Posted on 08/22/2006 12:04:00 PM PDT by King of Florida
This thread is about hotel porn, not child porn. There is a big difference.
You all seem pretty familiar with the whole scene.
Is that some sort of veiled attack? Actually, the reason I know motels don't show child porn because I'm not a fricken moron.
As a frequent business traveler, I can safely say that if you have enough energy for extended television watching at the end of the day then your business trip is a failure.
I never bought into the whole slippery slope thing...
p.s.
To sidetrack the debate -- I don't have cable television at home, but do watch some in the mornings in hotel rooms. The old guy who comes on CNN and takes calls in regarsd to current events seems to be the most rational person on television.
Does anyone else watch this show?
"Further. Heavy arms have always been illegal to the individual. I.E. The constitution does not protect anyones right to own a Bazooka, an operational tank, a scud missile, etc."
WRONG on all counts. If you want proof, read the section of the Constitution which grants Congress the authority to grant "Letters of Marque and Reprisal.' These were granted to PRIVATE OWNERS OF ARMED VESSELS. Also, many of the Cannons used at the beginnings of the Revolution were owned, if not in every case by individuals, by private militias. Crew-served weapons have been privately owned since the founding of the country and some even are, to this day... though, shamefully, it is done with the "permission" of gubmint, even though, Constitutionally, none such would be needed.
ALSO, I take strong exception to your second paragraph and the falsehoods it contains. One DOES have the right, unless on private property, where speech is at the will of the owner, to falsely yell "fire." HOWEVER, that person is then ALSO free to suffer the consequences of his actions, should injury or death ensue.
No "COmmunity" has any more "right" to ban or restrict private behaviours which do not include involuntary or coerced participation by others than you have the "right" to compel your neighbor to eat broccoli, just because you think it might be good for him or to force him to NOT eat cake and ice cream because he might get fat or have bad teeth.
Moral absolutes/decencey BUMP
"In case you missed it, it is part of our government "by the people" that allows people to oppose whatever they wish. It is also part of our government that those opposed to such new laws also have a voice. It is also part of our government to have a open press (FR) to get the word out there. It is also part of our government that the majority rules. It is also part of our government that laws can and should be judged against the Constitution.
All that is going on is part of a democratic republic..."
In case you hadn't noticed, we were handed a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC which outlined in the Founding Documents the very STRICT LIMITS on governmental authority. If you ALSO read the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers and the writings of the Founders, I believe you will come to the conclusion that they meant the government, particularly the Federal or Central government, to exercise no more authority than an individual might properly exercise over his own domain and property. They NEVER intended that government ever have the sort of power that you are so willing to hand it... and with good reason: they had just gotten through a WAR against a Colonial Power that had attempted to control them not even a tenth as much as what certain disgusting excuses for humanity want the government to do to us today.
Government by "the People" ONLY means that the people grant certain authorities to government to act in our name and on our behalf... BUT WE CANNOT GIVE GOVERNMENT ANY AUTHORITY TO ACT THAT WE DO NOT, OURSELVES, POSSESS. We cannot ever, legitimately, give to anyone, including government, that which is not ours to give. Just as I cannot come to your house and use force to get you to eat your broccoli or to NOT eat that cake and ice cream, I CANNOT LEGITIMATELY GET THE GOVERNMENT TO DO IT FOR ME. Got it?
Do you tell everyone every time you have sex with your husband? Do you tell everyone every time you have you have a pap smear?
There is a such thing as privacy. Wanting something to remain private isn't the same thing as it being a bad thing.
Do you shut the stall door when you use the restroom? Why? Are you ashamed?
Prove that.
I think if you check the letters of Marque and the history surrounding them. They authorized use on open waters as an official act despite being a private party. I may well be proven wrong on this point but I don't think that they were operating in Territorial waters.
FURTHER, the very fact that they needed the letter of indicated that that to the founding fathers and the constitution that their were limits to the amount of ordinance any private party could own/deploy.
I mean have a freaking arsenal of Assault rifles if you like. I enjoy what we keep on hand too. But would anyone really think someone has a right to a nuclear weapon?
So some may say that that is the only limit. But whether there or somewhere else, it does go to show that there are limits.
Freedom of speech has nothing to do with pornography. Freedom of speech is what we practice here and what we practice when we promote the ideas here (or on the DA DU).
Again, if you had polled the founding fathers and showed them the stuff that is trying to be held out there as "freedom of speech", you would get a resounding 99.99 percent "NO!!!". (If you survived the poll without getting shot.)
I probably expressed that pretty poorly but you may not agree with the following anymore.
While private individuals may have owned heavy arms, such ownership absolutely was not unrestricted.
The very "Letters of Marque and Repisal" you show are perfect example of the fact of that.
However, these letters were about behaviour and not ownership nor possession of any weapon. They COULD go up against enemey vessels with anything they wanted or otherwise had legally (even to the out and out use of SPITBALLS, though such an escalation might have seemed extreme). They allowed private individuals to perform acts of "Reprisal" against merchant ships flying the designated country's flags.
American merchant ships to this day carry some pretty heavy weapons. But beyond the personal arms, the heavy arms are licensed and "permitted". As it has always been (formally or informally.)
Man. Any time someone from the right comes up with a stupid idea, the AP is right there to tar and feather all conservatives in the headline. And this ranks up there with the stupidest.
I understand this. Yet I believe I may still try to re-direct a conversation from "people can get porn if they want to" to "shouldn't we all avoid doing things that we are ashamed of doing?"
After all, if we have to be perfect to provide spiritual guidance then where would the Pastors come from?
Shalom.
It has not always been that way. Itt is a right which wasn't vioated until the later half of the 20th century.
Shalom.
Of course. And even the most simplistic among us will reocgnize the difference between a desire for privacy and a sense of shame.
I have sex with my wife. While I don't announce it each morning I am not ashamed of the fact. My children are testimony to the truth of this.
I once had a co-worker who announced his plans to go home for a "nooner" with his wife, since the time when the children were at school was the only time when the two of them felt truly free. He acted like he was getting ready for his marriage. The office took it well, with a modest amount of good-natured ribbing which he enjoyed. While I am more private than he, there was no shame involved because there was nothing to be ashamed of.
I have never heard anyone say they were planning to spend quality time with Rosie Palm and a porn movie. If you are arguing that nobody should feel ashamed of such plans, that is one argument. If you are arguing that the shame should not stop them, I would disagree with you.
A sense of shame is a good thing. Allowing it to dictate our actions is also a good thing.
Shalom.
I understand where you are coming from but you missed my point. Not everyone is ashamed of watching porn. Not all porn "actors" are ashamed of thier profession. Not even all pedophiles are ashamed of thier predations. In some cases on this forum you are casting your pearls before swine. Now I'm not turning around to trample you underfoot, don't misunderstand me. What I'm saying is watch the tone, your words at times are full of salt and seasoned with grace and that only hardens hearts.
I was actually looking for anyone to advance this argument, but so far no one has. I am actually a little surprised. The argument seems to be that there is no problem with people keeping the things they are ashamed of private.
That response really surprises me.
Shalom.
You are wrong. No one was permitted to just have whatever ordinance they wanted.
Long rifles and handguns and other personal firearms are protected. The argument has always been how big of a weapon is protected at the "unabridged" level.
From what I understand (and I am not ANY sort of expert on firearms) up to a 20millimeter is the personal thresh hold accepted in practice (I say practice because I am sure there are plenty of cases arguing it either way.)
I don't have one of these, but I want one. From what I understand they usually are fabricated with about a 6' barrel and can be fired "accurately" over 5 miles.
I want a couple of em. actually!
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.