Try the Middle East.
The U.S. a free country with a fundamental right to freedom of speech. You WILL be confronted by things that offend you. And if you don’t like it, that’s too damn bad. You don’t have the right to “Freedom from Offense”.
That’s how I’d vote. Downloading pornography within private homes, I’d be fine with. Public businesses, publics showing, and advertising is what I’d vote to outlaw.
For those of us who view pornography as immoral, the fact that a pornography shop degrades morality is a logical consequence.
The definitions of “sense” and “community” are both in the dictionary, and you’re free to look them up
To say that “women don’t need to see a porn store to know this” is simply refusing to respond to my argument. We live in a civilization, which necessarily means that we curtail some of the more unpleasant sexual desires of men. In society, we require than men show a certain level of decency towards women, even if those men are thinking horrible thoughts inside their minds. This produces a state where women can feel safe, comfortable, and free, because they need not think about what those men are thinking. The presence of a pornography shop gives an unavoidable, aggressive reminder that many men to take pleasure in objectifying, abusing, and harming women.
You mean there are very few in either category, I assume.
This one’s not difficult at all. The effect of this vision is to shift the child’s attitudes about sexuality, away from restraint and sexuality based on mutual respect, towards a sexual free-for-all. It is much more than givng them “knowledge that there’s such a thing as sex”. Please don’t insult the intelligence of the SDMB like that.
I’m afraid you’ve misinterpreted me. I do not use pornography, nor do I experience guilt, shame, and loneliness. I’m refering to other people than myself who use pornography and experience guilt, shame, and loneliness as a result. So now that we have that cleared up, you no longer need to feel sad on my behalf about that paragraph.
Why does having porn on the internet resolve any of your imagined social problems with pornography in general? If anything, shouldn’t it exacerbate them, given that porn is now accesible from any living room in the country, rather than something you have to go out of your way to find? I mean, it’s a hell of a lot easier to click on the wrong link, or open the wrong email, and be confronted with sexually explicit imagery, than it is to accidentally walk into that unassuming storefront, pick up a porn mag, and open it up without at some point realizing where you are or what you’re doing.
That’s not particularly good logic. Look at it this way: you think porn is immoral. I think porn is immoral. These are positions we both hold regardless of the existence of any particular pornography store. Let’s say we both happen to live on the same street. A new porn store opens up in our neighborhood. How does the existence of this store alter either of our morality? You’re not suddenly going to become pro-porn, right? So your morality hasn’t degraded. And I’m already pro-porn, so my morality can’t get any worse, at least in that regard. So whose morality is being degraded here, precisely?
Yes, I know what the words mean, but they don’t make any sense in this context. Because I’ve got a copy of Penthouse under my mattress, I’m less likely to talk to my neighbor? I don’t understand the concept you’re trying to communicate, here.
What’s funny is that you’re trying to paint men who enjoy pornography as the sexists in this particular conversation. What’s tragic is that you seem to automatically associate sexual desire with emotional and physical violence.
I’m still curious as to how gay porn fits into this particular facet of your argument. Do women need to be protected from gay porn, as well? And what do you do about women who enjoy porn? Do they need to be protected from themselves?
Or - and here’s a radical idea - what about the concept that women are the emotional and intellectual equals of men, and don’t need us to protect them from anything, least of all normal, healthy expressions of sexual desire?
Heh. Well played.
Well, no, the effect is to re-enforce in children that sexual desire is secret, shameful, and not to ever be talked about or acknowledged in any way.
You may not use pornography, but it seems that your conception of sexuality is intrinsically tied to guilt and shame. And while I find that to be terribly unfortunate, my sympathy is somewhat limited by your insistence on inflicting a similar defect on as many people as possible.
Can I ban christian supply stores? Pretty please? You may download your bibles and print them out.
Around here, public showing of porn and pornographic advertizing are nonexistent. So what on earth are you whining about? Featureless brick buildings that have the text “adult” on them? Why on earth? If you don’t go in then it does nothing to you.
I repeat - the presence of a porn shop does nothing to you. Or do people in your world leap out of their porn stores and drag you inside, strapping you down and pinning your eyelids back, forcing you to watch the pornographic videos? No? Then you are complaining about something that doesn’t exist. And your argument and position are based in nothing.
For people with no knowledge whatsoever of what the words “logical consequence” mean, maybe. A porn shop has no effect whatsoever on people who do not go in. Therefore, logically, people who don’t go in cannot possibly be ‘degraded’, either morally or on any other manner.
Or perhaps you’re suggesting that the siren call of a porn shop will suck you in against your will? And that this isn’t your fault because you aren’t responsible for your own actions? You must be in favor of banning guns too. After all, ‘People don’t kill people; guns kill people!’ It’s exactly the same. Logically speaking, anyway. (You may have to look that word up.)
And you can trust what I say. Because I have a bible on my shelf. I never, ever look at the thing, much less open it, but for those of you who view the bible as moral, the fact that I have a bible is in the area that I never use must mean that I am a pinnacle of morality. It’s a “logical consequence”.
So, when you are in the vicinity of a porn shop you lose the ability to detect that there is an arrangement of residential buildings around you? Funny, that never happened to me. Is this related to your magical ability to observe and be effected by the contents of a porn shop without ever going inside it?
The presence of a porn shop does not stop you from brainwashing your child to have unhealthy feelings of guilt and self-hatred about sexuality. If you fail to do so it just means that you’re not trying hard enough. (Or perhaps you’re trying hard enough but doing it completely wrong.) And you know what? Your parenting failures are your problem. I don’t see anybody volunteering to help me brainwash my kids to only watch cartoons and to stay away from all those live-action TV shows. If society isn’t going to do my parenting job for me, why should it do yours for you?
And please don’t insult the intelligence of the SDMB with the notion that seeing porn turns people, even children, into sex fiends. :rolleyes:
If this is true you’re referring to strawmen - the vast majority of real people who partake of pornography don’t experience guilt, shame, or loneliness as a result. There are a few deviants who were brainwashed to fear and hate their own sexualities who have such sexualities…but those folks always have the option of staying out of porn shops, so they’re okay too. So you can stop worrying about this imagined guilt and whatnot.
Just, please, don’t try to prove that such suffering people exist by telling us the tragic tale of your “friend”, who really is drawn against his will into porn shops and feels no end of guilt and shame over the things the big bad porn shop makes him buy and use, okay? That would be too much.
Post-viability abortions are illegal (with certain exceptions) in forty states. This doubtless has some effect on the rate of late-term abortions.
I agree that post-viability “whimsical” abortions (i.e., abortions chosen for reasons other than, say, serious danger to the life or health of the mother or catastrophic birth defects in the fetus) would probably never be very common, legal or not. But I don’t see anything wrong with making them illegal.
(And if you think there aren’t people who would jump at the chance to do indoor cooking with a flamethrower, you haven’t met some of the frat guys around here. Laws prohibiting recklessly stupid and destructive actions undertaken for no good reason are, sadly, more necessary than you might think.)
It’s benefitted me enormously, by protecting me from having to subsidize your religious beliefs, and from being required to participate in them. These are not at all frivolous matters. They are the very heart of the concept of separation of church and state, and you cannot dismiss them in the same breath as you claim to support the concept.
I was going to make a joke here about how our schools were also segregated sixty years ago, and how maybe that’s why they’re failing now. But then I read the next two paragraphs, and I became concerned that you would take my joke at face value. So instead, I’ll just note that this is a completely asinine notion, with absolutely no factual or evidential support.
So, what should the function of the Supreme Court be, if not the interpretation of the law? Should we do away with the Court altogether? Without a body to interpret and enforce the Constitution, how do we guarantee the rights embodied therein?
The ruling class in this country is white, male, and Christian. If the Supreme Court is nothing more than a tool of the elite, how is it they arrived at the decisions in Brown v. the Board of Education? How could they possibly have come to the conclusion they reached in Roe v. Wade? Most pertinent of all, how did they arrive at the interpretation of the establishment clause that you have spent so much time bemoaning in this thread? In short, do you have any factual support at all for your claims* at all, or are you just resorting to desperate rhetoric in face of the fact that your position is factually and logically insupportable?
(*Any of your claims: don’t feel compelled to limit yourself to your claims about the motives of the Supreme Court.)
So, communities should be able to ignore the law on a whim? Is it just federal law that they should be able to ignore, or is state law also an unreasonable burden on the residents of one town or county?
If the state is taking money out of my pocket, and using it to pay for your church, how on Earth is that not an establishment of religion? If that’s not a violation of the establishment clause, what on Earth does violate it?
Why should I? Pornography shops are outlawed in my county, and the weather is so much nicer.
Mmm, mmm. Why don’t you tell that to the people who base their case for banning religion classes in public schools on such a right?
In the meantime, I don’t have to put up with pornography stores in my county, and that’s not going to change. Your bragging about the fact that women “WILL be confronted” by celebrations of rape and violence is factually incorrect. And if you don’t like it, that’s too bad.
Because there’s a difference between “You can say what you want” and “You can get the state to take other people’s money and use it to say things that they don’t want to say”. DUH.
So you’re accusing me of lying about being a teacher? You apparently know more about my profession than I know myself, despite the fact that we only interact anonymously in an internet forum. If you doubt my claim to be a teacher you’re free to verify it yourself. I don’t try to hide my location; it’s Rappahannock County in northern Virginia. Finding me on a school day won’t be hard, since we don’t have too many different high schools up here. Meet me in the chemistry lab. Perhaps we can grab a cup of coffee after classes are over.
On the other hand, perhaps you agree that I’m a teacher and you’re accusing me of lying about how my students behave. If so, same question: how can you know my students’ behavior better than I know it myself, since you’ve never even seen them? Surely you won’t claim that all children everywhere behave exactly the same. If your students really behave as badly as you say, then I guess most parents in your neck of the woods must be doing a bad job of raising their kids. In my school, we’d never tolerate such things. Please don’t project the flaws of your locality onto the rest of the human race. That’s a recipe for error.
I find myself in agreement with the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. He said that people are obligated to obey just laws created by democratic means, but not unjust laws created by undemocratic means.
That would be an establishment of religion. But since I’ve never supported such a thing, I don’t see any relevance to this thread.
“Establishment” in the first amendment means “recognition of special status for a church by a state”. Placing a cross in a park does not grant Christianity any official preferred status, just as planting an oak tree in a park doesn’t make it the official tree of the state. Teaching a Christian curriculum in school does not make Christianity the official state religion, just as teaching piano lessons doesn’t make the piano the official state instrument.
Let’s get off the trans fat fixation for a minutes. I mentioned that foods should not be banned in my post, not because of the trans fat business, but because of clear trends in American society. Anyone who follows the news knows that some politicians, lawyers, and public health busybodies are gearing up for a major campaign against the food industry, and it will not be limited to voluntary measures. Sure, there haven’t been outright bans on food yet. But we’re obviously moving in that direction. When the government steps in to start regulating burgers, fries, pizzas, beer, sodas, candy, and such on health grounds, that’s what will ruin our parties.
And what does that have to do with anything said in this thread. I said that religious displays should be allowed on public property. When a community votes to put a cross in a public park, they are not doing so to promote beliefs, or to promote anything. They do so to make the park more pleasant, or meaningful, or memorable. The bottom line is that they do it to make the park better serve its purpose as a park.
(Obviously I’m aware that a small group of paranoid hatemongers will ascribe sinister motives to this, as they ascribe sinister motives to everything that Christians do. But so what? Why should such people be allowed to make all the rules in the whole country?)
I’ve already explained several times that my position has nothing to do with protecting the people who go into pornography shops from themselves. If the best you can do is to distort my arguments, isn’t that basically an admission that you have no response to my real arguments?
Let me explain one more time. If you choose to distort this explanation as well, I’ll assume that you’re not interested in any further debate.
Suppose a woman, minding her own business, is driving down the road. Then she sees a 60-foot-tall poster advertising the local pornorgraphy shop, featuring a naked women being humiliated or raped. What effect does this have on the woman? It reminds her that many men take pleasure from the thought of her being humiliated or raped (or tortured or murdered etc…). This is a bad effect, sufficiently bad that the people in many communities want to take action to prevent it, using the force of government.
(And please don’t try telling me that such advertisements don’t exist. Back when I lived in Nashville, Larry Flynt posted one on the main road into downtown. Anyone entering or leaving was forced to see it.)
A community features men and women, and requires a level of civility between all people, but particularly between men and women. Aggressive glorification of the worst parts of male sexuality prevents that from happening. It works against civility by pressuring men to view women with disdain, and by giving women reason to be afraid of men.
I’m afraid I fail to see the humor in the first part. As for the second part, I make no such association. Pornography is not a synonym for human sexuality. Being against pornography does not make one against human sexuality, any more than being against trans fats makes one against food.
Virtually all men have sexual desires. And for at least a sizeable percentage of men, this includes a mix of good desires (for mutually enjoyable sex) and bad desires (involving rape, torture, murder, humiliation, and so forth). Society must play some role in pushing male sexual desire and expression away from the bad and towards the good, or else there soon won’t be any society. Pornography tends to push male sexual desire in the wrong direction. A stand against pornography is a stand for human sexuality.
(Two notes. If you’re going to insist that my characterization of pornography is all wrong, please save yourself the trouble. Second, yeah, a very few women use pornography. But the main problems relating to sexuality all come from men, and they’re the main users of pornography.)
Oh, please.
In communities like mine, people vote to have pornography shops and strip clubs kept out. It’s reasonable to surmise that women vote against pornography as much or more than men do. You position–correct me if I’m wrong–is that you want the Supreme Court to not allow laws based on community standards, and instead make pornography legal everywhere. If so, you’re saying that these women aren’t qualified to make their own decisions, but need a (89% male) court to do it for them.
Are you saying that pornography has this effect on children, but the opposite effect on adults? If not, then what are you saying?
In any case, why are you suggesting some connection between “secret” and “shameful”. Obviously the more secret our sex lives are, the less shameful, and vice versa. It’s when they’re publicized and subjected to criticism from others that people feel shameful about them.
My conception of sexuality is intrinsically tied to the belief that shame is bad, and guilt is appropriate only in the case where people do wrong things. It is the pornography industry that profits off of unnecessary guilt and shame.
If Christianity is the ONLY religion making displays in public places, and the ONLY religious curriculum taught in schools, then it is being granted specials status. You are also representing Christianity as a monolith, when it isn’t. You couldn’t just teach “Christianity” in schools. I’m still waiting to hear an outline of the curriculum you’d like to see taught. Please be as specific as possible.
I do. That would be YOUR side, the side that would never accept a class on religion, but only a class that’s propaganda for their particular little sect.
MY side is the one that insists on evenhandedness. Which means either a general class on religion, or none. And since your side won’t accept the former, the compromise is the latter.
They do it to show off their beliefs, and intimidate others. It’s no different than if a community voted to put a giant swastika in the park - another symbol of tyranny and hate. And no, I don’t consider that an unfair comparison at all, considering how many people Christianity has killed and is continuing to kill. Especially in this context, that of people who insist on doing it in public places with public money; they are all but screaming to the non Christians that “We have the power and you don’t ! Just wait till we get the chance, and we’ll crush you !”
And putting something designed to intimidate and divide isn’t making a park more pleasant, nor does it make it serve better as a park to drive away people.
They are saying that it’s people like YOU who have that effect on children, of warping them until they hate themselves s and their own sexuality.
No; that those women ( and men for that matter ) don’t have the right to shove their anti-human, pleasure hating, hate worshipping dogmas down everyone’s throat.
Produce a single individual who advocates banning religion in public schools based on the notion that they have a right not to be offended, and I will. But you can’t, since such a person does not exist.
That’s not what I said, and not how I said it. You are dishonestly debating, and therefore unworthy of further serious consideration. Please continue to rail against the strawmen you have constructed, though.
The problem with community standards laws is that they lead to unconstitutional vagueness. Such laws end up leading to the maximum level of suppression of protected speech. Pornography isn’t isolatable, especially in the world of the internet. It is no loonger possible to produce pornography that is acceptable in one area and keep it out of another area. That is why the anti-porn crusaders in the DoJ using rolling law suits - not only does it provide multiple opportunities to convict (which is dubious constitutionally in and of itself - multiple prosecutions for the same action) it also massively increases the costs on the individual film maker.
I also find it very intriguing that you use the degradation/humiliation argument. That actually weakens your case - the more degrading porn is to a group, the stronger the argument for First Amendment protection. Playboy, for example, is harder to claim to be “political speech.” A magazine/movie that portrays women as inferior, on the other hand, is making a political point - a reprehensible one, but a political point none the less.
You seem to base your arguments on billboards in Nashville - I never saw a billboard in the three years I lived there with anything like what you are saying. But even assuming you are right, there is a major difference between laws prohibiting certain types of advertizing (commercial speech) and laws prohibiting that speech altogether.
You’re kidding, right? Maybe a majority of Americans would have that reaction, but that’s not what you said. And I assume you have a cite for our rights originating in Christian societies that you’ll be producing shortly…
Again with the joking? What child is forced to attend public school? If this were the case, how would it prevent raising the child in a religious enviornment? And do you honestly believe that children who opted out of Jesus class in, say, Colorado Springs would not be singled out? Really?