A Global Issue

[Hugo]

Currently we have what is legal, that is what I, at this time, at this point in this argument find permmissable. There is no way I will move from this position at this time and leave myself open to you by moving.

Whatever your reasons for that, the fact is that we both have things we consider beyond the pale. They're on the same scale, my high-water-mark is just higher than yours. Therefore, any assertion that you are freedom-loving whereas I am a control freak is ridiculous.

The question then becomes, what is it about your position on the scale that makes you right and about mine that makes me wrong? There are, after all, pornographers out there who think you are a control freak - why are you right, and not they?

If you see nothing pornographic about topless dancers, waitresses then you must also think that all children can watch sexy rock videos uncensored.

Not necessarily, because the video is a medium and therefore can be pornographic.

Maybe a pornographer can sell an “Art” magazine entitled “Hot Babes” or whatever, then it would be permshable to all the horny art appreciators out there?

Well, if there were anti-pornography laws, the pornographer would have to defend his position that it was not made to titillate to the satisfaction of a court of law.

What is legal is what we have now, BTW, this point is my last stand, if I have to make one, but it is one of your first hurdles.

Pornography used to be illegal. The current law was cobbled together by the PCs in 1993 and rushed into law. If you want to see how, take a look at the child porn law - it doesn't make sense. Your claim that a jury decided the law and that I don't like it, is false. I liked the law the way it was. You like the law the way it is.

[KrustyKidd]

HUGO

my high-water-mark is just higher than yours

Is it? Do you know me personally and my views on all things? What a presumptuous comment.

HUGO

Therefore, any assertion that you are freedom-loving whereas I am a control freak is ridiculous.

I already told you Hugo, I do not think that you are a 'busy body' and now I am telling you that you are not , in my eyes a 'control freak.' My point is, that in the realm of preserving freedom we have to be careful what we do. Well intentioned , reasonable actions for morality by a few, may easily errode the rights of others. Freedom is a mosaic, all things are intertwined, like a chain, which broken link will make the device fail? The fact of what you and what I find morally acceptable is as you said 'on the same scale.' That I am fairly certain of. We have to keep our minds open to things that may be reasonable to others as well.

HUGO

The question then becomes, what is it about your position on the scale that makes you right and about mine that makes me wrong?

Try looking at it from another point. Which ones are worth taking freedom away and which ones are not.

HUGO

There are, after all, pornographers out there who think you are a control freak - why are you right, and not they?

My opinion - again:

KK

To answer your question as to where I currently draw the line as to what is acceptable, as long as it is legal, is done out of choice, does not harm anybody physically or take away another’s freedom it is acceptable. Clear?

That is what I will tolerate within society at this moment. I acknowlege that it is a broad interpretation but realise that 'harming another physically' and taking away another's freedom' encompass much. My opinion is based on the fact that we are all responsible for our actions. There are systems in place to take care of those who either break the rules of society or do not understand them.

As an example, drunk driving. Do we ban alcohol? Ban cars? Or do we simply use the legal sytem to control the individual?

Let's get into rights and freedoms. As an example, a homosexual would find nothng interesting about a hetrosexual porn medium and might find it acceptable to censor. I in kind for him. A rock star might find the evening news obsene with violence and all while a right winger may find his lyrics unacceptable. Soon, if all have their way, nobody can do anything. A silly analogy of course, but it does have certain merits and illustrates the basis of my reluctance to simply say that anything I don't approve of or like should be banned or outlawed.

Now, to the sideline of strippers and all; what do you consider them? Erotica? I find that anything that is designed to sexually stimulate or get a reaction is pornography. As well, what do you can a prostitute? Porn or business? How about those places where guys call for phone sex? What are they?

[Hugo]

Is it? Do you know me personally and my views on all things? What a presumptuous comment.

In this case I don't think I'm presuming anything. You went to great lengths to explain your personal circumstances, enjoyment of porn and feelings about it, so unless you lied, I am not being presumptuous in assuming you tolerate more than me. You enjoy hardcore videos and want them to remain legal. Hardcore videos sicken me and I want them to go away. Ergo what I said is true, so stop blustering.

My point is, that in the realm of preserving freedom we have to be careful what we do. Well intentioned , reasonable actions for morality by a few, may easily errode the rights of others.

Let's not get all worked up about human rights and freedoms when all we are talking about is dirty magazines and videos.

I don't feel that the freedom to watch videos of other people in the sex act is a particularly important one, especially when what hangs in the balance is the moral decay of society (at least in part due to this), which costs us in terms of STDs, teen pregnancies, abortion deaths, and so on.

Now, to the sideline of strippers and all; what do you consider them?

Strippers are a more tame form of prostitutes in that they are selling their bodies for money (and if you see no difference between this and Vogue, try getting peepshow clients to accept Vogue as a substitute), but merely a look rather than the whole 9 yards. Prostitutes are prostitutes, that needs no further definition and doesn't need to be called "porn" since it plainly isn't.

You are trying to obfuscate the issue and I don't appreciate it. We both know full well what porn is, and you know the difference between a hardcore videotape and a stripper. One is a magnetic tape which, when played back in the correct device, will produce an image of the sex act. The other is a human being taking her clothes off in order to titillate pathetic men for money. Stop trying to sidetrack the debate.

As an example, drunk driving. Do we ban alcohol? Ban cars? Or do we simply use the legal sytem to control the individual?

Banning alcohol is invalid since alcohol alone does not cause drunk driving. Banning cars is invalid since cars alone do not cause drunk driving. What we do is make drunk driving illegal.

To make correct use of your analogy, we could ban video cameras (alcohol), but video cameras aren't just used for porn. We could ban paper (cars), but paper isn't just used for porn. Or, like you said, we could use the legal system to control the individual by banning porn, and porn alone. Thank you for making my point for me.

A rock star might find the evening news obsene with violence and all while a right winger may find his lyrics unacceptable. Soon, if all have their way, nobody can do anything.

I don't see why. The same rules can apply in these fields. If the sole point of the material is to cause sexual excitement, it's porn. If the sole point of material with swearing or violence in it (i.e. no real artistic point) is shock value, then ban it too. I don't want to ban genuine art, but I don't want my culture flooded with filth, either.

I would expect that these rules would result in the banning of absolutely no material containing swear words (unless it's just a single obscene word on a piece of paper), since with something like Chris Rock videos you can easily demonstrate that they have artistic value and the foul language is incidental. I'd also expect that it would result in the banning of only the most pointless and graphically violent movies. Saving Private Ryan or Man Bites Dog have definite artistic merit and don't use violence purely to shock.

[KrustyKidd]

You enjoy hardcore videos and want them to remain legal

Well Hugo, you havn't gotten off your position of 'all or nothing' so what other stand am I to take? There is no way that I will allow you to get a foot in the door to dictate freedoms on others if there isn't a hint of compromise. Heck! You havn't even gotten to a point where you can discuss this issue without being judgemental. Frankly, after reading your excellent and well balanced posts throughout the past year, you have revealed a side of you which surprises me.

You enjoy hardcore videos and want them to remain legal. Hardcore videos sicken me and I want them to go away. Ergo what I said is true, so stop blustering.

Not blustering Hugo. It’s a personal choice. As I said, sometimes I do and other times I don’t. As a matter of fact, it is the exception in my sex life rather than the rule. You will note that I said 'sex life.' It is a part of the overall picture and, like yours, does not control me. It is, however, an enjoyable part of life. Choice and novelty complements life. From what you imply from your ridgid stance, anything other than doing your ‘husbandly duty’ in the missionary position in a dark bedroom is abnormal behavior.

Let's not get all worked up about human rights and freedoms when all we are talking about is dirty magazines and videos.

Dirty, filthy, stinking, animalistic magazines and books. Yep. I can see where this discussion has a lot of give and take. Way to go Hugo. I tried to put this into a perspective so that we could at least START to have a dialogue, and you figure that because it is not your cup of tea, that it is not a freedom another might value. Hence, as you have shown, there is no sense talking on a equal level to one who has a dissenting opinion. Why come on a forum and pretend to participate in discussion at all? Just make a Blog and let us all have YOUR VIEW, and only your view.

HUGO

I want them to go away.

Yes, I imagine you do. Why bother to try and understand, compromise. Just wish them away. As for the rest of the points, you aren't interested in discussing anything. As I said before, I have noticed a definite difference in your demeanor scince starting this thread with you. I leave you to it.

[Elder]

Honestly, the best way to combat pornography is to try to educate people, to make them more media literate, so that they know the strategies that are being used on them. The best place for this sort of learning would be in the home, but schools can probably help out too. This way, we don't even have to ban it. It stops being a problem. One could try to ban it, but they probably couldn't get very far. Education is one of the most powerful tools one can use when fighting for morality. Let's use it.