by Anonymous Coward writes:
on Wednesday April 20, 2016 @06:15AM (#51945729)
Another attempt by the far right to legislate its religious morality. Maybe we should call religion a public health crisis. It damages people's ability to think rationally. Porn is like any other film; it's staged. Of course, the right doesn't call action movies a public health crisis, even though they tend to contain plenty of violence; action movies don't violate their religion's morals.
The "far right" doesn't have anywhere near the votes to pass something like this. They wouldn't, that is, without feminists. I'm okay with calling religion a public health crisis if we do the same for feminism.
The "far right" doesn't have anywhere near the votes to pass something like this.
They don't need to rely on their own; they merely need to rephrase the issue to pro-porn perverts vs the children having easy access. If your real_name was on the vote, would you vote for the latter in a backward state?
You have a good point. Utah is known to have very few right-wing religious folks, but is full of liberal feminists. So logically, this bill was passed by feminists.
Either that, or you have an irrational hatred of feminists, probably due to deep and perfectly valid feelings of inadequacy, and try to blame them for everything.
probably due to deep and perfectly valid feelings of inadequacy
If you talked like that face-to-face with someone, nobody would listen to you. Why are so many people on the Net childish and rude and still think they have a right to be taken seriously?:(
probably due to deep and perfectly valid feelings of inadequacy
If you talked like that face-to-face with someone, nobody would listen to you. Why are so many people on the Net childish and rude and still think they have a right to be taken seriously?:(
The anonymity of the internet is like a couple of stiff drinks. In its own way, it allows an honest rendering of a person's character.
In your more sober, face to face social situations, years of experiencing instant consequences tempers honest banter. (Except for the Brits;^)
I don't know, last time I saw someone say something like what the OP did in a face to face conversation, the reply was very much like what the GP said. I believe there were some applause.
In fairness, females tend to herd and feminists can be rude and hateful to others on their favorite subject and find allies as long as there are other females in the room or you are in a public forum since feminism is politically correct and equality is not. A recent press release at Microsoft showing gender equality in their pay statistics also demonstrated that white males are some of the lowest paid people in the company. Statistically they should be the highest paid group if there is equality since it is
Either that, or you have an irrational hatred of feminists, probably due to deep and perfectly valid feelings of inadequacy, and try to blame them for everything.
To sociologist Gail Dines, a self-identifying radical feminist and “anti-porn advocate,” these findings added to a body of evidence that she deemed conclusive. Dines believes that non-coercive pornography cannot exist in a capitalist society, where sex-based media will always lead to an industry that becomes a violent manifestation of structural inequalities. In The Washington Post this weekend, Dines wrote a column that spread widely: “Is Porn Immoral? That Doesn’t Matter: It’s a Public-Health Crisis.”
The divisive proclamation was occasioned by a bill passed last month in Utah declaring pornography to be “a public-health crisis.” The bill, like the phrase, traces back to Dines, who has spoken and lectured on the evils of pornography around the world.
This isn't the first time feminists have teamed up with the far right to restrict freedom (see: horseshoe theory).
I see. You can dish it out, but your sacred cow is inviolate.
Utah is 60% LDS. I'd be shocked if even half of them are what you could describe as "religious conservatives". Now, granted the label "feminist" has become toxic enough that only 18% of women cop to it, but still there are a lot of women who've been suckered into accepting its precepts.
which increases the demand for sex trafficking, prostitution, child sexual abuse images, and child pornography
When I look at porn, I don't feel a need to abuse children. And I think most people don't either. If this governor feels the need to abuse children when watching porn, then by all means he SHOULD stop watching porn. In fact I strongly believe that anybody who feels watching adult sex leads to wanting sex with children should seek help and should absolutely stop watching porn. But please governor, stop projecting your own feelings on the rest of humanity.
A fairly compelling argument can be made that porn actually reduces abuse but providing an outlet for perfectly normal, powerful feelings. As the Catholic church demonstrates, abstinence certainly has some pretty severe psychological consequences.
Catholics have the lowest divorce rate in the U.S. for no other reason than they fear ex-communication from the church. It has nothing to do with porn consumption or lack thereof.
I repeat, Catholics stay together out of fear.
In fact I strongly believe that anybody who feels watching adult sex leads to wanting sex with children should seek help and should absolutely stop watching porn.
Unfortunately, probably the worst thing you could do is actually seek help, as our current culture is not set up to help people with these urges. What actually will happen is you get put on a list and treated as a criminal or a threat. We have no system set up to deal with this unfortunate sexual orientation.
Not true.. You most assuredly can get help for it, and doctors involved with the person is sworn to secrecy. Unless they deem the patient a danger to others in which case they would first ask the person to hospitalise themself. And only if the person refuses, the doctor would call the cops..
I looked this up about 8 years ago so there may be errors/changed laws by now, also this pertains to Sweden / The EU..
Actually, quite a lot of religious conservatives do protest against the staged violence in TV and movies and say that it should be censored to protect children.
I think you'll find that even the religious conservatives are able to understand the fundamental difference between gratuitous violence and depictions of historical (or believed to be historical) events and they're often not that bright. I'm not exactly sure what that says about you or where it places you on the scale...
Actually, quite a lot of religious conservatives do protest...
And by quite a lot, I presume you mean a very small number of extremely vocal groups such as the Parents Television Council that roboform generate 99.8% of the complaints [arstechnica.com] for obscenity, indecency, and/or profanity.
Another attempt by the far right to legislate its religious morality.
No. It's an attempt by the far right to distract people from the evil things they are doing. We know beyond any doubt that pornography is not harmful; presidents have been commissioning reports on porn trying to prove otherwise since time was time. In middle school I did a report on Nixon's attempt to prove pornography was harmful because porn was being demonized again at the time...
Quite possible. Give them an obvious (if wrong) target and they ignore the larger evil that is going on. Who cares if more women are raped as a result, as long as they claim to ban porn to bring down rapes, they must be doing something good, right?
Fact is people are not perfect and need their vices. Sure, overdoing is a problem, but state-directed prohibition does not work, it can only make things worse.
Even with the dissimilarities betwixt the two, this should still say that I'm thinking?
If I point a gun at you and tell you to give me $100 you will be angry. If I point a gun at you and tell you to give me $100 and you are righteously indignant so I relent and only take $50 from you then you're both relieved and happy that you won that battle.
That is, of course, a generic "you" and not you personally. It's also important to note that I've no desire to steal your money. The concepts are not dissimilar.
Very much this. Add the strange "pro-rape" coalition that many feminists have formed into the mix, and the only thing you can call this is "evil". It tries to enforce a "morality" that does massive harm, just because of some fantasies that doe not accurately describe reality at all.
If they are so worried about kids minds being influenced, why not ban marketing targeted at children and teenagers and early teens, till they are 21. (Seems like a good age for drinking according to many; so why not?)
I wonder how much of that is a problem with the actual porn making process (probably some of it--no doubt a lot of shitty people involved) and how much of it is the simple fact that when it becomes public knowledge that you did it, people start to treat you like garbage.
How many women would be OK with starring in a movie where all the actors were killed? How many would be OK with being in hard or soft porn if it were simulated and they didn't have to do anything sexual? You're drawing parallels that do not exist. And what does a "random selection of men who want their wives or girlfriend to remain faithful" get us? You define a group that is not OK with something by definition, and argue that few of that group are OK with that something? There are, in absolute terms,
If graphics hackers are so smart, why can't they get the bugs out of
fresh paint?
Great (Score:4, Insightful)
Another attempt by the far right to legislate its religious morality. Maybe we should call religion a public health crisis. It damages people's ability to think rationally. Porn is like any other film; it's staged. Of course, the right doesn't call action movies a public health crisis, even though they tend to contain plenty of violence; action movies don't violate their religion's morals.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
The "far right" doesn't have anywhere near the votes to pass something like this.
They don't need to rely on their own; they merely need to rephrase the issue to pro-porn perverts vs the children having easy access. If your real_name was on the vote, would you vote for the latter in a backward state?
Re: Great (Score:5, Insightful)
You have a good point. Utah is known to have very few right-wing religious folks, but is full of liberal feminists. So logically, this bill was passed by feminists.
Either that, or you have an irrational hatred of feminists, probably due to deep and perfectly valid feelings of inadequacy, and try to blame them for everything.
Re: (Score:1)
probably due to deep and perfectly valid feelings of inadequacy
If you talked like that face-to-face with someone, nobody would listen to you. Why are so many people on the Net childish and rude and still think they have a right to be taken seriously? :(
Re: (Score:2)
probably due to deep and perfectly valid feelings of inadequacy
If you talked like that face-to-face with someone, nobody would listen to you. Why are so many people on the Net childish and rude and still think they have a right to be taken seriously? :(
The anonymity of the internet is like a couple of stiff drinks. In its own way, it allows an honest rendering of a person's character.
In your more sober, face to face social situations, years of experiencing instant consequences tempers honest banter. (Except for the Brits ;^)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know, last time I saw someone say something like what the OP did in a face to face conversation, the reply was very much like what the GP said. I believe there were some applause.
Re: (Score:2)
A recent press release at Microsoft showing gender equality in their pay statistics also demonstrated that white males are some of the lowest paid people in the company. Statistically they should be the highest paid group if there is equality since it is
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody's listening to him here, either.
Feminist Fingerprints Are All Over This Bill (Score:2)
Either that, or you have an irrational hatred of feminists, probably due to deep and perfectly valid feelings of inadequacy, and try to blame them for everything.
https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
To sociologist Gail Dines, a self-identifying radical feminist and “anti-porn advocate,” these findings added to a body of evidence that she deemed conclusive. Dines believes that non-coercive pornography cannot exist in a capitalist society, where sex-based media will always lead to an industry that becomes a violent manifestation of structural inequalities. In The Washington Post this weekend, Dines wrote a column that spread widely: “Is Porn Immoral? That Doesn’t Matter: It’s a Public-Health Crisis.”
The divisive proclamation was occasioned by a bill passed last month in Utah declaring pornography to be “a public-health crisis.” The bill, like the phrase, traces back to Dines, who has spoken and lectured on the evils of pornography around the world.
This isn't the first time feminists have teamed up with the far right to restrict freedom (see: horseshoe theory).
wrong link (Score:2)
http://www.theatlantic.com/hea... [theatlantic.com]
Re: (Score:2)
And? Are there ANY followers of hers in the Utah state government?
Re: (Score:2)
I see. You can dish it out, but your sacred cow is inviolate.
Utah is 60% LDS. I'd be shocked if even half of them are what you could describe as "religious conservatives". Now, granted the label "feminist" has become toxic enough that only 18% of women cop to it, but still there are a lot of women who've been suckered into accepting its precepts.
Re: (Score:1)
Either that, or you have an irrational hatred of feminists
I have a perfectly rational hatred of feminists.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Great (Score:5, Interesting)
which increases the demand for sex trafficking, prostitution, child sexual abuse images, and child pornography
When I look at porn, I don't feel a need to abuse children. And I think most people don't either.
If this governor feels the need to abuse children when watching porn, then by all means he SHOULD stop watching porn.
In fact I strongly believe that anybody who feels watching adult sex leads to wanting sex with children should seek help and should absolutely stop watching porn.
But please governor, stop projecting your own feelings on the rest of humanity.
Re: (Score:1)
Better yet, he should continue watching porn in a locked room (padded if necessary), far away from real children.
It is not porn that creates the desires, no matter how much the religious extremists want to believe so.
Re:Great (Score:5, Insightful)
A fairly compelling argument can be made that porn actually reduces abuse but providing an outlet for perfectly normal, powerful feelings. As the Catholic church demonstrates, abstinence certainly has some pretty severe psychological consequences.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
In fact I strongly believe that anybody who feels watching adult sex leads to wanting sex with children should seek help and should absolutely stop watching porn.
Unfortunately, probably the worst thing you could do is actually seek help, as our current culture is not set up to help people with these urges. What actually will happen is you get put on a list and treated as a criminal or a threat. We have no system set up to deal with this unfortunate sexual orientation.
Re: Great (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, quite a lot of religious conservatives do protest against the staged violence in TV and movies and say that it should be censored to protect children.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you'll find that even the religious conservatives are able to understand the fundamental difference between gratuitous violence and depictions of historical (or believed to be historical) events and they're often not that bright. I'm not exactly sure what that says about you or where it places you on the scale...
Re: (Score:3)
And by quite a lot, I presume you mean a very small number of extremely vocal groups such as the Parents Television Council that roboform generate 99.8% of the complaints [arstechnica.com] for obscenity, indecency, and/or profanity.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Another attempt by the far right to legislate its religious morality.
No. It's an attempt by the far right to distract people from the evil things they are doing. We know beyond any doubt that pornography is not harmful; presidents have been commissioning reports on porn trying to prove otherwise since time was time. In middle school I did a report on Nixon's attempt to prove pornography was harmful because porn was being demonized again at the time...
Re: (Score:2)
Quite possible. Give them an obvious (if wrong) target and they ignore the larger evil that is going on. Who cares if more women are raped as a result, as long as they claim to ban porn to bring down rapes, they must be doing something good, right?
Fact is people are not perfect and need their vices. Sure, overdoing is a problem, but state-directed prohibition does not work, it can only make things worse.
Re: (Score:2)
Even with the dissimilarities betwixt the two, this should still say that I'm thinking?
If I point a gun at you and tell you to give me $100 you will be angry. If I point a gun at you and tell you to give me $100 and you are righteously indignant so I relent and only take $50 from you then you're both relieved and happy that you won that battle.
That is, of course, a generic "you" and not you personally. It's also important to note that I've no desire to steal your money. The concepts are not dissimilar.
The g
What is obscenity? (Score:2)
Interfering with informed, consensual choice is obscene.
Re: (Score:1)
Very much this. Add the strange "pro-rape" coalition that many feminists have formed into the mix, and the only thing you can call this is "evil". It tries to enforce a "morality" that does massive harm, just because of some fantasies that doe not accurately describe reality at all.
Re: (Score:2)
If they are so worried about kids minds being influenced, why not ban marketing targeted at children and teenagers and early teens, till they are 21. (Seems like a good age for drinking according to many; so why not?)
Re: (Score:2)
Ask a random selection of women whether they would mind starring in a porno. What do you think the responses would be?
Instead of pornos make it soft porn like love scenes in rated R movies, The number of women who would be ok with it would still be very small.
Now ask a random selection of women whether they would be ok with them starring in a movie where all the characters are killed. What do you think?
Now let's try the men (after all many young women want to get married eventually and migh
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How many women would be OK with starring in a movie where all the actors were killed? How many would be OK with being in hard or soft porn if it were simulated and they didn't have to do anything sexual? You're drawing parallels that do not exist. And what does a "random selection of men who want their wives or girlfriend to remain faithful" get us? You define a group that is not OK with something by definition, and argue that few of that group are OK with that something? There are, in absolute terms,