Posted by
michael
on from the sheriff-fights-off-claim-jumpers dept.
bahtama writes: "Yahoo and others are running a story about the Sex.com cyber-squatter who has to pay big bucks to the original owner."MSNBC says the owner plans to make it a *cough* sticky portal.
It's not that hard to find evidence of corecion and exploitationin the porn industry, unless of course, you don't want to see any
As well as in the real estate industry, politics and law enforcement. Exploitation isn't a symptom of pornography, its a symptom of humanity. Pornography just makes a great target due to the bizarre irony in our culture that everyone is either having sex or wanting to have sex, yet sex is taboo. Christ, even kids who haven't learned a damn thing about the world start getting horny and staring at fine members of the opposite sex, or same sex for some. That's the curse we bear for being human. In the words of George Carlin, "There are far worse things that you can to do another person than giving them an orgasm."
To those of you unfortunate enough to grow up in a climate of repression and hate: don't worry, sex won't destroy the world, burn down the rain forests and upset Baby Jeebus(tm); it'll just make you a bit happier and a bit sleepier if you just have the courage to let it.
Nice to see a federal judge treat domain names like real estate. Hopefully this sends a signal to Network Solutions that domains are not "like telephone numbers". I'll see your circuit court judge and raise a US district court judge.
goatporn gets the recognition it deserves...
by
nick_davison
·
· Score: 4
The now legal owner of sex.com was quoted as saying in the article: "We're working on a deal (for content on)... sex education, disease prevention, women oriented stuff, stuff that you normally don't see in the (adult) space."
You don't normally see women orientated stuff on sex sites? No wonder all those large-pink-area filters don't work - they shouldn've been scanning for goatporn all along.
Posted early enough for the karma rich first few minutes, mentioning goatporn for a clear demotion under grounds of karmawhoring.
Re:A blow for pornographers and thieves
by
RandomPeon
·
· Score: 5
Oh it's easy for you to assume that just because it doesn't fit in with your wonderful, liberal view of life that it's got to be a troll. Far easier than actually trying to come up with some facts to support your position, right?
Ok, you might want to take a look at this story on sexuality over at Kuro5hin. It's a fascinating read, one of the best things I've seen there in a while. Chock full of hard facts about the intrinsic need for sexual release in human beings.
You're not worth arguing with. You'll just apply the word "liberal" to any evidence to any argument you don't like, just like you have in all three of your posts so far.
Furthermore, your argument seems to be based on a particular pseudo-literalist reading of the Bible, so it's not like the discussion would go anywhere.
Expedited discussion with this troll:
1. I'm going to have a little fun, and quote 1 Corinthians 7:1 "Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry", the standard justification for primacy of celibacy over marriage, and tell you that if you really wanted to take the word of God to heart you would forsake all physical pleasure, even with your wife. I'll further support my claim with Luke 14:25-27: "If anyone comes to me and does not hate.... his wife and children,.... --he cannot be my disciple."
2. You're going to writhe and scream and complain and try and explain I'm distorting the passage. You might quote me Shakespeare, and say that "the devil has the power to quote scripture" thinking you have a biblical comeback. You might quote 1 Corinth 7:2-5 as a better retort.
3. Then I'll say Christ makes clear in 7:6-7 that permanent non-marriage is a preferable state.
4. Then you'll invent a new complaint to justify ignoring the passages of the bible you dislike. Of course, by disregarging only one passage, you've kind of shot your argument that we should blindly use the Bible as a set of rules without thinking - if it's wrong there, why isn't it wrong about pornography? (Of course, the bible never mentions pornography, you can borrow the inferential references which conservative theologians find to justify anti-pornographic positions.)
5. I'll be sick of the discussion and won't reply because you will ignore any other facts I introduce into the discussion or attach the word "liberal" to them, as if I should run in terror at being called such a horrible word.
There, we condensed in all down into one post. Wait I think I got a patent idea... Expedited troll conversations via prediction of troller/trollee responses.
But there are people out there firmly conviced that liberal attitudes about sex are perfectly healthy, and that pornography is in some way "expressive" and "naturual". Please tell me, what is natural about some woman being brutally sodomized by several men on camera?
Well, first off, I'd recommend calling brutal sodomy "morally reprehensible", as it is arguably a perfectly natural act (though, again, generally held as morally reprehensible.)
There are people out there firmly entrenched in the belief that conservative attitudes about sex are both healthier and morally higher, and that pornography is somehow "deviant" and "unnatural". These same people generally feel perfectly justified in pointing towards the most deviant, reprehensible acts of violent, aberrant behavior as prime examples of what pornography is. This is unfair.
It'd be somewhat akin to me calling Christianity a horrible, disgusting cult which has mercilessly slaughtered countless women and children over centuries in the name of appeasing an unseen deity. I'd be ignoring the fact that some of the world's greatest and most generous groups and individuals have acted out of their love of the Christian god. There is no "so, which is it, then?" It's both. Should we outlaw Christianity or claim that it's the most wonderfullest thing ever? Neither. It has both good and bad elements, people who respect it and people who abuse it.
The same holds true for pornography. While you are quick to point out that having people abused into pornography and tortured in front of a camera is (surprise) bad, the same moral compass cannot be used to denounce, say, a video made willingly (and happily) by a married couple for distribution in adult video stores. What is so unnatural (or rather, morally reprehensible) about that?
Slashdot Mirror
It's not that hard to find evidence of corecion and exploitationin the porn industry, unless of course, you don't want to see any
As well as in the real estate industry, politics and law enforcement. Exploitation isn't a symptom of pornography, its a symptom of humanity. Pornography just makes a great target due to the bizarre irony in our culture that everyone is either having sex or wanting to have sex, yet sex is taboo. Christ, even kids who haven't learned a damn thing about the world start getting horny and staring at fine members of the opposite sex, or same sex for some. That's the curse we bear for being human. In the words of George Carlin, "There are far worse things that you can to do another person than giving them an orgasm."
To those of you unfortunate enough to grow up in a climate of repression and hate: don't worry, sex won't destroy the world, burn down the rain forests and upset Baby Jeebus(tm); it'll just make you a bit happier and a bit sleepier if you just have the courage to let it.
Deosyne
Now the sex.com domain can be used as was intended, and not as some evil porn site.
Find funky gifts
Nice to see a federal judge treat domain names like real estate. Hopefully this sends a signal to Network Solutions that domains are not "like telephone numbers". I'll see your circuit court judge and raise a US district court judge.
"We're working on a deal (for content on)
You don't normally see women orientated stuff on sex sites? No wonder all those large-pink-area filters don't work - they shouldn've been scanning for goatporn all along.
Posted early enough for the karma rich first few minutes, mentioning goatporn for a clear demotion under grounds of karmawhoring.
Oh it's easy for you to assume that just because it doesn't fit in with your wonderful, liberal view of life that it's got to be a troll. Far easier than actually trying to come up with some facts to support your position, right?
.... his wife and children, .... --he cannot be my disciple."
Ok, you might want to take a look at this story on sexuality over at Kuro5hin. It's a fascinating read, one of the best things I've seen there in a while. Chock full of hard facts about the intrinsic need for sexual release in human beings.
You're not worth arguing with. You'll just apply the word "liberal" to any evidence to any argument you don't like, just like you have in all three of your posts so far.
Furthermore, your argument seems to be based on a particular pseudo-literalist reading of the Bible, so it's not like the discussion would go anywhere.
Expedited discussion with this troll:
1. I'm going to have a little fun, and quote 1 Corinthians 7:1 "Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry", the standard justification for primacy of celibacy over marriage, and tell you that if you really wanted to take the word of God to heart you would forsake all physical pleasure, even with your wife. I'll further support my claim with Luke 14:25-27: "If anyone comes to me and does not hate
2. You're going to writhe and scream and complain and try and explain I'm distorting the passage. You might quote me Shakespeare, and say that "the devil has the power to quote scripture" thinking you have a biblical comeback. You might quote 1 Corinth 7:2-5 as a better retort.
3. Then I'll say Christ makes clear in 7:6-7 that permanent non-marriage is a preferable state.
4. Then you'll invent a new complaint to justify ignoring the passages of the bible you dislike. Of course, by disregarging only one passage, you've kind of shot your argument that we should blindly use the Bible as a set of rules without thinking - if it's wrong there, why isn't it wrong about pornography? (Of course, the bible never mentions pornography, you can borrow the inferential references which conservative theologians find to justify anti-pornographic positions.)
5. I'll be sick of the discussion and won't reply because you will ignore any other facts I introduce into the discussion or attach the word "liberal" to them, as if I should run in terror at being called such a horrible word.
There, we condensed in all down into one post. Wait I think I got a patent idea... Expedited troll conversations via prediction of troller/trollee responses.
But there are people out there firmly conviced that liberal attitudes about sex are perfectly healthy, and that pornography is in some way "expressive" and "naturual". Please tell me, what is natural about some woman being brutally sodomized by several men on camera?
Well, first off, I'd recommend calling brutal sodomy "morally reprehensible", as it is arguably a perfectly natural act (though, again, generally held as morally reprehensible.)
There are people out there firmly entrenched in the belief that conservative attitudes about sex are both healthier and morally higher, and that pornography is somehow "deviant" and "unnatural". These same people generally feel perfectly justified in pointing towards the most deviant, reprehensible acts of violent, aberrant behavior as prime examples of what pornography is. This is unfair.
It'd be somewhat akin to me calling Christianity a horrible, disgusting cult which has mercilessly slaughtered countless women and children over centuries in the name of appeasing an unseen deity. I'd be ignoring the fact that some of the world's greatest and most generous groups and individuals have acted out of their love of the Christian god. There is no "so, which is it, then?" It's both. Should we outlaw Christianity or claim that it's the most wonderfullest thing ever? Neither. It has both good and bad elements, people who respect it and people who abuse it.
The same holds true for pornography. While you are quick to point out that having people abused into pornography and tortured in front of a camera is (surprise) bad, the same moral compass cannot be used to denounce, say, a video made willingly (and happily) by a married couple for distribution in adult video stores. What is so unnatural (or rather, morally reprehensible) about that?
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
When will they return the slashdot domain to those people that posted interesting stories ?