War on Pornography: Another Failed War In The Works.

[Darth Wong]

Just so we are clear, are you arguing that 8 year olds NOT having access to pornography is 'un-just'?

No, he's saying that the so-called "War on Pornography" and its call to censor the Internet and revive the fucking CDA is moronic and wrong.

Specifically this PDF file. I quote;

How sex offenders use child pornography
Utting20 suggests that exposure to pornography desensitises children and it can inflict other psychological harm. Child abusers show both adult pornography and child pornography to children as a means of “lowering their inhibitions”. They will show pictures in which the children have been forced to smile so that it can be claimed, especially to younger children, that they are “having fun”.

Misleading children about sex is something the church does all the time, albeit in the other direction. I don't see anyone calling for them to be forcibly silenced and imprisoned if they won't stop. Child pornography is criminalized for one good reason: real children are being victimized in order to make it. The fact that it can be used to desensitize children and promote totally wrong ideas is unfortunate, but the same can be said of violent movies and mainstream television as well. It's up to parents to monitor what their children watch and to teach them about sex and sexual predators, not up to the Internet to cleanse itself of all uncleanliness.

[Crown]

Just so we are clear, are you arguing that 8 year olds NOT having access to pornography is 'un-just'?

No, he's saying that the so-called "War on Pornography" and its call to censor the Internet and revive the fucking CDA is moronic and wrong.

Really? He's saying that from here; 'Yes because we all know that justice and the law is the same thing.' What an amazing interpretation of a sentence there Mike.

And; of course it's moronic. You might as well try and grab smoke. It's a pie in the sky bullshit, that will never be able to be enforced on a medium as dynamic and decentralised as the internet. Who's arguing different?

Specifically this PDF file. I quote;

How sex offenders use child pornography
Utting20 suggests that exposure to pornography desensitises children and it can inflict other psychological harm. Child abusers show both adult pornography and child pornography to children as a means of “lowering their inhibitions”. They will show pictures in which the children have been forced to smile so that it can be claimed, especially to younger children, that they are “having fun”.

Misleading children about sex is something the church does all the time, albeit in the other direction. I don't see anyone calling for them to be forcibly silenced and imprisoned if they won't stop.

*sigh*

Ten foot pole. Ten foot pole. Ten foot pole.

Fuck it; I don't see the church mass emailing people the way the porn industry does in order mislead children. While certainly not in agreance with the Churches rather medival views on sexuality or sexual relationships, indoctranation usually occurs with a parents consent (by taking them to the church to begin with) and within the protection of the law (freedom of religion balanced with child protection laws).

That's another kettle of fish, but I wouldn't bat an eye if relgion was also censord.

Child pornography is criminalized for one good reason: real children are being victimized in order to make it. The fact that it can be used to desensitize children and promote totally wrong ideas is unfortunate, but the same can be said of violent movies and mainstream television as well.

Oh absolutely! Um ... but you do realise that they are censored by default by their clasification rating, right? I don't care who you are, but a child under 18 doesn't get into an R rated movie in Australia, parent permission/accompaniment ever. A child under the age of 15 cannot be allowed into a movie rated MA 15+ unless accompanied by a legal guardian, ever.

They aren't allowed to borrow them from the local vedio library either.

And would most liekly only ever see it on TV if their parents allowed them to stay up late (the real bad ones here a delayed an hour), or just missed the clasification tag. And even then the things are still censored (swear words cut out, action sequences cut short). Yeah, really strong analogy there Mike.

It's up to parents to monitor what their children watch and to teach them about sex and sexual predators, not up to the Internet to cleanse itself of all uncleanliness.

There are rules which restrict even what a parent can do/show to their child (not to build a strawman, but you see where I am going with this). Uncensored sex sites (no age verification process), spam emails (explicit material when you check your mail from some one saying 'hi'), etc. Often take away the parents ability to protect their children from such exposure.

I repeat again; Pretend you are 11 year old Timmy doing a small write up on a family unit of your favourite animals; do a search for Bears and Cubs, see what happes.

[Tribun]

I just wonder what thier beef with porn is.

In Europe, Germany especally, we are not even remotely that hostile when it comes to porn. We know it is there, we maybe not watch it, but also we don't fight against it. To make it short, we accepted it as part of our society.

What can't that be also that way in America?

[Darth Wong]

Just so we are clear, are you arguing that 8 year olds NOT having access to pornography is 'un-just'?

No, he's saying that the so-called "War on Pornography" and its call to censor the Internet and revive the fucking CDA is moronic and wrong.

Really? He's saying that from here; 'Yes because we all know that justice and the law is the same thing.' What an amazing interpretation of a sentence there Mike.

Don't be a fucking sophistic cunt. I was referring to your whole high-handed attack on Einy in general rather than that one fucking line (although Spyder's line is appropriate since your initial "rebuttal" to Einy consisted largely of the logic that it's wrong because it's illegal). But in case you didn't notice (and it appears you didn't), the SUBJECT of the WHOLE THREAD is the "war on pornography" movement which bemoans the failure of the CDA on its official website, which is linked from the article. If you're going to blast Einy for flaming the moron from that website, you should bother to read what he's critiquing first.

Fuck it; I don't see the church mass emailing people the way the porn industry does in order mislead children.

What the fuck do you think Sunday School is? We're talking lifetime indoctrination here.

It's far more intrusive than mass E-mail. While certainly not in agreance with the Churches rather medival views on sexuality or sexual relationships, indoctranation usually occurs with a parents consent (by taking them to the church to begin with) and within the protection of the law (freedom of religion balanced with child protection laws).

And a computer finds its way into the possession of a child without the consent of the parent? You must have interesting computer retail policies in your country.

Oh absolutely! Um ... but you do realise that they are censored by default by their clasification rating, right? I don't care who you are, but a child under 18 doesn't get into an R rated movie in Australia, parent permission/accompaniment ever. A child under the age of 15 cannot be allowed into a movie rated MA 15+ unless accompanied by a legal guardian, ever.

And how is this relevant to the "War on Pornography's" call to censor the Internet or its claim that the CDA (which made all ISPs responsible for all content passing through their systems) was a good solution?

They aren't allowed to borrow them from the local vedio library either.

And would most liekly only ever see it on TV if their parents allowed them to stay up late (the real bad ones here a delayed an hour), or just missed the clasification tag. And even then the things are still censored (swear words cut out, action sequences cut short). Yeah, really strong analogy there Mike.

And what does this have to do with the "War on Pornography"'s call to censor the Internet? Oh yeah, precisely jack shit.

It's up to parents to monitor what their children watch and to teach them about sex and sexual predators, not up to the Internet to cleanse itself of all uncleanliness.

There are rules which restrict even what a parent can do/show to their child (not to build a strawman, but you see where I am going with this). Uncensored sex sites (no age verification process), spam emails (explicit material when you check your mail from some one saying 'hi'), etc. Often take away the parents ability to protect their children from such exposure.

So what is your solution? Censor the Internet? Or expect parents to actually, I dunno, supervise their fucking kids?

I repeat again; Pretend you are 11 year old Timmy doing a small write up on a family unit of your favourite animals; do a search for Bears and Cubs, see what happes.

Do you have kids? I do, and I know how to supervise them. If you haven't talked to your kids by age 11 about sex, you're a delinquent parent. Delinquent parents should not blame the world for not compensating for their own inadequacies.

[Peregrin Toker]

I'm a bit confused here.... is the purpose of this "War On Pornography" to restrict minors' access to porn on the internet, or is it to outlaw all porn completely?

[Darth Wong]

I'm a bit confused here.... is the purpose of this "War On Pornography" to restrict minors' access to porn on the internet, or is it to outlaw all porn completely?

Both, actually. They bemoan the failure of the CDA, which would have made it illegal for any server anywhere on the Internet to host any material which would be deemed "offensive" by any local community standards anywhere in the USA (in other words, the most conservative small town in America would get to dictate what is allowed on the Internet, and ISPs would be penalized for non-compliance).

But they also ask for federal obscenity statutes to be "vigorously prosecuted throughout the United States", and federal obscenity statutes are so vaguely worded that vigorous prosecution of all people in the country who do anything that could be construed as a violation would effectively represent near-total censorship of anything deemed offensive to "community standards".

[sketerpot]

Harmful or not, any War on Porn is going to be a flop, on any scale. Look at some of the measures employed by people trying to protect kids from porn by pretending it doesn't exist. Filters like to pretend that they work, but all they really do is block things that are obviously porn sites and tell you that you can't see that page on Pandas that was erroneously blocked. The filter at my school, for example, doesn't block SD.net, which contains such smut as this picture, as well as quite a bit of "sexual material". If you go to everything2.com (unblocked with the filters I know of) and click around for a while, you'll probably find yourself at a page with a name like "how I nearly killed myself masturbating". No filter can block everything, and no parent can hover over their projeny all the time.

In normal life, it's quite possible to get illicit Playboys from friends---the same friends who teach you all those swear words that your parents never say around you, because they want to protect you.

There is no filter that can isolate children from the world, no matter how badly you want them to be protected. Parents have one big advantage, though: they can teach their children the things that they worry about porn messing up. I know how to deal with freaky twisted porn: the back button. That's more effective than any filter. The only true filter is in the mind of the one who's being protected.

[Peregrin Toker]

Both, actually. They bemoan the failure of the CDA, which would have made it illegal for any server anywhere on the Internet to host any material which would be deemed "offensive" by any local community standards anywhere in the USA (in other words, the most conservative small town in America would get to dictate what is allowed on the Internet, and ISPs would be penalized for non-compliance).

This is the very definition of an ambition that far surpasses capability.

[Darth Wong]

Well, the whole idea that the viewing of pornography directly "harms" children is based on the notion that giving them the wrong idea is "harm". But this, in turn, implies that ideas themselves can constitute a legally actionable form of harm, and that's dangerous thinking, to say the least. Particularly when the only definition of said harmful "ideas" is "community standards".

And yes, PT, they're clearly delusional. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't lambast their pitiful arguments.

[Plekhanov]

* One in 5 children ages 10 to 17 has received sexual solicitations while on the Internet.

It happens. I'll bet 99% of these sexual solicitations are A: Porn Bots or B: Kids their own age. Nice try, fucktard. Try a bigger gun!

Now, actually, I think this is a serious matter. No, not the bits about teenagers watching porn, but CHILDREN being exposed to sexual offers on the net. This is something that really really really should be cracked down upon!

Also, children watching porn..... well, I will suggest better parental supervision, or more importantly, Sex Education so they don't go around misinterpretating what they see on screen with real life.

Solicitation of minors is a problem but one that has nothing to do with porn but with chat rooms, I’ve never been propositioned when looking at porn I’ve been propositioned plenty of times in chat rooms.

I just wonder what thier beef with porn is.

In Europe, Germany especally, we are not even remotely that hostile when it comes to porn. We know it is there, we maybe not watch it, but also we don't fight against it. To make it short, we accepted it as part of our society.

What can't that be also that way in America?

Mainland Europe seems to take a pretty relaxed attitude to porn but us Brits certainly don’t, I think we have just about the strictest censorship laws in the western world.

Maybe our collective ability to get hysterically about porn is one of the aspects of the “special relationship” between the the US and Britain that Blair likes to go on about.

[Mayabird]

When Kansas was going through its creationist debacle not too long ago, it banned National Geographic magazines from school libraries because of their frequent articles on human evolution, written without any journalistic pussyfooting around it. I wonder if the War on Porn would try to ban them from school libraries because of their frequent pictures of bare-chested tribal ladies. Sure, they might not be good-looking tribal ladies, but those are women's boobies! It's smut!

I can see it happening, and frankly, I think they should. Not because I believe in it, but because it'll make the entire "war" look as stupid and silly as it is.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

I'm a bit confused here.... is the purpose of this "War On Pornography" to restrict minors' access to porn on the internet, or is it to outlaw all porn completely?

Both, actually. They bemoan the failure of the CDA, which would have made it illegal for any server anywhere on the Internet to host any material which would be deemed "offensive" by any local community standards anywhere in the USA (in other words, the most conservative small town in America would get to dictate what is allowed on the Internet, and ISPs would be penalized for non-compliance).

But they also ask for federal obscenity statutes to be "vigorously prosecuted throughout the United States", and federal obscenity statutes are so vaguely worded that vigorous prosecution of all people in the country who do anything that could be construed as a violation would effectively represent near-total censorship of anything deemed offensive to "community standards".

I've also noticed that in America, 'community standards' tend to be enforced in an extremely unfair, arbitrary, and censorious (and easily detected) pattern which screams 'ulterior motives and conflict of interest on the part of the enforcers'. It's common knowledge that most internet filters censor out anything dealing with gay rights and civil liberties along with the pornsites while disengenuously letting every two-bit Nazi KKK hate site load up right through no problem.

This is why we need proper sex education in America, like, say, whatever the Europeans are doing instead of this completely unnatural "100% Abstinence Till You're Married Even If You Only Get Around To It At Age 40 And No Contraceptives Or Masturbating AT ALL WHATSOEVER Or You're Burning In Hell Whether God Likes It Or Not" Bullshit. They turned out pretty ok; why can't we use their ideas--- *suddenly realizes there's a massive wall to such progress in this country staring me in the face, called the Religious Right*

[Crown]

Don't be a fucking sophistic cunt. I was referring to your whole high-handed attack on Einy in general rather than that one fucking line (although Spyder's line is appropriate since your initial "rebuttal" to Einy consisted largely of the logic that it's wrong because it's illegal). But in case you didn't notice (and it appears you didn't), the SUBJECT of the WHOLE THREAD is the "war on pornography" movement which bemoans the failure of the CDA on its official website, which is linked from the article. If you're going to blast Einy for flaming the moron from that website, you should bother to read what he's critiquing first.

I read it more than Einy did you moron, or you would have missed where the only point I actually involved myself with Einy's stupidity was to point out where this person got his evidence from; or are you incapable of reading a fucking thread? Or how about I agreed with him on the whole fucking 'more addictive than nicotine/illicit drug' claim.

And go fuck yourself you self righteous bastard. Spyder not once, not twice but THREE FUCKING TIMES made it abundantly clear that my point of arguing that it was illegial to distribute pornographic material to minors WAS AN INVALID ARGUEMENT BECAUSE LEGALLITY DIDN'T NECESSARILY SATISFY JUSTICE.

Here;

Yes because we all know that justice and the law is the same thing.

Here;

As for the legality thing, it goes without saying that justice and the law is not the same thing. If something is said to be bad for no other reason then it is illegal then it is time to look at why this thing is illegal and if there is no other reason then scrap the law. It is for this reason that the argument "It's illegal" lacks any real weight. In short, illegality is an effect, a status and sometimes a solution, it can never be a cause or a reason.

And here;

Valid reasons for such have yet to be established.

So what fucking thread are you reading?

What the fuck do you think Sunday School is? We're talking lifetime indoctrination here.

Mass spam emails = sunday school now? Give me a fucking break.

And a computer finds its way into the possession of a child without the consent of the parent? You must have interesting computer retail policies in your country.

• Public Libraries
• Public web stations
• School computers
• Friends computers

Yes we hope that these are protected, but for fucks sake there was actually an automatic vending machine here in Australia and it took for ages for someone to realise that it didn't ask to see ID when you ordered an R rated movie, and the children were buying them!

And how is this relevant to the "War on Pornography's" call to censor the Internet or its claim that the CDA (which made all ISPs responsible for all content passing through their systems) was a good solution?

Don't ask me, I wasn't the one who brought up the analogy of 'the same thing could be said about violent movies and video games'. I just responded with the obvious example that it is up to the distributor to obey the law -- or face the penalty.

As for the CDA I have already stated above that it is next to nigh impossible to actually enforce it -- you know the part of my post you didn't quote. And how I was actually opposed to it as being anything more than a ridiculous pipe dream.

And what does this have to do with the "War on Pornography"'s call to censor the Internet? Oh yeah, precisely jack shit.

And you brought it as an analogy again why?

So what is your solution? Censor the Internet? Or expect parents to actually, I dunno, supervise their fucking kids?

I'm not propossing a solution you dipshit, I'm not even taking the opposite side on the debate. This whole thing started with an assumption of yours, that will now (most likely) take five posts to drum through your head!

Here, I'll make it simple for you; show where I am supporting the CDA; show where I said that I want to censor the internet; show where I am fucking doing anything other than telling two fucking trolls to shut the fuck up!

The only thing you can come close to is; banning spam, and insiting on some kind of age verification for porn sites. *Call the Fascist police, Crown's losing it*.

Apart from that, you've got shit all.

Do you have kids? I do, and I know how to supervise them. If you haven't talked to your kids by age 11 about sex, you're a delinquent parent. Delinquent parents should not blame the world for not compensating for their own inadequacies.

No shit. I also had sex ed at 11. The issue here is that 8 year old kids are being exposed to it,either though parents not-quite-as-stellar-as-you, or *gasp* *shock* parents who are illiterate (computer). And I love how you equate 'sex ed' to 'bestiality', 'BDSM', 'Goldenshowers', 'Fetishes', etc. Covered the whole spectrum there Mike?

Here; I'll make it easier; respond to my first and second post and show me where I was fucking advocating the CDA.

[Faqa]

Mass spam emails = sunday school now? Give me a fucking break.

Not to speak for Mike or anything, but I think his point was that the Church is given lots of room to preach and input their ideas, among which are morally criminalizing sex in many ways(it's "The Devil's temptation", to be used only for reproduction). Therefore, why should another forum for sex disortion be attacked so?

Further, what vending machine for movies were you talking about? Out here in Israel, we've got plenty of those - but they ALL require a FUCKING CREDIT CARD!!! You're telling me a kid could just pop some coins in the machine and get a movie out? That should be fixed, I s'pose. But still, a parent doesn't know what his kid puts in the VCR? Please...

[Faqa]

No shit. I also had sex ed at 11. The issue here is that 8 year old kids are being exposed to it,either though parents not-quite-as-stellar-as-you, or *gasp* *shock* parents who are illiterate (computer).

I apologize for a double post, but the whole POINT is that IT'S THE PARENT'S JOB TO SUPERVISE THEIR KIDS!!!!!!!! NOT the Goverment's job! It's their job to educate, it's their job to supervise. Where the FUCK do lazy parents get off shoving responsibility off on other people for their OWN KIDS?

If a child surfs the Web frequently, it's a parent's job to become computer-literate. If a child enters puberty, it's a parents job to give a sex talk. End of fucking story. Do NOT encourage lazy "shove the kid in front of a box" parenting in ANY way.[/i]

[RedImperator]

I'm a bit confused here.... is the purpose of this "War On Pornography" to restrict minors' access to porn on the internet, or is it to outlaw all porn completely?

The former is the stated reason, the latter is the ultimate goal. "Think of the children!" is a common argument whenever anybody in this country wants to prevent adults from doing something that doesn't cause objective harm to others.

[neoolong]

I'm a bit confused here.... is the purpose of this "War On Pornography" to restrict minors' access to porn on the internet, or is it to outlaw all porn completely?

The former is the stated reason, the latter is the ultimate goal. "Think of the children!" is a common argument whenever anybody in this country wants to prevent adults from doing something that doesn't cause objective harm to others.

Their unfocus severely screws with their attempt to use the "stats" to justify their position. Most of seems to be structured to say that it is easy and harmful for kids to get their hands on porn. Which true or not doesn't say anything about why it should be banned for adults.

[RedImperator]

I'm a bit confused here.... is the purpose of this "War On Pornography" to restrict minors' access to porn on the internet, or is it to outlaw all porn completely?

The former is the stated reason, the latter is the ultimate goal. "Think of the children!" is a common argument whenever anybody in this country wants to prevent adults from doing something that doesn't cause objective harm to others.

Their unfocus severely screws with their attempt to use the "stats" to justify their position. Most of seems to be structured to say that it is easy and harmful for kids to get their hands on porn. Which true or not doesn't say anything about why it should be banned for adults.

Of course it does. Their unspoken argument is that the reason it's so easy for kids to get their hands on it is because the product is widely and cheaply available for adults. And that's largely true, though there's also the ease with which pornography is distributed (even without the Internet, magazines and DVDs are small and easily transported). Ergo, if we make it difficult or impossible for adults to access it, children won't be able to see it.

I've run into this EXACT argument from people in marijuana prohibition arguments. There are two conterarguments.

1) adults are free, autonomous, self-governing human beings and the state doesn't have the right to prevent them from committing acts that cause no objective harm to others, so we have to keep [undesireable thing X] out of childrens' hands the hard way, with parental involvement, liscenses for vendors subject to revocation if they sell to minors, etc.

2) The costs outweigh the potential benefits (or actual benefits, in the case of drugs) of prohibition. This goes true for anything desired by large numbers of people. It costs enormous amounts of money to enforce effective prohibition and turning large percentages of your population into scofflaws causes immense social damage. Not to mention what happens when an entire industry goes underground. If the only people who can produce and distribute something are criminals, do you really think they'll go out of their way to practice business ethically?

[Darth Wong]

I have tried to be patient, but your bizarre explosion of hostile bullshit today makes me wonder if somebody put shit in your coffee this morning:

I read it more than Einy did you moron, or you would have missed where the only point I actually involved myself with Einy's stupidity was to point out where this person got his evidence from; or are you incapable of reading a fucking thread? Or how about I agreed with him on the whole fucking 'more addictive than nicotine/illicit drug' claim.

Yes, I saw that, and you did NOT show where he got any scientific evidence for pornography causing direct harm. That was not scientific evidence. But feel free to pretend that you did; it seems to make you happy.

And go fuck yourself you self righteous bastard. Spyder not once, not twice but THREE FUCKING TIMES made it abundantly clear that my point of arguing that it was illegial to distribute pornographic material to minors WAS AN INVALID ARGUEMENT BECAUSE LEGALLITY DIDN'T NECESSARILY SATISFY JUSTICE.

Yes, which is exactly what I was saying, you twat. I said that Spyder's line was appropriate because your logic consisted of the imbecilic notion that you can prove something is harmful by simply showing that it's illegal.

So what fucking thread are you reading?

Same one, but I'm not reading it like an idiot.

Mass spam emails = sunday school now? Give me a fucking break.

Yeah, you're right. Sunday school is far more destructive.

And a computer finds its way into the possession of a child without the consent of the parent? You must have interesting computer retail policies in your country.

• Public Libraries
• Public web stations
• School computers
• Friends computers

Hey dipshit, my kid is 8, and I don't let him wander around unsupervised in public places. Any parent that does is risking a lot worse than their kid accidentally seing some Internet porn.

Yes we hope that these are protected, but for fucks sake there was actually an automatic vending machine here in Australia and it took for ages for someone to realise that it didn't ask to see ID when you ordered an R rated movie, and the children were buying them!

R-rated movies are not pornography, moron, and they're certainly not child pornography. Moreover, there are limits to how much imposition the state should place on the populace in search of this "protect the children" mantra. I believe in the physical protection of children, but aggressive measures meant to protect them from "harmful" images will cause more harm than good.

And how is this relevant to the "War on Pornography's" call to censor the Internet or its claim that the CDA (which made all ISPs responsible for all content passing through their systems) was a good solution?

Don't ask me, I wasn't the one who brought up the analogy of 'the same thing could be said about violent movies and video games'. I just responded with the obvious example that it is up to the distributor to obey the law -- or face the penalty.

The analogy is valid: the only form of "harm" identified in the quote you cited was precisely applicable to violent movies and videogames, thus showing how bankrupt the underlying logic of criminalizing Internet distribution is. Don't blame me if you can't understand that.

As for the CDA I have already stated above that it is next to nigh impossible to actually enforce it -- you know the part of my post you didn't quote. And how I was actually opposed to it as being anything more than a ridiculous pipe dream.

But you support it in principle, which is fucking stupid as well.

And what does this have to do with the "War on Pornography"'s call to censor the Internet? Oh yeah, precisely jack shit.

And you brought it as an analogy again why?

The analogy to violent videogames is accurate because it shows why the underlying logic is broken. Your attempt to tie this to the fact that kids can't rent them from Blockbuster is what's irrelevant. Criminalizing Internet distribution of porn would be analogous to criminalizing distribution of conventional porn at the DISTRIBUTOR rather than the STORE, using the rationale that store owners can't be bothered to stop kids from buying it. Conventional porn is only regulated at point of sale, not distribution, because regulation at the point of distribution would effectively amount to total censorship, in case you were too fucking stupid to figure it out.

It would be quite easy for malls, libraries and Internet cafes to simply disallow 8 year olds from using Internet kiosks unsupervised (just as a variety store simply tells kids not to reach up to the top shelf and grab the porno mags), schools could easily orient their library Internet computers so that their screens are easily visible to library staff. the end point-of-sale, and home computer use can be monitored. There is no need to cut it off at the source and stop the distribution process.

So what is your solution? Censor the Internet? Or expect parents to actually, I dunno, supervise their fucking kids?

I'm not propossing a solution you dipshit, I'm not even taking the opposite side on the debate. This whole thing started with an assumption of yours, that will now (most likely) take five posts to drum through your head!

Oh really? You claimed that Internet pornography HARMS CHILDREN by linking to websites discussing the sexual exploitation of children in child porn (hint: red herring) in an attempt to attack Einy's point that the "War on Pornography" people have utterly failed to make their case for censoring the Internet.

Here, I'll make it simple for you; show where I am supporting the CDA; show where I said that I want to censor the internet; show where I am fucking doing anything other than telling two fucking trolls to shut the fuck up!

OK, fine. From your first post:

And how does this demonstrate harm? Oh wait, they're TEENAGERS! THEY WANT SEX!

There is a law in each country that specifies the minimum age at which a person is allowed to be exposed to pornography. Usually this is set around 18. There is more than enough evidence that exposure to highly graphic sexual material before maturity to comprehend such material (say at age eight) is damaging to a child.

Oh and nice little strawman there jerk off. This is to stop porn beign distributed to minors, WHICH IS ILLEGAL. There was no 'teenagers and sex' claim.

Right there, you responded to a demand for proof of harm by citing the law books. Then you went on to say that "exposure to highly graphic sexual material" will actually DAMAGE a child. How? Do you realize that throughout most of human history, children were aware of sex from a young age because most families lived in one-room domiciles? How old do you think kids were before they figured out what sex was, moron? Then, you defended the "War on Pornography" by saying that their objective was to "stop porn from being distributed to minors", which you seemed to consider perfectly reasonable "because it's illegal", a ridiculous circular justification if I ever saw one (ie- "it's a good law because it's legal").

The objective of stopping Internet-based distribution of porn IS the SAME THING as saying you want to censor the Internet, moron. Go accuse somebody else of strawman distortions, because this is exactly what you defended.

The only thing you can come close to is; banning spam, and insiting on some kind of age verification for porn sites. *Call the Fascist police, Crown's losing it*.

Apart from that, you've got shit all.

See above. I don't know what crawled up your ass today, but when you say something that's just plain stupid or wrong, you can't cover it up by going apeshit on anyone who calls bullshit on you.

Do you have kids? I do, and I know how to supervise them. If you haven't talked to your kids by age 11 about sex, you're a delinquent parent. Delinquent parents should not blame the world for not compensating for their own inadequacies.

No shit. I also had sex ed at 11. The issue here is that 8 year old kids are being exposed to it, either though parents not-quite-as-stellar-as-you, or *gasp* *shock* parents who are illiterate (computer).

Then they have a FUCKING OBLIGATION TO LEARN. When it's your child, it is YOUR RESPONSIBILITY to get off your lazy fat ass and learn whatever it is that you need to learn in order to adequately raise your child, not to mention not letting your 8 year old kid wander around unsupervised in public. I know PRECISELY what kind of supervision an 8 year old normally requires, because I have an 8 year old son RIGHT FUCKING NOW, so don't give me some bullshit about how I can't control whether he's sitting in an Internet cafe somewhere watching porn. And if other parents can't be bothered, it is not society's responsibility to censor all public avenues of information exchange in order to make up for their goddamned negligence!

And I love how you equate 'sex ed' to 'bestiality', 'BDSM', 'Goldenshowers', 'Fetishes', etc. Covered the whole spectrum there Mike?

It's pretty ironic that you started your wild-eyed ranting in this thread by accusing someone else of a strawman distortion, and then you pull bullshit like this. Sex ed is not BDSM porn, but it will tell you what you need to know in order to recognize what BDSM is and what's wrong with it. Not that such a rational approach is apparently appropriate for you, since you've apparently gone off the deep end and are now resorting to screaming at people and making ridiculously obvious distortions of their points.

Here; I'll make it easier; respond to my first and second post and show me where I was fucking advocating the CDA.

Already done earlier in this post. Once more, and for the record, you angrily dismissed Einy's complaint against the "War on Pornography" as a "strawman", and said that Internet "distribution of porn to minors" is wrong, using the idiotic rationale that kids might be able to get ahold of it due to delinquent parents. You also attempted to tie "pornography" to "sexual solicitation" in your second post: an obvious red-herring fallacy. And then you said:

I note that you haven't established why pornography should be distributed to minors. Not meaning to ask you to prove a negative here, but the law is already in place, to onus is on you to prove that it is 'unjust'

Not only is this wrong in principle (you cannot criminalize something on the justification that it should be assumed harmful enough to criminalize until proven otherwise, nor can you use the fact that the law exists to justify a "shifting the burden of proof" fallacy), but any law which prohibits Internet-based distribution of pornography DOES censor the Internet, because the Internet is nothing but a distribution medium. If people aren't going to monitor their own kids or keep them from wandering around unsupervised in public places such as malls even when they're only 8 (the age you keep citing), , that can hardly be blamed on the Internet, yet that is precisely what you are doing.

[Evil Sadistic Bastard]

I simply find it rather ironic that in my country, the legal age for sex is 16, while we aren't allowed to watch R movies until we're 21.

[The Yosemite Bear]

yeah watching war, and red asphalt was "required education"

now you can get into trouble for showing a PG rated "Romeo and Juliet" because there's two frames of Oliva's (Juliet's) breasts.

[Hamel]

yeah watching war, and red asphalt was "required education"

now you can get into trouble for showing a PG rated "Romeo and Juliet" because there's two frames of Oliva's (Juliet's) breasts.

Rofl~ I watched that movie in english class. There was an uproar when the class saw her boobies

[The Yosemite Bear]

Shit we saw Romeo's ass longer then that...

of course I was the one who used to piss off the Baptist Vice Principal by brining Fanny Hill, DH Lawrence, etc into school for english book reports. (along with the uncensored version of 1001 nights.) Gee it's just a book, or going into "The Prince" in poli sci class (you can't read that it's college level!) heh

[kojikun]

I agree with that chick about reailty shows to a degree. I mean, those shows are nothing but STUPID idiocy and exposing children to that is.. horrible.

[PainRack]

I simply find it rather ironic that in my country, the legal age for sex is 16, while we aren't allowed to watch R movies until we're 21.

RA. R is 18. Then there's the whole NC 16 bit, so that people who haven't entered NS can go watch Saving Private Ryan.

Although you may be right, what with the new classifications coming out...