[PLUG-TALK] Porn on the Net...
Aaron
ke7ezt at gmail.com
Wed Oct 28 10:02:55 UTC 2009
Whew Michael. Damn. I'm done talking about this.
All the best in love and peace.
On Oct 28, 2009, at 12:11 AM, Michael Robinson <plug_1 at robinson-
west.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-10-27 at 17:53 -0700, Russell Johnson wrote:
>> On Oct 27, 2009, at 5:04 PM, Michael Robinson wrote:
>>
>>> The production and consumption of porn, whether through the Net or
>>> by
>>> other means, is always and has always been sex abuse.
>>
>> Assuming the rest of the definition of abuse is there too.
>>
>> "the willful infliction of injury, unreasonable confinement,
>> intimidation or punishment with resulting physical harm, pain or
>> mental anguish."
>>
>> You assume that every performer in the adult entertainment industry
>> is
>> there against their will.
>
> That isn't necessary to say that pornography and prostitution
> constitute abuse. Pornography abuses human sexuality regardless
> of whether or not the performers choose to be involved. Doing
> something willfully does not make it right or wrong. Pornography
> and prostitution are always wrong.
>
>> I can state for a fact that this is not true. I am, and have been
>> friends with, exotic dancers and other people in that industry.
>
> Sex is not an industry. The "adult" industry is not a legitimate
> industry either. If your friend isn't being abused, he/she is
> abusing others by providing "adult" entertainment.
>
>> The fact that you do not like that industry does not make it evil.
>> The
>> fact that the christian church does not like it does not make it
>> evil.
>
> The fact that it violates human rights makes it evil. Every child
> deserves to be born out of the loving union of a husband and wife
> and no human person deserves to be used sexually for a "good time"
> or "money." No child deserves to have to worry that their mother or
> father is out with someone they shouldn't be. No wife should get an
> STD from her husband, but sadly this does happen. "If you lust after
> a woman, you have already committed adultery." Adultery is not
> healthy
> for families. The purpose of sex is to create unity between a man and
> a woman and perpetuate the human species. Prostitution violates the
> unitive aspect of sex and often times the procreative aspect as well
> because it is sex without a marital commitment and/or with barriers
> to fertility.
>
>> Just like god does not require my belief to exist, does not change
>> the
>> fact that I don't believe he does.
>
> First off, God should be capitalized out of respect. Second off,
> human
> decency should not disappear simply because someone doesn't believe in
> God, but don't be surprised if it does. Third off, belief is a gift
> from God that you obviously lack.
>
>> The production and viewing (consuming would require that it disappear
>> when it's consumed) of porn is protected expression, which you happen
>> to disagree with. I disagree with flag burning as an act of
>> expression, but that doesn't make it wrong. It makes it wrong FOR ME.
>
> Flag burning is very different, it doesn't involve sex abuse and you
> bringing it up is impolite. As far as consuming being a bad word,
> yes it was a bad choice of words. That's the English language for
> you, you should be able to understand what I meant from the context
> though.
>
>>> Government is supposed to protect it's citizens against abuse.
>>
>> I disagree with this statement too.
>
> Then in your opinion government has no function whatsoever. The only
> reason government exists is to serve people and protecting them is a
> form of service to them.
>
>>> As far as
>>> arguing with me that an addict has a choice, I have not seen one
>>> convincing argument yet to back that up.
>>
>> Does the addict have a brain? Did the addict choose?
>>
>> a + b = c
>
> Sorry, you fail again. If that brain is under the influence of
> strong hormonal fluctuations, then the decisions that person
> makes could easily be questionable. Getting someone drunk for
> example so they will sign a contract is frowned upon, but this
> technique was often used against Native Americans.
>
>> Did someone hold a gun to the addicts head and force him to click
>> that
>> mouse or pour that drink?
>
> Yes, pornography is presented to get you to click that picture.
> There is a billion dollar industry built on people clicking that
> picture to see more. The producers of pornography know that most
> people will never be satisfied and expect a continuous stream of
> revenue from repeat customers. You can get a rush from looking
> at pornography, but it doesn't last and it doesn't satisfy because
> in your heart you know that you are abusing something beautiful.
>
>> NO.
>>
>> They made a choice.
>
> Prove it. Prove that they were of sound mind and sound judgment
> and that lust wasn't involved. Why are you so adamant that looking
> at pornography is a free choice when so often it isn't? You can
> be a slave to money as surely as you can be a slave to a sexual
> image of some woman called Miss March. If you can't leave porn
> alone, you aren't truly free are you?
>
>>> Anonymous or not, consuming or producing porn is sex abuse.
>>> Government
>>> is supposed to prevent the abuse of it's citizens. Abusers always
>>> hide
>>> behind consent as an excuse for the way they are treating themselves
>>> and others. That doesn't make what they are doing right.
>
>>> As far as the comment that I'm saying open source software is bad, I
>>> never said that. Free software that is open source does not
>>> constitute an act of abuse the way "free porn" does.
>>
>> Nor did I say that you did. However, others have, and the corollary
>> holds. When you start burning books, where do you stop? When someone
>> is offended by the Holy Bible, do you burn it?
>
> Now you are making me out to be a book burner. You are confusing the
> issue because you have a misguided notion that the "adult"
> entertainment
> industry is a good and deserves protection. By broadening the issue
> to include book burning and other issues you don't have to fight me on
> the issue at hand which you obviously can't do well.
>
>>> Sex is supposed to be private between a male husband and his female
>>> wife and open to children.
>>
>> This is your opinion. Again, your religious opinion does not belong
>> making laws about what *I* may or may not do.
>
> There are plenty of laws about what you may or may not do for the good
> of society. You can drive on the left side of the road, but you'll be
> breaking the law and are potentially going to get ticketed for
> reckless
> driving. There are laws that limit what you can do which are
> necessary
> for society to function properly. The family unit needs to function
> for society to perpetuate itself. Pornography and prostitution
> threaten the family unit. A woman feels she cannot compete with the
> images her husband is looking at where children do not understand and
> often end up being negatively impacted in their sexual development.
>
>> Porn and prostitution are two separate things that need to be dealt
>> with individually.
>
> No they aren't. The purpose of porn ultimately is to make money off
> of
> sex which happens to be the purpose of prostitution with the only
> significant difference being that the viewer is sexually engaged with
> the "actor." The difference between pornography and prostitution is
> so minimal that one can be classified as a stepping stone to the
> other.
>
>>> The issue of porn on the Net is NOT a matter of personal
>>> responsibility.
>>> Porn when it exists is a social sin. A social sin involves
>>> everyone.
>
>>> There you go again. Sin is defined as a transgression against god.
>>> It's religious in nature. Laws based on religion should not be.
>
> So, you are saying, "if God exists, committing a transgression against
> him is not significant," or are you saying, "society as a
> whole cannot transgress against God?" Sorry, but God exists no
> matter what you believe and government loses all authority without
> some religious foundation to build on. Explain the ethic that says
> human life is precious and deserving of protection from conception
> to natural death without mentioning a supreme being creating man
> in his image. Explain the ethic that says that the human body is
> not a mere machine with which we can do whatever we want. Pornography
> and prostitution for that matter as well reduce the body to a mere
> mechanical object when in fact the human body is a supernatural
> phenomenon made in the image of the ultimate being.
>
> The prohibition of murder is based on a belief in the value of human
> life which is rooted in a belief in God. Sorry, rejecting the
> existence of God makes a lot of laws fall and even compromises
> the concept of there being human rights. No matter which ethic
> you look at whether it be the Christian or Islamic ethic or some
> other ethic, you will find that human rights are rooted in a belief
> in the existence of a supreme being who cares about humanity.
> This is a recurring theme.
>
>>> There is a sex trade in the
>>> world and it is even alive here in the good ol USA, though it
>>> tends to
>>> be a more serious problem in Islamic/Atheistic countries.
>>
>> Wow. How little you know. This country has more of a 'problem' with
>> porn, prostitution, and sexual dysfunction, than any other 1st world
>> country in the world. Most of the studies I've read on this conclude
>> this to be because this country is more 'puritanical' in it's laws
>> and
>> beliefs.
>>
>> In other words, countries with a more open attitude about sex in
>> general, have a lower 'offender rate' than the U.S. does.
>
> The belief that pornography and prostitution are two evils that
> constitute abuses of human sexuality does not increase the incidence
> of either. Nor does the belief that murder is immoral and gravely
> evil increase the incidence of murder. There is no correlation
> between believing something is evil and the incidence of it.
>
> I could say that there is a correlation between people drinking water
> and getting cancer, but that doesn't mean that drinking water has
> any causal effect. Yes you can drink water and contract cancer, but
> the chances that it was because you drank that water are slim to none.
> Perhaps the problem in America and other 1st world countries is that
> they aren't puritanical enough. Maybe we are too accepting of what
> we know is bad for society because we don't want to offend anyone.
> We are so busy not offending people that we don't see the real
> consequences of our actions or inaction.
>
> I disagree with you that sexual abuse is more of a problem in the
> U.S. than say Russia where the life expectancy of men is
> artificially low because of promiscuity.
>
>> Portland itself has more adult industry establishments per
>> capita than any other city on the west coast, and possibly
>> the country. Are you actually telling us that all of those
>> businesses are oppressing their employees and customers?
>
> They are encouraging their employees and customers to offend God.
> They are increasing crime in the city. They are a plague that
> should be wiped out. If this is really true, it is not something
> to advertise.
>
>>> Free speech has to take a back seat to human rights.
>>
>> No, no, no. There is a reason the right to free speech is 1st in the
>> bill of rights. Free speech is the most important human right there
>> is. Once you trample free speech, human rights are gone.
>
> It is more important that you have the right to live than it
> is that you have a right to speak. Without the former, the
> latter is pointless. Speech is not the foundation of human
> rights, not all speech is deserving of protection. Obscenity
> is not deserving of protection as speech according to Oregon
> law anyways and this is as it should be. The right to live
> is far more important than any right to speak.
>
>> If you remove free speech, you have just silenced all those
>> oppressed workers you are trying so hard to put out of work.
>
> Oppressed workers? The sex trade needs to be put out of
> business for the good of the nation and the world. It abuses
> everyone involved from the "model" to the "viewer/participant."
> Even if the "model" say is "consenting," God is offended and
> some human person who views or participates with the model is
> harmed. Sex is not a performance that one should be charging
> a price for, it is much much more.
>
> _______________________________________________
> PLUG-talk mailing list
> PLUG-talk at lists.pdxlinux.org
> http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-talk
More information about the PLUG-talk
mailing list