View Single Post
  #151  
Old 04-27-2011, 12:59 AM
Stoid's Avatar
Stoid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: City of Angels
Posts: 14,882
Quote:
Originally Posted by Starving Artist View Post
Then your expectation would have been in error. I have no problem with pornography at all as long as it is deliberately sought out and viewed in the privacy of one's own home. I draw the line at having the sights and sounds of it being broadcast in a public venue where people have no choice but to encounter it whether they want to see it or not.
And where would that be, exactly? I never see pornography unless I look for it. (well, in my own case of course that's not exactly true, since it's strewn all over the house and unless I get it all put away I'm going to bump into it... ) I certainly never see the "sights and sounds of it being broadcast in a public venue where [i] have no choice but to encounter it". Never. I'm 52 years old and I'm pretty sure that not one single time in my entire life have I encountered the sights and sounds of pornography in a public venue unexpectedly. And I live in the San Fernando Valley, which is ground zero for porn on Planet Earth.

Where the hell are you hanging out?



Quote:
(Also, given the hysteria going on these days with regard to children (i.e., anyone a day under 18) and sex, why is it that no one in this thread seems particularly disturbed by the idea of children watching and listening to some of the most vile shit human beings can dream up, and at an age where they cannot possibly comprehend or understand it?)
Where did this come from? Was this even mentioned so that you could fairly assess the general degree of disturbance we are all feeling or not?

When it comes to "the most vile shit human beings can dream up", well, that stuff really requires some degree of intention and effort to find, so if kids are finding it, it must mean they're interested, but I'm 52 years old and I would be hard pressed to say honestly that I understand why some people want to smear themselves in poop, apart from understanding that they enjoy it, which is something I'm pretty sure any kid who wants to check it out also understands.

And if they're interested, I figure it won't burn their eyes out of their heads, but it will certainly make for fabulously awkward dinner conversations. (My first encounter with beastiality porn was when I was 9 years old. I encountered it because I found some other, less exotic porn and it was stashed between the pages. I was fascinated. But oddly enough, the world did not open up and swallow me. And I did understand it: people wanted to feel good in the nether regions and found using animals helpful to that goal. Not very difficult to understand at all, really, once I had grasped the whole "feeling good down there" part, and by age 9, I had grasped it perfectly, having a "down there" of my own.)


Quote:
I also quarrel with the library's stance that they will not prohibit people from looking at "legal" material on library computers, as thought they are not about to deprive someone of what he or she has a legal right to. Funny, cigarettes and alcohol are legal, but I bet you couldn't light up or pour yourself a scotch in one.
Interesting that you put "legal" in quotes. Are they letting people look at ILlegal material?

Smoking in public interferes with the experience of people who are not smoking. Public surfing of legal websites doesn't affect anyone that isn't peeking over the shoulder of the surfer, and if you're doing that, you shouldn't be, so what you encounter is your fault for intruding. (I have no idea whether my local library has a policy about drinking scotch, but I'm pretty sure they have a policy against open containers of liquid of any kind, I know the law library does, and it's a no-no, I'm pretty sure because of the mess factor.)

Quote:
So we have specious constitutional justifications and we have specious legal justifications, all cooked up by smarter-than-thou liberals in the New York Library system.
No we don't. Smoking and open containers of liquid have a high probablility of causing problems that go beyond the individual smoking or slurping. Nothing special there. Surfing legal websites doesn't have any probability of causing any problems for anyone at all.

Sensible rules to protect everyone = smart. Sensible lack of rules where no one needs protecting = "smart"

So none of it belongs in this thread.

Next.