Slashdot Mirror
China Rewards Porn Snitches
MinimeMongo writes that the "Associated Press reports that China's police ministry on Sunday handed out rewards of up to $240 to people who reported pornographic Web sites in a campaign to stamp out online smut...The online crackdown is part of a sweeping official morality campaign launched this year on orders from communist leaders."
Thanks to the net, as an American am acutely aware of some heinous problems with our government and our economy. The worst of the dangers (govt spin pro-war 1984-style, Patriot Act, outsourcing, horrific public education system) are largely ignored or spinfully reported by mainstream media and these crooks, but I can see for myself online. Hopefully there is a trend here towards more awareness, even though so much is still hidden from us.
What the Chinese govt seems to understand, and what I fear most for their subjects, is that sniffing, blocking, filtering, and controlling the Internet is the most important means of keeping power from the people in the future. How will they do it? Is it possible? I fear that it IS possible. If you control all the fiber coming into the country, and you control everything published inside the country, then you can just keep on governing the old-fashioned way.
You can't legislate morality. As long as there's a demand, it'll be there. It's like "The War on Drugs" in the US.
I'm probably at the karma cap. Mod up a funny troll instead, it lightens the mood
If thou see a fair woman pay court to her, for thus thou wilt obtain love
Could be a good thing if it ultimately puts another thorn in the side of spammers who promote those pr0n web sites.
go to prison for visiting those illegal websites.
Porn is an accessory to masturbation, the safest sex: no STDs, no conception. With China facing ongoing crises in both those human conditions, isn't porn the State's best comrade?
--
make install -not war
So, in order to collect the reward, do you have to answer any questions? Like "How do you happen to know about this pornographic web site?"
But the fact that this story contains the magic words porn, internet, & communist is likely to generate 1,000 responses. Sigh.
For something truly fun and interesting along the same lines, recently the Chinese had a brilliant spin on "citizen crime busters", offering bounties for people with camcorders who caught drivers breaking the law! Now there is a great idea!
Think about it: You get to see a porn site, and you get $240!!!
Wankers of the World, UNITE!!!!
I know I'm risking karma here, but the above statement is true. (unlike those "stephen king is dead" trolls.) My local news station just broke in to announce it. As of the time of posting, I couldn't find any info on the net yet.
No hard feelings for modding me off-topic.
"Derp de derp."
... what authority do they have? Is all pornography illegal for everyone in China? While they might be disagreeable to some, most porn sites are legitimate businesses. Is the Chinese government so far-reaching?
...because as history has shown us, the best way to keep people from doing the things they want has been to make those things illegal.
This'll work out great in the long run, I'm sure.
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
Could be a good thing if it ultimately puts another thorn in the side of spammers who promote those pr0n web sites. Could be a bad thing if it is nothing but pure censorship.
A government that excuses its actions by acting as a sort of parental figure, is a corrupt government indeed. Human beings are critical thinkers, thank you very much, and it is an insult to the intelligence of a Billion+ Chinese if China's government thinks it should "protect" them from "harmful content" so that they don't "harm" themselves.
I know that's not the real reason, but seriously, who does China think it's fooling?
Without a proper flamewar, Anonymous was undecided on what shell to run.
I quit my job. I can make a fortune!
Just because a society is different, don't necessarily mean that its peoples are oppressed (and need 'liberating'). It's a big planet, there's nothing wrong with a little diversity.
Slashdot monitor for your Mozilla sidebar or Active Desktop.
Abstaining, or voting for a certain-to-lose candidate, means tacitly accepting whichever crook the rest of the electorate chooses for you.
It is precisely that line of thinking that kept Ross Perot from winning. If we thought he had a chance, it would have been a landslide! Don't waste your vote. Vote for the right candidate, whether R/D/whatever. Even if your guy only gets 0.001%, at least you've made a statement. Simply picking the lesser of two evils does a grave disservice to democracy IMHO.
You cannot legislate morality
If people want smut, they'll get smut, despite the legal framework attempting to prevent it.
Same with any other behaviour deemed 'antisocial' whether it's porn, drugs, prostitution or [laughs] fireworks, people will find a way to do what they want to do, hence the emergence of black markets. Governments could be profiting from taxing the crap out of this stuff, but instead they drive it underground.
As for rewarding snitches, well, I think you can guess what I think of that too. One big waste of money.
Screw you all! I'm off to the pub
Are they publishing their list of sites somewhere ;)
09F91102 no, 455FE104 nope, F190A1E8 uh-uh, 7A5F8A09 that's not it, C87294CE no. Ah! 452F6E403CDF10714E41DFAA257D313F.
Sadly true, here's a link: Reeve dead at 52
No man's an island, unless he's had too much to drink and wets the bed.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I just returned from China, where I travelled with my PowerBook and used both dial-up and ethernet connections at many places, including internet cafes and people's homes. After hearing all about the authoritarian firewall and net filtering I was a little surprised to see absolutely no firewall or filtering of any kind in effect. I was able to connect back to my home using SSH, use https to web sites in the U.S. and get to arbitrary places, news sites, and web based email every where I tried.
I could find no evidence of a firewall of any kind. I read about the google results, but what else are people talking about?
Pat
"Is it possible? I fear that it IS possible. If you control all the fiber coming into the country, and you control everything published inside the country, then you can just keep on governing the old-fashioned way."
Welcome to North Korea.
Vote libertarian, then. Badnarick is about as different from the two major parties as Nader, and he's shown he's willing to stand up for his beliefs.
I am glad to these guys getting busted. Let's hope that law enforcement doesn't lose their momentum.
Homestarrunner.net -- It's Dot Com!
A lot of people would have the public believe that wide availability of pornographic material leads to an increase of sex crimes
Actually, it is a commonly-held belief that sex crimes (ie: rape) are more about power and control than sexual gratification. I doubt that porn has much of an impact in that respect.
You do realize that there's a real vagina and penis (assuming that's what you're into) on the other end of the camera right? STDs, conception, rape, and abuse go on in the porn industry, so by these ppls logic, stopping the immoral demand will stop the immoral side-effects as well.
Q: What do you think about American Culture?
A: I think it's a good idea.
(adapted from Gandhi)
Yes, you can legislate morality. The question is how effective is that legislation? Murder is immoral, and we have laws against it. Yet murder still occurs. That doesn't mean that laws against murder are wrong or completely useless. So, just because a law doesn't stop all occurrences of an offence doesn't mean we should get rid of the law.
So, what does you can't legislate morality mean? It would seem that it means you shouldn't pass laws that are designed to suppress behaviors that should be personal choices or are part of an individual religious doctrine and don't rise to the level that should be considered a crime
However, we are supposed to be the people in a free society so I hope that John Ashcroft is currently prosecuting people for distributing sexually explicit adult only material and has promised that nobody is safe from prosecution, not even cable companies, I hope Ashcroft doesn't get any ideas...
You know, the stereotypical politician is meant to be a Used-Car salesman. And frankly, I'd rather have a whore for president than somebody who is as naive as Bush...yes you heard me correctly - I'd rather have a sell-out like Kerry than somebody who actually stands for what they believe in - like Bush. I believe that ruling the most powerful country in the world means that you have demonstrate some flexibility. This is isn't frikkin' Little League, where there is Good and Bad, Right & Wrong. There are lots of shades of grey, and they all need to be dealt with in their own way. Most Americans don't want to look into the causes behind the 9/11 butchers, but the fact is that they were idealists too - true believers to their cause and look what they accomplished. The same goes for Lenin, Mao, e.t.c. When your politicians are selling out to the highest bidder, that's when you know everything's ok in the world. If they start taking up causes, and preaching The Right Way & The Wrong Way or With Us or Against Us policies, that's when it's time to be afraid.
My Favourite Meme
...China is probably moving toward a capitalist republic at a slow pace. Having had the chance to observe the mistakes made by the Soviets, they may be trying to convert slowly to avoid some of the hardships.
Or, I could be wrong.
It is precisely that line of thinking that kept Ross Perot from winning. If we thought he had a chance, it would have been a landslide!
That, and the fact that he's a psycho. Would you really have prefered Perot to Bill Clinton?
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Is anybody worried about looking at voilence and death? Is anybody worried about public brain-washing propaganda?
We live in strange times! War and soldiers and stylised to glory and heros, while sex and other fun and is somehow dirty and should be avoided. A strange so called "Morality", indeed!
In Body Pleasure And The Originbs Of Violence James W. Prescott relates the tendency towards violence to general sexual opression. It's worth a read.
(James W. Prescott was employed at the US Public Health Department and layed off five years after he published this document (in 1980), because he wanted to conduct more studies in the area of child abuse and neglect.)
I don't get it.
Stuff like KRGKGE.com or 3495ww43.com, etc.
Once the site is up and functioning, I contact a "citizen" in China, who reports the site to the authorities. We split the difference. I keep him fed with pr0n sites, and he sends me money for "finding" them.
Stupid fucking commie bastards. I could set up 50 sites a day. At $125 per, that's a nice piece of green...
RS
RS
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
Here's a reality check just a few weeks before we have possibly our last chance to keep our republic from descending into an unsustainable empire. Bush has actually lied us into war, through the recession, into the Patriot Act, the Medicare Prescription Drug Industry Welfare Act, the destruction of the environment through oil, coal, nuclear and every other lucrative pollution, has divided the nation more than since the Civil War... the list just goes on and on. And in every case, he has lied throughout - from his 2000 campaign, through his continuous spin, through his coverups, rigging investigations, and even through the debates. Kerry has been telling the hard truth, and has even risked alienating millions of denial addicts with his truth.
Bush Sr had a lot of faults, including backing Saddam in the 1980s, and apparently (to Saddam, at least) giving Saddam the go-ahead for invading Kuwait without resistance in 1990. But he at least understood that if we crushed Saddam's regime in 1991, we'd have to keep that frankencountry (created to be unstable by the retreating British) under control, a task so far manageable only under Saddam's intolerable tyranny. Bush was loathe to upset the Turks by backing Kurds in a revolt that would have not only created a federal Iraqi state full of Shi'ites ripe for annexation by Iran, but also a momentum towards greater Kurdistan. Including not only SE Turkey, but also eastern Syria and NW Iran, guaranteeing war in the region on shifting fronts much like the "Vietnam" war through Southeast Asia, which consumed Laos and Cambodia (and several million people), without even the threat of nuclear war from neighboring Israel and Iran, to say nothing of the oil, gas and pipelines. Bush Sr chickened out, leaving that unsolvable puzzle for someone else. Perhaps someone might have unraveled it, but now Bush Jr has burned every bridge, and is burning out every chance at any stability at all. We'll need years, decades, generations, just to get back to equilibrium, let alone justice or democracy.
As for JFK, his refusal to cut a deal with the Soviets has been shown, in 20/20 hindsight, to have been the right call. If only some of these Republicans could gamble with the same steel balls as the most famous liberal Democrat of the 20th Century.
Vote for Kerry. Don't let the past 4 years of fearmongering and devastation extinguish your capacity for hope. One step at a time, starting with removing the malignant cancer from the White House. Then, if you're still unhappy with Kerry, at least you'll have a chance to choose something else. With Bush, democracy itself is on the outsource list.
--
make install -not war
Here in the US people pay for being able to see pornographic sites...
Over there they pay for people to find the sites to exterminate them?
It's not contrary to Communist ideology, but China has additional concerns. Mao built the popularity of his government in large measure through a campaign extolling the "rustic virtues" of his people -- since peasants lead the most virtuous lives, they're the true People, and so they deserve socioeconomic equality, etc etc. The interests of the common people (at least as articulated by Mao) should guide the country and legitimate its leadership.
I guess those "virtues" are what's being "offended" by pornography.
Under Lenin's communist theory, by contrast, Russia believed in having an elite intellectual vanguard making all policy decisions. The Russian peasants couldn't matter less.
That's one reason why America's fears about Russia and China conspiring during the Cold War were never really well-founded. Two totally different flavors of Communism.
Part of our system of voting requires us to think about the candidates that we think has a chance. It is a clear side-effect of a first-past-the-post voting system. As explained there:
...
First-past-the-post encourages the tactical voting technique known as "compromising": voters are encouraged to vote for one of the two options most likely to win, even if it is not their most preferred option.
If enough voters vote using this tactic, the first-past-the-post system becomes a form of runoff voting where the first round is held in the court of public opinion. This can give substantial power to the media as voters will tend to believe their viewpoint on who the leading contenders are likely to be in the election and use that viewpoint to decide where a "tactical" vote would be (in the voter's opinion) best used. This can also become a system promoting votes against more so than votes for.
If you go on and read about tactical voting, you'll see it says that "Duverger's law suggests that, for this reason, first-past-the-post election systems will lead to two party systems in most cases." Quite discouraging if you ask me; I'd love to see more parties involved.
I just read some of these articles yesterday trying to learn about the British election system. It's very interesting stuff. Sometimes I wish I was a political science major...
The space unintentionally left unblank.
Good = your team
Bad = their team
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Isn't it true that the percentage of votes a candidate's party gets determines their likelyhood of getting taken somewhat more seriously in the next election? I remember hearing that somewhere. If this is true, it's something to think about, especially in the longer term, as your 3rd party might benefit, even if they lose this time around.
this isn't a sig. i type this (including the two dashes), every time i post, just to make it look like a sig.
If you go on and read about tactical voting, you'll see it says that "Duverger's law suggests that, for this reason, first-past-the-post election systems will lead to two party systems in most cases." Quite discouraging if you ask me; I'd love to see more parties involved.
You could say Perot cost Bush the election, or that Nader's votes came right out of a Gore's pocket - that's hard to refute if you look at how those voters would otherwise have leaned. But would we have been that much worse off, in either case, had it gone the other way between the two leading candidates?
I suspect the tactical voting phenomenon becomes less certain to prevail as the two leading candiates become less distinguishable from each other. It seems to me that with every passing election, the "middle" becomes more clearly defined by those two.
This relieves voters from worrying if tweedle-dee|dum will "accidentally" win if they "waste" their vote.
How would regulating sexual morality be more useful to a dictator, than say, regulating political speech?
It's useful as a premise upon which you incarcerate your opposition. It's rather like the USA's war on some drugs in that respect: if anyone sasses the cops, you can plant some porn or some pot on him, and throw him in the clink.
Dictators are often careful about preserving the appearance of law and order.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Because sometimes good ideas pop up in unexpected places, perhaps? If Hitler himself were to utter words of wisdom (actually good wisdom), would you turn away just to spite him? How very foolish.
You cannot legislate morality: morality, honor, ethics, and law are distinct. Legislation is law: it is a list of punishments for actions. The rest are things you can try to teach people in your home, school, or church. Law is about changing the cost/benefit ratio associated with an action; the rest are about changing your motivations, your conscience, appealing to your wish to "belong", etc. Law may punish that which your morality believes to be wrong, morality/ethics/honor may inform the legislative body, but you cannot legislate morality itself.
Seems to me that that's what many politicians are working towards in the US. When they complain about China, are they perhaps just jealous that the Chinese leadership has achieved what they haven't (yet)?
Random stuff like CNN usually isn't blocked, but I'm guessing that you may have found it difficult to pull up the site of the Government of Tibet in Exile, for example. The Chinese-language Wikipedia has also been blocked on and off.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
1) Put up a porn site,
2) Report it to Chinese officials,
3) Profit!
Before Bush, trucks were a small part of the American fleet, so their emissions exemptions weren't as big a problem for the environment. Under Bush, their use has exploded, helped by the tax deduction of their purchase, as well as the extremely low interest on Federal loans to car companies that they pass on to consumers buying them. All these issues are questions of management as conditions change. Bush is a miserable manager, who sticks to his guns when conditions change. We can blame him for not rebalancing the finance and pollution systems when SUV pollution started to become a problem on his watch. But of course we're not surprised that he protects double the gas consumption per mile while oil costs twice as much per gallon, because he's a Texas oil baron cowboy. Lack of surprise doesn't excuse his mismanagement, it underscores it.
--
make install -not war
Actually, it is a commonly-held belief that sex crimes (ie: rape) are more about power and control than sexual gratification. I doubt that porn has much of an impact in that respect.
I've heard various reports the availability of pornography reduces the occurrences of sex crimes. After a guy jerks off to porn, he has much less incentive to go out and do something unlawful to get off.
[Grandparent Message]: "Morality" has always been an important aspect of Chinese culture
[Parent Message]: Wow, what a fat lot you know about China and the CCP. I think what you say is mostly bullshit. Morality is actually important to most Chinese
Can I point out the bleeding obvious, which is that this is what he actually said?
Anyway, in response to the rest of your message: I didn't see Autopr0n extol the virtues of Christianity in his post.
In addition, I should point out that most fanatical (relatively speaking) Christians would support the censorship and supression of porn (whilst probably jerking off to it in private); you seem to have made the mistake of assuming Autopr0n shared the views of all fellow Americans, and (to some extent) that all Americans shared his views.
(*) IIRC Autopr0n *seemed* to be American, but I wouldn't bet my life on this.
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
Porn fucks you!
*ducks*
Only in a Slashdot fantasy can a Slackware install turn into several hours of sex . . . . .
btw, can anyone can tell me what makes GW so much worse than other past presidents? Just as some examples, I think his dad was MUCH worse by pulling out of Iraq, and John F Kennedy nearly annihilated the entire planet because he wouldn't just make a deal with the russians (sure it would be a small sign of weakness, but jesus christ, the alternative is crazy).
I have no idea if you are asking a rhetorical question or not. I was going to flame the shit out of you but now that I have calmed down I will try to be helpful. Others might find this useful as well. Consider getting your information about current events from sources other than CNN and FOX News. Does anybody fucking read anymore (not necessarily directed at you)?
A short reading list:
This sort of thinking was exposed during the whole Janet Jackson thing, anyway. People claimed that free speech was threatened, but it's fairly obvious that that sort of thing has never been acceptable. Despite that we've maintained a thriving democracy with some of the best free speech protection in the world for more than 300 years nevertheless.
Only on slashdot could a story about the chinese communists cracking down on porn turn into a condemnation of american democracy.
Jack Valenti and the MPAA are to technology as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone
China is simply an example of a country that is dying slower than the USA.
You cannot successfully restrict man's base nature. While not advocating legalized violence, I am a proponent of adopting mature views of sex and drugs.
Has Holland descended into anarchy because prostitution and drugs are legal? No. Remember, you can only plug the dike for so long before cracks cause the wall to fall.
This post encoded with ROT26. If you can read it, you've violated the DMCA. Handcuffs please, sergeant.
Trucks didn't just explode under Bush. They've been exploding since the 80's. And it's because the goverment tried to force everyone to drive tiny plastic boxes. Most people don't want to drive tiny plastic boxes and no amount of legislation is going to change that. The only thing you could do is tax gas until it's $3 a gallon which is extremely regressive, and pretty much guaranteed to get you voted out.
America is a nation where killing can be shown on any broadcast television, but nudity is banned.
...I agree with your nuclear solution with one addition. As we find out the names of the people involved, we hunt down and kill every son, daughter, aunt, uncle, and every other relative they have on the entire planet right on out to the 8th cousin.
America is a nation where a thirteen-year-old schoolchild can be let in to watch a movie starring action hero becoming a vigilante and gunning down and knifing all the bad guys that have been trying to get in his way, but where that same thirteen-year-old cannot watch a movie where two people are making love.
America is a nation where exchanging money for sex is illegal everywhere but in parts of a single state of the fifty, but exchanging money to kill, becoming a corporate mercenary working in Iraq, is considered laudable and encouraged.
America is a nation where up until one year ago, thirteen states had laws banning consentual anal sex. Forty years ago, *every* state made consentual anal sex illegal. Fifty years ago, sodomy could widely be (and was) punished by "corrective actions", such as forced lobotomies. For those of you unfamiliar with lobotomies, they are commonly performed by inserting an ice pick through a patient's skull and swirling it around in certain areas of the brain in hopes of destroying portions of the brain that induce "deviant behavior".
America is a nation where (well, with the exception of San Francisco), being in public showing bare breasts (unless one is nursing an infant), genitalia, or one's rear end is grounds for lewdness arrest, but carrying a loaded gun visibily on one's hip is legal and acceptable.
America is a nation where a seventeen-year-old who convinces his seventeen-year-old girlfriend to send him a nude picture of herself has committed a felony (United States Code Title 18, Part I, 2251).
America is a nation where it is perfectly legal for an Olympic swimmer and lifeguard to stand by a pool and point, yelling insults and mocking, as someone drowns.
America is a nation where we cannot expose nipples, but we cheer on invading Afghanistan to "free women from the burka" and promote other human rights.
America is a nation that values free political speech, as long as it isn't:
(a) in Iraq and in opposition to the invasion (freedom of press was one of the first things removed from Iraqis, and newspapers and the only available television station were shut down for being critical of the invasion).
(b) Involving presidential candidates debating other than Bush or Kerry.
(c) Involve any Islamic advocacy. A student volunteer forum webmaster visiting the United States was charged with terrorist activities for running Islamic websites. The other side is well represented and permitted to operate, however -- consider the following quotes from this single forum thread:
My vote is that if they nuke us, we don't bother asking exactly where the bomb came from. Instead we turn ALL the likely sponsor nations into radioactive parking lots. The we tell the rest of the Islamic nations that if they don't get rid of their own terrorists, they will face the same thing.
***
Payback isn't payback unless they continue to hurt for a long, long time. As each father, mother, and child is assasinated, it will be very hard for anyone to celebrate the conspirators as martyrs.
The message would be, "We won't only roast your damned nation. We will kill every last person on earth you ever cared about."
***
I take it one step further - desroy Mecca and Media. That's right nuke their holy lands - get rid of them and than start destroying the mosques. Sprinkle their lands with pig blood. We might as well face it - this is a holy war against us supported by Muslims (look at the
May we never see th
Bush has been trying to do #4 since the "Mission Accomplished" banner was hung. As a matter of fact, that seems to have been his entire strategy: rebuild it so the population will welcome us as rescuers from the Evil Saddam. But I know people on the ground in Iraq (as I'm sure we all do) that have been involved in reconstruction projects. They repair or rebuild a generator plant, and it's attacked by insurgents. They repair pipelines, and other pumping stations are sabotaged. A year and a half of rebuilding, and Iraq is currently in exactly the same poor state of disrepair it was in after the fall of Saddam. The average citizen of Baghdad still has electricity maybe 4-8 hours a day. Water service is sporadic, and is only available by truck in many parts of the cities. There has literally been no improvement whatsoever in the lives of the Iraqi people.
What I'm saying is that all the reconstruction projects are just pissing away money as fast as they can spend it. There is no actual progress being made, and the insurgents are determined to keep the population miserable. Without a functioning free press (American provided news is seen as biased propaganda in much the same way we view Al Jazeera,) more information is interpreted and distributed by sympathetic local leaders, who find it easy to blame the American occupiers as the cause of the misery. The general population has pretty much had it with the Americans, even though they're vaguely aware the insurgents are causing the small bits of damage.
The solutions I've heard are all tough:
- Walk away and let Iraqis duke it out amongst themselves. With all the weapons available in that country, hundreds of thousands will perish, and they'll end up with three constantly warring factions as the "most stable" result.
- We could also keep doing what we're doing, which is accomplishing absolutely nothing except adding the deaths of more kids to this quagmire.
- We could drop our "U.S.A. Only" signs, invite the U.N. to share in the pacification and see if the Iraqi insurgents respect the blue helmets any more than they respect the U.S. Army. That's assuming the U.N. doesn't tell us to go fornicate ourselves under the Pottery Barn rules: "you broke it, you pay for it." (They might not; being as corrupt as they are, I can imagine many of their member states wanting to get involved for a share of the spOILs of war.)
- We can ship in two or three times as many troops as we already have, and see if we can violently but dramatically put down the insurgents (at an unknown cost of U.S. lives.)
Those are all pretty crappy solutions to a war we were lied into starting. And yes, what Bush says about Kerry is absolutely true: we (the U.S.) would have been far safer leaving Saddam in power. We would have lost 1000 fewer soldiers lives, and we would not have pissed away every last drop of goodwill that Americans have been building up internationally for the last 80 years. Saddam was no threat to us or anyone, as the UN sanctions had been working remarkably well. He would have fallen sooner or later, probably from within, leaving Iraq in a much more stable state than they are today.John
Thanks for the info but I'm not sure the former man of steel would be that thrilled with news of his death coming up in a discussion of Chinese porn bounties.
I don't claim to know his feelings on spam in New England but maybe that would have been a better choice.
If you didn't come to party don't bother knocking on my door. Prince '1999'
It never ceases to amuse me how people try to derive pre-arranged moral conclusions from "reasonable" arguments. Take this one:
Attempts to externally enforce sexual morality are similarly founded on the survival of society.
What is society? Either it's just a bunch of people together, in which case its "survival" just kinda happens; or it's "the Society" of people who adhere to a rigid set of moral laws and tend to exclude people who don't - in which case, why give a hoot about its survival? Bring it down!
It used to be the principle on which premarital sex was sanctioned - it tends to create children in need of a home. It is also the principle on which gay marriage should not be allowed.
Excuse me? Gay marriage tends to create children in need of a home? Or do you mean that gay couples adopting children tend to create children in need of a home?