Straight Dope Message Board

[Stoid]

Originally Posted by Starving Artist

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?

(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.)

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.)

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. 151

[Stoid]

Originally Posted by elucidator

What is porno? Define it, in clear, empirical terms. Zero points for self-referential, subjective criteria, it must be objective and definitive. Double dog dare you.

"1001 Extreme Fuckholes" <-----porn.

Didn't they define it as anything which appeals exclusively to prurient interest? 152

[Starving Artist]

Originally Posted by Zeriel

I don't know about the status of New York, but in the three public libraries I frequent that have computers:

1) unattended children are not permitted in the adult computer lab. Children's area computers are kiosked to only show internal library resources.
2) there are no speakers.
3) there are partitions/carrels, such that you are only going to see what's on someone else's screen if you're deliberately trying to do so.

Given THOSE constraints, where is the problem?

I don't know how New York City's libraries are configured either, but in every library I've ever been in all the computers are easily visible to anyone walking about the floor of the library. Unless the "adult" computers are all situated so that the customer in question has his back to a wall, I don't see how it would be possible to prevent people passing behind them to see what's on their screen. In the event that the computers used to access pornography were indeed situated so as to prevent the possibility of anyone other than the patron in question from seeing them, then I would admittedly have much less of a problem with it. However, there was nothing in either of the articles I linked to which would suggest that this is the case.

Originally Posted by Zeriel

Also, still waiting for you to show me where the First Amendment says "political".

Apart from the fact that I never said the word "political" was included in the wording of the First Amendment, may I suggest you ask elucidator, since he was the one who first claimed "The Big One was intended to protect, especially and specifically, political speech". 153

[Stoid]

Originally Posted by Zeriel

Also, still waiting for you to show me where the First Amendment says "political". I mean, this liberal astigmatism is getting so bad, I wonder what other random adjectives I'm not seeing in there.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

It's that fancypants righty way of reading the Constitution: even though the Founders didn't explicity say "political" speech, we are supposed to infer that they intended us to understand that they were limiting it to political speech, and even though the founders DID explicitly say "well-regulated militia" we're supposed to infer they never intended any limitation on gun ownership.

IN other words, when it's open ended, they meant a limitation we're supposed to understand, when it's specifically limited we're supposed to understand that they meant no limits.

The Founders originally wanted to name the country OppositeLand. 154

[Stoid]

Originally Posted by marshmallow

Returning to the OP, and this is more of a "stupid liberal idea of the century," but liberals think it's not only practical but moral to bomb people until they like you or do what you say. Forever.

155

[Starving Artist]

Originally Posted by elucidator

What is porno? Define it, in clear, empirical terms. Zero points for self-referential, subjective criteria, it must be objective and definitive. Double dog dare you.

Give me the power to enforce it, and I will be happy to set the terms. Otherwise, all you're doing is asking for an opinion.

Now having said that, I reject wholeheartedly the fiction that pornography cannot be defined, as evinced by the fact that for most of this country's history it was underground and relatively hard to come by (pun recognized but not intended ). "Pornography" can be the depiction of any sexual activity legislated to be defined as such. You know, just like "hate speech" or "discrimination" or any other vaguely defined societal offense that we have nevertheless managed to bring under the jurisdiction of the law. 156

[Starving Artist]

Originally Posted by Stoid

It's that fancypants righty way of reading the Constitution: even though the Founders didn't explicity say "political" speech, we are supposed to infer that they intended us to understand that they were limiting it to political speech...

This is particularly amusing since it was elicidator who claimed it created for the express purpose of protecting political speech. (No, really, it's true. You can look it up.)

What I said was that watching pornography is not "speech". 157

[Gyrate]

Originally Posted by The Hamster King

In any case, you misunderstand how hate crime laws work.

You know what? You're right. I'm thinking about this in too narrow a context.

And people say no one ever changes their mind around here. 158

[Gyrate]

Originally Posted by Starving Artist

What I said was that watching pornography is not "speech".

Making it, yes. Watching it, no. Providing a venue for it, definitely not.

There are certainly circumstances under which I would be upset that a public library was censoring the material it provides but this is just stupid. Even if they did allow porn, there are clear and previously legally agreed boundaries to the extent to which pornographic images should be exposed [sic] to the public in public venues and I'd be surprised if this met those standards. 159

[Inigo Montoya]

Originally Posted by Starving Artist

Yes, I'm already aware that people like you would like to see criticism of what you've wrought suppressed, in one way or another.

No, you misunderstand. It's not that I have a problem with ideas which differ from mine, or conflict in general. Just perseverant assholes. 160

[Revtim]

Originally Posted by marshmallow

Returning to the OP, and this is more of a "stupid liberal idea of the century," but liberals think it's not only practical but moral to bomb people until they like you or do what you say. Forever.

Now maybe I don't recall the the past couple decades or so as well as I should, but I kinda recall mostly Republicans starting wars and liberals being called unpatriotic for not fully supporting these wars. Did I get that backwards somehow? 161

[constanze]

Okay, reading 2 of the 4 pages, I still don't know what game "Red Rover" is. I have seen the South Park Episode (about sex ed.) which involves a Red Rover game (masturbating a dog to make it come), but I suspect this is not what's meant in this context. Wikipedia lets me down however, so how is Red Rover played? 162

[Jack Batty]

Originally Posted by constanze

I have seen the South Park Episode (about sex ed.) which involves a Red Rover game (masturbating a dog to make it come),

Wow. "Here, boy," always seemed to work well for me. 163

[Inigo Montoya]

Originally Posted by constanze

Wikipedia lets me down however, so how is Red Rover played?

Bunch of kids standing in two lines facing each other. the kids in each line are holding hands, making a people chain.

Each line takes a turn saying, "Red Rover Red Rover send constanze right over."

constanze, who is in the opposite line, runs at the line who called and tries to break through. If successful, constanze picks a player from the calling line and returns home. If the line holds, constanze is now amember of the calling team. 164

[42fish]

Originally Posted by Stoid

It's that fancypants righty way of reading the Constitution: even though the Founders didn't explicity say "political" speech, we are supposed to infer that they intended us to understand that they were limiting it to political speech...

Originally Posted by Starving Artist

This is particularly amusing since it was elicidator who claimed it created for the express purpose of protecting political speech. (No, really, it's true. You can look it up.)

Yeah, where could Stoid have gotten the wacky idea that you think the First Ammendment is limited to only political speech.

Maybe it was from:

Originally Posted by Starving Artist

Exactly! Especially and "specifically" political speech. That means it was intended to protect political speech specifically and it says nothing one way or the other about other types of speech or other types of expression. The deceit that it does is a liberal invention.

165

[Zeriel]

Originally Posted by Starving Artist

I don't know how New York City's libraries are configured either, but in every library I've ever been in all the computers are easily visible to anyone walking about the floor of the library. Unless the "adult" computers are all situated so that the customer in question has his back to a wall, I don't see how it would be possible to prevent people passing behind them to see what's on their screen. In the event that the computers used to access pornography were indeed situated so as to prevent the possibility of anyone other than the patron in question from seeing them, then I would admittedly have much less of a problem with it. However, there was nothing in either of the articles I linked to which would suggest that this is the case.

My town does a lot of smart things like this, mostly because the population quadruples when the college kids come around.

Apart from the fact that I never said the word "political" was included in the wording of the First Amendment, may I suggest you ask elucidator, since he was the one who first claimed "The Big One was intended to protect, especially and specifically, political speech".

I did call him out on it, upthread, in the same place I first asked you about it. You agreed with him vehemently, so I'm including you--that, and I expect you might actually answer with something other than a quip.

Originally Posted by Starving Artist

Exactly! Especially and "specifically" political speech. That means it was intended to protect political speech specifically and it says nothing one way or the other about other types of speech or other types of expression. The deceit that it does is a liberal invention.

Are the scare quotes supposed to mean "not specifically", then? Could you point out what about it makes you believe it specifically refers to political speech in the plain language of the Constitution?

I'm not being disingenuous here, mind you--I take the exact same position with regard to the Second Amendment (AKA the number one reason I don't vote Democrat very often)--words and grammar mean something. Just as I don't believe the subordinate explanatory clause in the Second Amendment lets the government confine weapons to "well-regulated militias", I do believe the absence of any adjectives in the "freedom of speech" clause was a deliberate choice to not limit the types of speech that should be protected. 166

[42fish]

Originally Posted by Starving Artist

In the event that the computers used to access pornography were indeed situated so as to prevent the possibility of anyone other than the patron in question from seeing them, then I would admittedly have much less of a problem with it. However, there was nothing in either of the articles I linked to which would suggest that this is the case.

Originally Posted by The Article Starving Artist Linked To

Nazario said the privacy shields at the side of the computers protected her from seeing the images...

Disclaimer: The article does then quote Nazario as saying "but I could still hear the voices," which certainly is a problem. 167

[Stoid]

Originally Posted by Zeriel

Just as I don't believe the subordinate explanatory clause in the Second Amendment lets the government confine weapons to "well-regulated militias",

Sigh.... 168

[Truman Burbank]

Originally Posted by marshmallow

Returning to the OP, and this is more of a "stupid liberal idea of the century," but liberals think it's not only practical but moral to bomb people until they like you or do what you say. Forever.

You might want to visit the 'Stupid Republican Idea' thread to get an idea of how this is supposed to work.
You take a specific (current) event or quote clearly belonging to someone from the liberal side of the political spectrum, and then debate/belittle it.
Ad Hominems are just weak (and, in your case, spectacularly ignorant, as well!) 169

[Enderw24]

Originally Posted by Starving Artist

The fact of the matter is, people on your side of the aisle are perfectly happy to prohibit speech and actions that you disapprove of.

Lots of people from every side of the twelve zodiac political spectrums believe that good speech (as defined by them) should be allowed and bad speech (as defined by them) should be prohibited.
You're no exception.

Do you honestly see no irony or hypocrisy in railing against a library allowing pornos while simultaneously chastising liberals with the above quoted section? 170

[Gyrate]

Originally Posted by Enderw24

Do you honestly see no irony or hypocrisy in railing against a library allowing pornos while simultaneously chastising liberals with the above quoted section?

You're asking whether Starving Artist has an awareness of irony or hypocrisy?

Welcome to the SDMB! 171

[Zeriel]

Originally Posted by Stoid

Sigh....

Start another thread if you want to continue this hijack, I'm not addressing the argument here, merely staking claim to "not a Democrat" ground.

But please do start another thread with that link, because that guy's an idiot and doesn't know the definitions of the words he is reading in a legal context. 172

[Vinyl Turnip]

Originally Posted by marshmallow

Returning to the OP, and this is more of a "stupid liberal idea of the century," but liberals think it's not only practical but moral to bomb people until they like you or do what you say. Forever.

I wholeheartedly agree this is a stupid idea, and it's disheartening to see it handed down from the Bush regime like an ill-fitting, moth-eaten heirloom corset.

If a liberal administration ever takes the Presidency, I hope they will discard it immediately. 173

[Digital Stimulus]

Originally Posted by constanze

Okay, reading 2 of the 4 pages, I still don't know what game "Red Rover" is. I have seen the South Park Episode (about sex ed.) which involves a Red Rover game (masturbating a dog to make it come), but I suspect this is not what's meant in this context. Wikipedia lets me down however, so how is Red Rover played?

FYI, that's red rocket, not Red Rover. 174

[Steve MB]

Originally Posted by Starving Artist

And just where in the 1st Amendment is this little bit of exposition to be found? I can't seem to find it.

Why, yes; we've already established that you can't find the exposition that somehow limits the scope of the First Amendment to political speech. We've already concluded that you are in error on this point, and that your arguments are worthless. All that remains is for you to admit it. That's when your intellectual healing can begin. 175

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by Zeriel

But please do start another thread with that link, because that guy's an idiot and doesn't know the definitions of the words he is reading in a legal context.

The guy is a lawyer (and a former law professor), so while I don't agree with him either I hope you do better in the other thread. 176

[Zeriel]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

The guy is a lawyer (and a former law professor), so while I don't agree with him either I hope you do better in the other thread.

When a guy spends time speculating about the definition of a term that is defined in Federal law, I am not particularly swayed by his supposed credentials. 177

[Stoid]

Originally Posted by Zeriel

Start another thread if you want to continue this hijack, I'm not addressing the argument here, merely staking claim to "not a Democrat" ground.

But please do start another thread with that link, because that guy's an idiot and doesn't know the definitions of the words he is reading in a legal context.

Done. 178

[Clothahump]

The Tea Party wants black Americans hanging on trees.

Rep. Andre Carson, D-Ind. , speaks at a press conference about standing shoulder to shoulder against extremism of all kinds, a reaction to the House Homeland Security hearing, on Capitol Hill in Washington on Thursday, March 10, 2011.

Democratic Rep. Andre Carson told a Miami crowd last week that the Tea Party movement would "love" to see black Americans "hanging on a tree."

The comment is the latest charged remark made by a member of the Congressional Black Caucus as lawmakers tour the country talking about jobs. Carson, D-Ind., lamented at the event that the Tea Party was stopping "change," in an effort he said was reminiscent of the "Jim Crow" era.

"Some of these folks in Congress right now would love to see us as second-class citizens," he said. "Some of them in Congress right now with this Tea Party movement would love to see you and me ... hanging on a tree."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011...nging-on-tree/

Wow. Just....wow. 179

[gonzomax]

Someone should start a poll and determine how many liberals think red-rover, dodgeball and other games should be ended. Simply declaring it as a lib idea is insufficient. I thought they were fun when i was a kid. I lean a little left, but I would not ban those games. 180

[Who_me?]

Originally Posted by Clothahump

The Tea Party wants black Americans hanging on trees.



http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011...nging-on-tree/

Wow. Just....wow.

Yeah! Damn those Tea Partiers! Equality for all!! 181

[Ravenman]

Originally Posted by Clothahump

Wow. Just....wow.

Keep working on it, Humpy! Just another 65 pages to catch up to the other thread. 182

[RTFirefly]

Originally Posted by Clothahump

The Tea Party wants black Americans hanging on trees.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011...nging-on-tree/

Wow. Just....wow.

Bolding mine.

Wow, you were able to find an extreme remark by a Dem legislator within the past six months! 183

[Sinaptics]

I agree, Clothahump, that was a pretty stupid comment.

I'm fairly liberal, and while I think you'll find more racism in the Republican part than the Democratic party, I'm fairly sure that people wishing to lynch minorities would be an extremely small group.

I think he sees some of the Republican policy proposals as having a bias towards minorities (such as voter ID) and is exaggerating their motives far beyond what is realistic. 184

[Jack Batty]

Irresponsible hyperbole from a Democratic congress person I've never heard of before.

That's it. I'm voting for Palin! 185

[Revtim]

Originally Posted by Sinaptics

I think he sees some of the Republican policy proposals as having a bias towards minorities (such as voter ID) and is exaggerating their motives far beyond what is realistic.

He was specifically targeting the Teabaggers, likely because of the racist signs sometimes (often?) seen at those events.

I agree the comment was very stupid, or at least high hyperbole. I'd wager the people holding those racist signs would be satisfied with simply relegating blacks back to 2nd class citizens, and don't necessarily wish them dead. 186

[Fear Itself]

Ease up on Clothy, at least he is getting the hang of a "Stupid Idea" thread; he actually posted a link to something a liberal said.

Baby steps. 187

[Ravenman]

I'm waiting for his post about Gerald Ford saying that there is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe. Because, you know, Ford was no Tea Partier, and the comment is fairly recent, happening just 35 years ago. 188

[Frank]

Originally Posted by Revtim

I'd wager the people holding those racist signs would be satisfied with simply relegating blacks back to 2nd class citizens, and don't necessarily wish them dead.

Unless they have to be dead. For looking at white women. 189

[C3]

Um, guys, Carson made the comment about the Tea Party wanting to see blacks "hanging on a tree" just last week. The comments he made in March were about "standing shoulder to shoulder against extremism". I think the article is trying to say he's a hypocrite for making the second statement after making the first - not really seeing it myself, as I think the second statement is a stand against extremism, i.e., the Tea Party. But, nevertheless, this is current news. 190

[Knorf]

Yep. Very stupid comment. 191

[Boyo Jim]

Kudos, Clothahump! Politicians of all stripes say really stupid things to pander to one group or another, and I am entertained by both. It's not your fault so many more Republicans say so many more stupid things than Democrats. 192

[Gyrate]

I am disappointed this didn't go into my Stupid Democrat Idea of the Day thread, but it's definitely appropriate. 193

[Buck Godot]

Well, to prove that my Democratic leaning partisanship is not entirely blind. I'll submit the following as a stupid Democratic idea for the day:

Obama schedules his joint session speech to coincide with the Republican debate. It was a blatantly partisan dick move that is unworthy of the Obama and the Democrats. and whoever suggested it should be called on it. 194

[Biggirl]

Originally Posted by Buck Godot

Well, to prove that my Democratic leaning partisanship is not entirely blind. I'll submit the following as a stupid Democratic idea for the day:

Obama schedules his joint session speech to coincide with the Republican debate. It was a blatantly partisan dick move that is unworthy of the Obama and the Democrats. and whoever suggested it should be called on it.

Proving that Democrats are not all dick-swinging assholes, It has been rescheduled. 195

[Jack Batty]

I disagree with Buck and with Obama on this one. So, the speech was scheduled at the same time as the Republican debate. Tough shit. But oh, when Obama does it it's a dick move; if Bush had done similar it would have been his leader-like willfulness shining through.

And for Obama to say, 'Oh, gee, sorry Republicans, didn't mean to step on your toes like that,' is weak fucking tea. I think Obama should have been swinging his dick like a Louisville Slugger on this one.

The debate could have been reschedule to make room for the President's speech too, you know. 196

[elucidator]

Not a hundred percent sure about this, but I doubt that the President has any power to enforce his will. The President respectfully requests, the Speaker graciously accepts. In theory. 197

[Vinyl Turnip]

Originally Posted by Clothahump

The Tea Party wants black Americans hanging on trees.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011...nging-on-tree/

Wow. Just....wow.

Nice work. If we don't see you again beforehand, have a merry Christmas! 198

[Revtim]

I had trouble even understanding why people gave a shit that they were scheduled at the same time. Then I realized
1) people actually watch these things on TV
2) they actually watch them when they air, and don't time-shift with a DVR or watch on the internet. 199

[Clothahump]

<comment deleted> 200