Blurting it out....Playground style

[DarkSimian]

I think the BloodHoundGang said it best....Hooray for boobies!

 

[MsTexas]

I've got a couple of bucks.....you can gladly pay me Tuesday for a bus ride today

Hmmmm

Deal ...

 

[WboroBaptM0134]

That is just the point....

A victim would chose their champion - why? Ok, here is a scenario.

Your child has been kidnapped, they are across the street and you their parent, can see into the window of the house and see the man is armed. You have choices, one is an all out attack on the house and a possible outcome that could swing either way with your child being saved or them ending up with a bullet. Or you have the option of waiting and having a negotiator who has real experience in dealing with this situation. Every time, 10 out of 10, the child would chose the negotiator, but they have no say.

You, by keeping on bumping the thread are not doing anything, your point is about as valid as the cup of coffee I just drank, it serves no purpose now. However, your actions may have the opposite effect and make some incestuous parent today just for the hell of it, take it out on their kid - did you not ever think that may be the case?

The thread has been going for years, and there has been some right royal pains in the ass go at it.... Fuck, I am actually going to have to give kudos to him, but, even DirtyBear had a go at the thread and he, is a complete shit about something and will not let it go. He has been here for years and his opinion and validity here weighs a hundred times more than your pathetic couple of months ever will - my point is this, you are not here for the duration, you probably like to think you are, but you will not last.

Ok... question for you in relation to your piece above....


Where in the bible does it state in any form that you should show up at a servicemans funeral and shout your disapproval and in doing so, dishonour the person who died and their grieving family?

Oh, the new arse I'm going to tear you in this one.... How do you want it shipping back to you? UPS of Fedex? Both are viable options from the UK

If you're going to speak violently and insultingly to me I won't respond.

You can phrase your points clearly and in an organized manner, and I'll respond.

 

[DarkSimian]

Hmmmm

Deal ...

or I could just give you a ride......have Blazer, will travel

 

[CaliGuy60]

Do you have any data that show that the prohibition on child pornography results if a decrease in incidents of child abuse? Please give me a reference. To me it's not clear one way or another.

Well a quick google with the question "does the ban on child pornography reduce child abuse" contains these results on the first page:

http://articles.timesofindia.indiat...pornography-sexually-explicit-materials-abuse

http://jezebel.com/#!5703236/can-child-porn-actually-prevent-child-abuse

http://www.bakadesuyo.com/is-legalizing-child-pornography-linked-to-low

These were the only studies on the first page.

 

[MsTexas]

or I could just give you a ride......have Blazer, will travel

My mother told me to never get in the car of a stranger ...

 

[LordOfHell]

You're focusing on the grey area. What we are concerned about is the excuse such literature enables to explore ideas which are wrong, for the purpose of titillation. That being non consent incest.

I also think your point is theoretical and not based in the reality of those experiences. True, there may be a few cases where no damage done... But that does not mean that we then sanction a form of entertainment based on such experience.

I never said you were a necrophile, please read posts more carefully.

This is a very pro-censorship argument, and censorship has never been proven to make for a more moral society.

You once stated that Stephen King should get a pass because he's proven himself as a capable writer. But keep in mind that MANY writers that are now heralded as genius were either hated in their time or considered to be nothing more than sensationalists. Edgar Allen Poe, for one, always hated the idea that people thought his poems had any deeper meaning other than pure entertainment value, but that doesn't stop people from writing 1000-page analyses of his work during the modern era.

Hell, even many works which were strictly pornographic in nature have now been seen as culturally relevant. Michaelangelo, creator of the Sistine Chapel, HATED to paint, but he did so strictly for the money. In reality, Michaelangelo had a fetish for sculpting male genitalia, but because he was GOOD at it, we now consider him to be one of the most influential artists of all time.

So, just for my own reasons, I am VERY anti-censorship.

 

[DarkSimian]

My mother told me to never get in the car of a stranger ...

wow, you are observant.....how did you know I'm stranger? lol

 

[MsTexas]

wow, you are observant.....how did you know I'm stranger? lol

Cause I'm just smart like that ..

 

[CaliGuy60]

Maybe thats right. But with the birth of social internet groups its way to early to tell. In most respects the internet has acted as a magnifier for all human behavior types. Seeing as that even one case of abuse is to be avoided, if the internet magnifies this by allowing cooperation between abusers, then this would support my case.

I believe it does, and the recent discovery of organized pedophile rings around the world seems to back that up.

Creating a form of entertainment based on a problematic issue, is inherently wrong anyway. It can be justified to release artistic works which explore these issues, but a form of pornographic entertainment does not explore. In fact it tries to create safe haven and discourage criticisms of the said behavior.

Ok, I think what you are saying is because the internet allows people to communicate this somehow supports your position of a ban on incest porn. I don't see the reasoning here.

Then you say "it's inherently wrong", well that's really not an argument, isn't it?

So you have said nothing that I can see that supports your position that a ban of incest porn will have any influence on actual incest.

 

[IsabellaKing]

Lit needs a new thread, entitled: Essays on The Pros and Cons of Incest

 

[CaliGuy60]

So, just for my own reasons, I am VERY anti-censorship.

Me too, and fortunately, in large part thanks to the InterTubes, it doesn't actually work any more.

 

[DarkSimian]

Cause I'm just smart like that ..

that was supposed to say "How did you know I'm strange", but I guess you've already figured that out

 

[WboroBaptM0134]

This is a very pro-censorship argument, and censorship has never been proven to make for a more moral society.

You once stated that Stephen King should get a pass because he's proven himself as a capable writer. But keep in mind that MANY writers that are now heralded as genius were either hated in their time or considered to be nothing more than sensationalists. Edgar Allen Poe, for one, always hated the idea that people thought his poems had any deeper meaning other than pure entertainment value, but that doesn't stop people from writing 1000-page analyses of his work during the modern era.

Hell, even many works which were strictly pornographic in nature have now been seen as culturally relevant. Michaelangelo, creator of the Sistine Chapel, HATED to paint, but he did so strictly for the money. In reality, Michaelangelo had a fetish for sculpting male genitalia, but because he was GOOD at it, we now consider him to be one of the most influential artists of all time.

So, just for my own reasons, I am VERY anti-censorship.

Its all in the intention of the artist bub.

It doesn't matter whether they do it for money or call they're stuff pornography. If the intention has merit, then it is not to be censored.

Designing works with the soul aim of titillation and obfuscation of potentially serious issues has no merit. Especially when those issues are particularly sensitive.

Also some pieces have historical relevance and so are remembered in context.

 

[DarkSimian]

I'm just going to say this:

in an infinite multiverse, all things are possible. somewhere, Im sure that incest, necrophilia, beastiality, and mimes are all accepted and encouraged.

 

[CaliGuy60]

Its all in the intention of the artist bub.

It doesn't matter whether they do it for money or call they're stuff pornography. If the intention has merit, then it is not to be censored.

Designing works with the soul aim of titillation and obfuscation of potentially serious issues has no merit. Especially when those issues are particularly sensitive.

Also some pieces have historical relevance and so are remembered in context.

So who decides this?

And what if they say that speaking against homosexuality has no merit?

 

[MsTexas]

that was supposed to say "How did you know I'm strange", but I guess you've already figured that out

LOL

Yep ...

Bus is here, see ya

 

[DarkSimian]

*waves goodbye* now I wish it was Tuesday

 

[LordOfHell]

Its all in the intention of the artist bub.

It doesn't matter whether they do it for money or call they're stuff pornography. If the intention has merit, then it is not to be censored.

Designing works with the soul aim of titillation and obfuscation of potentially serious issues has no merit. Especially when those issues are particularly sensitive.

Also some pieces have historical relevance and so are remembered in context.

Again, Michaelangelo is the counter to that argument. He sculpted what he did simply because he was turned on by the beauty of the male figure. That was his SOLE intent. Based on what you're saying, that means we should destroy everything he's ever done.

Otherwise, the porn I write today has just as much of a chance as being seen as culturally relevant, whether or not I intended to be such.

Also, intention doesn't really mean much. Isaac Asimov once attended a college lecture which dissected the themes of one of his stories. When it was over, he approached the professor and told him that he'd gotten the themes all wrong. The professor dismissed this by saying that just because he wrote it, that doesn't mean he understood everything about it.

Same here. Someone else just might find deeper meaning in what I write than I do. I deserve to have the chance to find out.

 

[WboroBaptM0134]

Ok, I think what you are saying is because the internet allows people to communicate this somehow supports your position of a ban on incest porn. I don't see the reasoning here.

Then you say "it's inherently wrong", well that's really not an argument, isn't it?

So you have said nothing that I can see that supports your position that a ban of incest porn will have any influence on actual incest.

No you've picked and chosen.

I've explained all ready why some forms of porn can be inherently wrong.

I am anti censorship in general

However I am for the government protecting its citizens from malicious and indecent material.

Non consent and child porn can never be justified because it violates the rights of the individuals involved.

Non-consent and child porn literature cannot be justified because it obfuscates the reality of the issue without artistic purpose, as such, it is malicious material, and damages the moral sense of those who take pleasure from it.

 

[Wings27]

For a few minutes there I thought the was Fox news. Not a porn board.

Get over yourselves.

 

[DarkSimian]

For a few minutes there I thought the was Fox news. Not a porn board.

Get over yourselves.

amen Wings

 

[WboroBaptM0134]

Again, Michaelangelo is the counter to that argument. He sculpted what he did simply because he was turned on by the beauty of the male figure. That was his SOLE intent. Based on what you're saying, that means we should destroy everything he's ever done.

Otherwise, the porn I write today has just as much of a chance as being seen as culturally relevant, whether or not I intended to be such.

Also, intention doesn't really mean much. Isaac Asimov once attended a college lecture which dissected the themes of one of his stories. When it was over, he approached the professor and told him that he'd gotten the themes all wrong. The professor dismissed this by saying that just because he wrote it, that doesn't mean he understood everything about it.

Same here. Someone else just might find deeper meaning in what I write than I do. I deserve to have the chance to find out.

Your comparisons bear no relation.

I can find no relation between finding the male form beautiful and getting off to fantasies about forced incest. None whatsoever.

And yes you should be the judge of material, but society at the same time should be protected from it if it is generally considered to be malicious.

 

[LordOfHell]

Non consent and child porn can never be justified because it violates the rights of the individuals involved.

Non-consent and child porn literature cannot be justified because it obfuscates the reality of the issue without artistic purpose, as such, it is malicious material, and damages the moral sense of those who take pleasure from it.

Then, do you have a problem with porn which depicts ANY form of unprotected sex with strangers? Combined, unwanted pregnancy and sexually-transmitted diseases have destroyed more lives than either of those two.

I don't condone non-consensual sex, pedophilia, OR unprotected sex with strangers. But I wouldn't censor any one of them.

 

[WboroBaptM0134]

For a few minutes there I thought the was Fox news. Not a porn board.

Get over yourselves.

Oh you're so superior aren't you?