>> The 'prima facie' evidence for it can be ascertained by the instruments of your brain and senses. However it depends on how sensitively they are tuned or if they have "reception" trouble in picking up the signals due to neglect or abuse.
>Since you've just explicitly admitted that your case is subjective (i.e. some people see it that way and other people don't) rather than objective (i.e. based on facts observable to all), I'll consider the argument over.
---
I did not say it was subjective. You interpreted what I said as saying that which I didn't.
Scientists have discovered many new things when they used more sensitive instruments. There are plenty of examples from past and current history. Those with more sensitive measuring instruments saw the things. Those without the sensitive instruments did not see it. Comparing the two groups as "subjective" is a twist of the word.
You can still choose to take the "red pill" and research it yourself. The choice is yours. Please consider opening up to the possibilities.
That's all for now.
You are right that the analogy is not perfect and has flaws in it. I wrote it quickly before I left for Christmas vacation.
Also, my "Freedom is not the goal" statement was incomplete in my limited time to reply.
I mean that it is not the ultimate goal. Freedom of course is a goal but the bigger goals are making the best choices with the freedom. Freedom is abused when it's used to hurt others.
> >That doesn't overshadow the fact that the consequences of obscenity pollution are just as real as the consequences of environmental pollution.
> Nonsense. The results of inhaling toxic chemicals are a matter of verifiable objective fact. The results of hearing and viewing unwanted messages are a subjective function of the recipient's predelections.
Actually, the results of obscenity pollution are also a matter of verifiable objective fact. The 'prima facie' evidence for it can be ascertained by the instruments of your brain and senses. However it depends on how sensitively they are tuned or if they have "reception" trouble in picking up the signals due to neglect or abuse.
You can become desensitized to obscenity pollution just like your pain nerves can be become desensitized through anesthesia.
If you expose yourself to porn you anesthesize some of these natural senses. Yes, it can seem like its enhancing another sense by giving you a high similar to a narcotic but then it leaves you feeling numb as an after-effect.
So the effects of obscenity pollution are definitely real and objectively verifiable. It just depends on whether you choose to be "awake" or not and treat your "conscience" sense in a healthy manner by feeding it good content and not a diet of obscenity.
However you can continue to keep those part of your senses asleep and then be like the people in The Matrix.
Or you can choose to wake up and look at all the facts. Don't be afraid. Which one will it be for you? The "blue pill" or the "red pill"?
The facts that pornography causes damage to the viewer -- are all in the real world. No amount of wishing or denial will make them go away.
If you want other facts from psychologists and social scientists and researchers in other disciplines then check out MoralityInMedia.org for starters.
I was numb too for a while but then chose to wake up, pull my head out of the darkness, and research all of the facts, and make the best choices. I sincerely invite you to research it for yourself. You can objectively test it also.
The argument of "turning the dial" can be compared to a guest coming into my home, lighting up a cigarette, and then when I nicely ask them to put it out because I don't want to damage the health of my lungs they then flippantly say "leave the room". As soon as I start to breathe the cigarette smoke the damage is done. Yes, I can leave the room but damage has already been done and they didn't care at all about it.
It's the same thing with "turning the dial". I've already been exposed to offensive material -- the damage is already done.
Howard Stern or anybody can do whatever they want in private and deal with private consequences. But when they do things in public then they have to face good or bad public consequences. The other poster who talked about the responsibilities of freedom said it very nicely. And the poster who said that the consequence for profanity in his home was being punched -- that made me laugh.:)
Freedom is absolutely necesary and is a tool -- a tool towards the goals of making the best or smartest possible choices. Freedom is not the goal -- it's a tool to reach the goal. When freedom (or diversity) ceases to become a tool and instead becomes a goal then it's easy to forget about the responsiblities of freedom.
And yes, we should all be allowed space to make mistakes and learn along the way. Where there are disagreements we should work together and patiently try to persuade one another until we come to a common understanding.
That doesn't overshadow the fact that the consequences of obscenity pollution are just as real as the consequences of environmental pollution. Please study it at the previous link that I included above and search for others.
Thanks for listening, I'm leaving for Christmas vacation now.:)
Happy Holidays!
Roger
P.S. I'm independent - unaffiliated with a party.
Check out the ACLJ as
well as the IJ
Does this mean "freedom" to hurt your neighbor or hurt your neighborhood?
If your freedoms start to infringe on my freedom and my "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" then you are abusing your freedoms.
For example, we have environmental pollution laws to prevent some from abusing their freedom to pollute the environment and cause sickness or death to others.
Someone already mentioned that obscenity is not protected by the 1st amendment as ruled by the Supreme Court back in 1973(?). I think it was Miller v. California.
If you choose to abuse your freedoms by polluting the air we breathe, or if you choose to pollute our visual or aural or mental environment with obscene images or words then you're hurting others.
Wise uses of our freedoms do not infringe on other's freedoms.
I have asthma and it's important to me that the air I breathe is clean. Likewise I have good mental health and I don't want it to be limited or destroyed with obscene pollution. The pollution of obscenity is just as real as other types of pollution.
Check out some studies, meta-studies, and other articles on the topic at MIM.org
You can do whatever you want in private and then think that it only hurts yourself. But if you exercise your freedoms in a way that then harms others then it ceases to be a freedom. It's an abuse.
Roger
P.S. Check out the Institute for Justice at IJ.org
Why not a technical solution that is global and authoritative?
Why not have ICANN(or should it be IANA) create an abuse group? If someone spams then that IP address(es) get disabled temporarily on the root servers. If they do it so many times, like say three times, then they permanently lose the IP address(es) and ICANN is then free to allocate the IP(s) to another organization.
If this was designed right, then it sounds like an awesome tool to nail spammers no matter where on the globe they're sending from. What do you think?
(i read this idea in an article somewhere a few months ago. i don't remember it's source.)
One thing that sucks about this new version 1.1 (at the least in OS X) is that in Preferences:Privacy & Security:Images they removed the checkbox that says "Ask me before downloading an image"! That sucks!
You can still block ads after they load by right clicking on them but you can't block them before.
Did they remove that in the other versions also?:(
Slashdot Mirror
>Since you've just explicitly admitted that your case is subjective (i.e. some people see it that way and other people don't) rather than objective (i.e. based on facts observable to all), I'll consider the argument over.
---
I did not say it was subjective. You interpreted what I said as saying that which I didn't.
Scientists have discovered many new things when they used more sensitive instruments. There are plenty of examples from past and current history. Those with more sensitive measuring instruments saw the things. Those without the sensitive instruments did not see it. Comparing the two groups as "subjective" is a twist of the word.
You can still choose to take the "red pill" and research it yourself. The choice is yours. Please consider opening up to the possibilities. That's all for now.
Roger Brown
Check out MIM
Also, my "Freedom is not the goal" statement was incomplete in my limited time to reply. I mean that it is not the ultimate goal. Freedom of course is a goal but the bigger goals are making the best choices with the freedom. Freedom is abused when it's used to hurt others.
> >That doesn't overshadow the fact that the consequences of obscenity pollution are just as real as the consequences of environmental pollution.
> Nonsense. The results of inhaling toxic chemicals are a matter of verifiable objective fact. The results of hearing and viewing unwanted messages are a subjective function of the recipient's predelections.
Actually, the results of obscenity pollution are also a matter of verifiable objective fact. The 'prima facie' evidence for it can be ascertained by the instruments of your brain and senses. However it depends on how sensitively they are tuned or if they have "reception" trouble in picking up the signals due to neglect or abuse.
You can become desensitized to obscenity pollution just like your pain nerves can be become desensitized through anesthesia.
If you expose yourself to porn you anesthesize some of these natural senses. Yes, it can seem like its enhancing another sense by giving you a high similar to a narcotic but then it leaves you feeling numb as an after-effect.
So the effects of obscenity pollution are definitely real and objectively verifiable. It just depends on whether you choose to be "awake" or not and treat your "conscience" sense in a healthy manner by feeding it good content and not a diet of obscenity.
However you can continue to keep those part of your senses asleep and then be like the people in The Matrix.
Or you can choose to wake up and look at all the facts. Don't be afraid. Which one will it be for you? The "blue pill" or the "red pill"?
The facts that pornography causes damage to the viewer -- are all in the real world. No amount of wishing or denial will make them go away.
If you want other facts from psychologists and social scientists and researchers in other disciplines then check out MoralityInMedia.org for starters.
I was numb too for a while but then chose to wake up, pull my head out of the darkness, and research all of the facts, and make the best choices. I sincerely invite you to research it for yourself. You can objectively test it also.
Peace out bros,
Roger Brown
P.S. Try porn-free.org for further facts.
Thank you. I enjoy thoughtful discussion.
The argument of "turning the dial" can be compared to a guest coming into my home, lighting up a cigarette, and then when I nicely ask them to put it out because I don't want to damage the health of my lungs they then flippantly say "leave the room". As soon as I start to breathe the cigarette smoke the damage is done. Yes, I can leave the room but damage has already been done and they didn't care at all about it.
It's the same thing with "turning the dial". I've already been exposed to offensive material -- the damage is already done.
Howard Stern or anybody can do whatever they want in private and deal with private consequences. But when they do things in public then they have to face good or bad public consequences. The other poster who talked about the responsibilities of freedom said it very nicely. And the poster who said that the consequence for profanity in his home was being punched -- that made me laugh. :)
Freedom is absolutely necesary and is a tool -- a tool towards the goals of making the best or smartest possible choices. Freedom is not the goal -- it's a tool to reach the goal. When freedom (or diversity) ceases to become a tool and instead becomes a goal then it's easy to forget about the responsiblities of freedom.
And yes, we should all be allowed space to make mistakes and learn along the way. Where there are disagreements we should work together and patiently try to persuade one another until we come to a common understanding.
That doesn't overshadow the fact that the consequences of obscenity pollution are just as real as the consequences of environmental pollution. Please study it at the previous link that I included above and search for others.
Thanks for listening, I'm leaving for Christmas vacation now. :)
Happy Holidays!
Roger
P.S. I'm independent - unaffiliated with a party.
Check out the ACLJ as well as the IJ
Does this mean "freedom" to hurt your neighbor or hurt your neighborhood?
If your freedoms start to infringe on my freedom and my "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" then you are abusing your freedoms.
For example, we have environmental pollution laws to prevent some from abusing their freedom to pollute the environment and cause sickness or death to others.
Someone already mentioned that obscenity is not protected by the 1st amendment as ruled by the Supreme Court back in 1973(?). I think it was Miller v. California.
If you choose to abuse your freedoms by polluting the air we breathe, or if you choose to pollute our visual or aural or mental environment with obscene images or words then you're hurting others.
Wise uses of our freedoms do not infringe on other's freedoms.
I have asthma and it's important to me that the air I breathe is clean. Likewise I have good mental health and I don't want it to be limited or destroyed with obscene pollution. The pollution of obscenity is just as real as other types of pollution. Check out some studies, meta-studies, and other articles on the topic at MIM.org
You can do whatever you want in private and then think that it only hurts yourself. But if you exercise your freedoms in a way that then harms others then it ceases to be a freedom. It's an abuse.
Roger
P.S. Check out the Institute for Justice at IJ.org
Why not a technical solution that is global and authoritative?
Why not have ICANN(or should it be IANA) create an abuse group? If someone spams then that IP address(es) get disabled temporarily on the root servers. If they do it so many times, like say three times, then they permanently lose the IP address(es) and ICANN is then free to allocate the IP(s) to another organization.
If this was designed right, then it sounds like an awesome tool to nail spammers no matter where on the globe they're sending from. What do you think?
(i read this idea in an article somewhere a few months ago. i don't remember it's source.)
One thing that sucks about this new version 1.1 (at the least in OS X) is that in Preferences:Privacy & Security:Images they removed the checkbox that says "Ask me before downloading an image"!
:(
That sucks!
You can still block ads after they load by right clicking on them but you can't block them before.
Did they remove that in the other versions also?
Wakester