quote:You have yet to explain why, even a little bit, how producing pornography is an abuse of the right to free speech. Remember! Saying, "It's morally repugnant!" isn't actually an answer. Important reminder for you there.
I'd just like to point out to Resh that the reason free speech exists is to protect "stupid and smelly" speech.
Smart and sweet smelling speech doesn't need to be protected.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, actually I think the reason freedom of speech exists is to restrict the government from stifling political dissent.
At least, that's the biggest reason.
It's just that you can't honestly and effectively restrict the government from that without also permitting stupid and smelly speech.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Twinky, yes, society changes. But the Constitution was written in such a way so that the whims of society would not erode the strength of the people to govern themselves. Changes to the constitution were not meant to be easily done. It goes to show the extent of the activism involved that something as controversial and divisive among our people will not be decided by a majority rules, democratic process. Get the legislature to write a Constitutional amendment giving you the right to get married to someone your gender and I will support you 100%. I'm not so right-wing brainwashed to think I necessarily know better than what a majority of the country thinks is best for itself (I'm not speaking of morality; that doesn't matter here.)
My objection lies not with the morality of the issue, but with the attempts of an activist minority to do the same thing as they did with abortion: force it upon the rest of us without letting us have a say in the matter.
I have a couple of points of disagreement as well as some points of agreement here. I agree with you that many things should be taken care of legislatively; that's the whole point of having a legislative branch in the first place. However, part of the point of having a judiciary is to protect minorities from the majority. Sunstein's view that judicial verdicts (particularly at the Supreme Court level) should be rendered as narrowly as possible would allow the latter to occur while only interfering minimally with the former. Accordingly, he's said that he thinks Roe v. Wade significantly overreached.
The question of same-sex marriage doesn't seem to me to be the sort of question that should just be left up to the majority; I also don't see why it would need a Constitutional amendment to enact it. In the U.S., this looks like example of what I was talking about above: a minority group claiming a right that the majority wishes to deny them. Resolving those sorts of conflicts within the scope of existing law seems to me to fall to the judiciary; if they can't be resolved within the scope of existing law, then new legislation -- again, not necessarily a Constitutional amendment -- is required one way or the other. I'm not seeing the "judicial activism" here.
For example, a few years ago the federal government here in Canada changed the legal definition of marriage from "one man and one woman" to "two people." Most Canadian provinces had already beaten them to the punch, but this made it apply coast-to-coast. They didn't have to amend our Constitution to do that.
By the way, the sky hasn't fallen.
Do you have an example of the "judicial activism" that you're decrying other than Roe v. Wade? So far, it seems like all you're doing is taking things you don't like and calling them examples of "judicial activism" rather than examples of -- say -- incorrect judicial interpretation, in your opinion.
How about an example of "conservative judicial activism," since you say you oppose that as well?
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Uh, yeah... Have you not figured out what's going one yet?
If you're saying that you're deliberately trolling here, then it's difficult to tell the difference between your intentionally obnoxious joke posting and your normal posting style. The thought had occurred to me that you might think you're just messing with Rakeesh, but I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt as a mature poster. My apologies for that.
quote:Nevermind, I don't get what you're saying after all.
On the off chance that you're serious, allow me to explain it to you: You are (once again) doing exactly what you acuse your opponents of doing. You complain that people think you (and other right-wingers) are just crazy or evil or brainwashed, and claim that you do not think that way about people who disagree with you. However, that claim is demonstrably false.
The contradiction is quite clear in the statements I quoted in my last post. You said no sane person could believe certain things, then you said you don't think Rakeesh is crazy.
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: "I just don't see how porn makes any legal sense."
When porn actors were tried for prostitution in California some time back, I believe the defense's argument (which won) was that the director was not paying them for personal gratification the way a prostitute's customer would. He was instead hiring two performers to perform.
That makes zero sense to me.
I imagine the logic is that prostitution implies paying someone for your own sexual gratification, and the director of a porn movie isn't paying someone for their own sexual gratification. Ergo, no prostitution.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Indeed. I wonder if it is legal to pay a couple to have sex in front of you. If it is, maybe the logic is similar. i.e. maybe its some plausible deniability thing where the director can claim that he's paying two people for a performance and the two people decide to have sex? That coupled with the fact that in some jurisdictions, prostitution is not technically illegal but that soliciting it is.
The logic is underwhelming I admit, but thats one way I think I can make some sense out of it.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I imagine the logic is that prostitution implies paying someone for your own sexual gratification, and the director of a porn movie isn't paying someone for their own sexual gratification. Ergo, no prostitution.
This may ruin my plan to have a legal brothel by advertising it as "produce and star in your own adult film!" and giving the john the tape to distribute or license as he sees fit.
quote:As far as that goes in relation to what Rakeesh was saying, if it isn't in the Constitution, it should be decided by the states. But that is not what happens in these large scale issues like abortion and same-sex marriage. No, the Constitution does not say anything about an unborn baby's "personhood," or homosexuals' right to marry, but that's only because no sane person would even consider those things to be in question. It just goes to show how twisted our values have become since those days.
And yet, what you practice is in fact conservative activism, and according to your own argument, that kind of activism is wrong. The reason that you claim that liberal judges practice activism is because you disagree with the manner in which they interpret the constitution, you believe that no sane person could possibly believe that homosexuals have the right to marry or the person-hood of un-born babies, and you judge those who read the constitution differently or from a progressive view as those who are inconsistent and twisted. Yet, you want that interpretation written into the constitution, you want your ideas and your interpretation to be the one acted upon, and thats a problem for you because you are motivated by a want to read your own morality and conservative agenda into the document.
And that's exactly the process that you pronounce as incorrect, which by definition makes your argument self-defeating, and that makes your argument wrong.
On a personal note: those progressive ideas are twisted and no sane person could hold those views? I understand anger and frustration, I understand views that aren't mainstream, but that view is neither of those things. It's simply hateful, and it is not because you are against homosexual rights with regard to marriage or because you are pro-life, in and of themselves those views are not hateful in any way, but you hate the people who believe differently than you do. You seem to think the views are twisted and the people insane. That doesn't seem quite right to me...
Posts: 457 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I imagine the logic is that prostitution implies paying someone for your own sexual gratification, and the director of a porn movie isn't paying someone for their own sexual gratification. Ergo, no prostitution.
This may ruin my plan to have a legal brothel by advertising it as "produce and star in your own adult film!" and giving the john the tape to distribute or license as he sees fit.
--Enigmatic
I've been kicking around the same idea for quite a while myself (not in an "I'm going to do this" sort of way; more of a "hey, here's a loophole"). It seems like you could get around this by having a pimp act as middle man--the pimp is officially both the producer and the agent of both of the "actors" in the movie, and charges the john a fee for his services as agent.
At the end of the shoot, the john recieves the only copy of the movie, although he can order multiple copies if he so desires--kind of a porn vanity press type arrangement.
Posts: 1087 | Registered: Jul 1999
| IP: Logged |
And yet, what you practice is in fact conservative activism, and according to your own argument, that kind of activism is wrong.
No it's not! It is when done by Judges in their own courtroom, rather than their sworn and sacred duty. By all means, activate to your hearts content. And I don't think I hate anybody, so please don't say I do.
quote:Enigmatic:
If you're saying that you're deliberately trolling here, then it's difficult to tell the difference between your intentionally obnoxious joke posting and your normal posting style. The thought had occurred to me that you might think you're just messing with Rakeesh, but I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt as a mature poster. My apologies for that.
Apology accepted. But did it ever occur to you that there is no difference between my intentionally obnoxious joke posting and my normal posting style? I have consistently taken everything I say FAR less seriously than the rest of you, for a few years now.
quote:Rakeesh:
Well, actually I think the reason freedom of speech exists is to restrict the government from stifling political dissent.
Yes, in fact I have read arguments that that was in fact the sole reason, and that freedom of religion was a separate issue, but otherwise, the Framers felt that society should set it's own standards and the Government, as usual, should just stay the hell out of our business.
The truth is, we live in a different world than in those days. I recognize that. Different from the fifties and sixties even. So it is necessary that we make up new rules and standards for our behavior, our government, all that. This is the problem, though. There has been no attempts at honest discussion, there are just factions trying to impose their will on the others, democracy be damned. And they use the Constitution as if what they want was actually what the Founder's wanted (or would have wanted) in the first place. Can we not at least agree that that is a bad thing, and representative of the reality of the situation?
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Apology accepted. But did it ever occur to you that there is no difference between my intentionally obnoxious joke posting and my normal posting style? I have consistently taken everything I say FAR less seriously than the rest of you, for a few years now.
Show of hands? Who believes this? I don't. From your activity in this thread, your 'not taking things seriously' is just a mechanism you use to be able to spout of your rants every so often and avoid replying to criticism when you don't want to.
Most people just ignore the criticism they don't like, they don't make a game of being a jackass like you do.
quote:The truth is, we live in a different world than in those days. I recognize that. Different from the fifties and sixties even. So it is necessary that we make up new rules and standards for our behavior, our government, all that. This is the problem, though. There has been no attempts at honest discussion, there are just factions trying to impose their will on the others, democracy be damned. And they use the Constitution as if what they want was actually what the Founder's wanted (or would have wanted) in the first place. Can we not at least agree that that is a bad thing, and representative of the reality of the situation?
There are many attempts at honest discussion, though the ranters *wink* get more attention. Furthermore, just because someone says, "Forbidding same-sex marriage is wrong and unconstitutional," does not, in fact, mean they're trying to 'impose their will on others', it could just as easily mean that they're trying to stop others from imposing their will on them.
We are not a simple democracy in the United States. 'Majority rules' only ever applies in the United States, as the Founding Fathers intended, btw, in a few very specific cases.
And anyway, we aren't governed by the Founding Fathers. We're governed through our consent by the document called the US Constitution which they wrote. It's our Constitution now, not theirs. Truthfully it does not matter much what the Founding Fathers 'would have wanted'. Except when it does, of course-but in any case it's not an ironclad rule.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Apology accepted. But did it ever occur to you that there is no difference between my intentionally obnoxious joke posting and my normal posting style? I have consistently taken everything I say FAR less seriously than the rest of you, for a few years now.
Actually, there has been a long-running theory that you are in reality a liberal atheist who believes in evolution, creating "Reshpeckobiggle" as a ridiculous parody of someone with right-wing and religious views. In short, you're seen as a joke whether you were in on it or not. The only reason people ever try to reply to you seriously is they are very patient about giving you the benefit of the doubt.
Given that I only know you from interactions on this forum, it really makes no difference to me if you are actually an ass or just acting like an ass. However, if you think we're all taking you too seriously, I can certainly stop treating anything you say as if it came from a mature, reasonable, or intelligent human being. In fact, that won't be hard to do at all.
posted
I blame Clinton for the current state of this thread. If the primary wasn't in the doldrums waiting until the Pennsylvania election, this thread would have actual news to talk about.
Rabbit, that song is actually pretty damned catchy. Usually the lyrics of those kinds of songs seem so clumsy, but, he makes them sound pretty good. I had to turn it off halfway through for fear that I'd get it stuck in my head.
McCain and Obama are sniping at each other again over national security. It's nothing new but, maybe it shows that McCain is really gearing up for attacks, and also his lack of attacks on Clinton either mean he's trying to hurt Obama's chances of winning, or he thinks Obama is going to win and he's getting an early start.
I can only imagine how the 24 hour networks feel about the current state of things. There's just not much to report.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I blame Bill Gates for the current state of this, thread just on general principle. When in doubt, blame Bill Gates -- that's my motto.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
The heck? All questions about Lewinsky are off limits? She doesn't want anyone to vote for or against her mother because of her father? Who do they think they are trying to kid? She's willing to bash Obama for something his pastor said ten years ago, but questions about the candidate's husband's record while President are irrelevant?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
For someone who is seen as a joke, I sure seem to get a lot of foaming-at-the-mouth attempts to neutralize my words. Everyone hates Bill O'Reilly and think he's a joke too, but he sure gets high ratings, doesn't he? Or George Bush; we all know what an imbecile he is, but somehow he's managed to become the greatest danger this world has ever faced.
Majority rules in only a very few specific cases, Rakeesh? You might want to analyze that statement for veracity.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, Mr Squicky, I'll give you my theory that works regardless of how right or wrong I am: people feel threatened by eloquent disagreement.
posted
I think Chelsea Clinton's opinion of the Lewinsky scandal is a personal issue and she should be allowed to decline comment. I can see that.
The few lines quoting her in the article seem out of line but its hard to know if they give the correct impression. If her full response was more to the effect of "That's a very personal family issue for me so I would prefer not discuss the topic", then I have no problem.
If she was saying that her opinion of the matter was nobody's business, then I could agree. She has a right to keep her personal feelings and opinions regarding her father's infidelity and lies confidential.
If she was saying that a national scandal that lead to her father's impeachment was nobody's business -- then she's living in a fantasy world.
I can't see that the topic should be off limits for either of her parents. I also think she's living in a fantasy world if she doesn't think that people are (and will be) voting for or against her mother because of her father. Can anyone seriously argue that Hilary would even be a serious candidate in this election if Bill hadn't been President? The Clinton family has no qualms about using that when its to their advantage, they can't call foul when its not to their advantage.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was almost out the door when I thought of this: "Actually, there has been a long-running theory that you are in reality a liberal atheist who believes in evolution, creating "Reshpeckobiggle" as a ridiculous parody of someone with right-wing and religious views."
That truly says much more about you than it does about me.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Most people wouldn't feel threatened by eloquent disagreement, however they may feel threatened by a viewpoint that believes that to disagree with it is insane. I'm pretty sure that isn't eloquent, more like blunt force.
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: I was almost out the door when I thought of this: "Actually, there has been a long-running theory that you are in reality a liberal atheist who believes in evolution, creating "Reshpeckobiggle" as a ridiculous parody of someone with right-wing and religious views."
That truly says much more about you than it does about me.
Not to me.
To be completely fair, there are several hatrack member's who I have suspected of being parodies played by some bigot or another.
I suppose that what that says about me is that I find it much easier to believe in some forms of human behavior than others.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is "foaming-at-the-mouth" referring to anyone other than Rakeesh there? Because I'd say it's an accurate description of his posts here, but not of anyone else who's responded to you in this thread. For the most part, people seem to be trying very patiently point out where your words are wrong.
quote:Everyone hates Bill O'Reilly and think he's a joke too, but he sure gets high ratings, doesn't he?
And Borat did really well at the box office. It doesn't mean anything he said should be taken seriously.
Oops, I guess I fell for it again - that post was obviously just a joke, silly me! The part where you kinda compare yourself to George Bush is the funniest.
posted
Relevant to this thread, I believe that - at least on September 19th - it doesn't matter which candidate wins the Democratic nomination. September 19th will be the day of the Democrats.
posted
Didn't notice this earlier as I was interrupted while posting and missed some of the intervening posts -
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: I was almost out the door when I thought of this: "Actually, there has been a long-running theory that you are in reality a liberal atheist who believes in evolution, creating "Reshpeckobiggle" as a ridiculous parody of someone with right-wing and religious views."
That truly says much more about you than it does about me.
What, exactly, does it say about me? Merely that I'm aware that this view has been expressed. I did not say I came up with the idea, nor that I think it particularly likely. However, it seemed relevant to mention that the idea has been floated, since you said that everyone else is taking your posts far more seriously than you are.
iirc, it's been said at least once directly to you in a thread you were participating in - particularly that the way you were arguing seemed so effective at driving people away from your "side" that the poster wondered if that was the actual goal.
posted
OK, I should have said that says more about those positing the theory, but it also says something about you that you find it worth mentioning. The Rabbit explains it pretty well: that someone whose thoughts and beliefs are so incomprehensible to you are more easily viewed as somehow... unreal. But in case you are suspicious, this handle is my only handle here on Hatrack.
A poor comparison to make, Enigmatic, between O'Reilly and Borat. I'm sure I don't need to explain why.
"Is "foaming-at-the-mouth" referring to anyone other than Rakeesh there? Because I'd say it's an accurate description of his posts here, but not of anyone else who's responded to you in this thread. For the most part, people seem to be trying very patiently point out where your words are wrong."
Not that patiently (nor very perceptively, I might add), and no, I was speaking of the general reaction to my posts here at Hatrack for the last few years. You are rather calm, by many comparisons.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
FWIW, I don't think that's an accurate description of any of Rakeesh's posts that I've read. I haven't read them all during the most recent flurry of activity, but I doubt that's an accurate description just based on my interactions with him in the past. He might have gotten heated, but "foaming at the mouth" sounds like hyperbole.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok, Matt, I give up. Why is picking low hanging fruit a bad thing? Or is it just a statement of man's inherent laziness and desire only for what's right in front of him?
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:ElJay, you are probably on to something there...
Aww, you're doing it again:) Not replying to direct questions exposing gaping holes in your ideas, and doing so with a joke so you don't have to admit it, either.
I look forward to the joke you'll probably reply to that with, or whatever else you post that won't be anything like a real rebuttal.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do not envy her position in all this, and I'm sure Nancy Pelosi is trying her best to remain neutral, but everything she says to the press just makes it sound like...well, nothing. I was pretty pleased back when she said that the superdelegates should back the vote of the people, but now she's adding "of course, they can also vote for whom they think will make a better president."
Someone find some Gorilla Glue and put the party back together >_>
Posts: 349 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm pretty disappointed by Obama's commercial about not accepting funding from oil companies. Here is FactCheck.org's article on it, for those who haven't heard about it. Seems like the sort of disingenuous half truth that I'd have assumed would be beneath him. Not in the same league as Clinton's succession of lies about her Bosnia trip, but it still leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
Posts: 1087 | Registered: Jul 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wowbagger, Are you serious with the Dr. J thing? Because Sen Obama wasn't.
Hillary Clinton's evocation of Rocky isn't a big deal either, but it was, at least in my opinion, a dumb thing to do.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
We're all just wondering if she intended the meaning of "I can take a beating standing up." That scene where he runs up the art museum stairs, is that in all of the Rocky movies or just the first one?
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: "Let me tell you something. When it comes to finishing the fight, Rocky and I have a lot in common. I never quit," she said.
Maybe she doesn't remember how Rocky ended, but that seems to be more apt than she probably intended.
--Enigmatic
That's honestly the first thing I thought of when I heard the comment.
"So...you end up bloodied and defeated but you put up a good fight and gain the love of Bill and so are truly the victor?"
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
No doubt, but (and really, this is a very minor thing) to me, there is a difference between saying something as a joke and seriously trying to compare yourself to a locally treasured concept that doesn't fit you at all. Hillary Clinton is no scrappy outsider underdog and her attempt to glom onto that image is going to hit a wrong note with a lot of people here.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
