Slashdot Mirror


Senator Carper Calls for Tax on Online Porn

Better-living-thru-taxes writes "Senator Tom Carper (D-Del) is calling for a 25% tax on all internet pornograpy. The money is to help police fight online child pornographers. 'Carper says the bill will keep kids away from X-rated material.'"

66 of 1,145 comments (clear)

  1. Don't let the state nany, take some responsibility by Ckwop · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What is the fixation with sex? Why would a child seeing two consenting adults having sex "corrupt" them. Sex is a natural thing that happens between two people who like each other a lot. It's nothing
    to be shy about and really, rather than demonising it, we should be celebrating it. It's one of the activities that transcends all cultures on this planet and that is universally enjoyed.

    The Christian faith (who's political wing is the Republican party) for some reason believe that sex is bad and that pornography is somehow immoral. I don't know how they reached that conclusion, after all, one need only look as far as Job's daughters antics in the book of Genesis to see that the Bible is no authority on sexual morality.

    I just think that Children are not as vulnerable as these people make out. As young as twelve or thirteen I was viewing pornography because I was curious and felt a drive to seek out such material. Far from damaging my psyche, it made me a lot less nervous about my sexuality. I look back and see that period of my life as an important part of my sexual development.

    I'm sick of the "What about the children?" being used as a front to foist laws upon on us. This law isn't designed to protect our children, it's a law that takes the first bold step in pushing the Republican party's religious mantra on those who do not want and care about it.

    Without wanting to be flame-bait, the Republican part engages in what I call "henry ford" freedom:
    You can have any freedom you want, as long as it's Republican. The essence of freedom is about allowing people to do something you don't personally agree with. You may not agree with abortion or gay marriage but believing in freedom is about having the maturity to realize that the people who are gay or have abortions are consenting adults and are fully aware of the consequences of their actions.

    Simon.

  2. Cute Trick by Rob+Carr · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Who's going to oppose taxing online porn?

    If you oppose it, then you must be someone who preys on children, right?

    Great tactics on the part of the Senator. Think of the children!

    --
    This sig seemed like a good idea at the time....
  3. Sex is natural by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    hardcore porn gangbanging is not and creates a fake image of sex for children

    1. Re:Sex is natural by phoenix321 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If everyone involved consents and enjoys that gangbang, it seems okay to me. Who are you to prevent free men and women of legal age from having sex with each other in any number and constellation they like? Does being of "normal" values qualify? Or is having read and/or believing in an ancient BOOK needed?

    2. Re:Sex is natural by h4rm0ny · · Score: 3, Insightful


      If everyone involved consents and enjoys that gangbang, it seems okay to me.

      People who do this, do it because they are paid to, and in some cases, because they're desperate for some kind of approval or attention. It's not normal. Now if doing this fulfills someone's psychological or sexual needs, then it's their business. But boys shouldn't grow up thinking that women orgasm from giving blow-jobs or they're going to be pretty disappointed with their partners (and their partners might be pretty pissed, too).

      The problem is one of context. US society (and UK society to a lesser extent) is deeply repressed on the subject of sex. It's all very closed doors. And oddly enough, this is why so many boys grow up thinking of sex as being something purely physical. The only porn you get is brutal, wham, bam, say thank you ma'am stuff. There's no exposure to sex between two people who love each other.

      So, I think that it's the moralising people who surpress normal exposure to sex, nudity and desire that are responsible for guys growing up thinking of it in the way portrayed in porn. Because if it's kept out of normal life, made illicit, then what else do they see but the porn?

      I mean - which is going to prepare people for sexual maturity most - (Not work safe) This, or this? Maybe you see sex is just fucking, and hey - it's good exercise - but for most of us, the best sex we'll ever experience is with someone we love. If people want to protect children from corruption, they should let those children know that it's okay and to have sex with someone you love and that it doesn't have to be 8" this, 36DD that and treat the other person like an object.

      I seem to have ended up arguing for more sincere and tender porn. Well, why not. It would appeal to a lot of people, I'm sure. But mostly what I am getting at is that US and UK society itself should be more open on the subject of sex.

      And then maybe people wouldn't be using it as a sales technique everywhere I look as well.

      --

      Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
    3. Re:Sex is natural by Excelsior · · Score: 2, Insightful

      People who do this, do it because they are paid to, and in some cases, because they're desperate for some kind of approval or attention. It's not normal. Now if doing this fulfills someone's psychological or sexual needs, then it's their business. But boys shouldn't grow up thinking that women orgasm from giving blow-jobs or they're going to be pretty disappointed with their partners (and their partners might be pretty pissed, too).

      People who dress up like Frodo Baggins do it because they are paid to, and because they enjoy the attention of being a celebrity. It's not normal. Now if doing this fulfills someone's psychological or sexual needs, then it's their business. But boys shouldn't grow up thinking that wizards exist or they're going to be pretty disappointed with the world.

      The only porn you get is brutal, wham, bam, say thank you ma'am stuff. There's no exposure to sex between two people who love each other.

      The only fantasy movies you get involve killing, fighting, and dieing. We need more fantasy movies involving Alan Alda and Beth Midler. Frodo and Samwise should be making love, not war.

    4. Re:Sex is natural by Silkejr · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Maybe loving sex IS better, but you gotta admit, most sex going on out there is just people fucking.
      That's not because of porn, that's because we're all just animals trying to satisfy an urge for pleasure.

    5. Re:Sex is natural by h4rm0ny · · Score: 2, Insightful


      The problem here is that you are not arguing for more sincere and tender porn, but instead making a bigoted argument against everything else.

      Where in my post did I argue for restricting people's ability to create or obtain porn? I'll answer that question for you - nowhere.

      Here's another one: where did I say people were wrong to enjoy it? Nowhere.

      You have decided you know who I am (a moralising bigot) and have re-interpreted everything I said into something you feel you can have a good shout about.

      The crux of what I said is that depictions of sex available to people are massively of the brutal, emotionless, subjgating type. If you find this so hard to believe have a look for some porn on the Internet (the primary delivery method of sexually explicit material) and see what you find.

      I believe that if US and UK society were more open about sex then the act itself wouldn't be polarised into either gang-bangs or nothing.

      You call me a bigot for suggesting that normal sex should be shown? The US is a place where sex is hidden from children, an unmentionable. If there is the slightest nudity on your television where children might see it there is hysteria, as if the sight of a naked breast will lead innocent youths straight to Hell.

      Why am I a bigot for saying this is wrong? If you can argue that people have a right to fuck 30 men they don't know and sell the video, then why can't I ask for normal sexual relationships to be portrayed explicitly? Would I want my children's formative impressions of sex to be mostly acts that the participants did because they were paid to? Because lets face it, in US society, the knowledge they get from porn would far outpace that from real life for a good while.

      You saw me criticise emotionless sex with people who are paid to do it and decided to have a rant at the "bigot." But I don't fit into your stereotype. If that emotionless sex that doesn't reflect the sexual behaviour of most people is the only available depiction to children, then I am right to critisize. Children should be presented with an accurate view of life and the world. And right now, it's either gang-banging subjugation of women or ignorance. That's a Hell of a choice, so don't have a go at me for suggesting there should be another option.

      If you found my argument "meandering" then perhaps it is because you had trouble seeing the connections.

      --

      Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
    6. Re:Sex is natural by STrinity · · Score: 2, Insightful

      People who do this, do it because they are paid to, and in some cases, because they're desperate for some kind of approval or attention. It's not normal.

      No, it's not normal. Neither is being blonde-haired or black-skinned in the US (or blonde-haired and black skinned). Normalcy is a statistical concept, not a moral one.

      If someone likes getting money for sex or being watched during it, good on them. It's their choice to make, not yours or mine.

      --
      Les Miserables Volume 1 now up with my reading of
    7. Re:Sex is natural by h4rm0ny · · Score: 2, Insightful


      For crying out loud. The whole point of my comment is that entertainment does not have to be about reality.

      Do not meddle in the affairs of LotR fans, for they are unsubtle and very pedantic. :)

      I understood your point, and it is well made. I'm getting jumped all over here by people who seem to think I'm an porn-burning fanatic (woe to those who tread the middle ground, for they shall piss off both sides), but at least *your* point addressed what I actually said.

      My answer to you would be, fair enough. You want entertainment in your fantasy, why not. If I fantasize about a romantic weekend in Paris, doesn't mean someone's going to take me there - it's still a fantasy as much as you getting into bed with three super endowed porn-stars. (I'm making an assumption about your lifestyle here).

      But what I would say, is if we're going to go with the Frodo and Sam analogy (and I really don't think it's wise in a discussion on porn, but we'll risk it), then the situation is more like this:

      There is only Lord of the Rings movies out there. You can't find anything that isn't Lord of the Rings.

      This is important because unlike LotR, where few people growing up are likely to start worrying about being attacked by CGI orcs, or think that it's an accurate portrayal of real life, this will happen to some extent with porn. People will probably be watching porn for some time before they experience actual sex. And if this forms the basis for their fantasies and expectations, they're going to get a hell of a shock. I'm not saying that people wont do extreme things together. Of course many will. But intimate, emotional sex is (should be) very satisfying and this isn't explored in modern US culture. You get gang-banging or you get nothing.

      So why isn't genuinely emotional sex portrayed graphically? I'd say because it undermines too much. Sex is used to sell every magazine, every show, every shirt. The basis of loving sex is trust, feeling okay about yourself and your partner, intimacy. It's hard to sell to someone who has that.

      So yes, watch LotR if you like, admire the size of the Oliphant's trunks or the way the blonde elf takes on five orcs at once. But just keep an eye on those who are getting too into it and turning up to showings in Elf ears, eh? ;)

      --

      Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
  4. Totally OT: Point of clarification by halivar · · Score: 2, Insightful

    one need only look as far as Job's daughters antics in the book of Genesis to see that the Bible is no authority on sexual morality.

    Job's children died in the first chapter of Job when a wall fell on them. Perhaps you mean Lot's daughters? And the Bible called them evil. I don't get your statement.

    Sorry for the off-topic post. I just like to make sure people who criticize the Bible at least get the stories right. :)

    1. Re:Totally OT: Point of clarification by RichardX · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think it's Lot, I'm not sure and my Bible is packed in a box, so I can't look it up

      Time for my clippy impersonation...
      Sounds like you're referring to Gen:19 5-8

      You might also be interested in the rest of the Skeptic's Annotated Bible - a fantastic website containing the complete, unaltered KJV bible, that also happens to have sidenotes pointing out the contradictions, absurdities, morally questionable, and other interesting bits.

      Finally, Lot is called "Just" and "Righteous" in 2 Pet.2:7-8, but the bible tells us on several occasions that There are no just or righteous people
      Good thing nobody bases their lives or morality around this book! Just think how confused they'd be!

      --
      Curiosity was framed. Ignorance killed the cat.
  5. Tax or Censorship? by VeryLongNumber · · Score: 2, Insightful
    So what does he want - tax or censorship?

    The twisted logic of this is that he claims either instituting a tax would enforce the laws, or porn sites somehow encourage child pornography.

    In other words, he really wants censorship without saying the bad "C word".

  6. I hope all the porn sites move overseas by putko · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If the porn people moved offshore, they'd avoid all sorts of irritating laws.

    The US just changes its enforcement of the record keeping laws (2259 it is called, if I recall correctly). It is a sword of damocles hanging over porn webmasters. See fleshbot.com for more info.

    The sooner the online porn stuff just moves offshore (ala the casinos), the better. Then they can tell the Govt. to find a new whipping boy.

    --
    http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_s tone_your_children/dt21_18a.html
  7. Isn't it obvious... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Violence is OK but sex is bad. Or, how politicians can carp about something for free without someone demanding their head. Seriously, how many people are going to admit that they watch pornography but don't want to pay Uncle Sam for the privilige?

  8. Porn -- Pedo by baadger · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Yep taxing easy-to-find in your face, perfectly legal pornography is the perfect approach to getting rid of them hidden secretive rings of shadey pedophilia dealers.

    Children interested in sex doesn't correlate to children being groomed by pedophiles.

    Get a friggin grip.

  9. Great! by Killshot · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I don't think we pay enough taxes... we need to pay more taxes on everything!

  10. age-verification software by 1u3hr · · Score: 3, Insightful

    from TFA: the bill would require online pornographers to use age-verification software to block children's access.. Mostly this seems to be based on credit cards. How on earth can someone reliably "verify" the age of a person of the web? Any CC numbers, etc used will be traded and swapped around. And of course, what about overseas-based sites? For a saving of 25%, they'll all be in a short time.

  11. Re:Don't let the state nany, take some responsibil by miketkrw · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Who decides what is "grossly immoral"? You, the government? Immorality (sin) is personal between you and your god(s). Crime is a social violation that harms others. The acts of consenting adults are not crimes.

  12. Offshore by ThreeDayMonk · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It won't work. Add heavy taxation to the already stringent legal requirements, and the remaining US-based porn companies will simply take their operations offshore, to more amenable locations such as the Netherlands.

    --
    If your comment title says 'Re: Foo', I'm not likely to read it.
  13. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  14. Nevada ranches WANT to be taxed... by weave · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Nevada brothels are almost begging the state to tax them. They know full well that once the state is hooked on an income stream, they are not going to do something to get rid of it, like decide that prostitution should not be legal.

    So maybe this is a good thing for the porn industry.

  15. Taxes by psychofox · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I can't stand taxes which are for some specific purpose. A tax is a tax. All the money should go into a big pool where it is divided as appropriate. In the same way, if it is felt that money is required in order to fund a fight against paedophillia or whatever, money should be available from existing taxes.

    Down with stealth taxes!!!

  16. Re:Don't let the state nany, take some responsibil by grumpygrodyguy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Umm, a *DEMOCRAT* Senator is calling for this.

    Another proof at how the left wing doesn't know what its extreme left wing is doing.


    This is the state of the Democratic party, sadly. They're trying to woo moderates back into the fold(Hillary Clinton etc) by imposing conservative morality. The lesson of the last 5 years is: the more people you threaten and alienate, the more popular you are to conservative voters. I hate seeing the Democrats give up like this, I wish they could find a smarter way to fight the insanity of the american voter.

    --
    The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
  17. Re:Don't let the state nany, take some responsibil by phoenix321 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Although they *might* be immoral, it's none of the state's business. Morals and values, as long as no other persons freedom is harmed, are a personal matter for each and every adult. Churches may demand a special behavior, can compel its members to certain restrictions - but not on everyone. Every man and woman is free to accept the restrictions of their religion or to don't have a religion at all.

    And we as a rather advanced society have finally separated church and state, thank God. We don't mandate morality, just non-freedom-hurting behavior. Two consenting adults doing horribly awful acts of sexuality to each other may be disgusting, but it's not anyones responsibility to "teach them morals". Government is not parenthood and the church can't call the police or the lynchmob. I hope it stays that way.

  18. The logic here... by larien · · Score: 3, Insightful
    You're basically proposing that legitimate pornographers (some people might have issues with that kind of statement, but go with for now...) are paying to police the paedophiles...

    Also, this is proposing some kind of direct link between adult porn and kiddie porn. The fact that there will be a bill linking it will be enough for a lot of people to see adult porn as causing kiddie porn...

  19. Re:Ha! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Do people pay for porn online?

    If pictures of naked people are to be taxed, then I purpose that only those who are violating their churches' basically-held principles in viewing the pictures be forced to pay the tax.

  20. Re:Don't let the state nany, take some responsibil by CosmeticLobotamy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Aye. Dems, I know it's fun to hate Repulicans, and they do do some awfully stupid stuff, but let's not overlook it when our side does something this profoundly retarded. If you live in his state, please let Tommy know he's being a jackass and that you're just going to watch TV on election night if he doesn't cut it out.

  21. Let's just tax everything!!!! by onetrueking · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Let's tax bread. And sugar. And books. And trips. And cars. And computers. And drinks. And smokes. And CD's. And profits. And losses. And houses. And gas. And clothes. And jewelry. And business.

    Let's tax life. And honor. And Commitment. And betrayal. And health. And happiness. And sadness. And depression. And intent. And thoughts. And air. And the sun. And the sky. And death.

    Let's bloody tax everything!!

  22. Great Idea! by Winkhorst · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Then we can enact a 25% tax on all food sold online to fight obesity! Next we can enact a 25% tax on gun-friendly sites to fight domestic violence. Oh yeah, and we can enact a 25% tax on government sites to fight monomaniacal presidents who want to conquer the world. And then we could enact a 25% tax on religious texts sold online to fight ignorance and superstitution. Wow, we could enact a 25% tax on video game sites to help fund education. I'm on a roll here, this is fun! And...and...we could enact a 25% tax on pay-per-view news sites to fight STUPID POLITICIANS who think their job is to pass idiotic laws that make them and their constituents feel good!

    --
    "Is this Winkhorst a nova criminal?" "No just a technical sergeant wanted for interrogation."
  23. I think everyone is missing the point by ballantrae · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This isn't about child pornography or porn in general. This is about taxing the internet.

    Anyone with at least half a mind can see that the Senator couldn't care less about pornography or child porn for that matter.

    Taxing an industry does nothing to regulate said industry, all it does is take money from it. If he wanted to regulate it, and pay for the regulation, then he'd attach fines to the laws. But the truth is, what he wants is an easy way to "break into" the internet industries.

    These people tax us in everything we do. We have ONE industry taht is currently not taxed to death and beyond and that is the internet.

    This is an excuse. He and his friends have to be stopped cold right here and now. Don't think that it's just him either. I'll bet you anything a bunch of his buddies got together and thought this would be a great way to start a new "cause" and thus manage to rip us off in the process.

    We have to stop this guy now. Unless of course, you like the idea of your local congressman and senator mucking about in even this part of our lives.

    -ron

  24. Re:Don't let the state nany, take some responsibil by LurkerXXX · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Exactly what do the races of the people involved have to do with it being 'wrong'?

    And who the hell mod'ed a racist insightful?

  25. Don't tax porn, tax the churches... by also+aswell · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This may be a bit off topic,, but the article is so vague and short almost anything will fit into this discussion.

    Some slashdoters may have noticed that the church has become a major player in politics recently. Part of their tax exemption is based on staying out of politics. The Bush administration is going after many conservation groups with the IRS because they have broken the politics rule.

    Churches own billions of $$$ worth of prime realestate in the heart of our cities tax free and thus are a burden on cash starved public schools that depend on real estate taxes for survival.

    I don't really need to go into the occasional priest's daliance with young boys, that's just an anomily.

    So why try and tax internet porn, most of which is offshore, difficult to track, etc.? Tax the churches which have been getting a free ride in this country for far too long.

    Churches need to be placed under the same guidelines as other institutions. They should not get any special benefits just for being churches. If they want some kind of benefits for nonprofit stuff/community service, then they should be under some guidelines for all nonprofits/community servers.

    Here are a couple links to taxing the churches...

    http://www.sullivan-county.com/identity/cal-tax-ex empt.htm

    http://www.taxchurches.com/

    --
    "Where did this apple come from?"
    --Alan Turing
  26. Re:"I know it when I see it" is all very well but. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    It wouldn't be necessarily all that odd. We already live in a world where the IRS determines what is and what isn't marriage; in that regard, their defining of pornography isn't all that much of a stretch.

    Volunteer tax preparers undergo about 20 hours of tax training, much of it from IRS trainers. One lesson they learn is how to determine if someone can file for Head of Household or if they must file Married Filing Seperately.

    Sounds pretty straightforward, until they start throwing out examples where a couple might not be legally divorced, but have been living apart for more than a year. If they haven't had sex in the past 6 months, the person caring for the child can file as Head of Household, but if they get it on just one time with their separated spouse, they must file Married Filing Separately. Their sex life actually determines how much tax they will pay.

    That is, of course, without even touching on the same sex marraige issue.

    I'm just saying the IRS already cuts its policies on sex, and yes, that creeps me out.

  27. Re:Don't let the state nany, take some responsibil by technothrasher · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Immorality (sin) is personal between you and your god(s).

    I'd just like to make the small point that morality does not require theology. There are lots of us atheists who have a very strong sense of morality which has nothing to do with illegality.

  28. Follow the money. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    True, however I think this bill is more about the tax revenue than it is about controlling sex (which this forum demonstrates daily is impossible).

    "We don't mandate morality, just non-freedom-hurting behavior."

    Like Alimony.

  29. It's a number from Hitlers hand book by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    "The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation." Adolph Hitler in Mein Kampf

    I hate quoting that asshole, but...

  30. Mod parent troll by Darkman,+Walkin+Dude · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And the next thing we will see is beastiality becomming[sic] normal.

    It is normal and accepted. In Sweden. And in fact its on the rise over there.

    Maybe sex is a choice a 14 year old can not make, because they don't have the maturity to understand what it means.

    A mere century ago, the usual age for marraige in most cultures was 12 to 16. Can you explain to me what has changed from that time, besides the views of society?

    If you know anything, most catholics register as democrats

    Most catholics aren't American.

    Maybe if sex is something sacred, then the divorce rate and infidelity would not be so high.

    Oh get over yourself. Sex is just a physical activity, the very same as sports. You can play in a team or by yourself, and it releases very much the same hormones. If you mean loving relationships, then yes, perhaps that should be seen as being important. But what would you have us do, codify what exactly qualifies as sex and when people are allowed to have it? One size fits all may be the mantra of the modern corporate, shiny, market-segment and demographically organised world, but believe me the truth isn't that simple. And as for porn, who cares? It's more okay to show a man getting torn limb from limb by explosions than to watch paid professionals do their dance? And if you are whining about impressionable young minds, I suggest that parents take some responsibility for what their children get to see and hear, and stop depending on legislation to do their damn jobs for them. Christ.

    You are making out that your apparently severely stunted worldview is the definitive version, and backing up your perspective by hurling accusations of paedophilia, which should be added to the godwins law lexicon of failures in debate. What a boob. Just another troll that knows how to burble a bit of fire and brimstone and get the mob riled up.

  31. Re:Don't let the state nany, take some responsibil by PsiPsiStar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Saying that the Republican party is a wing of any religion is an insult to that religion.

    Republicans use religion as a stepping stone to gain office, but that ignores the commandment against using the Lord's name in vain, which seems to be the most misunderstood commandment. People seem to think it has somthing to do with not saying "goddamnit" which would have been relevant back when people thought that they could actually invoke the name of a god to curse other people.

    In other words, you're breaking a commandment if you use the name of God to further your own selfish interests.

    --

    ___
    It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
  32. The guy requires a globe or atlas or something... by Beardo+the+Bearded · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Uh, if they put a 25% tax on porn, won't the porn vendors just move to countries where they don't tax you? There are other countries than the US.

    Look at gambling. The biggest centres are offshore in countries with loose (or non-existent) tax and gambling laws. The same thing will happen with porn. The people who run these operations are not stupid guys with their dicks flapping in the wind. They're smart, they're business savvy,and they probably make more than the senator in question. (Funnily enough, for the same job - sticking your dick in places it may or may not belong.)

    --

    ---
    ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
  33. Re:Don't let the state nany, take some responsibil by Monkelectric · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Republicans used to stand for a more capitalistic tradition, and the dems used to stand for a more socialistic approach. The balance *BETWEEN* the two was a fair compromise. Socialism doesn't work, and neither does capitalism. Whats needed is a system where the poor are protected, the wealthy are enabled, and regulations and enforcement provide a fair playing field for labor and business.

    Which you were pretty much stood with how much money you made -- if you are rich or expect to be rich, vote republican. If you are poor, liberal, or know you aren't going to be rich, vote dem. The problem at this time is, the Republicans aren't *ACTING* like Republicans anymore (they used to stand for less taxes through less government and less debt, "the market will provide a solution"). The republicans have been taken over by these leech christian neocons (the neocon philosophy in one sentence is, "Might makes right.") who have driven the republicans control of all 3 branches of government, but who have completely sold out the principles of less government in favor for democrat like handouts, except the handouts are going to corporations and the wealthy. At least the new deal arguably helped the poor?

    So long story short, is, if you believe in true republican ideals, right now you need to vote democrat.

    --

    Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley

  34. Re:Don't let the state nany, take some responsibil by Medgur · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Did you ever stop to think that perhaps finding it difficult to be monogamous is normal and natural for men?

    The genetically successful male breeds with as many partners as he can, as often as he can.

  35. Re:Morality or Ethics? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Why is it important to make such a sharp and absolute divide between moral philosophies based on their relationship to god? shouldn't distinctions be made across differences that are vast and all emcompassing instead of differences that seem to be more of a cultural or dependant on their primary advocates? Differences such as virtue ethics vs natural rights?

    As such, i have to ask what purpose does the morality vs ethics distinction serve? Is it truly and deeply informative in the sense that it paints an accurate picture of the view or does it merely exist to create an "us vs them" mentality?

    Now, I'm not saying that there really isn't a very good reason to divide up morality and ethics into distinct categories but I have to say that I'm not seeing it and as such, I have to ask, what is it?

  36. Religion is worthless in this regard. by FatSean · · Score: 2, Insightful

    See, the religions don't change to meet the times. Hence Bush pushing for abstinance to be the only method taught to prevent AIDS. Why? Jebus said so. And it works...if you are abstinant. After all our time on the planet people have been having sex. It's why we are here.

    Some stupid 2000 year old cult is not going to change opinions, and I am against having my tax money spent to further a dangerous idea.

    Unless racist Bush just wants all the Africans to die so he can invade more easily.

    --
    Blar.
  37. Do the police really need more money? by hotspotbloc · · Score: 2, Insightful
    So Sen. Carper wants to start a huge new federal tax and give it to the police? Has anyone else noticed that as your local city or town cuts back on money for everything from schools, road repair, public recreation areas (like public pools) to libraries the police are the only ones not only not getting hit with these budget cuts, they are the only ones consistently seeing budget increases?

    In my city the Chief of Police makes $151k USD and his lieutenants make at least $110k USD per year. I know primary care medical doctors that don't make that kind of money.

    I say we tell the police to stop messing around with their "busy work" like arresting people for simple marijuana possession (the number one reason for criminal arrest in the US) that costs the taxpayer on average >$8k USD per arrest, cut back on the number of police officers, stop buying them a new >$30k USD cruiser every two years and do some real work.

    While there are a lot of good cops out there, the system that governs them is corrupt and needs major overhaul. Sen. Carper's tax is just more pork (no pun intended) for Washington to give out.

    Fuck that.

    --
    "I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence or insanity but they've always worked for me" - HST
  38. Re:Morality or Ethics? by MightyMartian · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I think it's the other way around. I think any particular theological system is built to reflect the morals of a society.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  39. Re:Who decides? by Xarius · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If the server is outside the USA, it will be blocked.

    How do you propose that the US "government" identify every single pornographic website that does exist, and will exist in the future, and block it, and keep this entire system up to date...

    And to think, the criticism the "free" nations of the world give China for its Internet censorship...

    --
    C17H21NO4
  40. Re:Usual /. idiocy... let me help by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
    Look if you ever find yourself defending kiddie pr0n or kiddie pr0nographers just stop and admit you lost the debate. It's unwinnable. If Buscho said they were invading Canada tomorrow to rid the North America's from kiddie pr0n the World would jump right in line and scream KILL CANADA. It's just how repellent kiddie pr0n is. Deal.

    It's all doublethink. Have you ever noticed that people used to get riled up about "child molesters", whereas now it's all about "child pornographers" and "pedophiles"? They'd like you to think -- doublethink! -- that they're all equivalent. But in fact, of the three I would argue that only child molesters deserve the ire that is currently heaped on the other two.

    Remember, pedophilia is a THOUGHT CRIME! It's not the taking of any action, it's merely the existence of a desire! I thought we didn't punish people for their thoughts here in the Freedom Capaital of the World...

  41. Re:Don't let the state nany, take some responsibil by almostmanda · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The genetically successful male breeds with as many partners as he can, as often as he can.

    This is bullshit. Evolutionary success depends upon producing the most children who go on to have more children, not to spread the most of your genetic material around. A well cared for child that receives proper parental attention, who grows into a stable adult, is a greater "success" and will likely breed more and better children than five kids who are malnourished and mentally underdeveloped without the interaction and protection of the father.

    I'm not disagreeing with your first statement. Monogamy can be hard, but don't pull that "men are hardwired for infidelity" crap. The notion that women are "supposed" to try desperately to hold on to one man while men are "supposed" to want to spread their baby batter everywhere is a product of our culture, and is a cop-out for both sexes.

  42. 25% tax on porn?? by photon317 · · Score: 2, Insightful


    Do they have any idea how much money that is? I'm all for it - we could probably eliminate all other taxes the government collects and still double the budget.

    --
    11*43+456^2
  43. Yes, take responsibility for your own actions. by sgant · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's addictive personality. Much the same way as alcohol and drugs can ruin a persons view on many things.

    But to ban something because some people get addicted to it is nonsense. Some people are addicted to overeating, should we ban food next?

    How about this, we all become responsible for our own behavior. The guy that you were responding to blames the porn for his addiction to it, instead of laying the blame on himself for no control. Moderation in all things is best, but some people have no control. So does that mean that since some peoples lives are ruined by alcohol, drugs, porn, gambling and food we should ban it all...you know...just in case?

    --

    "Leo Fender was in a 'state of grace' when he designed the Stratocaster." -- Paul Reed Smith
  44. Re:Don't let the state nany, take some responsibil by cahiha · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As someone who was once addicted to porn, I can tell you that it can seriously screw up your notions about the realities of sex. Easy access to pornography on the internet during my single years definitely caused me some problems

    Hundreds of millions of people have "easy access to pornography" and no relationship problems. Obviously, your utilization of on-line pornography was a symptom, not a cause, of your problems.

    If you don't want to have easy access to pornography on-line, you have many ways of putting yourself in a position that you don't: get rid of your home Internet connection, connect through a filter, or join a monastery.

  45. Re:They should keep kids away from violence by ymgve · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Educating teenagers about and giving out free contraceptives would put a huge dent in that number.

  46. Re:Don't let the state nany, take some responsibil by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 3, Insightful

    There are lots of us atheists who have a very strong sense of morality which has nothing to do with illegality.

    Likewise, there are lots of religions people who really have a limited sense of morality and just do or don't do whatever their church tells them. Morality is really an intellectual construct and a static "book" cannot cover every possible shade of gray.

    I would hazard to guess that "athiests" are generally more intelligent than religious people, because at least they've thought about the plausibility of their beliefs and came to conclusions. Whereas, I would guess that most supposedly religious people are actually "athiestic" about religion (in the "not caring to ponder" meaning) because they have never invested much thought into either religion or morality and just believe and do what other people tell them.

  47. Re:Don't let the state nany, take some responsibil by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm definitely of the left, but we have to be precise about this: the democrats are quite often censorious and interventionist because they are opportunistically courting the "soccer mom" vote. This was their basic strategy under Clinton, and it was effective - it drains away much of the Republican base. And they can safely do this, because the Republicans are held immobile by their own right wing, who would never let them take a "free speech" line on something like pornography.

    The problem is not the politicians. The problem is the populace: they value safety, security and middle-class family culture more than free speech and an open society. The politics are a reflection of these values.

  48. Re:Sounds like you don't understand the industry.. by Hatta · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Are you comfortable with answering and doing all those things I asked you to do?

    Not unless you give me money. See how this works? People do things they normally wouldn't do for money. It's called a job.

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  49. Re:Don't let the state nany, take some responsibil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I understand what you mean about personal responsibility both I and the grandparent are supporters of taking ownership of own's own actions.

    However, as a man who suffered from an addiction to porn for over a decade I can tell you that it is a lot like alcohol - harmless in someways and devastating in others. I drink socially but I've had friends go through long recovery processes facing their alcoholism. Both porn and alcohol should be legal but should be treated with care.

    As for the hundreds of millions of people who have no relationship problems due to porn, I don't know 100mil people, but I've known twenty or thirty men very well. Once we're good enough friends and I bring up the story of my porn addition there is almost always a story from them to accompany it.

    I believe porn addictions are more prevalent than
    most of us would imagine.

  50. Re:Don't let the state nany, take some responsibil by Mspangler · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "So long story short, is, if you believe in true republican ideals, right now you need to vote democrat."

    I used to vote democrat on occasion. I might again if they would stop trying to put me out of work. I used to have a good job in mining. The Democrats demonized that industry right out of the country, as far as I can tell, to provide high-quality low-cost vacations for the urban elite.

    My current job depends on low-cost hydro-electric power, so what do the Democrats want now? To tear out the 4 dams on the lower Snake River and at least one on the Columbia, in order to "save the salmon" which are supposed to create a booming "eco-tourism industry". (Not just minimum wage, but seasonal minimum wage at that. Starve slowly for six months, quickly for the other six. What a deal!) That would raise electric rates enough to close down this job too. (Ironically, we make silicon for solar cells.)

    So, once the democrats start saying people are more important than fish, trees,and so on, as well as stop nannying and otherwise trying to micromanage my life, I'll consider voting for them again.

    Here's to Bill Proxmire, the last Democrat I voted for for a reason other than "lesser of two evils."

  51. Re:Don't let the state nany, take some responsibil by STrinity · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Or rather, a proof that much of the left wing hasn't realized how many democrats have sold out to the right in the guise of being "centrist".
     
    Let me see if I follow this discussion.
     
    P: Aghh! It's censorship. Nasty censorship! Gah, evil Republican censorship!
    Q: Um, actually it's evil Democrat censorship.
    P: Well, the guy's obviously not a real Democrat.
     
    Quite a brilliant argument -- your party is always right, because anything it does wrong doesn't really represent your party.
     
    So, uh, are the Republicans also the people who've tried to ban Huck Finn from schools for "racist" content?

    --
    Les Miserables Volume 1 now up with my reading of
  52. Re:Don't let the state nany, take some responsibil by Micah · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Interesting viewpoint and question from an adult site operator. I'll see if I can answer from a Christian perspective. (I don't know if grandparent poster is a Christian, but he certainly has some similarities to what Christian men go through.)

    There are many, many, MANY Christian men who struggle with addiction to pornography. I'm not one of them (thank God!) but the ones who are tell all kinds of stories about wanting to quit viewing it, but simply cannot. I can think of some reasons why this is a problem:

    1. Christian women expect their Christian men to be monogomous and faithful to only them. Having their men look at porn is extremely offensive to them, it makes them feel inadequate.

    2. Porn gives men unrealistic expectations of what sex should be like.

    3. We believe that God created sex to be a PRIVATE expression of love between a MARRIED man and woman. Pornography violates and distorts this in the most complete manner imaginable.

    Jesus said, (in Matthew 5:27-28) "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery;' but I tell you that everyone who gazes at a woman to lust after her has committed adultery with her already in his heart." This is the problem for Christians -- it is IMPOSSIBLE to look at porn without violating this.

    I can see why it is a bigger problem for Christians than non-Christians. Non-Christians are simply absorbed into the sex-focused culture of our day, and don't see anything wrong with it. And frankly, that is their problem. I am not going to preach to a non-Christian about proper sexual viewpoints -- if they reject God anyway, what is the point? They might as well live like they want.

    Christians also must battle between what their flesh wants and what the spirit of God in them wants. Paul goes on a long lament in Romans 7 that he keeps doing the things he knows he should not do, and does not do the things he knows he should do. This is exactly what porn addicts experience.

    I will also point out a great Christian ministry that helps men (and women) get out of this trip. Setting Captives Free. The site has a number of testimonies about how porn has wrecked their lives, and how they were able to find freedom.

  53. Re:Don't let the state nany, take some responsibil by Foobar+of+Borg · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Why is it that, whenever I read arguments about "real" Democrats and "real" Republicans, I hear bagpipes in the background?

  54. Sounds like a good idea for music and movies! by The_Incubator · · Score: 1, Insightful
    This sounds like an idea that would better be applied to music and movies... Tax them 25% and use the money to fight piracy and P2P filesharing networks.

    At least there'd be a causal link between these industry's products and the crimes, and they are always whining and wasting taxpayer money enforcing their unsistainable business models.

    Nick

  55. Re:Don't let the state nany, take some responsibil by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 3, Insightful

    > Surely there are better examples of censorship among Republicans.

    Than covering a boob on a famous statue? Shirley, you jest. It seems to describe everything wrong with censorship and exposes small-mindedness and the evil hardcore Christians have in their hearts. By hardcore Christians, I mean those who would impose their will on us, rather than turn the other cheek.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  56. I used to worry about this... by No+Such+Agency · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Now I realize that I'd trade every scrap of porn I ever saw for a real woman, physical imperfections and all, who actually loved me. So I worry less about being "addicted to porn" and more about trying to not be a recluse spending all his time on Slashdot instead of dating (not very successful at this so far).

    --
    Freedom: "I won't!"
  57. Re:Don't let the state nany, take some responsibil by poptones · · Score: 2, Insightful

    1) then the women have a problem with their men. It is not my duty to subsidize their problem.

    2) no, it doesn't. It only sets "unreasonable expectations" if you (or your partner) are too narrow minded to enjoy the activities you want to enjoy. The people in pornography are not cartoons - they are real people actually doing those things. Some of us do those things without a camera handy.

    3) BFD. You have your beliefs and I have mine. You're free to your beliefs so long as you don't try to legislate them on me.

    I am sick of living under the thumb of the american taliban. You fuckers have got to go.

  58. Re:Don't let the state nany, take some responsibil by An+Onerous+Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Let me get this straight. Christians are told over and over to repress their sexual thoughts and behaviors, that it is shameful, sinful, and satanic to entertain these wicked desires. Then along come some pictures of gleeful naked people. The Christian finds something pleasant and enjoyable about viewing these pictures and thinking about sex. This pleasure becomes something sinister and shameful that they have to hide from their wives, their family, their friends.

    Again, just so we're absolutely clear... it's the porn that's screwing these people up?

    Back when I was a Christian (okay, technically Mormon, so you'll probably say it doesn't count), I thought I was "addicted" to porn. But when I finally realized that Big Daddy wasn't looking over my shoulder, ready to smite me, when I realized that there was nothing particularly shameful about enjoying porn, and that it was just a timesink that needed to be limited so I could do more productive things, my addiction ended.

    You Christians have such problems with porn because you have to struggle alone with these deep-seated repressions. Get over them, come to terms with the idea that you're meant to enjoy these lascivious thoughts, and stop spoiling things for the rest of us.

    --

    You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!