[PLUG-TALK] Porn on the Net...

[Aaron]

Also you said porn is addictive.  There are lots of things in life that can
be addictive. How about coffee?  There are lots of things can be addictive
some people and not others. I think saying everyone that watches porn is
addicted is a deeply inaccurate statement.  I think more accurately is that
-you- are easily addicted to porn.  I'm fairly certain that a majority of
the population can watch porn from time to time and is not addicted.  Just
like I can have a cup of coffee from time to time and not be addicted (okay
in honesty I AM addicted to coffee. lets make it illegal!!).

I don't think it's accurate to make gross exaggerative statements about
anything.  Really you are talking more about yourself and your own
experience rather than what a majority of people actually experience.
Assuming that your experience is what most people experience is also very
inaccurate and..frankly a little scary.

aaron at kalosaurusrex:~$
Discere docendo - To learn through teaching.
Libera Te Tutemet - You, free yourself.




On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 23:40, Michael Robinson <plug_1 at robinson-west.com>wrote:

> is very easy to find if you aren't filtered.
>
> Why?
>
> I know that people are going to say freedom of speech is why,
> but let's ask some questions first and look at the nature of
> porn a bit.
>
> Well, I shouldn't be using the term porn without a definition.
>
> Porn is anything that is likely to cause the average man or
> woman to be sexually aroused where it is not socially acceptable
> for them to be so.  I hope we can all agree that being aroused
> by your wife is not porn.  Let's leave chance arousal where
> you have no control over it and you don't do anything to
> perpetuate that response out of our definition of porn.
>
> Pornographic sites generally offer free samples without
> doing anything at all to identify who is surfing them.  These
> sites often try to charge for further viewing, though one
> could argue there is nothing missing in the samples.  This
> is a business tactic known of as give a taste of something
> and then charge for it.  Is it a fair business practice?  I
> guess that depends on whether or not you think that
> manipulating the base human impulses is fair.
>
> Let's look at the pornography is harmless camp for a moment
> and test it a bit.  Is pornography satisfying?  Does anybody
> feel satisfied after viewing the sex act reduced to a base
> mechanical act with absolutely no meaning at all?  Does
> anyone look at pornography for an hour or longer and then
> never go back?  Does this cut into other important activities
> that that person could be engaged in?  How hard is it if you
> are one of the people that pays for porn to stop future
> charges?  How many people a day are there that get ripped off
> who are too embarrassed to come forward?  How many of the
> "models" are forced into this business?  I hear in Alaska
> that selling children to the porn industry is a common
> occurrence.  Even in our area, sex rings get busted once in
> a while.
>
> Of all the people that go to porn sites, how many will be
> identified before they are allowed to view porn?  Are there
> very many sites on the Net that make an attempt to warn
> people that their content is porn before they show some?
> What percentage of pornography is literally a mouse click
> away if you are on a normal unfiltered Net connection?
>
> What would happen if anything that fit my definition of porn
> was not accessible via the Net to anyone without a credit card?
> Could such a law be enforced?  I would support a law using
> my definition of porn as the standard that requires identifying
> oneself to see pornography.  I'd like to see porn banned from
> the Net entirely, but that is asking a lot.
>
> The pornography is harmless camp ignores the fact that porn is
> addictive, that there are higher crime rates when you introduce
> porn to a community, and that porn can tear apart families.
> Even if you don't believe in looking at porn, it can show up
> in unusual places and it can be difficult because of the nature
> of it to leave it alone.  There are billions of dollars being
> made by porn producers.  I expect that these people are going
> to fight any attempt to restrict how they do business.  Is porn
> the number one money maker on the Net?  If it is, that is very
> unfortunate.
>
> Procon Latte is not an effective deterrent because anyone can bypass
> it via safe mode.
>
> Dansguardian isn't effective because one needs to be able to download
> stuff sometimes where Dansguardian generally denies that.
>
> A server that provides the Internet connection which blocks between
> certain hours is a good idea, if you aren't the administrator of it.
>
> Sadly, there is no time of day that is safe for a person who is not
> behind a filter of some kind.  At least with television one knows
> to turn it off after 10:00 pm and that's pretty effective.
>
> There will be responses and possibly they will be negative.
> I'm taking a risk talking about this on a public mailing list.
> I only ask that people not go out of their way to make me
> regret raising this topic.
>
> I do not endorse porn in any way.
>
> BTW:  Is there any way to fix firefox so that it can't browse web
>      pages on other hosts?  I want it on a server for reading
>      documentation and using local web based tools.  I might want
>      to be able to access RFC1918 networks.  I want a version of
>      firefox that one can't run in safe-mode to get around the
>      security.
>
> _______________________________________________
> PLUG-talk mailing list
> PLUG-talk at lists.pdxlinux.org
> http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-talk
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.pdxlinux.org/pipermail/plug-talk/attachments/20091027/7a593d82/attachment.html>