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.'"
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.
nice republican rant... although you failed to point out the basis of this article is that a democratic senator is pushing for this legislation. it seems the democratic party has been at the forefront of cencorship this past decade (ie clinton, lieberman, carter, etc), so blaming the republican party is not accurate.
Aren't there constitutional issues here? It seems odd to have a situation where the IRS decides what is and what isn't pornography.
They could tax Empornium for 100% and it will still be free!
He's just voting to increase his own taxes.
Sex! Minors interested in sex. Minors using someones credit card to pay for porn (ordo minors in the US actually get a credit card legally?) Pedophiles ...
Man, that sounds like just out of the "box of horrors" of contemporary politics. He forgot terrorists, tought...
Screw the FSM - Real geeks believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn
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....
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
generic porno relate to child-abuse anymore than indy-500 to bank robbery escape with a car?
A 25% tax on what the government calls pornography might impact sales. Be afraid, thinkgeek - you and your action shots.
hardcore porn gangbanging is not and creates a fake image of sex for children
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.
And just who gets to decide what constitutes Pornography?
Are we going to tax web pages which talk about breast cancer, just because they contain the word breast?
And how would such taxes be collected, Especially if the server resides outside the US?
It's about time our elected officials started paying taxes.
Yet the senator who proposed the bill is a Democrat, who Christian groups rated as voting 16% pro-family...
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".
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_
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?
Not sex....
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
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.
I don't think we pay enough taxes... we need to pay more taxes on everything!
There are gazillions of loopholes, that will needed to be plugged before they can see money flowing in.
hilarious
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.
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.
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.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
So maybe this is a good thing for the porn industry.
Down with stealth taxes!!!
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
Why would a child seeing two consenting adults having sex "corrupt" them.
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 once I got into a real relationship. It's hard to settle down with one woman when you've been going through 20 different girls every night, even when that one woman has the advantage of being real and not just an image. I'm still trying to deal with the effects that such easy access to pornography has dealt to my psyche.
Granted, that's my problem and my responsibility, and no one else's, and I'm not advocating the nanny-state. But don't be so quick to think that porn never hurt anybody.
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.
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...
I propose we show kids goatse as young as possible to negate this effect.
Seriously if your kid is trying to get a hold of porn whether or not it's "violent sex, sex with animals, gang bangs, rapes, child pornography, etc." they've already past that supposed age anyway. Well, unless someones forcing them to watch it in which case you have a little more to worry about.
What age might this effect them at anyway? If someone showed me something like that at a real young age I'd have had no idea what it was. By the time I was 8 it would have just gotten an "eww" at the most.
require XXX domains? and what about all the other methods to get porn irrelevant to websites? If a kids looking for porn in the first place there's no point of trying to further censor sex from them, they're past that breaking point.
I swear if I see one more parent stuck in this whole "child innocence" delusion I'm going to go on a killing spree. Get over it, your kid will be the same dirty old sexual beast that you are one day.
If you don't want someone to copy something, don't give it to anyone.
Go ahead and get all you want. Just don't expect me to pay for your STD's and social programs. Oh, wait...
C|N>K
Sex feels good. Sex is free. Sex can relieve stress, let you express love and is one of the most intimate acts in the world.
It is because of this that profiteers hate it. Why? Because instead of buying products, people will have sex. This is bad for the economy.
Getting into Freudian philosophy and science, has it ever occured to you that perhaps large or covetted things like computers, cars, possessions like iPods or other things are just temporary mental replacements for the lack of sex drive or the lack of sex at all? Maybe that intimacy we experience with our toys is what replaces the intimacy between two people?
The control of sex is the control of basic human emotion and instinct. If you control sex or the sex drive, the base of all instinct in mammals, you control the person is belongs to. Don't have sex! Buy these indulgences and be saved from Satan! Having sex is a sin and will breed disease! Come to church more and fork over your money!
Not all churches are like that, or even the ones who used to do that stuff actively *coughcatholiccough*. But the fact remains, the meaning of life for a human being, at the base, is to reproduce, be happy, and keep yourself occupied.
Supression of instinct, especially sex, breeds a consumer - someone looking for something to fill the void. In a society where you can turn on the TV and see a child with all of his limbs amputated or a "precision" American bomber carpet bombing populated areas, I find it disgusting that this society bars SEX, SEX of all things, from television, but allows people to go on TV, preach about beating up prostitutes and being a "playa" or how various thousands of people are dying.
Neither should be barred. But the one you'd think wouldn't be, is.
and the government's debt was wiped out in 2 months.
OK...
I can do this. I am, after all,
a superhero!
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.
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!!
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."
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
"Bukkake is when a Mommy and a Daddy and a Daddy and a Daddy and a Daddy and a Daddy and a Daddy all decide that Mommy needs some special facial moisturiser" (from bash.org)
They may take our pr0n, but they'll never take OUR FREEDOM! Oh wait...
And who the hell mod'ed a racist 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
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.
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.
What he can't kill, he has sex on. Trent.
Funny, isn't it, that the Democrat politician proposing this can't seem to muster up specific distaste for the people who consume the legal material, but prefers to see them as a cash cow. Just like smokers. His approach to governing people means keeping them doing the things he doesn't like (smoking, viewing porn, being poor, etc) so that his little corner of the bureaucratic world has a reason to exist (and an opportunity for more tax revenue). How much do you want to bet that even if he could get such a measure passed, that the dollars pulled in would more or less never go straight to the law enforcement teams that actually do hunt down a bust the kidddie porn creeps. Nope, it's just more money in the pot to spend on pork.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
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.
"...although you failed to point out the basis of this article is that a democratic senator is pushing for this..."
Oh, sheesh, thank god... at least it will never pass then.
Cool art gallery, if you're into that sort of thing.
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.
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
1) Sex and Religion. If Sex and Religion were, in fact, the issue here - here's your short answer. Religion actually has a lot of things to say about sex and rightfully so. It is a very short window of time that sex won't kill you. You know since say... the invention of Penicillin to now. Prior ro that VD killed. Now we giggle. AIDS will still kill you but you have to pretty much be TRYING to get AIDS to get it. Yeah yeah, blood transfusion, yadda yadda... to get AIDS you pretty much need to be shooting up or have relatively unsafe sex.
So Religion was right to warn/forbid against promiscuity... kills of the flock, less cash in the coffers.
2) It's not about sex it's about pr0n. No one is trying to take your pr0n away. They want to tax pr0n and use the money to help pay for Kiddie pr0n investigations, and prosecutions.
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.
3) As for the Christian Right -- they're not calling for this. Some Democrat is -- clearly in an attempt to make Democrats seem more Family Friendly. Whatever.
Now SlashDopes if you don't understand number one... I'm with ya. I'd love to bang the snot out of every thigh high booted, thong showing, belly button ring wearing cock tease I see on the E train. It's just a really bad idea.
If you think for a second number two will go down as advertised you must really buy in to this Government is there to help us bullshit. That money is going in the same BLACK HOLE the 2B USD the FCC was supposed to use to wire up all of our schools. The Government isn't evil, it's incompetent and bloated. Cut it down immediately.
As for number three if you need anymore proof that all the politicians are whores then you'll never get it.
Please return to your orgies at your places of worship you Baalist bastards!
This
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.
I'm curious. I have never had a chance to speak to someone who was addicted to porn and I'd really like to ask you one thing if you don't mind.
Do you view porn as being addictive, or do you view yourself as having an addictive personality?
I have to admit, I'm a little defensive and biased since I run adult sites for a living. I've had easy access to porn for over 10 years online and I look at porn every day as part of my business.. and I've never had any problems with addiction, or my relationships etc.
I have suffered a serious drug addiction to speed in my past, and so I understand how powerful and devastating addiction can be. It caused me to steal from people I love, it kept me up all night on binges, it affected my work life and my social life etc. I had to go through rehab and group therapy etc. Yet I've never experienced any of the warning signs that might lead me to believe that I could be addicted to porn. I've never thought about porn (at least excessively) while away from it. I've never neglected any responsibilities so I could look at porn (never left work, never missed a bill so I could pay for porn etc.) I've never once gotten bored of my wife or turned her down for sex so that I could go jack off to 20 different girls instead etc.
I'm not trying to downplay your addiction. I am fully aware that there are people who suffer through addictions to porn. And, as someone who suffered drug addiction, I understand the power of addiction and I understand how serious it can be on ones life.
I'm just wondering, do you think porn is addictive ? Or are people who get addicted to porn the type of people who would also easily get addicted to gambling, video games, hookers etc. ?
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.
I think it's fair to say both the Democrats and the Republicans are at the forefront of censorship. Ashcroft had the Spirit of Justice statue covered up because of a boobie for example which also costed $8000 for the curtain at tax payers expense.
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
The genetically successful male breeds with as many partners as he can, as often as he can.
This it has in common with the female. The BBC has done their studies anonimously and there it showed that the same percentage of women and man commited adultery.
When asked personally, meaning asked by a person and not via an anonymous PC or the like, more men the women commited adultery. So what it shows is that either men brag and women lie about how often they do it, or both.
When I asked my (female-)friends they said women probably do more adultery then men. The difference is that they do not talk about it. The reasons is that a men is a stud and a women is a slut when they got found out.
Just look at the numbers. Either some women are extremely busy, or the numbers are incorrect. Say 20% of the commit adultery and 10% of the women. Who are they doing it with?
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
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.
Small point here...
Separation of church and state simply means that the state cannot promote/demote any belief over another. It does not mean you can't have religious people in power.
Most atheists are some of the most generally "nice" people around (except when you ask them about religion!). The reason, I think, because we prescribe to THIS life, not something beyond. We realize that we are all we have!
I like my women how I like my sugar.. granulated.
I'm with you, I'm agnostic and I don't expect an afterlife. If some day I find myself in heaven or hell, I guess I'll have a red face. Oh well. But besides that, I'm a good person. I do right even though I don't believe that it's going to earn me eternal life. I'm just compelled to; it's in my character.
I think that our notion of right and wrong are buried deep in our genes. Cooperation is what makes us more survivable than many other animals, and somewhere in that we've had to learn to get along. I'm suggesting that sociability, and the order from chaos that follows is what made us better and stronger than the rest.
I'm also suggesting that morality is completely arbitrary, but a certain set of conditions led humanity to our current point. If for some reason our ancestors were made stronger and more survivable by eating their young, or doing any of the myriad of things we consider to be amoral, that's what we'd be doing today.
I think that most of us have in our genetics the desire to do what's right, and that we're all basically good deep down inside. If you believe that God made you that way, that's cool too. Our conclusions are basically the same. Of course, there's some among us that are anti-social - raping, stealing, and otherwise being uncooperative. I think that somewhere down the line their ancestors were made survivable by deviating from the pack. They were stronger, they stole food, killed their own and spread their genes contrary to the established protocols--and here they are today following the lessons of their predecessors--being assholes.
Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
If you actually read "The Selfish Gene", you'd see that there are two stability points:
1) The "conspiracy of the doves" (100% doves) -- the ideal case (no-one gets hurt), but rapidly deteriates if you have even one hawk
2) The point "60% dove, 40% hawk"
If the doves are taken as being purely ethical and the hawks as purely unethical, you can see that the ethics and morality are not eraticated, in fact they tend to outnumber the hawks. The exact ratio depends on how "unethical" the hawks are. The more damage they do, the more that being "ethical" pays off.
It's a good thing this is the case, otherwise there wouldn't be a place in the world where you could step outside even one instant without being mugged or turned into a slave.
On the whole, people *are* more ethical and moral than not and it's a way societies work best.
Also, the "conspiracy of the doves" ethical model also does work (see the GPL), but it relies on enforcement to ensure that there are no hawks.
The problem you're having is that the fundies try to move from "60% dove, 40% hawk" to "conspiracy of the doves" through less than "100% dove" means. If you believe the "Selfish Gene", that's doomed to failure since the fundies themselves are the hawks that drive things back to the "60% dove, 40% hawk" level.
You can only tax what is delivered. No taxes no delivery, simple as that.
By doing so all that US will get is the destruction of its online porn industry (if it can be called industry), all players will migrate to Canada and Mexico, or to some other country where they are not taxed.
Politicians are not worry about technical issues, all they want to do is pretend that they really worry about people.
-=-=-=-=
I know life isn't fair, but why can't it ever be un-fair in MY favor!?
There are lots of us atheists who have a very strong sense of morality which has nothing to do with illegality.
Amen to that brother!
It seems odd to have a situation where the IRS decides what is and what isn't pornography.
I think looking at pricewatch.com is pornography.
Imagining buying 8 10KRPM SCSI drives with a decent scsi RAID card... ooooh. that gives me feelings inside that rivals large breasted women and shorn vaginas.
or even looking at what kind of rack servers are available. Beowulf clusters of multi-processor servers with RAM and storage totals calculated in Petabytes.
I'll be back in a minute. gotta get a tissue.
...spike
Ewwwwww, coconut...
Having an "explanation" for the sex drive and uncontrollable urges doesn't make it any easier to live with said urges, especially when we also have a conscience and a sense of morality fused into our own beings.
Should a man be happy that his body is telling him to screw any healthy female he comes across?
I'm fortunate enough to be tapped into my emotions and conscience more than I'm tapped into my biological urges. I don't like to cause other people psychological pain nor cause myself psychological pain. All I've ever gotten from promiscuity was pangs of guilt.
You can take your evolutionary biological explanation and smoke it, cause when it comes to living with emotions and having a conscience, the explanation doesn't tell you how to live your life.
Support a different Democrat in that state's primaries, if you don't want to support a Republican. Of course, assuming he isn't a whore, too. Almost no one votes in primaries, your voice and vote would actually matter.
Any sufficiently advanced influence is indistinguishable from control.
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.
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
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
The evolutionary advantage for females is that they can have their children protected by a male, but breed with an evolutionary superior male. Why do you think we are one of the few species where a male can't tell if a female is ovulating.h tml
search for "Red Queen"
To learn more of evolutionary sexuality: use google, but here's one to start you of http://www.thegreatdebate.org.uk/sexualselection.
For the perfect anti-Unix, write an OS that thinks it knows what you're doing better than you do and let it be wrong.
I like my women how I like my sugar.. granulated.
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.
Yo, Senator!
How about a 25% tax increase on all the corporations who register in tiny dipshit Delaware in order to avoid paying taxes in their home areas?
Taxes that are supposed to go to pay for children's services like health care, security, and education?
Oh? No longer interested? Fuck you, shitheel politician whore!!!
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.
I'm sorry, but that's such a load of crap. If you can't seperate porn sex from real sex, it is your own damn fault. You say your problems were your own responsibility, but then go on to say that porn hurts people! Bullshit. Some guys have always had problems in relationships with women. Some guys who have trouble in relationships looked at lots of porn. Some frequented prostitutes. Some lived pure and chaste and by the bible, and still had issues. I'm sure it's easy for you to blame your difficulties with women on porn. So be it. Have fun crying about it with your shrink. But don't go spreading your passive-aggressive anti-porn crap around and giving ammunition to those who would prefer a nanny-state.
Come to think of it, instituting an import duty on foreign porn would probably be much more effective at combating child pornography, because most of it (at least the professionally produced stuff) is foreign. I might even e-mail the senator with the idea...
argumentum ad fallacium: Fallacy of defining a fallacy which allows one to dismiss the argument in question.
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.
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!
I believe St. Augustine is credited with being the first self loathing, sex-is-dirty type christian.
Unfortunately, he set the tone for all those that followed.
You oversimplify. You are presuming that the evolutionary pressure that shaped us and allowed us to live what is now considered a normal life. The reality is that over the period that evolution has shaped us life has on average been brutal and comparitively very short. This would strongly favour spreading your seed around. Stability is important but the degree of stability is relative and where lifespan is short it probably becomes less important. However in some circumstances stability would be highly favourable. The upshot of this is that what you would expect to see is a variety of different behaviours to fulfill different niches. Sure enough you will find that the degree of testosterone expression in both males and females variers hugely creating people who are comparitivly promiscuios and people who are aren't. Sadly many people think that everybody else is the same as them and should be able to see thing in the same way and behave in the same way as they do. They just totally miss the point that a large proportion of the population just have a different dominant forces in their brain chemisrty and that these difference are there for evolutionary reasons.
If I had 14/15/16-year old daughters, they couldn't have credit card access unless I gave it to them. Therefore, they couldn't pay for porn (or much else) on the Internet. So, the argument is really quite irrelevant.
That said, you can either have an open communication and actually reinforce your kids with your values, take reasonable steps to block offensive material, or both. The onus of upholding your values among your wards should be up to you.
Information wants to be free.
Entertainment wants to be paid.
You just want to be cheap.
There's actually little evidence to support that position. All evidence seems to suggest that people who have 'poorer' social outcomes are more likely to have children. Look at the number of children those living in poverty in this country have, versus the number of children the average phd has.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
Nothing religious about it. Simply a lack of belief.
Saying that atheism is a religion is precisely like saying a lack of belief in the healing power of pyramids is a religion.
It takes more than an atheist viewpoint to make a religion. Count on it.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
"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."
The Democrats in your country are further right-wing than the Conservative Party in my country (Canada). Your whole idea of left wing vs. right wing is quite, quite skewed. When the rest of the world looks at you, we see a very right wing country - with only two right wing parties.
And I don't know how you can say that Socialism doesn't work...Have you ever taken a look at Socialist countries? Canada, for one, Sweden and the other Scandinavian countries for other examples. Democratic Socialism works, and has always worked. The problem with alot of Americans, I find, is that they automatically associate Socialism or Communism with the Soviet Union or China. You have to realize that neither of these countries were Communist, except in name.
The Soviet Union's idealogy was a brand of Authoritarianism with Socialist leanings (everything was State owned), which could be called Stalinism. One of the reason's why it failed so badly was that it was opposed to change, and, when it finally realized that it needed to change it was too late for it to filter down from the beaurcracy to the people.
I don't exactly know how you could call China Communist - even during the height of the Cold War, they would not associate with Soviet Brand "Communism" (Sino-Soviet Split, everyone). During the Cultural Revolution and the Great Leap Forward the country was in chaos - no, not Communism, the country was literally falling apart. There was no central authority, only little regional warlord type people all fighting one another. I suppose you could all it a state of Civil War (which it was, I guess. Mao was trying to purge his opponents from the leadership position by mobilizing the students in urban centres).
Anyway, regardless of the chaos that happened during the Cultural Revolution and the Great Leap Forward, one must merely look at the reforms of Deng Xiaoping. His economic reforms created "special economic zones", allowing foreign companies to invest in China and for factories to be built that weren't state owned. It also allowed for private ownership of business and other things such as property by private Citizens of China, even non-members of the Communist Party.
To go even further, look at the doctrine of One Country Two Governments - the official party and state line regarding the future of Hong Kong. For 50 years, there will be no change in the running of Hong Kong - the Chinese weren't stupid, Hong Kong has more money flowing through it everyday than most countries in Asia get in a month. Don't you think such a practise (allowing a special autonomous region of capitalism) would be counter-inuitive to Communism? Whether it be the "Communism" of Stalin, Maoism or just good ol' Marxism, spreading the Revolution and mobilizing the Proletariat is the most important thing.
Now, I digress from that tangent. However...
Unless you Americans want a neo-conservative government, headed by imperialists and neo-liberal economists, you must vote for someone other than the Republician party. The current dominant faction within the Republician party are the neo-cons (Paul Wolfowitz, anyone?) - since the 80's they have been trying to bring about their ultimate goal, the Pax Americana. The American Peace. Through funding secret wars in third world countries, and securing vital assets in various parts of the world, they are setting the board for the final showdown on the Eurasian Chessboard.
What is the Eurasian Chessboard, you ask? Well, like any good geopolitical scientist or aficionado knows, it's the continent of Eurasia, and, more specificially the most important part of that continent - the central Asian republics.
Now, Iraq was merely the first step. It allows for a foothold in the Middle East, in a strategic position next to Iran (I'm betting the second target) and basically sandwiches a whole bunch of enemies of Israel (a very important dwarf-super power).
I could go on and on about the whole apparent plan, but I'm not going to. I'm going to tell you where I got all o
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
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.
Why is it that, whenever I read arguments about "real" Democrats and "real" Republicans, I hear bagpipes in the background?
Similar to the upcoming US election results
(The last point about Buddhism not strictly being a religion requires strictly definining religion as theism--I used a more reasonable definition that it is a system of beliefs held with faith.)
It does take "more than an atheist viewpoint to make a religion" but an atheistic viewpoint does not preclude being a religion.
Tired of free ipod spam sigs? Opt ou
Actually, I was just referring to the general moaning, groaning and Vidal Sassoon hair tossing that porn-star women seem compelled to do whenever they're lucky enough to have a dick stuck in their mouth. I mean if you have a monster like that at your disposal, there're places where you could get a heck of a lot more pleasure out of it, you know?
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
Your comment gives new meaing to the phrase, "Hey, baby! Nice rack!"
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
- Ethics = a code of conduct. The phrase "legal ethics" is used commonly, and in a way that has little to do with what most would consider "right" and "wrong". Human conduct is "ethical" if it complies with a given code of ethics - the same action could be ethical under one code and unethical under another, and that state of affairs is within the common use of the word (such as a reporter with a professional obligation to do one thing and a moral obligation to do another). Ethics defines "right (what you should do)" and "wrong (what you shouldn't do)".
- Morals = a code of conduct (a kind of ethics) which defines rules for the betterment of moral entities. Morality defines "good = what makes people better" and "evil = what makes people worse" in addition to right and wrong.
More technically, you'd need to speak of "moral actors" and "moral entities" which may not be the same set, but that's pointlessly pendantic for ordinary discussion. By this definition, an "ethical" code might have as its aim the betterment of people (which would make it also a moral code) or some other aim (such as the betterment of a single entity) which would not.By these definitions, a code of conduct handed down from a religion could go either way. In some religions, the point is to maximize the happyness of all people, in others the point is pretty arbitrary, such as making God happy, regardless of the consequenses for people.
Ultimately, there's not much agreement on the definition of "moral" vs "ethical" and it's best to spell out what you mean. It's also useful to distinguish between:
- A code of ehtics - a list of actions which should or should not be taken.
- Normative ethics - a set of principles from which you can use to determine whether a given action should or shouldn't not be taken.
- Meta-ethics - a set of requirements you use to determine whether a set of normative principles makes sense, such as logical consistancy, or cultural relativism, or divine edict, or maximization of common good, or whatever.
It's pointless to argue about the morality of a course of action unless you share a set of normative ethics. It's pointless to argue about whether a set of normative ethics makes sense when you can't agree on a set of meta-ethical principles. If one person believes that normative principles must be a logically consistent set of rules that maximize "goodness", and another believes that normative principles are whatever God decides, they can only argue past one another.Arguments about meta ethics usually devolve into arguments about either theology or epistemology (the definition of "know"), which aren't much fun really, since everyone basically just asserts that their intuitions about the subject are unquestionably correct.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
> 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.
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!"
Check out this definition:
"Any specific system of belief about deity, often involving rituals, a code of ethics, and a philosophy of life." Thus we would include Agnosticism, Atheism, conservative Christianity, Humanism, Islam, Judaism, liberal Christianity, Native American Spirituality, Wicca and other Neopagan traditions as religions.
Just because our belief is based on *gasp* logic, doesn't exclude it from being a belief.
Really, I'm not trying to be clever with my signature.
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.
So you don't appreciate America's God-given right to vote for the lesser of two weasels?
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
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!