Has anyone else read that the religious nuts are now working harder than ever to try and pressure President Bush and his administration to crack down on porn. The thing that is holding back progress is the Bush administration's focus on the 9/11 tragedy. Basically they will be using the charge of obsensity laws that were already in place during the Clinton adminstration(but seems Bill was too busy getting bjs to give a damn).

Videos depicting interracial sex, fisting,pissing,etc. would be enforced and prosecuted as obscene and therefore be illegal.

I can't speak for others but I don't think porn is nearly as dangerous to society as the religous extremists make it out to be. If these religous freaks really want to make a difference in the u.s. they should focus their energies on making alcohol, gambling, and smoking illegal. These activities are far more dangerous to the public in my opinion than people watching porn or producing it.

How about working to make practicing the Catholic religion illegal since it seems to turn priests into child molesters. I don't see any other religion where the priests are so widely known for this kind of abusive activity.

Of course the religious nutjobs would blame porn for poisoning the minds of the abusive Catholic priests.

I was with you until you started advocating making alcohol, gambling, and smoking illegal. How about just letting people live their damn lives?

I'm not saying that I personally would want to make alcohol, gambling and smoking illegal. My point is that if these religious people really want to make the world a better place they should focus on vices that harm society more than porn.

If these so-called religious people want to make the world a better place, they could start by cleaning up pollution, working to improve health care, education, economic opportunities, etc., and LEAVE ME AND MY VICES THE FUCK ALONE!!!

Kendricks

I agree with you but good luck trying to convince the religious people(the ones who want to change the world) based on simple logic.

Maybe, their plan is to start with smaller things such as porn and work their way up to reform health care, education,etc.

The thing that I really find is kind of ironic is that these religious people and government want to outlaw interracial sex by labeling it as obscene???

Based on this logic shouldn't interracial marriages illegal?

LOL -- Kendricks, you can have your vices. I don't think Horndogg meant to suggest that you and he disagreed on that subject. He's just as against the religious extremists invading anyone's life as you are, it seemed to me. He was complaining about their inconsistencies, not about what he disliked in society. But remember this, Kendricks, if you stick to your vices: just don't rely on any public money to bail out your ailing kidneys, lungs, or pecker, OK? ">

It's the same old motorcycle helmet argument, isn't it? If we allow people to ride without helmets, then we're casting a vote for civil liberties. Wind in your hair, amen. Unfortunately, we're also casting a vote for giving to a large group of people who are too stupid to take care of themselves, the responsibility for taking care of themselves, and generally when they fail to do it, the clean-up costs US as much as it costs THEM. Ideally, everyone would be as intelligent as most members of the Libertarian party actually are; in those circumstances, I think Libertarianism (or a mild form thereof) would actually work. But most people who would stand to gain civil liberties from Libertarianism are, unfortunately, rather more stupid than your average Libertarian. Which is why I don't support the Libertarian Party.

I get Horndogg's several points. His idea about the religious extremists going after, for example, tobacco, initially seems intelligent. Tobacco is proven to harm people. If, as the religious extremists claim, they wish to "save" people from themselves (as discussed in the previous paragraph) then it would make much more sense for them to actually spend their efforts on something that DOES harm people, rather than on something that only SOME people think harms people. But when were extremists rational? They THINK porn harms people and society, they don't need studies to prove whether or not it does, they go about their anti-porn crusade. Part of the DEAL, when you sign up for an extreme religion, is the opportunity not to have to need studies to prove things. If porn looks like something you don't want in your society, you get to say you don't want it in your society because it's bad and because it harms people. You get to make up the "because" part. They call that "faith."

I also get his point about pornography. As though graphic pictures of interracial sex (for another example) bring ANY ancillary detriment to society, duh! To the contrary, many would argue that early, regular access to clear, vivid portrayals of healthy sexuality actually IMPROVES the social mores of the community, causing more long-lasting relationships of the religiously-approved kind (you know, committed monogamous blah blah), less sexual dysfunction, and more general health and comfort with the human body. The religious extremists could even be said to be shooting themselves in the foot, by fighting porn, since it's porn itself that keeps their otherwise loveless marriages together (at least hubby has SOMETHING to jack off to). (LOL ... I should be a lawyer, for thinking up THAT convoluted argument!)

So, I agree, the extremists can't think straight, and seem to be shooting at the targets that SCARE them the most rather than the ones that would most effectively push their (admittedly warped, fucked-up, selfish) agenda. And, I agree to another point, porn is not a dangerous thing. And I agree, pollution harms us all and does seem to be something the religious right-wing might well go after. But they don't. And we probably can't convince them to do it, either. "Dear Religious Right-Wing: We of the monger community, who regularly fuck TJ whores and are proud to admit it, have a polite and friendly suggestion for you ..."

But DOES porn harm a community? What about child-porn? I don't know the stats, but I know that I'm not disgusted at all by most forms of pornography. I'm generally turned on by pictures of hot-looking women, and generally annoyed at pictures of less-than-hot-looking women. I generally am bored by whatever else is in the picture -- dicks, horses, rubber chickens, whatever, I don't care, just so the women are hot. But when it's children, it seems to me to be entirely a different issue.

Perhaps the perception of the religious right-wing is something along the lines of what uninformed people used to think about gay men. About two decades ago, it was commonplace for the "average" American (if he actually exists) to believe that all gay males were pervs and therefore probably child molesters. Some careful, patient education campaigns have dispelled that belief (although the Catholic church has been doing wonders on that front lately; different issue). Maybe Baptists 'n' all equate the idea of looking at porn, with the idea of looking at and wishing to enact child porn, or some similar wrong association.

Seems to me the question of "obscenity" relates closely to what we've got going in Tampa recently, the lap-dancing debate. It's technically illegal to have a nude performer closer to you than 6 feet away, although lap-dancing does go on generally uninhibited across Tampa. But the reasoning behind the 6-foot rule is, that lap-dancing is "dangerous" for us somehow. It contributes to prostitution, disease, drug use and sale, the lowering of community standards, general crime, and so forth. As though my eating a McDonald's Whopper could cause the car mechanic across the street to spontaneously have a heart attack from the excess cholesterol abounding "in the society."

Extremists. True Believers. What a pain in the ass. Especially when they ruin the fun for the rest of us. I'm pretty sexually conservative (LOL), but I find it kind've stimulating when the government goes on one of its anti-porn or anti-prostitution rampages. Life on the edge, I say. The fruit tastes better if it is forbidden fruit.

I've certainly met my share of self-righteous, religious whacks. You'll never change their views through reason, as far as I can tell.

Have y'all noticed that the most self-righteous people out there live double lives? For instance, Jimmy Swaggert raged against porn, but in his private life loves porn and prostitutes. This is fairly typical, IMHO. Basically, these folks can't live up to their own moralistic "standards." Something inside of them craves something else. Sometimes it is fun to date self-righteous women (though I don't recommend it). Underneath all the hypocritical harshness are some pretty wicked sexual fantasies. I knew this young Republican conservative chick many years ago who wouldn't stop using the word "should". When I finally got her in the rack, it wasn't all that great for a long time. But then, she got highly stimulated when I called her a fuckin' whore. She felt guilty as hell, but she always fantasized about being a whore. Go figure.

I'm not sure where I'm going with this. If they want to ban porn, FUCK them.

Book Guy:

I dispute the notion that smokers cost society money. Personally, I would rather see the masses die in their 60's of lung cancer and heart attacks, than die of bone marrow cancer or some shit in their 90's. At least the guy who smoked a couple packs a day and kicked it in his 60's didn't go on Social Security for decades before running up hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical bills.

As for motorcycle helmets, that is a pretty arbitrary decree. It really does piss me off that I have to wear a helmet when I ride a bike, yet pick up the tab for the carnage caused by SUV driving parasitical soccer moms.

I do agree completely with your take on religious extremists and faith based arguments. Those goddamn "God Said It, I Believe It, That Settles It" bumperstickers are enough to turn me into a fucking serial killer...

How about all you people that have to throw anti Catholic rants into your posts just go fuck yourselves? How over 50 million Americans are to be blamed for the activities of a few hundred homosexual priests just escapes me.

2 points. 1.) Do not confuse the religious right with Catholicism. Most fundamentalists think the pope is the anti christ and Catholics are all going to hell.
2.) Religous wackos are not the only ones trying to ban porn, there is a whole radical left wing feminazi movement to ban it as well as "opression of women", and they have suceeded in getting the good porn banned in Canada NOT on religous grounds, but on so called human rights grounds.
Years ago I worked in the publishing business, and our biggest problem with shipping books to Canada was that their fucking customs agents opened all our packages to make sure we were really sending literature and not a picture of a good fist fucking.

Kendricks, honest studies agree with you. If you add up all the costs related to smoking, and then SUBTRACT the pensions and social security not paid to smokers that die young, on top of the incredible taxes they pay, smoking actually saves society money
Not a good choice, health wise, but it harms no one elses pocketbook.

Kendricks,

I never thought about it like that. It's like I just had a fuckin' epiphany. People who are stupid enough to smoke are in reality an asset not a liability.

They generally drop dead sooner leaving more cash to work with and less stupid nicotine fiends around.

Some times you're so close to the wood you can't see the trees.

Some thoughts about Catholic priests, feminazis, and more.

Catholic Priests. There's some research to show that priests, and religious leaders across faiths, tend to be more narcissistic than the general population. They are more likely to be grandiose, and their sense of entitlement pushes them over the edge into behaviors that harm others. Moreover, the profession of "Catholic Priest" undoubtedly pulls, relative to the average job, for certain types of people, like molesters. And the Catholic Church is interesting - a history of being centuries behind the curve, and rather cruel, but at the same time some rather amazing stuff, too. I feel pretty fortunate not to be Catholic. But it is a great spectator sport. And it is a religion that produces some of the world's greatest prostitutes. So give 'em credit.

Feminazis. Agreed. What a pain in the ass. Another group of whacko extremists. It is getting worse. There's a small group on the fringes of the women's movement that is concerned with this growing extremism, and sees the anti-porn movement as part of this extremism (see, for instance, Rene Denfeld's "the new victorians.") Now it is sort've heartening to know that this non-extremist fringe of the women's movement exists, and that they don't have a big problem with at least some porn. Once they get past their anti-porn thing they may be more worth doing. We'll be able to watch porn with our "intellectual" girlfriends. (then again, why bother...)

Motorcycle helmets: I'm thinking I might need to wear one the next time I do Tanya (AB)...

If they ban Porn in the U.S., you can still watch it at AB and CC in TJ. Of course you may have some distractions...

I am a recovering catholic and "try" to practice Buddhism. The tenents of this school of thought have actually helped me to be a better person.

I have stopped paticipating in the slaughter of other innocent living entities and I'm actually a little less of a ball buster and wise guy than I used to be. A little, LOL...

Powerslave: I didn't mean to equate Catholicism with fundamentalism, or equate the few buggerin' priests with the whole of the Catholic "community." That reference of mine seems to have hit a nerve of yours ... but if you look at my statement, you'll see that I meant for it to refer to the MISEDUCATION OF THE MASSES, and (perhaps this isn't clear; sorry, so I wrote it bad, my mistake) how some WRONG associations can get made. So, by pointing out that a bad association was made, you're essentially agreeing with me. I hope there aren't any hard feelings. I wasn't out to bash Catholics -- just the few priests who committed crimes and, by extension, the mistaken associations of uneducated people. You missed my point. I'd recommend you chill on the Catholic issue ... you're already posting against ghost adversaries, and twice in a row at that! LOL ...

You're right about the whole Canadian import problem. They don't have a First Amendment up there, and their general Customs procedure is to "hold for inspection" any items that are going to a suspect outlet. That means, for example, that a lesbian bookstore can order whatever they want, and pay for it, but suddenly their supply dries up for six months or six years just because a few bottom-tier agents at the border decided to keep their inventory in a warehouse in Niagara Falls rather than sending it on. Never mind whether or not the contents ARE porn, just that the agents HOLD it for a while to DECIDE. And thus put the bookstore out of business. It's no surprise, that only "alternative interest" bookstores get the hassles, while "mainstream" stores continue to succeed in importing "questionable" material (Joyce's "Ulysses," anything by Faulkner, Playboy and Penthouse and The New Yorker, etc.).

Kendricks -- brilliant meandering idea about how tobacco-addicted lung-cancer victims are actually a benefit, rather than a detriment, to society. Quaint notion. Heehee. But I disagree. Smoker parents breed smoker children, thus perpetuating the debt. And death by "natural" causes (hell, all deaths are natural, but you know what I mean) is much less expensive to ME and other taxpayers, than death by Marlboro. Studies prove it. No I won't quote them, I don't know where I got that information. In fact, I could very well be making it up.

Dogster -- brilliant thinking outside the box. The ideas about grandiosity and narcissism sure do hold true, in my experience, religion by religion.

Oh, and hey, I wasn't using the motorcycle helmet story as the REAL story, I was just using it as a metaphor. Everybody got the gist of my intent, thanks to it, I think, even though it's possible that the whole public debt to motorcycle victims isn't a noteworthy cash amount at all. That's kind of beside the point.

For me, the point is much simpler. There are people out there who are determined to force their own miserable view of how limited their lives must be, onto you and me. They must be resisted. They are idiots. And yes, in THIS category I DO lump both large numbers of fundamentalist Protestants, and large numbers of restrictive, conservative, often ordained Catholics.

I had some Seventh Day Adventists come to my door this morning. "Hi, we'd like to share some scripture with you." My response?

"Did you see what fundamentalism did on September 11th. Did you notice how many people died because of fundamentalism?"

They look shocked. "Yes, wasn't that horrible. We are trying, this Memorial Day, to remember ... "

I cut them off. "And yet you still insist on being a fundamentalist. To me you're no better than a murderer. Learn to use your brain for more complicated purposes, or I'll continue to treat you like an animal. GET OFFA MY LAWN YOU PISS-SPREADING DOG!"

They didn't know what hit 'em. And I'm sure they didn't get the "point" about THEM being as fundamentalist as the OTHER "them." Not that I agree with it anyway. But it sure was fun to watch the look on their faces.

BG, are you sure smokers are a liability and not an asset. I felt much better after reading Kendricks hypothesis...

Dazed is "trying" to be a Buddhist? OK, I'm "trying" to expand my awareness to encompass this.

The conservative right has long been a supporter of the tires old term "family values". Remember the Reagan administration and the HUGE voluminous tome on pornography developed by the AG office and touted by AG Regan? It said in onerous terms of the degradation of women, the weakening of the Nations moral fabric,etc., etc., We needed more laws on Morality and we neede them FAST. Fortunatly a lot of them were struck down as unconstitutional, a lot of them never saw the light of day because of the Democratic Congress, and a lotof them only came to fruition during the Clinton yeras where they were gutted or routinely ignored.

While the Regan Report sat prominentely on President Reagan's desk, it did little service to the President. Conversely Monica Lewinsky sat prominently under the President Clintons desk and rendered great service to the president!

There were a few court cases involving pornograpy and obscenity. They usually cost a small fortune to prosecute so it is usually left to the feds. Larry Flynt and Cincinatti come to mind. Most however are overtuyrned on appeal, either through flawed prosecution or gray constitutional issues.

That is why you have seen President Bush's great push to fill the vacant federal judicial seats by the the Republican right. Saying that the seats have remained vacant too long and are hindered by the Democrats, he failed to mention the Republican-led judicial commitee in both houses routinely turned down or block Clinton Nominees.

While forcing the right wing social issues can be tempered by elections every few years in the House, Senate and Presidency, Having a conservative appointee the the judiciary is a lifelong matter.

It also helps you to become President.


The pornography industry has very deep pockets and have learned all sorts of stealth financing technigues from the Republicans.

I was filled with dismay when Bush appointed the Sith Lord Ashcroft as out next AG. Here is a guy that dressed the semi nude statue of Justice, much like the rich Iranian Muslin who painted fig leaves on the cherub and statues in the garden and on the walls surrounding his Posh Beverly Hills home. It just proves that when you reach a position of promience or power, bad taste is still bad taste. Unfortunatly for the people of the US, this turd had a great amount of power invested in his office. I could just see the great pornography crusade of the Reagan administration dusted off and fed to us again.

In a way the events of September 11 were a blessing and a curse. For once, there was an enemy that did far worse damage to the country that looking at pictures of people fornicating could ever do. It put into perspective that while we pretended to "protest our childrens innocence" by tyeing to ban images, we were confronted by the startling obscenity of huge jumbo jets crashing into huge fireballs, the largest structures in the world tumbling to the ground, pictures so horrifying many TV stations refuse to replay them because of the traumatic effect it could/would/may have on people and children.

There were more important fish to fry than people who make dirty pictures.

What was lost on many, was the fact that the it was extreme religious fundalmentalism that prompted the attacks, and it was extreme religious fundalmentalism that prompts attacks on what we take our are civil freedoms and liberties; our right to watch people fornicating!!!.

Just as ms there were many muslims who felt the terrorists were "fighting the good fight" against the great evil America. There are a good many people who feel the fight against against pornography is "the good fight". There are many out there who feel you cannot take away our guns, weapons that will kill maim and injure people on purpose or accident, put you must take away pictures or images of naked people just doing what everybody does. It doesn't make sense to a rational person, but then again, that is the problem, we are not talking about rational people.

While the Bush administration is trying to put a kabosh on terrorism by retricting many of our freedoms, and getting great support from politicians who do not want to look "soft" on this issue, you can bet your bottom dollar that somewhere deep in the bowels of this administration, there is someone, somewhere, who is trying to link terrorism with pornography.

Just think of it,, if thet can do this: find a link between terrorists and pornography.. they could have a field day in restricting and prosecuting porn.

Unfortunatly for Darth Ashcroft and Emperor Bush, they can only find links to terrorism and religious fundalmentalism.

OG

Dogster,

All we can do is try our best. Welcome to the human race...

Dogster,

Also we all have our light and dark sides with everything in between.

In our year book I was dubbed the class clown on the job or in the neighborhood people allways smile when I walk up because they know the first thing out of my mouth will be something funny.

I love humour. It's one of the real treasures we have.

I love to bust balls and kid around. One problem I've noticed on the board is that often people think that what I'm saying is serious but It rarely is. Unless we're talking about health or safety.

Or maybe the humour is to dry. I don't know. Anyway Buddhism is a nice way of life if you can emulate the teachings.

Oh yeah, nothing like the Religious Right to piss everybody off on a whoremongering board...Takes a lot of guts to cap on them in a forum like this one...

God, Duty, Family, Country, and all that BS-- who needs it, right fellas?...

YoungBrig

"Dazed is 'trying' to be a Buddhist? OK, I'm 'trying' to expand my awareness to encompass this. "

Dazed. When I wrote that, I was "striving" to be funny. That was supposed to be a joke. I thought you'd get a chuckle out of it. Anyway, I'm craving sex and porno and sleep. Stay tuned.
Dogster

Dogster,

OK I got it. And oh yea I've got similar cravings...

YoungBrig,

Remember Buddhism realy is not a religion. It's really more a guide tohelp one navigate through
story waters...

that' stormy

Book Guy:

Re smoking related deaths, there is an important factor you are not taking into acocunt- the 30 years of social security that is saved by not paying social security and other benefits to someone who dies of lung cancer at 60, instead of "natual causes" at 90.

Young Brig:

Your statement "God, Duty, Family, Country, and all that BS-- who needs it, right fellas?..." is an excellent example of several fallacies. First, you demonstrate the Complex Question and False Dilemma fallacies, be presupposing that someone who rejects belief in nonexistent gods also rejects "duty, family, and country". The Prejudicial Language fallacy is also applicable, as are the Attacking the Person fallacy and the Straw Man fallacy. I probably missed a few - for fun, you may want to review the comprehensive list of fallacies posted at http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm, in order to pick out other fallacies this statement is guilty of.

Hehe. These off topic posts are a great way to either let off some stress or build it up.

OK, question time. You are to be shipwrecked on a deserted island with only one other person. You have your choice of neighbors.

One is a left wing bleeding heart. Intellectually stimulating and totally morally bankrupt. The type of person who would be a fun drinking buddy, equally fun to spend the hours discussing everything and anything, and would stab you in the back (any then cry about it) at a moment's notice to get the last coconut.

The other is a right wing relgious fanatic. Great sense of intergity and morals but absolutely closed to anything outside of a very narrow range of a world view. You could trust them to share the last coconut, to always keep their side of the island clean, and they will never ask "why" about anything because they already have been giving the "true word".

You have to pick one of them. No living by yourself because that would be weird in any normal person's book. Who would it be?

Good question, TH. The left winger wins, hands down. "I'd rather laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints", as Billy Joel once put it.

TF, I mean. Good question, TF.

One more comment, TF - in my experience, the right wing religious zealots are much more likely to lie to you and stab you in the back than bleeding heart liberals. And, even though the asshole religious zealot probably would keep his side of the island clean, he would probably also be criticizing the way you want your half of the island to be, too.

With that being the case, I can't think of a single convincing reason to pick the asshole over the fun lover.

Book Guy, I thought I saw you coming down a path but then you didn't follow it through completely. One of the worst things about smoking is that it DOES affect other people, those around the smoker. Everyone around the smoker has to breath the smoke, and it's horrible that there are parents that expose their kids to that shit. I doubt the parents are completely covering the medical costs of those kids that need treatment for lung illnesses.

This specifically applies to us on this website that don't smoke because of where we hang out. I can only spend a few hours in a TJ bar before I start feeling weird, and I ALWAYS feel like crap if I stay in TJ too long. (For some reason, this only applies to TJ, I never had this problem in Costa Rica, Thailand, or the Philippines)

To say a smoker's activity only affects the smoker is not looking at the whole picture.

Back to topic, I couldn't agree with you more Orgngrndr. Although the left has had it's share of "freedom limiting politicians", they can't touch the right's actual success and potential threat of actually succeeding.

I'll be really interested in hearing what some people here have to say if the right continues to succeed gaining power in the Judicial Branch and that aspect of government shifts too far to the right. I wonder if we'll still have the same conservative cheerleaders when we see abortion virtually outlawed by roundabout legal means and the walls protecting adult material shattered by redefined obscenity laws.

Kendricks, thanks for the link, but I must warn you that I've seen you commit a number of those same fallacies and I'll have to use that page against you if you ever disagree with me again.

Tight Fit, I must disagree with your assessment of the two extremes. As extremes, both will have exaggerated human flaws and will try to steal the coconut. The difference I see is that the left extreme will try to justify it and the right extreme will condemn the left for trying to steal, then steal it himself. He'll then apologize for his sin and be forgiven by God. (Kendricks, don't take this to mean I have the same [lack of] religious leanings as yourself)

I do completely agree with Kendricks pick of a neighbor and view of right wing zealots. In my personal experience, I have found that once they pass a "good right" point, the farther right they go the more critical they are of how other people live their lives, and the more hypocritical they are about how they live their own.

For fun, another angle of how the two extremes might handle the coconut is the left shackles himself to the coconut and claims it needs protection as the last coconut on the island and must remain untouched to preserve the delicate ecobalance of the island habitat. The right might demand full and first possession of the coconut since he has the greater resources and knowledge of how the coconut should be used. He would make sure that at least a tiny portion of the coconut would "trickle down" to the left.

d'Artagnan: Ha ha! You took my link, and have threatened to turn it against me. I don't see how any of my arguments could ever contain fallacies, though, since I am a fallacy expert, and everyone who claims that I am ever guilty of using fallacies is a bad person, who will suffer the wrath of god for all eternity. Also, your claim that I use fallacies because I am an immigrant and a welfare recipient is simply not true - I was born in the United States, have never collected welfare, and can PROVE it. 8-D

Your comments about the religious right zealots are right on. It seems that once they are "saved" they believe that its ok for them to fuck the rest of us over, since they are "god's special chosen ones", and we are just a bunch of worthless heathens. That is the impression I have from dealing with them, anyway.

Kendricks: regarding social security debts to 90-year-olds who don't smoke ... oh, all right then, good point, if you think that way. But then you presuppose that the 30 years of that person's late-in-life existence are a negative contribution to society, whereas the absence of those 30 years for a smoker are a positive. It's possible (as in the case of, for example, Jimmy Carter) late in life the non-smoker GIVES more to society than he RECEIVES in financial support. LIkewise, it's possible (as in the case of, for example, Stephen Ambrose) late in life the smoker WOULD HAVE GIVEN more to society than he would have RECEIVED. (Carter has lived long, didn't smoke. Ambrose is dying too young of Marlboro Lights.) But you have a fair numerical point none the less.

Tight Fit: good question, about the deserted island. But I agree with Kendricks when he responds, "in my experience, the right wing religious zealots are much more likely to lie to you and stab you in the back than bleeding heart liberals." So the question kind of begs the other question ... in a purely self-interested way, which of the two (right-wing religious zealot with specific ideals, or flaky left-wing indecisive guy with relativistic approach to life) is more likely to stab you in the back? It's interesting that Kendricks and I assumed the right-winger would, while you assumed the left-winger would. I have to admit, I see validity in each assumption. The lefty could, for example, run out of his own coconuts, get desperate simply because he'd never had to "live a life that matters" (he wasted too many to make drums and head-dresses for pagan festivals), and he'd freak out and stab you in the midst of some kind of desperate "neeeeeed to feel loved", a feeling he verifies (true to form) by material success, including coconut milk. The righty, on the other hand, could learn to hate your immoral life, and create a rigorous, specific plan of action which culminated in a successfully implemented murder exercise and, as collateral damage, the utilzation of the remaining coconuts from your side of the island.

d'Artagnan: funny I didn't think of that. Second hand smoke, I'm usually right on that ball. Ancillary detriment theory ... that nearly always confuses me. I've been posting recently about lap-dancing, in which I reject the state's assumption that the presence of lap-dancing somehow creates ancillary detriments to the society that surrounds it. As I said, it's not like the mechanic across the street necessarily dies of a heart attack whenever I bite down on a McDonald's Whopper. But with smoking, I think the ancillary detriment is well documented. People who have to breathe into their own lungs someone else's second-hand smoke, DO indeed experience lung cancer because of it, and yet had CHOSEN throughout their lives NOT TO smoke. I experience something similar with my daily jogging. The only route from my home over the bay to the Gulf beaches is along a crowded highway. There is no other pedestrian bridge. So, I can either jog while inhaling automobile exhaust fumes (calling to question whether that run that I went on is good for me or bad for me) or I can jog in my neighborhood and not take advantage of the scenic public beach where jogging might introduce me, at least in an ocular sense, to physically attractive bikini-clad women. Is that parallel to the smoking? Have the cars created an ancillary detriment? I dunno. Some ancillary detriments are evident, some are not, and some are bogus. I too hate excess second-hand smoke, although I've found that if I smoke a cigar about once a month, that cigarette smoke bothers me only half as much for the remainder of the month. The thing that bugs me the MOST about second-hand smoke, is the many smokers' assertions that "it doesn't bother you" or "we have a right to our thing just like you have a right to your thing," demonstrating clearly their failure to understand the body politic as established on the heels of such Enlightenment philosophers as Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau. Also, when varios governments restrict smoking in a given city's pubs and restaurants (recently in NYC and Toronto, for example) the first reaction is for the smokers to get up in arms about how they'll have "nowhere to go" and that the new law will put the restaurateurs and pub-owners out of business because "nobody" will want to attend. As though (a) we non-smokers DID have somewhere to go when the smokers were smoking us out of places we'd otherwise have patronized and (b) we non-smokers wouldn't immediately flock to all those clean-air places, now that they're conducive to our enjoyment. It always stuns me how self-interested the world-view of a smoker can be. "Hey, it doesn't bother you. And look around you, there aren't any non-smokers here. This is a SMOKERS PLACE dammit, keep it that way." Duh, there's some SERIOUS blinkers on that world view.

These comments of mine, above, aren't off-topic. We're talking about the limits and responsibilities of a government in a free society. I think the clearest view of all, is d'Artagnan's: "Although the left has had it's share of "freedom limiting politicians", they can't touch the right's actual success and potential threat of actually succeeding." Or, to put it differently, I find that although the current American right-wing politicians claim to be the group of people who advocate smaller government and greater civil liberties, they only tend to advocate that in terms of economic rights for business-owners, and generally for larger business owners over smaller. They definitely do not advocate that sort of thing in anyone's bedroom. It's, in fact, a stunning hypocrisy that the party of supposed "family values" (by which I read, fear of homosexuality, insistence on monogamy, and other religious restrictions on daily life) is also the party that advertises itself as getting themselves out of Americans lives so we can be more free to pursue happiness.

The question of where and what a government should or shouldn't do, is only sometimes a left-wing versus right-wing question. Sometimes its an authoritarian versus libertarian question. And in fact, those two axes can quite readily be graphed against one another, one on the horizontal and one on the vertical of a Cartesian coordinate system. If you perform that little exercise, you'll probably see that what bugs you about a given government, or a given restriction, or someone else's rules that you don't want to live by, isn't that they're on the wrong left-right side of the graph. It's that they're on the wrong libertarian-authoritarian side. And you'll also find, in my opinion, if you "read" them properly, the following about the people you respect: they, and nintey percent of the world's clear, great thinkers and writers, all reside within pretty much one specific section of that graph, the sector near to the middle of left-right, a little bit more to the left, but EXTREMELY much more to the libertarian than the authoritarian.

Oh indeed, fellas, bring on the porn and the drugs-- that's what society needs...these are more important than the breath of life, I'd say...People of Faith are such pricks...

Nice-- and rather courageous, I might add-- that everyone here's been able to reach a consensus of opinion on this...

We wouldn't want anyone thinking for themselves, or anything like that...

YoungBrig

YB, by rejecting faith in absurd religious doctrines, and seeking rational answers, individuals are thinking for themselves. The rejection of dogma is not groupthink; the acceptance of it is.

I don't quite follow why Youngbrig is up in arms with his (evidently ironic) tirade. But I have to agree with the post-Enlightenment credo of Kendricks, who announces "The rejection of dogma is not groupthink; the acceptance of it is."

Nevertheless, Kendricks' assertion that the act of seeking "rational" answers is the most individual of solutions, is an assertion that, in itself, is informed by assumptions about (a) the value of rationality and (b) the value of individuality.

Hey, assume away! I too prefer rational and individual over anything related to organized religion. Just thought I'd remind us all that we tend to make those tacit assumptions. "Rational" and "individual" aren't always ends in themselves, merely means to an end.

Maybe that's what Youngbrig was on about? I dunno, can't figger him out ...

Anyway, my back channels have informed me of a new BBBJ provider for cheapo in my neighborhood. Why am I posting to the internet?

Book Guy, I would agree with you that the Libertarian view is probably the most palatable to the majority of us. We tend to want to be left alone with our actions and are usually willing to accept the consequences.

The biggest problem I have with this is that most people are not willing to take care of themselves or to keep a respectful distance from others. So much of human behavior revolves around forcing others to adhere to one's own version of reality. Ever increasing population growth coupled with the rise of the multinational corporation and its symbionic governmental connection mean the Age Of Reason is unlikely to return for quite a while.

The drive by shootings that first sufaced in LA and then quickly spread to the point where they now have become basically a part of our society. We have a trend in suburbia towards more and more gated communities. Partly in reaction to the conditions that helped bring about the culture of drive bys but more towards the failure of our legal and legislative branches to deal with crime. Too often the root causes are left to fester and only cosmetic bandaids are applied. Those that are making the rules and enforcing them have pretty much escaped from the areas where the worse collapse of a viable society is taking place. That who stay behind are akin to the victims on some new video horror game.

The mass dumbing down of popular culture has been decried for as long as some of us has been alife. More dangerous are the generations who have now been raised in an environment of total absence of any credible institution that can promote a system of values to live by and to interact with others. These gangbangers or who ever really do have no internal notions of right and wrong. And they are not always content to stay in their zoos.

It's going to get a lot worse.

Hmm ... people who "have no" sense of right and wrong, or who simply have a sense that is radically different from yours, or from the society around them?

You have to admit, the tribal loyalty enforced among gang-bangers is a TYPE of moral code. Not necessarily an approvable, or intelligent, or even functional one. But a code none the less.

"The biggest problem I [Tight Fit] have with this is that most people are not willing to take care of themselves or to keep a respectful distance from others." Like I said before, the ideas of the Libertarian party would probably work IF everyone else were as intelligent as most card-carrying libertarians seem to be. But they aren't. Which is why I'm not a Libertarian.

Oh, and, about the dumbing down of popular culture. I don't think it's any dumber than it was 500 years ago. I think, in fact, there was a "glorious hiatus" in which popular culture aspired to greatness, some brief period that ended around the Second World War, and that therefore our perception of progress downward is only relative to that brief passing peak. But in similar vein, there IS NO popular culture, in my opinion. Just popular PURCHASING.

Chew on that one for a while. Culture is something people can commonly call "their own." But if you have to buy it in the first place from Corporation King, then it is NOT your own, now is it? Hmm? Whereas the Papua-New Guinean tribesman HAS a right to chopping his penis-gourd in his tribe's manner, and decorating it pink and green just like his culture likes it, regardless of what else he does with his day to make a buck and feed the missus.

Just an interesting way of looking at the void that is America's culture.

To throw in my 2 cents. I think people need to understand that we must balance 2 concepts. Personal responsiblity and Social responsiblity. People tend to focus on one or the other and I see them more as ends of a continueum. Move toward the center.
Man is a social animal and all of our acheivements are dependant in some part on the group achievement of civilization.
There are those who think all actions must be subservient to the group and there are others who think they have no responsibility to the group.
I remind the first group that there is no innovation unless people are allowed to think outside the box. I remind the second group that to be truly a self made man you have to move to a desert island and forgo all technology but skins and wooden tools (everything else was invented and developed by others).
So be free, think creatively and always consider the ramifications your actions have on others. Your unrestricted personal freedoms end at the tip of your nose.

Also, in another thread someone questioned the value of theoretical research, like that done by TJ researcher. Theoretical research is necessary to understand group dynamics and the societal needs. This is better IMHO that basing social mores on religious beliefs. Those who evangilize must remember that all religions require a "leap of faith" that cannot be "proven". They should also remember that spiritual epiphanies must come from within and cannot be imposed from without.
If you want to promote your value system then lead a life that others see and desire to emulate.

I think Porn rules- I have made sevarl productions myself and made lots of dirty, cold hard $$$$. Can you imagine what this world would be like w/o porn-geez Larry Flint was given life for a reason-give the world POrn, and so he did.

Geez, Book guy, I just looked at your post from back in May directed towards me. Actually, your previous post was not on my mind, I was referring to some other bozo referring to "making catholicism illegal" in my post. Sorry it took so long to respond...........

Powerslave: message received, understood, net delay aborted.

Everyone else: on a topic related to the banning of porn, etc., I thought I'd bring this up. It might be off-topic or too hot to handle for Club Hombre, so I'll understand if TJHombre yells "stop the presses" on it, but I'd like to know other hobbyists' opinions about the recent legal developments in South Florida. A website you're all probably familiar with, http://www.bigdoggie.net , has occasioned grief for its master:

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/sptimes/access/126965001.html?FMT=FT&FMTS=FT&desc=Web+prostitution+ring+called+global

(Hope that link works.)

The Big Doggie website most definitely was similar to CH, in that it had to do with hobbying / mogering, and with travel, in some manner or other. But it was also quite different, in that it solicited and supported banner-ads and encouraged specific IN-THE-USA business transactions. Any comments?