Should we have them? How about if solid evidence is found which indicates that pornography does play "a significant role in the causation of delinquent or criminal behavior"; should we have anti-porn laws then?
How much harm does pornography have to do before the government is justified in resorting to censorship? Is the government ever justified in doing so?
To avoid this thread turning into a debate over semantics, let's use this rough working definition of pornography: "pornography is sexually explicit material designed to produce sexual arousal in consumers"
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
No. No. An immeasurable amount. No.
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
I don't think so, but I don't really have a reason other than my general dislike of the government meddling.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
How do you feel about mandatory seatbelt laws, DS?
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac: No. No. An immeasurable amount. No.
Agreed.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
I know someone is going to ask for a link, but I can not for the life of me remember who did this study but didn't one of those statisticians figure out that the increase of free, discrete internet porn has actually led to a decrease in rape committed by teenage boys? I remember being shocked when I saw that.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Well if we are using reports we remember reading but cannot link, what about the one that shows pornography use is disproportionately represented in the prisoner population and that a huge percentage of them say that porn use influenced their state of mind into becoming more pron to criminal activity.
Ill actually try to find the study, promise.
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: How do you feel about mandatory seatbelt laws, DS?
Honestly, I don't think they should exist. I'd rather people be in charge of their own safety.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dr Strangelove:
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: How do you feel about mandatory seatbelt laws, DS?
Honestly, I don't think they should exist. I'd rather people be in charge of their own safety.
Personally, I'm torn. In the first place, I think that that the govenment should get the hell off my lawn and leave us alone. On the other hand, I think that people will have happier and better lives if they wear seatbelts and do not consume pornography.
I haven't come up with an answer that satisfies me yet.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I can link the pornography and rape one (its in this blog post, which has a handy excerpt):
Basically, the internet was the largest increase in the availability of pornography ever. So a researcher checked the correlation between the availability of the internet as it became widely available and the number of rapes reported and found a huge relationship (across states).
As for the prisoner population one, I'd expect it to be extremely prevalent in the prisoner population regardless of causation: there isn't much to do in prison, and people in prison are less likely to have moral qualms with it.
It is also unsurprising that prisoners would blame something other than themselves for their actions.
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholar: didn't one of those statisticians figure out that the increase of free, discrete internet porn has actually led to a decrease in rape committed by teenage boys?
It's not the world's most rigorous study, but then neither are the claims on the opposite side.
Thanks- I thought about googling it, but right now I can not think of any good search words that won't give me mostly sites that are scary (and since on work computer, won't make my co-workers wonder what I do when they leave).
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I don't think that's the argument, fugu. The way I've seen it presented is that there are a large amount of prisoners/rapists/pedophiles who use(d) porn before they came into prison.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Selling porn for use in your home? No censorship laws. Publicly displaying porn, I'm alright with banning it.
Driving around your private property with no seatbelt, let them do what they want. Driving on the highway or any public road, require it.
Seatbelts have to do with public safety. And I can think of ways in which your not wearing a seatbelt could harm me. Either way, my general feelings on privacy vs censorship is for government to stay out of my house, and off my lawn, but once I venture away from my house and lawn, they have a right to intervene to a degree.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Vadon:
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac: No. No. An immeasurable amount. No.
Agreed.
And seconded.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
RE: pr0n, I think I agree with Lyrhawn. I don't think there should be laws against the production of pornography (insofar as no other laws are broken during the production). However, I think that access to pornography should definitely be restricted. Public display and providing to a minor both seem pretty out-of-line.
RE: seatbelts, while I can understand the argument against seat belt laws, I also think that a parent who doesn't belt his or her children is stepping over the line into child endangerment. And really, people who engage in the most dangerous common human activity of the modern age without regard to their safety are basically volunteering to die. As long as suicide is against the law, I don't have a problem with seat belt use being mandatory.
After all, your death does have a huge negative impact on the world around you.
[ November 28, 2006, 09:10 PM: Message edited by: A Rat Named Dog ]
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
"Either way, my general feelings on privacy vs censorship is for government to stay out of my house, and off my lawn, but once I venture away from my house and lawn, they have a right to intervene to a degree."
Excellently put.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: Girls who look like models are never very good in bed. Don't take my word for it. Ask around.
It really is true. 'Swelp me.
quote: "Either way, my general feelings on privacy vs censorship is for government to stay out of my house, and off my lawn, but once I venture away from my house and lawn, they have a right to intervene to a degree."
Because 'porn' is like seatbelts? An issue of public safety?
A little cart before the horse, eh?
Just because the state has the power, that doesn't give it the right.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
That's why I said "to a degree."
I never equated the two, I addressed them both because they're both being discussed in this thread, and then I gave my general feelings on government when it comes to privacy vs censorship.
Whatever else you want to draw from that is up to you, but it doesn't necessarily reflect my views.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: That's why I said "to a degree." [Smile]
Er, so what?
You address them both, don't provide an argument, but come to a conclusion, and then you want me to do the arguin' bits for you by 'drawing' things from your post that may or may not be there?
What do I look like, Chris Angel?
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon:
quote: That's why I said "to a degree." [Smile]
Er, so what?
You address them both, don't provide an argument, but come to a conclusion, and then you want me to do the arguin' bits for you by 'drawing' things from your post that may or may not be there?
What do I look like, Chris Angel?
There's nothing wrong with just giving an opinion without backing it up. If all that's asked is an opinion, you can give it. I don't think Lyrhawn expected you to do anything.
Of course, I could be wrong. Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
No If they ban porn people will just make it underground... on dirty mattresses in drippy nasy basements.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Storm Saxon -
Well you certainly have the option of NOT doing so.
Government interference in our lives is always restricted to a degree. The constitution specifically enumerates several things they may NOT do, and specifically says that everything else isn't excluded from protection.
But if a majority get together and vote into power a Congress that wants to ban a giant 100 foot jumbotron in Times Square playing hardcore porn 24/7, they can, and personally I don't have an argument against it. Government is as much a defender of liberty as it is a steward of morality these days (which again, I only degree with to a degree).
Anyway, I addressed both points in much the same way everyone else did. I gave my opinion. Why aren't you going after them?
My conclusion was that when you venture into the public realm, you don't have the same rights to privacy and freedom that you had when you were in your house...and that's it. My conclusion isn't the fruition of the first two points, it's independent of it, and it's my own personal opinion. And I said that.
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
There's no effective way to ban porn, especially considering that it can be found willy-nilly on the internet, even when you're not looking. Not to mention that Japan, which is a country where pornography is not only prevalent but culturally OK to read in public, has a rate of sexual assault that is greatly reduced from America's.
Rape per 100,000. United States 34.20 Japan 1.48
This may also be related to the fact that fewer women report rape, and that the culture is a bit bass-ackwards about it, but even with a margin of error, it's an impressive statistic.
There is a lot more sexual harassment, though.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Abby, hi! Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
Indeed. Sexual harassment, particularly on trains, is up in Japan. When I was there, they had instituted women only cars on trains so that there wasn't as much fear of sexual harassment.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
SS: I was responding to BlackBlade's characterization. Not that the change would much matter, there are so many extraordinarily plausible reasons for that correlation having nothing to do with causation that it doesn't even suggest a thing.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
No banning porn. No banning guns. No banning internet gambling.
Are we just going to give up all personal responsibility and let the government dictate everything we can and can't do?
Granted some people are going to abuse... whatever. Some people drink socially, while others become alcoholics. Some people shoot skeet, while others shoot up supermarkets. Some guys enjoy pornography with their girlfriends in a healthy relationship, and others use it to feed their objectification of women.
It's not the government's job to legislate our choices. It's the government's job to intervene when we make *BAD* choices (i.e. leave the guy drinking beer alone, until he gets behind the wheel of a car).
So, no porn on billboards on the highway? Makes sense to me. No porn in your own home? That's a different story.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
*clutches porn to chest* *rocks back and forth*
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Let us take as given that Japan has a lower rates of rape but higher rates of other types of sexaul assault and harrasment.
I wonder if there's any correlation between that and the fact that while pornography is much more commonplace and accepted in Japan, pornography showing coitus is banned.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Unless it's anime.
Where anything goes.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
m_p_h: the definition of showing is rather different than what you think, I think. A small amount of blurring or whitespace constitutes not showing, despite the act being obviously engaged in. Also, exceptions are increasingly permitted.
The rape rates are different for the same reason murder rates are different; an extremely different cultural perspective on crimes of force.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I agree that with Japan there are some social factors that play in to their lower crime rates. Perhaps those factors are simply a greater influence then pornography, but that does not mean porn has no effect.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Somehow I doubt you want to talk about Japan's incredibly lower rape rate being because of the ready availability of porn .
There are also factors in Japan that play into a higher sexual harassment rate that have nothing to do with porn. Any competent social scientist would immediately start looking for a common cause of the acceptance of pornography and the rates of sexual harassment.
Is the situation self-reinforcing? Perhaps, but blaming the porn seems to miss the forest for the trees, or maybe the grass. Sexual norms have a lot more to do with cultural attitudes than the availability of naughty pictures. Extreme sexism, for instance, was (is) often practiced and preached to extraordinary degrees by people vehemently against porn.
You don't like it? Fine. Its constitutionally protected to a certain degree, so unless you're going to get an amendment passed, you're going to have to live with it (edit: or more properly, live with other people living with it), and there are far better things to be focusing your attention on, even with regard to the same problems.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Somehow I doubt you want to talk about Japan's incredibly lower rape rate being because of the ready availability of porn [Smile] .
I didn't even suggest that. I was merely speculating about a correlation between the degrees of different types of sex crimes in Japan and the types of pornography that is consumed.
quote:Any competent social scientist would immediately start looking for a common cause of the acceptance of pornography and the rates of sexual harassment.
Which would be a correlation, which is exactly what I was speculating about.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Sorry for the confusion, m_p_h, I was responding to BB's post, not yours (in that post).
edit: he's talking about causation.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Oh, OK. Nevermind then.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
I think I should clarify Ryuko's post, lest the Japanese are mistaken for a race of anime addicted lechers. Salary men (the Engrish phrase for low or middle rank white collar workers) can often be seen in trains reading thick comics with sexually explicit illustrations, or other periodicals with softcore photographs. It's more tacitly condoned than anything, and most people regard them as dirty old men. Personally, while using the public rail service for the decade or so I went to school there, I've never seen hardcore pornography anywhere in public, and feel that the stigma against pornography is generally similar to other developed countries. I seem to remember seeing plenty of bare breasts on German news stands, and the fact that statistically Americans consume the most pornography per capita. (This is not a blanket accusation against Hatrack - I'm quite certain Australia is not far behind.)
Perhaps the ready importation of risque anime in the US over many other aspects of our culture has exaggerated the impression that pornography is somehow acceptable in Japan.
Also, as has been mentioned a couple of times, correlation does not equate to causation, so we have to be extremely careful about making generalisations about any culture, which is necessarily a very complex system. As mentioned above, there are a host of other reasons the rate of rape is so low in Japan. For one, our crime rates are much lower overall.
Japan has had a very restrictive society until very recently (1945, say), with an attitude towards sex which could sometimes be almost Victorian (but other times not). Marriages were usually arranged, and public etiquette was very rigidly prescribed. Then comes the sudden change to a liberal democracy, and a whole host of things which were once unacceptable are suddenly okay. But some of the old stigma remains.
My own personal theory is that countries which shift towards liberalism very suddenly from a previously rigid culture tend to produce unusual expressions of eroticism. Bizarre explicit anime, German pornography, what have you. I think it's also linked to sexual harassment - an inability for some people to get comfortable with new gender roles.
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Let us take as given that Japan has a lower rates of rape but higher rates of other types of sexaul assault and harrasment.
I wonder if there's any correlation between that and the fact that while pornography is much more commonplace and accepted in Japan, pornography showing coitus is banned.
I think non anime pornography is much easier to obtain in Western countries than in Japan.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Euripides: I don't know which would be judged easier, exactly, but its definitely easy to obtain non-anime pornography in Japan. When I was on exchange there (in high school, about . . . wow, six and a half years ago) many bookstores with magazine sections had non-anime porn in among the other magazines (typically alphabetically, iirc). We high schoolers found that inordinately amusing.
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
Totally true, Euripides. The only thing I'll say from my experience in Japan was while I never saw anyone reading porn or anything like that in public (not even on the trains), it did seem like porn (even the non-anime variety) was more readily available. That may be slightly one-sided though as I spent a good portion of my time in Akihabara game shops, and they might be catering towards their consumers a bit more. Hard to tell. Broad generalizations don't really do a culture justice.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:As long as suicide is against the law, I don't have a problem with seat belt use being mandatory.
Suicide is quite legal, actually. Linkie. Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
Akihabara is one of the most concentrated centres of anime pornography you can find in Japan. It wasn't always that bad, but I keep seeing good computer stores in the so-called Electrical Town being usurped by comic stores and vendors of half-nude plastic figurines. Honestly, it's one of my least favourite places in Tokyo because it makes me feel as though the Japanese psyche is perverted.
Not a reflection on you - I know it's the best place to get cameras and other gadgets. Also, they've done up the station a bit so it doesn't look quite as dingy.
As for porn being more available in Japan, well, I could walk into a news agency in Australia or the US and get a copy of Hustler or something even less congenial. And Western cities are never short of sex shops (really, I'm surprised no one has mentioned the French yet). Maybe in the West the magazines are more carefully hidden in the corner, or the sex shops tucked into small tenaments with narrow entrances. Unless I can find some studies/statistics online, I can't be sure.
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
Yeah, that's why I tried to point out where I was when I made the statement. I think the availability of porn in the shops that you wouldn't expect (my initial reaction was "video game stores and toy stores have porn? what?!") was just sort of surprising, but it makes sense considering the major audience it's catered for, I guess.
As for general availability beyond this, I'd say Japan and the US are fairly similar (from what I saw). I don't typically see Playboy or anything like that when I go to a grocery store or anything around here, and I typically didn't see anything worse than model magazines (i.e. girls in swimsuits, sort of like the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue) at places like 7-11 in Japan. I can't speak about newsstands or anything though, as I don't frequent them here and I didn't in Japan either.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
Sorry pfresh85, I didn't mean to suggest that you were unaware that Akihabara is not representative of Japan. It's just one of my pet rants. Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
Totally understandable. Despite the sleaze, I was fond of Akihabara. Then again, I'm a gaming nerd, so it was like a mecca. Posted by 777 (Member # 9506) on :
I think the real question behind this entire porn-law issue is this: where (and when) do we draw the line on pornography and its distribution?
I get the idea that lots of people (if not most) like porn. (This is something I don't entirely understand, as the idea of erotic stimulation is something I can't tolerate.)
However, the fact that there are other people who don't like porn is starting to be ignored. You see clear evidence on the newspaper racks everytime you go to the store, anywhere you go. Porn and sex magazines are everywhere. As porn has direct affect on one's moral and sexual outlook, isn't this infringing on others' natural rights to think and believe as they please?
I see the matter this way. There are two sides of the social spectrum (sort of like the left-right political spectrum). On one end is Anarchy, while the other is Tyranny.
Most people who argue in favor of porn (and thus, against porn laws), feel that creating laws on the distribution and presence of pornography will begin a slippery slope towards tyranny. As Flying Cow remarked, "Are we just going to give up all personal responsibility and let the government dictate everything we can and can't do?"
However, I feel that America is already on a slippery slope towards anarchy on this particular issue. Many people argue that as pornography is a form of expression, then "freedom of expression" applies here. No laws, no stops, just let me express myself to the world as pornographically as I want to--whether or not you want to listen.
Which is the crucial factor. Many people (myself included) just don't want to hear, see, or have anything to do with porn. By forcing that on us by surrounding us with it, you are forcing me to take part in something that I just don't want to do. The purpose of "drawing the line" is to prevent this from happening.
Then again, me preventing you from expressing your mindset in this way is, to many people, a violation of your "freedom of expression".
How about this: Your "freedom of expression" is acceptable as long as it does NOT intrude on my freedom to interpret life as I please, and maintain my own moral views.
(NOTE: I have no problem with individuals participating in pornography, so long as it does not interfere with my social and moral life.)
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
quote:Originally posted by 777:
(This is something I don't entirely understand, as the idea of erotic stimulation is something I can't tolerate.)
I'm assuming you worded that incorrectly.
quote:Originally posted by 777:
How about this: Your "freedom of expression" is acceptable as long as it does NOT intrude on my freedom to interpret life as I please, and maintain my own moral views.
What if it wasn't pornography? Should be ban loud communist posters? Wouldn't forcing you to see that intrude on your "freedom to interpret life as [you] please", at least as much as an explicit image would?
Many people against anti-porn laws (e.g. Lyrhawn, or myself) are also comfortable with laws against displaying porn publicly. I agree that there's a line to be drawn somewhere. I think it's fair that people should not be exposed unwillingly to explicit or grossly violent images while going about their own business, but beyond public TV projectors and posters, I don't see how that would happen. Unless you have to walk through the red light district or something like that.
I also have a bone to pick with your usage of the word 'anarchy'.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"what about the one that shows pornography use is disproportionately represented in the prisoner population and that a huge percentage of them say that porn use influenced their state of mind into becoming more prone to criminal activity."
Self-reporting from pathological manipulators is a dubious proposition. These are the same people who proclaim that they are innocent of any crime, or that their victims "asked for it", or that their trials and convictions were "unfair". A disproportionately large percentage of prisoners also report that they were raised in highly religious households. And that they are "good Christians/etc" now.
Quite different from comparing non-tamperable data such as the number of people in jail vs availability of erotica. Which leads to interesting facts such as most pornography is sold in the BibleBelt states, by a HIGHLY disproportionate amount on a per capita basis.
[ November 29, 2006, 12:35 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
Also, when talking about the links between porn and criminal behaviour, perhaps we should distinguish between pornography which depicts consenting partners and that which involves some kind of coercion or violence.
Posted by 777 (Member # 9506) on :
Sorry about that, Euripedes. By anarchy I mean a lack of control or regulation over what is morally acceptable by society and what is not. Essentially, our moral views on a particular view are in "anarchy" if there is no government influence whatsoever in determining the authority a certain moral view has. (I'm really crappy at wording these things.)
For instance, there's the matter of marriage. To descend the slippery slope of marriage would go something like this: homosexual marriage, then bisexual/transexual marriage, polygamy, adjustments to what exactly marriageable age is, and so on. This would represent our social views on marriage in anarchy--no rules, anything goes.
I also understand that much of what I said is impractical. I understand that there is little chance that common erotica and sex mags will be banned from store shelves, but at least some people can make an effort, rather than sitting back and watching it happen.
Also, what was it about my wording in that fragment that didn't make sense?
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
Ok, though I don't quite agree that's the definition of anarchy, I know what you mean.
quote:Also, what was it about my wording in that fragment that didn't make sense?
Well, since you didn't say what kind of erotic stimulation you were referring to, it suggested that you were against sexual activity, period. I somehow doubt that's what you meant.
Edit: grammar
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: My conclusion isn't the fruition of the first two points, it's independent of it, and it's my own personal opinion. And I said that.
It's a weird way to state your point, to me, but it's no skin off my teeth. Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: seeing plenty of bare breasts on German news stands
One of the most refreshing aspects of Nuremberg and German culture when I was there was the extremely low key aspect of capitalism. That is, very few ads, signs, schlock and whatnot to mar the cityscape or countryside.
While I do recall a few bare boobies on the newsstands, keep in mind that it wasn't porn and, that, further, there were very few advertisements for anything around and, thus, very few uses of sex to sell things, and sex wasn't really in your face all the time, as it is here, despite the fact that nudity was....
There was porn and strip clubs, but you had to know where they were.
It's really interesting to me how capitalism is so intertwined with so much of American culture. It's difficult for we Americans, I think, to realize the effect that has on our society.
Not that I'm advocating socialism, but I have to admit that Germany was much better looking to me than America.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Germany's one of the largest (and most capitalistic) state economies in the world, so I'm inclined to think what you saw had little to do with capitalism or socialism and lots to do with how Germans respond to advertisements.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
I was living in Stuttgart at the time, and actually it was pornography. I'm sure Nuremberg is a city with a very different character.
To put the statement back in context though, I was only saying that porn was very much available in the West.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
I don'y think porn is ever going to be banned in the US is because there is no way the government is ever going to want to spend the money to enforce such laws.
I don't think stores like Royal Farms should be allowed to put the magazines in the middle of the store though. I agree on what others said earlier. I support the right to use it, and I support other's rights not to be exposed to it.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: Germany's one of the largest (and most capitalistic) state economies in the world, so I'm inclined to think what you saw had little to do with capitalism or socialism and lots to do with how Germans respond to advertisements.
This goes back to the point I mentioned the other day. Capitalism--economics-- are worked out through culture and law, and you can't really seperate them.
My impression of Germany is that the ideal is not 'capitalism', like it is in America. That is, business, the market, did not reign supreme in Germany. I am willing to bet that a large part of the reason there weren't big-ass billboards all over the place is because there are laws preventing them.
I wasn't trying to say that capitalism didn't exist in Germany.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
Nuremberg is a major cultural centre and a tourist hot spot. Most other German cities have their fair share of billboards by European standards, and yes, the Europeans are touchier about public advertising.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Business doesn't reign supreme in the US or anywhere in the sense you seem to be talking about, so I'm not sure what your point is.
We have laws preventing bill boards from being placed in lots of places, and regulating their size and the like, for instance, so if that makes business not supreme in Germany it makes business not supreme in the US.
Also, a founding principle of modern economics is that individual utility -- which is heavily influenced by culture -- drives markets. Economists are extremely comfortable with economic systems reflecting cultural norms.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: We have laws preventing bill boards from being placed in lots of places, and regulating their size and the like, for instance, so if that makes business not supreme in Germany it makes business not supreme in the US.
It seems to me that, inasmuch as placing billboards where business wants (respecting private property) reflects being 'business friendly' and a hands-off approach to business by the state, this would seem to be more capitalist than placing restrictions on billboards by the state.
The more restrictions on billboards, the less 'capitalist' a society would be, in that one respect.
quote: Also, a founding principle of modern economics is that individual utility -- which is heavily influenced by culture -- drives markets. Economists are extremely comfortable with economic systems reflecting cultural norms.
Coolness.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
The issue I take is with the qualitative rather than quantitative difference you ascribed between the US and Germany. You said that it does reign supreme in the US and does not in Germany, but now you're saying that business just has a free-er hand (I would say, property rights are stronger; many of the people selling use of space for billboards are private property owners) in the US compared to Germany, which is a very different thing.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I retract my statement about business supremeness in the U.S. or Germany, and default back to my previous statement that is was more low key (from my perspective) in Germany.
Does that sound better?
Thanks, by the way, for bearing with someone who is obviously an economic ignoramus.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
It does sound better Posted by Gecko (Member # 8160) on :
quote:Originally posted by 777: Also, what was it about my wording in that fragment that didn't make sense?
You're implying that you're asexual.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I read this thread right after I read the Jesus Camp thread. And, with the Christmas season upon us, it has led to some thinking about personal and public space issues.
777 said this:
quote: Which is the crucial factor. Many people (myself included) just don't want to hear, see, or have anything to do with porn. By forcing that on us by surrounding us with it, you are forcing me to take part in something that I just don't want to do. The purpose of "drawing the line" is to prevent this from happening.
God help someone who feels this way about religious beliefs that are anathama to them during the month of December! If by surrounding someone with something we are forcing them to take part in it (and I think that to an extent we are) non-Christians have every right to feel put upon this time of year. It is a whole lot easier to avoid porn than it is to avoid Christmas. Yet some of us Christians see any attempt to limit this exposure as an attack on our way of life.
Some reasonable things were said in this thread about public vs private space. I guess my feeling is that in the public arena, we all could use more tolerance in what exposure we have to endure and more empathy for those who are forced to endure the things that we force on them.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote: You don't like it? Fine. Its constitutionally protected to a certain degree, so unless you're going to get an amendment passed, you're going to have to live with it (edit: or more properly, live with other people living with it), and there are far better things to be focusing your attention on, even with regard to the same problems.
Where are you getting this from? I'm merely trying to objectively consider the possibility that exposure to porn has an effect on ones brain, that can possibly manifest itself as an altered personality.
I'm not trying to suggest that porn is some incredibly powerful force that makes all who encounter it a rapist.
Posted by Gecko (Member # 8160) on :
But to that affect, anything we're exposed to alters our personality. When I watch cop shows I wonder about being a cop, when I watch crime movies I wonder how well I'd be able to pull off a bank heist. It's just imagination.
However, say, if you play GTA and then go shoot and kill people while stealing cop cars, there was something more seriously wrong with you than just being exposed to the wrong form of entertainment.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:God help someone who feels this way about religious beliefs that are anathama to them during the month of December! If by surrounding someone with something we are forcing them to take part in it (and I think that to an extent we are) non-Christians have every right to feel put upon this time of year. It is a whole lot easier to avoid porn than it is to avoid Christmas. Yet some of us Christians see any attempt to limit this exposure as an attack on our way of life.
As far as the ubiquitous nature of Christmas, I honestly think non-Christians just need to do their best to ignore it, if they really don't like it. If I had been born in Iraq, and raised exactly the same way I was here, would it be right for me to expect all of Iraq to change to suit my sensibilities? Nations are the way they are. America is overwhelmingly Christian, not that it matters anyway, as the big parts of Christmas these days are rather secular.
I despise Halloween, but I don't expect people to stop trick or treating just because I don't like it.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Gecko: But to that affect, anything we're exposed to alters our personality. When I watch cop shows I wonder about being a cop, when I watch crime movies I wonder how well I'd be able to pull off a bank heist. It's just imagination.
However, say, if you play GTA and then go shoot and kill people while stealing cop cars, there was something more seriously wrong with you than just being exposed to the wrong form of entertainment.
Hence "viewer discretion is advised." and in the video game arena we are seeing stricter rules on what games can be played by certain age demographs.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:God help someone who feels this way about religious beliefs that are anathama to them during the month of December! If by surrounding someone with something we are forcing them to take part in it (and I think that to an extent we are) non-Christians have every right to feel put upon this time of year. It is a whole lot easier to avoid porn than it is to avoid Christmas. Yet some of us Christians see any attempt to limit this exposure as an attack on our way of life.
As far as the ubiquitous nature of Christmas, I honestly think non-Christians just need to do their best to ignore it, if they really don't like it. If I had been born in Iraq, and raised exactly the same way I was here, would it be right for me to expect all of Iraq to change to suit my sensibilities? Nations are the way they are. America is overwhelmingly Christian, not that it matters anyway, as the big parts of Christmas these days are rather secular.
I despise Halloween, but I don't expect people to stop trick or treating just because I don't like it.
Well then, fill in 'porn' for Christmas or Halloween, and the argument is just as compelling. Nations are the way they are, and right now, for the US, that includes porn. Deal.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Firstly, Who are you talking to there?
Second, it's America, we're allowed to protest whatever we want. You keep saying "Deal" as if people must ALWAYS just accept the way things are. That's fine I suppose, I'm just glad MLK, Malcolm X, Upton Sinclaire, and dozens of others didn't just "Deal" with the problems of their age, they changed them. This isn't in specific reference to Christmas or porn, just in general, people have a right to try and change their surroundings if they want. It won't always work, and I'll disagree with their efforts at time, but "Deal" is insufficient for American society, and thankfully history has shown we DON'T have to settle for it.
As for Christmas, like I said, I think they should do their best to ignore it, Christmas isn't going anywhere, and it won't be legislated away. Furthermore, sales at stores and shiny lights on houses I think are the least of their worries in life. But if they WANT to try and change the system, it's their right. Same thing with porn.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think that, for the most part, non-christians do their best. But Santa is as offensive to some people as porn is to some people. If people who want porn banned because they don't "want to see, hear or have anything to do with [it]" could understand that some people don't want to "see, hear, or have anything to do with" things that they think people should just get used to or ignore, they might feel a little empathy for them. And a little more tolerant.
As for your Iraq example, don't you think we should be trying to do better than that?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
My mistake. Substitute Iraq for anything ubiquitous within a nation.
If I was born in Britain and found the monarchy to be offensive.
If I was born in France and hated croissants.
If I was born in Italy and wanted to outlaw marinara.
Kidding aside, seriously, asking a nation to change something that has been around since it's foundation, that the grand, grand majority of the people celebrate, for a minority that only has to deal with seeing a wreath here and there, some lights, and a reindeer display every so often, isn't realistic. They have a right to try, but I disagree with them.
And really, what do they want? I can understand banning Christmas imagery or Christmas sponsored stuff that the state does (though I'm personally all right with all of it), but you can't ban Christmas lights that I want on my front yard. You can't ban the sale of Christmas trees, or holiday sales, or christmas music and movies being played on tv.
I don't see anything inherently immoral or harmful about a giant Santa, not in the same way I do about watching a 100 foot screen projecting hardcore sex in Times Square.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Lyrhawn, as you might have noticed, I am not advocating banning or outlawing anything. I am hoping for a little trying-to-imagine-how-the-other-guy feels.
How about a magazine stand in a grocery story with soft porn vs Orthodox Jewish children having to sing "Christ the Saviour is born" in order to participate in school choir?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'm not going to get into a point counterpoint with you on Christmas vs. porn. I don't see where it would lead.
Nothing is perfect, most situations have loopholes and exceptions. I can see how the "other guy" feels.
I know of an example of a Jewish girl in college who had a concert on (I think it was) Yom Kippur, and emailed them to ask if they could move it, because she had to fast that day. They couldn't because the date was already set, but I think agreed to take into account Jewish days of importance in the future.
I think people need to be reasonable. Banning Santa isn't reasonable (not that I think you are advocating it), but then neither is putting undue stress on a non-Christian by making them choose between not participating and participating in something they really don't want to. It varies on a case by case basis.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Funny, when I lived in Malaysia ALL programing on TV was frozen at 6:50 or so until 7:00 so that the daily Muslim prayer could be broadcast on TV before the sunset. If you turned off the TV you could still hear the prayer from the loudspeakers of every single Mosque.
While perhaps mildly annoying, it was only so because it interrupted what I wanted, not because it was from a religion I didn't believe in. I was perfectly willing to endure it day after day as I knew the majority of the population participated in it and those who were not so faithful as Muslim probably appreciated the reminder to say their prayers.
During Hari Raya or Ramadan our teachers pointed out that the Muslim children in our class were fasting during daylight hours and that we should respect that and not try to offer them food or make fun of them for not being able to eat. It was refreshing to encounter another religion besides Mormonism that encourages fasting.
Once a year we had international day, and since my school had students from MANY MANY countries and every continent, parents would setup booths around the school and religious displays relative to that country were encouraged. Classes were canceled and we spent the day visiting booths. We got cool passports and we got them stamped at every booth. I looked forward to international day the entire year as it meant I would come home having eaten delicious food from more places then I could count, and anything from having Australia's flag painted on my face, to getting small kit of Legos from the Denmark booth.
While I was at that school if you had asked me in choir to sing a Muslim Hymn I would not have objected, I would have had fun doing it, I was not even aware that celebrating other people's beliefs was supposed to be offensive.
edit: Incidentally does anybody know what a certain game from The Netherlands is called. Its a long wooden table with 3 openings. You slide these coined shaped pieces of wood about the size of a can of tuna and you are supposed to slide them through the openings.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
It strikes me (especially after reading the post on Germany above) that if the North American culture wasn't so driven by commercialization and commercial interests, we probably could get along together without so much irritation. I think it's the in-your-face-ness of selling products that makes things we dislike harder to avoid.
Good creepy night jammies, I remember some flick where people on the street were followed around by holographic commercial images. *shudder
If you dislike panhandling on the street as it is, just wait to see what the next decade has in store for us.
(*mandatory "Gerroff my lawn!")
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I am not trying to say that porn is better than Christmas. I am a big fan of Christmas - less of a fan of porn. I'm glad that you get that I'm not advocating a ban on Santa. I am not sure that we disagree.
All I'm hoping is that the next time someone gets bent out of shape over a school having a holiday party instead of a christmas party or over someone objecting to a publicly funded nativity scene that they remember how much they hate it when they have to see or hear things that are offensive to them. It would be nice if, perhaps, instead of "it has always been like this. We shouldn't have to change for them" some of us might think, "Gee, it must suck to have to endure being surrounded by this stuff for a month".
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: While I was at that school if you had asked me in choir to sing a Muslim Hymn I would not have objected, I would have had fun doing it, I was not even aware that celebrating other people's beliefs was supposed to be offensive.
I agree, but I think there should be a reasonable alternative to those who really do find it offensive. I think singing a song of religious foundation and actually saying a prayer to another God are two different things, but I think a lot of people would disagree with me.
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
Kidding aside, seriously, asking a nation to change something that has been around since it's foundation, that the grand, grand majority of the people consume, for a minority that only has to deal with seeing a magazine here and there, some posters, and a video rack every so often, isn't realistic. They have a right to try, but I disagree with them.
One might also add that Santa—and, indeed, the public celebration of Christmas in its modern form—came along a considerable time after the country was founded. (One might also make an equivalent case for modern porn.) But you, Lyrhawn, seem to be trying to have it both ways, making an argument that Christianity in the U.S. is intrinsically [a] more pervasive and [b] less offensive to others than pornography, while simultaneously refusing to make such an argument.
For what it's worth, I'm behind the position you seem to be advocating roughly half the time: I think they should do their best to ignore it, Christmas and pornography aren't going anywhere, and they won't be legislated away. Furthermore, sales at stores and shiny DVDs I think are the least of their worries in life. Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I am not trying to say that porn is better than Christmas. I am a big fan of Christmas - less of a fan of porn. I'm glad that you get that I'm not advocating a ban on Santa. I am not sure that we disagree.
All I'm hoping is that the next time someone gets bent out of shape over a school having a holiday party instead of a christmas party or over someone objecting to a publicly funded nativity scene that they remember how much they hate it when they have to see or hear things that are offensive to them. It would be nice if, perhaps, instead of "it has always been like this. We shouldn't have to change for them" some of us might think, "Gee, it must suck to have to endure being surrounded by this stuff for a month".
Yeah I think we do agree. And I think it's fair to say there are probably plenty of Christians who hate being surrounded by the Christmasplosion that takes place in some cities this time of year.
I know my mom was thrilled when Wal-Mart changed it's Holiday greeters back to Christmas, and put Christmas back all over the store. There's people on both sides, but I think we can find a happy medium.
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
As an aside...
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I don't see anything inherently immoral or harmful about a giant Santa, not in the same way I do about watching a 100 foot screen projecting hardcore sex in Times Square.
Man, I am never in Times Square when the good stuff happens.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
For me (I am a church musician) praying and singing prayers are very much the same. I don't think I could, in good conscience, sing a hymn that expressed things I don't believe. I even have a hard time with various "patriotic" hymns these days.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
See thats exactly whats wrong IMO kmbboots. Why can't be more accommodating to everyone's beliefs? Why should we suppress the majority OR the minority?
I take issue with people who get mad over a "holiday party" being favored over a "Christmas Party" but for the same reason I take issue with folks who say, "Have a holiday party that is completely secular."
You are not celebrating humanity with secularism, you are celebrating religionless society.
Disbelieve religion all you want its still a huge part of society and I do not see religion ever leaving. Not saying you are an atheist or a God hater kmbboots.
But back on the question of pornography. If there was a religion like some of the pagan ones of yesteryear where sexual rites were important to next years crops, I admit I'd be pretty hard pressed to come up with a way to ethically celebrate its existence.
I wish society attempted to celebrate people's religion, rather then say, "Its hard to not favor one, so we should ignore all."
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Edited to add referents:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: While I was at that school if you had asked me in choir to sing a Muslim Hymn I would not have objected, I would have had fun doing it, I was not even aware that celebrating other people's beliefs was supposed to be offensive.
I agree, but I think there should be a reasonable alternative to those who really do find it offensive. I think singing a song of religious foundation and actually saying a prayer to another God are two different things, but I think a lot of people would disagree with me.
----
It's also different if your culture (religious or otherwise) is in the majority position, or at least if you have chosen where to be and know you could leave (e.g., if you had decided to move to a Muslim country just because you liked it, or because there were good opportunities for you -- as opposed to, say, fleeing from your home in desperation, being forced to move as a child, etc.).
I think often what people object to isn't just the piddly details of having to make certain noises or see certain patterns of color, but the weight of all that goes with that. Which seems, then, either "not the issue" or something to "just get over it" to someone in a non-threatened position. But the weight is still there.
So, for example, I can definitely understand someone not wanting to be made to read erotica, or not wanting to have to wade through sexually explicit images on his or her way to buy the milk, etc. I don't think the items should be prohibited from being made available, but I can understand not wanting to be reminded of the weight of all that which may come to bear with sexually explicit things for some people.
That isn't my particular issue, and neither do I have a problem with Christmas imagery and extensive presence this time of year. However, I can understand that this weight is very real for some people, as kmboots notes.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Second, it's America, we're allowed to protest whatever we want. You keep saying "Deal" as if people must ALWAYS just accept the way things are.
So do you also admit my right to campaign to keep Christmas out of the public sphere, then? (Ah yes, seeing the rest of your post, you do. Ok, I think we don't actually disagree, then.) You should please note, you say almost exactly the same thing:
quote:non-Christians just need to do their best to ignore it
'Deal' is more succinct, certainly, but it comes to the same thing.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: For me (I am a church musician) praying and singing prayers are very much the same. I don't think I could, in good conscience, sing a hymn that expressed things I don't believe. I even have a hard time with various "patriotic" hymns these days.
When it comes to prayers and singing hymns well yes I can see how I might object.
But if the hymn is about God (be he Heavenly Father, or Allah) and a request to him to bring peace to humanity, well you know what, I have no problem with that.
If it's a Buddhist Mantra asking for inner enlightenment, well thats fine too.
If its a religious rite, asking the God of nature to bless the earth with plenty, again thats fine.
If you try just alittle bit, you can in fact find religious expression in every religion that I think I would be fine celebrating.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shmuel: Kidding aside, seriously, asking a nation to change something that has been around since it's foundation, that the grand, grand majority of the people consume, for a minority that only has to deal with seeing a magazine here and there, some posters, and a video rack every so often, isn't realistic. They have a right to try, but I disagree with them.
One might also add that Santa—and, indeed, the public celebration of Christmas in its modern form—came along a considerable time after the country was founded. (One might also make an equivalent case for modern porn.) But you, Lyrhawn, seem to be trying to have it both ways, making an argument that Christianity in the U.S. is intrinsically [a] more pervasive and [b] less offensive to others than pornography, while simultaneously refusing to make such an argument.
For what it's worth, I'm behind the position you seem to be advocating roughly half the time: I think they should do their best to ignore it, Christmas and pornography aren't going anywhere, and they won't be legislated away. Furthermore, sales at stores and shiny DVDs I think are the least of their worries in life.
I'm not really sure what you are saying. How am I making and not making an argument at the same time?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:You are not celebrating humanity with secularism, you are celebrating religionless society.
Thanks; if you hadn't told me, I'm sure I would never have figured out what I'm actually celebrating at Christmas. But now that you have read my subconscious mind, I am finally able to understand myself and know what I'm really doing!
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Second, it's America, we're allowed to protest whatever we want. You keep saying "Deal" as if people must ALWAYS just accept the way things are.
So do you also admit my right to campaign to keep Christmas out of the public sphere, then? (Ah yes, seeing the rest of your post, you do. Ok, I think we don't actually disagree, then.) You should please note, you say almost exactly the same thing:
quote:non-Christians just need to do their best to ignore it
'Deal' is more succinct, certainly, but it comes to the same thing.
It's my OPINION that they should, but I'm not going to take away their right to change the status quo, and I'm not going to subject them to a Christian tyranny. You can do all you want to "outlaw" Christmas if that is your goal, but you're going to fail miserably, as I think you should.
I don't even think Modern Christmas is that religious. Santa Claus is a pagan figure, not Christian, regardless of how he is viewed today. Christmas trees pre-date Christianity in tradition, there's nothing inherently Christian about wreathes, mistle toe, holly, ivy, shiny lights etc etc. And gift giving isn't specifically Christian, it isn't even religious. The god referred to in most Christmas songs, when they refer to Christmas at all, is the god of Abraham, which all three major religions I would think are at least okay with HEARING, once and awhile.
Step back and look at a secular holiday. What if there was a group that was offended by the Fourth of July, for whatever reason. They didn't want to see Red White and Blue everywhere, and fireworks, and Uncle Sam running willy nilly about, and parades, and hear Stars and Stripes Forever all the time.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:You are not celebrating humanity with secularism, you are celebrating religionless society.
Thanks; if you hadn't told me, I'm sure I would never have figured out what I'm actually celebrating at Christmas. But now that you have read my subconscious mind, I am finally able to understand myself and know what I'm really doing!
I'm not sure the point you are trying to make KOM, care to elaborate?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: For me (I am a church musician) praying and singing prayers are very much the same. I don't think I could, in good conscience, sing a hymn that expressed things I don't believe. I even have a hard time with various "patriotic" hymns these days.
When it comes to prayers and singing hymns well yes I can see how I might object.
But if the hymn is about God (be he Heavenly Father, or Allah) and a request to him to bring peace to humanity, well you know what, I have no problem with that.
If it's a Buddhist Mantra asking for inner enlightenment, well thats fine too.
If its a religious rite, asking the God of nature to bless the earth with plenty, again thats fine.
If you try just alittle bit, you can in fact find religious expression in every religion that I think I would be fine celebrating.
So would I. I would have no problem singing/participating in any of those examples. I think religions have more in common than we realize. But there are hymns etc. which directly contradict my beliefs. I would not sing those - though I wouldn't have any problem hearing someone else sing them.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Why are you telling me what my secular holiday "really" celebrates? Are you aware how incredibly arrogant that is? I might as well tell you that you are "really" celebrating a pagan midwinter festival intended to bring the sub back through human sacrifice!
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I'm not really sure what you are saying. How am I making and not making an argument at the same time?
I refer you to:
quote:I'm not going to get into a point counterpoint with you on Christmas vs. porn. I don't see where it would lead.
It's hard to make an argument based on alleged differences when you refuse to argue the existence of those differences...
quote:I don't even think Modern Christmas is that religious. Santa Claus is a pagan figure, not Christian, regardless of how he is viewed today. Christmas trees pre-date Christianity in tradition, there's nothing inherently Christian about wreathes, mistle toe, holly, ivy, shiny lights etc etc.
And this makes matters better how, exactly?
quote:And gift giving isn't specifically Christian, it isn't even religious.
Ditto, with an extra side order of irrelevance.
quote:The god referred to in most Christmas songs, when they refer to Christmas at all, is the god of Abraham, which all three major religions I would think are at least okay with HEARING, once and awhile.
This again wouldn't particularly help everyone if it were true, and is only true from a Christian perspective in the first place.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
kmbboots: Ok then I think its quite possible to even in public school find a way to celebrate plurality without having to resort to a no religion NONE policy.
KOM: I am well aware of why Christmas is celebrated during winter. Your secular holiday? So now the month of December is the place of a month long SECULAR holiday? Could you point me in the direction of when this tradition started?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I celebrate it, and I'm sure you'll agree that I'm no Christian. But for purposes of this discussion, it started right on this thread:
quote:but for the same reason I take issue with folks who say, "Have a holiday party that is completely secular."
If there are not any such people, you really ought not to object to them.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
BB, I said that I wouldn't have trouble with your particular examples as they wouldn't be against what I believe. They might very well be against what other people believe.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Shmuel -
I refused to get into a point counterpoint because they are separate issues, and it's a conversation that never has to end. If you can tell me what you think such a conversation would accomplish, I'll reconsider it. As you can see, I clearly AM arguing one way or the other, you even voiced support for it, so I don't get where you are saying that I'm not arguing for something you said you agreed with.
I never started an argument based on Christmas vs. Porn, that was done by others, apparently trying to assign some value of importance on Christmas and Porn. I don't think they are on the same level to begin with, so that's also part of why I don't see the value in such an argument. And again, if you can come up with a valid reason why I should do so, I'll reconsider it.
As far as the secular nature of Christmas. If Christmas is a secular holiday, arguing against it based on the position of a religious minority against a majority becomes as moot as if Mormons were arguing against Independence Day on religious grounds.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Ahh, what the world needs, The next great thing Your secret to millions
I just have two words for all of you.
"Christian Porn"
Most of the comments I could make on that would be greatly unappreciated by the moderator, so I'll leave it at that.
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:As you can see, I clearly AM arguing one way or the other, you even voiced support for it, so I don't get where you are saying that I'm not arguing for something you said you agreed with.
Note that I added a few phrases to create the position I was voicing support for. Whether you'd go along with those seems to flip-flop from post to post.
quote:I never started an argument based on Christmas vs. Porn, that was done by others, apparently trying to assign some value of importance on Christmas and Porn. I don't think they are on the same level to begin with, so that's also part of why I don't see the value in such an argument.
Then, umm, what exactly are you doing in a thread about whether there ought to be laws against pornography, in which Christmas was brought up specifically insofar as it's a parallel case? If you think there's nothing productive that can come out of such a parallel, even to the point where there's nothing productive that can come out of discussing whether there is a parallel, then you're not adding anything productive in this particular thread; if your argument is that they're not parallel, then you need to argue it, not take that position for granted.
quote:As far as the secular nature of Christmas. If Christmas is a secular holiday, arguing against it based on the position of a religious minority against a majority becomes as moot as if Mormons were arguing against Independence Day on religious grounds.
Putting aside the bit where that contrary position is a strawman, "pagan" is in no way equivalent to "secular."
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Shmuel, as Lyrhawn recognized, I wasn't arguing relative values of Christmas and porn - just using both as examples of things that some people want to be shielded from and that some people want to have accessible. So Lyrhawn was quite correct in not having that argument with me.
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
:blink:
Now I'm confused. What do relative values have to do with anything?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote: If there are not any such people, you really ought not to object to them.
Ought I not to? Christians who demand a holiday be exclusively Christmasy commit the same mistake I think secularists do, they want everyone to conform to their point of view.
I just do not understand why an emphasis on inclusion is worse then an emphasis on total exclusion. Only atheists are really happy with that arrangement because it just happens to look like what they believe.
The only equivalent I can draw is a school where instead of saying, "Christians only please." they say, "No Buddhists, No Muslims, No Hindus, etc" Until they quite literally make a list long enough to encompass every religion and just happen to forget Christianity.
In such a school Christianity could be expressed and even applauded and if you complained they would point to how its perfectly fair as they so broadly reject all religions. Christianity is just how it is, they can't help it if you disagree with their version of science.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
BB: If you're trying to objectively consider the possibility, come up with some evidence for it instead of noting for every persuasive argument supporting some other cause that porn could be part of the problem, too.
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
A bit late, but hi back, dkw. Posted by 777 (Member # 9506) on :
quote:Originally posted by Gecko:
quote:Originally posted by 777: Also, what was it about my wording in that fragment that didn't make sense?
You're implying that you're asexual.
I guess I need to clarify. When I say I don't understand erotic stimulation, I mean that I don't get why people feel that they need artificial, cheap sexual stimulation by porn and sexually-stimulating material.
I hold to pretty strict LDS standards. I don't want sexual stimulation outside of sex itself, and I don't want sex outside of marriage. Period. This doesn't mean I don't want sex at all; it just means that I believe that there's an appropriate time for it in my life. It's a nuisance to me at any other time.
For instance: I hate masturbation. It's unnecessary to me (I'm only 18) and downright embarrassing when it goes off at random. Things that influence me to masturbate (or worse, trigger it) are on my list of definitely bad things. This includes stuff such as immodest dress, pornographic material, pornographic subject matter, and other things besides.
If you want to masturbate over cheap porn, go right ahead. (This isn't directed to you in particular, Gecko.) But I want no part of that in my life, and I don't appreciate it when society's apparent lack of sexual morality screams at me whenever I go out the door.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
I think it was last Christmas that the mayor of Sydney decided not to put Christmas decorations on Town Hall, as per usual; citing sensitivity towards Muslims. What a joke. The vast majority of Muslims in Australia don't have a problem with Christmas, and they themselves seemed to think the gesture was unnecessary. Funny, that.
I don't think it's the responsibility of the state to decorate the nation during holidays, but the rationale given is ridiculous in my opinion.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
Once a year we had international day, and since my school had students from MANY MANY countries and every continent, parents would setup booths around the school and religious displays relative to that country were encouraged. Classes were canceled and we spent the day visiting booths. We got cool passports and we got them stamped at every booth. I looked forward to international day the entire year as it meant I would come home having eaten delicious food from more places then I could count, and anything from having Australia's flag painted on my face, to getting small kit of Legos from the Denmark booth.
I used to go to an International school and we had Carnivals like this annually. Those were the days. My brother helped run the Australian booth, where they sold steak sandwiches and whatnot, but I have to admit: I defected and went for the New Zealand booth's lamb chops
The Scandinavian booths were also good fun, if you were over 20. What with the beer and the Viking helmets.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
edit: Incidentally does anybody know what a certain game from The Netherlands is called. Its a long wooden table with 3 openings. You slide these coined shaped pieces of wood about the size of a can of tuna and you are supposed to slide them through the openings.
Despite having lived there for a year, I have never played this game. We were probably too busy playing marbles!
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
For me (I am a church musician) praying and singing prayers are very much the same. I don't think I could, in good conscience, sing a hymn that expressed things I don't believe. I even have a hard time with various "patriotic" hymns these days.
During my stint in boarding school I had to go to chapel three times a week, and there were plenty of hymns; none of which I agreed with. I did the same - observe respectful silence.
[ November 29, 2006, 06:44 PM: Message edited by: Euripides ]
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
777- You have to understand, though, that if a girl is dressed immodestly and makes you masturbate, that's not her fault. The fact that certain things make you do something you see as bad is not their fault. You need to take responsiblity for yourself, for your own responses and your own actions. No one else but you is responsible for your sin.
Posted by 777 (Member # 9506) on :
blacwolve: I completely understand. Don't get me wrong; I acknowledge that when something like that happens, the majority of the fault lies with me. For the most part, I just ignore it and get on with my life. I've gotten to the point where much of this immorality just doesn't get to me anymore.
However, I'm still advocating for a measure against blatantly public pornography. Those towns in New England, for instance, with nudes lining the streets "because they can." (I'll try to find the link to that story.) There are many things that I will take blame for. There are some that I just won't tolerate, either way.
Pornography has been a problem for me for the past several years. Ever since puberty began, I've been constantly smacked over the head with sexually-oriented shocks, stumbling across material that made me feel dirty when I looked at it... Some of that stuff is unforgettable, in a horrendous way. The fact that porn was there, and that it's getting more blatant the year, is one of the primary factors for my disgust for it.
Posted by 777 (Member # 9506) on :
This is something which I will not tolerate, sexual stimulation my bad or not. Public nudity is public nudity, no matter what way you look at it.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
I had a male friend who was not American and the conversation ended up on nude beaches and he was like, I don't get Americans, you seem so excited over the idea. But the thing is, once you are there, it is like, oh another naked person. You really don't even think about it. On the other hand, I was reading a book about Iran and the person was talking about how the taboo against showing hair was so strong that men would go wild over seeing a stray hair. My breastfeeding book talked about being in a room full of Muslim mothers who were feeding their babies. A man came in unexpectedly and they all modestly grabbed their scarves and covered their heads- not one was concerned over her exposed breasts. I think we as individuals and as a society decide what we find stimulating.
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
I'm just curious, since this discussion seems to hinge on the understanding that sexually explicit material is currently being parctically thrown at everyone, is this the case everywhere except where I've been in the US?
I grew up in the Chicago suburbs, spent a fair amount of time there as well as further out in the stix, went to school in a rural but populous college town in Indiana and now live and work in LA, as well as having been on various trips to much of the rest of the US (although admittedly little exposure to the north-east or north-west). But I never felt that porn was ever thrust upon me, even Vegas didn't strike me as that terrible (though definately worse than other places).
It's currently Illegal (to the best of my knowledge) to display pornographic images in public. Now admittedly I don't think it's illegal for non-adult stores to display porn inside, though every family-oriented establishment that I'm aware of has internal rules against this.
I realize that culturally we're exposed a fair amount to pornography by others and whatnot, but not in any kind of manner that would make sense (in my mind) to create laws against. Unless you want to start arguing that existing magazines that are not considered porn (Maxim, Glamour, whatever) should be. If that's the case then you may have a discussion worth having, but that doesn't seem to be what's on the table here.
I keep hearing people say things like: "blatantly public pornography" but unless I'm just horribly unaware of the world around me, the whole topic is a straw man.
Can anyone correct me here?
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
I respect your right to your religious beliefs, 777, but you might find that it's your puritanism which is giving you grief and forcing you to fight what is really a normal biological function.
Of course, copulating with the first available female in sight would also be 'normal biological' behaviour, so once again there's a line to draw. I draw that line according to whether the activity hurts others or myself.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:when society's apparent lack of my own particular version of sexual morality screams at me
Fixorised!
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
quote:Originally posted by Euripides: I respect your right to your religious beliefs, 777, but you might find that it's your puritanism which is giving you grief and forcing you to fight what is really a normal biological function.
Of course, copulating with the first available female in sight would also be 'normal biological' behaviour, so once again there's a line to draw. I draw that line according to whether the activity hurts others or myself.
Indulging yourself can hurt others. I have some female friends in committed relationships who are very deprived because their men are happy alone instead of with them. One of them is trying to have a baby and it is like, um, maybe you need to not give him any alone time cause at your current rate, you are never going to get pregnant. And she is very sad because of it.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
double post
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote: If there are not any such people, you really ought not to object to them.
Ought I not to? Christians who demand a holiday be exclusively Christmasy commit the same mistake I think secularists do, they want everyone to conform to their point of view.
That is, however, a completely different argument from the one you made that I objected to, namely that such a holiday would not be celebrating humanity, but rather a lack of religion. It is incredibly arrogant of you to say "Your real motivation isn't what you say it is, it is this other thing that I and all right-thinking people object to."
Further, since you appear to be talking now about public rather than private celebration, that is a slightly different matter. But if the state is going to recognise any celebrations at all - and I'm not convinced it should - then they have to be secular, or they are implicitly establishing whatever religion's holiday it is. It is not secularists' fault if secularism is the default position; you might as well argue that a lack of explicit recognition of German establishes English as the state language! No it doesn't, it's just what's left when you take out official establishment of languages.
Posted by Princess Leah (Member # 6026) on :
quote:I'm still advocating for a measure against blatantly public pornography. Those towns in New England, for instance, with nudes lining the streets "because they can."
To you, nudity=porn?
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
scholar: There are always exceptions; generally it doesn't hurt others.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote:Originally posted by 777: Ah, yes. Here's the story on Brattleboro, Vermont.
This is something which I will not tolerate, sexual stimulation my bad or not. Public nudity is public nudity, no matter what way you look at it.
So, how, exactly, are you going to go about not tolerating it? According to the article, it's legal. When you march up to them and announce you're not tolerating it, what do you expect to happen?
Posted by Gecko (Member # 8160) on :
This issue of modesty is an invention of society. Regardless of anyone's moral views, we are animals, after all. There's no set way for a person to behave.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholar:
quote:Originally posted by Euripides: I respect your right to your religious beliefs, 777, but you might find that it's your puritanism which is giving you grief and forcing you to fight what is really a normal biological function.
Of course, copulating with the first available female in sight would also be 'normal biological' behaviour, so once again there's a line to draw. I draw that line according to whether the activity hurts others or myself.
Indulging yourself can hurt others. I have some female friends in committed relationships who are very deprived because their men are happy alone instead of with them. One of them is trying to have a baby and it is like, um, maybe you need to not give him any alone time cause at your current rate, you are never going to get pregnant. And she is very sad because of it.
That's the guy's fault, not porn's fault.
-pH
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Indeed - one might ask, if the woman is so unhappy, why is she in this 'committed relationship'?
The other side of this is that porn does increase the pleasure of masturbation. If we suppose, as seems reasonable, that guys act to maximise their pleasure (within limits - choosing between masturbation and sex is surely a reasonable place to apply such a theory, though), and further assuming that the pleasure from masturbation is not constant, but varies with the guy, then there must exist some band of guys who, in the absence of porn, would get more pleasure out of sex, but who, with porn, prefer masturbation. Of course, issues of sexual compatibility mean that the pleasure from sex is likely to vary with the partner, and also over time. But that's not so important for this analysis. However, I must say that the sexual satisfaction of women unable to compete (in the minds of some men) with porn does not seem to me a sufficient hurt to ban the stuff.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
I am not for bannning porn or even blaming porn for the guy's behavior. I am just saying that there are potential negatives to masturbation not connected to religious views.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholar: I am not for bannning porn or even blaming porn for the guy's behavior. I am just saying that there are potential negatives to masturbation not connected to religious views.
Like KoM said, if this is such a huge problem, why is she with him? And aside from that, if a guy prefers masturbation to actual sex...that is his problem, as I said. If he wants to actually be in a relationship, he's probably going to have to work on that at some point.
-pH
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheGrimace: I'm just curious, since this discussion seems to hinge on the understanding that sexually explicit material is currently being parctically thrown at everyone, is this the case everywhere except where I've been in the US?
I'm asking this same question. The first time I saw any kind of porn was when I was 20, and asked one of my male friends if I could see a Playboy he'd gotten as a joke present. I'd never seen any porn before that, and I've never seen any since. Which is sort of sad, 'cause I'd probably enjoy seeing porn on every street corner. It's too bad that 777 and I can't trade places, or something, then we'd both be happy.
BTW- I've probably asked you this before, but where did you go to school, Grimace? I lived in Bloomington and now I'm going to Purdue, so I have experience with 2 of the big three universities in Indiana.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'm reminded of a West Wing quote:
John Van Dyke: "If our children can buy pornography on any street corner for five dollars, isn't that too high a price to pay for free speech?"
President Bartlet: "No."
John: "Really?"
President Barlet: "On the other hand, I do think that five dollars is too high a price to pay for pornography."
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)