Predators & Pornography. A disturbing link.

NRO ^ | May 19, 2005, 8:15 a.m. | By Penny Nance

[laredo44]

Whoever defined liberty as the right to do whatever you please?

The pro-porn, prostitution, and drug crowd.

How so? Do prostitutes argue that because they have sex for money they are also permitted to murder their johns -- or do anything else? Or do hookers simply assert that murder should be permitted for everyone?

I be a lot more convinced of the sincerity of your position if I heard you arguing that because of what it does to people like Eric Rudolph, the Islamic Jihadists (and the Crusaders), religion should be banned.

[Modernman]

"Liberty" isn't about the freedom to do evil.

Sure it is, so long as your evil does not harm another. That's the downside of liberty- sometimes people are going to engage in pursuits you might consider evil. However, unless that evil harms other people, you and the government have no power to ban such activity.

[Modernman]

We do not need to justify our choices.

I agree wholeheartedly. Unless someone's actions harm another, the government has no power to ban such actions.

Nobody needs to justify owning a gun. However, if you commit crimes with that gun, the government can punish you and limit your right to own firearms. Similarly, nobody needs to justify the ownership of pornography. However, if your use of the pornography leads to you violating the law, the government can punish you and limit your access to pornography.

[xsrdx]

This information is sufficient to answer your sophistries.

Oh, hey, thanks for the enlightenment, your eminence.

Lust is not at issue, which should be obvious, had you taken the time to read my post, rather than dismiss it as sophistry.

It must be possible to have marital sex without lust, otherwise any sex would be "inordinate craving" by your definition. So, is videotaped, lust-free sex, still porn?

Looking forward to your patronizing response.

[laredo44]

Whoever defined liberty as the right to do whatever you please?

The pro-porn, prostitution, and drug crowd.

How so? Do prostitutes argue that because they have sex for money they are also permitted to murder their johns -- or do anything else? Or do hookers simply assert that murder should be permitted for everyone?

I be a lot more convinced of the sincerity of your position if I heard you arguing that because of what it does to people like Eric Rudolph, the Islamic Jihadists (and the Crusaders), religion should be banned.

[xsrdx]

Lust is "the inordinate craving for, or indulgence of, the carnal pleasure which is experienced in the human organs of generation," and can occur even within marriage, when a spouse is considered simply as a means of gratifying one's sexual impulses. This contradicts the purpose of the marital act, which is two-fold: the unity of the couple and procreation.

Sanctimonious posturing aside, you've done a noteworthy job painting yourself into the "sex is dirty" corner.

[Antoninus]

As for the bit about living under tyrany for the first 180, years, I wouldn't have chosen those words. But...I would say enthusiastically that we've improved as we went along. The first 80 or so of those years were marked by slavery, which is surely a form of tyrany. The next 60 or so were marked by the exclusion of women from political life....so please, spare me the "we were perfect from the beginning" speech. We weren't.

The preceeding was brought to you by a grant from Liberal Intellect Education Systems, (LIES) Inc. We've been brainwashing Americans for nearly 40 years now into thinking that the "rights" to view porn, get abortions, marry another man or men, etc. are simply extensions of emancipation, women's sufferage, and civil rights.

I'm amazed at how many of you have swallowed the 1960s ethos hook-line-and-sinker.

[Aquinasfan]

How so? Do prostitutes argue that because they have sex for money they are also permitted to murder their johns -- or do anything else? Or do hookers simply assert that murder should be permitted for everyone?

No, but they engage in prostitution, which is evil.

I be a lot more convinced of the sincerity of your position if I heard you arguing that because of what it does to people like Eric Rudolph, the Islamic Jihadists (and the Crusaders), religion should be banned.

I'm not a religious freedom absolutist. The purpose of government is to promote the common good. At times, this may entail the suppression of particular religions or religious practices.

For example, it would be wise for our nation, and most European nations, to restrict or prohibit Mohammedan immigration, for the overall good of society. Libertarians can't justify taking such a position, and would slit their own throats by allowing a Mohammedan takeover by immigration.

[JeffAtlanta]

Libertarians can't justify taking such a position, and would slit their own throats by allowing a Mohammedan takeover by immigration.

Small "l" libertarians would have no problem with that.

[Aquinasfan]

Sure it is, so long as your evil does not harm another.

There's no such thing as personal sin. But regardless, I say otherwise. And here we stand, because it's all just people with different opinions.

[Aquinasfan]

Lust is not at issue, which should be obvious, had you taken the time to read my post, rather than dismiss it as sophistry.

Then what's your point?

It must be possible to have marital sex without lust, otherwise any sex would be "inordinate craving" by your definition.

Look up "inordinate."

So, is videotaped, lust-free sex, still porn?

Looking forward to your patronizing response.

You asked for it. This is sophistical and not worthy of a response. I don't see any interest in your part in finding the truth. I gave you the principles. Apply them. Or don't. Your choice.

[Aquinasfan]

Sanctimonious posturing aside, you've done a noteworthy job painting yourself into the "sex is dirty" corner.

Any arguments in support of your position?

[Antoninus]

Huh? Ask your husband if he has ever masturbated. Ask your priest too. Any guy that says that he hasn't is either lying or never went through puberty. You are basically saying that 99.9999% of the male population has had a homosexual experience.

I am a man. Homosexuality and autosexuality are both dysfunctional and damaging. Society stopped teaching that sometime around the 1960s, so we have statistics similar to but not as bad as the one you created above. The difference between us is that you think such activities are perfectly fine and healthy and I think they are gross, pointless, and emotionally damaging.

BTW, when I was in high-school (an all-boys school) in the 1980s, we had one kid who admitted that he masturbated--he was encouraged by one of our "theology" professors who said he thought masturbation was "beautiful." From that moment on, both the student and the teacher were utterly ostricized. I reckon that still happens among most boys.

This kind of thinking will never be in power as people would rather live under a socialist government than a theocracy.

You've created a false dichotomy, but whatever. Speak for yourself.

The only thing that keeps people voting for the democrats is their fear of the theocons. Remove the theocons from the GOP and democratic party dies.

Wrong. Hate to tell you this, but without religious conservatives, the GOP would be like the Conservative Party in the UK--worse, actually, because they'd have a working base of about 15% of the electorate. If what you said were true, the Libertarian party would be able to pull more than their perennial 1.6% of the vote.

[Antoninus]

Many things that were considered constitutional in the past would not be today through either amendments and SCOTUS decisions.

So you've got no problem with rule by judicial fiat then, right? Why bother with elections at all in that case?

[Antoninus]

When you do the same with your tyranny.

See cyborg? If you take away their porn, you are a tyrant. After all, the ability to view porn is the greatest of our freedoms.

How many here would willingly die in defense of your "right" to view pornography?

[JeffAtlanta]

So you've got no problem with rule by judicial fiat then, right?

Sometimes legislators pass laws that are unconstitutional. Sometimes the courts get it wrong - the Campaign Finance Reform law is one the courts should have caught but didn't.

If a state government passes a law that legalizes slavery, do you think that it should go unchallenged?

[JeffAtlanta]

After all, the ability to view porn is the greatest of our freedoms.

No, it is part of being a free people.

[Aquinasfan]

Small "l" libertarians would have no problem with that.

With particular restrictions against Mohammedan immigration? On what basis?

[Modernman]

For example, it would be wise for our nation, and most European nations, to restrict or prohibit Mohammedan immigration, for the overall good of society. Libertarians can't justify taking such a position

The Libertarian party doesn't hold that position, but most libertarians don't belong to that party.

It is not inconsistent with libertarian ideology to support controlling America's borders.

[Liberal Classic]

The sooner the libertarians are banned from FR the better.