Comments (73)

• Deacon

  #######
  #######

  Pornography leads to increases in sex crimes
  by teaching the otherwise sexually inexperienced
  how to engage deviant and/or violent sex acts.

  The studies indicating otherwise are bogus.

  In any case, testosterone is the key/link to
  understanding why men rape. Read my below
  essay on the matter:

  ©1987
  
  Sexual Dynamics of Lust in Men Who Rape

  - why sexual aggression in males must never be about sex but violence -

  Men have about 12 to 16 times more production of the HORMONE for sexual interest and physical aggression than women produce: TESTOSTERONE.

  It's a well-established scientific fact that men's sexual aggression may be visually triggered by, for example, a female's sexually provocative dress (or behavior), such as wearing a low-cut blouse or miniskirt (or acting out sexually suggestive poses).

  That sexual response in men is not voluntary but autonomic; that is, for example, teen-age boys' erection-response to the sight of pornography is not voluntarily but involuntarily produced in him.

  As Natural to Him as His Beating Heart

  It is his NATURE to be sexually aroused at the sight of a female body, if his sexual orientation is normal (homosexuality is not a normal sexual response for boys who have successfully passed beyond that “I’m curious” stage of sexual experimentation during puberty—that time of uncertainty when a boy/girl may act out homosexual behavior but, then, becomes heterosexual as he/she matures).

  Some males’ testosterone production is so high that they can be driven to rape, as that part of the brain where sexual interest and aggression originates - called the "reptilian" or "old" brain – can pretty much shut down the higher, rational, THINKING brain—resulting from a concomitant sex-drive phenomenon - a scientifically established phenomenon - that when a boy’s/man’s penis is engorged, he suffers diminished mental capacity because of the much-reduced blood flow to the higher brain; that is, he can't THINK clearly when he's sexually aroused, and which diminished mental capacity makes him ask himself, after his normal mental faculties have returned: "What in hell was I thinking?" just after his sexual impulse has been acted out upon some unwilling female—or after he has masturbated away his body’s sexual tension.

  Add to the above NATURAL facts about males’ sexual mechanics a very low IQ, and you have a very dangerous teen-age boy or adult man whenever he’s exposed to provocatively dressed (or behaviorally provocative) females.

  So, while on feminism's march towards a perfect - but unachievable - equality between men and women, feminists have had to DENY at all costs (particularly at the cost of the safety of females), the above NATURAL facts, so that any male's sexual aggression against a female is strictly attributed to some penchant for VIOLENCE on his part—not to be attributed in any way - ever! - to NATURE and a females sexually provocative dress and/or provocative behavior.

  Sex-Based Power and Politics in Feminism

  The underlying purpose of feminists’ denial is both power and politics, as the former allows women to feel powerful in their sexual control of men while the latter is used to denigrate masculinity in the claim that men lack “civility,” which, of course, only women may define and apply to the benefit of society, and which “thinking” on their part results in this pervasive view about rape throughout this feminism-directed criminal justice system: “Rape is never about sex but violence,” as if NATURAL LAWS governing male’s sexuality were mere myth, and feminists’ defense-against-men claim were a universal and irrefutable truth.

  The feminists' MANTRA is this, in the face off refuting and countervailing SOUND LOGIC: "Women may dress however they wish," as the onus of responsibility must always be on men—again, as if NATURAL SEXUAL IMPULSES in boys and men were mere myth, and that - if a boy or man is driven to sexually assault a teen-age girl or adult woman - it is his conscious choice of VIOLENCE against women, never any degree of sexual drive in him.

  Because women - and those "men" who emote like women - do not think very well, it's been nearly impossible to effect a more reasonable behavior on the part of girls and women, so as to avoid sexual aggression in boys and men suffering, say, both low IQ and high testosterone.

  Generally, for men, this is the rule about their sexuality: "OUT OF SIGHT, OUT OF MIND"; that is, if there is no visual stimulation, then, generally, there is a lack of sexual interest (men's penchant to imagine sexual themes within this post-Sixties-revolution, sex-theme-saturated society notwithstanding). But once that visual trigger has been pulled, it's extremely difficult to halt the bullet's natural course, either through actual sexual intercourse or masturbation.

  Same Sex Drive in Hetero-/Homo-Sexuals

  The same NATURAL MECHANICS operate in sexually deviant men, who may be stimulated by the sight of male or female children, or sight of certain animals, so that, say, a pre-teen boy wearing thigh-high shorts or a TV commercial displaying a naked baby can cause a pedophile to be highly sexually aroused—and hell-bent on acting out his wish for that kind of sexual conquest.

  If liberals’ infamous "Twinkie Defense" (1979 trial of Dan White) can be used by left-leaning attorneys, in order to mitigate murderous homosexual rage, then, surely, the NATURE DEFENSE ought to mitigate against harsh punishment in sexual assault charges against low-IQ, high-testosterone male's, who have involuntarily responded sexually, aggressively towards provocatively dressed (or behaviorally provocative) females.

  That's the sexual dynamics of lust in men who rape—and why sexual aggression in males must never be about sex but violence.

  -Founders’ America

  #######
  #######

  Published: August 25, 2008 8:17 AM

• Haas

  Deacon don't post up a whole essay like that on the comment page- just because present evidence and all current study show that porn reduces sexual violence and you don't like it doesn't mean you have to make us swallow your views regardless- go search the internet and find out what the latest studies say rather than posting up an essay over 20 years old...

  Published: August 25, 2008 8:22 AM

• Curt Howland

  Eeeeww, his laptop has a "made for Windows" sticker!

  Now there's an indication of self-destructive behavior.

  Published: August 25, 2008 8:30 AM

• Deacon

  #######
  #######

  Attn: Hass

  I have a tendency to think for myself,
  rather than to swallow drivel-filled
  "reasearch"; a trend of drivel-filled
  studies coming full-force after
  dumb-as-a-post SOCIAL STUDIES
  teachers and courses had infected
  universities, hatched by socialist/
  communist provocateurs during
  Leftism's Sixties Revolution.

  I employ Aristotle's means to under-
  standing the world:

  EXTRAPOLATION.

  It is UTTER NON-SENSE to argue that
  porn doesn't lead to sex crimes.

  http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51289

  http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59953

  http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=67871

  http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_10267978?source=most_viewed

  http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54471

  #######
  #######

  
  

  Published: August 25, 2008 8:47 AM

• fundamentalist

  I was disappointed that Art puts so much emphasis on empirical research to prove his point when Austrian economists have spent you many years proving that empirical research cannot prove or disprove a theory; it can only lend support or not. The research Art cites doesn’t start with a sound theory to interpret the evidence, but tries to build a theory from the evidence, which is exactly what Austrian epistemology warns against.

  Psychologist Dr. James Dobson (Focus on the Family) spent many years working on a congressional task force on pornography and probably knows more about the subject than anyone. His theory of why men rape is that boys enter a very vulnerable stage when they first enter puberty. Their sexual orientation is not fully formed and can turn in several different directions depending on influences. For example, they turn toward homosexuality when recruited by older homosexuals. They turn toward rape not because of hatred of women, as is commonly assumed, but because of experiences with sex during this vulnerable period.

  Dobson doesn’t credit all pornography for contributing to rape, but blames pornography that mixes violence with sexual satisfaction. This shows that one of the potential flaws of the empirical studies might be too much aggregation of data. They need to look at different types of pornography. Also, their theory that rape is a form of aggression may be popular, but contradicts Dobson’s research. If you start with a bad presumption, you’re theory is still bad even if you find empirical evidence for it. Besides violent pornography, some rapists are recruited into the practice by older boys or men who are addicted to it.

  Dobson’s point about pornography is that young men are very vulnerable and need to be protected from unhealthy influences at that age.

  Instead of using highly aggregated data as the reported researchers have done, I would think a better approach would be to interview rapists about the progression of their experiences into rape as a means of sexual satisfaction. Dobson has done a lot of that kind of research, for example with Ted Bundy. Then if you want to apply some statistics to it, use text mining and markov chains on the interview data to demonstrate the progression.

  Also, this brings up the issue of rationalization that Hayek treats in his “Fatal Conceit.” Hayek argues that false reasoning, or rationalization, jettisons all traditional values and history and tries to create new ones from pure reason starting from the limited personal experiences of the philosopher. This type of false reasoning gave us socialism. Hayek’s warning applies in this case because I can’t think of a time in history, particularly Western history, when pornography was not perceived as a threat to social cohesion and morality. As Hayek might say, we ignore collective wisdom of this sort at great peril.
  

  Published: August 25, 2008 9:16 AM

• Deacon

  #######
  #######

  Read and learn, dear
  pro-porn posters:

  http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51289

  #######
  #######

  Published: August 25, 2008 9:16 AM

• Theblob

  Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.
  H. L. Mencken

  Published: August 25, 2008 9:32 AM

• Deacon

  #######
  #######

  Attn: Theblob

  Libertarians fear that his/her deviant
  sexuality won't become as acceptable
  as what constitutes "normal" behavior,
  which acceptability-demand in them
  originates from a psychological
  drive in every person: an innate need
  for a majority-held consensus that his/
  her deviant behavior isn't deviant; a
  need in all of us to feel welcomed,
  included, accepted, loved...normal.

  -Deacon

  #######
  #######

  Published: August 25, 2008 9:49 AM

• Curt Howland

  I think Theblob puts his finger on exactly why anyone discusses pornography at all, save as a profit angle for new technologies.

  Published: August 25, 2008 10:00 AM

• Lucas Engelhardt

  Sorry, Deacon,

  Though I agree with your anti-porn stance... in the sense that I don't think porn can be considered a "good thing" morally speaking, the empirical work in the World Net Daily article is awful. For example, interviewing rapists and finding that 1/3 viewed pornography immediately before their crimes doesn't give evidence for much of anything. In fact, the most striking part of it to me is that 2/3 DIDN'T view pornography immediately before their crimes. Anyway, to be meaningful, you'd have to show that this number is signficantly different from the relevant "non-rapist", controlling for all the other characteristics. In other words, you have to compare people with the same education, income, geographical location, religious belief system, etc., and have the only difference be whether or not they raped and whether or not they viewed pornography. Then, you have to compare the two. If 1/3 of rapists viewed pornography before they raped someone and 1/3 of non-rapists view porn on a regular basis, then there's no empirical reason to believe that porn has any connection to rape at all. Actually, according to some estimates, about 35-40% of men view X-rated movies in any given year, so the 1/3 number isn't startling at all. (Actually, with a broader definition of "porn", the number of viewers jumps dramatically... though I haven't actually found good, solid numbers on that one. Most numbers I see run in the 70-80% range.)

  Personally, I think that Art's point here is more libertarian than Austrian. That is: banning pornography is somewhat likely to increase rape.

  Now, from my perspective (which does see porn as wrong for a number of reasons), the question is "what do you do about it?" Banning it is the simple, evangelical conservative Republican answer. However, that doesn't mean that it is the correct answer. This Art-icle suggests that it isn't, and actually suggests a more effective alternative: moral education. From a Christian perspective, that should appear significantly better.

  Published: August 25, 2008 10:27 AM

• Alan

  Deacon, without footnotes what you've got there is an op-ed. I realize Dr. Carden doesn't have any either, but it would be possible to google those reports he references.

  Published: August 25, 2008 11:20 AM

• C. Evans

  I must disagree with Richard Land's assessment. The greatest moral threat to the US is the State. The State wants to be the Alpha and Omega of our lives and does everything it can to undermine rival institutions, especially the Church and families. The State has been quite successful in its efforts. Most Christians in the US, conservative and liberal, fully embrace the violence of the State to create their universal vision of morality. The results of such actions have led the people to look to the State as the originator of morality. Moreover, the State can exempt itself from the very laws it imposes on the rest of us and we accept this cognitive dissonance. Thus, we decry robbery in the private sphere yet tolerate the same actions of the State in the form of taxation. We decry murder in the private sphere yet we tolerate the same actions of the State in the form of offensive wars to promote democracy. We decry slavery in the private sphere yet tolerate the same actions of the State in the form of conscription. The moral health of the nation will not improve as long as Christians continue to look toward the State as the panacea. We already have the Balm in Gilead; we only need preach it. In the meantime, we will have to endure actions we deem sinful, but this is the nature of the Gospel, for God does not use violence to compel humanity to obey Him.

  Published: August 25, 2008 11:57 AM

• Curt Howland

  I have to disagree with the anti-porn stance, if only because what one person considers porn is not what another person thinks is porn.

  Is a male-model calendar explicitly marketed to those who are gay porn? Does it magically become porn if they are nude, yet the poses are otherwise exactly the same? (thinking of the movie _I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry_)

  I know of nothing as beautiful, to me, as the nude human female form. I enjoy seeing them at every opportunity, as limited by my own sense of morality.

  But I'm sure my sense of morality does not exactly match anyone else's. Lock me up, officer, I guess someone thinks I'm a latent rapist.

  Prosecute abuse. If there is no victim, there is no crime.

  Published: August 25, 2008 1:43 PM

• Deacon

  #######
  #######

  This scribbler defines “pornography” as
  any written or pictorial presentation of
  thoughts and/or actions which lead the
  reader/viewer to sexual excitation – lead
  to thinking about engaging masturbation
  or sexual intercourse of whatever kind -
  and which presentation has as its
  purpose to titillate and seduce towards
  that outcome in the reader/viewer—for
  profit-making; that is, any material
  which has as its underlying purpose the
  acquisition of profit by using sex as the
  hook, for payment of money to read/
  view the pornographic material.

  Like you, Curt Howland, I know it when
  I see it--when what I'm reading/viewing
  prompts me to get-off, by whatever
  means.

  #######
  #######

  Published: August 25, 2008 2:56 PM

• Michael A. Clem

  Okay, I'm convinced: Deacon's a troll.
  
  But seriously, while Art's points about causality and the social sciences are good, pornography's a simple issue. The majority of people who view porn don't commit rapes or other sexual crimes. Thus, there is no justification for outlawing pornography to minimize rape.
  
  Once again, we have people who mistakenly think that civil society can be created and maintained by decidedly uncivil means.

  Published: August 25, 2008 3:09 PM

• robpo

  Look out, I just saw porn walking down the hallway!

  But how do I know if her purpose was to titillate? Should I ask her, so I can know for sure if she is porn?

  Porn doesn't make people into rapists, just like heavy metal music doesn't make people into killers.

  Wow, an article on Mises actually treats a position as hypothesis and uses statistics to prove/disprove it, versus taking an ideological position and cherry-picking statistics to prove it and every other facet of economic and social behavior that is in line with the ideology. Kudos.

  Published: August 25, 2008 3:44 PM

• Owl

  I'm guessing Deacon regularly rapes his wife whenever he sees her naked? Or is that "natural impulse" either lacking or under control in those circumstances? I wonder if he can be married at all, or if his parents chose his wife for him, since he could not possibly have gone out on dates, or even have seen her before the wedding night, out of concern for his and her safety. Maybe that is why the rape impulse is suddenly missing when it comes to seeing his wife, assuming his parents strove to select the "safest" choice. The type of "man" he describes, without an ounce of self-discipline should be excluded from the part of society that doesn't want such impulsive animals around.

  His logic leads to societies like Afghanistan under the Taliban and Iran under the Ayatollahs. Or Saudi-Arabia, where a woman can't even venture out on the streets without a male family member. A rule that, as recently reconfirmed, makes rape "ok" in Saudi-land, according to the exact same reasoning as mr. Deacon uses: if a woman goes outside amongst non-family members (even inside her "demure" dress) that is basically the same as saying: you may rape me. Although to be fair to the fundamentalists, those countries probably don't recognise marital rape either. Since marriage gives license to have relations with your wife whenever you please, headaches or not. How is that for "objectifying" women?

  Also, on a related note, this last week a Dutch middle-aged couple on a cycling holiday in Italy set up camp in the middle of nowhere, near Rome. The kind Romanian shepherds that showed them the place to set up camp, then came upon them in the night and robbed them, raping the middle-aged woman. The response from the mayor of Rome? "They had it coming", as no sane person should go camping in an abandoned spot like that.

  Welcome to the insane upside-down world where the victim is the culprit and the culprit the victim. And where "morality" is apparently whatever personal preferences (religious or otherwise) people wish to rationalise and turn into some kind of "Nature agrees with me" argument. As if we are some kind of beasts that must do whatever the monkeys do. But you cannot derive such morality from Nature. Apart from the is-ought problem, natural science should be value free: it must investigate the facts of nature, and nothing else. Interpreting it, giving it some positive or negative moral value, is a different field. Just "wanting" a certain result to come out (like both sides of this pornography or the climate change debate) is childish magical thinking. If there is a link between pornography and rape (either positive or negative), if there is a link between human life and climate change, that does not mean there is a moral law. Or should we also make pornography mandatory if it really does reduce rapes?

  The article itself is also somewhat biased, since for no other reason than the personal opinion of the author, "pornography" is somehow considered "wrong". Calling for "moral education" sounds rather pedantic, especially if such "morality" has not been grounded on anything but that personal opinion. And however are we supposed to define that pornography anyway? Since even wearing a burka can still not protect you from being "titillating", as many muslim women can tell you. Men and women will have sex. In some cases (prison or boarding school) people will even turn to the same sex for gratification, with of without porn, even if their orientation is otherwise. This cannot possibly be the result of "provocation". Unless we are all bisexual and equally turned on by men and women, which I doubt.

  And would the same "safety" or "provocation" argument as some make against pornography also apply to other fields? Does Deacon also want to ban guns, cars, or even the Bible if they can be shown to lead to death or personal damage? Since obviously, if society was capable of totally banning all those things which increase the chance of an accident or a crime, it would be a lot "safer", which is NOT a synonym for "moral".

  Of course society is not capable of such total control, and I hope to God it never will be. In the case of pornography you are luckily not capable of even defining it, let alone controlling what goes on in someones head. Although apparently some people are dying to do just that...
  

  Published: August 25, 2008 9:09 PM

• Brainpolice

  "The culture war"? *palmface*

  Published: August 25, 2008 10:18 PM

• Lucas M. Engelhardt

  Owl, I think you miss one of the points of the article (though this point is more implied than stated). The author isn't trying to prove that pornography is wrong. So, the author's belief that pornography only matters because it gives a certain emotional strength to the fact that he's giving the conclusion which is opposite his beliefs regarding the morality of pornography. By adding the context of "Even though I believe that pornography is wrong..." the argument gains a certain emotional strength because we know that it's not, say, Larry Flynt just trying to make something up to support his livelihood. Naturally, both arguments are "ad hominem" to some degree, and are technically fallacious in as far as they make the author matter. But, there's more to rhetoric than just logic. Speaking of fallacies, the whole "You can't even define pornography" is technically an example of Loki's Wager. Just because we can't draw a clear line that everyone will agree on doesn't mean that we can't talk about pornography as a meaningful category.

  Published: August 25, 2008 11:46 PM

• Joseph K

  I'm going to comment on the connection between porn and rape, since there might be another factor to the correlation which I see. Hate to bring the discussion down a notch but this topic reminds me of the "clean the pipes" concept from There's Something about Mary. Namely, that if a man masturbates before a date, it decreases his sexual desire and makes him more like a woman, thus making him more appealing to women. Despite the farcical context of this concept, there is something to this. Men do experience a drop in sexual desire following ejaculation. This serves to give their body an opportunity to replenish their depleted stores and bring the sperm count back up. So, for a while afterward, men aren't really all that interested in sex.

  As to the connection between porn and rape, we must remember that the men looking at porn aren't just looking at the porn. Fundamentalist brings up some outlandish semi-Freudian theory of rape based on pubescent development by Dobson but the reality is that the basic cause of rape is sexual desire and the sexual frustration attendant on being denied such desire. Reduce the level of sexual desire and you may reduce the incidence of rape.

  In addition you might also the serious possibility of porn addiction reducing rape. As harmful as porn addiction may be to the addict himself, it tends to consume a lot of his time and make other types of direct person-to-person sexual interaction less appealing. Since the availability of porn increases the level of porn addiction it may decrease the level of rape in that way as well.

  Personally, I'd have to say if you don't like porn, then argue against it for direct reason. If it degrades women, then say porn is bad because it degrades women. Don't try to confabulate some tenuous connection between porn and some other evil. It damages your credibility.

  Published: August 26, 2008 12:16 AM

• Miklos Hollender

  I think that social conservatives such as this Mr.Land are not totally off the mark, they just miss the most likely explanation of correlation: when phenomena A and B are correlated, but there doesn't seem to be a causal relationship, the case is ususally that there is phenomena C which is the cause of both A and B.

  Browsing for pornography (A) doesn't increase the likelyhood of committing a sex crime (B). However there (C) which is the cause of both A and B: a certain way of thinking. A way of thinking that goes like this: if it feels good, it's good. If it feels bad, it's bad. It's OK to be slaves of our desires. It's bad to try to suppress or control desires. Every whim should be fulfilled at once. Having to wait a bit to fulfill a desire is bad, because it's uncomfortable, it feels bad, therefore it's bad. In other words, the typical way of thinking of a spoiled child. Apparently, in the modern world a lot of people manage to stay spoiled children during their whole lives.

  In other words: time preferences as high as a mountain. A high time preference is the common cause behind more or less everything social conservatives tend to criticize.

  What is the cause of high time preferences?

  A) The welfare state that tries to protect us from the consequences of our choices, thus tries to keep us children,

  B) Certain intellectuals, generally, the " '68-ers" or liberals in the modern sense, like Herbert Marcuse, who taught a philosophy of high time preferences to the masses.

  Published: August 26, 2008 2:55 AM

• Owl

  Lucas M. Engelhardt,

  I see what you mean about the author trying to basically "absolve" himself, setting himself up as "against porn" to make himself more credible. I don't know if he did that on purpose, or if he was sincere. But in both cases, I still think that he is basically calling for an "education", or maybe if I put it more harshly, indoctrination of children with false moral values.

  Of course, as someone with libertarian leanings, I support the right of parents (or anyone else for that matter) to communicate their own subjective values to children, especially since "neutral" moral values are hard to define or possibly even non-existent. But I find it somewhat dishonest to tell your children that "porn is wrong", when basically there is nothing to argue against it, apart from personal distaste and arbitrary selection of which risks one considers acceptable to take and which not.

  I had never heard of Loki's wager, so I looked it up on wikipedia. Isn't the point of that story of him and the dwarfs that they couldn't separate his head from his neck, since both were intimately connected and it's impossible to define were one ends and the other begins? I think that actually strengthens my argument, because it is impossible to say were "pornography" begins or ends, if you see it as "anything that may cause sexual arousal", which is an inseperable part of the argument Deacon made against porn. Then any type of visual image of a woman, even a bare ankle or two smoldering eyes under a burka, can be "porn". Even seeing your wife naked could be considered porn, because it should certainly have the same effect, if you are sexually attracted to your wife.

  Simply stating for example that it's "arousal outside of wedlock" is an arbitrary distinction, and even makes it impossible to select your own partner, since this selection would involve arousal. Assuming you don't just go for the first person that turns you on. Then porn becomes completely subjective, literally in the eye of the beholder. One woman could walk around naked because she is so unattractive that she arouses nobody, while the other would have to stay indoors for her entire life. All depending on the character and fetishes or predilictions of the men in her society. Strangely, most religious doctrines don't make the argument that this means it is just as logical that those men without self-control should be the ones restricted in walking around freely, only women.

  And of course, such an arbitrary line still doesn't give any distinct argument why arousal outside wedlock is "bad" or arousal in wedlock is "good". If both can lead to rape (and indeed most rape and abuse occurs inside families), and if they really consider "safer" as synonymous with "moral", both should be banned. Which is of course ridiculous, but still religious people use safety as an argument when it suits them (against porn, prostitition, promiscuïty, polygamy, drugs, etcetera), and ignore it when it does not (against marriage, family, guns, cars, refusing vaccinations or medical treatment for their children, swimming, mountain climbing, alcohol, childbirth, etcetera). Like they would argue against gay marriage and adoption of children, because they claim it could give the child a(n unproven) higher risk of something undesirable. But they don't use the same argument against adoption of procreation by blacks, or people with less than average income or education, even though there is a proven statistical link with risks and such factors. They must know it exposes their hypocrisy to a reductio ad absurdum.

  Basically, for Loki, no matter how the dwarves decide to take their winnings, he would be dead. Or as a God, he might not die, but having intercourse would be difficult no matter how they slice it. The same would be true no matter where you draw the line between "porn" and "normal arousal": it's a useless and undesirable seperation for most people involved.

  Published: August 26, 2008 3:11 AM

• Deacon

  #######
  #######

  Attn: Owl

  You opine:

  "Then porn becomes completely subjective,
  literally in the eye of the beholder. One
  woman could walk around naked because
  she is so unattractive that she arouses
  nobody, while the other would have to stay
  indoors for her entire life."

  Stop looking for exceptions to a general
  rule, which in the study of logic is one of
  the 200-plus fallacious arguments people
  commonly make, according to logicians;
  the general rule in this case being:

  Boys/men are generally
  turned on sexually by
  sight of the female body.

  Exceptions to a good rule never can
  adequately refute it; that is, a good
  rule is good BECAUSE it is GENER-
  ALLY true and good!

  Generally, males' strong tendency towards
  sexual aggression must be corralled to
  some degree, which corralling allows men
  and women to live peacefully in community
  --and protects children from males' sexual
  predation.

  Pornography is, generally, an antithesis
  to healthy male/female relationships, as,
  generally, females view pornography to
  be degrading towards their sex, because,
  generally speaking, it objectifies them;
  and because, generally, men who feed off
  porn are feeding their lust at the cost of
  developing a mental maturity about sex
  and HEALTHY male/female relationships.

  Leftism has taken the sacred out of sexu-
  ality by making pornography ubiquitous
  in Western societies.

  When the sacred is removed - when the
  means of procreation becomes mere
  sport for self-gratification - then women
  and children become VICTIMS of the
  violence that NATURALLY follows from
  sexual objectification; a GENERAL truth!

  Western civilization's rules - the traditional
  ones you appear to despise - were (are)
  product of thousands of years of humans'
  experimentation on what works and what
  doesn't in keeping peace in community.

  Generally, the Old Testament is a pretty
  good encapsulation of what works and
  what doesn't for keeping peace.

  One could write volumes about how the
  now near-lost traditions of courtship,
  marriage, family and community are
  time-tested traditions for keeping the
  peace, and which traditions we
  abandon at the risk of total collapse
  towards social chaos.

  Generally, those who defend the pro-
  duction and sale of porn are not deep
  thinkers, if they care anything at all
  about keeping high-culture civilization;
  a time-tested and GENERAL truth.

  #######
  #######

  Published: August 26, 2008 5:34 AM

• Deacon

  =======
  =======

  Owl:

  Logicians call that
  kind of fallacious
  argument:
  "FALLACY OF THE EXCEPTIONAL CASE."

  =======
  =======

  Published: August 26, 2008 5:56 AM

• Deacon

  =======
  =======

  P.S.

  Owl:

  Civilizations rise upon fidelity
  to general truths and fall by
  their abridgment. You, dear
  sir, work hard at felling the
  general truth of the purpose
  for human sexuality:

  PROCREATION.

  As for your evaluations/
  speculations about my sexual
  character (married or single),
  I've been married to my wife
  for 36 years, with one very
  successful son between us.

  A bit of advice: NEVER,
  EVER resort to personal
  attacks, as it is ALWAYS
  sign of either low IQ or
  inadequate argumentation,
  or both.

  =======
  =======
  

  Published: August 26, 2008 7:23 AM

• Lucas M. Engelhardt

  Hi Owl,

  Actually, Loki's Wager is identified as a fallacy, not as a proper form of argument. So, the argument that pornography cannot be clearly defined, and therefore no action can be taken regarding it is fallacious.... Hardly a "strong" argument.

  And you have an underlying assumption regarding whether or not "porn is wrong", it seems. That is: "Porn is wrong if and only if it leads to some worse evil." From my experience, there are a number of religious arguments that argue against porn for reasons other than "it makes people into rapists". So, it's hardly dishonest to teach children that porn is wrong for those reasons. (Actually, I'd say that it's not even dishonest to teach that porn turns people into rapists if that is what the person teaching honestly believes... at that point, they're wrong, but not "dishonest".)

  Also, the call for moral education (and, actually, I'm not uncomfortable calling it indoctrination... because I don't think that indoctrination is necessarily "bad") does not seem to be compulsory. In fact, I'd be shocked if Art intended it to be. And, once again, I think you stray from the point of the article. The article wasn't written to say that we should use moral education. It was written to say that the "porn produces rape" argument is no good, empirically, and that outlawing porn is probably not a good idea. The call for moral education is really just offering a reasonable alternative to those who think that pornography is wrong (the author appearing to be in that category). Naturally, if you don't think that pornography is wrong, then there's no need to do anything about it. I think that Art recognizes that the natural human response in the face of (perceived) immorality is to try to do something about it. So, he's offering a positive outlet for that response. That is, try to persuade people that pornography and rape are both wrong and teach them how to deal with using neither... in short, "moral education".

  Published: August 26, 2008 7:56 AM

• J D

  A similar article and group of comments could be made if an author took this position:

  "One should not argue for making marijuana illegal on the basis of it leading to heroin addiction because far more pot users never try heroin than become heroin addicts."

  Published: August 26, 2008 8:25 AM

• David Ch

  SPeaking as an agnostic ( with an atheistic leaning), I must admire the sense of proportion and reason in Mr Carden's article, the more so for him being a Christian himself.

  When are the Deacons of this world going to realise that moral behaviour is an individual choice, and that the harm done by coercively forcing moral standards always outweighs any good that can come of it?

  Some time ago, I ( an enthusiastic if monogamous heterosexual) wrote a piece defending homosexual marriage, when the debate reched fever pitch in my country . what follows is an extract from that article, which I believe sits rather well here: If anyone wants the full article which carries the rest of th eargument, they are welcome to drop me a line and Ill send it.

  'In a multicultural, multi-religious society such as ours, morality can not be more than a personal conception of right and wrong that informs an individual’s own choices. On the other hand, the law should govern a person’s behaviour only in so far as it impinges on the rights or property of other, non-consenting parties. These are two different concepts, albeit that the law has a long history of violently enforcing moral viewpoints, and has only recently started to discard its criminal sanctions against private behaviour: For example, laws that used to criminalise sodomy, even between consenting parties, and even between husband and wife, are no longer effective. Granted, the law still has some way to go to deal with many remaining criminal sanctions that originated from theocratic moralism, for example those relating to prostitution, or retailing wine on Sundays.

  Our individual moral views on these activities are beside the point: if our society is to be at all free, none of us is entitled to prescribe whether others may indulge in them or not, however distasteful we may find them. Liberty demands that the law must be wholly secular, and hence cannot decree behavioural standards between consenting parties acting between themselves. Ironically, this principle is the only guarantee of religious freedom for a co-existing multitude of faiths: if any one religion is permitted to use the law to force its particular moral views on others, no religion will itself be safe from persecution, as history has so clearly shown. It is a pity that so few of the ‘religious right’ remember this.

  In the light of this constitutional distinction between morality and law, the same-sex marriage issue becomes a lot clearer.

  Much of the emotive resistance to same-sex marriage seems to arise out of moral disgust at the thought of sex among the same sex, as it were. While the religious dimension of marriage is commonly interpreted as a licence to have sex and procreate, as far as the law is concerned, marriage does not legitimise sexual activity. Consensual sex between any two (or more) people, of any sex, married or not, is quite legal – and very common indeed. Likewise, the absence of offspring does not invalidate a marriage, nor does the existence of children by itself confer married status on the parents. So as a basis for objecting to legal same-sex marriage, the sexual and procreational component is irrelevant. ...'
  

  Published: August 26, 2008 8:41 AM

• Deacon

  #######
  #######

  Attn: David Ch

  You opine:

  "When are the Deacons of this
  world going to realise that moral
  behaviour is an individual
  choice, and that the harm done
  by coercively forcing moral
  standards always outweighs any
  good that can come of it?"

  As as 40--years student of
  anthropology, sociology,
  psychology and the history
  of civilizations (Will Durant's
  volumes), I must inform you
  that MORAL STANDARDS
  are product of cooperative
  individuals - at least two -
  living in community.

  Ergo, you're above opinion is
  PERFECTLY wrong.

  #######
  #######

  Published: August 26, 2008 8:50 AM

• Deacon

  =======
  =======

  P.S. David Ch:

  Your above opinion is
  really stunning!, and is
  the very CRUX of why
  libertarianism fails:

  It takes individual choice as the BE-ALL and END-
  ALL of life, where any degree of COERCION
  (( there's that magical code word for libertarians'
  "I can do whatever the hell I like to do, so long as
  I don't harm anyone" )) is REALLY, REALLY
  BAD.

  Can you and other liber-
  tarians not see the deadly,
  civilization-wrecking out-
  come of that libertarian
  "moral standard"?

  =======
  =======

  Published: August 26, 2008 9:06 AM

• newson

  i love the cornflower blue colour of the burkha.

  Published: August 26, 2008 9:58 AM

• David Ch

  Deacon said :

  'As as 40--years student of
  anthropology, sociology,
  psychology and the history
  of civilizations (Will Durant's
  volumes), I must inform you
  that MORAL STANDARDS
  are product of cooperative
  individuals - at least two -
  living in community.'.

  Ergo, you're above opinion is
  PERFECTLY wrong.

  To which I must ask: what of a third and fourth person whose agreed standard differs from that of the first two? Does either pair have the right to override the other? who arbitrates and decides who all four must behave?

  I may quite possibly be wrong, but I doubt Im PERFECTLY wrong. Unlike you, I dont have much truck with certainty ( Or with arguments from authority for that matter) , on the grounds that the moment one thinks one's RIGHT, one invariably stops thinking at all.

  Anyhow, returning to the subject of Mr Carden's article. The empirical finndings on the connection between pornography and rape do not surprise me at all. This is why:

  Based on an evolutionary understanding of the genetic differences between men and women, and the respective costs of procreation, and hence their respective optimal breeding strategies, there is a genetic hardwiring in males that predisposes them to as much sex as possible with as many females as possible, without committing to stay with any of them. Because the sperm investment in offspring is inconsequential and the genetic benefits of having many offspring are large. WOmen, by contrast, are far more discriminating in that their investment in a single offspring is colossal (9 months plus at least 13 years of care and feeding) and the optimal requirement for procreation is a male with good genes, who will commit to staying around to assist in providing for her and the child. (#). Of course, if strong genes are evident a woman may not be averse to cheating, with the optimal mix being a tame cuckold to help care for the offspring, which is made with the strong genes of the desirable male (strong, symmetrical in appearance, aggressive, awash with testosterone, and often a right bastard, but this profile seems to attract women like honey attracts bees).

  In any event, with our modern social structures having led to an institutionalised monogamy as the optimal form of pairing *, we are left with males contractually and socially bound to strict monogamy, which is at odds with their 'hardwired' er, desire for variety and lots of uncommitted sex.

  This conflict explains why pornography is so staggeringly popular (and has ever been, at least as recorded since the invention of the printing press, photography, and the internet all of which technologies started turning the stuff out by the ton almost as soon as they were invented). It provides males with a synthetic alternative to unrestrained sex with multiple partners, and resolves the social/genetic conflict, such that no physical infidelity need emerge.

  So, rape aside, It would be interesting to run some studies on the correlations between infidelity and pornography readership - I would predict that lower rates of infidelity would likely be found among those married males who read pornography, than those who do not.

  If I could make one final point, relating to pornography being axiomatically defined as an 'exploitation' of women. This might well be a deep socially problematic issue in some cases ( Mostly where drugs are involved, not least because of their illegality...whoops thats a whole nother debate), and particularly in generations past ( what could be more disgusting than the 19th century practice of photographing the inmates of mental asylums for porn manufacture, for example...), but in th emodern world, many of the women who willingly work in the porn industry are not stupid and they are not coerced either. Indeed, they strike deals and employ agents with canny savvy, some become celebrities in their own right, and retain the rights to their images and collect huge earnings off their exposure of their own naked flesh. It could quite easily be argued that it is they who are cynically exploiting the male sexual response. Still, if it lowers the predisposition to rape, who's complaining?

  In the last analysis, the rights and wrongs of pornography are the same as the rights and wrongs for everything else. If you are forced to participate against your will, its wrong. If you choose it without coercion, who am I to stop you? Do what you will, its your life, not mine.

  
  #: This difference in predisposition to sex is amplified when examining the sexual behaviour of homosexuals : Male homosexuals are astonishingly promiscuous, often accumulating thousands of partners in a lifetime, and not even knowing the names of most of them. Because there is no moderating influence from female partners. Lesbians, by contrast, tend to form monogamous relationships that last for decades, with very little infidelity.

  * with some exceptions , ranging from polygamy which emerges mostly in societies characterised by a heavily skewed distribution of wealth and power, to polyandry, in societies with sparse populations and very unproductive land. Interestingly, where polyandry emerges, the males married to the woman usually tend to be brothers, and even then there are high incidences of violence between them.... but I digress, thats a fascinating subject all on its own) .

  Published: August 26, 2008 10:17 AM

• Ron

  Hmm...I've been looking at porn since I was old enough to know what it was, but for some reason I've never raped anyone. Come to think of it, I've never even considered it or felt any desire to do so. I always knew it was wrong and was able to deal with those urges in other, nonviolent ways. I wonder why that is?

  Maybe it's because my parents taught me the difference between right and wrong. Perhaps it's because I was raised in a Christian family. The interesting thing is that even though I long ago renounced the Christian faith in favor of agnosticism and reason, the urge to commit violence (sexual or otherwise) against another person hasn't materialized. Likewise, you would think that all the violent video games I play would give me some urge to kill or maim, but that hasn't happened either.

  I'm sure I will be handily dismissed as an exception, or perhaps my mention of a Christian upbringing will be misconstrued as an endorsement of legislated religious morality. Neither could be further from the truth. I lay the responsibility for my well-adjusted character at the feet of my parents, who were good people and did an excellent job of raising me and my sister. Would that we expected the same of all parents, rather than expecting the state to relieve parents of the responsibility of raising their children.

  Published: August 26, 2008 10:19 AM

• newson

  to deacon:
  i'm completely unconvinced by your simplistic linkage of rape with testosterone.
  chemical castration of paedophiles hasn't been successful in combatting child molestation.
  besides, i find your concept of the low iq, high-testosterone male as somehow being an automaton insulting.
  what is iq anyway? something that separates the wise from the unwise?

  you clearly don't subscribe to libertarianism, so what exactly are you prescribing to combat pornography, censureship?

  Published: August 26, 2008 10:23 AM

• Michael A. Clem

  Can you and other libertarians not see the deadly, civilization-wrecking outcome of that libertarian "moral standard"?
  
  Frankly, no, I can't see the harm in a society where people don't harm other people! And as I said before, it's a mistake to think that civil society can be created and maintained by the decidedly uncivil coercion of government.
  Of course, when we say that people can do whatever they want if they aren't harming other people, we're just saying that it shouldn't be illegal, not that people can't dislike it. See, there's this thing called society, and social mores, and people who do something that most people don't like will find themselves ostracized or quarantined, or disassociated from the majority of people, even if it's legal. If anything, peer pressure is even more important and effective without the power of the state to back it up.
  Of course, it's not up to you to say what the majority of people like or dislike, only the majority of people can say that. You can simply say what you like and dislike, and form your voluntary associations with other people based upon them. Unless, of course, there's a law against such discrimination! In which case, we evil libertarians would all be in favor of doing away with said law, so that even you would be free to choose. ;-)

  Published: August 26, 2008 10:27 AM

• fundamentalist

  Michael: "I can't see the harm in a society where people don't harm other people!"

  I agree completely, but if Dr. Dobson's analysis of why men rape is correct, isn't violent porn harming young males?

  Published: August 26, 2008 10:38 AM

• Michael A. Clem

  As as 40--years student of anthropology, sociology, psychology and the history of civilizations (Will Durant's
  volumes), I must inform you that MORAL STANDARDS are product of cooperative
  individuals - at least two - living in community.
  
  Whoops, I overlooked this! This is perfect, Deacon. If you believe that moral standards are the product of cooperative individuals, how can you disagree with me when I say that moral standards are like a voluntary certification program, and that people associate based upon those standards. And that, because they are voluntarily chosen, they are that much more effective than when morals are dictated by law? After all, supposing pornography isn't banned, gay marriage is legal, discrimination of various kinds are illegal, and drug use is decriminalized? You would then be a criminal for disliking such things, and you would not be free to discriminate based upon your own moral preferences.
  
  It is for these reasons that law should not be based upon moral judgements, but upon specific harm to individuals, i.e. violations of individual rights.

  Published: August 26, 2008 10:41 AM

• Vanmind

  Pornography is ambrosia. Help yourselves to seconds.

  Published: August 26, 2008 10:45 AM

• Michael A. Clem

  ...if Dr. Dobson's analysis of why men rape is correct, isn't violent porn harming young males?
  
  Dobson's talking about influences, not aggression. Even if he's right, that just stresses the importance of raising children properly, and of being able to raise children properly, without legal interference, not a justification for outlawing pornography, even violent pornography.
  

  Published: August 26, 2008 10:50 AM

• Deacon

  #######
  #######

  Attn: Michael A. Clen

  All laws are based on MORAL
  STANDARDS, as the State finds
  and identifies those standards,
  then assumes the moral authority
  - by democratic means in our
  society - to apply them through
  police and judicial systems--to
  apply the rules which the ma-
  jority of cooperative individuals
  have deemed to be morally
  correct behavior.

  How, sir, have I agreed with
  you?: The laws are product
  of moral standards a majority
  of cooperative individuals
  wish to apply, COERCIVELY!;
  else, WITHOUT COERCION
  (without threat of punishment)
  everyone would just do what-
  ever they wished to do.

  ************************

  FYI, newson:

  The burkha and concomitant sex-
  restriction rules imposed on Arab
  women had evolved over many
  generations of accommodation to
  the heritable sexual character of
  Arab men, as learned and imposed
  by those within any generation who
  have studied what works in keeping
  peace in an Arab community.

  Consider the sex-drive differences
  between, say, Asian males and
  African males, where research com-
  paring testosterone (T) production
  in both groups show black males'
  T to be much higher, probably re-
  vealing a ROOT CAUSE of certain
  differences between their respective
  cultures and racial character; that
  is, genetics - as it relates to normal
  T production in both groups - may
  explain their different cultural man-
  ifestations, to include how women
  may or may not dress in any gen-
  eration.

  The evolution of how women dress
  themselves, in any culture, is a
  product of adjustments to what has
  been learned about how dressing
  affects men's behavior.

  By our Western standards, such
  restrictions appear to be barbaric
  --even forms of savagery!

  What has been learned, then
  applied, may be right or
  wrong. And the burkha, right
  or wrong, is an adjustment that
  had beem applied within the
  time-frame - the social, cultural,
  racial, political, and even
  environmental conditions - of
  its inception.

  In other words, don't judge the
  burkha by Western standards
  of evolution of how women
  dress--or: When in Rome, do
  as the Roman's do.

  #######
  #######

  Published: August 26, 2008 11:01 AM

• Michael A. Clem

  The laws are product
  of moral standards a majority
  of cooperative individuals
  wish to apply, COERCIVELY!;
  else, WITHOUT COERCION
  (without threat of punishment)
  everyone would just do what-
  ever they wished to do.
  
  Moral standards are created by society, not government; government co-option of moral standards, just like government co-option of common law, removes all the benefits of said moral standards, and creates a tyranny, not a civil society.

  Published: August 26, 2008 11:11 AM

• Deacon

  #######
  #######

  Attn: Michael A Clem et al

  View LIBERTARIANISM as an
  upside down pyramid made of
  bricks, where the massive
  weight of individual bricks - of
  ideas and papers and books
  and reports on libertarianism -
  rests upon one, fragile, strain-
  ing, cracking, soundly illogical
  PREMISE:

  ALL FORMS of COERCION
  - no matter how cloaked in
  a desire to do good for the
  individual and the community
  within which he/she lives -
  ARE BAD.

  Well, that premise collapses
  - along with all the above
  mentioned bricks - on this one
  irrefutable FACT of HUMAN
  LIFE:

  Coercion is as necessary for
  adults living in community as
  it is for children living in family.

  Without coercion, children may
  suffer pain and/or death for
  lack of external guidance/control
  - COERCION - such as a time-
  out or a slap on the hand.

  I had put it this way to libertarian
  Gary North, who had challenged
  my thinking on the idea of the
  need for some degree of STATE-
  oriented coercion:

  How do you, sir, run your family household as
  a parent/provider? Various operations of the
  family household are the models for every
  form of government, or lack thereof: Either
  your children are family members - citizens,
  so to speak - or merely consumers residing in
  your household. Do your children hold a
  particular status in relation to your and your
  wife's authority? Do your children view you
  as a tyrant by your authority or as a
  democratic arbiter, or some combination?
  Such must be the nature of any State--an
  expression of some particular form of family
  dynamic within the household, as someone
  must be in charge - either autocratically or
  democratically - because there exist
  inherently bright adults and dumb adults,
  inherently bright children and dumb children.
  Ergo, some kind of organization - some
  degree of combination of cooperation and
  authoritarian control - is necessary for
  people to live in peace in family, community
  or nation-state, as nature has dealt unequal
  abilities to adults and children alike. Or do
  you decide who is in charge in your family
  by the one with the most money? Does
  the money flow in an elitist sort of way,
  with you as provider and taxpayer and,
  ergo, decision-maker? Or does it flow willy-
  nilly for purposes of maximum consumption?
  Is your family a dictatorship, kingship,
  democracy, oligarchy of two, or libertarian
  commune? All political affiliations are
  understood by examining family dynamics--
  by examining the various psychological
  dynamics of how members within the
  nuclear family may relate to one another,
  according to the abilities nature has dealt
  to you and yours.

  #######
  #######

  Published: August 26, 2008 11:33 AM

• Michael A. Clem

  Yeah, you've used that before. But I don't agree that a nation should be run like the family is run--they are two entirely different types of organization, with different goals and purposes.
  
  I'm also wondering if you're using COERCION in the same way as libertarians. As you know, we agree that the use of force for defensive or retaliation (properly justified) is okay, only the initiation of force is unjustified. So when you say COERCION, do you mean coercion as in stopping a criminal from committing a crime, or do you mean forcing people to conform to some moral principle that they may or may not agree with? Children are a different case--how a family treats a child is not, and should not be the way a government treats its citizens. So your family = government analogy is flawed.

  Published: August 26, 2008 11:57 AM

• David Ch

  Having just read the jaw-droppingly racist and completely unfounded comments from Deacon referring to Arab male sexuality, and the testosterone levels in Black Africans, I can only shake my head in amazement. Verily, moral chauvanism and bigotry in the same mind is a frightening combination, and one shudders to think what such a mind would do were it to gain political power. Pogroms against the 'immoral' , no doubt. I'm reminded of these quotes:

  'with or without religion, good people will do good things, and bad people will do bad things. But for good people to do bad things, takes religion'.

  - Steven weinberg, physicist.

  'Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction'

  Blaise Pascal

  Published: August 26, 2008 12:11 PM

• Deacon

  #######
  #######

  Attn: Michael A Clem

  I mean this:

  "forcing people to conform
  to some moral principle that
  they may or may not agree
  with...," such as when a
  child wishes not to wash
  his/her hands; or wishes
  to play outside for as long
  as he/she wishes; or to
  cross the street without
  looking both ways.

  No, there's no difference
  between family dynamics
  and the various forms of
  STATE-oriented govern-
  ment.

  All types of STATES
  evolve from various
  forms of nuclear (and
  extended) family
  dynamics.

  BTW:

  "Government" and "society"
  are synonymous terms with-
  in democracies or, as in our
  case, a democratic republic.

  P.S.

  I have to leave this board
  for a time.

  Have at it!

  
  #######
  #######

  Published: August 26, 2008 12:20 PM

• Deacon

  #######
  #######

  Attn: David Ch

  Oops!

  I can't exit now, after have
  read your attack against me,
  raking me over the coals for
  merely citing medical findings,
  and my having drawn soundly
  logical conclusions from them.

  So, David, you like to
  commit the fallacy of an
  APPEAL TO AUTHORITY
  by quoting others, to
  support your attack.

  Okay, here's one for you:

  
  "The danger of free speech does not lie

  in the menace of ideas, but in the menace

  of emotions. If words were merely logical

  devices, no one would fear them. But

  when they impinge upon a moron they set

  off his hormones, and so they are

  justifiably feared." -H.L. Mencken

  
  Now I can
  exit in peace.

  #######
  #######

  Published: August 26, 2008 12:39 PM

• Michael A. Clem

  I mean this:

  "forcing people to conform to some moral principle that they may or may not agree
  with...," such as when a child wishes not to wash his/her hands; or wishes to play outside for as long as he/she wishes; or to
  cross the street without looking both ways.
  
  Exactly! You want government to treat adults as children. And since government is made up of the people in the society, you want CHILDREN to control other CHILDREN! Or another way to put it is this: people who you claim are irresponsible and need government to coerce them are the ones deciding (in a democracy) which irresponsible people will be in government, and thus coercing the rest of society. This is quite contradictory with your statement that the morals of society are created by cooperative people.
  
  Or, if you truly believe that government is an extension of family, then that would be a good argument for anarchism, which I don't think you favor.

  Published: August 26, 2008 1:55 PM

• rtr

  Don't forget the "other" free trade side to all cultural "norms". In a free market, you are free to "boycott" individuals in the exact same manner as one boycotts businesses. You can refuse to trade goods to "deviants", blacklisting them.

  It's only because of government interference in the market that things such as homosexual "marriage" are coercively "recognized", compelled to be subsidized by the State (same of course with heterosexual marriage).

  Such cultural factors can be and often are partial inputs in the price of trade. But they only increase net society subjective wealth when they are voluntarily chosen by individuals, not when they are coercively compelled by outsider groups like the State.

  Only the free market can ensure peaceful reciprocal behavioral "norms". As Mises observed, people are either freely trading with one another, or they are not. There is no in between third way. Peace only exists when free voluntary trade interaction exists.

  Others are of course free to deviate from cultural norms, and other others are of course free to deviate from interacting with said "deviants". And said deviants can of course boycott back. In each case, the economic benefits of trade from vastly different cultural groups living together closely in the same local level communities will be weighed against living further away from each other in different local level communities versus some in between areas of third party trade "ports" which minimize coerced co-mingling of of vastly different cultural values whilst still allowing each other of the different cultural groups to benefit from division of labor trade.

  But forcing businesses (that don't want to) serve homosexuals is no less intolerant a culture war than passing laws outlawing sodomy. Forced diversity is intolerant, and ill-conducive to peace and the creation of wealth.

  Published: August 26, 2008 2:42 PM

• Gourmet Swinger

  Boys and men do not naturally turn to violence; we do not naturally violate people, places, or things. Violence is a combination of cultural factors, biological (including nutritional) factors, and social mood.

  Violent people are an offspring of decadent society which breeds such behavior. Violence is not as aspect of higher human intention. Violence is a return to lower brain functions of the limbic system (the lizard brain) where the perpetrator knows no compassion or empathy for the people around him.

  Are rapists still at fault? Yes. Could the creation of those rapists have prevented through a peaceful, caring, compassionate parenting and schooling that expands on a person's humanity? YES. Does decadent society that celebrates drugs, pornography, violence through mainstream media want to admit any fault? No.

  If parents are not ready, willing, and able to imprint their moral values on sex to their kids, then they shouldn't have kids. It takes a deep, caring, loving person to have kids, but most people are too shallow.

  We have this thing called "pornography" exactly because of the shallow attitudes towards sex in decadent society.

  Published: August 26, 2008 5:30 PM

• newson

  to deacon,
  i'd like to see where you get these racial profiles. eugenics was always a tricky one. the germans tried terribly hard to construct jewish profiles, and the same would go for blacks. how black is black?

  human nature is far less cartoon-cutout-simple than as you've presented.

  as for the burkha, i'm not at all sure that there are less rapes as a result, just less reporting thereof. in many countries the victim is the culpable party.

  western mores haven't always favoured flaunting; if we are more licentious today, are you suggesting there has been some population-wide change in testosterone?

  Published: August 26, 2008 8:16 PM

• newson

  let's not forget how inflation can corrupt societal values, as well.
  the weimar episode devastated the german middle class and encouraged people to live only for the next day. lifetimes of sacrifice and discipline washed away in the orgy of paper money, and instant gratification became the winning strategy.

  the cocaine flowed, the dance-halls were full of carousers. the young saw the dreams of their seniors were nonsense, and a devil-may-care mindset took hold.

  sadly, the societal decadence allowed someone like hitler to become quite popular on a moral clean-up ticket. (in spite of his own very twisted tastes, golden showers etc.). remember that regime's distaste for moral turpitude.
  

  Published: August 26, 2008 8:39 PM

• William

  Pornography has been found to *reduce* sexual violence, and violent video games to reduce violence. This is probably an active vent and an opportunity to see what violence really does instead of discover what it does after listening to emotion.

  Published: August 26, 2008 8:42 PM

• Owl

  Deacon,

  You are the one looking for exceptions to a general rule. You claim that the arousal men feel from porn, automatically leads to more rapes. This is apparently not the case, and in fact the reverse appears to be true: relief through masturbation and porn leads to less rape. But if it were a general rule that arousal leads to rape, you are making an exception for arousal within marriage. That is why I mocked your reasoning with a reductio ad absurdum: if this increased chance of rape makes such arousal immoral, then arousal within marriage also leads to rape, and therefore marriage should be considered as immoral as porn. It was not intended as a personal attack on you, but just to point out how selective you're being when you follow such reasoning. In fact you seem a lot more insulting when you consider every man that watches porn an immoral automaton on the way to rape, or any homosexual as having been "recruited" or being "immature".

  And your double standard equally applies to that vacant term "objectifying". Do you "objectify" your wife when you are aroused by her? Can it not be called "objectifying" when women are forced to wear certain clothes or avoid public spaces because men might be turned on by them? I don't deny the theoretical possibility that some men cannot control themselves. But those men can also not marry, for the same reason. And it seems strange to force the potential victims, women, to be limited, when the potential culprits, the men who lack any self-control, are at fault. Those men (and women) that do no have enough self-control to prevent themselves from committing a crime when "tempted", are the ones that must be forced to avoid those members of society that do not wish to run such a risk. It is the pyromaniac that must learn some self-discipline or seek therapy and avoid temptation, instead of his potential victims being forced to cover their property in a veil of asbestos. How ludicrous would it be when a shop owner is told that he deserved to lose his property to a kleptomaniac because he put it on display?

  You also seem to ignore the fact that indeed most abuse and violence takes place within families. However, you probably realise that safety is not the sacred goal of life. If death is something to be avoided at all cost, having children would certainly be immoral. Procreation, apart from the risks and pains of childbirth (as attested in Genesis as divine punishment for the Original Sin) inevitably leads to death for the child. Yet I don't begrudge you your desire to procreate, which you apparently couldn't resist either, but please don't call people immoral if they don't idolise safety. I doubt if you value safety at all cost, so don't use it as an "ultimate argument" against the things you dislike.

  Or do you also support a ban on marriage, guns and cars from the same reasoning? At least that is consistent. Although that would still be arbitrarily selecting safety as the ultimate (and futile) goal in life.

  Published: August 27, 2008 1:09 AM

• Owl

  Lucas M. Engelhardt,

  I see your point about parents being "honest but misguided" when they transmit certain values as "true", if they sincerely believe them. Honestly, I wouldn't even oppose parents (with force) if they're lying to their children on purpose. I just find it somewhat distasteful and "wrong" (in that vague, subjective "moral" meaning). I also don't oppose "indoctrination" if it is reversible and can be challenged later by rational arguments.

  I just worry that some values (especially false ones) might "stick" with the child for life, leading to even more mess. Basically, in this I am like the puritans that don't want children to be "damaged" by porn. I know that the "damage" is relative, reversible and subjective, and they can still choose to act and think in the "undamaged" way, but I don't like the increased risk of the child choosing not to oppose his indoctrination. However, I am not going to use coercion to force what I (maybe wrongly) perceive to be the "truth" down their throats, nor will I try to forcibly shield them from what I consider a bad influence. I just wish that those people who dislike things like porn, violence and other influences which the child is free to act upon or not, if it wishes, would do us the same courtesy.

  As far as Loki's Wager and the definition of pornography is concerned, you could solve this by giving a clear definition that doesn't also include "arousal in general", or makes a completely arbitrary distinction between "arousal outside or inside a relationship" (which itself is a somewhat blurry concept). The whole problem is that it probably can't be done. Which is why I said in this case Loki doesn't seem so much to disprove my point, but rather reinforces it, if you get what I mean?

  Published: August 27, 2008 1:21 AM

• newson

  i like rtr's slant on this argument.

  when deacon enters libertarianville, he must take off his white hood, and put down his flaming cross.

  when libertarians want entry to deaconville, expect the no gays/no porn/no drugs rules to apply.

  fair all round.

  Published: August 27, 2008 1:27 AM

• Deacon

  #######
  #######

  Attn: Owl et al

  That boys/men are aroused
  by sight of the female body
  is a GENERAL rule, not an
  exceptional case.

  I don't have a link to this testimony
  by Dr. Reisman. Read and learn:

  Given at a Science, Technology, and Space Hearing:

  The Science Behind Pornography Addiction
  Revised from November 18 2004 - 2:00 PM - SR 253

  The Testimony of
  Dr. Judith Reisman
  California Protective Parents Association[1]

  Good afternoon, thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. I am Judith Reisman, Ph.D., president of the Institute for Media Education, specializing in the communication effects of images on the brain, mind and memory; fraud in the human sexuality field; and on the issue of the addictive properties of sexually explicit images, commonly called pornography.

  Thanks to the latest advances in neuroscience we now know that so-called “soft-core” and “hard-core” visual pornography imprint and alter the brain, triggering an instant, involuntary, but lasting, biochemical memory trail, arguably, subverting the First Amendment by hijacking rational thought. Moreover, once such neurochemical pathways are established they are difficult -- or impossible -- to delete.

  Pornographic images cause secretion of the body’s “fight or flight” responses. This triggers excitatory transmitters and produces non-rational, involuntary reactions; intense arousal states that overlap sexual lust--now with fear, shame, and/or hostility and violence. Media erotic fantasies become deeply imbedded, commonly coarsening, confusing, motivating and addicting many of those exposed. (See “the Violence Pyramid” at http://www.vbii.org/violence.html) Pornography triggers myriad kinds of internal, natural drugs that mimic the “high” from a street drug. Addiction to pornography is addiction to what I dub erototoxins -- mind-altering drugs produced endogenously, by the viewer’s own brain.

  How does this ‘brain sabotage’ occur? Brain scientists tell us that “in 3/10 of a second a visual image passes from the eye through the brain, and whether or not one wants to, the brain is structurally changed and memories are created – we literally ‘grow new brain’ with each visual experience.”

  This scientifically documented neurochemical imprinting affects children and teens especially deeply; their still-developing brains process emotions differently, with significantly less rationality and cognition than the adult brain.

  Children and others who cannot read will still instantly decode, feel and experience images. Largely right-hemisphere visual and non-speech stimuli enter long-term memory, conscious and unconscious. Any highly excitatory stimuli (whether sexually explicit sex education or X-Rated films) say neurologists, “which lasts half a second within five to ten minutes has produced a structural change that is in some ways as profound as the structural changes one sees in [brain] damage...[and] can...leave a trace that will last for years.”

  Pornography psychopharmacologically imprints young brains – thereby invalidating notions of informed consent. Moreover, the mainstreaming of pornography since the 1950’s directly coincides with the unprecedented explosion in sexual disease and an exponential increase in new types of pornographic copycat sex crimes committed by and inflicted upon juveniles and adults. Such facts should inform the legal arguments about free speech versus pornography in public and even private venues. I have spent decades documenting the effects of pornographic “humor” and photos on children, fathers, husbands and wives and communities, much of which is found in my book, "Soft" Porn Plays Hardball, 1990, in my U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) report, Images of Children, Crime and Violence in Playboy, Penthouse and Hustler, and in my white paper on “The Psychopharmacology of Pictorial Pornography: Restructuring Brain, Mind & Memory & Subverting Freedom of Speech” (http://www.drjudithreisman.com/brain.pdf).

  Testimony from victims and police commonly finds pornography an on site sex crime manual. In one 1984 Senate hearing, John Rabun, now COO of DoJ’s Missing and Abducted Children Center, testified that when arrested, “all, that is 100%” of rapists, pedophiles, etc., in their study possessed adult pornography, “such as Playboy, on up….”

  A basic science research team employing a cautiously protective methodology should study and report on the role of erototoxins on the brain/mind/memory/body. State-of-the-art brain scanning studies should aid in informing the polity with hard, replicable data as to the toxic properties of various media....An offensive strategy should be planned, mandating law enforcement collection of all sexually explicit media at crime sites….These are a few concrete steps that can and must be taken to address the effects of pornography on our children, our communities and our country.

  Thank you very much.

  #######
  #######

  Published: August 27, 2008 5:58 AM

• Deacon

  #######
  #######

  Attn: Owl

  Well done, Owl!

  You're correct, regarding
  my use of the FALLACY
  OF THE EXCEPTIONAL
  CASE.

  I had wondered if you'd
  catch that.

  Now, this thread is getting
  unmanageable, so I won't
  explain the EXCEPTION to
  the rule of NOT MAKING an
  exceptional case in refuting
  a general rule.

  There is one, which is
  soundly logical.

  Suffice it to say, porn -
  even within its exceptinal-
  case parameter of causing
  some men to rape - effects
  a degree of bad social
  outcomes which far exceed
  the admittedly questionable
  argument for censoring
  it for the sake of corralling
  rape ( I hope that makes
  sense to you ).

  I submit this once again:
  
  [ and, Attn: William ]

  http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51289

  It's curious that Art has not
  weighed in, as I think he
  may have changed his mind,
  after having received INFOR-
  MATIVE documents which
  blow away the conclusions of
  the two studies he has cited
  in his piece.

  Art, where art thou!

  **********************************

  Attn: Michael A Clem

  You opine:

  "Exactly! You want government to treat adults as children. And since government is made up of the people in the society, you want CHILDREN to control other CHILDREN! Or another way to put it is this: people who you claim are irresponsible and need government to coerce them are the ones deciding (in a democracy) which irresponsible people will be in government, and thus coercing the rest of society. This is quite contradictory with your statement that the morals of society are created by cooperative people."

  Forgive me, but that's sophistry.

  Re-read my above passages.

  ************************************

  Attn: newson

  You're brighter than to resort to
  name-calling, tagging me with the
  "white hood" and "flaming cross"
  taint.

  Re-read my H.L. Mencken quote:

  
  "The danger of free speech does not lie

  in the menace of ideas, but in the menace

  of emotions. If words were merely logical

  devices, no one would fear them. But

  when they impinge upon a moron they set

  off his hormones, and so they are

  justifiably feared."

  
  #######
  #######

  Published: August 27, 2008 10:48 AM

• Deacon

  #######
  #######

  Attn: Lucas M. Engelhardt

  I enjoy your well thought-out,
  measured opinions.

  To Owl, you've made
  these points about
  damage to children:

  "I just worry that some values (especially false
  ones) might "stick" with the child for life, leading
  to even more mess. Basically, in this I am like
  the puritans that don't want children to be
  "damaged" by porn. I know that the "damage"
  is relative, reversible and subjective, and they
  can still choose to act and think in the
  "undamaged" way, but I don't like the increased
  risk of the child choosing not to oppose his
  indoctrination."

  Bingo, Lucas!

  You're mind will be forever changed,
  regarding any question about the
  PERMANENT damage porn may
  cause. Please!, please read the
  entirety of Dr.Reisman's testimony
  (( scroll down to the list of panelists
  on this page, and click on
  "Dr. Reisman," then read the rest )).

  http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Hearings.Hearing&Hearing_ID=e8088f9f-d8d2-4e82-b012-46337c6f9456

  #######
  #######

  Published: August 27, 2008 12:03 PM

• Deacon

  =======
  =======

  P.S.

  Oops!

  To clarify:

  They are Owl's points;
  ergo, I had meant to
  write:

  "To you, Lucas, Owl
  has presented these
  points..."

  And, further down
  that page, it ought
  to read:

  "Bingo, Owl!"

  =======
  =======

  Published: August 27, 2008 12:30 PM

• Michael A. Clem

  My conclusion was the logical result of what you said, Deacon. You want government to treat its citizens the way a family treats its children. Yet while it is clear that in a family there are adults and there are children, there is no equal and sufficient separation between the morality of government agents and the morality of society in general. Thus, the family analogy just doesn't work. Even in families, children grow up and become adults. Would you allow that a responsible person who watches porn and doesn't commit violent crimes doesn't deserve to be punished? Or would you punish the responsible with the irresponsible?

  Published: August 27, 2008 12:30 PM

• Deacon

  #######
  #######

  Attn: Michael A. Clem

  You opine:

  "Yet while it is clear in a family
  there are adults and there are
  children, there is no equal and
  sufficient separation between
  the morality of government
  agents and the morality of
  society in general. Thus, the
  family analogy just doesn't
  work."

  If, as I point out in the GARY
  NORTH missive, the family
  unit is run like a democracy,
  then...?; that is, in the case
  of parents and children
  cooperatively agreeing on
  household rules, your point
  fails.

  Or am I missing something
  you're trying to relate here?

  Generally, in a democratic
  society, at-large society
  agrees on rules, to be ap-
  plied by appointed govern-
  ment agents, who operate
  the systems for making
  certain the rules are
  obeyed (( police, courts,
  and the legislatures for
  subtracting and/or adding
  rules that at-large society
  wishes to effect through
  its representatives; those
  tyrannical, activist, we-
  make-the-rules judges
  and courts notwithstanding )).

  #######
  #######
  

  Published: August 27, 2008 12:56 PM

• newson

  to deacon:
  appeals to mencken don't mean anything to me; and it's a strange thing for a jounalist to say, in any case. i don't support censureship, however well-intentioned may be its proponents.

  as for my caricature of you, well, you make your bed and then you lie in it. the racial stereotypes were yours, not mine.

  your prescriptions for the porn menace are exactly what?

  run your family anyway you want, just don't expect everyone else to dance to your tune.

  Published: August 28, 2008 12:27 AM

• Deacon

  #######
  #######

  TO NEWSON:

  Well, I don't like to use an
  APPEAL TO AUTHORITY.

  You're the one that started
  that, with your quotations--
  used to support your attack
  against me.

  And YOU DO SUPPORT
  CENSORSHIP, NEWSON!

  EVERYONE has their limit,
  beyond which they're un-
  willing to go.

  For example, you WOULD
  censor the use of public
  television airwaves to
  broadcast pedophiles en-
  gaging sex with children.

  Where would you draw the
  line? What is your limit,
  beyond which you'd begin
  to CENSOR?

  And what you term
  "racial stereotypes"
  aren't stereotypes,
  but statistically es-
  tablished FACTS.

  Go the FBI Web
  page and read the
  statistics on the off-
  the-charts rate of
  rape of women by
  black teen-age boys
  and black men.

  I'd post them here,
  but morons would
  censor me for sub-
  mitting FACTS.

  
  My prescription for the "porn menace"

  is exactly what it was before Nixon's

  committee on porn ruled in favor of

  the idea that porn IS NOT dangerous

  or damaging, and before the U.S.

  Supreme Court had cleverly

  shifted the idea "free speech"

  to FREE EXPRESSION, which

  shift opened the door to

  use of the Bill of Rights

  for, say, protection of the

  "artful" free expression of

  live, on-stage sex acts--and

  of all the rest in the profit-

  making porn industries:

  C E N S O R S H I P, which

  is the right of the people to

  engage in any democracy or

  democratic republic, except in

  this RULE-BY-TYRANNICAL-

  JUDGES "democratic republic".

  
  I'm concerned about how
  everyone else runs their
  family because mine has
  to live in an INSANE world
  you and yours may wish to
  build, to impose on me and
  mine.

  #######
  #######
  

  Published: August 28, 2008 1:20 AM

• newson

  paedophilia is a criminal act, violence against a minor. this is to be prosecuted, as is all non-defensive violence.

  i'm not in favour of public broadcasters, so i'll dodge that hypothetical. i can watch murders on tv, and yet be guilty of no crime. i repeat, i am not for censureship, as in the state dictating what adults can, or cannot view. i hope that's clear enough.

  as for your facts, they're a movable feast. your original claim was that black men have higher testosterone levels than other ethnic groups. this i dispute.
  now you've come back with the fbi figures on black rapists, and asked me to join the dots. not on.
  i accept that blacks on sex offences are disproportionately well-represented. what you haven't proved is the testosterone link. one, that they do in fact have more, and two, that this is the causal factor. the fbi won't help you here, and genetic racial profiling is a dead end, at least at this point in science. check out how impossible it is for prosecuting authorities to prove that my pit-bull is a pit-bull, and not a pit-bull/

  and no, you don't have management rights over other families, provided they don't harm or encroach on your life.

  Published: August 28, 2008 3:00 AM

• newson

  "...and not a pit-bull/mastiff cross." typo.

  Published: August 28, 2008 3:06 AM

• David Ch

  '
  'I'm concerned about how
  everyone else runs their
  family because mine has
  to live in an INSANE world
  you and yours may wish to
  build, to impose on me and
  mine.'

  Deacon

  I suppose the thought that others might condsider the world Deacon wants to impose on them as insane doesn't occur to Deacon.

  WHile we are on stereotypes, allow me to invoke one here: this is precisely the sort of statement that issues from the mouths of those who declare they are justified in executing gays(sodomites) and adulterers (whores) as an act of self defence against the possibility that their (possibly imaginary) god might smite their city.

  You endorse coercion in matters of private moral choice. Tell us, is hanging, crucifixion, stoning, or simple clubbing your preferred method?

  Published: August 28, 2008 4:29 AM

• Deacon

  #######
  #######

  Hmmm...dear readers...what is it that
  separates the ideologies of a LIBERAL
  and those of a LIBERTARIAN?

  On matters of human sexuality and the
  family, they appear unitary; that is,
  LIBERALS and LIBERTARIANS view
  human sexuality as a recreational sport,
  unrelated to the idea "human procreation,"
  which sport necessarily holds a tolerate-
  everything approach to pornography.

  So, NEWSON "dodges" everthing, not
  just the hypothetical, while DAVID CH
  argues the obvious, to which I reply:

  
  Yes, we differ on our approach to what

  constitutes good family values (no porn

  in the house) and good government (no

  toleration of porn in the market place),

  and fight one another over those dif-

  ferences. Duh! Doh! Oops!--as

  Homer Simpson would exclaim.

  
  Come on, folks! Leftism/libertarianism
  is wrecking Western civilization.

  Liberals'/libertarians' positions come
  down to this: They sexually molest babies
  and children by advocating tolerance for
  pornography.

  How?: by removing the SACRED from human
  sexuality and framing it as a recreational
  sport.

  Listen to liberals/libertarians arguing against
  the idea "abstinence" for teens. Well, can
  abstinence protect babies and children from
  the SICK results of their anything-goes
  SEXUAL REVOLUTION--particularly those
  babies and children abused in child-porn?

  Read Dr. Judith Reisman's report on the
  stunning increase in sex crimes against
  babies and children, because of liberals'/
  libertarians' live-and-let-live, don't-coerce
  tolerance for family- and nation-wrecking
  TOLERANCE:

  "Child-porn crimes have gone from a
  rarity on federal court dockets to
  a phenomenon, with prosecutions
  jumping nationally from a scant 30
  in 1995 to more than 2,100 last
  year....Typically, they are catching
  successful people - engineers,
  businessmen, professors and lawyers
  - who are under the false impression
  that their habit is personal,
  harmless and anonymous."

  If abstinence doesn't work to corral
  teen sex, then it won't work to corral
  adults who like to diddle kids.

  Go figure, you-tolerate-everything
  liberals/libertarians!

  #######
  #######

  Published: August 28, 2008 9:25 AM

• Owl

  Deacon,

  I never expected to see that Reisman woman again since I stumbled upon her musings on the internet some years ago. Suffice it to say that she sees porn everywhere. Even in cartoons, which I actually might agree with, since some characters can look quite "stimulating". She is like the dwarves deciding that because Loki's head and neck are not very distinct, they'll just chop the whole thing off:

  http://www.jesus21.com/content/sex/index.php?s=kinsey

  Anyway, you seem to have missed my point. I don't really know, nor care, if porn leads to less, more, or equal danger. The whole point is that if it does lead to more danger, and if you think that is the reason to ban it, that means marriage and all forms of exposure to any sexually stimulating experience (including cartoons) must also be banned. But the logic ends where the subjective valuation begins. When people say, "porn leads to less\more\equal rapes", they make a statement of (supposed) fact. But if they say, "more rape is bad, "so" we must ban it", they make a value judgement. This becomes obvious when you notice the opponents of porn never argue for a consistent application of their logic. It would mean the end of all sex, relationships and procreation. Except through IVF (without masturbation obviously) and cloning perhaps.

  If the safety argument is considered valid in all cases, then human beings will be enslaved to it. Which is exactly what our totalitarian states in the West (and elsewhere) are doing. Governments, lobby groups, and their so-called "experts" always use research that shows a link between some activity and increased danger, as the "ultimate argument" for any prohibition or obligation. Whether it's about guns, cars, the environment, obesity, anorexia, drugs, alcohol, smoking, sex, gambling, "dangerous sports", terrorism or whatever our neurotic fellow humans fear or dislike. What they neglect to tell you (or maybe don't even realise), is that every decision a human being makes is a weighing of various risks and benefits. Therefore, if you MUST always go for the lowest risk, every choice from now on is already made for you.

  And you also seem to ignore the meaning of what I said about indoctrination. The problem here is the same, because when I say you should not wilfully tell a child lies, or when you say you should not let a child see porn, because it "predisposes" them, we go down the same path. If we make that rule compulsory, it means that a child (and it's parents) become enslaved to lowering the risks that the child might have in the future. You would always be forced to only communicate those thoughts that lower the risks, but never increase it. So for example, mentioning the existence of Mount Everest, or cars, guns, planes, sports, swimming, etcetara, would be banned, since that increases the chances the child might want to try those things and die or kill someone. Making commercials for any product that could lead to death, or to spending money on anything other than health and safety, or telling the child that it should get married and have sex with it's wife or husband, would predispose it to danger.

  To put it in terms a (troll pretending to be a) religious person might understand: Safety is not God, but an idol.

  Published: August 28, 2008 9:45 AM

• newson

  and you, ####deacon#### should find a different congregation if you want to do the fire-and-brimstone bit.

  the confusion between libertinism and libertarianism is unfortunate. accusing libertarians of encouraging paedophilia will sure win over many to your cause.

  i guess you'll be the guy with the artline and steamed-over glasses in the censor's office. after all, who better to decide for everybody else what's fit and what's not. ######

  Published: August 28, 2008 9:53 AM

• Deacon

  #######
  #######

  Hi, Owl:

  You opine:

  "I don't really know, nor care, if porn
  leads to less, more, or equal danger.
  The whole point is that [X] if it does lead
  to more danger, and if you think that
  is the reason to ban it, that means [Y]
  marriage and all forms of exposure
  to any sexually stimulating experience
  (including cartoons) must also be
  banned...So for example, [Z] mention-
  ing the existence of Mount Everest, or
  cars, guns, planes, sports, swimming,
  etcetara, would be banned, since [E]
  that increases the chances the child
  might want to try those things and
  die or kill someone. Making
  commercials for any product that
  could lead to death, or to spending
  money on anything other than health
  and safety, or telling the child that it
  should get married and have sex
  with it's wife or husband, would
  predispose it to danger."

  Using the rules of sound logic, X
  cannot soundly express Y because
  the societal dangers of porn may
  be LOGICALLY SEPARATED from
  the societal benefits of sexual
  attraction within marriage, or an
  unmarried couple's commitment to
  one another. As for Z, it, too, can-
  not LOGICALLY express E because
  of ALL OF LIFE is dangerous, from
  accidentally swallowing an ice cube
  down the windpipe to taunting a
  pit bull in your neighbor's yard; that
  is, DANGER is ubiquitous, and a
  fact of living, while pornography's
  dangers target specific groups
  subjected to its mental and physical
  effects--in other words, catching VD
  by screwing with abandon has
  nothing to do with dangers inherent
  in cars, guns, planes...

  
  ==============================

  
  Attn: newson

  I accuse LIBERTARIANS of
  contributing to the sexual
  abuse - even murder! - of
  babies and children by their
  LIBERTINE views about,
  and support of, those who
  make and sell porn.

  And I'm not "deciding for
  everyone else," but asking
  everyone to consider my
  points and join me in halt-
  ing the increasingly bad
  affects of porn on at-large
  society, by opposing the
  making and sale of it.

  
  =======================

  
  Okay, I have to leave my
  computer for a couple of
  days. So, I'm finished
  posting here.

  - my apologies for exiting,
  but you'll have the last
  word, which is a power-
  ful position to hold in
  any argument -

  Have at it!

  Best Regards,

  /D

  P.S.

  In the study of logic, what do logicians
  call this kind of fallacious argument:
  "As a 40-years student of anthropology,
  sociology, psychology and the history
  of civiizations (Will Durant's volumes)
  I..."--within the context of our discuss-
  ing the pros and cons of porn?

  #######
  #######
  

  Published: August 28, 2008 12:48 PM

• newson

  ...and so ###deacon### leaves the post, and hopefully pursues his anti-porn crusade through moral suasion, and not through the legislator's pen.

  Published: August 28, 2008 8:12 PM

• Steve Perry

  When I was in grade school, in the late '60s, I had to drive to school through San Francisco's North Beach where all the strip clubs were. Their signs and posters outside were fairly explicit at worst, highly suggestive at best. In the '70s, there were pornographic newspapers on sale on most downtown streetcorners; there were more machines selling those papers than the Chronicle or the Examiner. Their front covers were as explicit as they would dare to make them. (They dared a lot.) When I was in my 20's, there was a Pussycat theater in an otherwise entirely ordinary residential and commercial neighborhood near my appartment in Oakland. When VHS became widely available, every local movie rental store had a closed off area for adult films.

  All of these things are largely gone now. Why? Because "better" is available for free* on the internet. How can these compete? Those who would ban pornography on the internet should take account of the fact that it has out-competed and therefore eliminated these much more visible and intrusive phenomena. Even adult "bookstores" are basically blank boxes with nothing spicier than lingerie in the windows (if they even have windows).

  I find it interesting that the research suggests that the greatest users of internet porn are teenage boys. This may not be something to be "happy" about, but it does suggest that they eventually "grow out of it," does it not? That they eventually get bored with it or that other things occupy their minds and time? I hope this is the case.

  
  *By "free" I mean not only no, or low, money cost, but low social cost because of the privacy of use.

  Published: August 29, 2008 6:59 AM

• William Smith

  Art Carden means well, but I prefer the Larry Flynt defense.

  Richard Land is a statist pig.
  By indulging in a debate over the utilitarianism of porn, one concedes Richard Land's "right" to regulate speech, steal physical property and destroy intellectual property.

  A better subject for analysis would be the profit motive of Richard Land. These windbags must compete with the products of Larry Flynt, the Sam Walton of Sunday morning entertainment.

  Published: September 1, 2008 4:43 AM