Moderated What's wrong with porn?

[Whiplash]

I thought it was a pretty fair bit of commentary, just strictly not on topic to this discussion. But I empathize with him, because reading these forums, as a conservative, you are constantly bombarded with comments that get under your skin. Sometimes, you react and let loose on the person in question, without thinking about it too much. It's very difficult to deal, internally, with the constant assault and contempt that some show. Especially when you feel it to be wholly unfair or unjustified. But too many people here share those feelings. So it's a very uphill battle. One day I'll learn to just leave politics alone completely and walk away.

 

[Skeptic]

My problem is with bringing Bush into the discussion -- ANY discussion, on ANY subject -- as some sort of bogeyman. For some people here, no issue has really been dealt with thoroughly unless they find some way to blame Bush for it.

 

[arthwollipot]

Seems to me JFrankA was simply making an observation about the legal climate in the last few (8) years, rather than actually blaming Bush for anything.

Seems to me that some people just get incredibly defensive when people mention Bush or the Bush years, and automatically assume that blame is being assigned.

That said, it is rather off-topic, and it may well be that JFrankA was blaming Bush, so I'm going to drop it.

 

[Southwind17]

Speaking metaphorically, is it your position that everyone should be required to wear moral diapers because a small minority can't or won't be toilet trained?
Do you understand how the majority just might resent this?

Welcome to societal living where everyone's accommodated, warts and all.

 

[Southwind17]

But murder can be defined as one simple thing: The act of one person killing another. There we go.

No that's homicide - completely different concept from murder. Please check your facts before seeking to pass off an assumption as knowledge.

 

[Southwind17]

What's the point of quoting something only to say "no comment".
Maybe just snip to the parts you are willing to comment on. Otherwise, it seems pointless. Even wasteful of forum space.

It was to acknowledge that I've read it. I wouldn't want anybody here to mistakenly think I'm ignoring them (unless I've put them on ignore! ). But you know what? I've already decided simply to respond to anything worth responding to, as you suggest.

 

[Southwind17]

Is it just me, or did that post just miss the point entirely?

It's just you!

 

[Southwind17]

One day I'll learn to just leave politics alone completely and walk away.

A BJ from an intern might be a more satisfying exit - go out on a high! Of course, if you're a completely flawless self-controlled automaton then yeh - just stroll on out whistling a happy tune!

 

[Southwind17]

My problem is with bringing Bush into the discussion -- ANY discussion, on ANY subject -- as some sort of bogeyman. For some people here, no issue has really been dealt with thoroughly unless they find some way to blame Bush for it.

For "bogeyman" read "straw man"!

 

[JFrankA]

Seems to me JFrankA was simply making an observation about the legal climate in the last few (8) years, rather than actually blaming Bush for anything.

Seems to me that some people just get incredibly defensive when people mention Bush or the Bush years, and automatically assume that blame is being assigned.

That said, it is rather off-topic, and it may well be that JFrankA was blaming Bush, so I'm going to drop it.

No, Arthwollipot, you got it on the nose.

 

[Southwind17]

Seems to me JFrankA was simply making an observation about the legal climate in the last few (8) years, rather than actually blaming Bush for anything.
Seems to me that some people just get incredibly defensive when people mention Bush or the Bush years, and automatically assume that blame is being assigned.
That said, it is rather off-topic, and it may well be that JFrankA was blaming Bush, so I'm going to drop it.

You could have dropped it before you even picked up on it, had you thought about it more first!

 

[Southwind17]

No, Arthwollipot, you got it on the nose.

Meaning what? Arthwollipot posits complete opposites. Typical ill-considered response from you.

 

[JFrankA]

Meaning what? Arthwollipot posits complete opposites. Typical ill-considered response from you.

Sheesh. Again with the insults?

Seems to me JFrankA was simply making an observation about the legal climate in the last few (8) years, rather than actually blaming Bush for anything.

That was on the nose.

 

[Southwind17]

Sheesh. Again with the insults?

No. It's a perfectly open and honest observation about your general posting style. Nothing personal - it's not uncommon here!

That was on the nose.

And now, the necessary clarification.

 

[quadraginta]

Speaking metaphorically, is it your position that everyone should be required to wear moral diapers because a small minority can't or won't be toilet trained?
Do you understand how the majority just might resent this?

Welcome to societal living where everyone's accommodated, warts and all.

So your response to Montag is "Yes'"?


Is there any point at which you do not believe it is okay for freedom to be denied to a whole society solely on the basis of a potential for some individual to act badly?

Would you provide an example?

Can you explain how to determine when such a point is reached? When it is transgressed?

 

[JFrankA]

No. It's a perfectly open and honest observation about your general posting style. Nothing personal - it's not uncommon here!

And now, the necessary clarification.

Fair enough. You were right there. My apologies.

 

[JFrankA]

My problem is with bringing Bush into the discussion -- ANY discussion, on ANY subject -- as some sort of bogeyman. For some people here, no issue has really been dealt with thoroughly unless they find some way to blame Bush for it.

Off topic.

My apologies to you too, I only mentioned Bush because he was at the helm at the time this happened. It's the same way people are blaming Obama now because of the recession and bad unemployment: he's at the helm, his fault.

I still feel that those past eight years we lost a lot of freedoms and really bypassed our own Constitution in favor of protection and fear. And it's all our own fault for allowing it to happen.

 

[Bill Thompson]

Porn is bad because it is false advertising.

 

[Southwind17]

So your response to Montag is "Yes'"?

Pretty much.

Is there any point at which you do not believe it is okay for freedom to be denied to a whole society solely on the basis of a potential for some individual to act badly?

What do you mean by "any point" in the context of something as broad and diverse as freedom? "Any point" measured on what particular scale, exactly?

Would you provide an example?

That's either a leading question or a follow-up to an assumed response that's currently eluding you. Regardless, an "example" of what, exactly?

Can you explain how to determine when such a point is reached? When it is transgressed?

Again, what such point and where, exactly?

Do you see how it pays to think carefully about what you're asking somebody instead of adopting a position and simply shooting in the dark?! Now, how about you stop, engage brain, duly consider then reword your questions (if you still have any by that time).

 

[quadraginta]

Pretty much.


What do you mean by "any point" in the context of something as broad and diverse as freedom? "Any point" measured on what particular scale, exactly?


That's either a leading question or a follow-up to an assumed response that's currently eluding you. Regardless, an "example" of what, exactly?


Again, what such point and where, exactly?

Do you see how it pays to think carefully about what you're asking somebody instead of adopting a position and simply shooting in the dark?! Now, how about you stop, engage brain, duly consider then reword your questions (if you still have any by that time).

Is that a "No", or are you just dodging the questions, as usual?