Porn is ok but safety of children is not.

[AllieBaba]

no, no, no, yes.

I'm with Shogun. Communities have a right to dictate what they will purchase for their libraries.

 

[Larkinn]

sooooooooooooooo....you're looking like a hypocrite Larkin. You don't object to regulating one type of behavior but you do object to regulating another.

I'm sure there's as much "evidence" that porn is harmful to kids as there is that SHS is harmful to kids.

And you are looking like an idiot.

Shooting someone in the face is behavior. We regulate that. Is it then ok to regulate breathing?

Yes we regulate some types of behavior and not others. Thats because there are other things that define them besides being types of behavior.

 

[Larkinn]

WOW.. are you feeling that desperate, dude? But I'll play. Bold what you think was a strawman. I'll share a chuckle.

Desperate? Lmao, no I'm just laughing at your idiocy. You said:

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.

When did I say you can masturbate in the library?

Uh, because it's the PUBLIC that pays for the library and not the private debators on a messageboard?

The PUBLIC also pays for the military, shall we have them run polls on that as well?

Appeal to popular opinion is a fallacy for a reason. Got anything better?

It is clear.

It is clear? Then your saying you want to ban Michaelangelo? Or is the claim that its not nudity?

Do you have examples otherwise? I mean, perhaps you can't tell the difference between sculpture and www.cockfightinggrannies.com but it's pretty obvious to the rest of us.. You know.. the MAJORITY.

Oh, I can tell the difference. But you can't apparently since your bright line rule says they are both obscene.

So, care to try again?

You still have every opportunity to go home, look at the net porn, and beat your meat. The government is not censoring your ability to look at porn by making you take it to your private net access instead of the pUBLIC library

censorship is censorship, which you seem to be all in favor of.

After all, libraries probably let adults read an erotic vampire novel with cock-hungry dustjacket pictures, right in the childrens book section too. You know, fuck the kids as long as you can pretend you are putting your foot down.

Actually speaking of that, romance novels are often like soft porn. Do you think they should not be allowed in libraries?

You alluded to as much by bringing up violence in a thread about net porn. You know, the strawman attempt. Shall I quote you?

LMAO...I made a strawman by "alluding" to something. Thats not a strawman, dumbass.

 

[Shogun]

yea.. like the PUBLIC or PRIVATE nature of said specific venue.

 

[Larkinn]

yea.. like the PUBLIC or PRIVATE nature of said specific venue.

So I can shoot you in the face as long as its in your own home?

Nope, thats not the important criteria either.

 

[Ravi]

And you are looking like an idiot.

Shooting someone in the face is behavior. We regulate that. Is it then ok to regulate breathing?

Yes we regulate some types of behavior and not others. Thats because there are other things that define them besides being types of behavior.

Killing someone is illegal. Porn isn't. Smoking isn't. Plus it violates someone's civil rights.

 

[Larkinn]

Killing someone is illegal. Porn isn't. Smoking isn't. Plus it violates someone's civil rights.

Smoking kills, porn doesn't. As i said there are things that make the two different.

 

[Ravi]

Smoking kills, porn doesn't. As i said there are things that make the two different.

There is some disagreement on that.

 

[manifold]

Can we get you on record sir?

The discussion on this thread is a prototypical example of how a tangible, concrete issue gets used to start thread, but becomes quickly forgotten as the debate meanders through the abstract ether of philosophical musings. Don't get me wrong, I'm just as eager to engage in philosophical discussions as the next guy, but I also think it is well worthwhile to hammer a pragmatic stake in the ground concerning the source issue.

A couple of things to consider with respect to the specifics of this case:

1. Is internet censorship by a public library a violation of individual constitutional rights? I say no. What say you?

2. Is the mandating of internet censorship, by a community, on it's publicly funded library a violation of individual constiutional rights? I say no. What say you?

3. Is the mandating of internet censorship, by a community, on it's publicly funded library an unnecessary governmental intrusion on individual liberty? I say no. What say you?

4. And finally, how would you vote on this matter in your community? I would vote to censor. What say you?

 

[Shogun]

When did I say you can masturbate in the library?

Hey, who is the fucking public LIBRARY to tell you what you can and naccot do with your own body, right buddy?




The PUBLIC also pays for the military, shall we have them run polls on that as well?

uh, as a matter of fact, thats exactly what happens when we vote for congressional representation. Way to keep up, dude.



Appeal to popular opinion is a fallacy for a reason. Got anything better?


Like I said, you must REALLY hate elections. But, since you wanna wear your jester clownsuit today:


Appeal to Popularity
Explanation

Appeals to popularity suggest that an idea must be true simply because it is widely held. This is a fallacy because popular opinion can be, and quite often is, mistaken. Hindsight makes this clear: there were times when the majority of the population believed that the Earth is the still centre of the universe, and that diseases are caused by evil spirits; neither of these ideas was true, despite its popularity.
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/appealtopopularity.html





It is clear? Then your saying you want to ban Michaelangelo? Or is the claim that its not nudity?

Who said anything about NUDITY? We've been talking about obscenity. I just busted you trying to switch the vocab!

HA!

After all, NETPORn sure is just a simple matter of NUDITY!



Oh, I can tell the difference. But you can't apparently since your bright line rule says they are both obscene.

uh, when did I ever suggest David was obscene. QUOTE me, sucker.





So, care to try again?

try what? keeping you on track here? so, NOW, since you can't defend you position i've busted your ass trying to re-arrange the VOCABULARY and attributing quotes that you know damn well I never stated. Good job, dude.



censorship is censorship, which you seem to be all in favor of.


no, it's really not. AND, it says a lot about your cognitive process that you think so.


Actually speaking of that, romance novels are often like soft porn. Do you think they should not be allowed in libraries?


do you READ people fucking when watching net porn? For that matter, does YOUR public library allow erotic material to sit with childrens books?

yea, dude. Do not go gentle!




LMAO...I made a strawman by "alluding" to something. Thats not a strawman, dumbass


oh yes, in passing judgement on how you think WE should see YOUR heirarchy of potential harm you infer a strawman. But, It's not like I just busted your ass using other scandalous fucking tactics either so..

 

[AllieBaba]

I'm unaware of any law that says that just because it's legal, tax dollars must support it?

 

[Larkinn]

There is some disagreement on that.

Sure and there are some that believe the earth is 7,000 years old.

 

[Larkinn]

Can we get you on record sir?

don't know, don't know, yes, don't know.

 

[Shogun]

So I can shoot you in the face as long as its in your own home?

Nope, thats not the important criteria either.

shooting me in the face is against the law.


looking at porn in the confines of your own home is not.


damn, you really aren't catching a break today, are ya?

and yes, in regards to your charge of censorship, the venue is the ENTIRE difference.


then again, perhaps you can tell us how shooting me in the face should otherwise be your liberty...



I mean, who is the big bad ole .GOV to tell you what triggers you can't pull??

 

[manifold]

don't know, don't know, yes, don't know.

hmmm? You seem to be arguing rather passionately for something you don't even know you support???

 

[Shogun]

Smoking kills, porn doesn't. As i said there are things that make the two different.

smoking is a personal choice made by smokers and those who choose to associate with tobacco.


porn in the library doesn't consider the will of the POPIULATION that pays for it's bills.


THINGS that make the two different?


well SHIT.. why didn't you just say so!

 

[AllieBaba]

I guess libraries should be required to allow children to check out semi-automatic weapons, as well.

After all, they're legal....

 

[Ravi]

Sure and there are some that believe the earth is 7,000 years old.

I thought it was six.

Recent studies seem to show that some people have a predisposition to being harmed by cigarettes while others do not. Regardless, a case can be made that both are harmful. Therefore it would seem you can't make a case to allow one but not the other.

 

[mattskramer]

I guess libraries should be required to allow children to check out semi-automatic weapons, as well.

After all, they're legal....

I have no problem with blocks being placed on Internet computers, as long as adults can remove them. Likewise, people must provide proof that they are adults before they can purchase guns.

 

[AllieBaba]

I think the whole thing is a stupid argument. I don't think libraries are "obligated" to provide anything to people. It's a community service, for Pete's sakes, a privilege, paid for by the community. The community dictates how big it is, what it provides. Every library has a list of items they don't provide to the public.

It's a non-issue as far as I'm concerned. It's not like they make it so nobody can access porn anywhere....