Supreme Court Blocks Anti-Porn Law

[Booms]

Linky (http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/29/scotus.web.indecency/index.html)

I thought this is an interesting discussion topic.

IMO the Supreme Court did the right thing, but I find it somewhat unnerving that the vote was only 5-4 to block the "Child Online Protection Act."

If kids want to see naked women (or men), they're going to find away. Trying to block people from seeing it is just a bad idea. Its always confused that how in our country sex is more of a taboo than gore and violence.

There is only one site that I think should have to change its address. I'm pretty sure we're not supposed to put links on the board, but I'm pretty sure just about everyone innocent child stumbles across this when looking for information about the government.

But its always nice to know that the Bush administration is looking out for me by taking the freedom of speech away from other people :).

[Essex]

actually i think you are thinking of whitehouse. com don't type this in kiddies cause i'm not sure, but I'm almost postive he sold that domaine to the government it was too much of a hassle.

i'm all for more porn, its the only thing keeping me sane while chin is in Tiawan.

[Havard]

There are no vending machines that sell porn, because vending machines can't check ages. There's nothing wrong with trying to enforce something akin to that on the internet. Your rights are barely infringed by having more accurate age checks... when you go to bars you can wait for ID checks, sometimes places even swipe your ID through a scanner or look at it under a special light to test validity, and no one complains there. I think protecting the innocence of children is definitely a compelling state interest, and the "abridgment of free speech" argument is a joke.

[Essex]

is there anyone here who didn't look at porn when they were younger? I'm just curious? The internet is your fathers stash of playboys now... granted its larger and has a lot wierder **** but its the same.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

lol.. What i find shocking is that someone would believe the child porn clause got blocked by only one vote. Eventually, it will be allowed, as the same kind of "reasoning" that legalized porn and other licentiousness to begin with will eventually legalize child porn for the same reason. When a culture is climatized to vice, even the abhorrent seems acceptable in time. Heaven forbid, we deny "some people" their pleasures :uhhuh:

[Essex]

you have to have a lose defeintion beause "some people" could become "*** people" or any other single group. I'm not saying I advocate child porn, god no... but what is a child to one country isn't even a child to another so its very tough to govern a world wide entity like the internet.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

heh.. Essex, out of curiousity, why is adult porn ok, and child porn not ok? It amuses me see that people have these "value systems", but in the end, it's terribly arbitrary and problematic. Become philosophers, and discover the objective values.

[SaroDarksbane]

I always thought porn sites should be forced to have a .xxx domain. Would make filtering the net much easier, woudln't it?

[Semidi]

SoroDarksbane that's a very intresting.

It's a parents responsability not mr. goverment....

This is what I disagree with Bush; I want LESS goverment in everything.

[Essex]

heh.. Essex, out of curiousity, why is adult porn ok, and child porn not ok? It amuses me see that people have these "value systems", but in the end, it's terribly arbitrary and problematic. Become philosophers, and discover the objective values.
adults can usually choose, children are generally forced, i'm not for anyone being forced to do anything. Plus a child might not have the emotional maturity to realize what was going on.

[Havard]

I would agree Semidi, but not all children have parents, or at least parents that can afford to spend time watching their children. Unfortunately there are many single-parent families where a mom (or dad) has to work when their children are home, and these latch-key kids have no supervision.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Government however has the responsibility to set forth legislation that will affect the people in a positive manner. This includes guiding the behavior of the people through positive legislation, not moral decay. Thus, government is throught the system, be it large or small.

[Havard]

adults can usually choose, children are generally forced, i'm not for anyone being forced to do anything. Plus a child might not have the emotional maturity to realize what was going on.

While it is theoretically possible, any psychologist or psychiatrist will tell you that humans develop physical sexual maturity long before emotional sexual development is finished. Other factors do not make up for this, neither intelligence aptitude, nor sexual experiences. And living amongst sexual permissiveness (e.g. Holland) does not make one more mature, IMO.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

adults can usually choose, children are generally forced, i'm not for anyone being forced to do anything. Plus a child might not have the emotional maturity to realize what was going on.

You still didnt answer my question - why is it wrong? What is "going on" that is not acceptable to a child, yet is acceptable to an adult? People speak of "corruption of the youth", yet why endorse corruption in adults? Or does it suddenly change from "corruption" to "OK-ness" when one passes a prescribed legal age limit? Silly, unthinking masses...

[Booms]

How did blocking porn sites on the internet turn into a child porn discussion!?!?!

[Havard]

No one is talking about child porn... :scratch:

[Booms]

No one is talking about child porn... :scratch:

Umm....have you been reading the thread?

heh.. Essex, out of curiousity, why is adult porn ok, and child porn not ok?

adults can usually choose, children are generally forced, i'm not for anyone being forced to do anything. Plus a child might not have the emotional maturity to realize what was going on.

I dunno, maybe I'm wrong, but it sounds like those two are talking about child pornography (or is Essex talking about kids being forced to look at porn over the internet?)

[Booms]

actually i think you are thinking of whitehouse. com don't type this in kiddies cause i'm not sure, but I'm almost postive he sold that domaine to the government it was too much of a hassle.


Nope, I checked right before I posted (to make sure I was being accurate), and a page popped up that said something along the lines of "You must be 18 or older to view this site," and "Rated #1 adult site on the net."

[Havard]

Booms, the topic is still about why children should be protected from porn... your original post was about making it difficult for children to access porn, so the conversation really hasn't gone anywhere. So we're still all on the same page, child porn was just an example AoA had brought up, not a different topic. The point was that "if X is wrong here, why isn't it wrong there" kind of thing.

[Booms]

Yeah. I was just...surprised, (I suppose thats a good word to describe my reaction), that a topic such as that one managed to come up 5 posts into the thread.

Can we go back to the whole Ashcroft trying to censor the internet thing again?

[Essex]

sorry, its just that anytime someone mentions porn and legal issues there's not a lot of time before child porn is brought up.

AoA I would argue that it's ok for adults and not ok for kids based on the same reason that when you are 17 364 days old you can't smoke but on the next you can't. I'm not saying a 17, 16, hell even 15 year old can't make choices about sex. Most do in fact every day, and i'm sure that several would like to make a movie to make a quick buck or two.

But you need that cutoff as a point where, ok chances are most people above this age have little sense. Granted there's going to be some stupid 18 year olds and some very smart 17 year olds but its the average age of maturity.

I don't see how people can say there is something wrong with porn? What is wrong with it? If there wasn't such a taboo against it then there wouldn't be all the negatives involved, drug use, ect. I'm just talking about the stars here not the people who view it.

It's hard to explain because again I come out looking like some sort of bad guy when I say "sure let people sell themselves if they want to" but I think everyone should have that right. The difference between child and adult porn is simply a matter of maturity too me.

I want to hear all the reasons for all porn being bad though, I don't think I've ever heard it explained. However do not use religion as your arguing point because that doesn't apply to everyone. That's the one limitation I would impose.

Booms its not Rummy doing it is he? I'd figure he was far too busy failing horribly in the Iraq war to be busy with something like that. This has all the markings of Ashcroft, and the reason he wants to do it is because he thinks he's the countries moral compass or something.

Its not a matter of should kids be able to look at porn, because guess what they are going to, we should instead talk to kids about sex explain it too them so its not some mystery, the same way we should do with alcohol, cigs, and drugs because those are all things temping to children.

[Booms]

Booms its not Rummy doing it is he? I'd figure he was far too busy failing horribly in the Iraq war to be busy with something like that. This has all the markings of Ashcroft, and the reason he wants to do it is because he thinks he's the countries moral compass or something.

Oh, woops, you're right. Its Ashcroft. Sorry 'bout that.

[Havard]

Pornography is identified as the prurient, not the artistic depictions of the nude form and sex... neither a statement, nor "speech", in my opinion. In fact, porn is just the opposite. Besides being addictive and damaging for the user, it also destroys equality for people, particularly women and children in our society.

Catherine McKinnon, a feminist constitutional law professor, writes about how many are concerned with protecting the rights of individual who create pornography because it is their "right" in our democratic society. In fact, she explains how pornography limits the equality of the actors by continuously presenting actors (especially women) and their bodies as sexual objects, having the same kind of effect as propagandist material on ethnic groups.

[Booms]

Pornography is identified as the prurient, not the artistic depictions of the nude form and sex... neither a statement, nor "speech", in my opinion. In fact, porn is just the opposite. Besides being addictive and damaging for the user, it also destroys equality for people, particularly women and children in our society.

Catherine McKinnon, a feminist constitutional law professor, writes about how many are concerned with protecting the rights of individual who create pornography because it is their "right" in our democratic society. In fact, she explains how pornography limits the equality of the actors by continuously presenting actors (especially women) and their bodies as sexual objects, having the same kind of effect as propagandist material on ethnic groups.

But what about g.ay porn?

[Essex]

But what about g.ay porn?
yeah i must admit that I really am not all that update with straight porn.

[Havard]

Same thing... it depicts g ays as sex objects. Just because g ays are also the consumers doesn't mean that they can't be harmed by the material. The material still spreads an idea, which need not be the case. Seeing people in an objectified, subordinate position reinforces the idea that other g ays are tools for their self-gratification.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

AoA I would argue that it's ok for adults and not ok for kids based on the same reason that when you are 17 364 days old you can't smoke but on the next you can't. I'm not saying a 17, 16, hell even 15 year old can't make choices about sex. Most do in fact every day, and i'm sure that several would like to make a movie to make a quick buck or two.
But you need that cutoff as a point where, ok chances are most people above this age have little sense. Granted there's going to be some stupid 18 year olds and some very smart 17 year olds but its the average age of maturity.


So it's about choice? Therefore, moral "rights and wrongs" can be objectively discovered by means of one's ability to choose that thing. A child seeks after base desires just as any adult, only adults believe they're more in control of their actions. A person will ALWAYS be enslaved to something, regardless of age. Any choice a person makes will depend on the love-objects they regard. Choice in the terms you present is merely rationalisms.


I don't see how people can say there is something wrong with porn? What is wrong with it? If there wasn't such a taboo against it then there wouldn't be all the negatives involved, drug use, ect. I'm just talking about the stars here not the people who view it.


Ok, what's wrong with child porn then? If you judge a thing by arbitraty, dogmatic standards, than everything else must be as well. As such, all is beneficial. Yet, those who hold such a position blind themselves to the harms of a given activity, and conversely, to the benefits of its opposite activity.


It's hard to explain because again I come out looking like some sort of bad guy when I say "sure let people sell themselves if they want to" but I think everyone should have that right. The difference between child and adult porn is simply a matter of maturity too me.


This is fallacious by virtue of the above. Both are intrinsically disordered.


I want to hear all the reasons for all porn being bad though, I don't think I've ever heard it explained. However do not use religion as your arguing point because that doesn't apply to everyone. That's the one limitation I would impose.


If you would arbitrarily impose a limit on a discussion because you believe it to be an unworthy clause, than the subject matter need not be adressed whatsoever. I'll continue with this if and when you remove your subjective filters.

[Havard]

I think it is something that can be discussed without religion, particularly via the natural law.

Think of your sexual appetite as you do your appetite for eating. There is such a thing as a healthy appetite and an unhealthy appetite. It is healthy to eat food to nourish your body, and it is good to obtain pleasure from eating. However, when you overeat for self-gratification, you exceed the limits of what is needed to nourish and thus have an unhealthy appetite. Gluttons have a similar obsession with food that porn addicts have with porn. Rather than limiting sex to meaningful encounters, a porn addict turns sex into another method of self-gratification. With porn, the appetite for sex is out of control, and the person indulges themselves whenever he or she wishes. The physical damage is not present, but the psychological damage is. One's will becomes weaker and it becomes more prevalent to see sexual partners merely as objects of one's own gratification.

[Semidi]

You didn't have to take the God argument out.

The reason for many religius law are those you listed, but I understand alot of people hate the response "because God says so", but they never go into depth why God said no.

Also, limiting a debate to areas that you prefer is very bad manners.

[Graav Wolfsong]

I dont see anything wrong with porn.
I do think it is somewhat degrading to the actors and I dont really appreciate the hardcore freaky stuff. But the actors themselves obviously do not feel it is degrading. And I do find it interesting from time to time, but if I had a daughter that got into it I would lock her in the basement 'till she hits 60 and personally kill every porn guy I could find. So I am admittedly a hypocrit when it comes to porn.

But thats just it isnt it, with porn, or 'hollywood porn' if you will, youre dealing with grown men and women who choose to do this. If they want to do that, thats fine. Thats their right. Just as people have the right to watch it.
No one is making you watch it.

Other stuff like **** and child abuse is beside the point, it is already illegal. What this is, is someone trying to cencor regular porn because they think it is bad.

I really dont like the idea of someone trying to cencor the net. Especially not Americans with their incedibly uptight view on sex. We're talking about a nation that almost **** a brick when they saw a boob on the superbowl, it is not their place to dictate something that affects people internationally.
This is about culture, in some cultures youre ready to be married by the age of 13. It wasnt that far off in the US either not that long ago.
Do western culture have the right to impose its morals on other cultures through control of the internet?
The internet is not someones property, its international, is it right that some uptight rich white american out of the bible belt should be trying to cencor stuff for the whole world? Should I have a more difficult time getting a look at some hot nekkid chicks on the net because of some guys on the other side of the world? I think not.

So no, theres nothing wrong with porn.
And people who dont like porn trying to cencor it is just another case of one person pushing their opinions and morals on another. It is not their right to do so. If you dont like porn, dont watch it, if you like porn, knock yourself out.
People who watch porn obviously want to watch it, and the people that made it wanted to make it. I dont see how that is wrong.
So if kids get to see porn on the net it is because they wanted to see porn on the net. So parents can just tell their kids, dont watch porn.
And it doesnt take that much computer knowledge to block the net with a password when youre not at home if you dont want the kids to get on the net and watch porn.
Better yet, how about parents actually do some parenting and talk to their kids about sex and explain stuff so they dont get any ideas from watching porn.
Kids always get hold of porn somehow, dating back to the early days of dads or big brothers Playboy and later those movies hidden in the back of a drawer or in a closet somewhere.

Besides, its just sex. Sex is natural, nothing wrong with it. How that could be considered worse than violence is beyond me. Especially when youre at the twisted point where people consider a naked body porn. Wich americans obviously do. Hence the supebowl reaction. Its not porn if that naked body does not engage in sexual acts.

-- You could completely ban porn but it wont make society better or anything.
Here in Norway, display and sale of hardcore porn is against the law and punishable by fines and jailtime. Theres not an uncencored sex scene on sale or show anywhere in the country. So companies have gone online and sell their stuff of foreign based servers because the law cant do anything about that.
Gotta love the internet.
Norway is (at the moment) governed by the KRF party, or "Christian Peoples Party" in English. Hence the porn restrictions and all other crappy things about this country. I really hope the influence of those uptight religious nutcases never reaches the net.
No one has the right to cencor the net.

Strangely enough, prostitution is legal here. As long as it is not organized, so pimping is against the law. Kinda weird for a country that wont let stores sell hardcore sex tapes. --

[Havard]

You didn't have to take the God argument out.

The reason for many religius law are those you listed, but I understand alot of people hate the response "because God says so", but they never go into depth why God said no.

Also, limiting a debate to areas that you prefer is very bad manners.


I know I didn't have to, and it's not my preference either... I did it for Essex's and Booms' sake. I am certainly not in favor in limiting debates to atheistic assumptions. But while it may be a mistake to leave God out of this issue, I believe that Essex and Booms will look upon the natural law rationale as having more credibility than the theological reasoning. Besides, AoA is better at theology anyway, I'll let him handle that part, :thumbsup: .

*manner game* :uhhuh:

[AgeOfAbnegation]

I dont see anything wrong with porn.
I do think it is somewhat degrading to the actors and I dont really appreciate the hardcore freaky stuff. But the actors themselves obviously do not feel it is degrading.

And I do find it interesting from time to time, but if I had a daughter that got into it I would lock her in the basement 'till she hits 60 and personally kill every porn guy I could find. So I am admittedly a hypocrit when it comes to porn.

But thats just it isnt it, with porn, or 'hollywood porn' if you will, youre dealing with grown men and women who choose to do this. If they want to do that, thats fine. Thats their right. Just as people have the right to watch it.


So yes, you do see the wrong in it, and how it's degrading. The fault in your expressed view lies in the notion that nothing should be done to help these people - porn advocates (be they part of the industry or its viewers) out of their "degrading" position. THis outlook would be happy to allow others to pursue a life of decay, so long as they thought it to be right. If one perceives an objective moral wrong, and fails to help the perpetrator and/or warn them, that person perpetuates moral cowardice, and perpetuates further injustice. This is why legislation should be instituted, to prevent people from getting involved, and as such, prevent those involved from influencing others - which in your example - whould be a daughter you may have one day.

That's why the governance we have currently in the world (by and large) is a ticking timebomb, to be set off by our own human nature. This human nature, if left unchecked, will destroy itself without guidance. This is why we need Iron Rulership, as an aid. So, the best form of governance IMO would be a benevolent dictatorship, or at least an enlightened aristocracy - for our own benefit. However, as it seems at the moment, humanity will be learning this lesson the hard way.

[Booms]

Yay for Graav!

If you don't like porn, don't watch it. But I don't think anyone has the right to place their own "values" upon other people, especially an entire country.

Seriously, kids are going to be able to get porn no matter what. If Ashcroft somehow manages to censor the net then once again they'll be getting magazines. And seriously, just as Graav said, its just sex. Its completely natural. Its sorta funny how here in the US we let kids admire guns in magazines but scold them for looking at naked women. We don't care that Hollywood has romanticized violence, but sex is bad!

If you don't like porn because of your religion, thats fine and dandy. But I and most other people don't care about the values you've created for yourself by means of the Bible (or whatever you base your religion upon), and you don't have any right to impose your views upon society.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Yay for Graav!

If you don't like porn, don't watch it. But I don't think anyone has the right to place their own "values" upon other people, especially an entire country.
....you don't have any right to impose your views upon society.

By stating that argument, you merely deflated Graav's, and indeed your own. EVERYONE imposes morality - just a certain kind of morality. In this case, morality of liscense and vice is imposed on all people. As you pointed out, people will see it regardless, this being the result of legislation instituted that makes room for porn to influence society. Everyone pushes an issue - just like you, essex, and a few others who beg me not to bring "God" into a topic.
If I, or a government does not have the right to outlaw porn, than you or another government do not have the right to impose a morality of liscence that corrupts innocent people, a corruption that essex and graav openly admitted to. Children growing up in today's culture, unless they were raised in a sheltered environment, are forced to imbibe a culture with no sold values, which can be found by means of natural laws. THey are forced to imbibe the hurts that people's own vices cause them. They are forced to imbibe the atmosphere of a culture that embraces that kind of morality. It's not a matter of them "choosing to expose themselves or not", the cultural atmosphere has already accepted it, and to live in the world means you must interact with others. We all breathe the same air. Regardless of personal choice, the world WILL rub off on you. A type of view and morality is ALWAYS ENFORCED. So, this kind of argumentation about "imposing rights" is completely unspeculative. Sadly, even most proponents of good can't think well enough to see through this type of fallacy.

[Booms]

What you want is a world which imposes the Christian morality on its people. I don't want that. So what happens is that you can have your own happy Christian life with your own Christian values and Christian morals. But what about the people who don't follow your religion? Should they be forced to follow it?

If you don't want to watch porn, don't. If you don't want other people to view porn, go preach on the corner or something, but if they want to watch it you can't and shouldn't be able to stop them.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

What you want is a world which imposes the Christian morality on its people. I don't want that.


By now, you more than anyone should know that the value that eminates from me is one of investigation and honesty. If I were to force "christian morality" on others, it would be superimposed over their persons, so, as in your case, it the true message would not reach the core. So no, that was a foolish assumption on your part. What I do want however is for people to heed the demands of reason. This voice will give rise to a natural morality that does not need the term "christian" behind it.

You're repeating the same argument you voiced before. I thought I've dealt with that properly, why am I hearing it again? Competent philosophers, before they discuss politics, and even before they discuss morals, discuss the nature of things, which underpins both.

[Graav Wolfsong]

Fact is we live in a (relatively) free world. We have the freedom to be 'corrupted', and we have the freedom to be stupid.

I dont think exhibiting yourself doing the most intimate of things on video for all to see is respectable, I think it is degrading and dishonourable. (Mostly because of the whole "selling their bodies" aspect of porn.)
Wich is why I would never accept it if one of my children would get into it. I would be ashamed of them. And it would shame me.
Personally, I think pornstars are nothing but glorified prostitutes in that they do have sex for money. Its just prostitutes + camera crew. So if my daughter were to put a price on her body and sell it to whoever paid her, I would be angry and ashamed of her.
But if a stranger does it, its none of my business. Let them do it.

So I do not think highly of porn actors, but I would never meddle in their business and tell them not to do what they do unless it is someone close to me. Because it is none of my business what strangers choose to do. If they feel that porn is not degrading to them, let them do it. Its their choice. Its their life. It does not affect me or mine so I'd let it be.

I do not think porn corrupts anyone who sees it, it merely plays off peoples lust. Even if there was no porn, there would still be promiscuity, there would still be rapes and child molestations, there would still be prostitution. People would still like to get laid as much as possible and young'uns would like to get laid as early as possible.
All these things that happens supposedly because of a corruption of the morals of society that porn is partly responsible for has been happening since the dawn of mankind.

The urge to have alot of sex have nothing to do with pornography. And as far as the notion that porn enables you to be 'weak' and indulge yourself at any time: You hardly need a porn movie in order to masturbate all hours of the day.
Once again, dawn of mankind. :thumbsup:

The sight of two (or alot more) people having sex on video and pictures does not corrupt anyone. You might see someting interesting and think "Hey, I would like to try that", but you would probably get that idea sooner or later on your own.

And I dont mean to put you guys down or anything, but this probably will sound that way.
I dont really take to heart the opinions of people who consider fornication sinful when it comes to pornography.

Sex is not a dirty thing. (Tho' it could be if you want it to be. :wink2: :lol: )
Theres nothing wrong with sex as long as it is not forced on anyone. And no one is forcing anyone to watch porn. And no one is forcing anyone to make porn.

It all comes down to pushing your opinions and morals on others, wich I am guilty of also when I say its wrong to censor but it is hardly the same thing.
Youre basically saying "You cant do that, thats bad!"
While I'm just saying, let people do what they wish as long as they dont hurt others.

Life is ours, we live it our way.

[Booms]

Sex is not a dirty thing. (Tho' it could be if you want it to be. :wink2: :lol: )

:lol: That is the funniest smiley ever.

[Semidi]

Even if it did pass it's just a feel good deal so bushy could get the soccer mom vote. Hell it might still get passed if it get rewritten better.

[Booms]

I see what you are getting at by saying that a view or morality is always enforced.

But I see my morality as providing a choice. An individual has the chance to go to church; the individual does not have to type in www. randompornsite.com but they have the choice. Our society allows people to make decisions.

By censoring pornography the individual loses the ability to choose. Now they can't type in www. randompornsite.com. Of course, if they want to see naked women they'll probably find magazines or whatever, but the censorship does not truly help them, the "true message" does not "reach the core."

IMO, you shouldn't be able to prevent someone from going to a pornographic site. I believe that the individual should be allowed to make that choice themself. If you truly want to liberate the minds of the populace, the answer lies in education, not prevention.

[Havard]

Fact is we live in a (relatively) free world. We have the freedom to be 'corrupted', and we have the freedom to be stupid.

No argument there...

I think it is degrading and dishonourable. So if my daughter were to put a price on her body and sell it to whoever paid her, I would be angry and ashamed of her.

If that is true, do you not also believe that it is dishonorable to obtain pleasure from the degradation of others? Do you enjoy objectifying those who are weaker in will than yourself? Especially knowing that a high proportion of those in the porn industry are runaways and are possibly from dysfunctional and potentially abusive origins?

The urge to have alot of sex have nothing to do with pornography. And as far as the notion that porn enables you to be 'weak' and indulge yourself at any time: You hardly need a porn movie in order to masturbate all hours of the day.
Once again, dawn of mankind. :thumbsup:

Pornography is all about indulging your sexual appetite. Do you believe in indulging every urge that you have? I remember hearing that you are in great physical shape, so obviously you are disciplined and curb your desires to be lazy or gluttonous. How do you do that? I highly doubt that you enjoy materials that promote laziness or overeating. Why would materials that promote indulging other material desires be any different?

The sight of two (or alot more) people having sex on video and pictures does not corrupt anyone. You might see someting interesting and think "Hey, I would like to try that", but you would probably get that idea sooner or later on your own.

That is an oversimplification of corruption. The fact is, every action a human takes has an effect upon his or her psyche. Through cognitive dissonance (the unreasonable justification of prior choices taken) and the principle of association, viewing pornography affirms certain attitudes people can develop. Studies have shown that men who frequently view porn have different attitudes towards acceptible sexual behavior as well as sexual harassment. I wrote a paper on this issue dealing with feminism and pornography, and am in the process of looking for it to post my old sources.

Theres nothing wrong with sex as long as it is not forced on anyone.

Another oversimplification. There is much more to the issue than coercion. If your motivations are unhealthy, you cannot disassociate the effects your actions.

It all comes down to pushing your opinions and morals on others, wich I am guilty of also when I say its wrong to censor but it is hardly the same thing.
Youre basically saying "You cant do that, thats bad!"

I never heard anyone argue that porn should be illegal. We are saying that children should be protected from porn. If adults want to watch porn, that is their choice.

Life is ours, we live it our way.

All these words I don't just say.... and nothing else matters. :yep:

[Booms]

I realize these comments were for Graav, but I wanted to jump in on a few of them.

If that is true, do you not also believe that it is dishonorable to obtain pleasure from the degradation of others? Do you enjoy objectifying those who are weaker in will than yourself?

The pleasure doesn't stem from the fact that others are being degraded. When people are watching porn they aren't thinking, "wow, objectifying women turns me on."

Pornography is all about indulging your sexual appetite. Do you believe in indulging every urge that you have? I remember hearing that you are in great physical shape, so obviously you are disciplined and curb your desires to be lazy or gluttonous. How do you do that? I highly doubt that you enjoy materials that promote laziness or overeating. Why would materials that promote indulging other material desires be any different?

Reclining chairs promote laziness. McDonalds promotes overeating and gluttony. Are you saying that people shouldn't be allowed to sit in reclining chairs or eat McDonalds (although that does actually sound like a good idea. BAN FAST FOOD!)

I realize I didn't address everything, but I'm tired...and lazy. Maybe later.

[Essex]

i'm tired and lazy too and graav and boom are doing well on this and honestly I don't have good arguements because I don't really feel like getting into.

I'm sure AoA will say he has but I just wonder if he's viewed porn, because he made me sound pretty damn bad for admitting that I did. Yeah I watch porn but then again that's better than cheating on my boyfriend, and also better than me exploding lol.

I'm sure AoA will tell us about his wild and crazy youth and admit to it and then say something about philosphy and change his avatar to another shady picture of himself (while I try to find an avatar even more ridiculous... I need a good Master Shake one)

on that note I wish I knew the wild and crazy AoA just as a comparison lol :) joke joke

[Graav Wolfsong]

If that is true, do you not also believe that it is dishonorable to obtain pleasure from the degradation of others? Do you enjoy objectifying those who are weaker in will than yourself? Especially knowing that a high proportion of those in the porn industry are runaways and are possibly from dysfunctional and potentially abusive origins?

That depends completely on your view of what is degrading. I consider porn degrading because if put in that situation I would find it degrading.
Like I said before, many porn actors do not find what they do degrading at all.
You'll notice that I referred to 'Hollywood porn' as that is what I base my opinion on. That is a pretty professional business with about the same rate of drugs and stuff that normal actors have.

But we have all heard the horror stories about young naive women coming to LA in hopes of becoming an actor and end up addicted to drugs and exploited in porn. But then you find yourself on the dodgy side of the porn biz.
There should be placed more limits on 'professional' pornography production, it should be more 'clean' and supervised than it is.

I have issues with porn yes, but its not about the sex. Its about the nature of the porn business. What this discussion was about was people watching porn as in sex. Wich is not a problem for me. Sex in itself is not a bad thing.

Like I said, I am pretty hypocritical when it comes to porn. I enjoy it to a certain extent but at the same time I would not want me or mine involved in the business.



Pornography is all about indulging your sexual appetite. Do you believe in indulging every urge that you have? I remember hearing that you are in great physical shape, so obviously you are disciplined and curb your desires to be lazy or gluttonous. How do you do that? I highly doubt that you enjoy materials that promote laziness or overeating. Why would materials that promote indulging other material desires be any different?

Yes, but I would not want anyone to take the choice to eat what I want and be a lazy slob away from me. Nor would I expect everyone to live their life the way I do. I would never want to ban fast food and enforce mandatory exercise three times a week. In fact, I rather enjoy slacking on the couch while eating pizza. (Wich I've done quite alot these days during the Euro 2004 soccer championships) But I made the choice not to endulge myself to much.
Wich is what censorship of pornography takes away. It takes away the choice to watch or not watch porn and forces everyone to do what another group of people want them to do.



That is an oversimplification of corruption. The fact is, every action a human takes has an effect upon his or her psyche. Through cognitive dissonance (the unreasonable justification of prior choices taken) and the principle of association, viewing pornography affirms certain attitudes people can develop. Studies have shown that men who frequently view porn have different attitudes towards acceptible sexual behavior as well as sexual harassment. I wrote a paper on this issue dealing with feminism and pornography, and am in the process of looking for it to post my old sources.

I see your point, but you keep making people out to be a bunch of weak willed driveling animals unable to make their own choices, that automatically emulates everything they see, automatically accepts suggestions that comes their way. Wich is to horribly underestimate people in general. A sexist man doesnt become sexist because of porn, he becomes sexist because of his surroundings, wich does include porn but it is not the sole cause of such behaviour.

Wichever way you twist it, it comes down to peoples right to enjoy pornography. And they do have a right to do that and it should not be taken away.



I never heard anyone argue that porn should be illegal. We are saying that children should be protected from porn. If adults want to watch porn, that is their choice.

I agree to a certain extent. Massive amounts of pornography is naturally not good for a child. But it depends on age, 8 year olds and 13 year olds are very different. Would you deprive a 14 year old boy crazed with hormones the chance to see a pretty naked lady on the web? Thats pretty harsh.
I sure know life without porn would have been terribly frustrating for me when I was in my teens. :innocent:

And it should also be a choice made by the parents that the parents would have to enforce themselves. Once again we get back to slacker parents who cant be arsed to put in the effort to keep their kids away from porn or talk to them and make them understand and would rather have the government slap an age limit on everything deemed remotely sexual in content.
Its not unlike parents blaming TV and videogames when their children go out and kill people.

And I for one, would not be happy about having to give away my credit card number or whatever all over the web just to watch porn.


All these words I don't just say.... and nothing else matters.

Oy! Award yourself a cookie. I figured someone would pick up on that quickly.
It always struck me as wise words and it seemed to fit well with the discussion at hand. :)

[Havard]

The pleasure doesn't stem from the fact that others are being degraded. When people are watching porn they aren't thinking, "wow, objectifying women turns me on."

It doesn't matter if you like it, you are obtaining pleasure at the expense of another's degradation, and if you blind yourself to their loss you are still being an accomplice.

Reclining chairs promote laziness. McDonalds promotes overeating and gluttony. Are you saying that people shouldn't be allowed to sit in reclining chairs or eat McDonalds (although that does actually sound like a good idea. BAN FAST FOOD!)

How many times do I have to say that this isn't about banning porn...

This is about the effects of porn, particularly on children. Would you let your kids roam around a McDonalds every day where the food was free and they could eat whatever they wanted while you weren't looking? You probably wouldn't let them do that, but the more imperative issue is kids that have no supervision. Children whose in working homes whose parents are busy making money to pay the bills, children with single parents, children from broken homes... my point is that porn should be legal, but it shouldn't be available to these children.

If you want to indulge your own sexual fantasies, I would only pray that you change your habits, and nothing else. I am not going to take away your free will, I would hope that you decide to give up porn on your own.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

I'm sure AoA will say he has but I just wonder if he's viewed porn, because he made me sound pretty damn bad for admitting that I did. Yeah I watch porn but then again that's better than cheating on my boyfriend, and also better than me exploding lol.


Well, the fact of the matter is.. we all need refreshment. In terms of my own habits, it's directly correlated with the time i stay in prayer. If I dont rely on God, I'll rely on something else, so I can definitely relate to you.


I'm sure AoA will tell us about his wild and crazy youth and admit to it and then say something about philosphy and change his avatar to another shady picture of himself (while I try to find an avatar even more ridiculous... I need a good Master Shake one)
on that note I wish I knew the wild and crazy AoA just as a comparison lol :) joke joke

heh.. im just as crazy now as I was before.. just doing my best to live in God's grace. We all need things to sustain us.. but when we're not engaged in vice, we can think more clearly.

Anyway, I'm tired too.. I've glanced over graav's and booms posts, i'll reply later, but they made some valid points. I'll tear them up tommorow tho lol :lol: Later.

[Havard]

You'll notice that I referred to 'Hollywood porn' as that is what I base my opinion on. That is a pretty professional business with about the same rate of drugs and stuff that normal actors have.

Mainstream Hollywood itself is a very dark place, I have many friends that are actors there and they will attest to this. Coercion and favors are often the name of the game there. And I am 100% positive that the porn industry is worse. Even in the professional institutions, it is very dark and shady.

The following is an excerpt from "Dining with Pornographers":

"One immediate difference came to mind: there were no unions in porn...no SAG, no AFTRA, no ACTRA. Without their presence, pornography did not mirror -- even in a dark distortion -- any other aspect of the entertainment industry.

There was no protection from courts, which routinely dismiss suits brought by pornographers against distributors as ’frivolous’. Nor from police, who are far more likely to harass than to protect sex workers. This, too, was a difference of kind, not degree."

Sex in itself is not a bad thing.

I think we can all agree that sex is a good and beautiful thing.

Yes, but I would not want anyone to take the choice to eat what I want and be a lazy slob away from me. Nor would I expect everyone to live their life the way I do. I would never want to ban fast food and enforce mandatory exercise three times a week. In fact, I rather enjoy slacking on the couch while eating pizza. (Wich I've done quite alot these days during the Euro 2004 soccer championships) But I made the choice not to endulge myself to much.
Wich is what censorship of pornography takes away. It takes away the choice to watch or not watch porn and forces everyone to do what another group of people want them to do.

See above... my response to Booms... I am not for the banning of porn.


I see your point, but you keep making people out to be a bunch of weak willed driveling animals unable to make their own choices, that automatically emulates everything they see, automatically accepts suggestions that comes their way. Wich is to horribly underestimate people in general. A sexist man doesnt become sexist because of porn, he becomes sexist because of his surroundings, wich does include porn but it is not the sole cause of such behaviour.

We are as strong or weak as we choose to be. But children are more vulnerable and need more protection until they can fend for themselves.

I agree to a certain extent. Massive amounts of pornography is naturally not good for a child. But it depends on age, 8 year olds and 13 year olds are very different. Would you deprive a 14 year old boy crazed with hormones the chance to see a pretty naked lady on the web? Thats pretty harsh.

14 year olds are rarely fully developed in their emotional maturity. As I said earlier, physical sexual maturity sets in before emotional sexual maturity.

I sure know life without porn would have been terribly frustrating for me when I was in my teens. :innocent:

TMI... Too Much Information :lol:

And it should also be a choice made by the parents that the parents would have to enforce themselves. Once again we get back to slacker parents who cant be arsed to put in the effort to keep their kids away from porn or talk to them and make them understand and would rather have the government slap an age limit on everything deemed remotely sexual in content.
Its not unlike parents blaming TV and videogames when their children go out and kill people.

And I for one, would not be happy about having to give away my credit card number or whatever all over the web just to watch porn.

Again, refer to my response to Booms, I am particularly concerned about the children who have no supervision.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Oh BTW Graav, nice metallica quote "life is ours, we live it our way" hehe.. Actually, it's not all ours.. I'll explain more later.

[Echod16]

I always thought porn sites should be forced to have a .xxx domain. Would make filtering the net much easier, woudln't it?

that's a very good idea Saro, i'd suggets you try and chekc opinions on that and maybe head it to the mayor :P

[Havard]

Wait, you mean to tell me that Metallica isn't always right? Say it ain't so, AoA! :uhhuh:

[Mad_Mat]

I kinda skimmed through the thread so please excuse me if this has already been suggested. I think the solution is very simple. Say someone's dad has a load of Porn magazines laying around the house and a child gets access to them.

Now the goverment passes a law that people can only buy porn magazines or anything at all that shows naked or half naked people in it, using a credit card or I.D (including, for instance, eductional books about sex).

Do you view this as a good solution? No? Me neither. The resposibility lies with the child's Parent/Guardian to withhold them from viewing such material. Same goes with the interent.

There are many ways to limit access to the internet from people. Certain Firewall softwares include a (potentially password protected) web filtering option, and you can always unplug the PC or Internet cords when you go to work. I believe even I.E can be configured to limit access to certain sites but I haven't dabled into that so I'll refrain from commenting about it.

[Maullus]

Greetings,

I just read the entire thread in one sitting...and I demand three and a half minutes of my life back. Only three and a half because the first few posts were interesting. The rest has degenerated into an argument of semantics and sophistry. Give it a rest people, we all speak the same language here, we pretty much know what the words other people are saying mean...When I say, "Horse," you picture an herbivore quadruped ungulate, often with a mane and tail. The details... coat color, presence or absence of tack, a rider, are all left to your individual discretion. Your personal repertoire of experience dictates exactly what you picture.

When I say "Porn" what do you picture? No need to be too descriptive, just a general idea. I'd be willing to wager that you picture, (based on your sexual preference), a man and a woman, two men, or two women, engaged in sexual acts.

Child Pornography is wrong, even if the "child" involved is on the very cusp of the age of legal adulthood, because it violates a law we have. Now, our laws certainly have their flaws...many and deep, I assure you, but they are still our laws. An adult, (a person over the age of 18 in America), cannot legally have sex with a child, (a person under the age of 18 in America). While it might be silly to be upset if a 17 year old has sex with a 19 year old, it's a necessary facet of the same law that protects 12 year olds from being coerced into doing something they are not sufficiently capable of understanding.

That is why it is wrong. I'm not going to argue about an arbitrary, magical point at which a person is capable of making serious decisions regarding their sexual activity. A person is not incapable one day, and capable the next. But the age limit is a period of grace that attempts to allow someone the time required to accumulate enough experience and knowledge to make an informed decision. Children...by which I mean those that are not close to being a "legal" adult, are not typically not sufficiently prepared by their life, by our society and our approach to sex, to make a qualified decision. Unfortunately, most have to learn their lessons the hard way, through negative experiences and heartbreak.

If, perhaps, we were less zealous about sexual intimacy and more worried about the portrayal of violence, we might have a remarkably different approach to our lives.

Focusing more on topic: The single most compelling argument in this thread was Graav's comment: "The internet is not someone's property, its international, is it right that some uptight rich white american out of the bible belt should be trying to censor stuff for the whole world?"

Sidenote: I love how the act was lauded as the "Child Online Protection Act." What a load of bull****. Did no one else notice what a bunch of propaganda the name of that act is? It's all about censorship, and they slap a "Protect our Children!" label on it and sell it like it's gold dust.

[Essex]

Greetings,

I just read the entire thread in one sitting...and I demand three and a half minutes of my life back. Only three and a half because the first few posts were interesting. The rest has degenerated into an argument of semantics and sophistry. Give it a rest people, we all speak the same language here, we pretty much know what the words other people are saying mean...When I say, "Horse," you picture an herbivore quadruped ungulate, often with a mane and tail. The details... coat color, presence or absence of tack, a rider, are all left to your individual discretion. Your personal repertoire of experience dictates exactly what you picture.

When I say "Porn" what do you picture? No need to be too descriptive, just a general idea. I'd be willing to wager that you picture, (based on your sexual preference), a man and a woman, two men, or two women, engaged in sexual acts.

Child Pornography is wrong, even if the "child" involved is on the very cusp of the age of legal adulthood, because it violates a law we have. Now, our laws certainly have their flaws...many and deep, I assure you, but they are still our laws. An adult, (a person over the age of 18 in America), cannot legally have sex with a child, (a person under the age of 18 in America). While it might be silly to be upset if a 17 year old has sex with a 19 year old, it's a necessary facet of the same law that protects 12 year olds from being coerced into doing something they are not sufficiently capable of understanding.

That is why it is wrong. I'm not going to argue about an arbitrary, magical point at which a person is capable of making serious decisions regarding their sexual activity. A person is not incapable one day, and capable the next. But the age limit is a period of grace that attempts to allow someone the time required to accumulate enough experience and knowledge to make an informed decision. Children...by which I mean those that are not close to being a "legal" adult, are not typically not sufficiently prepared by their life, by our society and our approach to sex, to make a qualified decision. Unfortunately, most have to learn their lessons the hard way, through negative experiences and heartbreak.

If, perhaps, we were less zealous about sexual intimacy and more worried about the portrayal of violence, we might have a remarkably different approach to our lives.

Focusing more on topic: The single most compelling argument in this thread was Graav's comment: "The internet is not someone's property, its international, is it right that some uptight rich white american out of the bible belt should be trying to censor stuff for the whole world?"

Sidenote: I love how the act was lauded as the "Child Online Protection Act." What a load of bull****. Did no one else notice what a bunch of propaganda the name of that act is? It's all about censorship, and they slap a "Protect our Children!" label on it and sell it like it's gold dust.
why don't you comment on these threads more often? That pretty much ended the topic there although I'm sure some people will disagree.

/happy that i was in one of the first few posts that wasn't a waste of 3 mins :)

[Havard]

If, perhaps, we were less zealous about sexual intimacy and more worried about the portrayal of violence, we might have a remarkably different approach to our lives.

The fact is, children are educated about violence every day. Parents and schools handle violent behavior and violent deviancy more often and profoundly than sexual behavior and deviation. Sex education is commonly a talk about condoms to most kids, sexual morality is never discussed in schools, only by the most interested of parents. Violence can still be a problem, but the subtleties of violence are more readily apparent to a child. Our culture reinforces the concept of pacifism starting with kindergarten, and even the most violent movies only glorify justified violence, further reinforcing cultural morality. Games like GTA are an issue, IMO, but they are the minority of entertainment outlets. Pornography, on the other hand makes no distinctions for children, and society provides no moral framework for them to comprehend it, either.


Focusing more on topic: The single most compelling argument in this thread was Graav's comment: "The internet is not someone's property, its international, is it right that some uptight rich white american out of the bible belt should be trying to censor stuff for the whole world?"

Ok, that would be a compelling argument if it were even relevant. But that is NOT what is at issue here. The US is only discussing restricting consumers in America. If a Thai company puts up easily accessible free porn, they won't do anything about that. The point of this law is to require software on American computers that won't allow American children to view porn. Consenting American adults will still be able to view porn because the software is merely an age verifier.


Sidenote: I love how the act was lauded as the "Child Online Protection Act." What a load of bull****. Did no one else notice what a bunch of propaganda the name of that act is? It's all about censorship, and they slap a "Protect our Children!" label on it and sell it like it's gold dust.

Maullus, your rant here didn't contain one iota of reasoning as to why it is a "load of bul****." As I said before, the software allows adults to view internet porn, and it does not restrict international entities in any way. So where do you derive your animosity?




I just read the entire thread in one sitting...and I demand three and a half minutes of my life back. Only three and a half because the first few posts were interesting. The rest has degenerated into an argument of semantics and sophistry.

/happy that i was in one of the first few posts that wasn't a waste of 3 mins

If Maullus thinks what I wrote was a waste, whoop-dee-do for him. :uhhuh: I don't depend upon the affirmation of others.

[Mad_Mat]

The point of this law is to require software on American computers that won't allow American children to view porn.
No, the point of this law is to require websites that contain nudity or pornography to require a form of validation that the viewer is an adult, probably via credit card. The opposing side to this law suggests that there are far better ways to prevent children from viewing these websites than censoring them, I.E software that won't allow them to access such websites.

[Havard]

No, the point of this law is to require websites that contain nudity or pornography to require a form of validation that the viewer is an adult, probably via credit card. The opposing side to this law suggests that there are far better ways to prevent children from viewing these websites than censoring them, I.E software that won't allow them to access such websites.

Mat:

Nice catch, you are right about that one... the article I read confused the sides.

So here is the actual wording of the law:

"Prohibited conduct.--Whoever knowingly and with knowledge of the character of the material, in interstate or foreign commerce by means of the World Wide Web, makes any communication for commercial purposes that is available to any minor and that includes any material that is harmful to minors shall be fined not more than $50,000, imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both."

The way I see it, the government still holds the Aces... the key words here are "for commercial purposes." So long as an international vendor posts porn for the purposes of selling to American consumers, they cross over international law into American jurisdiction. Every nation has a right to regulate commerce within its boundaries, and the internet is no exception. If you are scammed by a web site in another country, for instance, they can be brought in to your nation's courts for a lawsuit.

[Eiger]

The Supreme Court was correct on this one in making a practical decision. From the link in the first post:
Writing for the (5-4) majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy said, "the government has not shown that the less-restrictive alternatives proposed ... should be disregarded. Those alternatives, indeed, may be more effective" than the law passed by Congress.

Kennedy said rapid changes in technology would make filtering software a more effective tool to block access than the more restrictive means laid out in COPA, such as age verification and use of a credit card.

Additionally, in the Seattle Times article I read this morning (find it here: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001968757_scotus30.html) had the following which I haven't seen elsewhere:


Software filters may be a more effective way to shield minors from online pornography because they target the problem "at the receiving end," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority. This is preferable to permitting the government to go after Web sites whose customers are adults, Kennedy said. Moreover, because an estimated 40 percent of Web pornography comes from overseas, a federal law targeting U.S. producers would not truly shield America's children, he said.

This last point is critical. Since the internet is worldwide, it's not controllable by the US. US residents can just surf overseas. Creating a useless bureaucracy to go after an unsolvable problem is just a waste of money.

[Havard]

There are many vendors, but even more consumers. Wouldn't it be more difficult to enforce a filter requirement on consumers?

If the filter is a viable option, then I would be for it.

[Eiger]

Mat:

Nice catch, you are right about that one... the article I read confused the sides.

So here is the actual wording of the law:

"Prohibited conduct.--Whoever knowingly and with knowledge of the character of the material, in interstate or foreign commerce by means of the World Wide Web, makes any communication for commercial purposes that is available to any minor and that includes any material that is harmful to minors shall be fined not more than $50,000, imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both."

The way I see it, the government still holds the Aces... the key words here are "for commercial purposes." So long as an international vendor posts porn for the purposes of selling to American consumers, they cross over international law into American jurisdiction. Every nation has a right to regulate commerce within its boundaries, and the internet is no exception. If you are scammed by a web site in another country, for instance, they can be brought in to your nation's courts for a lawsuit.
Too difficult to prove. What if a Brit posts it on his website for other Brits to see, but an American accesses it? Why should the Brit be held responsible? Basically, anyone can access anything worldwide, so under your system, the US would be enforcing US laws on foreign soil. And the sites in question are located on foreign soil. I'm not sure, but I'd imagine that the scammers can only be brought to trial in the US based on an extradition or other treaty and I'll bet that we don't have any treaty covering a internet porn situation. And considering all the good buddies overseas that GWB has made lately, I don't really see anyone rushing to accomodate him on this one - especially since it'd bring bucketloads of $ into their countries. You'd see some little country with which we have poor or few diplomatic relations become porn central.

It's just not worth the hassle. As Kennedy says, filters and technology are a much better answer. Umm, not to mention parental supervision...

[Semidi]

As Kennedy says, filters and technology are a much better answer. Umm, not to mention parental supervision...

Damnit I'm agreeing with a liberal on this one.

I'm just wondering would all you liberals be up in arms about this if Kerry proposed this? Hypothetically of coarse...

Dangit I have to kill 1:17 minutes of drivers ed today to get my licence back. ugg

[Eiger]

There are many vendors, but even more consumers. Wouldn't it be more difficult to enforce a filter requirement on consumers?

If the filter is a viable option, then I would be for it.
I don't see a reason for any laws on this. I'd leave it up to parents to monitor their children as they see fit. I make sure my kids don't go anywhere near those sites by checking in on them regularly when they're on. Filters are good, people should used them. However, I don't want the government messing with my computer. I'm an adult and I want to be able to surf anywhere I want - if I want to. It's a freedom as well as a privacy issue for me.

[Havard]

As far as parents are concerned, they should supervise their kids, but this is more to help the children who don't have adequate supervision. As we all know, there are kids whose parents work, single-parent households, and just bad parents. Bad parents may need a visit from CPS, but working and/or single parents will have a hard time keeping an eye on their children at all times.

[Eiger]

Damnit I'm agreeing with a liberal on this one.

I'm just wondering would all you liberals be up in arms about this if Kerry proposed this? Hypothetically of coarse...


You bet I would be! I didn't like Tipper Gore's censorship garbage - or Liberman's. Still don't like either of them.

[Eiger]

As far as parents are concerned, they should supervise their kids, but this is more to help the children who don't have adequate supervision. As we all know, there are kids whose parents work, single-parent households, and just bad parents. Bad parents may need a visit from CPS, but working and/or single parents will have a hard time keeping an eye on their children at all times.
Hehe, I figured this argument was next. There are always going to be bad parents - and good parents whose kids find a time niche to exploit. Heck I got my hands on some Playboy and Penthouse mags when I was 6 years old. It happens. But it's ultimately a parental responsibility and not the government's. I want to keep the government out of my bedroom, out of my computer, and out of my house.

[Havard]

Hehe, I figured this argument was next. There are always going to be bad parents - and good parents whose kids find a time niche to exploit. Heck I got my hands on some Playboy and Penthouse mags when I was 6 years old. It happens. But it's ultimately a parental responsibility and not the government's.

Okay, so if that is true, why not allow children to buy porn in stores? Why not leave it completely up to parents to regulate sexual morality?

I want to keep the government out of my bedroom, out of my computer, and out of my house.

I think we all want that. But the only limitation here is a verification process, you still get to see all the porn you want. The incursion here seems to actually empower parents, and only limit minors.

[Eiger]

Okay, so if that is true, why not allow children to buy porn in stores? Why not leave it completely up to parents to regulate sexual morality?



I think we all want that. But the only limitation here is a verification process, you still get to see all the porn you want. The incursion here seems to actually empower parents, and only limit minors.
Well, because stores are relatively easy to regulate? And the internet's not... Nature of the beast.

Verification's ok. No problem with that.

[Maullus]

Greetings,

why don't you comment on these threads more often?Because I've noticed that some folks that are otherwise perfectly sane, civil individuals tend to get ugly in the OT forum. Also, I don't like arguing for the sake of arguing.

The fact is, children are educated about violence every day. Parents and schools handle violent behavior and violent deviancy more often and profoundly than sexual behavior and deviation. Sex education is commonly a talk about condoms to most kids, sexual morality is never discussed in schools, only by the most interested of parents. Violence can still be a problem, but the subtleties of violence are more readily apparent to a child. Couldn't agree with you more.

Our culture reinforces the concept of pacifism starting with kindergarten, and even the most violent movies only glorify justified violence, further reinforcing cultural morality.Games like GTA are an issue, IMO, but they are the minority of entertainment outlets.Couldn't disagree with you more. Only "justified" violence is glorified? Games like GTA aren't the exception to the rule. Perhaps a decade or two ago that was the case, with movies like "Die Hard" portraying the hero blowing **** up to save the day and the villain receiving his due punishment, (i.e.- death). Regardless, I wasn't commenting on how violence is portrayed, or its prevalence in our society. I was simply commenting on:
Pornography, on the other hand makes no distinctions for children, and society provides no moral framework for them to comprehend it, either.
Which is a fact I find somewhat lamentable. My point, which has been made many times before, was that for some unfathomable reason, violence is an accepted part of our entertainment, perhaps frowned upon but hardly persecuted with the same zeal that any type of nudity, pornography, or erotica is. The only reason pornography is so taboo, such a dirty subject, is because we hide it. At the same time, we paste sexual innuendo all over the place in our films, television, advertisements, video games, and nearly any other form of mass media. We bombard our children with images that tell them what sex is and is about, filling their minds with unrealistic expectations about their appearance and behavior. Then we turn around and transform a la Bruce Banner into raging lunatics when the topic of nudity or pornography comes up. "We must protect our children!"

Please. If you want to protect our children, place firmer restrictions on network television, magazines, and other forms of advertisement that sell sex. Pornography is almost primarily for people that already know all about sex. They watch it to get their rocks off once in a while. Big deal.

Ok, that would be a compelling argument if it were even relevant. But that is NOT what is at issue here. The US is only discussing restricting consumers in America. If a Thai company puts up easily accessible free porn, they won't do anything about that. The point of this law is to require software on American computers that won't allow American children to view porn. Consenting American adults will still be able to view porn because the software is merely an age verifier.

Eiger already addressed this, so I'm not even going to touch it save to say that it seems to be a tad bit snide, as does the following;
Maullus, your rant here didn't contain one iota of reasoning as to why it is a "load of bul****." As I said before, the software allows adults to view internet porn, and it does not restrict international entities in any way. So where do you derive your animosity?

Apparently, as Eiger and Mad_Mat pointed out, it does restrict international entities. A better question might be, where do you derive your animosity? I was briefly sharing my opinions on the matter, without making any claim regarding their absolute and all exclusive nature. They're my opinions.

Regardless, my animosity is derived from the fact that, while I am certainly not the smartest guy around, I like to believe that I am not, in fact, a complete and total idiot. Contrary thoughts on that matter are the subject for another discussion. That being said, my complaint is with the very premise of this so-called "Child Online Protection Act." If the government wants to launch a nuclear attack on Iraq, that's their prerogative, but don't bull**** me and the rest of the country, or the world, by calling it "Operation End Oppression" or some other nonsense like that. Come on! Call it like it is, don't be a hypocrite.
If Maullus thinks what I wrote was a waste, whoop-dee-do for him. :uhhuh: I don't depend upon the affirmation of others.
And your disdain regarding my affirmation of this thread doesn't make it any less inane drivel or semantic debate.

Nevertheless, it wasn't my intention to offend anyone by demanding my time back, and if I did, I apologize.

[Eiger]

Verification's ok. No problem with that.
Let me qualify that. Verification's ok if that means I need to use some sort of Verisign type of verification where you get verified by a service and show the website that you've got proof of age.

I don't want any verification programs on my computer.

[Havard]

Couldn't disagree with you more. Only "justified" violence is glorified? Games like GTA aren't the exception to the rule. Perhaps a decade or two ago that was the case, with movies like "Die Hard" portraying the hero blowing **** up to save the day and the villain receiving his due punishment, (i.e.- death). Regardless, I wasn't commenting on how violence is portrayed, or its prevalence in our society.

The point I was trying to make was that kids hear a regular dialogue about violence. But as you mentioned, heroes used to save violence as a last resort, and now they use it at any chance they get. It is sad that movies glorify vengeance more than honor these days.

The only reason pornography is so taboo, such a dirty subject, is because we hide it.

I think we hide it because it's taboo... not the other way around. It's taboo because it assaults the morals of decency and standards of degradation.

At the same time, we paste sexual innuendo all over the place in our films, television, advertisements, video games, and nearly any other form of mass media. We bombard our children with images that tell them what sex is and is about, filling their minds with unrealistic expectations about their appearance and behavior. Then we turn around and transform a la Bruce Banner into raging lunatics when the topic of nudity or pornography comes up. "We must protect our children!"

Please. If you want to protect our children, place firmer restrictions on network television, magazines, and other forms of advertisement that sell sex.

Interesting idea, but no one would ever go for it. I think media outlets like People and US and companies like Abercrombie perpetuate images and standards that I disagree with, but the only thing I can do about that is express my concern.

Pornography is almost primarily for people that already know all about sex. They watch it to get their rocks off once in a while. Big deal.

I don't think porn companies would mind if they got some kids hooked on porn at an early age...

Eiger already addressed this, so I'm not even going to touch it save to say that it seems to be a tad bit snide, as does the following; Apparently, as Eiger and Mad_Mat pointed out, it does restrict international entities.

Sorry for sounding snide, and I did made a mistake on this. However, all countries have legal jurisdiction over commercial activity (advertising) in their nations. But I agree that a filter could be a good alternative.

A better question might be, where do you derive your animosity? I was briefly sharing my opinions on the matter, without making any claim regarding their absolute and all exclusive nature. They're my opinions.

I don't have a lot of animosity regarding this. I didn't understand your bull**** comment, and I still don't understand why you think the government has other motivations besides protecting children.

And your disdain regarding my affirmation of this thread doesn't make it any less inane drivel or semantic debate.

No disdain here, sorry if it sounded like that. I just see some people on these forums getting their kicks from being slapped on the back by people who agree with them. I don't mean Essex really; I have a strong distaste for the ideological hump-fests that go on here from time to time. I guess I agree with AoA and Bartelby often, but I could care less if no one agreed with me.

Nevertheless, it wasn't my intention to offend anyone by demanding my time back, and if I did, I apologize.

We all say things that sound a little harsh, and I apologize for having a hard edge sometimes.

I agree with Essex, I hope you decide to post here more often. :buddies:

[Havard]

Let me qualify that. Verification's ok if that means I need to use some sort of Verisign type of verification where you get verified by a service and show the website that you've got proof of age.

I don't want any verification programs on my computer.

Where would the programs be hosted? I thought you were against forcing the porn companies to implement them?

[Eiger]

Where would the programs be hosted? I thought you were against forcing the porn companies to implement them?
Nope. I've said that I don't want the government requiring any programs on my computer.

[Eiger]

1) I think we hide it because it's taboo... not the other way around. It's taboo because it assaults the morals of decency and standards of degradation.

2) Interesting idea, but no one would ever go for it. I think media outlets like People and US and companies like Abercrombie perpetuate images and standards that I disagree with, but the only thing I can do about that is express my concern.

3) I don't think porn companies would mind if they got some kids hooked on porn at an early age...

4) I don't have a lot of animosity regarding this. I didn't understand your bull**** comment, and I still don't understand why you think the government has other motivations besides protecting children.

5) We all say things that sound a little harsh, and I apologize for having a hard edge sometimes.

1) I wouldn't call it taboo at all. Not anymore. More popular than ever I'd say. And more and more porn stars are making the jump to mainstream... (not an endorsement, just an observation)

2) or not buy their stuff...

3) At least not the website operators. They're real scumbags.

4) You seem to have a lot of anger in general. Your responses very often have an angry tone.

5) It's ok - now and then...

[Havard]

Eiger, I was writing to Maullus, but ok..

1) I wouldn't call it taboo at all. Not anymore. More popular than ever I'd say. And more and more porn stars are making the jump to mainstream... (not an endorsement, just an observation)

I lament this, no doubt.

4) You seem to have a lot of anger in general. Your responses very often have an angry tone.

Sorry you got that impression, you don't seem to see the right posts. I am all about broadening my understanding and I enjoy talking with people who disagree with me. Of course there is always frustration when you don't feel that people are being honest or kind, but the only person that has invoked my anger is Masamunae for his deliberately bad behavior.

[Graav Wolfsong]

Which is a fact I find somewhat lamentable. My point, which has been made many times before, was that for some unfathomable reason, violence is an accepted part of our entertainment, perhaps frowned upon but hardly persecuted with the same zeal that any type of nudity, pornography, or erotica is. The only reason pornography is so taboo, such a dirty subject, is because we hide it. At the same time, we paste sexual innuendo all over the place in our films, television, advertisements, video games, and nearly any other form of mass media. We bombard our children with images that tell them what sex is and is about, filling their minds with unrealistic expectations about their appearance and behavior. Then we turn around and transform a la Bruce Banner into raging lunatics when the topic of nudity or pornography comes up. "We must protect our children!"

Please. If you want to protect our children, place firmer restrictions on network television, magazines, and other forms of advertisement that sell sex. Pornography is almost primarily for people that already know all about sex. They watch it to get their rocks off once in a while. Big deal.

Well, I guess Maullus caught my fancy, because I am about to do some "Ideological humping". :lol:
Besides Havard, I've seen you suck up royally to AoA on occasion, you are hardly the one who should comment on that. :)
Nothing wrong with telling someone you agree.
-----------------------------------
So ... anyway ...

I could not agree more Maullus. Yu word dat tings beter than me do but dat was eksaktly vat I ment to sai bifor ah got a littl off topic.

So in other words:

Yeah!
What he said ...

[Booms]

Havard:

I wouldn't allow an 8 year old to go to McDonalds with a bunch of cash and pig out everyday. This is because I wouldn't be leaving money around the house for him to pick up and I wouldn't be letting him wander off to McDonalds everyday. I would be supervising him. Placing filters onto computers and blocking sites is relatively easy to do nowadays, it is the parents responsibility to put up these filters if they do not want their child to watch porn.

On the other hand, and 8 year old isn't going to go out and actively seek porn on the internet. An 8 year old isn't going to have porn-fest or whatever, because young kids don't do that.

The only people this "child protection act" is going to truly affect are adults and teenage boys. And, IMO, both of the two should be able to have some access to some porn. A teenage guy with raging hormones wants to see naked women and is old enough to handle seeing naked women (or men, if that is their preference). Your main focus about kids being to see porn is that they're going to become "porn-addicts." That isn't going to happen. I don't know where you're getting your information, but most teenage guys who view porn before they're 18 years old don't turn into porn-addicts...they're just normal guys.

On requring verification: The only reliable way to do this would be to require credit card information, but thats a horrible idea. A whole lot more people would seen be losing information and fall victim to identity-theft.

Even if a parent or the parents aren't home for the majority of the day, its not like they have to devote an hour each day to set up a filter. So thats just a poor argument.

One last thing: Maullus, you rock.

[Havard]

Well, I guess Maullus caught my fancy, because I am about to do some "Ideological humping". :lol:
Besides Havard, I've seen you suck up royally to AoA on occasion, you are hardly the one who should comment on that. :)
Nothing wrong with telling someone you agree.
-----------------------------------
So ... anyway ...

I could not agree more Maullus. Yu word dat tings beter than me do but dat was eksaktly vat I ment to sai bifor ah got a littl off topic.

So in other words:

Yeah!
What he said ...

Graav, I think that's out of line. I complimented Eiger and Essex at least twice already today and have done so for Bhs, Bartleby and others, regardless of whether they share my beliefs. It's not about ideology with me. I think Bhs and Eiger are formidable and have said so many times. Eiger in particular always keeps me on my toes and I always look forward to his next post. Essex is an incredibly diplomatic person, and I appreciate his ability to diffuse incendiary situations. And I just encouraged Maullus to post more, was I sucking up to him? Graav, I recently complimented you on your new avatar, and I barely know you at all.

I am relatively new here, and we haven't shared a lot of conversations, but I try to recognize the good in everyone... so I won't apologize simply because I've also done it for AoA. I consider AoA a friend and we share a lot of similar beliefs. I am a Catholic, and he expresses a lot of Catholic beliefs well. I actually don't touch a lot of his debates because I know he can handle them on his own. Plenty of posters jump on 1-on-1 discussions to gang up on a poster. I let AoA handle his own, unless I see is a salient point not being brought up. So please rethink your unfavorable assertion, I won't hold it against you but I also hope you'll realize that it's not an accurate portrayal of me.

And Booms, yes, Maullus rocks

I'd like to add that most of you guys rock, and I don't care if you have disagreed with everything I've ever posted. If I could have any impact here it would be to encourage people to see their detractors as friends. I already consider Essex a friend, and I hope to make that connection with more of you. :thumbsup:

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Besides Havard, I've seen you suck up royally to AoA on occasion, you are hardly the one who should comment on that. :)
Nothing wrong with telling someone you agree.
...

For my part, I believe Havard handled himself well enough, and I don't recall him sucking up to me. He has his own mind, and can think for himself. I believe his points have merit enough. As for Essex's comment stating that Maullus "ended the thread", I would not say that. He's a good friend of mine, and I have more respect for the guy than to simply pick him apart. He doesnt waste time on threads speaking of which he cares not, or knows not. As you should know by now, I only ask for intellectual honesty and consistency. To this point, I've let you guys hammer amongst yourselves, as I believe to truly grasp what's at stake here, we must rewind back before talk of setting regulations and legislation - back to core values and existential considerations.

[Essex]

For my part, I believe Havard handled himself well enough, and I don't recall him sucking up to me. He has his own mind, and can think for himself. I believe his points have merit enough. As for Essex's comment stating that Maullus "ended the thread", I would not say that. He's a good friend of mine, and I have more respect for the guy than to simply pick him apart. He doesnt waste time on threads speaking of which he cares not, or knows not. As you should know by now, I only ask for intellectual honesty and consistency. To this point, I've let you guys hammer amongst yourselves, as I believe to truly grasp what's at stake here, we must rewind back before talk of setting regulations and legislation - back to core values and existential considerations.
oh i get it you respect maullus and won't pick him apart but have no problem calling me dumb?! lol just kidding :)

[Havard]

Thanks for injecting humor to diffuse another tense situation, Essex. One of the things I love about you. :buddies:

[Antonidas]

i just read all 4 pages so i have to say

1. porn is not wrong, it just happens because its different and exotic and some people just want to be that way

2. I live in America but i dont like it, the USA doesnt rule the world and most of the times it seems it trys to

3. I know you didnt want religion coming but it is. Most people in america are christian and they let religion impair their judement. Other religions have different opinions, im christian im going to convert because christian is sterotypical which i dont like.

[Havard]

i just read all 4 pages so i have to say

1. porn is not wrong, it just happens because its different and exotic and some people just want to be that way

2. I live in America but i dont like it, the USA doesnt rule the world and most of the times it seems it trys to

3. I know you didnt want religion coming but it is. Most people in america are christian and they let religion impair their judement. Other religions have different opinions, im christian im going to convert because christian is sterotypical which i dont like.

Stereotypical? .... erm... you want a new religion because your old one isn't unique or unpredictable enough? Suit yourself, but don't you think you should join a religion because you believe it's true, not because it's unconventional?

[Essex]

i think he means too judgemental perhaps. He could always go to a uniteran church (sp) or do like the chinese did a long time ago just pick and choose what you like about a religion and follow that :)

[Bhs Crew]

So many posts. I gotta stop this whole life thing that keeps getting in the way of my forum time.

On the topic at hand. I believe that law would work fine as long as it required all US based sites to have a verification system. There's no point in requiring sites based in other countries to follow our laws because we have no way of enforcing them.

For US based sites, requiring an age verification system is no different then requiring anyone buying a copy of playboy in a store to show ID.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Antonidas - If religion would impair the thinking of some, what would impair yours?