1. I don't need others to tell me what is or isn't tasteful in art. If I don't like something, I won't look at it. For marriages that are broken up by porn addiction, that is usually an indicator of other problems that go far deeper than looking at porn. Outlawing porn will just drive it underground and people will still continue to pursue it.
You began on a strong footing but I think your argument lost steam.
Your strongest point is that laws against pornography invariably get stuck on the issue of what is and what isn't pornography. Many 'regular' TV programs involve suggestive, even explicitly sexual material, for that matter many ads on TV are very suggestive and/or explicit. The question then becomes whether the most conservative standard should automatically apply across the board, especially given the wide market served by TV. Of course, the opposite question also could be raised, as to whether the most liberal standard should automatically apply, for the same reason.
It seems you are arguing against the imposition of any standard except that which you form yourself (e.g. you concede you would self-censor material you believed to involve forced participation) and even then, you seem to feel your own personal avoidance of the relevant material should suffice as a remedy.
It is true that for any given individual, avoidance is probably the most practical solution to being offended. However, the problem is that offense often serves as a subtle warning that more serious things might be wrong with the offending material. In other words, our offense, as much as our indifference, might tell us something not just about ourselves, but about the material. You give the example of being offended at material in which you suspect or know the participants to be not truly voluntary. In such case your or others' individual avoidance will not provide sufficient protection for those people. Furthermore, there are arguments to be made for not only having justice done, but having it seen to be done, at least to the extent that we can adminster justice. In other words, maybe some things *should* be driven underground.
Your argument that failed marriages involving porn addiction are likely destroyed for other reasons is no better than Duck's argument that porn addiction is the cause of such marital failure. Neither of you has enough information about the respective marriages to draw conclusions one way or another about why marriages that involve pornography consumption fail (or survive.) Both of you seem to be explaining the outcome after the fact, or in other words, merely conjecturing. But Duck did successfully make the original point, which was that, regardless of whether the respective marriage survives or founders, other people are involved besides the original consumer. Whatever the solution to the attendant problems, the formulation of same can't fairly involve only the pornography consumer's preferences or opinions.
Last edited by simpleflyer; Aug 30, 06 at 7:49 am.
- Today, especially in developing countries, literally thousands of women are forced into the production of pornography. Even in the United States and Europe, reports of forced involvement in pornography are rampant.
So, prosecute that. An awful lot of products are sometimes produced by forced labor, that's no reason to ban the whole product.
Quote:
Additionally, marriages and relationships break up rather frequently because of the very real problem of pornography addiction. So yes, the first of the listed acts involve others.
This is unsupported data by the right-wingers.
Quote:
- In many regions of the United States, upwards of 85% of property crime is directly attributable to usage and production of meth. Last year alone, the property of millions of Americans was burglarized because meth addicts sought goods to sell for their next hit. Furthermore, especially in urban areas, many babies are born with high levels of crack cocaine in their systems. This oftentimes causes permanent disability and learning challenges. So yes, the second of the listed acts involve others.
I understand and agree with your point but you're putting the blame in the wrong place. It's not drugs to blame for the crime, it's the drug war. Nicotine is more addictive--yet when is the last time you heard of a mugging to get money to buy smokes?
Quote:
- Thousands of Americans are killed accidentally every year because of guns. Even when not used in the commission of crime, guns are intrinsically dangerous. So yes, the third of the listen acts involve others.
Thousands?? It's about 1,000, most of which are hunting accidents and I'm sure many of the rest are undetected murders and suicides.
Quote:
- My opinion aside, a very sizeable chunk of the American population thinks that fetuses, insofar as they are alive, are distinct individuals. These people would conclude that yes, the fourth of the listen acts involve others.
My experience is that there are a substantial number who wish to punish the woman for sex they don't approve of but the number that actually are after fetal rights is quite low.
I understand and agree with your point but you're putting the blame in the wrong place. It's not drugs to blame for the crime, it's the drug war. Nicotine is more addictive--yet when is the last time you heard of a mugging to get money to buy smokes?
I don't know. Very few individuals that I prosecute (granted, in Canada) are meth addicts, or were motivated by their respective addictions to commit crimes. On the other hand, Calgary seems to be suffering from an epidemic of gas station robberies in which the most valuable items taken were cigarettes.
Back OT: Forget about porn: I'd pay extra to have commercial-free television programming in hotels. This is certainly more of an irritant (at least to me), and the rampant consumerism that it encourages is probably more detrimental to the world, in any case.
Programs: AF Gold, BA EC Blue, LH FTL, HH Gold, A|Club Silver
Posts: 4,367
'It seems you are arguing against the imposition of any standard except that which you form yourself (e.g. you concede you would self-censor material you believed to involve forced participation) and even then, you seem to feel your own personal avoidance of the relevant material should suffice as a remedy.'
Let me go a little further. I agree that an adult should be able to block a channel that they find offensive, be it at home or in a hotel room. But I don't think that a legislative body should outlaw something because 'they' find it to be offensive.
I believe that driving the porn industry underground will cause it to operate with less controls than it has now. Hence, the probability exsists for more exploitation of sex slaves, since it is no longer a regulated (somewhat) industry. I'm going to say for the sake of argument that the people in these films, etc. are being fairly compensated for their part in the production. So in these cases, I don't see victimization. If our collective decency is in jeopardy, who decides what is decent and what is not. While senator or prime minister so-and-so may agree that some things are intolerable (kiddie porn, for example), we will probably not agree on what is tasteful or not on other, more gray areas. When does something go from being art to becoming pornography. Go to any major non-Islamic art museum, and you are bound to see paintings involving nudes, including representations of children.Now, most times it involves non 'sexually suggestive' poses, but again, someone interpreted that the piece was in fact decent enough to display.
This may be a little off base, but it is going to be another major issue with pornography in the next few years---The ability of computers to create incredibly realistic representations of human beings. So, if a computer 'creates' a nude image of a person, is it pornography? No one was victimized during the creation of it (assuming a model was not used), so how can it be illegal. I realize the danger in creating images of say, children, but how could this be stopped if their is no victim? Sure, the pedophile would not be lusting after a real child, but would that drive someone over the edge to commit an unspeakable crime? I don't know.
I hope I haven't scared anyone off with my long post. I like the dialogue.
Location: Newport Beach, California, USA (Recently of San Francisco)
Programs: UA-1P,SPG-Gold,Marriott-Silver
Posts: 10,334
Quote:
Originally Posted by pizzamiles
A related question... shouldn't there be a ban on watching
porno videos on notebook computers aboard airplanes?
I see a lot of people doing that...
There shouldn't be a ban on watching anything on notebook computers aboard airplanes. I never look at what other pax are watching, and neither know nor care what it is. Why do you?
There shouldn't be a ban on watching anything on notebook computers aboard airplanes. I never look at what other pax are watching, and neither know nor care what it is. Why do you?
Unfortunately their notebook speakers are turned on....
why would I want to pay for porn when I can get it online for free???
also I cant expense that! suxs....
Stripclubs are more fun right???
My former boss used to hold meeting with clients in
restaruants where the waitress takes her top off...
(yes, it's a strip club, but their name on the door was
Aviary Restaruant...) it didn't look wrong in the
expense report for 3 years but some beancounter
eventually figured it out. (which is why he's now my former boss)
