up to that point. Certainly the gentlemen who wrote the Constitution didn't see a right to pornography in it.

So, thanks to a leftist organization and one of the foulest humans to ever walk the earth, porn is now everywhere. And sick losers can obsess over it freely. Have fun!


119 posted on 04/01/2006 10:08:49 PM PST by little jeremiah (Tolerating evil IS evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

CORRECTION:

The only reason no states or local communities (what to speak of the fedgov) can NOT make any laws....etc

(proofread, lj, proofread.)


120 posted on 04/01/2006 10:10:51 PM PST by little jeremiah (Tolerating evil IS evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

Wait a minute, it was okay the first way.

(Eyes crossing with tiredness)


121 posted on 04/01/2006 10:11:46 PM PST by little jeremiah (Tolerating evil IS evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: Scotswife
I have always enjoyed the portrayal of a lovely women via the graphic arts, and am as harmless as a newborn kitten. It is not pornography that is so harmful, but it's alliance with Hollywood, television, rock and roll and the low arts in general. There was a time when cheesecake had no allies, worked alone in its dark byways, and had a small audience. Gosh, I miss the day....
122 posted on 04/01/2006 10:13:01 PM PST by ashtanga
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Celtjew Libertarian

LOL.

Yeah, like *population* is a huge problem in Japan. Aging, maybe, but sheesh. If porn is limiting Japan's population growth, then boy, have we ever got a solution for China. (What's worse, porn or abortion? Bwahahaha--yeah, AS IF porn really gets censored in China, right. Certainly not the 'porn' some here are so up in arms about.)

If adults can consent to sex, then they can consent to being photographed in the act*. If children cannot consent to sex (and I fully agree they cannot), then they should also not be photographed or SEE photos of sex--and I'm 100% on board with that. But just because people can find a way, through technology or other means, to get around such prohibitions, doesn't mean you can take away the extremely simple adult consents I just outlined. Sure, you can come up with special cases all day long, when various acts get more extreme or when 'consent' gets blurred, but that doesn't negate the basic situation. Analogies to drugs, guns, etc are specious.

*You may disagree with my premise, but in this day and age, it's utterly impossible, except in a police state, to regulate how people use cameras, video equipment, etc., in the privacy of their own homes, and even harder policing who they share such information with. But the practical difficulties in banning or even restraining porn don't seem to matter to it's diehard opponents. Nor the unintended consequences: if porn were as hard to come by in the US as it is in, say, Saudi Arabia, TONS of people would see a significant money-making opportunity. Hmmm, just like, ummm, prohibition? And then how bad would illegal porn and all its offshoot social problems become? But nevermind, it's all about brain damage.

Right.


123 posted on 04/01/2006 10:15:45 PM PST by HassanBenSobar (Islam is the opiate of the people)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: RHINO369
The government doesn't own me, nor does it own my property.

Really? So you don't pay taxes? So they can't seize your property, with compensation, for public use as specified in the Constitution? You really need to consider just how restricted your liberty and property rights really are. Read the Bill of Rights carefully. Most of them are qualified rather than absolute.

The government exists as a union of the people of America. If the government oversteps its bounds we have a duty to end it. Right now there are things that our government does which do infringe on my rights but not enough to kill over or die over.

You are missing my point, which is that the classic libertarian ideal that anything that doesn't infringe on someone else's rights is legal is not the form of government we live in. In fact, it's far enough from that ideal that many hard-core libertarians would love to end it.

You don't want to ban public pornography you want to ban me owning pornography.

Really? Where did I claim that?

Unless your child lives in my laptop there's zero chance thats going to effect your child.

If you don't distribute it in public or display it in public, that is correct. And I'll thank you for your responsible excercise of your liberty.

And if you only care about your liberty, then none of us our free.

That is correct. But I would argue that none of us are ever really free. The pardox of liberty is that for it to be a good, it must be practiced responsibly. The irresponsible practice of liberty becomes a liability for others and society, thus we are only really free to practice our liberty responsibly -- that is, with restrictions. We can impose that responsiblity on ourselves or others will try to step in and impose responsibility with the law. But either way, liberty is never absolute or entirely free.

If all pornography is ever banned in America, it will not be because you responsibly view pornography in the privacy of your own home on your laptop. It will be because of the irresponsible use of pornography in public, the distribution of pornography to children, and the creation of pornography that abuses those it depicts. Thus it is in your best interest that pornography be practiced responsibly and not irresponsibly because the former will protect your rights while the latter will endanger them.

If you support using government to force the world to be how you want it your not a conservative, you are a liberal by definition.

Ultimately, people care about having a happy and prosperous life for themselves and those they love. Liberty, government, etc. are all ends to those means. What differentiates the conservative from the libertarian, in my experience, is that the conservative understands that liberty requires responsibility while the libertarian treats liberty as an end and does not demand responsibility. That's why most conservatives, for religous reasons or otherwise, are polite, law-abiding, and self-supporting even though they desire that the government leave them alone. They understand that their liberty requires responsibilty to maintain.

Where I think libertarians miss the boat is that they assume that a crass society of self-interested individuals who practice their liberty without responsibility (or the bear minimum responsiblity demanded by libertarian principles -- property rights and restrictions on attacks) is sustainable. I don't think it is because ultimately most people don't enjoy abstract liberty but the fruits of that liberty. And if the fruits of that liberty are a crass and unpleasant society, they won't enjoy it. In fact, they will treat it as a liability.

In fact, people frequently sacrifice liberty for benefits they value more. Civilization, itself, is a sacrifice of liberty for security. We give up our ability to do whatever we want to live peacefully with others for protection and prosperity. Civilization requires consideration for the reasonable wants and needs of others. And it's not unreasonable for parents to not want their children to be sexualized by pornography nor victimized as adults by the pornography industry.

Once the government comes for the drug addicts, the gun owners, the adulterers, the gays, the porno watchers, the speeders, the people who don't go to church, the people who swear, who the hell is going to be left when they make up some crazy law that makes you a criminal?

Do you think the government should ban child pornography and adults having sex with children? If so, why isn't that on your slippery slope? Humans are smarter than you are giving them credit for and are quite able to draw distinctions and reasonable lines between two things that are different.

Plus who do you think is going to win if you turn america into a dictatorship of the mob, 70% of america doesn't go to church.

Lately, I haven't been going to church. So what? Whether we explicity recognize majority rule or pretend that it's restricted, you really can't stop the mob if it wants to do something badly enough. That's why it makes sense to respond to the wants and needs of the mob so that the mob doesn't deside to toss the whole thing out and start over. Contrary to our experience with the American revolution, such experiments in starting over often go quite badly.

124 posted on 04/01/2006 10:17:29 PM PST by Question_Assumptions
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
Now? Living color, live action, and potentially in every home. "Adult" stores everywhere you turn. Society is saturated with it, and stuff that is now on regular TV is rife with highly charged sexual content.

Odd then that sexual assault rates are down substantially over the past few decades.

125 posted on 04/01/2006 10:20:23 PM PST by ThinkDifferent (Chloe rocks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: Lurker

You hate the Roman Catholic Church and love porn.


Well, doesn't that just figure.


126 posted on 04/01/2006 10:21:36 PM PST by Petronski (I love Cyborg!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Scotswife
I think victims of rape, kidnapping, and murder would agree with you. Those who were brutalized by people who warped their minds with porn, and then went out to act out their fantasies. With that thought let's remember Danielle VanDamme - kidnapped, raped, and murdered by her seemingly "normal" neighbor, David Westerfield -whose mind was twisted by his fascination with porn.

If only we could go back to the good old days, when there were no "rapes, kidnapping, or murder" since there wasn't any porn!

People like Westerfield and Bundy would have carried out their heinous crimes, even without their exposure to porn. Can I prove it? No, but then you have no causal evidence either: And Bundy making an execution eve interview blaming his crims on porn don't count.

Mark

127 posted on 04/01/2006 10:28:06 PM PST by MarkL (When Kaylee says "No power in the `verse can stop me," it's cute. When River says it, it's scary!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: ThinkDifferent
Odd then that sexual assault rates are down substantially over the past few decades.

The problem with sexual assault statistics is that some percentage of sexual assults is never reported, thus a reduction in the rate could be real or could be a change in the percent that are reported. Of course it's also entirely possible that easy access to pornography allows men who might otherwise attack and rape a non-violent outlet for their sexual urges. I'm not saying your point is wrong. I'm saying that it's not a slam-dunk statistic.

128 posted on 04/01/2006 10:28:45 PM PST by Question_Assumptions
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: Question_Assumptions
Do you think it's OK for a woman to be paid to be sexually tortured with needles, nails, fire, electricity, suffocation, and whips to the point of getting welts and bleeding? How about being paid to have sex with animals? If you don't, then you don't support the pornography that's already out there and isn't being prosecuted thanks to the Clinton Administration.

What adult channels does your cable system carry?!?! I'd get the heck out of that town, right away!

Mark

129 posted on 04/01/2006 10:29:49 PM PST by MarkL (When Kaylee says "No power in the `verse can stop me," it's cute. When River says it, it's scary!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: RHINO369

http://www.porn-free.org/masturbation_intro.htm


130 posted on 04/01/2006 10:34:52 PM PST by balch3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Scotswife
It is not as big a leap for a viewer of child porn to think "I want to have sex with a child"

Just a note: Child porn is already a crime. Just thought you might like to know.

Mark

131 posted on 04/01/2006 10:35:02 PM PST by MarkL (When Kaylee says "No power in the `verse can stop me," it's cute. When River says it, it's scary!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
Most prostitutes are drug addicts and sell themselves to support their very expensive habit.

To the former agreed. So, in other words drug-addicted women, instead of getting money for drugs through prostitution, would get it through money the government took from taxpayers. I love how every solution, means more money from taxpayers. I agree that legalizing drugs would cost the taxpayers big time, but I'm not sure it would end prostitution.

Interestingly enough, in NV, in the counties where prostitution IS legal, the prostitutes employed by legal brothels are NOT drug addicted. I don't believe that any of the brothel owners would take a chance on losing their license in that heavily regulated business, given the amount of money it generates.

It's only where prostitution is illegal, that there seems to be a link between prostitution and drug abuse.

Mark

132 posted on 04/01/2006 10:38:20 PM PST by MarkL (When Kaylee says "No power in the `verse can stop me," it's cute. When River says it, it's scary!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: narses
Liberaltarians out in full force. They don't want to see the truth of what pornography does. For a variety of reasons. I know a boy who got ahold of his father's porn somehow or other, and got it on with another boy who may also have seen sexual content. These were 4 and 5 yr old boys. These are seriously screwed up kids now. If anyone thinks that children or adolescents can see hardcore porn and not be harmed by it, such a person has no moral principles. Such people also think that one night stands, sex without marriage and commitment are harmless. When families are destroyed, which they are by adultery, pornography, pre-and extra marital sex, then gradually the entire society goes to hell. Kids are aborted, or if they manage to run the gauntlet and get born, often turn into adults that also cannot commit to marriage. What to speak of the stepfather/boyfriend molestation rates. Saying that if you don't like porn don't watch it is like saying you can live in the middle of a garbage dump and keep your house clean with no flies or rats. The atmosphere of sexual debauchery permeates our culture and there is no evading it. Kids are affected. Even if you turn your own TV off, throw it away, get a filter on the computer - their friends' families don't, the other kids at school don't, and so on. Sex divorced from marriage is destructive, that's its nature. It's like fire - which can cook food and warm the house, or burn down buildings and cause pain and death. Sex is one of the most powerful bodily and mental urges, and when in the confines of marital commitment, creates families of children and bonds husband and wife. When used outside of marriage commitment, it creates unwanted children, aborted children, heartbreaks, hardness of heart, and exploitation. Anyone who disagrees with me is a fool.

Hard to argue, well said!

Boy, change the word "porn" to "handgun," and you've got a Sara Brady advertisement for the banning of handguns... How many children and families could be saved by banning handguns, huh?

Mark

133 posted on 04/01/2006 10:42:21 PM PST by MarkL (When Kaylee says "No power in the `verse can stop me," it's cute. When River says it, it's scary!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Question_Assumptions
The problem with sexual assault statistics is that some percentage of sexual assults is never reported, thus a reduction in the rate could be real or could be a change in the percent that are reported.

Valid point. I would guess that sexual assaults would be more frequently reported today given the increased attention in the media, but I have no proof of that.

Of course it's also entirely possible that easy access to pornography allows men who might otherwise attack and rape a non-violent outlet for their sexual urges.

That seems likely to me, the same way that video games may act as an outlet for potentially violent kids and young adults. (Violent crime of all types is down over the last 20 years, but again that's hardly proof).

I'm not saying your point is wrong. I'm saying that it's not a slam-dunk statistic.

Quite true.

134 posted on 04/01/2006 10:50:00 PM PST by ThinkDifferent (Chloe rocks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: Question_Assumptions
That's the dream "free society" that libertarians want to live in. It bears little resemblance, as libertarians will freely point out when pressed, to the society we actually live in. Try telling the police officer, the next time he pulls you over doing 100 in a 55 zone that your actions don't directly infringe on anyone's rights and that he has no business telling you what you can do.

You build a private road, on your own private property, and you can go as fast as you like, for as long as you like. Good examples of that is KCIR (Kansas City International Raceway), a drag strip that's in suburban Kansas City, or Heartland Park, a race track in Topeka, KS. I've taken my bike to Heartland Park for track days, riding it on the city streets and interstates, and I followed the laws required to ride the bike on public roads. However, once on the track, I had to follow track rules, which included things that made my bike illegal to ride on the street (like covering or deactiving all the lights and turn signals, and removing the mirrors). I was then free to ride as fast as I like, in fact, I was timed at over 127MPH on the straight there. And that was OK.

And I've got friends who've driven their cars to KCIR, and once on the track, managed speeds well in excess of the 45MPH speed limit of Noland Road in Kansas City, which is the street you need to drive down to get to KCIR.

Mark

135 posted on 04/01/2006 10:52:08 PM PST by MarkL (When Kaylee says "No power in the `verse can stop me," it's cute. When River says it, it's scary!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Celtjew Libertarian
Which leads me to be suspicious of the whole WOD.

Because it takes a whole lot more time and effort to "grow a beer" or a fifth of whiskey than a plant. And you can't tax people on what they can grow at home, if you don't know they're growing it.

Mark

136 posted on 04/01/2006 10:56:14 PM PST by MarkL (When Kaylee says "No power in the `verse can stop me," it's cute. When River says it, it's scary!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: RHINO369
I'm far from a socialist my friend. I only assume we'd tax the hell out of it, just like we do to cigs, and beer.

Social engineering through taxation IS a socialist concept. Whether it be a "progressive" tax, or increasing taxes on "bad" things, like junk food, guns, or ammunition - Remember that 500% tax on bullets that Kenedy wanted to have passed?

Mark

137 posted on 04/01/2006 10:59:52 PM PST by MarkL (When Kaylee says "No power in the `verse can stop me," it's cute. When River says it, it's scary!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Ban Draoi Marbh Draoi
Years ago, I read that vice cops who been out on the streets a long time will you that anytime they bust a sex offender, they will find reams of porn in his house and that the crimes he committed were inspired by his porn collection.

I'll bet if they looked a little deeper, they'd also find that the sex offenders also ate an awful lot of junk food. And I'll bet that if you checked out Skilling's and Lay's homes, they both had LOTS of expensive stuff. I guess having all that expensive stuff caused them to commit all that fraud, huh?

Let's say it all together... Corellation is not the same as Causation! In fact, you could turn it around... I'll bet Skilling and Lay didn't have as much expensive stuff UNTIL they began their fraud. I wonder if it was the "sickness" within the sexual offenders that drive them to porn, and that not being satisfying enough, they moved on to "real people." After all, if there wasn't any porn 100 years ago, there must not have been any people doing the same things as todays "sexual offenders," right?

Mark

138 posted on 04/01/2006 11:07:19 PM PST by MarkL (When Kaylee says "No power in the `verse can stop me," it's cute. When River says it, it's scary!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: Panerai
This looks like it may be useful. Perhaps it should be posted on all porn threads from now on, just so we don't have a hundred posts going around all the usual points that I've outlined below.

How to Argue Against Pornography

1. Remember that correlation = causation, even if it's an untested correlation! Did some psycho killer have boxes full of latex fetish porn? Then clearly, pornography causes otherwise harmless people to become psycho murderers. Remember, anything connected to a crime caused that crime.

2. Use anecdotal evidence, the more perverse, the better. Do you have a friend/relative/religious figure whose life went out of control as he bought pornography? Share it with us! We won't judge you for hanging out with perverts or failing to get your friends the help they need; we'll take you at your word that the presence of pornography drove these otherwise-rational men (or women) into self-destruction. If your story is especially kinky, it'll be more striking to the reader, which is the standard of proof.

3. Set up demonic straw men. Even though no one is discussing things like child pornography or bestiality, which are already illegal, doesn't mean you can't! With some clever wordplay, you can make it look like the college student with a dog-eared copy of Playboy in his bathroom is, in fact, a latent pedophile.

4. Get the weirdies! Did you know that some people derive pleasure from bondage, domination, baby roleplay, same sex relationships, fursuits, Slip-N-Slides, and Catholic school girl uniforms? Did you know that these people make pornography with consenting adults? Gross! Find the weirdest fetish you can and make a big deal about it; everyone else will be so grossed out by your find that they'll quickly agree with you that all pornography is evil.

5. Get the libertarians! You just know that everyone who advocates pornography is a pot-smoking, open-borders, sexually promiscuous, pacifist, atheist, libertarian, right? When you bring that up, you're sure to shut them down. If that doesn't work, just snidely ask them about their own porn collection, and they'll slink away.

6. Get the non-parents! All of this is being done for the chillrun. If someone doesn't have chillrun, how can they have a say in this issue at all? (If they do have chillrun, they are probably bad parents, or their chile is a statistical anomaly.)

139 posted on 04/01/2006 11:12:12 PM PST by Caesar Soze
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MarkL

I don't want to tax it, only that it will be taxed. Plus it will still be taxed as all products are, in Cook County IL thats 9%.


140 posted on 04/01/2006 11:12:30 PM PST by RHINO369
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: Panerai

Enjoy these flash in the pan thrill at your own peril, each episode is a vote towards your eternal resident!


141 posted on 04/01/2006 11:14:32 PM PST by restornu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Panerai
I admit it...I'm addicted to carpron

Carpron

142 posted on 04/01/2006 11:24:04 PM PST by wallcrawlr (http://www.bionicear.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Caesar Soze
post # 139 is absolutely brilliant, it pretty much summarizes the whole anti-porn discussion here, done with humor. Great observation.
143 posted on 04/01/2006 11:27:08 PM PST by Panerai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: restornu

"Enjoy these flash in the pan thrill at your own peril, each episode is a vote towards your eternal resident!" - Huh ???? WTF are you smoking tonight?


144 posted on 04/01/2006 11:28:23 PM PST by Panerai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: Panerai

Bump to see where this goes. I'm fading.


145 posted on 04/01/2006 11:31:57 PM PST by JimRed ("Hey, hey, Teddy K., how many girls did you drown today?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MarkL
Not cable system. Internet. And like I said, my wife ran into someone printing bestiality pictures out on the lab printer when we were in college years ago. Other Freepers have also discussed this sort of pornography in other discussions of this topic.
146 posted on 04/01/2006 11:42:24 PM PST by Question_Assumptions
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: MarkL
You build a private road, on your own private property, and you can go as fast as you like, for as long as you like.

And I can name plenty of other things you can't do in the privacy of your own property, including paying for sex and doing drugs. I know many libertarians argue that those things should be legal. But my point is that we don't live in the society run by libertarian rules.

147 posted on 04/01/2006 11:45:18 PM PST by Question_Assumptions
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: Panerai

no disrespect but if you are a non believer than what I say has no weight in your mind!

there is no need to prove how macho you can get with your bad words!


148 posted on 04/01/2006 11:52:31 PM PST by restornu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: Celtjew Libertarian; Question_Assumptions
Porn is about defilement of what is innocent. This is why it is so dangerous. It turns women into whores and men into whore-mongers -- and tries to turn children into the same while making pedophiles of men. It is a perversion of what is meant to be good, and sacred and loving. The secret of porn is that it is abusing the person partaking of it himself -- and he doesn't know it's changing him. Ted Bundy David Westerfield, the list is endless as to the victims of porn.

Torturing someone for their faith in God, CeltJew, is quite a different story from torturing someone for sexual gratification. Again, it is a defilement of both persons.
149 posted on 04/02/2006 12:07:13 AM PST by Californiajones ("The apprehension of beauty is the cure for apathy" - Thomas Aquinas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Panerai

Fat chicks and bearded guys with ponytails hate porn.


150 posted on 04/02/2006 12:12:05 AM PST by MonroeDNA (Look for the union label--on the bat crashing through your windshield!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 301-305 next last

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.

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