• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Santorum gone too far

Scott Sommers said:
Working in porn is dangerous and significant numbers of porn workers have been murdered and subjected to other forms of violence.
Click to expand...
What is the relative risk? Do you have any numbers?

Just to make sure I'm on topic...Rick Santorum is able to talk about porn the way he does because there is no proper scientific understanding of the topic. His discourse is logically on the same plane as 9/11 conspiracy. Ron Paul gets beat up on his links to conspiracy logic all the time because there is a proper scientific response to 9/11 Truth crap. Rick Santorum can look like a public crusader rather than the nut bar he is because there's very little proper information about porn and instead, he can construct an argument about its moral destructiveness and not be that far off from what is still being said even in the research community.
Click to expand...
You've asserted this but you've not made the case.
 
Last edited:
Scott Sommers said:
Working in porn is dangerous and significant numbers of porn workers have been murdered and subjected to other forms of violence.
Click to expand...
and do you think that danger will go up or down if porn is outlawed?

before answering please look into the danger of working in the production and sale of liquor before, during and after prohibition in the US
 
defaultdotxbe said:
and do you think that danger will go up or down if porn is outlawed?

before answering please look into the danger of working in the production and sale of liquor before, during and after prohibition in the US
Click to expand...

When I read a remark like this, it makes me wonder if you really have been reading the thread or if it's one of those Internet forum mind-reading tricks that's gone terribly wrong. We have been talking about this point. I posted an answer to the sentiment of this in #123. I know it's the JREF and I'm one of the worst people for skimming through posts and getting things all wrong...but it really is annoying.

So let me answer this directly...what the Hell are you talking about? What does this have to do with anything I've posted about?

Yes, yes..I apologize ahead of time for my rudeness. But it really is annoying when people get the point of posts all wrong after you have been really careful to make sure this doesn't happen.
 
Last edited:
Nasty Neil said:
1. Fiscal Responsibility

2. Constitutionally Limited Government

3. Free Markets
Click to expand...

Thank you.

When you say free markets, do you mean state and federal governments should not regulate or influence in any way prices and availability or do you mean that state and federal governments should disband OSHA, MSHA (mine safety regulations), EPA, EEOC (anti-discrimination laws), etc. ?
 
Scott Sommers said:
Yes. This is exactly what I'm concerned about. And other than this is the JREF where people argue with themselves, I don't see this as a controversy either.
Click to expand...
Ok got you. You gotta remember on a skeptics forum starting out by saying "his ideas point to real concerns" gives the impression you somewhat agree with the goals of his proposal. Not explicitly saying you actually disagree with his proposal or objection to "obscenity" (but believe the porn industry needs reform) will get you into hot water lol. ;)
 
Juniversal said:
Ok got you. You gotta remember on a skeptics forum starting out by saying "his ideas point to real concerns" gives the impression you somewhat agree with the goals of his proposal. Not explicitly saying you actually disagree with his proposal or objection to "obscenity" (but believe the porn industry needs reform) will get you into hot water lol. ;)
Click to expand...

Sure, but things get sorted out pretty quickly. And except for the idiots, within a couple of posts, everyone knows what's going on. But yes, Santorum is a nut case and that he can get away with talking like this without be relegated to the scrap heap of political crazies is the problem. But he can get away with it because the liberals and the left-wing response to him is founded in the same logic.

But then you know all this already.
 
Scott Sommers said:
I'm not sure what you're getting at. You did read the links, right?
Click to expand...
When I reference a link I provide a summary of my argument and data to back that argument up. It's a courtesy to those with whom I'm having a discussion with.

  • Did you read the links?
  • Do you know what the numbers are?
  • Could you out of courtesy demonstrate that you understand your own sources?
 
Scott Sommers said:
When I read a remark like this, it makes me wonder if you really have been reading the thread or if it's one of those Internet forum mind-reading tricks that's gone terribly wrong.
Click to expand...
Scott, there is a concept in philosophy called the principle of charity. Considering the former JREF president's admonition I would suggest that a good idea to follow the principle of charity. Don't assume the worse of everyone just because you do not like a question. Don't launch into an attack. If you suspect the question is untoward then ask a follow up. I see nothing wrong with the question at hand.

I honestly have no idea what your goals and expectations are and I'm trying to find out. Please, let's lower the heat and have a discussion. Would that be okay?
 
Last edited:
The Rolling Stones have an article on how conservatives have always been nuts, it is just getting more apparent now.

It suddenly feels like conservatism has gotten crazier than ever.
Republican debate audiences cheer executions and boo an active-duty soldier because he is gay. Politicians pledge allegiance to Rush Limbaugh, a pill-popping lunatic who recently offered "feminazis" a deal: "If we are going to pay for your contraceptives, we want you to post the videos online so we can all watch." Thousands of "Oath Keepers" — "Police & Military Against the New World Order"— swear to disobey the illegal orders certain to come down the pike once Barack Obama institutes martial law. One major Republican presidential candidate talks up indentured servitude — and another proposes turning schoolchildren into janitors. Only 12 percent of Mississippi Republicans believe Barack Obama is a Christian. Arizona Republicans push a bill to allow bosses to fire female employees for using birth control.
And so on and so forth, unto whatever wacky new wingnuttism just flashed over the wires today.
Click to expand...
 
All else aside, the one thing that strikes me as boneheaded about all of this is that Santorum should know he's going to fight a losing battle on this one. While Obscenity is not protected speech, the problem remains that he's going to be fighting the Miller Test on this one. And once you start introducing "community standards" into this mix, you now have to determine what those standards are, and how they apply.

Censors try this time and again, and each time, they wind up getting shot down. Either they run up against the real standards that actually exist, (rather than what they think they should be, a la "Leave it to Beaver"/"Father Knows Best") or it makes it to the Supreme Court which winds up shooting them down, and asking in Chambers, "Now, what the hell was THAT about?"

At risk of repetition, what the hell is this idiot thinking? Don't we have enough real concerns for him to concentrate on? I realize his belief is that if we can get this other stuff out of the way, it might take care of itself, but that's not how it works in real life.

If he wants to fix what's wrong with this country, he might do better to tackle greed rather than lust. Anyone who was paying attention over the past decade would have realized that.

The fact that Santorum missed this says a lot.
 
I will always view porn. You couldn't ban porn if you wanted to. But I wonder if it's a net positive or negative. Sometimes I'll be watching porn and be thinking to myself..... "I can't believe that's somebody's daughter". And from interviews with porn stars I've read, it seems the industry is getting nastier and nastier to satisfy the public's demand. Some of it is just so demeaning to women as well.

I also wonder what the effect has been on teenage boys. Man, when I was a kid if you found a playboy you struck a gold mine...... and it would sit in some fort for about 2 years..... Now, I couldn't imagine what young boys see when they hit 13 or 14. I'm sure their stash is better then mine was. I wonder what kind of expectations that places on young girls. Can't be good.
 
I may have missed it. If so I apologize for the repetition, but here is Mr. Santorum's claims on his own website

www.RickSantorum.Com/issues said:
America is suffering a pandemic of harm from pornography. A wealth of research is now available demonstrating that pornography causes profound brain changes in both children and adults, resulting in widespread negative consequences. Addiction to pornography is now common for adults and even for some children. The average age of first exposure to hard-core, Internet pornography is now 11. Pornography is toxic to marriages and relationships. It contributes to misogyny and violence against women. It is a contributing factor to prostitution and sex trafficking.
Click to expand...

A wealth of evidence showing pornography causes profound, negative, brain changes in children and adults? Really?!

..............................

ETA: the deadly seriousness of Mr. Santorum's insanity is the only thing that keeps me from chuckling while I expect him at any moment to burst into song


I say, ya got trouble. Right here in River City.
Libertine men and Scarlet women!
And Rag-time: shameless music
That'll grab your son and your daughter
With the arms of a jungle animal instinct!
Mass-staria!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom