Just because the government does some things in secrecy, it does not mean I should start believing bizarre fantasies with no evidence or reason.
Also, there are conspiracy theories to fit every worldview. There are conspiracy theories for leftists (for example, "Bush demolished the WTC), for right-wingers (for example, "global warming is a leftist hoax"), for Christians, for Muslims, for atheists. There is huge pool of conspiracy theories, each one contradicting the others, and each conspiracy-minded individual simply picks the ones the reinforce his own biases.
Some skepticism is healthy. Conspiracy theories only serve to alienate you from reality and, in particular, to make you indifferent to the actual injustices of the world.
Yes, you did. But you also wrote it in the first place and it gave me some insight into who you are and how you think.
Oh, my typo provided "insight". By which you mean cheap armchair psychologism. You might as well apply numerology to my post.
You seem to like labels.
My post was precisely against labels. It started when you implied that chaste women are not "open-minded", implying that they are closed-minded.
And regarding euphemism: intellectual honesty compels you to use the expression "sexually permissive" and not "open minded".
Absolutely and categorically false. Sounds to me like you are setting up a strawman...
Your post very clearly implied that chaste women are not open minded.
And, sure enough, here it comes. Let me quote you your original argument: "Pornography [...] makes men stop desiring their wives (because they are not willing to do the bizarre fantasies of their husbands)". I would like to hear your definition of chastity which, apparently, accepts sex between husband and wife, but only as long as it is not the kind of sex the husband desires.
That was _awful_ reading comprehension. What I said does come come close to mean "women should be contrarian to their husbands". I am only saying that women tend to reject humiliating, painful or anti-hygienic sexual activities (that is, 90% of pornography).
For example, the average "marriage equality" campaigner has never read a text more than 5 pages long on the subject. He merely repeats and shouts slogans, yet he not only considers himself "open minded", but he considers everyone who disagrees "closed minded" and refuses to even listen. It is extremely ironic to say the least.
You know very well I corrected the "atheism" part. When I wrote that, I was thinking of those arrogant atheists who call themselves "freethinkers" or "brights". Then 5 seconds later I realized I had expressed myself poorly, because, the way I wrote, it looked as if there were no non-"freethinking" atheists. (I don't object to the word "freethinker" per se, I object to the arrogant Dawkins worldview that atheists are "more rational" or "think more freely" than theists). And this is precisely that sort of judgmental arrogance that I criticize on "freethinkers". This is what corrections are for, and you chose to completely ignore my correction.
And regarding euphemism: intellectual honesty compels you to use the expression "sexually permissive" and not "open minded". By using the term "open-minded", you imply that chaste people are "closed minded", and you have zero arguments for that.
"Open minded" is not supposed to mean "a person who strictly adheres to Open Minded(TM) beliefs". And this is, unfortunately, what the word is used for most of the time.
As soon as someone takes actual actions to murder another person, they're fair game, I think.
There are serious problems with that: 1) Then you only catch criminals _after_ they have commited the crime. 2) Then you will let a lot more dangerous criminals walk away, because in many criminal enterprises the number of conspirators is much bigger than the number of people who actually do concrete things such as pulling the trigger.
I strongly doubt that your worldview - legalizing death threats and even conspiracy to murder - wold work in the real world. Where are you coming from? Murray Rothbard?
And I told you that allowing the government to restrict speech or expression just because you think it's harmful, you don't like it,
Government _already_ restricts harmful speech. Government forbids death threats, conspiracies to commit crime, etc. If you are afraid of the slippery slope, you should be campaigning to legalize death threats and conspiracy to commit crime. I think it is most wise to explicitly describe in the Constitution what constitutes protectected speech (political, religious, philosophical, etc.) and what can be restricted (death threats, conspiracy to crime, pornography, etc.). And the restricting should be done at the local (not federal) level, because I believe descentralized government leads to greater freedom.
or you think it's offensive is naive and ignores the countless number of abusive governments that have existed throughout history.
I don't think goernmnet officials are angels, but I still think the government can server a useful function. I don't believe in the Libertarian doctrine of "everyone pursues his own interest". I think it leads to a survival-of-the-fittest society. Nor do I believe in the Libertarian non-aggression axiom absolutely.
You seem to be implying that all speech is the same. You even said that you support the "right" to make death threats. Such a right does not exist either as a constitutional right (there are in fact state laws to the countrary) nor, in my view, does it exist as a human right. If the absollute right to say anything existed, it would apply to death threats as well as conspiracy to commit crime - as in "Joan is alone at Saturday night. Her two neighbours are traveling this week. So we break her front door at 22:00 this Saturday and kill her").
So to be clear and sure, is this what you think? You believe in the right to conspire to murder? Why do you think so? Do you hold the Rothbardian view that the state does not even has a right to exist in the first place?
How would society function if people freely conspired to murder? Law of the jungle, survival of the fittest?
Oh, right. They magically lose their right to free speech at funerals.
They don't magically lose anything, because the right to disrupt funerals does not exist in the first place. Anyway, it was an example. Conspiracy to commit crime is a better example, let's switch to it.
I see it as a violation of the fundamental right to freedom of expression. Opinions are speech. Political opinions are speech. It's all speech/expression, and saying it's 'just different' won't make it so.
1.) Pornography is not an opinion. "I like pornography" is an opinion, but pornography itself is not an opinion (by definition of "opinion").
2.) I did not just say it is "just different", I gave you a comparative analysis of the consequences of restricting politicla/religious/philosophical speech versus the consequences of restricting pornography.
"open-minded" is not the word. "Open-minded", in my view, is a person that evaluates an idea based on its merits.
A decent open-mided woman could very well evaluate the idea of "accept being treated worse a she-dog" based on its merits, and reject it.
Don't use "open-minded" as an euphemism for "a person who adheres to my personal world-view". This euphemism is particularly abused by atheists, which is why "open-minded" has become nearly synonymous with "sexually permissive atheist". It shouldn't be.
This way, people who really want it would get it all the same, but undecided people would not be enticed to fall for it.
Why don't we just legally bar you from posting comments except in certain secluded websites? That way, people who really want it would get it all the same, but undecided people would not be enticed to fall for it.
There are crucial differences between political/religious/philosophical speech, and pornography: 1) If you forbid people from criticizing laws, the government, or religion, you increase the likelihood that the government or the clergy will oppress people with impunity. In other words, freedom of political/religious/philosophical expression is necessary to maintain other freedoms. 2) If you forbid people from hearing philosophical/religious ideas, you impede them from freely reaching the Truth, which is one of the most important (if not THE most important) goals of a human being.
None of this applies to pornography. Restricting pornography only means that a few people (precisely the ones who did not want it strongly in the first place) will either masturbate less, or will masturbate with just their imagination. Don't portray this as a human rights violation.
The fact that people are offended by what they do does not mean they have no right to free speech.
The Westboro guys are free to express their idiotic ideas in the same way that everyone else expresses their ideas : with books, pamphlets, banners, outdoors, radio transmissions, talk shows, emails, websites. Not at funerals. Not at (hypothetically, as an example) 3 a.m., in front of your house, with a megaphone.
A moment ago you were complaining about people who have no problem violating the rights of people who say things that are deemed 'politically incorrect', yet here you are advocating for something similar to what they would want...
No. The Brazilian bill would prohibit "homophobic" speech in itself , while I only ask the Westboro guys to maintain a certain distance from funerals if they want to express their happiness that the guy has died. They can still express their ideas, in the words that they choose, by printing books, distributing pamphlets (though not at the funerals), or placing outdoors, to their hearts content.
I even support the liberty to express Nazi and Marxist ideas. But, I repeat, don't go to the funeral of someone to express your happiness that he has died.
With all respect, I think you allowed misplaced Libertarian dogma to get in the way of reason.
I don't know the law in question, but I don't know if it would be a good idea to outright ban pornography (Streissand effect). I could be better to regulate and restrict it, so that people who really want it would get it all the same, but undecided people would not be enticed to fall for it.
For example, pornographic books should be required to be shrink-wrapped, have boring covers (black letters on a white background, no images, and a technical description of the content such as "features sadomasochism"), be sold in stores away from schools, in the back of the store in a section clearly labeled "pornography".
It can be argued that the war on drugs is too heavy handed, and that its costs outweigh the benefits. But no sane person would argue that you should be able to advertise heroine anywhere you want. The reasonable debate is between the war on drugs, and legalizing but regulating drugs.
Why should pornography be different? Why can't we restrict the distribution of pornography so it is away from schools? Why shouldn't we mandate pornographic books to be shrink-wrapped, have boring covers (black letters on white background, no images, and a technical description of the content such as "features explicit intercourse") and be restricted to the back of stores in a section clearly labeled "pornography"?
This way, people who really want it would get it all the same, but undecided people would not be enticed to fall for it.
I certainly find that objectionable. I've repeatedly said that, for example, the Westboro Baptist church should be able to continue their protests.
Well, this is a tangent, but the Westboro "church" should be forbidden from disrupting funerals. I agree that they should be allowed to say that homosexuals are inferior (even if reasonable people see that its crazy). And in fact, the Westboro "church" is so awful that, I believe, they end up rallying the opposition and in the end strengthen the Left and weaken the Right. But there is a huge difference between expressing a crazy idea, and preying on emotionally devastated people who are mourning a fallen soldier.
People have the same right to say "Thank God he is dead" in a funeral as I have the right to shout my political opinions in front of your home, with a megaphone, at 3 a.m.
All of my college friends who watched pornography (two of them liked child pornography, by the way) were into the hard practices I described above. I have never seen a friend who is satisfied by "mild" pornography.
Oh, so anecdotal evidence, then? Exactly as I thought.
You asked for anecdotal evidence, you got it.
Asking a guy to prove that "once you stimulate your imagination with sexual fantasies, you will likely try to act them out" is like asking a guy to prove that "if you go into night club and starting insulting a young, strong, aggressive-looking guy, you will likely get into a fight"
In other words, it's like asking you to provide actual evidence to back up your arguments rather than just saying that a certain conclusion is 'common sense'? Sounds fine to me.
If someone says that death threats should be banned, will you demand proof that death threats can disrupt a person's life?
Straw man? Not really.
You claimed that I said women "are not interested in sex". I did not say it. Straw man.
You repeatedly say that the wife wouldn't want to do these things and that the porn will make the guy become less interested in his wife while not even mentioning women once.
Duh, 90% of porn consists of men humiliating women. If focused on the common case. Also, everyone heard the story of the guy who wants to sodomize his wife, but she will not allow it. I have never heard the story of the woman who begs to be sodomized by her husband, but he will not allow it.
I didn't intend for it to discredit anything you said. It was simply an observation of mine.
To clarify: I don't necessarily think it should be banned. Maybe it would be enough to ban advertising, and force the "cover" of the product to be black letters on a white background (no images), describing the content in words like "nude pictures of actresses named X and Y" and prominently containing the word "pornography".
Besides, pornography should be banned from public places and should only be sold in the back of a few authorized book stores, in a section labeled "pornography" with black letters on a white background.
This way, the people who really want it would still get it, but undecided people would not be enticed to fall for it.
People have a freedom to distribute pornography? Why? Is it like the freedom to distribute heroine?
There is freedom of religion, freedom of political criticism, freedom of philosophical/ideological expression, freedom of movement, freedom of association, but I see no freedom to distribute pornography.
Funny, the guys who demand freedom to distribute pornography never seem to be bothered when to government violates freedom in a politically correct way. The Brazillian House of Deputies has approved a bill (which is now in the Senate) that punishes with 3 years of jail any speech that expresses disapproval of homosexual behavior. I don't see Slashdot complaining.
The guy starts watching videos of erotic stripping. Then he starts watching videos of crude intercourse, and before he knows it he is into bizarre sexual practices and even things like simulated rape, incest, group sex, bestiality, and sometimes child pornography.
It sounds like you have a strong imagination to me. Or at least anecdotal evidence to back up some of this nonsense.
All of my college friends who watched pornography (two of them liked child pornography, by the way) were into the hard practices I described above. I have never seen a friend who is satisfied by "mild" pornography.
I don't really know what to say other than... prove it.
Asking a guy to prove that "once you stimulate your imagination with sexual fantasies, you will likely try to act them out" is like asking a guy to prove that "if you go into night club and starting insulting a young, strong, aggressive-looking guy, you will likely get into a fight"
It was a crucial safety valve for me as a young man.
I doubt. Pornography addiction tends to get worse, just like drug addiction, and for the same reasons. The guy starts watching videos of erotic stripping. Then he starts watching videos of crude intercourse, and before he knows it he is into bizarre sexual practices and even things like simulated rape, incest, group sex, bestiality, and sometimes child pornography.
The brain is the most potent sexual organ. Sexual imagination is extremely strong. Once you put bizarre sex fantasies in there, you will most likely try to act them out. This leads to promiscuity, adultery, humiliation and self-humiliation, conjugal discord (because the wife is not willing to act out, and is in fact disgusted by, the fantasies of the husband), STDs and abortion.
Pornography is unhealthy and, among other evils, makes men stop desiring their wives (because they are not willing to do the bizarre fantasies of their husbands).
He just wanted people to try these techniques to address to improve their lives.
I would want to know if these techniques are effective before investing time in them. And in fact, I would fear that a possibly false technique could make things worse instead of better. What attracts people to scientology? Is it word-of-mouth ("it worked for my cousin"), like homeopathy? Are you not worried that it hasn't been scientifically validated?
I think what you don't understand is Scientology. The practice of the religion has nothing to do with what you believe. L. Ron Hubbard said, "If it is true to you, then it is true."
This sounds a lot like relativism, which I think is a logical absurdity. And I have never seen a relativist that does not contradict himself. By the way, where do you apply relativism? To philosophy? To morality?
What I am absolutely certain of, is that the subject of Scientology (of which you are focusing on one microgram out of tons of material) has worked to help me improve my own life. Do I still believe in Xenu? What makes you think I ever did? It has no importance.
But isn't Dianetics focused on getting rid of body thetans? How is Xenu irrelevant?
By the way, I hope I am not impolite. Also, if you feel irritated by this discussion, then please tell me and I will stop replying.
This article is something, coming from a tech site that has blatantly posted advertisements disguised as stories, intentionally or not. The only reason the atlantic caught shit was that it was that CoS is easy an hated target, product placement articles are nothing new or interesting.
I have never seen evidence (apart from cynicism) that Slashdot actually does that.
Slashdot Mirror
Just because the government does some things in secrecy, it does not mean I should start believing bizarre fantasies with no evidence or reason.
Also, there are conspiracy theories to fit every worldview. There are conspiracy theories for leftists (for example, "Bush demolished the WTC), for right-wingers (for example, "global warming is a leftist hoax"), for Christians, for Muslims, for atheists. There is huge pool of conspiracy theories, each one contradicting the others, and each conspiracy-minded individual simply picks the ones the reinforce his own biases.
Some skepticism is healthy.
Conspiracy theories only serve to alienate you from reality and, in particular, to make you indifferent to the actual injustices of the world.
Oh, my typo provided "insight". By which you mean cheap armchair psychologism. You might as well apply numerology to my post.
My post was precisely against labels. It started when you implied that chaste women are not "open-minded", implying that they are closed-minded.
Your post very clearly implied that chaste women are not open minded.
That was _awful_ reading comprehension. What I said does come come close to mean "women should be contrarian to their husbands". I am only saying that women tend to reject humiliating, painful or anti-hygienic sexual activities (that is, 90% of pornography).
I think we went past the point where this discussion is useful. Also, I was supposed to have been cured of the following disease: http://xkcd.com/386/
I thank you for your patience and for at least being concerned about being coherent.
For example, the average "marriage equality" campaigner has never read a text more than 5 pages long on the subject.
He merely repeats and shouts slogans, yet he not only considers himself "open minded", but he considers everyone who disagrees "closed minded" and refuses to even listen. It is extremely ironic to say the least.
You know very well I corrected the "atheism" part. When I wrote that, I was thinking of those arrogant atheists who call themselves "freethinkers" or "brights".
Then 5 seconds later I realized I had expressed myself poorly, because, the way I wrote, it looked as if there were no non-"freethinking" atheists. (I don't object to the word "freethinker" per se, I object to the arrogant Dawkins worldview that atheists are "more rational" or "think more freely" than theists). And this is precisely that sort of judgmental arrogance that I criticize on "freethinkers". This is what corrections are for, and you chose to completely ignore my correction.
And regarding euphemism: intellectual honesty compels you to use the expression "sexually permissive" and not "open minded". By using the term "open-minded", you imply that chaste people are "closed minded", and you have zero arguments for that.
"Open minded" is not supposed to mean "a person who strictly adheres to Open Minded(TM) beliefs". And this is, unfortunately, what the word is used for most of the time.
There are serious problems with that:
1) Then you only catch criminals _after_ they have commited the crime.
2) Then you will let a lot more dangerous criminals walk away, because in many criminal enterprises the number of conspirators is much bigger than the number of people who actually do concrete things such as pulling the trigger.
I strongly doubt that your worldview - legalizing death threats and even conspiracy to murder - wold work in the real world. Where are you coming from? Murray Rothbard?
Government _already_ restricts harmful speech. Government forbids death threats, conspiracies to commit crime, etc.
If you are afraid of the slippery slope, you should be campaigning to legalize death threats and conspiracy to commit crime.
I think it is most wise to explicitly describe in the Constitution what constitutes protectected speech (political, religious, philosophical, etc.) and what can be restricted (death threats, conspiracy to crime, pornography, etc.). And the restricting should be done at the local (not federal) level, because I believe descentralized government leads to greater freedom.
I don't think goernmnet officials are angels, but I still think the government can server a useful function. I don't believe in the Libertarian doctrine of "everyone pursues his own interest". I think it leads to a survival-of-the-fittest society. Nor do I believe in the Libertarian non-aggression axiom absolutely.
You seem to be implying that all speech is the same. You even said that you support the "right" to make death threats. Such a right does not exist either as a constitutional right (there are in fact state laws to the countrary) nor, in my view, does it exist as a human right.
If the absollute right to say anything existed, it would apply to death threats as well as conspiracy to commit crime - as in "Joan is alone at Saturday night. Her two neighbours are traveling this week. So we break her front door at 22:00 this Saturday and kill her").
So to be clear and sure, is this what you think? You believe in the right to conspire to murder? Why do you think so? Do you hold the Rothbardian view that the state does not even has a right to exist in the first place?
How would society function if people freely conspired to murder? Law of the jungle, survival of the fittest?
They don't magically lose anything, because the right to disrupt funerals does not exist in the first place.
Anyway, it was an example. Conspiracy to commit crime is a better example, let's switch to it.
1.) Pornography is not an opinion. "I like pornography" is an opinion, but pornography itself is not an opinion (by definition of "opinion").
2.) I did not just say it is "just different", I gave you a comparative analysis of the consequences of restricting politicla/religious/philosophical speech versus the consequences of restricting pornography.
In the post above, replace "atheists" with "sexual permissive".
"open-minded" has become an euphemism for "slut", which it shouldn't be.
"open-minded" is not the word.
"Open-minded", in my view, is a person that evaluates an idea based on its merits.
A decent open-mided woman could very well evaluate the idea of "accept being treated worse a she-dog" based on its merits, and reject it.
Don't use "open-minded" as an euphemism for "a person who adheres to my personal world-view". This euphemism is particularly abused by atheists, which is why "open-minded" has become nearly synonymous with "sexually permissive atheist". It shouldn't be.
There are crucial differences between political/religious/philosophical speech, and pornography:
1) If you forbid people from criticizing laws, the government, or religion, you increase the likelihood that the government or the clergy will oppress people with impunity. In other words, freedom of political/religious/philosophical expression is necessary to maintain other freedoms.
2) If you forbid people from hearing philosophical/religious ideas, you impede them from freely reaching the Truth, which is one of the most important (if not THE most important) goals of a human being.
None of this applies to pornography. Restricting pornography only means that a few people (precisely the ones who did not want it strongly in the first place) will either masturbate less, or will masturbate with just their imagination. Don't portray this as a human rights violation.
The Westboro guys are free to express their idiotic ideas in the same way that everyone else expresses their ideas : with books, pamphlets, banners, outdoors, radio transmissions, talk shows, emails, websites. Not at funerals. Not at (hypothetically, as an example) 3 a.m., in front of your house, with a megaphone.
No. The Brazilian bill would prohibit "homophobic" speech in itself , while I only ask the Westboro guys to maintain a certain distance from funerals if they want to express their happiness that the guy has died. They can still express their ideas, in the words that they choose, by printing books, distributing pamphlets (though not at the funerals), or placing outdoors, to their hearts content.
I even support the liberty to express Nazi and Marxist ideas. But, I repeat, don't go to the funeral of someone to express your happiness that he has died.
With all respect, I think you allowed misplaced Libertarian dogma to get in the way of reason.
See http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3525793&cid=43123999
Also, I apologize if I was too acid. You know, the Internet effect.
http://xkcd.com/438/
Still, I maintain that pornography is bad and we should forbid pornographers from enticing undecided people.
I don't know the law in question, but I don't know if it would be a good idea to outright ban pornography (Streissand effect). I could be better to regulate and restrict it, so that people who really want it would get it all the same, but undecided people would not be enticed to fall for it.
For example, pornographic books should be required to be shrink-wrapped, have boring covers (black letters on a white background, no images, and a technical description of the content such as "features sadomasochism"), be sold in stores away from schools, in the back of the store in a section clearly labeled "pornography".
It can be argued that the war on drugs is too heavy handed, and that its costs outweigh the benefits.
But no sane person would argue that you should be able to advertise heroine anywhere you want.
The reasonable debate is between the war on drugs, and legalizing but regulating drugs.
Why should pornography be different? Why can't we restrict the distribution of pornography so it is away from schools? Why shouldn't we mandate pornographic books to be shrink-wrapped, have boring covers (black letters on white background, no images, and a technical description of the content such as "features explicit intercourse") and be restricted to the back of stores in a section clearly labeled "pornography"?
This way, people who really want it would get it all the same, but undecided people would not be enticed to fall for it.
Well, this is a tangent, but the Westboro "church" should be forbidden from disrupting funerals. I agree that they should be allowed to say that homosexuals are inferior (even if reasonable people see that its crazy). And in fact, the Westboro "church" is so awful that, I believe, they end up rallying the opposition and in the end strengthen the Left and weaken the Right. But there is a huge difference between expressing a crazy idea, and preying on emotionally devastated people who are mourning a fallen soldier.
People have the same right to say "Thank God he is dead" in a funeral as I have the right to shout my political opinions in front of your home, with a megaphone, at 3 a.m.
You asked for anecdotal evidence, you got it.
If someone says that death threats should be banned, will you demand proof that death threats can disrupt a person's life?
You claimed that I said women "are not interested in sex". I did not say it. Straw man.
Duh, 90% of porn consists of men humiliating women. If focused on the common case.
Also, everyone heard the story of the guy who wants to sodomize his wife, but she will not allow it. I have never heard the story of the woman who begs to be sodomized by her husband, but he will not allow it.
It was a cheap personal attack.
To clarify: I don't necessarily think it should be banned. Maybe it would be enough to ban advertising, and force the "cover" of the product to be black letters on a white background (no images), describing the content in words like "nude pictures of actresses named X and Y" and prominently containing the word "pornography".
Besides, pornography should be banned from public places and should only be sold in the back of a few authorized book stores, in a section labeled "pornography" with black letters on a white background.
This way, the people who really want it would still get it, but undecided people would not be enticed to fall for it.
People have a freedom to distribute pornography? Why? Is it like the freedom to distribute heroine?
There is freedom of religion, freedom of political criticism, freedom of philosophical/ideological expression, freedom of movement, freedom of association, but I see no freedom to distribute pornography.
Funny, the guys who demand freedom to distribute pornography never seem to be bothered when to government violates freedom in a politically correct way.
The Brazillian House of Deputies has approved a bill (which is now in the Senate) that punishes with 3 years of jail any speech that expresses disapproval of homosexual behavior. I don't see Slashdot complaining.
All of my college friends who watched pornography (two of them liked child pornography, by the way) were into the hard practices I described above. I have never seen a friend who is satisfied by "mild" pornography.
Asking a guy to prove that "once you stimulate your imagination with sexual fantasies, you will likely try to act them out" is like asking a guy to prove that "if you go into night club and starting insulting a young, strong, aggressive-looking guy, you will likely get into a fight"
And the straw man award goes to...
No. But nice ad hominem there.
I doubt. Pornography addiction tends to get worse, just like drug addiction, and for the same reasons.
The guy starts watching videos of erotic stripping. Then he starts watching videos of crude intercourse, and before he knows it he is into bizarre sexual practices and even things like simulated rape, incest, group sex, bestiality, and sometimes child pornography.
The brain is the most potent sexual organ. Sexual imagination is extremely strong. Once you put bizarre sex fantasies in there, you will most likely try to act them out. This leads to promiscuity, adultery, humiliation and self-humiliation, conjugal discord (because the wife is not willing to act out, and is in fact disgusted by, the fantasies of the husband), STDs and abortion.
Take the pornography out, and distribute the good parts.
Pornography is unhealthy and, among other evils, makes men stop desiring their wives (because they are not willing to do the bizarre fantasies of their husbands).
I would want to know if these techniques are effective before investing time in them. And in fact, I would fear that a possibly false technique could make things worse instead of better. What attracts people to scientology? Is it word-of-mouth ("it worked for my cousin"), like homeopathy? Are you not worried that it hasn't been scientifically validated?
This sounds a lot like relativism, which I think is a logical absurdity. And I have never seen a relativist that does not contradict himself. By the way, where do you apply relativism? To philosophy? To morality?
But isn't Dianetics focused on getting rid of body thetans? How is Xenu irrelevant?
By the way, I hope I am not impolite. Also, if you feel irritated by this discussion, then please tell me and I will stop replying.
I do not understand. Do you still believe in Xenu?
I have never seen evidence (apart from cynicism) that Slashdot actually does that.