Pornography is no longer a poison creeping into the crevices of our popular culture. It is part of the very fabric. One sensation at a recent Apple conference for new and developing applications in San Francisco was the "i-Porn bikini girls" advertising free X-rated films for your i-Phone. It sounds like a whole new reason to fear people using their mobile phone while they drive.
Free porn sites are all over the Internet now, with zero restrictions or minimal electronic barriers against curious children who might be in for a very crude shock within seconds, just with the still photos on the home page. Even the most mainstream of video sites are inundated with pornography and its promoters. YouTube touts itself as the world’s most popular portal for Internet videos. It has become so big it’s even promoting a new technology called YouTube XL to put its videos directly on your big-screen TV.
A new study by Matthew Philbin and Dan Gainor of the Culture and Media Institute (CMI) found that YouTube is stuffed with porn videos.
A search for the word "porn" found more than 330,000 results. Out of the 157 "porn" clips that received more than 1 million views, almost two-thirds (101) advertised themselves to be actual pornography. Those 101 videos had 438,318,147 combined views – or 1.38 views for every man, woman and child in the United States.
YouTube claims it’s "not for pornography or sexually explicit content." It’s just not against it, either.
Pornographers of all kinds exploit YouTube to drive traffic to their sites and products. Twelve percent of those 101 videos mentioned porn stars by name or were obvious clips from porn movies. In addition, there were thousands of videos and repeated comments that served only as advertisements for hardcore-porn sites, "dating" and escort services, and phone sex lines.
Particularly troubling are animated videos listed under "porn." Several videos put profanity and sex talk over classic Disney cartoons, like one called "Aladdin Porn." (Disney ought to be the first powerful player putting a stop to that.) Fans of Japanese anime cartoons can find the animated porn called "hentai," and skip over the 18-plus barrier or gravitate to hard-core sites the same way they could access live-action sex clips.
CMI also found that gay content, including pornography and ads for gay escort services, are rampant. There are 11,900 gay channels on YouTube, including 459 "gay porn" channels. A search for "gay porn" returns 52,700 individual videos. YouTube even promotes homosexuality on the home page. On the night of June 17, one featured video was a promo for a cheesy new British movie called "Lesbian Vampire Killers."
YouTube tells parents that its site is not appropriate for children under 13, but few videos are age-restricted. Some objectionable videos are flagged by users as adults-only. But all that’s required is to register and state that you’re over 18. That’s not encouraging when nearly half of boys and a third of girls ages 13-17 name YouTube as one of their top three favorite websites, and they can watch it anywhere on laptop computers and cellular phones with Web browsers. Computers are commonplace in public schools and libraries that may not have much adult supervision.
Besides, is YouTube seriously suggesting that porn is inappropriate for 13-year-old children but it’s okey-dokey for them at age 14?
After the Parents Television Council complained last December, YouTube implemented some reforms. Take profanity. Without parental supervision, every imaginable obscenity, including graphic sexual language, is rampant on the site. The F-word alone appeared in the titles of some 169,000 individual videos. YouTube recently offered parents a tool for filtering out dirty words (and even hiding all comments on video clips), but that protection only comes when vigilant parents look for it.
Last year, the search an innocent child would make for Disney Channel pop stars like Hannah Montana drew not only profane comments, but inappropriate advertisements for horror movies. A search for Hannah Montana today finds only advertisements for J.C. Penney and other Disney child stars, so that’s an improvement.
But as the CMI study insists, YouTube must construct "a far more formidable barrier" than its easily entered 18-plus category to protect children from graphic sexual content that parents wouldn’t want their children to view. Just as a parent wouldn’t let their child wander through a seedy neighborhood of sex shops, it’s now impossible for parents to avoid watching their children carefully negotiate the Internet. Isn’t there anyone in the corporate power structure at YouTube who worries about what their own children can find on their creation?
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Youtube is owned by google, They yawn at billion dollar lawsuits
June 19, 2009 - 17:26 ET by upcountrywaterIsn’t there anyone in the corporate power structure at YouTube who
worries about what their own children can find on their creation?
No
Reagan VS Carter and 0bama
→ Youtube
June 19, 2009 - 17:30 ET by Cool ArrowBut at least Youtube still carries this clip of Obama eating a booger
♣
It would have to be the
June 19, 2009 - 17:28 ET by bigtimerIt would have to be the corporate power structure....good golly, the govt. is bad enough trying to get their paws/control in the internet...and I feel they eventually will, one way or theother, and porn is a wide open door for the start of their reach with those claws, just the start...and there will be no stopping them after that, in my opinion.
Be careful what you wish for comes to mind.
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
The pornography bothers me
June 19, 2009 - 18:03 ET by mostlymoderateThe pornography bothers me but not to the extent that the young 12 year old girls are recording videos of themselves uploading them to Youtube. These children are not capable of understanding repercussions of having a permanent video floating around on the web that could embarrass them later in life. I don't even want to mention the sick perverts that frequent Youtube and make disgusting comments about young children.
The internet should be like driving or buying alcohol: children not allowed and if they are, under supervision.
Most of the time pornagraphy includes
June 19, 2009 - 22:50 ET by shawn228nudity. I have never seen any nudity on youtube.
He had my vote
If you are over "18" and a member you can see this.
June 20, 2009 - 15:31 ET by upcountrywaterbad girls from mars.
go to 3:20.....
I just realized thay my link bypasses the "controls onYT"
opps, go and find it yourself...
When do you think this movie will be banned?
Reagan VS Carter and 0bama
Wow UCW
June 20, 2009 - 17:26 ET by shawn228I thought I was a Youtube expert, I never saw nudity on there. Thx for the navigating lessons.
He had my vote
Yea shawn, the porn door has been opened.
June 20, 2009 - 17:48 ET by upcountrywaterAs you know, anyone can use any key word they want, to list their videos.Here is a list of the 'tags"
:
Bad
Girls
From
Mars
Fred
Olen
Ray
Edy
Williams
Oliver
Darrow
Brinke
Stevens
Lionsgate
Lions
Gate
Entertainment
No mention of what you saw.
I stumbled on that movie by accident.
Really I did.
Reagan VS Carter and 0bama
Use Bing.com ; Boycott google
June 19, 2009 - 18:40 ET by Daniel BakerGoogle made a press release that they supported changing traditional marriage and donated money to that end.
Use OpenDNS
Block Google's youtube
-------------------------------------------
Liberal judges are the high priests of redefined marriage. Good men want freedom, Evil men want license
Obligatory pandering to the Evangelicals
June 19, 2009 - 19:07 ET by nwahsPandering to the Evangelicals eh?
Brent, while doing the research, what part of your body fell off or became dysfunctional? Why are you smarter than me to research stuff unscathed? Short answer - you aren't. This has nothing to do with venting or liberal bias. This is a power play. This is the creepy part that is passed off as conservatism. Its nothing to do with conservatism. Stay out of my bedroom and stop looking in my window. I'm conservative with a very libertarian spine. I don't need a self appointed Ayatollah telling me what I can and can not view. I won't stand for that. This is not liberal bias, and this is not conservatism. What is it Brent, other than scary?
You know what it is Brent? Its your call for a Nanny on the internet. Its your justification of lazy parents. Its your little liberal quality where you believe people need to be "protected" by the government.
http://newsbusters.o...
yeah nwahs
June 19, 2009 - 19:08 ET by botgyou're a conservative and i'm a card carrying member of NOW
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -- Chief Justice John Roberts
I am a conservative
June 19, 2009 - 19:13 ET by nwahsThis is the the personal responsibility part that Evangelicals like to dodge. Sorry - no deal. I will not support censorship by self appointed Ayatollahs.
http://newsbusters.o...
Can i post a picture of
June 19, 2009 - 19:58 ET by Daniel Bakersomeone defecating in your house. It will be your personal responsibility to ignore it.
-------------------------------------------
Liberal judges are the high priests of redefined marriage. Good men want freedom, Evil men want license
You need to go the the next Fire Dave rally
June 19, 2009 - 20:23 ET by nwahsIf you know what "schmuck means in Jewish" you'll fit right in.
http://videos.nymag....
http://newsbusters.o...
That was either a false
June 20, 2009 - 22:11 ET by BKeyserThat was either a false rally with actors, or an unbelievably edited version of the few nutcases that attended. Funny how there was only one actual New Yorker (judging by the accents, anyway) that made the final cut. I have serious doubts about the validity of that video.
You are NOT a conservative
June 19, 2009 - 20:07 ET by UnsaneIf you are a conservative, I'm the reincarnation of Karl Marx.
If you are a conservative, what's with your constant demands that conservatives SHUT UP? What's with your whine to me, back in January, that "You and people like you NEED TO LEAVE THE GOP." Why your attacks on the Tea Parties? And above all, why do you so ache for there to be not one but TWO Leftist parties in the United States?
And too bad, so sad, people have the right to gripe about what they see out there on TV, the Internet, wherever. Seems to me you are angry that anyone would DARE do so. Sure, I love power buttons and clickers as much as anyone else. But don't expect me to keep silent about my reasoning to do so.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Now just where
June 19, 2009 - 20:41 ET by nwahsWhere did I tell anyone to shut up? See, if you actually quote the text instead of making up crap, you look more credible.
http://newsbusters.o...
The non-credible, lecturing ME on credibility. That's rich...
June 20, 2009 - 21:52 ET by UnsaneFunny you should whine about that. Admittedly, that line where I state you constantly demand conservatives go silent is my distillation of many whines of yours: demanding conservatives leave the GOP, constantly attacking Rush Limbaugh and the Tea Parties while singing the praises of Leftists like Colin Powell...
Aren't you the one on here crying about Mr. Bozell calling for governmental regulation and censorship of the Internet? I read that column of his, and like the many he has written on that theme, he does not suggest that anywhere. What he is doing is pointing out a trend and highlighting the actions of private individuals and groups to do something about said trend. Now, if the government is not involved in this - and I fail to see where it is, or being called for, after multiple readings - what's the problem? To quote YOU, as a delicious point of irony: "See, if you actually quote the text instead of making up crap, you look more credible." Now, find for me where Mr. Bozell is calling for censorship.
My credibility on NB is impeccable after 3+ years. Try again.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Hey botg, the only one not
June 19, 2009 - 20:04 ET by DavidTheManHey botg, the only one not acting like a conservative is you. Tell me why you think the govt should be doing something about porn on the internet, especially non-pedophile porn.
Last time I checked conservatives, true conservatives, want the government to leave them the hell alone.
This post is ridiculous by the way, it isn't doing anything to expose liberal bias at all.
hey Davidtheman
June 19, 2009 - 20:11 ET by botgdo you have a knowledge of nwahs past stances and postings on this blog?
did i comment on anything except nwahs?
or perhaps you're a phoenix?
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -- Chief Justice John Roberts
Nope, I"m talking about
June 19, 2009 - 20:17 ET by DavidTheManNope, I"m talking about this thread only, and I see nothing wrong with him saying stop whining. This post is a non-issue, it all comes down to parenting. All this handwringing and crying about morality seems out of place at a site that is supposed to be calling out the media bias.
then explain how my
June 19, 2009 - 20:23 ET by botgthen explain how my pointing out nwahs misrepresentation of himself is not acting like a conservative?
oh and conservatives conserve the moral foundations of society by seeking personal responsibility
libertarians seek license
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -- Chief Justice John Roberts
Congratulations, you're
June 19, 2009 - 23:53 ET by CortillaenCongratulations, you're exactly the kind of person the left loves to have over here. "This post is a non-issue..." Aside from, you know, the culture war going on for the hearts and minds of Americans. Seriously, stop and think for a moment about this. The left is doing everything it can to destroy morality, and you have no problem with someone telling the right not to bring it up? As for the post being out of place, it's the equivalent of an op-ed, as indicated by the title. If alleged newspapers can fill pages with opinions, I fail to see why people have a conniption when the MRC's president puts an opinion column of his own on the MRC's blog.
More of my thoughts
"With your mind as high as Mt. Fuji you can see all things clearly. And you can see all the forces that shape events; not just the things near to you." - Miyamoto Musashi
Exactly
June 19, 2009 - 20:34 ET by nwahsThis has nothing to do with child exploitation. There are already laws and agencies devoted to prosecuting child exploitation, whether it be porn involving children or porn marketed toward children. This little nanny ploy is no different that gun control freaks suggesting gun control will save children's lives by keeping guns out of their reach. Sorry - no thanks. Thats intrusive government. Children will not wilt if they only have adult supervised access to the internet. Lazy parents might, but children won't.
http://newsbusters.o...
shawnie's ignorant, as
June 20, 2009 - 07:43 ET by HockeyKidshawnie's ignorant, as always.
Tell me, "nwahs", how a parent is supposed to follow a child all day, watching over their shoulder on school computers, library computers (don't get me started on the ALA), friends' houses' computers, etc. Obviously, you can't.
A filtering service works fine in my house, but why should I be expected to think it's fine that a child should have to navigate the hazardous waters of the Internet on their own, "not looking at" any pornographic lures that are thrown their way incessantly, when not at home? See how ridiculously ignorant your position is?
Your argument is myopic at best, insidious at its heart, and callous through and through. I hope you don't have children--for their sake.
"Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me
The demand others immediately SHUT UP
June 19, 2009 - 20:02 ET by UnsaneSeems to me you are demanding Mr. Bozell SHUT UP. All the while whining about "Internet nannies". Sorry, Mr. Bozell and others have a right to their opinions. If people don't like the crap that is out there, they have the right to call it for what it is.
Have an opinion of your own by all means, but demanding those you disagree with SHUT UP as you constantly do gets you nowhere.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
See, this is why I will
June 20, 2009 - 00:51 ET by CortillaenSee, this is why I will never self-identify as a libertarian. It seems some sort of instinctive hatred of "evangelicals" (when did that become a pejorative, anyway?) and any public discussion of morality come with the label. I read Mr. Bozell's column and the report it links, and guess what I found: Absolutely no call for government action! There is a difference between societal pressure and calls for government action that seems lost on a lot of you, so chill out and think for a minute instead of just reacting.
First, morality is not something you keep in a little box and never show to anyone. It doesn't work like that, and it's not supposed to. Public discussion of morality (and the inverse) is not only a good thing, it is a necessary thing. I know libertarians utterly loathe the idea of other people telling them "A is right, and B is wrong," but that's the general concept of society, so you need to accept it or go find a home in the wilderness. Whining (yep, I can flip that accusation back at you) incessantly about "evangelicals" (again, the problem with accepting the direct command of Christ to all Christians is what?) trying to tell you what to do and comparing them to murderous theocrats do nobody any good. Morality is not something you are born with, so the whole "other people telling you what's right and wrong" thing is rather important, and not just when you're a kid.
Believe it or not, most adults are weak-minded sheep who are easily swayed by societal pressure, so constant reinforcement of morality is simply a necessity. If you disagree with specific morals being pushed by a group or person, go ahead and debate on that subject, but quit trying to shut down the debate entirely. In the end, that kind of behavior simply makes you a useful idiot for the left. They have their own plans for remaking, unmaking, really, morality, and I sincerely doubt you will care much for the results. Every time you demand silence from a conservative on morality, you are telling liberals to fill in the gap, so please think before making a tool of yourself like that.
If there is a call for government-mandated morality, I'll be right up there in opposition, no matter what (im)morality is being pushed, but you need to understand that there is a culture war going on. The left is on the offensive constantly, and their ownership of most of the "news" media and Hollywood are formidable weapons. Calls for morality from an internet soapbox, rendering awareness of spreading immorality on popular sites, and exhortations of the public to action are the right fighting back in this war. If you don't want to fight with us, at least quit fighting against us.
More of my thoughts
"With your mind as high as Mt. Fuji you can see all things clearly. And you can see all the forces that shape events; not just the things near to you." - Miyamoto Musashi
If you don't want to fight with us, at least quit fighting again
June 20, 2009 - 01:06 ET by shawn228"If you don't want to fight with us, at least quit fighting against us. "
Who is fighting against you? Libertarians feel that it is important to defend individual freedoms. They don't think it is right to have the freedom to grope someone on the street or have sex right near a childrens playground. They want the rights to do behind closed doors to what they please and to watch they want without being lectured.
I agree that we need to protect our children from smut, but I would say the majority of adults in America don't like to lectured on what they should watch on tv, what they should wear if it does affect anyone else.
He had my vote
shawn
June 20, 2009 - 01:11 ET by MrShy"They don't think it is right to have the freedom to grope someone on the street or have sex right near a childrens playground."
Wow, so they frown on public groping and sex near children's playgrounds? That's libertarianism? Well heck, where do I sign up ?!?!? :)
You're the next contestant on...
THE MESSIAH IS... LEFT !!
When the left is constantly
June 20, 2009 - 01:11 ET by CortillaenWhen the left is constantly pushing their agenda, libertarians telling the right not to push back kinda counts as "fighting against us". Besides, individual freedoms do not include the freedom from being told your actions are wrong. As for people not liking to be told so, medicine rarely tastes good. That doesn't mean you don't need it.
More of my thoughts
"With your mind as high as Mt. Fuji you can see all things clearly. And you can see all the forces that shape events; not just the things near to you." - Miyamoto Musashi
Cort & Shawn
June 20, 2009 - 01:21 ET by MrShyThanks Cortillaen, took the words right out of my mouth, essentially. Shawn, Lib-ertarians AND Libs always yell "don't tell anyone anything anywhere about any morals", yada, yada.... So then, what are we left with? When we are not to express a single thing to others about what we see as proper behavior, ever, ever, ever? That's what they want. That makes us all complete isolationists.
Listen, I'm a stubborn person who doesn't totally live like a conservative (that's putting it mildly) and I don't always like being lectured to, but in hindsight, with some of it, it was good I was lectured or given their take on does and don'ts, and it would be unhealthy any other way. I'd also be 10 times MORE spoiled than I already am, and the thought of that is scary. :p
You're the next contestant on...
THE MESSIAH IS... LEFT !!
Thanks, Shy. Another way
June 20, 2009 - 01:39 ET by CortillaenThanks, Shy. Another way to put it is that libertarians seems to have an aversion to criticism. Incidentally, I detest that sort of closed-mindedness and feel that people who demand a stop to criticism are the ones who need it most. In this, liberals and libertarians are certainly much alike. Hm... maybe I should take an hour to flesh this little rant out over at UC tomorrow...
More of my thoughts
"With your mind as high as Mt. Fuji you can see all things clearly. And you can see all the forces that shape events; not just the things near to you." - Miyamoto Musashi
"Listen, I'm a stubborn
June 20, 2009 - 01:39 ET by shawn228"Listen, I'm a stubborn person...."
Ya don't say :-) You tend to be alot more agreeable when people buy your records ...lol just kidding.
Shy, I am just saying nobody is telling anyone to actually abandon morals, I'm simply saying no adults like to lectured on morals. I not going to get graphic about your social life, but sometimes the women you date.....they sometimes stick around for the night.....conversation right?
Since you are a grown man and not a child do you think that should be your decision to make, or some politician?
He had my vote
shawn
June 20, 2009 - 01:46 ET by MrShyFirst, I'm not the lady-killer you make me out to be, but thanks. :p
Secondly, YES, I get lectured to -- as an adult -- a lot. It's annoying sometimes, but we all need checks and balances. Candance winces when I talk about my harem (of which I don't have one), my mom frowns on all my dating, my brother gets on my case. Friends lecture me on this and that. It's all part of life, and I don't get seriously defensive or argumentative for the most part, but take the criticism and sort it out on my own.
Cort is right, I've been chatting with this young libertarian friend, and she acted like she knew everything and was nasty to me when I gave her my thoughts on something that she didn't agree with (it wasn't a moral thing/issue, but you get my drift...)
You're the next contestant on...
THE MESSIAH IS... LEFT !!
Yes shy
June 20, 2009 - 02:00 ET by shawn228I am just saying everyone makes choices, I don't think any less of you for not being a virgin before you are married, just like I don't think any less of a person that is faithful before marriage.
He had my vote
Good morning Shawn
June 20, 2009 - 02:12 ET by cocodrieYou point out the problem with thjis whole argument.
The looney Left wants to declare as moral what has been immoral since the beginning of time. If someone wants to do whatever with whomever fine but they have no right to tell me I have to approve nor do they have the right to declare it to be moral and expect me to accept it.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
Good morning cocodrie
June 20, 2009 - 10:29 ET by shawn228I am not saying you have to accept or approve anything. For example I am against gay marriage because that will redefine traditional marriage and could be bad for health benefits.
However, I am against sodomy laws, because that is a personal freedom that does not affect anybody else. You might be thinking that I am promoting "perverted behavior" but that is not true, I am simply saying Government should not be involved in personal freedoms.
He had my vote
Standards
June 20, 2009 - 22:04 ET by UnsaneYou might be thinking that I am promoting "perverted behavior" but that is not true, I am simply saying Government should not be involved in personal freedoms. But not every damned thing in the world is a right, not every damned thing in the world is a "personal freedom". And societies DO reserve the right to impose and enforce these damned things called STANDARDS.
Do you oppose speed limits as well? (This has EVERYTHING to do with the topic of everything being a personal freedom and seeing how intellectually consistent you are, so do not go there.)
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Everyone's Standard is different
June 21, 2009 - 11:22 ET by shawn228Like my example for cocodrie about "sodomy laws" I think it is disguesting, but why should the government enforce something somone does behind closed doors, its really none of my business
"Do you oppose speed limits as well? (This has EVERYTHING to do with
the topic of everything being a personal freedom and seeing how
intellectually consistent you are, so do not go there.)"
I don't oppose speeding laws, because they affect other people. Driving 100 per house in a school zone could kill somebody, so it involves other people. Personal freedoms that only harms the an individual and nobody else should not have government involvement
He had my vote
Standards
June 21, 2009 - 18:44 ET by UnsaneI don't oppose speeding laws, because they affect other people. How so? If I drive 100 mph from here to Austin or San Antonio tonight, you in CA will have zero clue and it will not effect you one way or another. Looks like you love to infringe upon "personal freedoms" when it suits you.
As long as societies exist, societies will always have standards, and will enforce those standards by various means. Including using the law. (The eating of pork is still frowned upon by societies around the world, though we have long since solved the mystery of trichinosis and how to prevent it. Why? Because said societies have that standard. What else can I tell you?)
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Its apples and oranges Unsane
June 21, 2009 - 18:54 ET by shawn228If you came up with something at least comparable I would concede the point. However I live in California and you driving fast does not affect me, but it would put other people on the road at risk. It would affect Soccer Mom if people performed sex acts behind closed doors, but you could kill Soccer Mom and the children that are with her and putting other peoples lives at risk.
He had my vote
??
June 21, 2009 - 18:56 ET by RESTLESS 1"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
→ RESTLESS
June 21, 2009 - 19:02 ET by Cool ArrowI think he said something about what you can do with a soccer ball behind closed doors, or something like that.
He doesn't want you playing with your soccer balls at 85 MPH.
But he's mos' def' down wid monkeys and footballs.
Sorry Restless and cool
June 21, 2009 - 19:29 ET by shawn228I need to do a much better job of editing:-) When I mention personal freedoms, I mean the ones that don't affect anyone else. Ie sodomy, smoking pot or fornication.Driving a car over 100 miles an hour could kill soccer mom.
The argument could be made that the spread of disease is it cost society alot of money to taxpayers. This is true, but so does obesity and eating too many Big Macs and smoking too many cigararettes. I really resent governments intervention in those as well.
He had my vote
→ Shawn
June 21, 2009 - 19:35 ET by Cool ArrowI had a pretty good idea what you were getting at.
I just assumed you were getting sodomized while typing your post, and lost your train of thought.
Not really. If the government were more libertarian, I'd care a lot less about what people do with their own moral choices.
I wouldn't be forking over tax money to pay for fixing mistakes I had nothing to do with.
I just assumed you were getting sodomized while typing your post
June 21, 2009 - 19:38 ET by shawn228" I just assumed you were getting sodomized while typing your post, and lost your train of thought."
Okay I admit it, that was good. Your comment was good I mean, not the sodomy :-)
He had my vote
→ Hey Shawn
June 21, 2009 - 19:47 ET by Cool ArrowSorry the sodomy wasn't good.
I'm LMAO.
It is in fact a great analogy
June 24, 2009 - 07:28 ET by Unsane...but this IS comparable. Sexual activity - take your pick as to how it is done - can kill people just as easily.
You're just going to have to accept that society has STANDARDS, and always will. The laws you so cry painfully about because "they violate your personal freedom" do not bother me because I have long accepted that societies have standards they enforce, oftentimes through government.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Sorry Unsane I totally disagree
June 24, 2009 - 08:17 ET by shawn228If you get a disease or give somone a disease, both participants are not being coerced and wanted to be there. If you drove you Dodge Ram and 100 per hour you can kill someone and they wanted no part of what you did.
By your standands, it almost seems one night stands might be unlawful, don't forget a man and women can enjoy sodomy just as much as 2 men can.
"You're just going to have to accept that society has STANDARDS, and always will. The
laws you so cry painfully about because "they violate your personal
freedom" do not bother me because I have long accepted that societies
have standards they enforce, oftentimes through government."
Thats whats great about the country both you and live in, we have the right to our views, I have the right to mine and I believe the government trying to control what we do behind closed doors with consenting adults makes us less free
He had my vote
Those damned STANDARDS!!!
June 29, 2009 - 18:25 ET by UnsaneIf you get a disease or give somone a disease, both participants are not being coerced and wanted to be there. If you drove you Dodge Ram and 100 per hour you can kill someone and they wanted no part of what you did. Really? Would YOU willingly engage in sexual intercourse with anyone with a lift-threatening disease that spreads via sexual contact such as AIDS? The human instinct for self-preservation remains rather strong. I somehow doubt it.
If I drive my Dodge Ram 100 miles an hour and harm NO ONE, as can easily be done from, say, 11 pm to 5 am, using your "absolutely positively anything goes!" standard, how am I harming YOU in CA, or for that matter, anyone else? Aren't you infringing upon my personal freedom???
By your standands, it almost seems one night stands might be unlawful, don't forget a man and women can enjoy sodomy just as much as 2 men can. Yuck. I have no problem with local jurisdictions outlawing certain behaviors. There are many dry counties and municipalities in TX, for instance. For another, in good-sized swathes of this state, you can't get MTV in your cable package, thanks to large concentrations of Southern Baptists. (Personally, I'd remove MTV from my cable package simply because they suck, but that's just me.)
Standards exist. They aren't necessarily all bad. Deal with it.
By the way, some more food for thought: there are many cultures and religions around the world that ban the consumption of pork, and those bans made TONS of sense in an era where we didn't know or understand what trichinosis was. Now we DO know what that is, but for some strange reason, those bans still exist. (I have yet to see a convention of Muslims, for instance, work on revising the Koran or the Hadith so that they can eat pork products now that we understand why pork was bad to eat once upon a time and have since cured that problem.) I shrug at such things. Societies have standards.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
The difference is Unsane
June 29, 2009 - 22:06 ET by shawn228If I was stupid enough to sleep with someone I knew had Aids I am only harming myself and If I told the police someone gave me Aid, but I knew she Aids before I slept with her, they would say tough luck and tell me I was stupid
I am pretty sure if a cop clocked you doing 100 miles per hour, you would get pulled over. If you killed a van full of people doing 100 miles per hour, I can guarantee that the law will come down on you hard.
You are endangering other people, while sodomy is behind closed doors and between consenting adults. Everybodys standards are different.
He had my vote
Wanting it both ways
June 30, 2009 - 10:39 ET by UnsaneYou are endangering other people, while sodomy is behind closed doors and between consenting adults. Yes. Sodomy can be between two consenting adults and can endanger people.
Shawn, you want it both ways, and it is painfully obvious. You demand I get harassed by state and local Power Trippers for driving 100 mph on the grounds that I am endangering people. Never mind that as I have said, this is done thousands of miles away from you, and, say, between 11 pm and 5 am, the ONLY person I will be endangering on the roadway will be ME. In all likelyhood, when I am driving 100 mph, I have a greater chance of slamming my truck into a embankment or a pillar, and getting myself killed, and involving no one else, except maybe for giving a VFD and the Power Trippers something to do.
Yet, you throw an absolute fit when societies attempt to establish standards of behavior elsewhere. Sorry, but sodomy can and does endanger people, through he spread of disease, both sexual and otherwise (do not make me get into the gory details). Hence I lose no sleep at night inf a local jurisdiction were to be permitted to ban it.
Everybodys standards are different. Um, not really. But then, you deeply, intensely ACHE for an anything-goes society without any of those evil, oppressive STANDARDS. Tell you what, Shawn. If you want a society totally free of standards, or an anything goes world, I would suggest you headed the wrong direction out of Canada. You should have headed north...say, like north of Whitehorse, Dawson, or Beaver Creek. Just live out in the woods, don't interact with the rest of humanity, and do as you damn well please. But while you are part of society, you are subject to STANDARDS, like it or not.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
For a booksmart guy...
June 30, 2009 - 23:00 ET by shawn228...you just can't seem to comprehend that there are others drivers on the road after 11pm at night on the Freeway. It does not matter if you endanger me, you are endangering other folks that might be on the road.
Since you are conservative let me put it this way. Most conservatives have respect for private property, well if you want to have sodomy behind closed doors on your property or rented property that is one thing. If you drove over 100 miles an hour, the truck might be your property but the public road is not.
He had my vote
Contradictions keep on collapsing
July 2, 2009 - 09:18 ET by Unsane...you just can't seem to comprehend that there are others drivers on the road after 11pm at night on the Freeway. It does not matter if you endanger me, you are endangering other folks that might be on the road. Shawn, you can't seem to comprehend that on roads like US 290 in Hays County, if I were to drive 100 mph at 11 pm at night, I'd be more scared of hitting deer than of seeing another driver. I've driven it at that time - not at 100 mph, mind you - so you know not of what you speak.
You continue to contort yourslef in a bid, apparently, to be the most intellectually dishonest and inconsistent poster here, apparently.
Since you are conservative let me put it this way. Most conservatives have respect for private property, well if you want to have sodomy behind closed doors on your property or rented property that is one thing. It is "one thing" if you are someone who is constantly enraged that society has STANDARDS, someone who wants a no-fault, everything and anything goes society. See, again, I have ZERO problem with societies having STANDARDS. Sheesh, you have an obsessive devotion to sodomy, don't you? I bet you want a Constitutional amendment to allow for sodomy (you should relax, the SCOTUS agrees with you).
If you drove over 100 miles an hour, the truck might be your property but the public road is not. And you STILL want to infringe on MY PERSONAL FREEDOMS. (And that is not the only way you want the government to infringe upon personal freedoms.) I am not harming you (DO NOT come back here telling me about other drivers being on the road - that shows me you cannot read and will not read), yet you insist on the Power Trippers on ALL levels to come harass ME.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Well Cort
June 20, 2009 - 01:29 ET by shawn228Very recently at a retreat where Sarah Palin stole the show, Newt Gincrich was the keynote speaker. He said there is room for all sorts of Republicans in the party from Dick Cheney to Colin Powell
So I believe as long as someone believes in low taxes, less government and strong military that lays the groundwork to be a republican.
People in this country hate to be told what to do. They don't like libs telling them how much they can smoke, how much candy they can eat and what kind of cars to drive.
I believe the Republican party lost partly because of the perception that their party tells people how to dress, who to sleep with, what they can and cannot put into their bodies, and people got spooked because that is the image the republican projects.
He had my vote
shawn
June 20, 2009 - 01:39 ET by MrShy"because of the perception..."
The key word there is "perception". In the political sphere, The Republican party doesn't do nearly as much power-grabbing of people's rights as Democrats do, and yet, we're tainted with a false perception mostly thanks to, well, the MSM and the leftist-dominated pop-culture.
Now, in the personal/private sphere, Republicans and conservatives DO hold rather sacred ideas of where they feel lines need to be drawn for society, and it's perfectly fine and within their rights to express these to their fellow man, irregardless of anyone's political leanings. Heck, I've walked into work a lot or heard a friend ranting to me about his/her liberal values, complaints, etc..
You're the next contestant on...
THE MESSIAH IS... LEFT !!
Your right shy
June 20, 2009 - 01:46 ET by shawn228It is just a perception, I found many conservatives on this site that don't agree with Bozells articles dissing Family Guy or South Park.
The Democratic party usually has to suck up gays because they need their votes and play much lip service for gay marriage.
The same with the GOP and the Christian right. They pander to get their votes by talking about how horrible Roe V Wade is, yet no Republican politican in recent years has made any attempt to start the ball rolling on overturning it as well.
He had my vote
Shawn
June 20, 2009 - 22:01 ET by UnsaneThey pander to get their votes by talking about how horrible Roe V Wade is, yet no Republican politican in recent years has made any attempt to start the ball rolling on overturning it as well. Well, Shawn228, that is to be expected. Supreme Court rulings are a b***h to overturn. No SCOTUS appointments are guarantees. (Take for example, Bush the Elder. Clarence Thomas was a great pick. Souter was atrocious.) From the looks of this sentence, I don't think you grasp how the Supreme Court works.
Short of "packing" the Court - which can be done quite easily, as the number of SCOTUS justices is fixed by the Judiciary Act of 1869, NOT the Constitution - what the hell else do you expect? (There IS amending the Constitution too, of course, but dream on. An amendment overturning Roe wouldn't make it past the first hurdle.)
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Sure there's room for
June 20, 2009 - 02:06 ET by CortillaenSure there's room for libertarians in the GOP, but they need to quit telling the social conservatives to shut up. If the GOP is being perceived as a party of commandments, it's because they've let the media tar them that way, and libertarians have danced to the liberal tune. Tossing fiscal conservatism and opposition to growth of government out the window over the past six years hasn't left the Reps much to emphasize, so the Dems' pet media outlets have free reign painting the GOP as totally beholden to the only two groups not completely under the bus, lobbyists and social conservatives. In reality, the SocCons don't have much traction at all in the broader party. The GOP needs to officially put social conservatism on the back-burner in the political sense while still promoting it outside of government, push the line of Dems being beholden to atheism and the HBT (my refusal to pervert the word "gay" extends even to acronyms; besides why use two words when one covers it all?) crowd, and pick up fiscal conservatism and a "government is not the answer" stance. Those three steps would have them back in power in a landslide. They should also move to separate their opposition to abortion from that of Christianity. I've laid out time and again how to get there without relying on God. The only instances social conservatism should come up is when it is in direct conflict with a group on the other side, such as over homosexual marriage, and even then they should stress that their position is opposition to social manipulation by the government. Move to seperate marriage from the government and return it in totality to the churches while shifting the government side to a simple contractual partnership with the same tax implications. Refine and push for the Fair Taxon the basis of returning primary ownership of earnings to the earner. Stop me from rambling on and on... 2am here, so... yeah, time for bed.
More of my thoughts
"With your mind as high as Mt. Fuji you can see all things clearly. And you can see all the forces that shape events; not just the things near to you." - Miyamoto Musashi
Yes and No
June 29, 2009 - 18:31 ET by UnsaneSure there's room for libertarians in the GOP, but they need to quit telling the social conservatives to shut up. No joke. And I suspect that taking care of social conservatives' desires is much easier than people suspect. In my mind, the one institution that causes the most grief among social conservatives in the federal government is the Supreme Court. How can that be fixed? Well, staff the Court, and other federal courts, with strict constructionists, and move to remove those who prefer to legislate from the bench. I suspect if this alone is done, you can make many social conservatives quite happy.
Refine and push for the Fair Taxon the basis of returning primary ownership of earnings to the earner. When you have to call your tax proposal "fair", there is a 99.9999999999% chance it is NOT fair. Sales taxes are among the least fair, and the most regressive, taxes there are. And sorry, even if it out and out replaces the income tax (as is the plan), you can't convince me that paying a 31.125% tax on everything I buy is a good idea. (For that number I am combining the state sales tax and the tax that the Unfair Tax crowd likes to push.)
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Cortillaen
June 20, 2009 - 01:08 ET by MrShyWow, Cortillaen, that was good.
:)
You're the next contestant on...
THE MESSIAH IS... LEFT !!
I don't have any hate for Evangelicals
June 20, 2009 - 18:07 ET by nwahsAnd you're alright that all this blame is laid in YouTube's lap, and not a single bit is laid in the laps of adults that should be supervising any minor child on a computer? I've heard members here ask "how are we supposed to supervise our children every second?"
You do it by getting off your lazy butt. You do it by not looking for a scape goat. When my kids were little, I could protect them from guns in my house but I could not protect them from every instance in their life where they might come across a gun. I can not make the world child safe. So I educated them about guns and showed them exactly what a gun is capable of doing to remove any mystique. I made damn sure they knew exactly how to handle a gun and respect a gun. That was MY job.
Now you want to child proof the internet. If your children are learning about demeaning women and violence to other people, you have failed in your job to teach your children empathy and respect for others. You have failed in you job to explain the difference between a healthy sexual relationship and depravity. If your child is too young for that explanation, they shouldn't be on the internet without an adult sitting right beside them monitoring their every move.
This really is a parents responsibility. Parental responsibility and examples of parental irresponsibility are not mentioned in the article.
Its a little one sided, don't you think? Its all YouTubes fault? No, I don't think so. Lazy parents are at fault as well.
Yes, with technology and the information revolution, a parents job has gotten a lot harder. Cry me a river, but do your job.You are not going to blind your child to the outside world. You damn well better educate them about what they'll see.
http://newsbusters.o...
"Parental responsibility
June 20, 2009 - 19:06 ET by Cortillaen"Parental responsibility and examples of parental irresponsibility are not mentioned in the article." I'll assume that means you're only talking about Mr. Bozell's column since the alternative would be a blatant lie. Of course, you're still wrong. To wit: "Just as a parent wouldn’t let their child wander through a seedy
neighborhood of sex shops, it’s now impossible for parents to avoid
watching their children carefully negotiate the Internet." I will grant that parental responsibility was not the focus of Mr. Bozell's column, but pointing out that the owners and managers of YouTube could and should be doing more to keep porn off their site, one heavily frequented by teenagers and younger, is not the same as declaring lazy parents guiltless. At the same time, the parents aren't the ones deciding what is allowed on YouTube, so placing the blame for YouTube's contents on parents is foolish. You may have shifted your tone a little and ignored most of my points above, but your argument is still the same fundamentally short-sighted one as before. Neither Mr. Bozell nor the CMI is calling for government intervention (incidentally, do you intend to retract your statements to the contrary?). Raising public awareness of a problem with the intent to direct social pressure is hardly justification for your attacks.
"I've heard members here ask "how are we supposed to supervise our children every second?"
You do it by getting off your lazy butt." Patent foolishness. Maybe you don't have a long, stressful job, but a lot of people do. They do not have the impossible amounts of time or energy necessary to counteract the deluge of immorality to which their children are exposed, especially on the net, much less to prevent that exposure. Cries of "lazy parents!" can only go so far. At some point, even you have to recognize that the culture war cannot be won defensively.
Now, since you apparently did not bother reading the CMI study Mr. Bozell linked, I'll enlighten you as to its contents. After the facts and figures on YouTube's porn and obscenity content, there are two lists of recommendations. Both have five points, and the one for parents comes before the one for YouTube. Mr. Bozell's column is certainly focused on the level to which YouTube accepts obscenity, but I fail to see a problem with informing people rather than simply shouting at them to do more.
Again, this is part of the culture war, like it or not. In a society of totally pervasive information exchange, the impact parents have on their children is important, but so is using social pressure to influence what information is made available to them. If you think there is too much emphasis on the latter, go out and advocate more of the former. You certainly could have made a case for more emphasis on parental responsibility without attacking the other half of the equation, and I daresay you would have gotten better results, too. As it is, you act as though hindering one front is the appropriate response to a weaker force on the other.
Unfortunately, your first post tells the truth of your position here. It has nothing to do with the culture war for you. Maybe you don't know; maybe you don't care, but advocating the parental responsibility side is not why you got into this argument. No, your reasons for your initial, totally uncalled for, irrational, and emotional attack on Mr. Bozell was that you hate the idea of being told that you are wrong. As I stated already, that is the fault in libertarians that keep me out of their camp, and it is the reason their welcome amongst true conservatives is rarely as enthusiastic as it might be. Perhaps libertarians believe in freedom of speech only because they also believe in ignoring everyone else, but their insistance on keeping morality out of public discussion is a crippling flaw. Learn to accept criticism, to participate in shaping society, and lose the anger over people wanting to reinforce morality. You'll be better off for it, as would the country if all libertarians did likewise.
More of my thoughts
"With your mind as high as Mt. Fuji you can see all things clearly. And you can see all the forces that shape events; not just the things near to you." - Miyamoto Musashi
Well we just disagree
June 20, 2009 - 19:52 ET by nwahsI think you're trying to push your job off on me, and I don't want any part of it. I don't think the government should be doing it for you either. Educate your children and I don't give a rats ass if you work five jobs. Its your job, not mine. Think about that before you have them. Don't pretend there aren't cursory controls in place on the internet. I cant pull up certain instruction videos ( graphic arts) on YouTube because I am not registered and the video might contain a bare breast. If your child takes a bath with a toaster, don't blame the manufacturer, blame the stupid parent. You sound more like a litigant than a competent parent.
If a bare breast is going to freak out your kid when they get around the cursory controls, you have miserably failed as a parent and are trying to blame YouTube.If you have a seven year old googling Disney unsupervised, you have failed as a parent. Accept responsibility for your actions. You, as a parent, should be your child's primary role model and if you aren't, you've screwed up. Don't try to push off the blame with the responsibility.
Get off your ass and educate your child, and quit bellyaching about how hard it is. You're not shucking corn sweety, you're microwaving frozen vegetables. Do what people have done before you - your job.
http://newsbusters.o...
*sigh* Again with the
June 20, 2009 - 21:51 ET by Cortillaen*sigh* Again with the confrontational attitude...
First, I'm 21 with no children, so quit pretending this is a personal issue for me. Maybe you wouldn't have made that assumption if you weren't so angry about it.
Second, quit pretending anyone here absolves parents of all responsibility. The only one looking at the issue as "All blame and responsibility lies solely with Group A" is you. The CMI study and I both state that this is a problem to be addressed on two fronts, to which you respond with more ranting about lazy parents. If you think we should just roll over and play dead while the left has free reign in remaking our culture, at least have the guts to say so. If not, quit attacking the wrong side.
Third, drop the straw-man, or show me anywhere in my comments or the article anything charging you with responsibility for other people's children. You're trying your best to spin it that way, but it's just not there. You need to get it through your head that there is no call for government action, and there is no demand for you to help others (the horror of such a thought!). There is only Mr. Bozell and the CMI pointing out YouTube's ambivalence towards rampant immorality and offering (non-government) suggestions and me pointing out how your irrational outrage over such is damaging to the country.
Fourth, if you aren't going to bother addressing my points (for example, you have not once responded to my assertion that this is our part in a culture war separate from the government), I see no reason to continue this exchange any further. If you insist on simply ignoring my arguments to restate your own, I'll make this my last post in response.
Fifth, in relation to the fourth, I have some questions for you to answer (or ignore, as seems your wont). Maybe answering them will make you actually consider the issue a little deeper and get you beyond the knee-jerk "Evangelicals in my bedroom! Lazy parents!" response. Can you show any call for government action here? (If not, quit bringing it up; you sound like the left when you keep pushing lies.) Do you believe YouTube accepting porn and obscenity on their site is a bad thing? Do you believe people have a right to use social pressure against YouTube in attempt to change their policy? Do you believe that there is a culture war going on for the hearts and minds of America? Do you believe the Right should be kept from making overt responses to subversive offenses from the Left? Do you believe morality is something learned early and needs no reinforcement in adults? Do you believe morality is not a social issue? Last but not least, are you aware that "cursory controls" are, by definition, ineffective in keeping children from accessing porn?
Okay, the last one was just me having a chuckle at your expense, but the rest bear some thought on your part. As it stands, you have been attacking Mr. Bozell and me on false pretenses, straw-men, and constantly ranting about "lazy parents" while ignoring the other half of the issue.
More of my thoughts
"With your mind as high as Mt. Fuji you can see all things clearly. And you can see all the forces that shape events; not just the things near to you." - Miyamoto Musashi
cortillaen
June 20, 2009 - 23:21 ET by MrShyWhile I fully admire your efforts here, and your amazing success at, point by point, dismantling The Kisser ("mwahs", is how I keep reading it :p) at every idiotic turn he makes in his straw-man arguments, you notice how he keeps coming back at you more hard-headed each time.
At some point, you might have to tag this one a goner. He's clearly here for his own antagonistic, confrontational thrill more than anything.
He, like almost all libs and liberts -- from being inherently (I guess it is) capable of bullsh*t'ing themselves -- want absolute, zero-governing (which is an oxy-moron for them) freedom from all things, which is impossible in a civilized society.
You're the next contestant on...
THE MESSIAH IS... LEFT !!
Hence point the fourth. ;)
June 20, 2009 - 23:29 ET by CortillaenWith any luck, I can provoke some consideration on the issue; if not for nwahs, then for other people. At the very least, this exchange should be helpful to people seeking to understand libertarians and how they differ from conservatives.
More of my thoughts
"With your mind as high as Mt. Fuji you can see all things clearly. And you can see all the forces that shape events; not just the things near to you." - Miyamoto Musashi
Let me just answer your questions first
June 20, 2009 - 23:25 ET by nwahsI think your lead in to these questions contains a few strawmen itself, but lets just go to the questions. This cuts right to the chase.
Can you show any call for government action here?
No never said there was one. I said I shouldn't be doing your job and the government shouldn't be doing your job. I said the government shouldn't be doing your job because arguments for a child safe internet travel the same road as arguments for a child safe gun. Its a prelude to a call for government action, whether it be trigger locks or YouTube locks. They're ineffective and only serve to shift the blame. Its smoke and mirrors. It's nothing but a shift in liability.
Do you believe YouTube accepting porn and obscenity on their site is a bad thing?
Yes. By my definition of whats pornography. IMO pornography is degrading. If your definition of pornography is a bare breast, we have a distinct problem. Are we going to have a pornography Czar?
Do you believe people have a right to use social pressure against YouTube in attempt to change their policy?
Yes, and I think they have an obligation to democracy to not use intellectual dishonesty.
Do you believe that there is a culture war going on for the hearts and minds of America?
No. I think this a prosperous notion by a pseudo intellectual, Bill O'Reily. Societies, through thousands of years evolve. As technology has become sophisticated, this evolution is much quicker. Its akin to living in a port city instead of the boondocks. People are exposed to more and the culture is more diverse and changes more rapidly than the boondocks. With the information revolution, everyone now lives in a port city. Its not a war. Its a natural effect.
Do you believe the Right should be kept from making overt responses to subversive offenses from the Left?
No. But being part of the right I would much prefer they didn't use intellectual dishonesty. Its abhorrent.
Do you believe morality is something learned early and needs no reinforcement in adults?
I believe morality is learned early and evolves as a person grows up. You can compare it to people my age who probably grew up in homes where ethnic jokes were more common than today. There was nothing immoral about them in that time. But when one grows and sees more of the world, their morality will change. I think morality like spirituality is a life long quest.
Do you believe morality is not a social issue?
IMO social issue in this context is a euphemism that means nothing. Please be more specific. Morality is ultimately a personal issue. The collective effect of individuals morality may be a social issue if you define the euphemism.
Last but not least, are you aware that "cursory controls" are, by definition, ineffective in keeping children from accessing porn?
Yes they are, hence the name. If 200 kids have lazy parents, cursory controls might help 7 of them. But 200 prudent parents will help all of them.
http://newsbusters.o...
Cort reveals the trick with libs!!
June 20, 2009 - 23:56 ET by MrShyTo get them off snark/dismissive-mode, give them short, single-pointed direct questions. And now, two more:
"Its a prelude to a call for government action, whether it be trigger locks or YouTube locks."
*If* Bozell was expressing his concern about YouTube that in no way leads you to believe that there's any connection to it potentially leading to government action, I take it you would not feel any urgency then to debate on this thread. But you are stating not only a fear, but a certainty that this will ultimately be what happens. What makes you *sure* the government will intervene in people's private lives with regards to their children, based on Republican's concerns of social and cultural morality like Bozell's?
"Morality is ultimately a personal issue."
If you live on a planet of one, morality is ("ultimately"? what does this injected word even mean in the context? Let's leave that for another time, though) certainly a personal issue. On a planet of a community of people, it's completely NOT an exclusively personal issue. When I live my life by my own chosen moral standards which result in actions and behaviors that effect those around me, how does it remain my issue alone?
You're the next contestant on...
THE MESSIAH IS... LEFT !!
"No never said there was
June 21, 2009 - 01:04 ET by Cortillaen"No never said there was one." You beg to differ: "You know what it is Brent? Its your call for a Nanny on the internet.
Its your justification of lazy parents. Its your little liberal quality
where you believe people need to be "protected" by the government."
"Its a prelude to a call for government action..." Yeah, that's reasonable, just like the religious nuts who claim not stoning homosexuals is a prelude to forcing homosexuality on everyone. You sound like a conspiracy nut claiming everything leads to the government running your life. Time for a reality check: There are two roads, government and public opinion, to spread morality. Mr. Bozell, the CMI, and I want to travel down the latter, and conservative principles demand we never deviate from it. Can you let the whole "government's gonna run my life" crap go? It would be better for your intellectual honesty.
"Are we going to have a pornography Czar?" Again you jump to the nonexistent argument for government intervention.
Now I will fill in part of your answer for you. No, don't thank me. You don't believe in a culture war because you don't believe in absolute morality. You almost say so: "I believe morality is learned early and evolves as a person grows up." If morality is an absolute, it does not evolve. This is the liberal side of libertarians. You believe in subjective morality, so people (especially evangelicals) telling you that it isn't subjective at all is an offense to your basic worldview, hence the angry response to it.
You compare social change to evolution, but seem to forget that evolution is a war as well. The weak die and the strong survive, no? No matter how you look at the issue, morality is the center of a culture war between "old-fashioned", Christian morality and your "sum of experiences" kind, which leads to amorality. Before you call this my own conspiracy theory, consider the following: Without roots in faith and higher law, morality is simply feelings and "what's best for me" (Nietzsche approves). O'Reilly may have profited from pushing the concept, but it is incredibly dishonest to claim that he created it (Culture Wars: The Struggle to Define America by James Davison in 1991 may have popularized the term, but the concept has existed for decades more, at least).
You keep claiming the right is intellectually dishonest. In the context of this discussion, prove it. You have made multiple charges against Mr. Bozell and myself, all of which have been refuted. At the same time, I have caught you in both a lie and an attempt to pin the concept of the culture war on a talk-show host who's book on the subject came out 15 years after the term was popularized, much less the concept. In the field of honesty, intellectual or otherwise, you would seem to be the one on shaky ground.
Your cop out, claiming "social issue" is a euphemism (Eh? How can you call it a euphemism if you claim not to know what I mean by it?), is pathetic. I mean exactly what the phrase means: Any issue of importance to society. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess your answer is likely a "No". After all, you've already claimed that morality is a personal issue, an assertion Shy shot down in a hurry, too.
I've put in this last response thanks to you actually answering (most of) my questions, but I think I will leave it at this, barring some very interesting (read: not the same stuff you've been going on about) development.
More of my thoughts
"With your mind as high as Mt. Fuji you can see all things clearly. And you can see all the forces that shape events; not just the things near to you." - Miyamoto Musashi
Cort
June 21, 2009 - 01:36 ET by MrShyRead your reply to me above, btw, thanks :)
FYI, a liberal throwing around the term "intellectual dishonesty" is a classic case of projection. :p
You're the next contestant on...
THE MESSIAH IS... LEFT !!
Don't mention it
June 21, 2009 - 09:58 ET by nwahs"I've put in this last response thanks to you actually answering (most
of) my questions, but I think I will leave it at this, barring some
very interesting (read: not the same stuff you've been going on about)
development."
As I said way above, we disagree. There's no "lie" you've caught me in. I never said Bozell was advocating government control on YouTub, I said he was calling for a nanny to do what lazy parents won't. We're never going to agree on this.
I never said morality was "subjective." Well at least you admitted you were making stuff up there in "filling in my answer." I said morality evolves and it evolves from many places. Morality is a collective standard. The collective standard of a Hindu is going to be different than the collective standard of a Christian. And society with both Christians and Hindus will have a standard influenced by both. Morality is not absolute. There are commonalities in most civilized societies, but it is certainly not absolute, and it certainly is not static.As one grows they are exposed to more - different religions and different philosophy. That which makes up their collective standard changes. Thats not subjective, thats evolution.
But this is like a religious discussion. We will never agree.
"Everybody speaks: - This is right, that is wrong; you are right, he is wrong; - but he cannot tell you exactly what he means by right and wrong.
What is the criterion by which we judge an action to be right or wrong, and good or bad? - Right and wrong - and - good and bad - are relative terms. Right and wrong refer to the moral standard, as law. Good and bad refer to it, as end. You will have to adjust your conduct according to this moral standard. That which is in accordance with a rule is right. That which is worthy of achievement is good.
Excerpt from All About Hinduism by Sri Swami Sivananda
http://newsbusters.o...
There's no "lie" you've
June 24, 2009 - 07:37 ET by UnsaneThere's no "lie" you've caught me in. I never said Bozell was advocating government control on YouTub, I said he was calling for a nanny to do what lazy parents won't. Really?
"You know what it is Brent? Its your call for a Nanny on the internet. Its your justification of lazy parents. Its your little liberal quality where you believe people need to be "protected" by the government." - nwahs
That last sentence is telling. Seems to me in that paragraph you insist that Mr. Bozell is calling for a "government" nanny. Besides, in some regards, there are "nannies" out there already as you like to call them. Or are you opposed to MPAA ratings for movies, among other things?
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Fans of Japanese anime
June 19, 2009 - 20:11 ET by balboaFans of Japanese anime cartoons can find the animated porn called "hentai,"
Thanks for the tip, Brent! H...e...n...
Brent could have...
June 19, 2009 - 20:32 ET by Uphillsupported all of this with lots and lots of links, too.
→ Hentai
June 19, 2009 - 20:37 ET by Cool ArrowIt can't be as interesting as Obama eating a booger. What cracks me up is his lips pursing to suck it in, like nobody's going to notice.
But hey, if Obama does it, I can see Liberals everywhere digging for head-cheese and having a nasal nacho.
♣
Hey Brent
June 19, 2009 - 22:45 ET by shawn228I was telling other people a few hours ago that all the times I called you a prude is coming back to bite me. My 8 year old daughter a few hours ago started to sing If U seek Amy. It made me feel very uncomfortable to tell her not to sing the song, but more uncomfortable when she asked me why. Does Britney have friend named Amy Daddy?
He had my vote
And There's Nothing The Government Can Do About It, So There
June 19, 2009 - 22:51 ET by The7SticksAnd I can't think of anything that would be an even bigger waste of government time besides the Senate making a public apology to the descendants of African slaves. We already went through this farce once before with the Meese Commissions back in the 80's as well as those morons who picketed 7-Elevens because they stocked Playboy magazine. And did you see how pathetic those losers were that were picketing outside of Letterman's studio after he made two apologies? This is all self-righteous piety at it's worst. One man's trash is another man's treasure, and since no crimes are being committed, the government shouldn't do anything about it.
You cannot go around and say that big business shouldn't be persecuted if you want to persecute one specific business you don't like. I will continue to use Google and all its products because I like what they produce and I am not going anywhere else. That is unless someone else offers a better product, and I'm beginning to like this new Bing search engine, but I also recommend Leapfish.com for its incorporation of almost every search engine into one single super engine aggravator. But at this point, my default is set to Google.
And as far as I can tell, I haven't seen anything they've done that indicates they have viciously attacked our troops, so it's still good, unless I missed something. That's the way I define my patronage of a business, not whether it's for the children. I will be the one honest person who'll tell you I don't care a single bit about the children. I don't want anything to do with them good bad or neutral.
And the attack on anime just boils it down for me. I can never be a conservative for that. Of course, I can't be a liberal either associating with creeps like Gloria Steinem and their boycott of The People Versus Larry Flynt. Best, freedom of speech, movie, ever!
Many computers have
June 19, 2009 - 23:52 ET by 24enakMany computers have parental controls to block what their child can look up and even how long they are on the computers. This is a privacy matter. What anyone does inside their homes, as long as it is legal, should be private (barring they don't have a webcam of course).
Bottom line it is the parents responsibility to monitor what their kids are doing online. The kids will try, and probaly succeed, at getting around XXX barriors, but that is the cat and mouse game between parent and child.
Brent,
June 20, 2009 - 10:45 ET by CacciatoBrent,
Parents should police their own children without government intervention. Heck, most of the posters here spend so much time on Newsbusters, I doubt their children ever even get to use the internet.
I see internet porn as a positive for society. There is a direct correlation between an increase in internet porn access and a decrease in reported rape.
Interesting Study by Clemson professor, Todd Kendall - and follow-up on Slate
Essentially finding a 10% increase in internet access leads to a 7.3% decrease in reported rapes.
Inernet porn keeps the creeps in doors and off of our streets.
If you're worried about your kids looking a porn, put the computer in the family room where you can see what they are doing. Grown adults shouldn't be told what to look at on the internet simply because there are a lot of lazy parents out there, too slovenly to control their own children.
I'll take the risk of a kid seeing an errant nipple any day of the week, if it reduces instances of rape.
Barking at shadows
June 20, 2009 - 22:10 ET by UnsaneI've read Mr. Bozell's article. Several times. I fail to see where he is calling for government intervention anywhere. He never has, in any such column of his I have read.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
While the study suggests a
June 20, 2009 - 22:33 ET by CortillaenWhile the study suggests a negative correlation between internet access and rapes, I didn't see anything in that study other than speculation and evidence that internet access didn't seem to affect other violent crimes in the same way to substantiate the claim that greater access to porn was the cause of that correlation. The author even admits that it is a valid criticism of his study to argue that other factors associated with internet access (anonymous places to divulge thoughts and desires, for example) could be driving the correlation. To me, the fact that the "fast-adopting" and "slow-adopting" states had a vast disparity in rapes at all three time points suggests that there is likely a societal factor affecting both, though that doesn't preclude internet access impacting rapes. One factor that comes to mind as possibly having a major impact is an increase in availability of information about sexual predators through online sources. Sexual predator listings typically include rapists, and the easier access to such lists via growth in internet use would certainly have some impact on the difficulty of committing repeat offenses. A followup to the study ought to examine the numbers of repeat rapists for the same time periods to check this angle.
More of my thoughts
"With your mind as high as Mt. Fuji you can see all things clearly. And you can see all the forces that shape events; not just the things near to you." - Miyamoto Musashi
More Anti-Christian Slime
June 24, 2009 - 00:57 ET by rapkiller[recent saw the following on the web]
DAVID LETTERMAN'S HATE, ETC. !
David Letterman's hate is as old as some ancient Hebrew prophets.
Speaking of anti-Semitism, it's Jerry Falwell and other fundy leaders who've gleefully predicted that in the future EVERY nation will be against Israel (an international first?) and that TWO-THIRDS of all Jews will be killed, right?
Wrong! It's the ancient Hebrew prophet Zechariah who predicted all this in the 13th and 14th chapters of his book! The last prophet, Malachi, explains the reason for this future Holocaust that'll outdo even Hitler's by stating that "Judah hath dealt treacherously" and "the Lord will cut off the man that doeth this" and asks "Why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother?"
Haven't evangelicals generally been the best friends of Israel and persons perceived to be Jewish? Then please explain the recent filthy, hate-filled, back-stabbing tirades by David Letterman (and Sandra Bernhard and Kathy Griffin) against a leading evangelical named Sarah Palin, and explain why most Jewish leaders have seemingly condoned Palin's continuing "crucifixion"!
While David, Sandra, and Kathy are tragically turning comedy into tragedy, they are also helping to speed up and fulfill the Final Holocaust a la Zechariah and Malachi, thus helping to make the Bible even more believable!
(For even more stunning information, visit MSN and type in "Separation of Raunch and State" and "Bible Verses Obama Avoids.")