WTF????

Here's a progressive politician talking about the common good and where his policies would provide for that common good, and then wham! He goes off on porn.

Well, ok, but WTF does that have to do with progressive public policy?

Tom "wasn't sure that censorship was the answer" - begging the question that would lead to "but I'm not rejecting it".

I don't know about you Nathan, but I've had enough religion mixed with my public policy for the last few years, and I'm a little bit sick from it's long term effects. Why am I incensed about porn, you might ask? Much like the Global Gag Rule that is injuring tens of thousands of women every year in developing countries, that was some serious pandering to another set of religious-based OPINIONS that wound up censoring information desperately needed (certainly more needed than porn).

Religious litmus tests like anti-abortion, anti-porn, anti-gay....do we really want to have the left go through that kabuki also?

Alphonse ( Al ) Kada
Iranians are fighting the Americans in Iraq so they don't have to fight them on the streets of Tehran

Who the hell is tom?

But it is interesting that some liberals condemn religiously-based OPINIONS the way conservatives often condemn sexual imagery or other libertine values. You get the sense that some liberals aren't really looking for a live-and-let-live society but to clone themselves and their values everywhere.

Nathan, I can't speak for anyone other than myself. But, what I condemn is the prospect of religiously-based LAWS, which have their origin in publicly espoused religiously-based OPINIONS.

~~~~~~~~~~~
Is est vicis muto probo.

Come visit PROJECT: Lucidity
Where everybody knows your name...
unless you use a pseudonym

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/tableforone/2007/nov/01/our_culture_war_on_greed

I capitalized OPINIONS because Tom in his post wasn't talking about "forcing" anything.  He was acknowledging that a lot of people are upset by the materialism, sex and other excesses in modern society.  And frankly, a majority of the population have some allegiance to the religious values Tom is talking about.

So either we get politicians who can speak to those values but channel them in a progressive direction or we'll have elected leaders who just call for censorship. 

And while I can wax poetic on the evils of religion in history, plenty of nasty folks with little spirituality have done great damage as well.  Hate and violence has come from a lot of different sources, religious and secular, over the years.

I doubtt that liberals want to restrict free speech. However the far left, which shares some of the same authoritarian if not the totalitarian, inclinations of the right. One of the scarier elements of the last couple of decades is the number of people who think they know better what believe should say, hear, read or believe and that government should be used to enforce their views.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

"I welcome politics inspired by Aristotle or Shakespeare or Rawls."

Amen to that.

"you'll never find...

...another love like mine."

On the porn issue, there is a whole realm of non-conservative feminists who have deep antipathy to the values embodied in prevalent porn in our society. As long as they don't jump to government censorship, why shouldn't liberals celebrate the diversity of opinions as what makes a pluralistic society great?

A thought occurred to me when I read this and maybe I'm taking this too literally but isn't it possible to have a diversity of opinions and to disagree with many of them? It seems almost obvious to me but the more diverse and numerous the opinions or beliefs, the more people you'll find yourself in opposition to right?

I suppose I feel it's just as healthy and worthy of celebration to disagree. I don't think you'll find very many liberals that want to restrict a person's beliefs. I know I certainly don't. But there's believing and there's imposing and I think this ends up being the real rub.

Religion is getting a bad rap here--and I say that as a terminally lapsed Catholic who neither prays or attends services that don't include decent food and drink in the aftermath.

Religion is not the problem here. The problem is religious flim-flamers and the accreting mountain of ignorami that buy into their bullshit. Christianity, in particular, has become an object of fashionable hostility--not because of the tenets of the faith, but because of the bogus interpretations of those tenets.

"Do unto others," goes the aphorism. "As you would have them do unto you."

Who finds that objectionable?

So, as far as porn goes. I suppose we could find a consensus that tolerates it so long as we keep it away from kids...

...and, probably pets.

I think you have to consider that most people believe in souls and that souls can be damaged by mechanical, mercenary and predatory sexuality depicted as if it were healthy for relationships. Certainly, mechanical, mercenary and predatory killing is depicted and virtually practiced in videogames. In essence, the programming, if "unfettered" by parental intervention, religious conscience and intelligent folks who still believe there is such a thing as wisdom, would train the children of tomorrow to live as demons.

The fact that the porn saturation of Western society happens in the context of the rest of the ailments Tom has been talking about suggests that porn is part of the training of minds to complete a sort of anti-stationing of the cross, moving from indulgence to indulgence until challenged (even oil field to oil field) and then whipping out the big guns to level all who protest our excesses. Oh, but you would say that porn is unrelated to selfishness, and selfishness is good?

Look: nudity that respects privacy, the outer appearance of which is called "modesty" is a lost art of living as a whole being, not just a sexual being. Sheesh. For crying out loud. Enough already of severing the human soul into parts and then exploiting her divided qualities for cash while crippling the folks involved.

C.S. Lewis wrote wisely I think when he pointed out that the "prudishness" (prudence?) of the Puritans and moralists of the Victorian era was an extreme reaction to an extreme licentiousness that had come before. What force gave the pendulum its push to the extremes? What came before.

What is WTF? The World Troll Federation? :o]

You've got it the other way around.

Religious folks do not generally want to use politics to arrive at their goals, however, politicians see the religious as a great and disciplined constituency they can use. Therefore they tempt its adherents with the prospect of fear and protection, and both parties create the extremes by which this is possible for every election.

Politicians radicalize the religious in this country by suggesting that if they don't get politically involved to stop X or Y, they'll lose their religious freedoms. And frankly, some of the things anti-religionists have done in the name of the Democratic party in various levels of government from coast to coast has been extremely provocative and confirmatory of the politicians' fear game. Just ask Jay Sekulow who has handled intrusion cases nationwide.

I'm somewhat sympathetic to Tom's opinion on porn and even the idea that torture and war are linked to a broader culture of selfish materialism.

What bothers me isn't so much his opinion, but his apparent insistence that this be a political opinion. Yes, I realize that he doesn't intend to coerce anyone. But it isn't coercion that's the problem here--it's the notion that we must look to public debate and dialog to determine all right and wrong--not just in matters of force and economics, but in religion and aesthetics as well. We The People decide not only what is permissible, but what is beautiful, sublime, and worthwhile.

Maybe this is my Protestant "pray in the closet" roots showing, but I find something wrong with this even when I kind of agree with the opinion in question. When Tom talks about whether "any of us honestly believe that the ready availability of internet porn is not destroying something sacred within us", well, I don't believe the sacred is knowable, universal, or arguable. The problem with politics is not merely coercion, but that political arguments presume that there is one correct knowable answer.

The debate could go meta here, but let me try to distinguish two things.   One, if folks say, "hey Tom, you're linking porn to materialism and greed in society, but there are clear studies that show that people who watch porn are also less materialist," that's disagreeing with his argument.

If commentators say, "hey Tom, you condemned porn; that must mean you're one of those religious cranks who are out to censor everyone and oppress the non-religious", you have a broader manifestation of intolerance.

Some forms of intolerance manifest themselves in not taking an argument seriously and assuming that because of whom a person is, they must be saying something different and more sinister than what they actually said.  In many ways, that kind of assumption of dark motives and not listening is the most prevalent kind of intolerance that exists, far more common that straight up hatred and name-calling.

I suspect that smedley gave you a zero because, by posting your ratings policy (and complaining of having been previously labeled a concern troll), you have displayed a massively fragile ego. Smedley didn't really give you a zero because your comment merited it--he gave you a zero because you're inordinately obsessed with ratings.

I don't care what kind of rating you give me. I'm going to give your original rating a 3, because (1) you fail to explain what the Delaware issue was, though you do provide a link of sorts, (2) the Delaware issue doesn't seem to have a lot of relevance to the issue that's being discussed in this forum. Under normal circumstances, that might merit a 2. However, the listing of your misguided ratings policy has spurred some interesting and legitimate discussion.

Well, I may be wrong, but isn't it at least implicit in Tom's post that his religious beliefs are the reason for his opposition to pornography and a number of other social ills? (It certainly seems to be the subject of his post today.)

If this is so, then my response is to argue that religious beliefs should not be the basis for public policy, period, because religious beliefs are highly variable and are based upon faith as opposed to reason, and that any public policy stemming from religious concerns or convictions has the danger of imposing religion upon me.

This response does not make me intolerant.

I am pleasantly surprised at your opinion on this.

The discussions on the topic on this site have just reinforced what has become my own credo on it:

Just say no to culture wars in politics; culture wars belong in culture.

Culture, you know: art, movies, literature, music, human rituals, religions, that kind of stuff. History has shown you can actually change cultures over time with all of the latter, through exchanges and trade between cultures, but few in history have been successful at changing culture by force of law or war without tons and tons of blowback. If you are going to force culture change by politics or law or war or similar, it better be something mighty important enough to be worth all the blowback.

Re: Nathan, you made a statement about some liberals condemning religiously based opinions. Your damned right we do. When you consider the harm that has been done by these so-called OPINIONS (does capitalizing the word make it less threatning) throughout history I have nothing but condemnation for those who force them on the rest of us.

Please put down that great big tar brush and tell us what specific opinions are you talking about? There are lots and lots of very different religious ideas. Which do you object to? "Do unto to others as you would have them do unto to you"? The Eightfold Way? That social injustice is an outrage to God?
You sound almost like the old racists who would focus on some specific act of crminality or dysfunction in a minority community (never mind it was a common sin of all humankind) and would use it as proof positive that "those people" are inferior and need to be kept in their places.

Um, you're the one that brought ratings up. If you examine my history of posts you'll find that I've argued against ratings from the very beginning. My ratings policy shows that I don't care about ratings. I rate you down if you abuse other people. I rate you up if your argument was truly excellent, regardless of what side you take. If your argument is merely meh, than whatever d00d.

You've been here about nine months, perhaps you just weren't around for the ratings wars. The signature that you have some sort of problem with and use as e-psychiatrist to ascribe all sorts of qualities to me and profile me came out of that war as I described why I did not condone calling people trolls or concern trolls and why I did not slavishly rate every post one way or another.

Not only don't I care what rating you gave me, you can give me a 0 or a 5, whatever d00d. You'll note that I haven't rated you at all, and you can read my response to smedley asking if I think he's a troll or a concern troll.

Whatever d00d. (Does playing e-psychiatrist work for you? Most people think it's obnoxious.)

I came here to agree with Nathan and point to another aspect of that as seen in just the past two days with the University of Delaware. That part of the conversation is apparently lost to you, who would prefer a conversation about how woeful my ratings policy is and what that means about me as a human being on a thread in which Nathan Newman deplored how many liberals just want to speak with clones of themselves? Is this some sort of performance art show that you are creating?

Is there some reason you have to convince us all that your reasons for being intolerant are okay and correct or recognize how special you are?

Here professor, I've changed my sig to help you understand.

-- my ratings policy
If I think you argued well: 4 or 5
If I dislike or disbelieve your argument: no rating
Exceptions:
If you call someone a troll, you get a 1.
If you call someone a concern troll, you get a 0.

A lot of condemnation of porn is because it leads to masturbation. And one of the old saws about masturbation is that it causes insanity.

While there may be a correlation I think the causation runs in the opposite direction. Just look at some of these mentions of alzheimer's and masturbation

I'll use this as an example of what I meant. I posted it earlier on Tom's page:

I always like to use this argument: if you believe that morality is tied to religion, then presumably you believe that murder is immoral because God "said so." But since God is all-powerful, then certainly he could have instead decided that murder was morally commendable, and that helping old people cross the street is a venal sin. But if that seems just wrong to you, consider the alternative: God had a reason to declare murder immoral. The philosophical inquiry into ethics is the attempt to discern that reason. Such a reason would be a basis for a general agreement about ethics which is independent of particular religious beliefs.

If you go through this socratic argument with people who thinks that their moral beliefs are rooted in their religious beliefs, some (but not all) will realize and admit that there's something deeper going on about their moral beliefs.

I think many religious people and many atheists, undergo many of the same reasoning processes, although they may not realize it until pressed.

Such a one track mind on sex you have.

Whether or not someone looks at porn is an individual decision, but the censorship is the point, you sanctimonious jerk.

Don't talk down to me like I have no belief system. I studied my catechism, was made a member of my Lutheran church and was an acolyte for five years.

The point of my comment was that because censorship is even being considered as a panacea to porn, once that step is advocated by a policy maker, we end up with the Global Gag Rule, foisted on the world as a condition of US aid, that censors the word "ABORTION". No one may utter it and continue to receive aid. And you're worried about the violence to women from porn? How about the fact that unsafe abortions and lack of reproductive planning is responsible for 40% of the deaths in women in Nigeria? And why is there the dearth of information? Because of "moralists" such as yourself that have been very quick to censor what they are uncomfortable with.

Get over it, BuckO. Keep your repressed lifestyle and your repressive public policies where they belong-

With the right wing.

PS- WTF stands for What The Fuck.

Alphonse ( Al ) Kada
Iranians are fighting the Americans in Iraq so they don't have to fight them on the streets of Tehran

I'll be praying for you, leftAhead.

There are members that have been around for a long time and are considered trusted users. I think the privilege goes with that. One has to collect enough good karma, by earning ratings I guess, to qualify.

Yeah, I guess I don't really mean that. I've been called "libertarian" on many occasions, but I'm all for regulation that promotes public health and protects civil liberties.

No, liberals believe in personal freedom, libertarians believe in freedom of economic transactions. In those examples, the liberal isn't restricting what you do with yourself, but what you can use economics to make other people do or not do. In a hypothetical world in which one man owned all property in the nation and required everyone to be Christian to live here, liberals would object but libertarians would insist on that one man's right to do with his property as he chose.

It's not that we have a different definition of morality than conservatives, it's that we have a different definition of liberty than libertarians. Ours actually makes sense.

I disagree. Libertarianism is about freedom from constraints, not just economic constraints. It's just that those who advertise the fact that they are libertarians seem to be more interested in money than in motorcycle helmet laws. That's not the fault of the ideology, but the fault of the proponents.

If it's any consolation, Jerry, your post is only the second, possibly the third, post that I've given a zero rating to. I suppose you are entitled to your opinion that it constitutes "abuse." But then again, ratings are inherently subjective, aren't they? And I think that's the whole point.

I think it's related to the number of posts you've made, because I was one of the first members, and it took me a very long time to become so privileged as I didn't post nearly as much as others.

I'm pretty sure trusted user status here is still achieved the same way it always was, by what ratings you have.

The power to zero is definitely taken away if your karma score drops below a certain level. The idea behind that is that you want people that the community considers good peace officers should be the ones able to zero, or partially censor so that lurkers and others with low karma can not see troll comments and be tempted to feed, or respond.

They changed the software here to Drupal a while back and then custom added a ratings system. But when they were using Scoop, they had the "karma" level set very high, you could see that easily with the way that system.

The way it works in Scoop, and the way it probably still works now with this custom Drupal, is that any comment that you make that is not rated gets a score of 3. It was clear to a lot of regulars that if you made a lot of comments in a day that didn't get rated, you lost your trusted user status. You had to keep your average above 3 to have trusted user. One thing this is meant to do for the proprietor, if they set the level so high, is to discourage lots of idle chatter, like long strings of one liners like is common on Daily Kos, and to discourage tit-for-tat one-line debates taking over threads, to encourage more thoughtful posting. The same theory is inherent in other software forum tools where they have a setting where you can only post so many comments within a certain time span and then you get a "locked out" message that tells you to go take a coffee break and you can post again in an hour.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I always got the impression that Josh Marshall chose a high setting originally because he wanted to encourage this place to have thoughtful commenting rather than lots of one-liner quips, and to discourage people with lots of time on their hands, with a special grudge or with a tendency to knee-jerk from dominating threads, i.e., thinking and composing before posting.

Alright Tom. Now do that in pig latin. Dare ya.

Allsburg, don't you worry. I don't even want to touch your door handle. :o(

Please read the posts and comments more closely--no one's proposing government censorship.

Responses to Howard indented in this one.

Again, a rather sweeping statement, not limited by geography, or clear definition of "soul". Coincidentally, I ran across a http://home.btclick.com/scimah/mindandsoul.htm>comparison of the idea of a "soul" in Christianity and a "mind" in Buddhism. Now, I wouldn't go so far to say as all Christians and all Buddhists agree with the definitions and qualifications in the article, but it's far less of a sweeping statement that "most people".

Most peoples around the globe believe in the human spirit or soul. That's been true to date.

Who are most people, anyway? A Wikipedia breakout of religious adherents puts Christians and Muslims as the largest groups, at a total of about 53%. OK--numerical majority, not necessarily a Bush-style "mandate". Do all denominations have a clearly shared definition? It would be silly to suggest anything more than "something nonmaterial".

You're not saying much here Howard. This isn't too relevant. Seems like a tizzy.

I'd hesitate to say Jews routinely put as much emphasis on "soul" as these other Abrahamic religions; I find there is more of an element of individual right choice than a directed morality. A late friend of mine observed his mixed Jewish-Buddhist marriage worked mostly because the two both had temples, and they found more commonality with each other than with Christianity or Islam. Yes, I know "anecdote" isn't the singular of "data", but I have enough humility (that's supposed to be Christian, right?) not to be throwing around lots of "of courses" and "most peoples".

Thanks for that research, Howard. What's it got to do with the fact that most people in the world believe they have souls? That remains the fact. Different shades of definition don't change it.

I note Mike again doesn't define "relationship" here, and whether, for example, if Muslim polygamy and status of women is beneficial to human values -- recognizing not all Muslims practice this sort of relationship.

I'm not a Muslim, Howard. That's a pretty good reason why I don't pretend to speak for them other than in general terms. I know they believe they have souls. And I'm certain that Muslim relationships are damaged by the phenomenon that is the topic at hand as much as others. It's a hunch. You want I should check my wallet to see if I have enough cash to hire Zogby to follow up on my hunches for you?

So now you're referring to me in the 3rd person. Great Howard. Thanks. 

As mentioned in my first link, there is a considerably different concept of the non-material human aspect, and of deity, in Buddhism, and to a lesser extent in Hinduism, the two forming the estimated 18% in the Dharmic religions. About 12% were considered irreligious, and the rest of the population is pretty fragmented. Still, when there are 500 million in Chinese traditional, 400 million or so animists, etc., I find there to be a fair bit of generalization going on.

I believe they have souls. When its my opinion, that's what you'd expect, wouldn't you? I stick to my guns on this one, H.

When I find expressions such as

anti-stationing of the cross,

, I'm not sure that the Muslims, Hindus, and Taoists are getting all that represented.

Howard, I'm not Muslim, Hindu or Taoist. Why would I represent them beyond generalities? To try to prove I've read a recent Encyclopedia piece on some outdated details from a census survey about them? I'll let them post their opinions. I do know Hindus find Western sexploitation to be pretty sick because to Hindus sexual relationships in marriage are sacred. I agree with them in general on that point.

I still note that Mike has yet to comment on my suggestions on more inclusive terms than "soul", such as the transcendental, numinous, or self-actualized states. Might I assume that it's his definition or the highway?

Might I suggest that your assumption that transcendental, numinous or self-actualized states are inclusive of "soul" is your version of "your way or the highway?" Seems hypocritical to me Howard.

This isn't just about porn. Mike's positions, to me, are getting more and more annoying as generalizing a large number of particular Christian views, not even of all Christians.

Howard, I speak for myself in my opinions and I'm Christian. Why should I speak as if I were not and adopted multiple definitions, some conflicting that I don't believe? You can do that to your heart's content, but if I did that, it would be disingenuine. 

It's hard to keep him on one topic; in the post to which I responded, there's a stew of violence and relationships and porn and mercenaries and a few other things.

It's not really your job to censor comments to keep them on the scope that pleases you, is it Howard? No way. Beyond that Howard, your characterizations are off base today. Lots of bending the truth and mixing yourself up in others' exchanges, failing to distinguish between yourself and others in responding for them. Odd, inconsistent, and not your usual class.

In the tradition of Gadsden independence, Don't tread on me, H.

So for you, a culture of abortion, porn, contraceptives in lunchboxes and kids who don't pray on your watch is the culture of American dignity?

If teachers were asked to uphold the constitution of the US, would you omit the very important part of the First Amendment that triply protects religious speech, exercise and non-establishment, to include prayer?

Aht-way the uck-fay?

Iskey-way ango-tay oxtrot-fay?

Ee-say ou-yay.

I don't understand why we can't put all internet porn on it's own domain, .sex, .adult, .smut, or whatever.

That would in no way limit free speech, but it would allow those of us who find it offensive to block it from our family computers.

I think porn does harm people by giving them false expectations, especially youngsters.

If that makes me a prude, fine, but it seems to me that there is some common sense steps that could be taken that wouldn't limit "free speech" and make "prudes" like me more comfortable. There must be some reason that people find it addictive. We regulate other addictive substances, for the common good.

CSPAN junkies visit http://spannerbackup.ipbhost.com

Look Ace,

Change culture all you want. Just don't do it by sliding your agenda in by force of law.

And you still haven't addressed the issue that I raise:

Where do you stand on the Global Gag Rule?

Answer that question without obfuscation and I'll listen to what you have to say. Snark your way out of it again and you will reveal your true agenda.

Alphonse ( Al ) Kada
Iranians are fighting the Americans in Iraq so they don't have to fight them on the streets of Tehran

I guess I just dont want my political leaders to act like school marms and scolds.

I mean, they can if they want, of course. That's their right. But they shouldn't expect my support because I think it's sill at best and dangerous at worst.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

Again, I don't wish to put the focus on porn or even the lumping of porn together with issues like war. Partly, it's not that relevant: one cannot seriously attempt to control the Internet without restrictions far beyond porn that one has never dreamed of, and even then it'll be hacked and I'll keep getting spam inviting me to see the results. In part, though, Nathan is using it to pretend outrage and to hide the big picture.

Tom hasn't broken a liberal shibboleth, although I like to think that the First Amendment is more than a shallow prejudice. (If you want to start itemizing liberal interest groups, we'd have to put unions into question, you know, such as the one that sold out the other day by endorsing Clinton.) I don't care for porn myself, although I shouldn't have to say that. Freedom of speech should mean not having to start sentences with "much as I detest." Besides, as an arts writer, I end up discussing all the time work that may or may not have pornographic intent but gets viewed and attacked that way regardless. (Did you know that Madonna has had slinky videos in a posh Soho gallery?)

Nope, Tom just opened a window onto the whole agenda, which we should have seen from his framing economics about greed and many other signs. Nathan confuses confusing liberalism with a totalitarian impulse. I'm saying that Tom is confusing government of, by, and for the people with a totalitarian impulse, and worse he likes it that way. If that invites some knee-jerk attacks, fine.

Face it: the culture wars are pretty much over except in GOP primary debates. And face it, too: alas, the struggle for a modicum of justice in the Bush era is going to have to regain a lot of ground. Let's not confuse the two. 

John

http://www.haberarts.com/

Deleted Duplicate.

A Red light district, exactly, thank you.

Haven't we learned that prohibition doesn't work? You'd think that after centuries of human civilization, we'd learn that there are reasons red light districts work for societies.

I didn't know that about ICANN, thanks for the education. I don't see how allowing these sites their own domains would be "promoting" them, it would, in effect, be regulating them. It sounds like the same kind of hysterical argument that pops up every now and then when people want to close a sex shop, or clean up a red light district, or even, have a "war on drugs."

CSPAN junkies visit http://spannerbackup.ipbhost.com

Doesn't sound too good. Tell me more about it. Haven't read about it, at least under that title. Glad to have a normal conversation. Thanks.

Howard: I've never told you how to live your life. I've given opinions on what I think the good life is, culturally and within the bounds of persuasion, not government coercion. You continually, and either dishonestly or in fits of inexplicable fear, twist it every time I state such opinions into the false premise that I am advocating government coercion.

I don't think the things that the poster you transformed yourself into are healthy things to strain to preserve in the culture. In the context of a community cultural sea-change, we need to have this conversation without obstructionists making false assumptions about the conversation in order to sidetrack it. That's what your doing now. American culture suffers too many ailments that we as a supposed community can't afford to ignore.

I've given opinions on what I think the good life is, culturally and within the bounds of persuasion, not government coercion.

In the context of a community cultural sea-change, we need to have this conversation without obstructionists making false assumptions about the conversation in order to sidetrack it

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Do you? 

~~~~~~~~~~~
Is est vicis muto probo.

Come visit PROJECT: Lucidity
Where everybody knows your name...
unless you use a pseudonym

Do you really think that the taboo against casual out of committed relationship sex is the fault of religious people? Is there a possible that that taboo is due to the differences in the sexual natures of men and women?

Haven't we learned that prohibition doesn't work?

I laughed...then I cried. Unfortunately workerbee we have not learned anything seemingly ever. We seem destined to continually try putting square pegs into round holes. And once that task fails, leaving us with handfuls of splintered wood, we try to bash our own heads and the heads of those around us into that same said hole.

For another illuminating example of us "not learning" may I refer you to aisle 4 and ask you to grab a box of Regime Change.

I think the blame falls squarely on religion's shoulders Robert. The sexual practices of people have been one area organized religions have tried to control from day #1. Sure there are differences in the way the sexes look at relationships, both purely sexual and in sex in the pair bonding, but those differences doesn't chage the fact that both sexes like making love. Men just happen, through genetics, to think about sex more often then women do. Plus we are just focusing on hetereosexual relationships here.

We, as a society, are taught the "morality" of a person is largely determined by their sexual conduct. Liking sex "too much" is abnormal, bad, evil. Organized Christian religions also instill in young males the idea that women are to be subservient to men which leads to dysfunctional relationships and also domestic and sexual violence against women. It isn't the porn that is causing this violence it is the way our "Christian Youth" are being reared. And women are told that if they enjoy sex out of wedlock they are "whores". The Virgin Mary is held up to them in the ultimate affront that sexual chastity is their burden to bear lest they burn in Hell.

Repressing these natural urges to enjoy sex, which organized religion is all about, leads to dangerous sex, binge sex, unprotected sex leading to unwanted pregnancies and rape. We are taught to fear sex, by the forces of organized religion, and sex then becomes a source of guilt and violence rather then the enjoyable act it should be viewed as.

 I think your post really crystallizes what I find objectionable about what he said--to complain about internet porn instead of all porn or commercialized sexuality in general (I know he spoke of a wide variety of things, but internet porn seemed to be the only thing in the sex sphere) shows that what concerns you isn't greed, lust, or selfishness, but a lack of societal restraint and conformity. Public commercial sexual prurience in broadcast and cinema flies under the radar, but if people can become sexually aroused without their neighbors knowing about it, then it's a problem. I find that a troubling viewpoint, since I believe in both altruism and non-conformity.

 Wow, I've seen a lot of non sequiturs hee before, but yours is a rather spectacular one.

With all the problems indicated resulting from easy access to Internet Porn, "conformity" is hardly the main concern, nor is it even one of the most important, unless you mean by "conforming" that one will not engage in violent and anti-social behavior, in which case, yer nutz, to put it politely.

Ted Bundy and Gary Bishop both confessed to porn's dominating power in their lives; a 20-year FBI study indicates that 81% of sex murderers name porn as their most significant sexual interest; police investigators routinely find porn in the homes of sex crime suspects; and a study by the Los Angeles Police Department of more than 40 child molestation cases found that pornography was a factor in every single case.

Although law enforcement and mental health professionals are reluctant to say that pornography causes sex crimes, most seem to name it as one of numerous, complex, related factors that serve as precursors to sexual offending. Other issues commonly named by experts include a history of physical or sexual abuse and exposure to domestic violence.

However, what may make porn use emerge as an even more significant factor connected to sex crimes in the future is the easy and abundant availability of porn online. That's why John Rabun, Chief Operating Officer of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, calls the Internet the "wild card" of the future concerning sex offenses.

Rabun says that in the past, law enforcement could visit porn shops to discover what sexual perversions were popular and might be connected with future sex crimes. However such investigative techniques no longer work since the Internet offers everything from soft-core to unimaginably violent and degrading types of porn – all via the privacy of a personal computer.

"The Internet just scares us all to death," said Dave Fowers concerning the flood of online porn. Fowers is a 28-year veteran with the Utah Division of Youth Corrections. "I've heard it said in some of our conferences that the Internet will change the way America understands sexuality, and I think it will." It is estimated that as many as 60% of Internet sites offer porn, and that does not include the thousands of sex chat rooms or online clubs.

Porn, teens and sex crimes
Adding to the concern are three factors that focus on adolescents. They are illustrated in the following studies: 1) The Internet has become the primary communication tool for teens, according to a study by America Online; 2) A report from the Kaiser Family Foundation says 70% of teenagers, age 15-17, "have accidentally come across pornography on the Web;" 3) Studies of adult sex offenders suggest that many began their sexually abusive behavior in their youth, according to the National Criminal Justice Reference Service.

So, if the Internet is overflowing with pornography, and impressionable teens are using the Internet in growing numbers, then it's reasonable to assume that greater numbers of adolescents in the future will be tempted to turn sexual fantasies into reality, and continue that behavior into adulthood. Fowers agrees: "When you've been in the trenches for so many years with this issue and you've seen the extremes of sickness, you get the sense that you've seen a good share of what's out there. But I think we're going to be shocked to see whole new systems of ways and means to interact sexually."

Fowers, who has focused his work on juvenile sex offenders for over a dozen years, says he is already beginning to see the edge of a disturbing trend with more teens regularly talking about such perversions as necrophilia, bestiality and ritualistic mutilation. Pornography that features such obscenities is easily found on the Internet.

    http://www.afa.net/journal/novdec/2002/porn.asp

There are real, societal concerns regarding internet pornography. It simply doesn't follow that the most shallow, and least important aspect of regulating it be passed off (with contempt) as the driving factor here.

<>Either you do not, or know anyone that, has children or younger siblings, are so lucky as to have never been  in a situation where the threat of sexual activity with someone you aren't interested in threatens to turn violent, or you're just ignorant of the actual reality of the harms it is (at least partly responsible) for.

One thing I must say for Tom, is he had the guts to bring it up, with all the knee-jerk reactions and loud whines of "don't take away my easy access to sleaze" I'm thinking it's far more of a problem and sickness then anyone previously suspected. 

<>It also occurs to me that to become so shill in your defense of what is, in actuality, smut, that Tom is correct in saying people don't care about the greater good. Of course porn should be kept away from adolescents and children, and sexual offenders. No one wants to take away your right to do or view whatever gets you off, as long as it is between consenting adults and it IS in the privacy of your own home.

Unfortuately, internet porn has found it's ugly way into childrens rooms, workplaces, and Middle Schools, and if you can't talk about that without having a hissy fit about your own selfish wants and convenience, perhaps you are too "emo" and shallow to discuss it at all. 

CSPAN junkies visit http://spannerbackup.ipbhost.com

Well, lately, it seems that being a libertarian is a way to be a republican and not say so:  witness Tucker Carlson, and several local politicians in my own back yard.

How did that happen?

Well, maybe it's what you said in Tucker's case anyway; he is definitely a teenager with arrested development.  I do think it is a hodgepodge where republicans take refuge but don't want to call themselves independents because that sounds too liberal.  They are basically wandering around criticizing everyone, but offering nothing.

Jan

Some social restraint is necessary, of course. But it's not a good in and of itself. Free will is. God left us capable of committing sin for a reason. I'm not defending porn at all. I think churches and families and media should come out against it. I don't think politicians should though. I agree that we should be less selfish--but to single out Internet Porn (and capitalize it!) just demonstrates that, it's less about selfishness and more about singling out what ordinary people find ugly. It's less a matter of common good and more a matter of common taste. It isn't just that I oppose coercion (though you can't seem to decide whether you do or not) I simply don't think the black-and-white rhetorical forms of political argument are conducive to discovering what is truly worthwhile in life.

The only porn they ever found Ted Bundy with was some cheerleading magazines. Do we need a moral crusade against all graven images? Whatever the image is, someone will find it appealing in a way that you and I find creepy.

There was a post Bruce Schneier made about terrorism The War on the Unexpected that seems relevant to this issue. Serial killers and molesters are likely to be outliers in society--but a society that attacks all outlier behavior is not conducive to the common good. It's a cliche, but it's true--our differences make us strong. All greeks are men but not all men are greeks. Most sex offenders look at porn but most porn observers are not sex offenders.

You know, with Tom Periello I probably made too much of a single paragraph--though given the intentionally procative nature of the paragraph in question I think that should be understandable. I'm sorry if you thought my last post was referring to what you had said--I meant that what you had said made clear what I found objectionable about what he had said.

But when you go on and on like that, well...don't go tossing around assessments of my psychology based on my posts when your own are such glass houses. It's precisely that kind of rhetoric that I think makes political discussion (even non-coercive) a poor source of values--when we argue factual matters like GDP someone is right and someone is wrong, but when it comes to our values it's just not acceptable for you to call everyone who disagrees with you "nuts" anymore than it was when Tom called us dishonest.

Gandhi made all Satyagraha reformers swear Bramacharya (abstinence) oaths. But he rooted his reforms in Self Control, not Social Control. (Ultimately self control brought social power, but such motivation could not be the motivation of true selflessness.) And his firm conviction on nonviolence was built on an acknowledgment, given the fallibility of human reason, one can never rule out the possibility that the other fellow is right. Not until we adopt a politics like that could our politics ever truly encompass our highest values.

Well, after being here for over 2 years, I lost my "good Karma" because ElCampasino rated me "1" for every post for about a week or longer.  He admitted that he did it without even reading what I said, or if he did read it, whether he agreed or not, but to "teach me a lesson." 

So because of a troll, I lost my "trusted user" status.  Is that fair?  Is anyone paying attention?  I am too busy to send the complaint to "management," but it really ticks me off!

Jan

deleted, wrong neighborhood

No.

CSPAN junkies visit http://spannerbackup.ipbhost.com

I think you've made a good point here, but I don't think that easy access to porn is the answer.

Seems to me it feeds the problem. Especially with inexperienced youth. False expectations lead to diappointment and shame, too.

I don't think anyone would argue that porn should go away. I think the argument is how to keep it from becoming an unhealthy preoccuption, which it appears to me it's been doing.

More of it doesn't appear to help eliminate the shame of it, to do that, you'd have to make it a bit more honest.

[fade to the scene in the automat in "When Harry met Sally")

CSPAN junkies visit http://spannerbackup.ipbhost.com

Jesus also said that putting someone in the path of temptation is a sin.

I do not disagree. I believe I made clear that we should use culture and religion to oppose porn. But to put it in political terms just isn't compatible with the sort of politics we have in America. What Jesus and Gandhi understood is that we must reform ourselves before we reform the other--if you want the marginalized and lonely to refrain from porn (which I agree that they should), you should ask the majority culture to forsake it's own commercialized sexuality in entertainment and advertisement. Pull the plank from your own eye before offering to remove the mote from your brother's.

To seek reform of the other before reform of the self is just another form of selfishness. (A form of selfishness with very obvious foreign policy implications).

If you want to use the Bible as a basis, you'll be sorely disappointed.

I use the Bible and numerous other holy and artistic works to inform my values. I've never been disappointed with this approach. Certainly not this time.

Unfortunately, that doesn't help the kids here on the Earth in the here and now,

Internet porn is not the biggest issue hurting children. It's not even the biggest sexual issue--I would first blame the images of transactional, commodified sexuality that pervade mainstream culture. But in case you haven't noticed, teen pregnancy rates and such have been falling over the past decade or so.

If I live in a glass house, you are denuded on a platform in Times Square

Then why you are still not able to understand what I'm saying? If you think I'm writing here in defense of porn, you must not have read anything I wrote in this entire thread.

I'll stick with the common sense, historically competent, ideal of the common good.

Most people understand that freedom is the core of the common good. That linkage has historically been at the heart of America promote the general welfare was followed immediately by secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.

If I run on and on, It is only because as I type, the flaws in your complaint become more numerous and senseless.

Try typing less and reading more.

I posted my thoughts on some of this further down the thread workerbee, but there are a couple of issues from this post I didn't address.

Well part of the reason that our nation is so fixated with it is because how porn and sexual activity is being suppressed.  People enjoy sex and when they are denied it they go looking for it.  I think how erotica is suppressed is the main cause of it's popularity. 

As a country we really need to have a healthier attitude towards sex.  I am not saying promote it...people can handle their sexual urges on their own...but don't allow the spread misinformation, lies and fear about it though.  Yeah more frank and open in the discussions about it.  And as far as porn "going away"...it ain't happening, lol.  Erotica has existed since the dawn of humanity until now.  I doubt human nature will be changing at this point in time. ;-)

:-) 

Hum, I think that happened to Howard and I over the Fred Dobbs. I think the cure is for anyone who is interested to go back and uprate those comments. I'm not sure, but I'll go give it a try.

CSPAN junkies visit http://spannerbackup.ipbhost.com

I hear what you are saying about surfing the net for porn being a solitary endeavor workerbee, lol. The fact that people want to "reach" into your home and control what you watch is no different then trying to control your conduct in the home. Could reinstitution of "Sodomy" laws be far behind, if you agree with that premise?

I don't agree with your "either/or" premise. Should a business be able to restrict an employees access to porn while using their equipment, on the clock? Should a parent be able to restrict pornographic content to a child? Or a school? Or a library? Should a society be able to regulate content on public airwaves or commercial broadcast when kids are likely to be watching?

You live here in Connecticut, you know about that substitute teacher that got spammed by a porm site "pop-up" generator in a classroom, she's facing prosecution. (I would have pulled the plug) but should that have ever happened? What about her freedom to be free of that in a classroom?

"Sodomy?"

Do you think that kids should have easy access to websites with graphic pictures of naked people sodomizing eachother? Even if "tastefully done," is it something you'd feel comfortable with, say a 9-year-old viewing because they were googling dog toys and typed in "big bone?" That happened to us, I'd just hooked up our high speed, and my kid and her friend were having fun on Petsmarts website, so I left them for a minute to make a snack, and later, I saw what happened in the history. I put parental controls on after that, but my point is it was too easy for that to happen.

This isn't either/or. 'Freedom to' is always tempered with 'freedom from.'

And as far as "Excess" or "Extreme" porn goes...what is "Excess" or "Extreme" is subjective. Each person might differ on the definition of that. As long as no laws are being broken, it is performed only by adults for adults and consenting ones at that, why should content be censored?

Certainly it's subjective, but we have ratings systems in place elsewhere, (movies, websites, books) that do not generate much controversy, because for the most part, we as a society came up with those parameters. I disagree that we can't collectively agree on a definition.

The access of internet porn by minors is a BIG problem. Minors should not have access to it. I think the responsibility of making sure minors don't have access to it falls within the home. But something needs to be done about some of the porn sites that target minors...which isn't the majority of them...but one porn site which targets minors as an audience is one too many.

I'm glad you agree, and aside from putting them on their own domain, there is no surefire way to prevent it from happening. So scold us parents all you like, unless we have the tools we need to prevent porn sites from foiling filters, (and they actively work at that,) and kids having access to computers (like at auntie and uncle's house) that aren't as strictly filtered as their school and home computers, the only way to restrict access is a domain ban. I'm afraid children are rather prevalent in our society, and "pop up" just about everywhere. It seems common sense to protect them, if we have the means, everywhere.

CSPAN junkies visit http://spannerbackup.ipbhost.com

You're amusing.

Indeed, pluck that plank out of your eye.

Explain to me please, how expecting everyone to "reform themselves" has anything to do with this topic.

Great advice, be perfect, and if you can't manage that, oh well, anything goes?

"Reforming" oneself naturally means trying to reform ones environment, the way to accomplish that is through regulating access to addictive or potentially harmful substances, and societal restrants, NOT by expecting that everyone will stop viewing porn if they become "enlightened."
That's so unrealistic as to be ridiculous.

Seems to me you are quite intolerant of those that do enjoy porn legally and safely in their own homes. You aren't satisfied with restricting it there, you want to get into their heads.

I'll take regulation as the lesser evil.

Is societal reform a part of individual reform? Can individual reform be promoted by societal reform? Or is it that both have a bearing on eachother.

I'd say the later, and Ghandi apparently thought so, too.

SOMEONE has to think about society and the practical workings in that society, even if they themselves aren't particularly "enlightened."

It doesn't follow that these problems can be cured by individuals focusing on themselves, that's what got our society into this mess in the first place.

You're welcome for this realistic enlightenment, I'll be happy to provide some, any time.