Philosophy Now Forum

chaz wyman wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Retort is simply a reply, idiot! And you were obviously addressing figments of your imagination, as it had nothing to do with what I said. Reread to see how you failed.

Awww, how cute, didums wooked up the word in the dictionary.

Let me spell it out for the hard of thinking.
I was not retorting.
I was not replying.
I made stand alone statements that relate to the thread.
You are the idiot.
How many times do I have to tell you?

Reread dipshit!

No sane person ought to allow films which portray rape and other acts of violence against women in a positive, sexually provocative and sexually stimulating way.

No sane person ought to allow films which portray rape and other acts of violence against children in a positive, sexually provocative and sexually stimulating way.

It is easy enough to fabricate such imagery without the participation of real women or children. So the issue is not about the required consent of women or children, but about the production of socially damaging images that promote otherwise illegal activities.

It is the democratic right of any country to impose whatsoever level of prohibition or censorship on whatsoever they choose.

It is the opinion of megalomaniacs and tyrants to impose their own views on other countries.

chaz wyman wrote:No sane person ought to allow films which portray rape and other acts of violence against women in a positive, sexually provocative and sexually stimulating way.

No sane person ought to allow films which portray rape and other acts of violence against children in a positive, sexually provocative and sexually stimulating way.

It is easy enough to fabricate such imagery without the participation of real women or children. So the issue is not about the required consent of women or children, but about the production of socially damaging images that promote otherwise illegal activities.

It is the democratic right of any country to impose whatsoever level of prohibition or censorship on whatsoever they choose.

It is the opinion of megalomaniacs and tyrants to impose their own views on other countries.

As usual a liar, to fabricate false retorts, that address who knows whose commentary. When will you ever get real, and keep your projections of personal preference out of your retorts?

chaz wyman wrote:No sane person ought to allow films which portray rape and other acts of violence against women in a positive, sexually provocative and sexually stimulating way.

No sane person ought to allow films which portray rape and other acts of violence against children in a positive, sexually provocative and sexually stimulating way.

It is easy enough to fabricate such imagery without the participation of real women or children. So the issue is not about the required consent of women or children, but about the production of socially damaging images that promote otherwise illegal activities.

It is the democratic right of any country to impose whatsoever level of prohibition or censorship on whatsoever they choose.

It is the opinion of megalomaniacs and tyrants to impose their own views on other countries.

None of the above is related to the topic at hand, as it is not "INTERNET PORN." If so where have you seen such things Chaz? Huh? Where have you seen such heinous things? What underground sites do you frequent to see such things?

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:No sane person ought to allow films which portray rape and other acts of violence against women in a positive, sexually provocative and sexually stimulating way.

No sane person ought to allow films which portray rape and other acts of violence against children in a positive, sexually provocative and sexually stimulating way.

It is easy enough to fabricate such imagery without the participation of real women or children. So the issue is not about the required consent of women or children, but about the production of socially damaging images that promote otherwise illegal activities.

It is the democratic right of any country to impose whatsoever level of prohibition or censorship on whatsoever they choose.

It is the opinion of megalomaniacs and tyrants to impose their own views on other countries.

None of the above is related to the topic at hand, as it is not "INTERNET PORN." If so where have you seen such things Chaz? Huh? Where have you seen such heinous things? What underground sites do you frequent to see such things?

Anyone can Google "Rape Porn" and see rape portrayed as a positive and sexually stimulating act.
This is the first thing that I found.
http://www.xvideos.com/video3669401/rap ... ven_harder

As the Internet is a public access system, any paedophile rapist or child can view such material. I feel that any country whose populace demands some restrictions on such imagery, can and should be able to make that happen.
Such imagery is likely to give the message to a young make that rape is okay.
The idea that rape is an illegal but (like soft drugs) perfectly acceptable sexual act is common enough.
Most rape cases are committed by boys who think that 'no' means 'yes' on dates.

And this is the second thing I found.
http://www.heavy-r.com/video/113283/Sla ... the_woods/
Just by Googling 'Rape Porn'.
I don't think these images erotic, thankfully, and hope they are consensual. But they are not portrayed as consensual and I think this is where I put my limit.
I can think of no context where these images are a good idea for anyone to watch. The sexual reflex is a powerful and addictive urge stronger than any drug.
I do not think society ought to be in the business of normalising acts of wickedness.

chaz wyman wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:No sane person ought to allow films which portray rape and other acts of violence against women in a positive, sexually provocative and sexually stimulating way.

No sane person ought to allow films which portray rape and other acts of violence against children in a positive, sexually provocative and sexually stimulating way.

It is easy enough to fabricate such imagery without the participation of real women or children. So the issue is not about the required consent of women or children, but about the production of socially damaging images that promote otherwise illegal activities.

It is the democratic right of any country to impose whatsoever level of prohibition or censorship on whatsoever they choose.

It is the opinion of megalomaniacs and tyrants to impose their own views on other countries.

None of the above is related to the topic at hand, as it is not "INTERNET PORN." If so where have you seen such things Chaz? Huh? Where have you seen such heinous things? What underground sites do you frequent to see such things?

Anyone can Google "Rape Porn" and see rape portrayed as a positive and sexually stimulating act.
This is the first thing that I found.
http://www.xvideos.com/video3669401/rap ... ven_harder

As the Internet is a public access system, any paedophile rapist or child can view such material. I feel that any country whose populace demands some restrictions on such imagery, can and should be able to make that happen.
Such imagery is likely to give the message to a young make that rape is okay.
You assume "likely" to incite, but in the past I've read, from an expert source, likely to pacify, thus to quell the desire to act.

The idea that rape is an illegal but (like soft drugs) perfectly acceptable sexual act is common enough.
Most rape cases are committed by boys who think that 'no' means 'yes' on dates.

And this is the second thing I found.
http://www.heavy-r.com/video/113283/Sla ... the_woods/
Just by Googling 'Rape Porn'.
I don't think these images erotic, thankfully, and hope they are consensual. But they are not portrayed as consensual and I think this is where I put my limit.
I can think of no context where these images are a good idea for anyone to watch. The sexual reflex is a powerful and addictive urge stronger than any drug.
I do not think society ought to be in the business of normalising acts of wickedness.

What would you rather have, someone fantasizing about it, via a fictitious enacted account, or one being frustrated such that they actually do it in real life?

"Research concerning the effects of pornography is inconclusive on the issue of crime. Some studies support the contention that the viewing of pornographic material may increase rates of sexual crimes, while others have shown no effects, or a decrease in the rates of such crimes. However, most of these studies focus on various correlations, and correlation does not imply causation."

--Wikipedia--

Chaz, have you ever viewed: "Internet Porn?"

.





Ya know...this may sound weird, but I have never had the impulse to Google the words - Rape Porn


This may sound even more strange but I have never had the impulse to even put those two words together...Rape Porn




I would never EVER think of those two words together.


I know it exists...but not in me.




.

Bill Wiltrack wrote:.





Ya know...this may sound weird, but I have never had the impulse to Google the words - Rape Porn


This may sound even more strange but I have never had the impulse to even put those two words together...Rape Porn




I would never EVER think of those two words together.


I know it exists...but not in me.




.

Yes Bill, I'm with you. People that say that media depicting human sexuality, is anything other than a means to satisfy sexual tension, for the majority of those, that for what ever reason, find it difficult to satisfy it with a warmblooded human being, do so purely as a speculative means to feed an underlying need to feel superior, so as to lay down the law, to believe that their lives are more important, productive, and normal. It's just a means for them to control someone, in a world they feel they have no real control of. It's just another way to compete or exceed the Jones'.

I'm sure that some people do seek out, and enjoy, so called sex, where someone is victimized, but I'm sure that it is the exception and not the rule, and probably directly corresponds to the percentages of that kind of sexual depiction, versus non violent examples, such that that the ratio is something like 1:thousands. So to enact a blanket law that covers ALL instances of human sexual depictions, punishes those that have no one with which to share such human closeness. Yes I see that there is a place for, so called, porn and prostitution, which is to sooth the ills of those unfortunate ones that have no significant other, for what ever reason, i.e., social awkwardness, ugliness, etc.

The child exposure argument, is just ridiculous, made by those that are bad parents, expecting the world to be responsible for taking care of, THEIR kids, because they're too lame/won't do it.

Again anyone that try's to control someones private life, that affects no one, other than themselves, and those that agree to be a party to it, is wrong, evil, selfish, such as would be slave owners, and deserve to be punished for it, as the false gods that they are.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:
What would you rather have, someone fantasizing about it, via a fictitious enacted account, or one being frustrated such that they actually do it in real life?


Chaz, have you ever viewed: "Internet Porn?"

You have offered a false choice.

I would rather that rape was not considered as okay or normal, and think that pornographers that encourage and promote that view ought not be able to post their videos in exactly the same way that I do not think that Internet providers should allow Terrorist recruiting websites.

Now, I know you accept that the Internet is an Open Access Media. Do you have any children, and would you want a son of yours to be exposed to this sort of material at an impressionable age, when he is forming his views of women and determining his sexuality?

Bill Wiltrack wrote:.


I know it exists...but not in me.
[/size]



.

Well that's okay for YOU. What about your daughter? Would you like to think that her classmates aged 12 were able to access this material when they are at an impressionable age?

bobevenson wrote:Bottom line, it is improper for the government to ban, censor or in any way disrupt the reading or viewing habits of anyone, anywhere at any time.

Do you reserve the right for terrorists to read police and armed forces secret information?

chaz wyman wrote:

bobevenson wrote:Bottom line, it is improper for the government to ban, censor or in any way disrupt the reading or viewing habits of anyone, anywhere at any time.

Do you reserve the right for terrorists to read police and armed forces secret information?

I'm not talking about secret government information (although most government information is stamped "Secret" to cover somebody's ass, oh, I'm sorry, arse, Mr. so-called American). I'm talking about books, movies, TV, and the Internet.

bobevenson wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:

bobevenson wrote:Bottom line, it is improper for the government to ban, censor or in any way disrupt the reading or viewing habits of anyone, anywhere at any time.

Do you reserve the right for terrorists to read police and armed forces secret information?

I'm not talking about secret government information (although most government information is stamped "Secret" to cover somebody's ass, oh, I'm sorry, arse, Mr. so-called American). I'm talking about books, movies, TV, and the Internet.

So you think that some censorship is okay?
I imagine that being a homosexual you do not have any daughters of your own.
If you did have a daughter do you not think that you would do anything to minimise the ever present danger of her getting raped?

chaz wyman wrote:So you think that some censorship is okay?

Please get off that "Secret government information" crap. We are talking about censorship of how people spend their time, and all government censorship is improper.