Moderated What's wrong with porn?

[Southwind17]

Oh I see....
you made it up.

Actually, I tend to use my trusty Chambers. As I pointed out, though, it's academic.

Oh, BTW, all within the last two pages:

Are you denying you read "third-ranked" as "third rate" and proceeded to bark not only up the wrong tree, but in the wrong woods?

I'm sorry - end? How so?

"Obvious"? How so? I've asked you to tell me where I can see them in an art gallery. Not photos of them, but them. Surely that makes it obvious that I read exactly what you wrote, doesn't it?!

Consistent in what sense, exactly? In the sense that I might have inadvertently referred to my consistent proferred definition of "child porn" when somebody alluded to my consistent meaning of the word "porn"? Is that the sense you mean?

 

[Southwind17]

Oh I see....
EDITED TO CORRECT: You cherry picked.

No. As I wrote, I tend to use my trusty Chambers.

 

[JFrankA]

This isn't art by any stretch of the rational imagination. But you think it is, and that's harmless, so I'm cool with that.

You are expressing yourself, showing the world who you are with your words. How is that not art?

If you think that's a worthwhile trade then who am I to argue with you. I don't condone breaking the law, though, which usually means that one has done or not done something detrimental to others. You need to factor that into your altruistic sacrifice.

You don't think it's worth going to jail to stop one child from being molested?

After all, I am doing what you believe: give up freedom to stop the possibility of one child being molested.

That's a value judgement we can only make individually. My value judgements are personal and private, as are yours. If you wish to publicize them, however, that's your prerogative.

You said it yourself. The cost value of the chance of one child being molested is well worth the sacrifice of freedoms one makes. Therefore, I will do my VCA with the intent of making people feel the pain a child feels and if I go to jail, sacrifice my freedom for safety, so be it.

....maybe I am more extreme than you.

That's fine, but I'm not sure what, exactly, you're agreeing with.

You.

It's the other way around, actually. I only skim read your words. That was enough.

Why? Does it make it easier for you to ignore points that you can't defend? At any rate, in the interest of fairness, I will start doing the same to your posts.

I see you really don't know what a debate is.

With respect, my 9-year old kids' command of English surpasses this.

That's sad to hear that your nine-year-old cannot appreciate beauty either.

Well I did explain in some detail. What part did you not follow?

The part you didn't follow.

Quite possibly(!).

Good.

Rubbish, and an insult to musicians.

Have you heard it? I have. Show me a musician who would be insulted by what I said.

You need help!

Why? Because I can see beauty and you can't? I don't think I'm the one who needs help.

Whatever.

Once again, I understand that this is your way of saying you agree with me, but don't want to admit it.

How beautiful.

 

[AWPrime]

So immediately prior to this mutation absolute freedom was the order of the day. This mutation was the beginning of restricted freedom, is what you're admitting.

Sure if your a virus or something else that hasn't got a mind. This also means that the concept of absolute freedom can't be applied to humans.

That's an interesting viewpoint, but not one that I subscribe to.

We have to agree to disagree on that then.

Surfing the web per se isn't illegal. In other words you have the right to surf the web. In other words surfing the web is part of absolute freedom that has not been taken away from you. Incidentally, surfing the web is a "secondary freedom" that I posited earlier, that is it's not a naturally derived freedom but a freedom that relates to a concept that man has created, like marriage.

Actually I don't have a right to surf the web, if it was a right then I would be able to demand internet access.

 

[JFrankA]

Well, if it will make you happy...

Are you denying you read "third-ranked" as "third rate" and proceeded to bark not only up the wrong tree, but in the wrong woods?

I honestly don't know what you mean by this. I know I assumed that you think that my art doesn't belong in a museum. If that is what you are talking about, then my apologies for assuming. But I still think I'm right in thinking that you think it doesn't. If I am wrong, please tell me otherwise.

Here is the conversation:

Then I say again: The intent of my art (a medium of artistic expression) is to use the medium of porn (lurid or sensational material) to show beauty of a humans when they express pleasure. That's my intent. If you get aroused or not, viewing it, then that's you. It is not my intent to arouse.

You may not like my art. Some people may call it bad art. But it's my art none the less.

I haven't seen your productions. But this discussion isn't restricted to your productions (unless you want it to be) - it concerns pornography generally, by the most commonly used meaning (unless you have a more restrictive meaning in mind, in which case please clarify).

Again, you asked the question I am discussing. Again, I am politely asking you to read back to find the question I am answering.

One other thing. If you haven't seen my porn, how do you know it's third-rate? How do you know what an art critic would say? Are you a mind reader? Are you someone who claims to see the future? Maybe you should apply for the million dollar challenge?

Again, I did make the assumption that you feel that my art doesn't belong in a museum, so I apologize for making an assumption. However, and I'm sorry to say this, I still choose to believe that my assumption is correct unless you tell me that that isn't your intent.

I'm sorry - end? How so?

I've pointed it out already. Others have seen it, too. If you can't see it, I suggest you read back. I gave you a head start.

"Obvious"? How so? I've asked you to tell me where I can see them in an art gallery. Not photos of them, but them. Surely that makes it obvious that I read exactly what you wrote, doesn't it?!

No, you haven't read it. You've admitted yourself that you just skimmed it. You completely missed the very first sentence when I started describing the art of the items you listed.

Consistent in what sense, exactly? In the sense that I might have inadvertently referred to my consistent proferred definition of "child porn" when somebody alluded to my consistent meaning of the word "porn"? Is that the sense you mean?

Hint: I am not talking about your definition of child porn

 

[not daSkeptic]

Actually I don't have a right to surf the web, if it was a right then I would be able to demand internet access.

In addition, the courts would not be able to ban people from using computers, since that would violate their right to surf the web.

 

[not daSkeptic]

This isn't art by any stretch of the rational imagination.

How about an irrational one?

 

[sugarb]

It's de putting de little worm on de hook before casting de line to catch de little fishy for de dinner!

that was cute

 

[sugarb]

You're forgetting something, though. You're forgetting liberty.

Hello, JFrankA. Liberty is a wonderful concept, and in our country we enjoy a great deal of it...however it isn't unrestricted freedom to do whatever we want. It is tempered with reason, with consideration for our fellow citizens, with consideration to the well being and continued well being of society as a whole. That is something we simply have to accept, or else we'd best move ourselves to our own little island or patch of woods somewhere and learn to live without the benefits society and being part of it offers us.

Oddly enough, JFrankA, that is something that many people at certain points in their lives consider doing. Have you ever dreamed of a remote cabin in a remote area far removed from "civilization"? We all from time to time like to think of an escape, long term or just temporary...but if we seriously consider making it our "way of life", then there are many, many things we have to be willing to let go of in order to have complete "liberty". We wouldn't have the constraints of utility bills, job schedules, education requirements, social security numbers and taxes to pay, we could drive as fast as we wanted, on roads we build ourselves of course...there just is no such thing as unhindered liberty, unless a person is willing to completely give up society.

 

[sugarb]

You are expressing yourself, showing the world who you are with your words. How is that not art?



*snip*


That's sad to hear that your nine-year-old cannot appreciate beauty either.



The part you didn't follow.



Good.



Have you heard it? I have. Show me a musician who would be insulted by what I said.



Why? Because I can see beauty and you can't? I don't think I'm the one who needs help.



Once again, I understand that this is your way of saying you agree with me, but don't want to admit it.

How beautiful.

Interesting place this conversation has gone! Hello again, JFrankA. I'm a (former) musician, still play around with it for myself, and as such, I think I have a decent appreciation of beauty. You really aren't being fair in suggesting that simply because your ideas of beauty differ, Southwind is incapable of appreciating beauty. If I may...

Just writing words, in a discussion, is *expression*, not art. It certainly *could be* art, if everyone were working together to achieve something meaningful in some way...but this is just an argument really. Not art. Expression, certainly. Art, no. We would all probably attempt to be more eloquent were we ARTISTICALLY expressing ourselves here.

As to a musician being "offended" by what you wrote, no, I don't agree with that. However, while I can see how certain *sounds*, like staples falling or being punched or whatever, could be worked INTO a musical creation and be a *part* of something that is overall beauty, the staples themselves, to ME, I stress to ME, really aren't. There's nothing offensive in what you wrote, though. I've heard compositions made up entirely of normal everyday sounds, put together in a very artistic way. Some I found beautiful, some I've not found particularly beautiful. "Beauty" is more than just a visual stimulation, as generally what we find "beautiful" (which differs from person to person) also evokes a strong emotional reaction. So there is more to "beauty" than simply appearance. Music, for example, can be beautiful with nothing to look at at all, simply hearing. Engineering, YES, can be beautiful...but it is not, for example, the staple that is beautiful, or the telescope, or the building...generally when such things move people, it is the awe of what people are capable of creating, not merely the thing one is looking at.

That is what makes this discussion very interesting in one sense...the idea of art, beauty. I've said before, nudity does not equal pornography, as we all know. Though, as you've pointed out, to SOME people it most certainly does. The difference (and I mean no insult to what you do, okay?) between pornography and "art" is that pornography by definition isn't about the appreciation of the beauty in people as individuals, or the beauty of the human body, but instead is about...appealing to our more base instincts of arousal.

You mentioned some kind of award that pornographic films receive? If I read correctly. Let me ask you, JFrankA, if pornographic films were to compete with dramatic films, documentary films, every kind of film under the sun...if film awards weren't pigeonholed into certain TYPES of films, how many pornographic films do you think would receive awards above other more artistic types of films? I don't think many...and to be quite honest with you, I don't even think MAJOR motion pictures would be able to beat the lesser known movies shown at independent festivals, because most are not "art" or "artistic creations". Most simply appeal to our need to be mindlessly entertained. Not everyone "enjoys" films that require much thought.

What, in your mind, is the most artistic film you have ever seen? Ever. (Questions like this make my mind freeze up sometimes, so feel free to list a few). And why?

Many films I find the most beautiful have more to do with the music and how the music enhances the visual aspects to evoke certain emotions, moreso than the actors/actresses performances.

 

[JFrankA]

Hello, JFrankA. Liberty is a wonderful concept, and in our country we enjoy a great deal of it...however it isn't unrestricted freedom to do whatever we want. It is tempered with reason, with consideration for our fellow citizens, with consideration to the well being and continued well being of society as a whole. That is something we simply have to accept, or else we'd best move ourselves to our own little island or patch of woods somewhere and learn to live without the benefits society and being part of it offers us.

Of course. Everyone on this thread has said the same, including me. The problem is, I think, and I mean this as no offense to SW, but he doesn't understand the philosophy of what rights are for the US.

Oddly enough, JFrankA, that is something that many people at certain points in their lives consider doing. Have you ever dreamed of a remote cabin in a remote area far removed from "civilization"?

Believe it or not, never. I'd go stir crazy within an hour.

We all from time to time like to think of an escape, long term or just temporary...but if we seriously consider making it our "way of life", then there are many, many things we have to be willing to let go of in order to have complete "liberty". We wouldn't have the constraints of utility bills, job schedules, education requirements, social security numbers and taxes to pay, we could drive as fast as we wanted, on roads we build ourselves of course...there just is no such thing as unhindered liberty, unless a person is willing to completely give up society.

Of course, SugarB. But, I'm sorry, I do not understand why you are addressing this to me. Liberty is part of our freedoms. With liberty and freedom comes responsibility, of course. I've never said otherwise, and neither has anyone else on this thread, I believe.

 

[sugarb]

Of course. Everyone on this thread has said the same, including me. The problem is, I think, and I mean this as no offense to SW, but he doesn't understand the philosophy of what rights are for the US.



Believe it or not, never. I'd go stir crazy within an hour.



Of course, SugarB. But, I'm sorry, I do not understand why you are addressing this to me. Liberty is part of our freedoms. With liberty and freedom comes responsibility, of course. I've never said otherwise, and neither has anyone else on this thread, I believe.

Trust me, I understand. I have a sister that would also go absolutely nuts as well without a lot of people around. I call her a heat seeking missile, she enjoys people so much.

I'm addressing it to you because of your post that said (paraphrasing so it may not be exact) that liberty was being forgotten. I don't think anyone in this thread has forgotten liberty, and I think Southwind understands it just fine. My point was that you said liberty was forgotten, and I don't think anyone has forgotten that. Wasn't an attack

 

[tesscaline]

I don't think someone can forget a concept that they don't even understand in the first place...

Liberty: 1 a : freedom from external (as governmental) restraint, compulsion, or interference in engaging in the pursuits or conduct of one's choice to the extent that they are lawful and not harmful to others. -- bolding mine.

Citation: liberty. Dictionary.com. Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law. Merriam-Webster, Inc. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberty (accessed: December 07, 2009).

 

[sugarb]

I don't think someone can forget a concept that they don't even understand in the first place...

Liberty: 1 a : freedom from external (as governmental) restraint, compulsion, or interference in engaging in the pursuits or conduct of one's choice to the extent that they are lawful and not harmful to others. -- bolding mine.

Citation: liberty. Dictionary.com. Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law. Merriam-Webster, Inc. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberty (accessed: December 07, 2009).

I think what is in question is the "not harmful to others". I think everyone understands liberty. But I might add here, as in earlier examples, that we don't even have "liberty" to that degree in this country, and if we think we do, then say you feel suicidal to an EMT (BorP) or a law enforcement officer and see how quickly you get held against your will.

 

[epeos76]

I don't think someone can forget a concept that they don't even understand in the first place...

Liberty: 1 a : freedom from external (as governmental) restraint, compulsion, or interference in engaging in the pursuits or conduct of one's choice to the extent that they are lawful and not harmful to others. -- bolding mine.

Citation: liberty. Dictionary.com. Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law. Merriam-Webster, Inc. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberty (accessed: December 07, 2009).

Defining liberty as 'freedom from governmental interference to the extent that one's pursuits are lawful' surely dodges the question of to what extent the government can make particular pursuits unlawful.

Not a very useful definition.

 

[JFrankA]

Interesting place this conversation has gone! Hello again, JFrankA. I'm a (former) musician, still play around with it for myself, and as such, I think I have a decent appreciation of beauty. You really aren't being fair in suggesting that simply because your ideas of beauty differ, Southwind is incapable of appreciating beauty.

I see beauty in many things, this is true. For example, how a truck engine works, what skills and many many people it took to make it work is a thing of beauty to me.

I look at an internal modem and thing how beautiful that thing is. Without it, I would have never met my girlfriend or stay in touch with her. It is beautiful in it's ability to link the world.

Why does a truck engine have to be different colors to be beautiful? Why does it have to be more than what it is to be beautiful? Why isn't it in itself beautiful? Why is a staple, in it's simplicity, not beautiful? Don't people think that beauty goes beyond the outside? Or is beauty truly only skin deep?

Maybe I am being unfair to Southwind for not seeing it as I do. But don't get me wrong, I do not reprimand him for not appreciating the beauty of a truck engine, I merely feel sorry for him.

If I may...

Just writing words, in a discussion, is *expression*, not art. It certainly *could be* art, if everyone were working together to achieve something meaningful in some way...but this is just an argument really. Not art. Expression, certainly. Art, no. We would all probably attempt to be more eloquent were we ARTISTICALLY expressing ourselves here.

Everything we create is art. Everything. Now some people are better than others, a lot of it is not used and thrown away, some people try to do special things like make a jet engine work, some people sell with art or sell a creation and call it art, some people paint a woman holding a vase or paint a house, some of it is very unique, some of it is copied over and over, there is functional art, there's the an art to make something work, designing a better paper clip is art, or doodle on the back of a piece of scrap paper, but bottom line is everything we create, write, draw, imagine is art.

As to a musician being "offended" by what you wrote, no, I don't agree with that. However, while I can see how certain *sounds*, like staples falling or being punched or whatever, could be worked INTO a musical creation and be a *part* of something that is overall beauty, the staples themselves, to ME, I stress to ME, really aren't. There's nothing offensive in what you wrote, though. I've heard compositions made up entirely of normal everyday sounds, put together in a very artistic way. Some I found beautiful, some I've not found particularly beautiful. "Beauty" is more than just a visual stimulation, as generally what we find "beautiful" (which differs from person to person) also evokes a strong emotional reaction. So there is more to "beauty" than simply appearance.

Agreed. Hence why I find beauty in something as simple as a staple.

Music, for example, can be beautiful with nothing to look at at all, simply hearing. Engineering, YES, can be beautiful...but it is not, for example, the staple that is beautiful, or the telescope, or the building...generally when such things move people, it is the awe of what people are capable of creating, not merely the thing one is looking at.

Maybe I'm too easily impressed. I see a lot of things we take for granted as art.

That is what makes this discussion very interesting in one sense...the idea of art, beauty. I've said before, nudity does not equal pornography, as we all know. Though, as you've pointed out, to SOME people it most certainly does. The difference (and I mean no insult to what you do, okay?) between pornography and "art" is that pornography by definition isn't about the appreciation of the beauty in people as individuals, or the beauty of the human body, but instead is about...appealing to our more base instincts of arousal.

Perhaps, but isn't appreciating beuaty also appealing to our more basic insticts? A portrait of a beautiful women - appealing to basic instincts. Arousal would be up to the viewer would it not?

If art is about expressing and evoking emotions and feelings, isn't porn doing that as well?

Isn't part of SW's argument is that porn evokes so much arousal that it could cause some potential/actual pedophiles to lose control of themselves and molest a child?

How can a visual/audio that powerful that makes someone lose control NOT be art?

You mentioned some kind of award that pornographic films receive? If I read correctly. Let me ask you, JFrankA, if pornographic films were to compete with dramatic films, documentary films, every kind of film under the sun...if film awards weren't pigeonholed into certain TYPES of films, how many pornographic films do you think would receive awards above other more artistic types of films?

I think if we weren't such prudes and pornographic movies were included, the industry would make porn purposely to win those prizes.

I don't think many...and to be quite honest with you, I don't even think MAJOR motion pictures would be able to beat the lesser known movies shown at independent festivals, because most are not "art" or "artistic creations". Most simply appeal to our need to be mindlessly entertained. Not everyone "enjoys" films that require much thought.

You do know that there are plenty of films that deserve to win or be nominated but do not for inside the industry political reasons.

Truth is we don't know. The Academy Awards purposely leaves out sexual movies. So the porn industry doesn't try.

What, in your mind, is the most artistic film you have ever seen? Ever. (Questions like this make my mind freeze up sometimes, so feel free to list a few). And why?

Most artistic? Blondes and Brunettes by Andrew Blake. I want to make movies like him. His scenes are amazingly sensual, and the sex looks like it is painted on the movie screen.

Many films I find the most beautiful have more to do with the music and how the music enhances the visual aspects to evoke certain emotions, moreso than the actors/actresses performances.

There are a few other movies I can think of too, all for different reasons, but if I were to choose the most artistic would be that one.


Let me ask you this.

Didn't you find this....

It's de putting de little worm on de hook before casting de line to catch de little fishy for de dinner!

...just a little bit artistic?

 

[JFrankA]

I think what is in question is the "not harmful to others". I think everyone understands liberty. But I might add here, as in earlier examples, that we don't even have "liberty" to that degree in this country, and if we think we do, then say you feel suicidal to an EMT (BorP) or a law enforcement officer and see how quickly you get held against your will.

Perhaps. But then there's a trail so you can defend your rights as to why you are suicidal.

 

[sugarb]

I see beauty in many things, this is true. For example, how a truck engine works, what skills and many many people it took to make it work is a thing of beauty to me.

I look at an internal modem and thing how beautiful that thing is. Without it, I would have never met my girlfriend or stay in touch with her. It is beautiful in it's ability to link the world.

Why does a truck engine have to be different colors to be beautiful? Why does it have to be more than what it is to be beautiful? Why isn't it in itself beautiful? Why is a staple, in it's simplicity, not beautiful? Don't people think that beauty goes beyond the outside? Or is beauty truly only skin deep?

Maybe I am being unfair to Southwind for not seeing it as I do. But don't get me wrong, I do not reprimand him for not appreciating the beauty of a truck engine, I merely feel sorry for him.



Everything we create is art. Everything. Now some people are better than others, a lot of it is not used and thrown away, some people try to do special things like make a jet engine work, some people sell with art or sell a creation and call it art, some people paint a woman holding a vase or paint a house, some of it is very unique, some of it is copied over and over, there is functional art, there's the an art to make something work, designing a better paper clip is art, or doodle on the back of a piece of scrap paper, but bottom line is everything we create, write, draw, imagine is art.



Agreed. Hence why I find beauty in something as simple as a staple.



Maybe I'm too easily impressed. I see a lot of things we take for granted as art.



Perhaps, but isn't appreciating beuaty also appealing to our more basic insticts? A portrait of a beautiful women - appealing to basic instincts. Arousal would be up to the viewer would it not?

If art is about expressing and evoking emotions and feelings, isn't porn doing that as well?

Isn't part of SW's argument is that porn evokes so much arousal that it could cause some potential/actual pedophiles to lose control of themselves and molest a child?

How can a visual/audio that powerful that makes someone lose control NOT be art?



I think if we weren't such prudes and pornographic movies were included, the industry would make porn purposely to win those prizes.




You do know that there are plenty of films that deserve to win or be nominated but do not for inside the industry political reasons.

Truth is we don't know. The Academy Awards purposely leaves out sexual movies. So the porn industry doesn't try.



Most artistic? Blondes and Brunettes by Andrew Blake. I want to make movies like him. His scenes are amazingly sensual, and the sex looks like it is painted on the movie screen.




There are a few other movies I can think of too, all for different reasons, but if I were to choose the most artistic would be that one.


Let me ask you this.

Didn't you find this....

...just a little bit artistic?

LOL! I have to answer the last question first, lol. Indeed I do! I think it's INTENT was to be amusing, and he was quite crafty in making that happen, lol. (it really WAS funny, totally unexpected, but funny).

As to movies...I have admittedly never seen the one you selected, and will have to consider it on our next movie order.

JFrankA, believe me, I completely understand how you can see beauty everywhere. I do, too! Which is really annoying to most people because things I find beautiful cause me to cry. Yes, I cry, even in public, if I see a certain kind of beauty....and that can even be in something as mundane and depressing as watching my husband give a homeless guy some money or coffee or a fast food lunch. I see beauty in actions as much as in things. So I really don't think we differ much in that regard...but I also understand people who do not, because my husband is one of those people that rarely tears up at very moving things, and would probably never cry in public at the things that move me so much. Part of performing, for me, was problematic, because when music hits me a certain way, I tear up. I can't help it, that's just my response to beautiful things. I don't think you are "too easily impressed". I think you just look at the world in a way many people do not...and I also think that is a good thing.

Might I suggest something, since you are in the position to actually attempt it: I'm unfamiliar with how the movie industry works, but I have to tell you, I find myself often disappointed with "award winning" films, so yes, I assume there is of course a lot of politics. Why don't you just try a project that goes beyond the basic understanding of pornography? I think that if there was a level that has yet, as far as I know, to be obtained by any pornography producers, a level of something truly artistic, I see no reason why there couldn't be competition equally among films. And I think that perhaps in making such a thing, as there have been some good films that could have easily gone "pornographic" but were toned down for the "big screen", you might just surprise the world with your artistic abilities. I would like to see something like that, something that defies preconceived notions. I ALWAYS love to see things like that!

As to films, I have several favorites, but there are some with scenes that just blow me away for whatever reason. In The Village, for example, the porch scene...it has nothing to do with the "creatures", nothing really to do with the plot, but I just find that to be a really moving scene...and romantic in a fascinating way. Elizabethtown. There certainly isn't anything fascinating in the way it is filmed, but to me the art is the getting inside of the characters mind...I like films that do that. I'm a bit of a geek, so I confess I love the Star Wars movies...but without the music? I probably wouldn't. I'd rather just read the books. Last of the Mohicans, that's a gorgeous movie, I think. And of course horror films, but those, to me, are for mindless entertainment.

I am not sure that the part of Southwind's argument you refer to has so much to do with pornography being powerful enough to motivate someone to harm a child. I think we need to flip that around a bit, and it is that the adult viewing the child pornography is MORE powerful than the object of their "fetish" (I'm using that term loosely here, because I don't think being a pedophile is a fetish, really)...children. And the possibility certainly exists that if there is a type of child pornography that society accepts as "legal" or "okay", then that makes the "fetish" that person has seem more legitimate, and THAT could be what would lead to an actual child being harmed. Whenever society accepts things as legitimate, we see an increase in it. For example, we used to think that taking phone calls at the dinner table was unacceptable. Now, go into any food establishment and there will be cell phones going left and right. Small example, but it illustrates what I'm saying. Cell phones and driving are dangerous, but we see it every day now. Things considered "wrong" or "dangerous" slowly gain acceptance, and yes, it DOES cause harm, which means we later need laws to curb behavior that was at one time unacceptable anyway...like multitasking while driving.

I think I probably missed a few things. I'm sorry if I did, I've got dinner cooking as well, so...I'm not a good multi-tasker LOL.

 

[tesscaline]

I think what is in question is the "not harmful to others". I think everyone understands liberty. But I might add here, as in earlier examples, that we don't even have "liberty" to that degree in this country, and if we think we do, then say you feel suicidal to an EMT (BorP) or a law enforcement officer and see how quickly you get held against your will.

Um. Did you fail to see the part of the definition that requires the act to also be lawful? Or perhaps you simply don't understand it?

 

[tesscaline]

Defining liberty as 'freedom from governmental interference to the extent that one's pursuits are lawful' surely dodges the question of to what extent the government can make particular pursuits unlawful.

Not a very useful definition.

It does not dodge the question. It simply does not address it. There is a difference.