Moderated What's wrong with porn?

[RandFan]

Let's take it to extremes to make the point. If people's fear of fans was so extreme as to cause the entire population to run to the hills and avoid the city, and all other avenues had turned out to be cul-de-sacs, what would you do to keep the country afloat?

What if the vast majority of people were so affraid of a minority that they ran to the hills to avoid the city?

What would you do?

 

[Southwind17]

And believe it or not, I want to thank Southwind for reaching out to me so we can work it out and letting me off ignore so we can discuss this.
I mean that, SW. Thanks

I'm not sure I'd call it reaching out. Honestly, I think ignoring people is somewhat immature, but sometimes is just seems necessary. Watch your step, though!

 

[quadraginta]

You seem to think rights are innate. They're not - they're an end from a means. That means is law, which is a set of rules and regulations. Rules and regulations are designed to address and control things, usually behaviour, often dangerous, harmful behaviour, or threat thereof. Rights are what we end up with. Things like fear are what prompts them.

<snip>

If you pursue this approach much farther you end up with ...

"Everything that is not mandatory is forbidden."
​

How so?

If rights are only what is left when we pass laws based on fear to control behavior then ultimately the only behavior that will be permissible will be what politicians cannot convince people to be afraid of. This will necessarily be "right behavior" which will, of course, be required. Any other behavior can be seen as threatening to society, and thus fearsome. It will have to be stifled.

This is what you said in the above quote. Rights are what are left after we pass laws based on fear.

I can't think of any societies that employ such an algorithm consistently which would accurately be described as "free", or even "democratic". I have to think that your world view does not find favor with such concepts.

 

[RandFan]

This is what you said in the above quote. Rights are what are left after we pass laws based on fear.

History is replete with the failures of such.

 

[JFrankA]

Perhaps "inherent" might be more accurate a word. Rights are formulated by man, not within man. You write as though rights are genetically programmed!

No, of course they aren't genetically programmed. I never claimed that. But a government should start with rights. Protection and individual freedoms will grow from that basic premise.

Let's take it to extremes to make the point. If people's fear of fans was so extreme as to cause the entire population to run to the hills and avoid the city, and all other avenues had turned out to be cul-de-sacs, what would you do to keep the country afloat?

I noticed you didn't answer my question.

Anyway, in reply to yours, I would keep telling the truth, keep showing the evidence, educating people with science fact. As a fellow critical thinker, isn't that what you are trying to do now? Or would you pile lies and fear on top of more lies and fear?

We could debate this exact same principle by substituting the Devil for fans and Christianity for law, if you prefer (except that I would never advocate Christianity as a substitute for education!). I suppose that would "Americanise" the topic and make it easier to relate to!

I'm far from being a Christian myself, but I have already substituted "devil" for "VCP".

I'm sorry, and I don't mean this as a dig, but if you are saying that I shouldn't hire the girl with the boyfriend who uses VCP because he could show up and molest my child is exactly the same argument I hear from Christians who say to me "you should become Christian because when you die you could be wrong and go to hell."

I'm sorry, SW, but what you are advocating is rights come from protection, and honestly, that's not true. Protection comes from rights. If a person owns a picture of a virtual nude child, for whatever reason that person owns it, can be arrested on the suspicion of maybe being a child molester, and further someone else that person knows doesn't get hired for a job because she knows that person, then we are doomed. Because then, it would be very easy to connect anyone with any kind of possibly committing a crime sometime in the future.

I am sad to say that America is no stranger to this way of thinking.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism

 

[Southwind17]

I never said "scared". Why do you do that? The word I would use is concerned.

No. The word you used is "fear". If one "fears" something one is necessarily "scared" of it. Simple.

I never used the word "incapable". And that is a non-sequitur.

Choose a synonym then.

That we as humans act irrationaly sometimes does not mean that we always do.

I don't think I claimed that we always do.

The best way to control someone is to convince them that they are doing it for their own motivations. Why do women raised in different cultures without burkhas never start wearing them unless they convert to Islam?

Have you watched "Meet the Natives"? If so, have you questioned why they wear shirts and trousers whilst in the States, but then revert to tribal wear when they return "home"?

In your opinion why do modern women wear burkhas? Would you?

It's not opinion. I have many women friends and colleagues who wear burkhas, and I know why many do - we've openly discussed it. You may be surprised to learn that sometimes they wear a burkha; sometimes they wear "western" dress. Funnily enough, I have many men friends who one day wear a thobe, the next a suit, the next T-shirt and jeans. Parochialism in the extreme really is an affliction, I think, especially when compounded by conceipt.

 

[Southwind17]

The term, discussion usually suggests an exchange of, or understanding, of different viewpoints. I don't see too much with SW.

This post of yours being the perfect model. Lead by example Montag!

BTW The “ Inter Party Leader O'Brien” reference I admit is nasty. But insults seem to be part of SW's style so I don't feel too guilty.

No worries - it's lost on me anyhow. If your cronies manage to squeeze a little chuckle out of it good on 'em - that's what I say!

 

[Southwind17]

What if the vast majority of people were so affraid of a minority that they ran to the hills to avoid the city?
What would you do?

I would seek to educate them, of course, as I wrote earlier. Did you miss that in your haste? What would you do?

 

[RandFan]

No. The word you used is "fear". If one "fears" something one is necessarily "scared" of it. Simple.

No. "Fear" is used genericaly. It denotes negative emotions that can range from concern to terror.

Choose a synonym then.

No. You are seting up a false dichotomy. That people sometimes act irrationaly doesn't mean that they are incapable of rationality.

I don't think I claimed that we always do.

What do you think the word "incapable" means? A person incapable of flying in a plane always takes other transportation.

Have you watched "Meet the Natives"? If so, have you questioned why they wear shirts and trousers whilst in the States, but then revert to tribal wear when they return "home"?

Indoctrination. Culture. Peer pressure. Of course.

Why do you take two Mormon's fishing and not one? To keep them from drinking your beer.

It's not opinion. I have many women friends and colleagues who wear burkhas, and I know why many do - we've openly discussed it. You may be surprised to learn that sometimes they wear a burkha; sometimes they wear "western" dress. Funnily enough, I have many men friends who one day wear a thobe, the next a suit, the next T-shirt and jeans. Parochialism in the extreme really is an affliction, I think, especially when compounded by conceipt.

It's cultural. I don't doubt that. However, note that women raised apart from it don't choose to wear it.

I was raised a Mormon. After I left the church I abided by a number of rules because they were ingrained in me.

Why don't you wear a burkha?

 

[Toke]

I would seek to educate them, of course, as I wrote earlier. Did you miss that in your haste? What would you do?

What would you educated them with?
That your "feel" for how things are should be used as the basis for lawmaking?


(or am I on the ignore list?)

 

[Toke]

Why do you take two Mormon's fishing and not one? To keep them from drinking your beer.

Good tip, I will remember that if the situation arise.

 

[RandFan]

I would seek to educate them, of course, as I wrote earlier. Did you miss that in your haste? What would you do?

{sigh} All other avenues are a cul-de-sac. If not then I would educate those that fear fans.

Southwind, if you create a thought experiment and I respond in kind please assume the same paramaters.

 

[Southwind17]

If rights are only what is left when we pass laws based on fear to control behavior then ultimately the only behavior that will be permissible will be what politicians cannot convince people to be afraid of. This will necessarily be "right behavior" which will, of course, be required. Any other behavior can be seen as threatening to society, and thus fearsome. It will have to be stifled.

I think your seemingly ultra-cynical retort is misguided (see highlighting - read back).

This is what you said in the above quote. Rights are what are left after we pass laws based on fear.

I think, if you refer back, you'll realize that I actually wrote "behaviour", not "fear", but cited fear as a possible result of certain behaviour (like wanton killing, for example) - just one possible result from countless possible results emanating from countless possible behaviours.

 

[RandFan]

Why do you take two Mormon's fishing and not one? To keep them from drinking your beer.

Good tip, I will remember that if the situation arise.

I used to get howls of laughter when I told that to my Mormon friends. It's damn funny for a reason. Mormons will tell themselves that they love to obey god's commandmants but they know they love to break them. That's not to say that all Mormons drink beer. It means that most Mormons have something that they are disobediant in. They understand the lure of temptation and the weakness of humans.

I'm so damn glad I don't belong to a community that expects me to cover myself from head to toe or expects me to obey anachronistic and oppressive traditions.

I like freedom. Some people can never be free. Religion and culture makes it possible to keep people from doing what they want to do. Sadly the reasons for the prescriptions are spurious.

 

[RandFan]

I think your seemingly ultra-cynical retort is misguided (see highlighting - read back).

Mao. Stalin. Pol Pot. History is replete. It's not cynical. It's based in fact.

I think, if you refer back, you'll realize that I actually wrote "behaviour", not "fear", but cited fear as a possible result of certain behaviour (like wanton killing, for example) - just one possible result from countless possible results emanating from countless possible behaviours.

But you do make a point that it is possible that children can be harmed. Why should we care if we have no negative emotional response to this harm? This negative emotional response is known as fear. You want us to act, in part, on this fear.

 

[MontagK505]

This post of yours being the perfect model. Lead by example Montag!


No worries - it's lost on me anyhow. If your cronies manage to squeeze a little chuckle out of it good on 'em - that's what I say!

Your response was an improvement on mine.

Yes, I thought the “Inter Party Leader O'Brien” reference would be over your head, or bounce off, or whatever...

On a more serious note, in a earlier post your statement that people who disagree with you on the issue of VCP are nearly as despicable as the ones who produce it, is a nasty insult.

Have a nice day!

 

[Belz...]

See! You were harmed!

Funny person.

Self-doubt is the foundation of science and rational thought. Before that we had conviction. See where that got us ?

If Plan-A fails try Plan-B. If Plan-B fails try Plan-C. If Plan-C fails ...

Are you saying that we should assume there IS harm until proven otherwise ???

Sorry - what point?

That you accept dictionary definitions only when they agree with you.

 

[Belz...]

Agreed, although I can't vouch for the alleged time period. I believe it was much longer. You're a creationist, right? Or am I confusing you with somebody else here?

You certainly are. I couldn't be less of a creationist than I am now.

I was simply answering using the same sentence structure as the poster I was responding to.

Creationists. Giggle.

 

[Belz...]

You seem to think rights are innate. They're not - they're an end from a means. That means is law, which is a set of rules and regulations. Rules and regulations are designed to address and control things, usually behaviour, often dangerous, harmful behaviour, or threat thereof. Rights are what we end up with. Things like fear are what prompts them.

That's amusing. I always thought that was the other way around, but now I can see why you'd want to consider things as harmful until proven otherwise.

 

[Southwind17]

No. "Fear" is used genericaly. It denotes negative emotions that can range from concern to terror.
No. You are seting up a false dichotomy. That people sometimes act irrationaly doesn't mean that they are incapable of rationality.
What do you think the word "incapable" means? A person incapable of flying in a plane always takes other transportation.

Semantics. I'm no angel - admittedly, but I'm not in the mood right now to debate vocabulary and etymology.

Indoctrination. Culture. Peer pressure. Of course.

Yup - that just about sums up North America, the UK, Australia, Europe, Asia, Africa and South America (have I missed anywhere?).

It's cultural. I don't doubt that. However, note that women raised apart from it don't choose to wear it.

By "raised apart from it" do you mean "within a different culture", by any chance?!

I was raised a Mormon. After I left the church I abided by a number of rules because they were ingrained in me.

We're an intriguing race, aren't we!

Why don't you wear a burkha?

Other than my being a bloke (a big 'airy butch one wi' muscles on me muscles to boot, I'll 'ave ye know (that's an attempt at a Yorkshire accent, in case it didn't work!) ), you mean? Mainly because I was raised in western culture, where arty farty pinstripe suits and useless, constricting, inconvenient neck ties, for example, are more the cultural norm.