I doubt that the vst majority of people in Finland care whether or not they can access child or animal porn over the internet, as they've probably never even tried. And the ones that have are breaking the law anyway, so what's the big deal?
The solution is to just say fuck it and let people do what they want with their private lives. Do I particularly approve of someone who wants to sit in their basement and masturbate to animal porn all day? No. Does this affect me in any way? Do their actions have any influence on my life? NO! It is their life and their choice to do what they want. Who am I to say what is right and wrong for them to do with their lives?
That isn't a great argument. As a white adult male, I suppose I could say that it wouldn't affect me if the government passed a law calling for the killing of all black female babies.
I know that everyone on slashdot likes a good slippery slope, but seriously it is possible to wish there were less child and animal porn around in society, without your next action being the annexation of the Sudetenland.
At best, this is a question of animal rights. There might be an argument that creating animal porn constitutes cruelty to animals, because animals cannot consent in the way humans consent to sex. But that has more to do with the production of the porn than its consumption.
It's the production that's the problem, you silly person, just like with child porn. Serious consumers of either need help, IMHO, but the main moral issue is with the fuckbags who make the stuff.
So, in other words, "Your freedom of expression is absolute, except in those cases where the government deems it necessary to restrict it in order to protect children (necessary and protect being defined by the government)."
There are no absolute freedoms in real life. The US does not have absolute freedom of speech, it is just a lot freer than most other countries, and that brings with it its own problems (e.g. Westboro Baptists).
Pointing out that a politician is sounding like a fascist is not an ad hominem, it is a perfectly valid political argument.
Not really, because "fascist" is used by most people as a vague term of abuse, especially on the internet where "liberal" can mean anything from "classical laissez faire capitalist" to "extreme left wing revolutionary" depending on who's using it.
Fascism in the proper Franco/Mussolini sense has fairly specific characteristics, e.g. see here for a quickly googled list which looks about right.
Simply approving of a partial restriction on absolute freedom of speech and action does not make you a fascist, although the slippery slope libertarians would disagree.
Animal porn and violent porn are already illegal in Finland.
No doubt they're perfectly legal, like child pornography, everywhere in the US, that bastion of absolute freedom, so all the Americans here can laugh at "Europe" being like Orwell's 1984.
It does if every landlord around you shares your beliefs as well. If landlords could do that, no black person would ever be able to rent a nice apartment in Mobile.
I disagree. First, the culture isn't that racist anymore. Second, when it was that racist it had the government promoting racism. Third, there is money to be made renting nice apartments to people that no one else will rent to.
First, t's not as racist anymore largely because it's illegal to be blatantly discriminatory in many areas. Second, what the fuck are you talking about? Do you mean that trying to level the playing field was unfair on all those poor white people? Third, if society was allowed to be blatantly racist, people in nice areas would be forced by social pressure to be racist too.
I figured out as a kid back in the 1980s that outlawing sodomy was stupid and unfair. But it is also unfair to tell someone that if they are going to hire someone to watch their adolescent boys out in the woods that they can't take that person's sexual preferences into account.
You have, perhaps inadvertently, shown up the problem with "freedom".
Your freedom to decide that a gay man is potentially a predatory paedophile and therefore can't be a Scout leader directly affects his freedom . It stops him from pursuing his interest in helping young people. If you extend it to teaching (which you could if there was no law against it) it would potentially stop him from earning a living at the thing he does best.
If you can't see the difference between "convicted paedophile who shouldn't be left alone near children" and "gay man I disapprove of" you're being obtuse.
The point of a free society is that you're not compelled to do things against your values. That doesn't mean there are no rules or standards. If anything, you've shown why our society has become "un-free" with the adoption of forced pluralism.
I was sort of with you up to this point. But you're wrong here.
Pluralism doesn't say "as a minority Muslim/Jew you have to eat pork because the majority of people here enjoy bacon." It says "as a minority Muslim/Jew, you're free to choose not to eat pork despite the fact that the majority of people here enjoy bacon".
Now, if your views are that (say) homosexuality is appalling and should be illegal, tough, it's been decided by society that it's not. But no one's forcing you to have gay sex.
I wouldn't recommend that as a line of argument on slashdot. If there's one thing slashdotters like more than the freedom to watch child pornography (even though no one actually watches child pornography, of course) it's pot.
You're allowed to say that pot is safer than alcohol or tobacco, and has no physical or psychological long term effects, but that's it. Otherwise, you might as well say that Windows is a better OS than Linux.
"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." comes to mind!
There is a difference between saying something and acting on it. The problem with child abuse imagery is that it is a record of an actual crime, i.e. the rape of a child. It's gone way beyond free speech.
Sure an animal can't really consent in any written or oral form, but if two humans are horny and want to fuck, they can go at it without each side having to totally confirm the other really, really wants to either.
That is a pretty feeble argument. Human beings can always say no. Animals can't.
I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to make, but are you suggesting that animal and child porn should be freely available as an educational resource for children?
Says who? It's sexual freedom at the very least which is a form of free speech. Having undefined "violent" pornography one could easily find consensual BDSM, rough sex, rape play, homosexuality and other sexual acts which are very normal.
Sexual freedom is not absolute, otherwise you would be free to torture, rape and murder someone if you got a sexual thrill out of it.
All the activities you mention are legal between consenting adults. Children and animals are not capable of informed consent, it's as simple as that.
Look, if bestiality is illegal in your country, it is logical that animal porn is too. If you think bestiality should be legal, fine, try and convince your politicians to change the law if necessary.
Ah yes, of course the free market will sort everything out. The Invisible Hand, as long as it is untouched by "government" makes everything right by magic.
Slashdot Mirror
That's why we have so many MBAs and lawyers, and look at what a paradise they've turned our world into.
The system made so many MBAs and lawyers. MBAs and lawyers didn't make the system.
Is there a porn industry in Finland? I've never, er, come across any Finnish porn.
I doubt that the vst majority of people in Finland care whether or not they can access child or animal porn over the internet, as they've probably never even tried. And the ones that have are breaking the law anyway, so what's the big deal?
Fair enough, but I would reiterate that animals can't give informed consent any more than children.
Let's say that we live in your world where most people are closeted furries
Then humanity is doomed, and the USA and others should do us all a favour by detonating every H-bomb they have.
I'm OK with putting paedophiles in jail for a few years, laughing at dog-fuckers and so on, but you have to draw the line somewhere.
The solution is to just say fuck it and let people do what they want with their private lives. Do I particularly approve of someone who wants to sit in their basement and masturbate to animal porn all day? No. Does this affect me in any way? Do their actions have any influence on my life? NO! It is their life and their choice to do what they want. Who am I to say what is right and wrong for them to do with their lives?
That isn't a great argument. As a white adult male, I suppose I could say that it wouldn't affect me if the government passed a law calling for the killing of all black female babies.
Incidentally, I love that in Lebanon it's legal as long as it's heterosexual. No fucking perverts there, huh?
I know that everyone on slashdot likes a good slippery slope, but seriously it is possible to wish there were less child and animal porn around in society, without your next action being the annexation of the Sudetenland.
At best, this is a question of animal rights. There might be an argument that creating animal porn constitutes cruelty to animals, because animals cannot consent in the way humans consent to sex. But that has more to do with the production of the porn than its consumption.
It's the production that's the problem, you silly person, just like with child porn. Serious consumers of either need help, IMHO, but the main moral issue is with the fuckbags who make the stuff.
So, in other words, "Your freedom of expression is absolute, except in those cases where the government deems it necessary to restrict it in order to protect children (necessary and protect being defined by the government)."
There are no absolute freedoms in real life. The US does not have absolute freedom of speech, it is just a lot freer than most other countries, and that brings with it its own problems (e.g. Westboro Baptists).
Pointing out that a politician is sounding like a fascist is not an ad hominem, it is a perfectly valid political argument.
Not really, because "fascist" is used by most people as a vague term of abuse, especially on the internet where "liberal" can mean anything from "classical laissez faire capitalist" to "extreme left wing revolutionary" depending on who's using it.
Fascism in the proper Franco/Mussolini sense has fairly specific characteristics, e.g. see here for a quickly googled list which looks about right.
Simply approving of a partial restriction on absolute freedom of speech and action does not make you a fascist, although the slippery slope libertarians would disagree.
Animal porn and violent porn are already illegal in Finland.
No doubt they're perfectly legal, like child pornography, everywhere in the US, that bastion of absolute freedom, so all the Americans here can laugh at "Europe" being like Orwell's 1984.
It does if every landlord around you shares your beliefs as well. If landlords could do that, no black person would ever be able to rent a nice apartment in Mobile.
I disagree. First, the culture isn't that racist anymore. Second, when it was that racist it had the government promoting racism. Third, there is money to be made renting nice apartments to people that no one else will rent to.
First, t's not as racist anymore largely because it's illegal to be blatantly discriminatory in many areas. Second, what the fuck are you talking about? Do you mean that trying to level the playing field was unfair on all those poor white people? Third, if society was allowed to be blatantly racist, people in nice areas would be forced by social pressure to be racist too.
I figured out as a kid back in the 1980s that outlawing sodomy was stupid and unfair. But it is also unfair to tell someone that if they are going to hire someone to watch their adolescent boys out in the woods that they can't take that person's sexual preferences into account.
You have, perhaps inadvertently, shown up the problem with "freedom".
Your freedom to decide that a gay man is potentially a predatory paedophile and therefore can't be a Scout leader directly affects his freedom . It stops him from pursuing his interest in helping young people. If you extend it to teaching (which you could if there was no law against it) it would potentially stop him from earning a living at the thing he does best.
If you can't see the difference between "convicted paedophile who shouldn't be left alone near children" and "gay man I disapprove of" you're being obtuse.
The point of a free society is that you're not compelled to do things against your values. That doesn't mean there are no rules or standards. If anything, you've shown why our society has become "un-free" with the adoption of forced pluralism.
I was sort of with you up to this point. But you're wrong here.
Pluralism doesn't say "as a minority Muslim/Jew you have to eat pork because the majority of people here enjoy bacon." It says "as a minority Muslim/Jew, you're free to choose not to eat pork despite the fact that the majority of people here enjoy bacon".
Now, if your views are that (say) homosexuality is appalling and should be illegal, tough, it's been decided by society that it's not. But no one's forcing you to have gay sex.
Let's look at marijuana.
I wouldn't recommend that as a line of argument on slashdot. If there's one thing slashdotters like more than the freedom to watch child pornography (even though no one actually watches child pornography, of course) it's pot.
You're allowed to say that pot is safer than alcohol or tobacco, and has no physical or psychological long term effects, but that's it. Otherwise, you might as well say that Windows is a better OS than Linux.
"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." comes to mind!
There is a difference between saying something and acting on it. The problem with child abuse imagery is that it is a record of an actual crime, i.e. the rape of a child. It's gone way beyond free speech.
Sure an animal can't really consent in any written or oral form, but if two humans are horny and want to fuck, they can go at it without each side having to totally confirm the other really, really wants to either.
That is a pretty feeble argument. Human beings can always say no. Animals can't.
I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to make, but are you suggesting that animal and child porn should be freely available as an educational resource for children?
Says who? It's sexual freedom at the very least which is a form of free speech. Having undefined "violent" pornography one could easily find consensual BDSM, rough sex, rape play, homosexuality and other sexual acts which are very normal.
Sexual freedom is not absolute, otherwise you would be free to torture, rape and murder someone if you got a sexual thrill out of it.
All the activities you mention are legal between consenting adults. Children and animals are not capable of informed consent, it's as simple as that.
Define animal porn.
Humans having sex with non-human animals.
Will Animal Planet be banned?
Don't be an idiot.
Look, if bestiality is illegal in your country, it is logical that animal porn is too. If you think bestiality should be legal, fine, try and convince your politicians to change the law if necessary.
LOL someone sounds a bit worried there.
People go to jail in England for saying mean things about Pakistanis
No they don't, you stupid arsehole. You may go to jail for racist abuse, that's not the same thing as saying "I don't like Pakistanis because of X".
It's the same justification in all cases, we must have a harmonious society and all that.
That is one way of characterising an attempt to be civilized.
To quote Jefferson on another subject of freedom, "It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
Was he talking about slavery I wonder?
Grow up, you libertarian buffoon.