Slashdot Mirror
Federal Obscenity Rule Nixed In Internet Porn Case
CaptainEbo writes "A court has declared the federal anti-obscenity law unconstitutional in a criminal case against an Internet porn distributor: 'We find that the federal obscenity statutes burden an individual's fundamental right to possess, read, observe, and think about what he chooses in the privacy of his own home by completely banning the distribution of obscene materials.' The court's decision rested in part on Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court case striking down anti-sodomy laws. Under Lawrence, said the court, 'upholding the public sense of morality is not even a legitimate state interest.'"
This reminds me of the wonderful essay of Paul Graham, What You Can't Say (which could be easily transformed in What You Can't Watch).
upholding the public sense of morality is not even a legitimate state interest.
it's about fucking time! I'm getting so sick of these self-righteous jackasses that seem to think I have to live my life according to *their* beliefs.
If it were a legitimate state interest, then we would need laws banning sloth and greed, too, and no one here in the U.S. really wants that.
Shop as usual. And avoid panic buying.
that must be "plenty hot" about that right now.
You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
...and also the simultaneous realization of the courts. Morality really isn't something that should be legislated.
Mythos : Logos
Fuck yeah!
Big apple, new Yorik, undig it, something's unrotting in Edenmark.
The case was with a California company, but the Feds decided to try the trial here in Pittsburgh. They thought a federal judge in Pittsburgh would be more conservative than a judge in California, but thought wrong.
Here's more information from our local papers:
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Pittsburgh Tribune Review
WTAE-TV
Gotta love states with constitutions that promise freedom of speech/the press/etc. while said freedoms are being bashed heavily.
Granted, it's porn...but is it really their--or our--business what people get off with?
You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
Pr0n once again leading the way... from techonology to sane legal precedents, pr0n is probably the biggest motivator for change in human history.
Pr0n... is there anything it can't do?
"But I trust in the people's capacity for reflection, rage and rebellion." -Oscar Olivera
'upholding the public sense of morality is not even a legitimate state interest.'
Tell that to Dubya and Co.
The best thing that could happen now is for this to be appealed to the Supreme Court, to have them grant certiorari, and to find along the same lines as they did in 2003 in Lawrence v. Texas.
:)
It's about time that it's been determined that "public morality" does not extend past public places. Then again, there has been much absurdity in both laws and judicial decisions for as long as there have been laws and judicial decisions.
Hopefully this is the start of a trend that will continue. The major "if" is who GWB will put on the Court after Rehnquist retires/dies. However, with what the Democrats have been doing regarding nominations to any post call into question whether anyone could possibly be confirmed onto the Court. We might just have a vacancy forever, because if the Democrats can do it, so can the Republicans if a Democrat wins in 2008.
It's a relief to know that there are still Constitutionally-adhering judges out there looking out for individual freedom rather than the state.
SNACKS ARE AWESOME
const...err...constitution?
that was one of those things they used to have back when everybody worked down the mines in the UK, and walked to work, nine miles up hill, and back nine miles up hill, in the wind and hail, every day, wasn't it?
But seriously, thank god somebody remembers the constitution.
Oh that's TERRIBLE!!! I've heard that some people line up cows and shoot them in the head just so they can eat hamburgers. What kind of a world do we live in?
Remember when Republicans were all about not getting involved state issues? (pre-Reagan) What happened is that they have discovered that it's so better to aggregate the power into the hands of the few via legislation and control the populace and impose "morality" that way.
Take the gay marriage issue. Should this REALLY be a federal issue? Of course not and thank heavens that Sen. McCain pointed out that such a federal law would interfere with "state's rights".
Federal anti-obscenity laws aren't any different. What doesn't play in Peoria could be considered as quite tame in NYC.
Censorship By Luke Green Our constitutional right to freedom of speech has been under fire for quite some time now, often with the support of the people. This attack is what we call censorship, and it is damaging our society. When was the last time you watched TV show with a bigot yelling profanities at another man with your children? Why? If your answer is that you want to protect them, that is definitely a good answer, but a flawed reason for censorship, as I will attempt to show. It is hardly intelligent to attempt to mandate morality, because what one person may find immoral, another may find completely harmless, and vice versa. For example: showing a man eating a hamburger on television is relatively commonplace. PETA (People for Ethical Treatment of Animals), however, regards this as highly immoral. Does this mean we should ban showings of such things? No, because it is not unanimously agreed that eating animals is immoral. Most people enjoy it every day. The FCC regulates broadcasting in the U.S., often fining broadcasters for "indecent" broadcasts. Certain words are blacklisted, even though not everyone agrees that these words are immoral, and many people use them in everyday conversation. What if suddenly you were disallowed to use words that you feel are completely benign, would you be okay with that? Would you be fine with other people controlling how you communicate? There are many reasons we should have absolute freedom of speech, the clearest of all being that we don't want government controlling what we can and cannot say, hear, or read. There is another, less obvious reason we should have this great freedom: so that we may be able to view, and understand the fallacies of the ignorant. I contend that if we do not expose our children to the ignorant, they may become unable to identify ignorance. The common counter-argument to this is that people want to preserve their child's innocence. Innocence is when a person is free from guilt, not when a person is free from understanding guilt. Would you say that a person who does not understand that theft is wrong is more or less likely to steal? Clearly they are more likely to steal, because a person who doesn't realize the damage it may cause is more carefree when it comes to theft. This has a perfect analogue with censoring "bad" material. If you do not show them what is bad, they will be left to figure it out completely on their own, which may result in the exact opposite of what you intend. Censorship is interfering with your right to decide what your child can and cannot view. I know that it seems like the censors are on your side, but in reality you are a tool that helps them keep their jobs, and impose their moral beliefs on future generations. In conclusion, a person of character will stand up for what they believe in, but a truly great person will stand up for everyone's individual right to believe whatever they want to believe. So please feel free to preserve your child's innocence, but please do not damage their moral acuity by supporting censorship.
that the that the difference between morality and legality be made clear.
From the article: "entertaining lewd and lustful thoughts stimulated by viewing material that appeals to one's purient interests . . . . is immoral conduct even when done by consenting adults in private."
Gotta love logic like that. Gotta love how our country is obsessed with "morals" in the bedroom (or computer room, wherever that may be) that affect no one other than the consenting adults involved. Go read some Kant and later responses and rejections to Kant to get a feel for what more substantial morals are like.
That said, the puritan and sexual freedom argument has been going on as far back as we have records, especially in opulent societies such are ours. Important to have both sides, but equally important that a balance is maintained. Often time one isn't, and more often seems to move towards the puritan perspective than towards "Babylonical Chaos" (as a 16th century sermon I recently read put it). But then again, our current perspectives on sex are hardly eternal, and we are forced to see all other eras' sexual perspectives through our own. "We are not a mirror for history" to paraphrase Goethe, "but history is a mirror for us."
All that said, I'm glad to see this struck down. I should be able to do what I damn well please as long I don't violate another's agency in my own home. We all should, including having odd ideas about what the highest form of morality is, as this country wonderfully shows.
Censorship
By Luke Green
Our constitutional right to freedom of speech has been under fire for quite some time now, often with the support of the people. This attack is what we call censorship, and it is damaging our society. When was the last time you watched TV show with a bigot yelling profanities at another man with your children? Why? If your answer is that you want to protect them, that is definitely a good answer, but a flawed reason for censorship, as I will attempt to show.
It is hardly intelligent to attempt to mandate morality, because what one person may find immoral, another may find completely harmless, and vice versa. For example: showing a man eating a hamburger on television is relatively commonplace. PETA (People for Ethical Treatment of Animals), however, regards this as highly immoral. Does this mean we should ban showings of such things? No, because it is not unanimously agreed that eating animals is immoral. Most people enjoy it every day.
The FCC regulates broadcasting in the U.S., often fining broadcasters for "indecent" broadcasts. Certain words are blacklisted, even though not everyone agrees that these words are immoral, and many people use them in everyday conversation. What if suddenly you were disallowed to use words that you feel are completely benign, would you be okay with that? Would you be fine with other people controlling how you communicate?
There are many reasons we should have absolute freedom of speech, the clearest of all being that we don't want government controlling what we can and cannot say, hear, or read. There is another, less obvious reason we should have this great freedom: so that we may be able to view, and understand the fallacies of the ignorant. I contend that if we do not expose our children to the ignorant, they may become unable to identify ignorance. The common counter-argument to this is that people want to preserve their child's innocence. Innocence is when a person is free from guilt, not when a person is free from understanding guilt.
Would you say that a person who does not understand that theft is wrong is more or less likely to steal? Clearly they are more likely to steal, because a person who doesn't realize the damage it may cause is more carefree when it comes to theft. This has a perfect analogue with censoring "bad" material. If you do not show them what is bad, they will be left to figure it out completely on their own, which may result in the exact opposite of what you intend.
Censorship is interfering with your right to decide what your child can and cannot view. I know that it seems like the censors are on your side, but in reality you are a tool that helps them keep their jobs, and impose their moral beliefs on future generations.
In conclusion, a person of character will stand up for what they believe in, but a truly great person will stand up for everyone's individual right to believe whatever they want to believe. So please feel free to preserve your child's innocence, but please do not damage their moral acuity by supporting censorship.
'upholding the public sense of morality is not even a legitimate state interest.'
Sure.
But how about providing suitable ratings, movie-like, in order to guide minors/children and to inform them about the content that they're about to view? Should that be a legitimate state interest in an ideal world?
It certainly is a victory for the personal freedoms of people over in the USA.
...boom tish..) It is a persons right to choose what they view and enjoy aslong as it respects the rights of others . If you dont like porn then (here comes the cliche) Dont buy it , dont read it , don't use it.
The right to view so called illicet material has nothing to do with the gouvernment.
What consenting adults choose to do in the privacy of their homes is up to them, If they wish to publish it on the internet for free or for profit then it's up to them aswell.
If John Doe wishes to go online and look at two(or more ) consenting people "Getting jiggy" then why the hell does any gouvernment have any right to restrict a persons freedom in this manner.
This is a a wonderfull step towards ensuring your rights and i for the first time in a long while have read a story about the USA courts and not been down hearted.
alot of the religious or right wing people may find this stuff shocking , personaly im not a pr0n fan myself but and this is a big but(depends on the porn
Sure as hell dont try and stop other people from doing what they enjoy.
Lastly i must say again how good it is to see a positive news story about peoples rights being upheld
Encore! Encore!
There's a big difference between killing an animal to eat it and killing it for publicity. In the United States, killing dogs is not considered normal.
Oh, have you asked the animals whether THEY think there is a difference?
Now, as always, Porn leads the way to newer and better technologies. Pioneering the use of print, VHS, laserdisc, DVD, friendly subscription models, quality timely content, and many other innovations, Porn companies continue the tradition of professionalism and excellence in delivering high quality product to an eager audience. These companies lead the way concerning technological delivery methods, and deserve praise for driving the Internet foreword to the great wonder of the world it is today.
We're getting at least 3 (of 9) Supreme Court justices under Bush in the next few years. And possibly Clarence "No Questions" Thomas as Supreme Supreme. Soon these activist "mind your own business" judges won't stand in the way of our glorious Christian nation's compassion towards our perverts.
--
make install -not war
Yes, and they assure me that there is. The understand the cycle of life.
Also, they're excellent singers for the most part.
This just in, muslims are violent and the scum of the world. They kill indiscriminantly!
What does it say when atheists are allowed to freely express their perversions in private or among other consenting adults, but Christians are not free to coopt government institutions as a medium for their religious expression?
[You think I'm trolling, but someone, somewhere, is almost certainly making a form of this exact argument on right wing talk radio right this instant.]
Freedom of porn, and the soon to be Super Bowl champs the Steelers!
Please, PLEASE, PLEASE do not combine the two previous items however...
Monstar L
And how many nanoseconds elapsed before the right-wing talk radio choir started their Banshee-like wailing over "activist judges"?
I don't tell [insert moralizing group here] that they have to [insert activity that group dislikes]. Many of them like to tell me that I can't [same activity from previous sentence].
Take student prayer for example. A law that says you can't pray is wrong. A law that says you must pray is also wrong. A law that says you can pray if you want to but no government employee in authority over you is allowed to influence that decision one way or another is ok, but redundant.
By wrong I mean unconstitutional and anti-freedom. By redundant I mean that it is already in the constitution, so why write another law?
"upholding the public sense of morality is not even a legitimate state interest.'"
. .
kfg
Who gives a fuck about herbivores?
A court has acted to limit the powers of government. The government has one job, and one only-ensuring that nobody's person or property is harmed without their consent.
"Do I dare disturb the universe?"
UPDATE 1/23/05, 2:44pm, by Ian: Professor Orin Kerr at the Volokh Conspiracy argues that this case is inconsistent with existing doctrine, and will likely be overturned on appeal.
How am I supposed to fit a pithy, relevant quote into 120 characters?
The reason for all that, naturally, is to protect the minority from the majority. If 51% of the pouplaiton wants to censor porn (or anything else) its simply not enough. I think our founders were quite wise to encode freedom into the Constitution and make it extremely difficult to remove those freedoms from the Constitution.
It is the government's business to do what people tell it to, but within limits.
"Mission Accomplished" -- George W. Bush May 1, 2003
I know this is OT but i just heard that there is a pig flying around the sky and the christian right are trying to shoot it down!
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
Are all of you people so stupid that you do not realise that all laws are codified morality ?
You cannot legislate anything but morality.
Unless you think laws against murder and theft are not moral laws ?
What are they then ? Are they simply based on the personal preferences of judges and politicians ?
If that is the case then why would you bitch like little kids when they legislate in a way you don't like ?
Why is it that supposedly intelligent people have such incredibly poor reasoning skills ?
Bring on the assfucking! Yeehaw!
UTF-8: There and Back Again
i rarely look at pr0n, maybe 30 minutes in a month, i see nothing wrong with watching two consenting adults in sexual coitus, fellatio & cunnilingus, but i do not keep any on my local harddrive, i have other family members to think about, women & children that would not appreciate looking at pr0n, so i think pr0n should have its own domain something like .prn or similar, and i really hate it when my 12 year old daughter gets pr0n spam & just makes me want to kill the insensitive clod spammer by bashing in his skull with a claw hammer...
First, my background. I am an Evangelical Christian, as well as a future law student. I vote Republican more often than Democrat (not particularly liking either party), but am also a financial supporter of the EFF.
Now that we've gotten that out of the way, I fully expect this decision to be appealled. Remember, this decision is coming out of a district court, which is subject to review by Appeals and the Supremes. Specifically, I would argue that this case interprets Lawrence v. Texas too broadly, that Lawrence dealt with liberty concerns of regulating homosexual behavior vs. heterosexual behavior, and that this instant case incorrectly applies those liberty concerns to regulation of sexual obscenity regardless of "actor" orientation.
When it comes to sexual obscenity in general, there is more to consider than simply individual liberty. There is a undeniable cost to society from the dissemination of sexually obscene material, although I will be the first to admit the difficulty of quantifying that cost.
It is that cost that must be balanced against the demands of personal liberty.
I think it also important to bring up the still-binding 1973 case Miller v. California . That Supreme Court case held that sexually obscene material was NOT Speech, and as thus could be regulated by the several States.
The Miller Test for obscenity was that something is obscene if it "[A] appeals to the prurient [lustful] interest in sex; [B] portrays, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and, [C] taken as a whole, does not have serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value [the SLAPS test]." (Bracketed text is my own.)
It should be noted that Miller applied to regulation by the several States, whereas this instant case deals with federal regulation. How and why different rules apply to the federal vs. the state government is beyond my current level of skill to discuss adaquetely and in-depth.
Personally, do I believe pornography should be banned? No. But I do believe that some level of regulation is warranted, and that the benefits of that regulation must be balanced against the cost to personal liberty.
- Neil Wehneman
P.S. I have previously posted additional thoughts on how pornography regulation is and is not justified based on specific secular criteria in an older Slashdot story.
My legal education, in nifty podcast format
Because I have to ask the question... Just who do you think the democratic party will nominate in 08 to run for pres? You can forget about Hillary, that will NEVER happen as she's too extreme in the socialistic agenda. If anyone has a chance for that party, it would be Kerry again.
State's Rights are only sacrosanct when you are trying to do something the Federal government does not want.
The same people who cry "State's Rights" to prevent something they do not like from impacting their state will be the first people to push for Federal authority when they're in control and some state doesn't want to follow their rules.
After reading that Judgement, its point perfect on how our constitution protected us.
They federal prosecutors tried to ban all "Obscene" matrial for the safety of the childen. But the courts threw that out, since the sites have authentication for adults. And a persons privacy in their home is protected. Replace "Obscene" with "Religous" or "Political" and it comes down to free speech.
My favorite part of the courts response.
If a statue is unconsitutional as applied, the government may continue to enforce the statue in different circumstances under which it is not unconsitutional. If a statue is unconsitutional on its face, the government may not enforce the statue under any circumstances.
Now I wonder if the Judges are conservative or liberal...
The case was not about the right of people to possess legally obscene videos, which is already legal. It is about the right of people to distribute them. In this case, Extreme Associates specializes in material which is legally obscene, including films in which "women get the throats cut".
The judge claims that the state has no compelling state interest in regulating such films. I disagree. If you and your honey get off on cutting, I have no problem with that as long as nobody's forced or tricked into participating. The instant there's money involved, as there is here, the odds that at least one of the participiants is coerced go through the ceiling -- and, yes, the state has a legitimate interest in prevent such coercion.
I like how you put Satan-worshippping and anti-war in the same stereotype. But I guess your target audience won't even notice the irony.
Not Buzzword 2.0 compliant. Please speak english.
'upholding the public sense of morality is not even a legitimate state interest'
Then what is? Granted, the greyer areas of morality such as this law may not be legitimate, but I thought morality encompassed such things as the rights to life, liberty and property. If I interfered with someone else's life or property, wouldn't that be immoral?
Although as far as powers-of-government the end result is appropriate, I'm afraid that calling morality not a state interest is going to have some disturbing consequences. Insider trading, for example, is hard to define as much other than immoral.
Since moral codes and government arose from the same need -- to ensure that society grows instead of collapsing thanks to the greed of a few miscreants -- it makes sense that they should act in similar ways and serve similar purposes. Then why should one disown the other completely? I'd agree with obscenity laws in particular not being in the realm of government or invalidated by freedom of speech, but not with all of morality thrown out the window.
And this shouldn't even be the reason why they ruled in favor of the defendant. The fact that the distributor had both material and a large market meant that no community standards were being violated. The fact that there is a thriving legal pornography industry (and an equally-large illegal one) is proof that the general moral codes accept this behavior. Can you really claim that this many people are immoral? Although this would be a more controversial ruling in the sense that most people wouldn't like it, it would be more legally preferable in my opinion: you're not forced to say that government does not care about morality.
There are means better justifiable by the end.
(IANAL.)
As government bodies, the RIAA and MPAA and the rest would be absolute facists. It wouldn't be too long before mobs would drag them out of their offices and shoot them.
The only thing is, married couples in the U.S. certainly do not receive a tax break. They actually end up with a tax penalty for filing jointly. Of course that's something most /. posters probably wouldn't have firsthand experience with.
t y.html
:)
http://www.savewealth.com/news/9905/marriagepenal
So really, the Republicans should be all in favor of gay marriage, if their motivation is strictly fiscal. Oh wait, that's right, the Republican platform also prefers deficit spending, rather than actually paying for all of their military expenditures. Silly me
The article description misquotes the article pretty badly. Taking "public morality is not a legitamate state interest" on its own is like hearing "if you have to see this movie, bring a book" and quoting as "you have to see this movie".
This post written under Gentoo-linux with an SCO IP license.
A court has acted to limit the powers of government. The government has one job, and one only-ensuring that nobody's person or property is harmed without their consent.
That would be attractive if it weren't so brain-dead stupid.
Hint: If your political philosophy can fit on a bumper sticker, it doesn't reflect the real world. Libertarianism is nice and utopian and all, but it's also more of a religion than a successful political ideology.
Come on, share your best porn resources, in the trully open-source manner!
In India, you could be killed for shooting a cow. Who says that the U.S. is always right?
(posted from within the United States)
Quoting the judge: after Lawrence, government can no longer rely on the advancement of a moral code [...] as a legitimate, let alone compelling, state interest. Meaning it can neither slip past the "strict scrutiny" test if fundamental rights are involved, nor even pass the lighter-weight "rational basis" test. It can't justify a law at all, period, case dismissed.
That basically at one stroke rules that the entire "social conserative" agenda may never be legislated, and reverses everything they already have on the books. I can practically hear their screams from here, and I'm in England.
If higher courts pick this up, it'll be the biggest thing since Roe v Wade. Heck, bigger.
That's true in the states as well, if the cow is your ex-wife.
government has one basic purpose, true. but this basic purpose is to maintain a working society. policing is just a part of it, as is social welfare.
Conservatism: The fear that somewhere, somehow, someone you think is your inferior is being treated as your equal.
I'm glad I'm not tied by "mans law". "Right-winged Christians". Thats a cute saying by the enemy (small e). Wake up, take off the blinds, for you are blinded.
It's quite sad accually. I'm sure in time you "world" will find a way to make child porn and beastiality "ok".
Have fun.
Huh, pointing out that his would anger the president is "flamebait". Truth should defense against "flamebait" and "troll". Welcome to reality, it's here even if you disagree with it.
This post was not intended to induce a flame war. My intent was to point out what I believe is one of the major shortcomings of any Fundamentalist doctrine through the use of satirical humor. Namely the "Our way is the only way" belief. I personally am a Christian though I do not believe in or hold to any given religion or religious sect. But to get back on topic I personally find porn somewhat boring to watch, not always the case though when I was younger I did find it rather addicting but it got repetitive and redundant fast nothing new but the bodies. But I will defend others rights to conduct themselves in any manor they see fit as long as they do not harm others. As to the debate(s) over porn and obscene material it is entirely subjective as what may be obscene to one is not necessarily to another. We all need to make our own choices and are full well capable of doing so. I for one do not want or need any one dictating those choices to me. The exceptions being those laws that protect others from harm. What consenting adults do for pleasure or profit sexually and chose to disseminate to other adults is their business.
"Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards, for you are crunchy and good with ketchup."
You eat tuna, right? Tuna are carniverous fish.... So -- who gives a fuck about carnivores, too eh? What about omnivores? Like, oh say, Humans? :)
Muahaha.
I agree. Next election, vote Democrat and let's get this nation straight.
I'm almost sold. If Linux can get hot chicks like BSD does, we'd never need marketing...just tight T-shirts.
The bit about rape (reference #8) is very interesting, though. If there's any causality at all there, rape rates would have increased like crazy with the proliferation of pr0n in the mid-90s (i.e., Intarweb). I was alive then and I don't recall the streets being paved with rape, but I haven't looked at it too closely.
There is nothing Immoral about anything consenting adults do with each other or anything a person does alone in their own home, as long as it doesn't interfere with anyone else.
I applaud this decision, but it really pisses me off when banning pornography is referred to as ``legislating morality''. It's not about Morality, it's about a group of Taliban-wannabes who want to control the private lives of Americans.
In fact, all just laws are based on Morality. Laws against murder, rape, assault, burglary, etc. are all based on Morality. Laws banning pornography, regulating so-called decency, banning drug use, establishing patents, etc. are not based on Morality. In fact, the latter category of laws are all highly Immoral.
I support the Center for Consumer Freedom
people will just import deviant stuff they can't find here. Or just go to IRC. /troll
this is actually the most insightful comment on the thread and ,ps, i normally post a-ly but with more punctuation - and, pps, MS-anti-spy fixed some gnarly, tempermental problem when viewing /. and, seemingly, only /. - shove that in the pipe too and smoke it
The only reason there are drug turf battles is because of the drug laws. If drugs were legal, inexpensive controlled substances (as they could easily be), there wouldn't be any "turf" to fight over, any more than there is a problem with "alchohol dealer turf battles." There used to be such alchohol turf battles -- and yes, that was when alchohol was illegal. Prohibition. Look it up. "Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it."
The problem here is that drugs are illegal traffic; not drugs themselves. Your government caused this problem, and they also have the ability to fix it. Right now. But they don't want to. Now that is something you should be worrying about.
So go tell the mother of that five year old girl that her kid would still be alive if it weren't for the "mommy laws" (laws that regulate personal choices) that she probably supports, because she's a dumbass, like most of the rest of the population. The legislators are guilty of placing a high demand, hugely profitable and easily serviced marketplace outside the law. The general public is guilty of supporting the legislators in these actions.
"Never underestimate the stupidity of the general public -- or the people they elect."
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
A basic education on logical fallacies.
Specifically, the causal fallacies.
They should teach this stuff in school. It would seriously help people weed out the BS from the facts.
States have no rights. Communities have no rights. People have rights, including the right to do whatever they want either by themselves or with another consenting adult, as long as it doesn't interfere with someone else's rights.
Rights are absolute, regardless of location. I hate this relativist claptrap that says ``it's a different culture, so it's alright if they infringe on people's fundamental rights''. It's not alright. It's Immoral, dictatorial, and repugnant.
If a community tries to deny its constituents protection of their rights because they don't like said rights, then the ability to govern should be taken away from them, by force if need be.
I support the Center for Consumer Freedom
Your example is a straw man. Of course something like that would not be affected by any reasonable kind of content regulation. TFA was in reference to the distribution of extremely violent and sadistic sexual material, not porn with silly costumes.
Pro-porn advocates are quick to point out that what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes is their own business, but why is it then that porn websites (where most of the world's porn consumption takes place) are not required to provide age verification before displaying explicit content? Shouldn't we determine that the consumer is in fact an adult? Why is it ok for us to check ID before we sell beer and sigs, but not before we distribute adult material?
Howdy.
I'm not saying you are wrong. Just that changing the law won't solve all problems.
Simon's Rock College
And yet there are many types of issue, and people's thinking about economics doesn't necessarily correlate with that on social issues, or morality, or the military, or culture, &c. Being aware of the difference can help you to think more clearly about them.
For example, Political Compass uses a two-dimensional grid for displaying political positions, with an economic axis (traditional left/right), and a social one (libertarian/authoritarian). On that scale, for example, the opposite of communism (at the extreme left) is neo-liberalism (at the extreme right), and the opposite of anarchism (at the extreme libertarian end) is fascism (at the extreme authoritarian end).
It's still simplistic in many ways, but presents a vastly more useful way of thinking about politics. Recommended.
Ceterum censeo subscriptionem esse delendam.
Automatically makes you Christian? 75% of the anti-porners I know are just as dead-set against Christianity as they are against porn.
Howdy.
I like the part about upholding morality is not even an interest of the state. Actually, the state is very interested in upholding "morality" since "morality" is nothing more than a set of (irrational) rules enforced by guilt - and the state loves guilt as a controlling mechanism for the population. They like it almost as much as religion does.
Somebody send a few million copies to George W. Bush at www.whitehouse.gov...or has that URL been changed to www.brownhouse.gov...?
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
"Having the ten commandments in front of the courthouse is a government endorsement of christianity. Not having the ten commandments in front of the courthouse is not an endosement of athiesm."
Absence of proof is not proof of absence, my friend. Or in this cause, absence of the 10 Commandments is not proof that an opposing view is being endorsed.
The lack of ANY religious monument in front of a courthouse means the government is not condoning ANY belief; if we followed your argument, then not having the 10 Commandments present would mean the government is endorsing atheism, agnosticism, Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism, Shinto-ism, etc... But it's not. Not having a plaque of the 10 Commandments in front of the building just means the government is actually following the establishment clause of the Constitution.
How pissed would YOU be if we had a scripture from the Korean or Torah in front of a courthouse? How pissed would YOU be if before every court-session, the presiding Judge recited a passage from the Koran?
Think about that; now why is it suddenly ok if we replaced the word "Koran" with the word "Bible" in the preceding sentence?
This is not a definition. All social problems end up included because the idea of a "spiritual" social problem is undefined. What does it mean to talk about a "spiritual" social problem as distinguished from a social problem that is observable? A definition needs to make distinctions rather than blur them.
And there's a bigger and older problem: what is an example of a social problem that is caused by pornography?
Pornography still needs its definition too. . . .
I'm laughing at clouds.
You are 100% wrong in your thinking. Most incidents where people are in hospital for drug use is due to added impurities in the drugs. By making a drug illegal, the value of the substance skyrockets. This will cause greedy people to cut it with cheaper substances to increase profit. (Including poisons) Taking clean drugs in moderation will not send you to the emergency room, that is government FUD. I believe that drugs of dependence should not be taken, but the laws should be relaxed on less harmful substances. I like the way you call people who took ephedrine idiots. Whast do you take when you have a cold? Perhaps pseudoephedrine? Oh thats much better than ephedrine because the government tells us its alright.
Things are good
The second kind of hypocrite does not actually believe his own propaganda, but merely uses it to manipulate others to his advantage. An example would be the Communist Party bosses in the old Sovient Union who would preach austerity and economic independence from the West by day, but buy Western luxuries in secret Party shops by night.
The Christian Church has always been full of the first type of hypocrite - and openly so. "I am come not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance," said Jesus, and a modern bumper sticker says, "Please be patient, God is not finished with me yet."
Just as you should pay attention to the doctors advice about the dangers of smoking - even though the doctor fails miserably at taking his own advice, so you should take seriously warnings about the dangers of pornography - even if the preacher fails to take his own advice.
Perhaps you suspect that TV preachers are the second kind of hypocrite - not actually believing what they preach, but cynically manipulating their audience to keep sending in those donations. For the majority of TV preachers, I would agree with you. Even then, however, to the extent that they accurately portray the message they claim to represent, you should take the message seriously. As Paul said, "The one preach Christ of contention, not sincerely ... What then? not
withstanding, ..., whether in pretence or in truth, Christ is preached; and I
therein do rejoice."
Unfortunately, while scientific measurements may be getting more accurate, the accuracy of mass media preachers resembles the accuracy of marketroids at a tech company. They tend to modify their message to tickle the ears of the target audience. To see what a given Church teaches, take a Church document with some history behind it, ignoring recent "innovations", and then compare it with the sources (the Bible and history).
The court's decision rested in part on Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court case striking down anti-sodomy laws. Under Lawrence, said the court, 'upholding the public sense of morality is not even a legitimate state interest.'"
I know this will be slightly off-topic, but...
Being a gay man that would really like to marry his partner, this is phenomenal. I'm tired of being told that I'm immoral, I can't adopt children, get married, etc because it's not in the State's interest (which is to encourage procreation, apparently).
Getting off my soapbox now...
Whether you think marriage is a religious ceremony or not, I think every one of us can agree that it's about the meaning of the wedding, not it's origins. With the usual exceptions like marrying for money, out of wedlock, for sex, etc., it is generally a commitment of love. It might have been intended to help increase the population at one time (by increased sex; I have heard such arguements) but that isn't what it means today.
Fact: My fiance and I have lived together for over a year.
Fact: We are happy together.
Fact: We love each other infinitely.
Fact: We are happy with our relationship.
Fact: We intend to get married in mid October if things go ok.
Fact: We know virtually everything there is to know about each other.
Fact: Sex is not a major factor in our lives (I have little desire for it).
Fact: I look like any ordinary 30-year old woman.
Fact: When my fiance and I are out and about, we look like any normal couple.
Fact: Florida, where I live, bans same-sex marriages.
Fact: Florida does not recognize a same-sex marriage from another state.
Fact: Florida does not recognize surgically re-assigned gender/sex.
Fact: I am a pre-operative (i.e. still anatomically male) transsexual woman. [*]
Fact: From experience, about 1 out of 5 people who know about me disagree with my lifestyle.
Fact: On average, those people think I'm some kind of sick, dirty, immoral person.
Fact: On average, those people are bible-thumping Christians.
Fact: I was raised Christian, and am converting to Judaism (for various reasons).
I leave the reader to draw his or her own conclusions about the last few Facts above. Just like the pornography arguement, there is no real, valid reason why I should be prevented from being happy. There is further no real, valid reason why we shouldn't be able to present in public as a married couple (and be legally recognized as such), given that we appear that way to almost everyone anyway.
I am posting this as AC to protect my sanity, not my identity. Don't like my point of view? Skip to the next message.
I have the right to do whatever you cant stop me from doing. (Or something like that)
thank God there are only 23 percent left, and dropping. :-)))
Keep wearing those blue contact lenses my bretheren, the real white race shall be pure again.Stupid blue-eyed, inbred, retarded southern octaroons.
is that there are those of us who think the old testament of the bible is more offensive and damaging to children than pornography. There's nothing wrong with people having a healthy enjoyment of sex, but having the constant belief that God is this genocidal maniac has produced some pretty fucked up people.
Anyways, the point here is not to trash your personal beliefs (although I would be happy to do so) but rather to point out that from a constitutional standpoint, your "evangelical christian" beliefs are afforded no more protection or endorsement than pornography. This is quite simply because the founding fathers mistrusted government, and they were wary of granting the government the right to make any kind of judgement.
If you're studying to be a lawyer, you would do well to read the constitution a bit more thoroughly. Don't make any statement regarding pornography that you wouldn't be willing to apply to the bible. It's not your place to balance your morality against my personal liberty. Your beliefs are subjective, and I don't share them, so don't make it sound as if your opinion is some kind of absolute good that we all must make sacrifices for.
But there is another kind of evil that we must fear most... and that is the indifference of good men.
Equality is not a universal, or even commonly held, value, just because you happen to be under the illusion that you value it. Please insert coin and try again.
...it's really a sad day for America when we require a goddamn ACT OF CONGRESS to make our DVD players work properly. ~
Property rights!
or how you say it. Rationalize it all you wish but in your heart you know its depraved behaviour.
The goal is to force others to find it acceptable. Its not acceptable to many.
As a young sailor I had to fight off the queers hanging around outside the gate when going on liberty. Tell me about it!
Am I the only one here with enough courage to say that?
given that your .sig could easily fit on a bumper sticker.
...it's really a sad day for America when we require a goddamn ACT OF CONGRESS to make our DVD players work properly. ~
" It's not about sexual repression. It's about maintaining a culture by force when it wants to change."
Where to start...
You assert that the people of the US want cultural change, specifically in sexual matters, meaning more liberalization of sexual matierial, and a normalization of sexual attitudes and activities previously considered vulgar and obscene, and thus repressed or even banned outright by law.
I would argue that the people of the US, at least a majority, want exactly the opposite.
We HAD a great liberalizing of sex in the 60's and 70's. We had such a great liberalizing that we also had wretched excesses in sexuality at those times, especially in the 70's. Free love and easy sex were followed by the rapid rise of Herpes in the 70's. The newly open culture of male gay sex of the 70's was followed by the AIDS epidemic in the 80's. There are ways other than sex to get these diseases, but can we be honest enough to admit that they primarily spread so rapidly because of mass unprotected sex amongst multiple partners?
Joe and Jane Middle America noticed these things too, and were horrified, even if they took part in them for a time. They started thinking "Hmmm, maybe there's something to those old stuffy rules". And along with other cultural concerns, they starting voting conservatively. There are exceptions, certainly; areas where there are cultural holdouts. But they're in the minority.
Only the most foolish would deny that there's been a political realignment toward the right in this country since 1980. America briefly experimented with looser sexual rules, and didn't like the aftertaste.
So I would argue to you that for 25 years, we've been moving BACK towards the right, not away from it, including on sexual matters. Pornography has always been the dirty little guilty pleasure of civilization, but it's been repressed in most of them, especially in Western Societies. The Greeks are a notable exception, but please, no reminders of Roman orgies. Rome at it's height was one of the most stoic and conservative of all civilizations, with an emperor that banned a daughter to an island existence for her sexual promiscuity. The orgies and decadence came when Roman was in decline. Conservatives have noted this, and so you have an argument on whether decadence is a cause or effect of a dying civilization...but that debate is for another day.
There will always be a demand for the forbidden. But civilizations also have an interest in repressing at least the most extremes of the forbidden, for society's own good. And THAT is why we still have obscenity laws. Now, if you disagree with them, then work to change that. BUT...simply bitching about the laws won't accomplish anything. What you'll have to do is convince the people that elect governments, and that means you'll have to convince Joe and Jane of that.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
'upholding the public sense of morality is not even a legitimate state interest.'
If you RTFA, that is a misquote and out of context. The word "even" does not appear in the original quote, and the meaning is quite different if you read it in context.
Correct Version:
"public morality is not a legitimate state interest sufficient to justify infringing on adult, private, consentual, sexual conduct, even if that conduct is deemed offensive to the general public's sense of morality."
Notice that this restricts the scope to sexual conduct.
By the way, you don't have to live your life according to anyone else's beliefs. However, I suggest you don't murder anyone, because the majority of us frown upon that, and we will punish you if we catch you. I admit this is an extreme example, but when we get down to some of the issues that 99 percent of the population don't feel the same way about, we run into the issue of me applying my morality to you.
The Fat Man Walks Alone
... if you're going to bash them. Christianity doesn't care if you're "free" or "open" with or in your life. It is concerned with following the person and (to a lesser extent, it seems) the teachings of the christ. Other religions threaten this because most of them are mutually exclusive in some manner with christianity, and thus damn the souls of their followers. Why Christianity particularly cares about souls, I have yet to determine. In any case, because following Christ is the only way to become closer to god after death, there is no hypocrisy whatsoever when a christian is concerned with persecution of christians and doesn't give a damn about the persecution of other religions. And their truth isn't supposed to relieve physical suffering, it's supposed to bring you closer to physical perfection. Note that the center of the religion was nailed to a tree and left to die.
You're probably right about the hatred thing, though. I'm pretty sure the manual pretty much forbids that nonsense.
Did I miss anything? Oh, right. Forgot to mention that nobody gave a damn wether or not Jesus showed up in 2001. Christians are nervous because they aren't the major moral force in american society anymore, and they haven't figured out what is yet.
...it's really a sad day for America when we require a goddamn ACT OF CONGRESS to make our DVD players work properly. ~
Replace "physical perfection" with "spiritual perfection". My bad.
...it's really a sad day for America when we require a goddamn ACT OF CONGRESS to make our DVD players work properly. ~
Mandatory lobotomy for all political lobbyists.
No more christian coalition, no more annoying gay-rights activists, no more NAACP.... no more overfunded political campaigns. It's the perfect plan!
...it's really a sad day for America when we require a goddamn ACT OF CONGRESS to make our DVD players work properly. ~
America...
America...
America, FUCK YEAH!
Coming again, to save the mother fucking day yeah,
America, FUCK YEAH!
Freedom is the only way yeah,
Terrorist your game is through cause now you have to answer too,
America, FUCK YEAH!
So lick my butt, and suck on my balls,
America, FUCK YEAH!
What you going to do when we come for you now,
it's the dream that we all share; it's the hope for tomorrow
FUCK YEAH!
McDonalds, FUCK YEAH!
Wal-Mart, FUCK YEAH!
The Gap, FUCK YEAH!
Baseball, FUCK YEAH!
NFL, FUCK, YEAH!
Rock and roll, FUCK YEAH!
The Internet, FUCK YEAH!
Slavery, FUCK YEAH!
FUCK YEAH!
Starbucks, FUCK YEAH!
Disney world, FUCK YEAH!
Porno, FUCK YEAH!
Valium, FUCK YEAH!
Reeboks, FUCK YEAH!
Fake Tits, FUCK YEAH!
Sushi, FUCK YEAH!
Taco Bell, FUCK YEAH!
Rodeos, FUCK YEAH!
Bed bath and beyond (Fuck yeah, Fuck yeah)
Liberty, FUCK YEAH!
White Slips, FUCK YEAH!
The Alamo, FUCK YEAH!
Band-aids, FUCK YEAH!
Las Vegas, FUCK YEAH!
Christmas, FUCK YEAH!
Immigrants, FUCK YEAH!
Columbine, FUCK YEAH!
Demarcates, FUCK YEAH!
Republicans (republicans)
(fuck yeah, fuck yeah)
Sportsmanship
Books
So by a similar argument... Think of the serial killers and assassins who have committed their crimes in order to get attention. The newspapers and TV networks, which carry lurid details of horrific crimes in order to increase their audiences and make more money, are actually partially responsible for those same crimes?
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
Although I disagree with many of these laws you criticize, I think the grounds you mention are not defensible.
;-)
In each of these cases (welfare, gun control, drinking age), the government is attempting to protect (albeit, IMO poorly) their legitimate compelling interests. The drinking age is supposed to make our roads safer (the fact that they keep increasing it is proof that it doesn't work, though), gun control is supposed to provide reasonable mechanisms for tracking and controlling supplies of firearms. Since when can't you own a gun to protect your family? What sort of firearm are you looking for? An M-16 or a grenade launcher? Maybe a howitzer? Certainly handguns at least in the US are reasonable available.
As for welfare. The whole point of welfare is to help prevent people from starving, or living on the streets because they have hit hard times. I would rather have a poor person stay on welfare than live on the streets. If you disagree, I think we should offer your front-yard as a tent city for the homeless
Welfare, at least in the US suffers corruption which, though subtle, is quite severe. The fact that it is mismanaged for the benefit of certain corporate interests is indicated in the fact that the most common health problem among those under the poverty level in this country is... obesity. Why? Because they eat mass-market junk food crap as their primary staples! But that is to the benefit of plenty of junk food manufacturers, is it not?
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Congratulations! You have completely failed to understand BDSM. Here's a link to enlighten you. The soc.subculture.bondage-bdsm FAQ List
Next time you're wondering about something like that, or wondering about anything at all, really, you might want to try Wikipedia: fisting.
Bonus factoid! "Formication" is the sensation of bugs crawling under your skin. It's a symptom of neuropathy, and a really, really funny word.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Here in the US, trading copyrighted media is considered a form of financial gain. So, I ask, what if it was traded over the internet for other kiddie porn? How would that make a difference.
Only the leechers are safe!
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Well, you're not really describing S&M (that is, sadomasochism, the infliction and reception of pain for a sexual happy); rather, you're talking about D/s (dominance and submission, the power dynamic).
I've come to think that being a pervert is like being gay, in that some people are just wired that way. It may take a long time to realize it, we might try to deny it, but eventually we'll have to accept that we're perverts, and it would be a denial of our nature to pretend it isn't so.
Any attempts to medicalize BDSM or categorize it as a problem, an affliction, something that must have an origin and an explanation---this implies that there's something wrong with it. This just isn't so, any more than being a tit man or an ass man is an affliction that needs to be analyzed.
(Note on the word pervert: I and a significant proportion of the people in the local scene I know call ourselves that. Like lesbians call themselves dykes as a way of reclaiming the word, I can call myself a pervert without disparaging myself.)
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Someone on my floor (university in the northeastern United States) used to call them "jimmy hats", because they're, y'know, hats for your jimmy. I've shortened this to "jim-hats", but nobody seems to be picking up on it.
"Condom" is pretty universal. I know someone who works in a health clinic that serves a significant Spanish-speaking population, and he says they call them hats---sombreros---but I can't really be sure that he wasn't pulling my leg.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
This is a distressing development I've noticed of late, frequently on blog comments, but now on Slashdot as well. Instead of saying "I don't know" or "I heard it somewhere and really wanted to believe it"---which would be the truth---a commenter will resort to the "It's so obvious that I can't be bothered to look it up for you" tactic, which implies both that the questioner is incompetent and ill-informed, and that the questioned is on top of things, when he is, as in this case, almost certainly full of shit.
And, as the sibling comments will show, it then degenerates into name-calling and shit-talking.
Am I asking too much for people to admit when they're wrong? Is it so terrible to say "gee, I didn't look it up, egg on me, let's move on, I can make a similar argument in this way, and back it up with this information"? Are we truly so petty?
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
You know, this is the sort of crap, like "Al Gore claimed he invented the internet!" that will get repeated because it sounds really damn good and reinforces someone's beliefs. We want to believe that bible-thumpers are secretly pervy, because it make them more like the rest of us.
But there's no excuse for intellectual dishonesty like that, and you were damn right to call bullshit on it. Thank you.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Not to make a judgment on the tactic, but a lot more of Clinton's nominees were blocked than Bush's, and it wasn't a big deal then because the Republican congress was doing the blocking instead of the Democrats.
Seriously. A lot more. Thirty percent of Clinton's nominees, two percent of Bush's were blocked.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
*checks wang*
Hmm. Seems to me like it's working.
*fap*
Yep.
What exactly is your motivation? It's not like there can be some sort of profit in it for you. Do you have a problem with religious tradition? There are weirder ones to go after. But this?
I guess I just don't understand the motivation of the "don't lop that foreskin!" movement.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
You just go on pretending that digital cameras would be a tenth as widely adopted if horny teenagers didn't want to send each other naked pictures of themselves. Or did you really think that people wanted that many pictures of their cat Woogums?
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Y'know, "Why Nerds Are Unpopular" changed my life, and I really mean that. I learned why things were so bad for me in middle school, and now that I've seen the reasons in all their naked splendor, I feel... well, not better, but I feel a sense of closure.
But goddamn, I don't think I've ever seen an example of science dorks being more full of themselves than this:
It could be that the scientists are simply smarter; most physicists could, if necessary, make it through a PhD program in French literature, but few professors of French literature could make it through a PhD program in physics. Or it could be because it's clearer in the sciences whether theories are true or false, and this makes scientists bolder. (Or it could be that, because it's clearer in the sciences whether theories are true or false, you have to be smart to get jobs as a scientist, rather than just a good politician.)
Of course, I don't understand the humanities, really. I hope I never understand the offensive moral relativism that I keep hearing about, that I'm told seeps from every political science and economics department.
And as an engineering student, I cast my share of rocks at the humanities people for not taking, y'know, real classes. (And I was frequently right---have you seen some of the crap for which they hand out course credit to business majors?)
But still, this is kind of gratuitously offensive. Then again, maybe Slashdot is the wrong place to complain about this, since there can't be that many people in the humanities here.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Come on. I could state that actresses working on general-interest television are druggies willing to do anything for a fix, and berate you endlessly for refusing to outlaw any sort of broadcasting.
This whole argument---"women who work in porn are exploited drug addicts, thus porn should be illegal" is specious. The second half doesn't even follow from the first half, and the first half is far, far from a given.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
You know, you're really sloppy with what you mean by the word "moral". 'Round here, a lot of folks think it means "respectful of another's rights". I'm guessing you think it means "in concordance with what my Superhero From Outer Space told me".
And there's a damn important different between the two.
If you're going to argue that porn is bad because it causes harm, go ahead. The Meese Commission went through some effort to do so, but ended up making shit up to suit their prejudices.
If you're going to argue that porn is bad because your Superhero From Outer Space (or god or whatever you call it) says so, then don't steal the word "moral". It's rude.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
I don't recognize the username (but then again, that's no surprise around here). Give me an example of what you're talking about. (Yes, I'm asking for a citation.)
And I still say that calling someone on their bullshit is always a worthy endeavor. "He can't ask for a citation because he fudged the facts in his own post" isn't an explanation, it's an excuse, and a shitty one at that.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Civil libertarians extoll the virtues of freedom of speech, freedom to view pr0n in the privacy of their own home and the like, but forget that these liberties impact on the liberties of others by way of creating a demand which is often supplied by less scrupulous players.
The should be no such think as "government interests". Ever!
The only interestes the government needs to concern itself with are those of the public.
I would not be pissed, but maybe that is just me. I just happen to be one of those who doesn't turn into a censor-happy intolerant brute just because someone has a religious opinion different from mine and dares to express it. I guess such attitudes are "un-American".
Why not just "get over it" and learn tolerance? It was a waste of money, and questionable for the government to go to the expense to place those religious monuments (at the behest of the faithful). It is also a waste to go to all the expense of removing such things (at the behest of other faithful). Why not just learn not to be offended? Intolerant religious zealots are also at work trying to get a cross removed from a government seal in L.A. :wonder how much it is going to cost to redo this, from buildings all the way down to stationery, all because of closed-minded cromags who can't stand the public display of things they do not agree 100% with?
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
Nothing's more insulting or harmful to a homosexual (or any other individual who is challenged with a pathalogic condition) than to lie to that person and tell them 'they're ok'.
Society needs to show more compassion to individuals who struggle with same-sex attraction by helping them overcome their condition and lead normal lives.
"Creativity is allowing ones self to make mistakes. Art is knowing which ones to keep" - Scott Adams
I don't feel like pasting the whole Snopes article in here, but No, Al Gore did not claim he "invented" the Internet, nor did he say anything that could reasonably be interpreted that way.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
My profit would be if I went out with an american, or if they started making better pr0n movies.
So... you have a foreskin fetish? And you like to see porn with foreskins in it? Am I reading you right here?
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
It's really you, is it? Thanks again for the 'Nerds' essay.
And yes, after I posted that I read Re: What You Can't Say and realized that I'd been trolled, that the essay was meant to have just that effect on me. Well played.
'Course, I could point you to the Bogdanov Affair to point out that physics is not without its fanatics and true believers. But we dorks have such a great big hard-on for physics (and to a lesser extend the other hard sciences) that we'd prefer not to think about that. Sure, the Bogdanov paper was published on a very edgy subject, in a jounral far from the mainstream. So was Sokal's. Neither invalidates the field it purports to criticize.
All the experience I can summon tells me that business majors got credit for learning to use MS Office, and WS majors got credit for reading books and stories, and writing essays expressing their opinions. (I did not have the opportunity to see what would happen if these opinions were anathema to our instructors.) But I'm a little wary of casting aspersions on the humanities as a whole. I think we dorks talk a lot of smack, and I don't feel that all of it is justified.
Fine arts, on the other hand, I'll agree is mostly postmodern crap that could have been done by a disinterested infant. They're like the venial Ayn Rand villains who make endless, offensively banal, incestuously self-referential crap and call it a great work. Irony has replaced sincerity, and art suffers. ('Course, commercial art---comics and the like---have gotten steadily better over the years. I never liked fine artists anyway.)
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Sorry for the double post, I accidently clicked submit instead of preview.
"The other argument you put forth is corruption of inspection officials. I just don't think there's evidence of widespread blackmail by inspectors, no more than there is widespread abuse by police officers or soldiers."
These people are the small potatoes of the corruption. If they were all that were involved I wouldn't worry about it. It is the CEO's, the special interest groups, the lawyers, the politicians and the lobbyists that are the big problem.
[...]
I think that you get the idea. This kind of corruption is rampant, and the costs are huge.
Some would argue that "corruption" you describe isn't actually corruption but rather merely citizens exercising their constitutional rights of petition and expression though politcal donations. This is certainly true to a point, but the question of undue influence is also serious concern. Determining when such actions cross the line and become actual corruption is a muddled one at best, and perhaps will never be satisfactorily resolved.
That said, your concerns about undo influence aren't eliminated or even necessarily mitigated under a reactive regime. The key components of enforcement under any regulatory regime is the penalties incurred for violating the regulations, and the likelyhood of being found in violation. If P(caught) * Reward(caught) (assume R(c) <= 0, since decision theory regards penalties as merely negative rewards. Also assume R(c) completely encompases all negative consequences of being found in violation (e.g. lost profits, jail time, damage to reputation, etc.)) is small enough, then any sanctions can be merely written off as "a cost of doing buisness".
I'm not saying anything groundbreaking here. We all make similar decisions everyday. We also try to minimize this equation whenever possible, usually by attempting to reduce P(caught), but we also lobby to reduce R(caught) as well. Again, nothing particularly new here.
Let's for the sake of argument assume that the current preventive regime has an optimal value for P(c) * R(c). Converting to reactive regime reduces P(c) by its very nature. To maintain optimality, R(c) must increase accordingly. I believe you've concided that point already. What this conversion does not and can not address is human nature, that is the tendency to attempt to reduce P(c) * R(c).
We see this tendency today in the lobbying of relaxing regulations or even complete deregulation of industries (reduction of P(c)). We also see attempts to reduce R(c) as well, most notably through recent calls to limit "frivolus lawsuits" and to institute caps on damages.
I would submit that conversion from an effective preventive to an equally effective reactive regime will most likely never occur since there very forces in favor of reducing P(c) will undoubtly oppose needed corresponding increase in R(c).
In the end your opposition to preventive regulation regimes as "corrupt" is unfounded, as the corruption lies in the creation of the regulations themselves, rather than the enforcement method. As you said corruption of career civil servant inspectors is essentially a non-issue.
I don't think the costs of the inspectors would be less than the damage caused when someone screws up, simply because everyone has to be inspected, and only those who cause harm jailed/fined etc. This of course also hinges on "The relatively small number of possible violators"
Exactly. That's why you have different enforcement regimes for different regulations. For example, criminal law is a regulation that everyone is subject to. This means that in a very real sense, everyone is potentially a criminal. Since the number of potential violators exceeds the ability to continously monitor them, a reactive regulatory regime is in place.
Now if you're enforcing the "don't dump large amounts of benzene into the water supply" regulation the number of vio
Although the first half of Fjandr's post is insightful, the second half is flat-out misinformative troll. Therefore, you are metamodded Unfair.
... I think it means he funded research and technology initiatives which led to advances in networking technology.
What, did you interpret that as "I invented the internet"?
The whole thing is way outta proportion.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
So, do you refuse to tongue-kiss someone who's had their tonsils out? Or have butt-sex with someone who's had an appendectomy?
Comparing the off-slicing of a not particularly useful and occasionaly inconvenient bit of skin to the loss of the ability to walk around without a crutch or prosthesis is a little tasteless, isn't it?
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca