Porn is ok but safety of children is not.

[Shogun]

Yes.

My only point in bringing that back up (apart from needling you a bit), was to say that despite your philosophical opposition, you still have to step outside to light up.

for the time being... not to mention, that my consistency in posting is probably a bit more impressive than your "tick on a cows ass" point about smoking in private bars.

 

[manifold]

Larkinn,

Again I can respect your position on the grounds of philosophical principle. However, it is not a clear cut example of infringement of constitutional rights. And furthermore, ample precedent exists to suggest a censorship policy is a perfectely legitimate exercise of government intervention. Therefore, majority rules. Your only recourse is to vote against it.

 

[Ravi]

Larkin, do you object to regulating smoking in the library? Or do you see that differently and believe smoking causes harm to children while viewing porn does not?

 

[Larkinn]

Indeed, and, given the VENUE for witch we are talking about - the PUBLIC LIBRARY - money can either be spent filtering out the porn or money can be saved for more books by nixing access.

Or it can allow porn and buy more books.

uh, probably the people removing the porn from the PUBLIC LIBRARY? I guess THEY give a shit.

About the majority? No, they mostly just care about their own pov.

And, further, would be supported by the MASSES who both bay the bills via taxes AND can differentiate between Michelangelo sculpture and www.cockhungryteens.com....

If its so easy to tell, you should be able to come up with a bright line rule, yes?

dont go to the library for your porn activities. Go home and jack off in private like the rest of America.

Then I'd like my taxes back.

 

[Shogun]

The difference is unimportant considering they are spending money on it.

no, it's a pretty pertinent aspect of this debate. Don't like it? Get your grass roots effort on.

 

[Larkinn]

Larkinn,

Again I can respect your position on the grounds of philosophical principle. However, it is not a clear cut example of infringement of constitutional rights. And furthermore, ample precedent exists to suggest a censorship policy is a perfectely legitimate exercise of government intervention. Therefore, majority rules. Your only recourse is to vote against it.

No its not clear cut at all.

 

[AllieBaba]

From their website:

"NAMBLA's goal is to end the extreme oppression of men and boys in mutually consensual relationships by:

building understanding and support for such relationships;
educating the general public on the benevolent nature of man/boy love;
cooperating with lesbian, gay, feminist, and other liberation movements;
supporting the liberation of persons of all ages from sexual prejudice and oppression. "

In other words, the NORTH AMERICAN MAN BOY LOVE ASSOCIATION is devoted to getting rid of "prejudices" and "oppression" (i.e., LAWS) which make it illegal for them to pursue the "love" between grown men and young boys.

 

[manifold]

for the time being... not to mention, that my consistency in posting is probably a bit more impressive than your "tick on a cows ass" point about smoking in private bars.

Good one!



psst: I'm laughing at you not with you, in case you haven't figured that out.

 

[Larkinn]

Larkin, do you object to regulating smoking in the library? Or do you see that differently and believe smoking causes harm to children while viewing porn does not?

Physical harm is a lot different and more problematic than psychological harm.

 

[Larkinn]

From their website:

"NAMBLA's goal is to end the extreme oppression of men and boys in mutually consensual relationships by:

building understanding and support for such relationships;
educating the general public on the benevolent nature of man/boy love;
cooperating with lesbian, gay, feminist, and other liberation movements;
supporting the liberation of persons of all ages from sexual prejudice and oppression. "

In other words, the NORTH AMERICAN MAN BOY LOVE ASSOCIATION is devoted to getting rid of "prejudices" and "oppression" (i.e., LAWS) which make it illegal for them to pursue the "love" between grown men and young boys.

Yes, they are.

So care to explain how trying to change the law is illegal?

 

[Ravi]

Physical harm is a lot different and more problematic than psychological harm.

I disagree, but you didn't answer the question.

 

[manifold]

Then I'd like my taxes back.

Fine. And I want mine back too since I disagree with welfare and the war in Iraq.

 

[Shogun]

Look up with a strawman is. That wasn't one of them.

oh yes, bringing up violence when talking about obscenity IS a strawman. And a weak as hell effort too.


A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to describe a position that superficially resembles an opponent's actual view but is easier to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent (for example, deliberately overstating the opponent's position).[1] A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it carries little or no real evidential weight, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man



You bring up Violence as if those who are siding with the nixing of porn MUST not give a damn about what you think is a greater risk to society. As if all the violence that is accessable on the internet should VALIDATE porn in public libraries.

 

[Larkinn]

I disagree, but you didn't answer the question.

No I don't object to it.

 

[AllieBaba]

Yes, they are.

So care to explain how trying to change the law is illegal?

I didn't say trying to change the law is illegal. I said the ACLU is defending them in their quest to make the sexual molestation of children legal.

http://www.nambla.org/boys.htm

 

[Larkinn]

oh yes, bringing up violence when talking about obscenity IS a strawman. And a weak as hell effort too.

No, its not.

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to describe a position that superficially resembles an opponent's actual view but is easier to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent (for example, deliberately overstating the opponent's position).[1] A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it carries little or no real evidential weight, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

So, what position did I describe of yours?

You bring up Violence as if those who are siding with the nixing of porn MUST not give a damn about what you think is a greater risk to society. As if all the violence that is accessable on the internet should VALIDATE porn in public libraries.

Umm, no.

Try to avoid making shit up. I merely commented on the fact that nobody seems worried about it, or feels the need to bring it up. That has nothing to do with validating porn in public libraries, its merely a commentary on peoples priorities.

 

[Ravi]

No I don't object to it.

Smoking in the library? I realize you don't object to porn in the library.

 

[AllieBaba]

I'd think that would pose a risk to the stacks. And the computers.

 

[Shogun]

Or it can allow porn and buy more books.


Clearly, the majority of us don't see that you have a right to view porn in publicly funded libraries so.. feel free to insist that this is like nazi germany just because you cant look at snatch and jackoff in the public library.


About the majority? No, they mostly just care about their own pov.

*yawn* you must HATE elections. No shit. You mean we all vote for our won perspectives?!@?! holy SHIT, I never realized that!



If its so easy to tell, you should be able to come up with a bright line rule, yes?


sure. no nudity or sexually explicit images allowed on public library computers.

simple.

any other questions?



Then I'd like my taxes back.

You want your taxes back because you can watch porn and jack off in public?


way to pick your battles, dude.

 

[manifold]

Try to avoid making shit up. I merely commented on the fact that nobody seems worried about it, or feels the need to bring it up. That has nothing to do with validating porn in public libraries, its merely a commentary on peoples priorities.

So it wasn't a strawman afterall, it was just a diversionary tactic.

Duly noted.