NYCEMS9115 Posted April 28, 2011 Author Posted April 28, 2011 So my example is not cool. I'm sorry about my made up story. However, PORN in the Library is not cool neither... I guess I didn't make my point. I do apologize for common sense and the ability to know the difference between right and wrong. The old concept; Majority Rules, is in order here; so PORN is cool in the Library. I got it; it has been ingrained into my head. I have to thank the thread and the members who've posted...
HERBIE1 Posted April 28, 2011 Posted April 28, 2011 So you have issues with a fully federally funded institution being forced to protect the constitution of the united states? I have several friends and family members, and untold others that I was never privileged to meet, that have died in defense of the American Constitution, yet now we should ignore their sacrifice because Herbie says so? Despite the fact that you're unwilling to answer me when I ask you to define what is considered pornographic? I love you Herbie, but that seems terribly simple minded and hypocritical. I am quite certain that my nephew did not die in Afghanistan so that someone can check out porn at the local library. As for a definition- how about this one from Merriam Webster? the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement 2 : material (as books or a photograph) that depicts erotic behavior and is intended to cause sexual excitement 3 : the depiction of acts in a sensational manner so as to arouse a quick intense emotional reaction <the pornography of violence> Now- even better- the origins of the word: Greek pornographos, adjective, writing about prostitutes, from pornē prostitute + graphein to write; akin to Greek pernanai to sell, poros journey — more at fare, carveFirst Known Use: 1858 Does this sound like something in any way educational? Does this sound like the definition should include books and publications about STD's, sex education, or classic nudes? Although I was not around at the time, nor can I say for certain the intent of the artist, do you think these definitions are applicable to classical works of art like nude paintings or sculptures? Who knows, maybe these things were the pornography of their times, but it's certainly not the way we view them today. Do I want my son to walk through the library and see untold sexual acts unfolding on monitors all over the library day after day? No...but not because he would be damaged by seeing such things, but because I would hope that he would/will learn to be more socially appropriate than that. Obviously it would depend on the age of the child. There is a huge difference between a 14 year old and a 7 year old. How long has this rule been in effect at these public libraries? How many waves of offended patrons have been forced to flee these libraries, retching at the content that they have overseen on the monitors? So, is this truly a problem? Or is this a bunch of Chicken Little bullshit stirred up by a bored reporter? Well, considering the internet has not been around for that long, I would suggest this is a relatively new problem. Do I want Dylan to be offended by such things sometimes? Yeah, I do. That is how he will learn to deal with offensive behavior as well as come to understand that living in a free society sometimes means tolerating things that don't necessarily fit with his/my lifestyle. (I would love nothing better than to blow Phelps head off...but those that speak for me regarding constitutional issues protect him, and I respect that.) Offended? Again, depends on the age of the child here. I really do not think an early elementary school kid understands what "offensive" really means. Confused, upset, angry- I can think of many descriptions of how a child may react to something like this, but offended is not one of them. If there would need to be SOME kind of ban, I would certainly bad the shallow thinking of those that would neuter the Constitutional right of free speech long before someone that might download porn in the library. Free speech? Is that what you call looking at pornography in a public library? Also, as you refuse to define porn, how do you intend to block those images that horrify you in this environment without also blocking educational material on STDs, HIV/AIDS, breast cancer, moral and ethical debate surrounding nudity in art, and an amazing host of vital health related issues? Not everyone has access to a computer at home. And before you tell them to go and read a book I would challenge you to go to your public library and find me a book that shows the latest research on HIV, STDs, or the incidence of autism and the latest thinking on management and a cure...No, not something from 1995, but from 2010 or later. Right? You see where I'm going with this? See above. I honestly did not think pornography needed to be defined- it seemed pretty straightforward to me. I certainly did not intend to dodge the question. Based on the above definition, it's not simply about a naked body, it's about WHY that body is naked. And the govt, during Clinton's rein, couldn't even decide if a blowjob was a sexual act or not, yet you're going to give the right of what should be seen and what shouldn't to a librarian? I don't get it man.... Let the librarian decide? Hell no. If you saw our local librarian, I shudder to think what she may find "appropriate". {Think troll doll here...} Again- if you use a definition such as the one above, it really is not very complicated, nor is it ambiguous. Yes, I know teen boys can somehow find sexual stimulation from an algebra textbook, but that's another story. So my example is not cool. I'm sorry about my made up story. However, PORN in the Library is not cool neither... I guess I didn't make my point. I do apologize for common sense and the ability to know the difference between right and wrong. The old concept; Majority Rules, is in order here; so PORN is cool in the Library. I got it; it has been ingrained into my head. I have to thank the thread and the members who've posted... No, sadly the majority no longer does rule, or we would never even be having this discussion.. Vocal minorities often get their way in today's society. He who has the most money and the backing of media to promote their message not only gets their message heard, but can actually get legislation passed in their favor. Often times the majority needs to simply shut up, accept something they disagree with so as to not offend a fringe group. I also would not call the responses here indicative of a consensus of opinion. There are thousands of registered users of this site, maybe a hundred post with any regularity, and only a couple are actually involved with this discussion.
paramedicmike Posted April 28, 2011 Posted April 28, 2011 Sorry, I was at the Library to do a paper. I lost track of time. Actually, I was bored. I was using the Library computer to surf EMTCity and I opened another browser; because its my RIGHT; I went onto some XXX sites. I watched the Kim Kardashian Sex Video; damn she's hot; I was, well I really should say. I reached a climax and I got all discombobulated and I accidentally hit the R key instead of the L key. My bad... Sarcasm fail. Are you aware of the overtly racist nature of spelling "english" the way you did? Just curious. It is your right to hold those beliefs. But I was really hoping to keep a certain forum member who likes to spew about how everybody is racist out of this discussion. It would spin irrevocably out of control at that point.
Lone Star Posted April 28, 2011 Posted April 28, 2011 (edited) Wasn't it Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart who said "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it"? This is a poor litmus test on porn or any other 'offensive material'! The point of comparing internet porn to the classic paintings and statuary was to show how this whole mess can escalate out of control, and once we start down this road, it may be difficult to impossible to put the brakes on it. You start by banning access in public to internet nudity, then you have to include “Venus de Milo” and Michelangelo's “David”. Once that starts, just where do you draw the line as to what is ‘bad nudity’ and ‘good nudity’? The reason that this is a RIGHT is because I and many others like me have stood at the door, ready to lay our lives on the line to protect “The parchment paper with the Old Engrish and fancy writing said so.”(sic). I’ve also stood to protect your right to complain about things that you don’t particularly like. Once we sart changing the content and context of the constitution, we’ve resigned ourselves to giving up any and ALL freedoms that it contains. As far as I’m concerned, the rights that are laid out in that document are inviolate and absolute. This means that when you take a stance on trying to limit freedom of speech, you are essentially violating the very rights that I was prepared to die to protect. Last I checked, ‘whipping it out and rubbing one off in public’ is against the law. If a person is that ‘hard up’ and has no compunction against it, they DESERVE to be arrested. The whole point here seems to be that you’re trying to protect these children from the dirty underbelly of society. Unfortunately, if you protect them too much, they won’t be able to function in the ‘real world’ where they’re exposed to it on a daily basis. The whole concept of “It takes a village” is pure bunk! It takes two parents that actually give a damn to raise these children. Because of the former mentality, this is why we’re expecting teachers, principals and other school officials to turn out functional members of society; and are sorely disappointed when they don’t or cannot. It’s time we stop relying on ‘the village’ and step up as concerned involved parents! I'll take my chances. If some pervert is doing this around my kids, the FCC and ICC will be the least of his worries. It isn’t the guy at the library that has to worry about the FCC and the ICC, its YOU! Not to mention violating his civil rights as well! I prefer to err on the side of caution when it comes to kids. If a parent thinks it's perfectly acceptable for their kids to see internet porn, they can buy them an online subscription to Boobs R Us, or something similar. As disgusting as it may seem to most folks, they ARE the parents. We cannot control that, but it seems to me that protecting kids in a public library is a no-brainer. Who are you to usurp the authority of the parents of ‘that other kid’ in the first place? How are your morals and values more important than theirs? I noticed that when Ruff and Dwayne chimed in, they spoke for their children only, not every kid that’s out wandering the streets and hanging out at the library unsupervised. The whole point here is this: if it’s legal, (I.e.: not prohibited by law, such as beastiality, child pornography, necrophilia) and is protected under freedom of speech; there is NO reason why it cannot be viewed in public. It violates no laws, and isn’t really hurting anyone. No one is going to start spontaneously bleeding from wounds that are inflicted by some guy (or gal) looking at a nice pair of tits on a computer screen! OK, your sensibilities may have been insulted, and your personal moals and values may have taken a bruise…but seriously, how many deaths has looking at naked people online in public REALLY caused? Herbie, while your intentions may be noble, you deciding what children other than your own should or shouldn't see is nothing more than dictatorial censorship. Look at the brouhaha that erupted when Newt Gingrich tried to cut funding for public television because he believed that the "Teletubbies" were exposing children to homosexual propaganda. Look at the push by the 'Million Mom March' to try to ban firearms in deference to the second amendment... Ruff, Dwayne, (and any other parents reading this): Just how long will you let me force my morals and values on your children, before you punch me in the face and tell me that I've stepped on your toes long enough? *Edited to correct grammatical and spelling errors. Edited April 28, 2011 by Lone Star
paramedicmike Posted April 28, 2011 Posted April 28, 2011 I am quite certain that my nephew did not die in Afghanistan... Sorry to hear about your nephew. My condolences to your family for their loss. ...so that someone can check out porn at the local library. Without trying to politicize the loss your family has suffered, your nephew died protecting the freedoms we as Americans enjoy on a daily basis. Does this sound like something in any way educational? Are you honestly saying you've never learned anything from a porn flick? Who knows, maybe these things were the pornography of their times, but it's certainly not the way we view them today. Ahhh! I see! So context *IS* important! Free speech? Is that what you call looking at pornography in a public library? Well, the courts have as recently as 2009 refused to allow limits placed on porn. Part of their argument was that it was protected speech. Here's one article on the subject. See above. I honestly did not think pornography needed to be defined- it seemed pretty straightforward to me. I certainly did not intend to dodge the question. Based on the above definition, it's not simply about a naked body, it's about WHY that body is naked. Several attempts have been made to define what does or does not constitute porn. None have succeeded with any validity. No, sadly the majority no longer does rule, or we would never even be having this discussion.. Vocal minorities often get their way in today's society. He who has the most money and the backing of media to promote their message not only gets their message heard, but can actually get legislation passed in their favor. Often times the majority needs to simply shut up, accept something they disagree with so as to not offend a fringe group. While I can't always disagree with your assessment of whiny minority groups, the concept of majority rules with minority rights is one that is alive and well. There may be problems with it. It may not be perfect. But it is better than the alternative and currently enjoys the support of judicial system of the United States. I also would not call the responses here indicative of a consensus of opinion. There are thousands of registered users of this site, maybe a hundred post with any regularity, and only a couple are actually involved with this discussion. Very true. I'd be willing to bet, however, that many who would argue against porn either at home or in the library secretly enjoy it every chance they get.
DwayneEMTP Posted April 28, 2011 Posted April 28, 2011 ...how about this one from Merriam Webster? the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement 2 : material (as books or a photograph) that depicts erotic behavior and is intended to cause sexual excitement 3 : the depiction of acts in a sensational manner so as to arouse a quick intense emotional reaction <the pornography of violence> Now- even better- the origins of the word: Greek pornographos, adjective, writing about prostitutes, from pornē prostitute + graphein to write; akin to Greek pernanai to sell, poros journey — more at fare, carveFirst Known Use: 1858 Does this sound like something in any way educational? Does this sound like the definition should include books and publications about STD's, sex education, or classic nudes? Although I was not around at the time, nor can I say for certain the intent of the artist, do you think these definitions are applicable to classical works of art like nude paintings or sculptures? Who knows, maybe these things were the pornography of their times, but it's certainly not the way we view them today. As you say, the above definition has no place in this conversion as we can not know, in the majority of cases, what the authors intentions were. And I wasn't asking for a dictionary definition, but YOUR definition as you seem to have a very clear and concise idea of what should be allowed and what shouldn't and seem somewhat offended that the rest of us don't simply agree to allow you to decide for us. And to think that study on sexuality is a waste of time and should be considered pornographic and therefore excluded from the library...well, about 90% of the United States sexual perversion can be explained in that thought alone. You're showing your age Herbie....pretty soon you'll be telling your children and grandchildren how disgusting they are for showing their buttocks when they swim. ...Well, considering the internet has not been around for that long, I would suggest this is a relatively new problem... It's been around and in public libraries for what...20-25 years or so? Just guessing....Plenty of time for people to freak out. ...Offended? Again, depends on the age of the child here. I really do not think an early elementary school kid understands what "offensive" really means. Confused, upset, angry- I can think of many descriptions of how a child may react to something like this, but offended is not one of them. The child may parrot his damaged parents reactions to such things, but at that age most have not been taught to be disgusted and shamed by sexuality/sensuality. That is the privileged of the old and close minded. ...Free speech? Is that what you call looking at pornography in a public library? No, it seems to be what the supreme court has decided is free speech at the library. You are off in the ditch here brother. You say that if something causes sexual excitement then it is pornographic and doesn't belong at the library. Yet show me a perfectly legal picture, can be without a worry posted in a public place of a pretty girl with her nipples showing through her Tshirt and I'm a gonner....truly one of my hot buttons. Should that then be precluded from the library? And if grandma sees a threesome on the computer at the library but is not turned on by it, is it then ok to show it? It truly breaks my heart to see you side with 9115 in the whole, "Well, it's obviously right, so it must be right! I guess we're just so much smarter and so morally superior that the rest just can't see our point of view from way down there...Pity..." Holy shit...that is the most damaged, archaic thinking imaginable....expected from him, but shocking from you. ...See above. I honestly did not think pornography needed to be defined- it seemed pretty straightforward to me. I certainly did not intend to dodge the question. My apologies. ...Based on the above definition, it's not simply about a naked body, it's about WHY that body is naked. But it goes so much further when we begin making rules/laws based on the whims of one group or another. When the internet was young and I was wrapped up in behavioral psychology I used to go into the different IRC chat rooms. They had EVERYTHING back then, and I used to visit them all to see if people acted differently depending on their fetishes. There was gay, lesbian, animal, child, every kind of sex that you can imagine. There was one channel, I don't remember what it was called, but they traded pics of kids fully clothed. I spent a few weeks in there in my spare time just to see if there was some overtly sexual draw for them...but it turns out that they just found amazing joy in seeing pictures of happy kids. With all of the things available on these channels, that was one of the first that I saw disappear...because people thought it was creepy. In no time I could find you pics of people eating each others shit, beating each other bloody, but some do gooder decided that people looking at pics of kids was creepy. I don't want that person/persons deciding what is allowable and what isn't in my world. ...No, sadly the majority no longer does rule, or we would never even be having this discussion.. Again, it's nearly impossible to believe that this sentence came from you, nor that it is your actual thinking. There is a reason that the majority doesn't rule..and that is because by far the majority is ignorant and selfish. They want whatever seems right at the moment, and of course 'right' will always be defined by what is best for 'me' at that moment. I don't want 'the majority' vote to determine my constitutional rights, I don't want the majority to decide what my children can and can't read, or see, or discuss. We've been there...remember The Red Scare, Japanese internment camps, book burnings? The majority followed along on those paths and many others. All of those things were right and just...according to the majority....fuck that. Education wins the day. I want the smartest, most dedicated people protecting my civil and constitutional rights...not the majority...never that... Dwayne
Just Plain Ruff Posted April 28, 2011 Posted April 28, 2011 (edited) Ruff, Dwayne: Just how long will you let me force my morals and values on your children, before you punch me in the face and tell me that I've stepped on your toes long enough? Lone, I'm not forcing my morals on you so I don't expect you to force your morals or values on me or my children. I never said that this stuff needed to be banned from the library, i said I didnt think it should be there but I do not believe that it should be banned. It's first amendment rights and I would never want to give that right away. REmember, once we start to give away rights we find it very very hard to get those rights back. All I want the library to do is to provide either a private area for patrons to use to watch this stuff or provide privacy filters that would help keep only the patrons eyes from seeing the material. I would not want the library to prohibit me from looking at Christian material or any other material I felt I wanted to see. I think we are going over the edge here on the arguments. Porn is federally protected first amendment material just like all other material. I find it offensive and don't want my son to be exposed to it nor my daughter exposed to it but I'm not about to prohibit it from the other people who want to watch it. I actually prefer to watch when I go to the library, snuff films and I don't give a shit who see's it. (SARCASM) And I have learned some of my best moves in bed from porn videos. That Amber Lynn and Ginger Lynn from the 80's were sooooooooooo hot. Edited April 28, 2011 by Ruffems
Lone Star Posted April 28, 2011 Posted April 28, 2011 Lone, I'm not forcing my morals on you so I don't expect you to force your morals or values on me or my children. I never said that this stuff needed to be banned from the library, i said I didnt think it should be there but I do not believe that it should be banned. It's first amendment rights and I would never want to give that right away. REmember, once we start to give away rights we find it very very hard to get those rights back. Ruff, I believe sir, that we have a miscommunication error here. I didn't mean to imply that you were forcing anything on me. I asked that question to illustrate my point about 'it takes a village to raise a child'. From discussions on the many subjects that we've covered, I'm convinced that you, Dwayne and others are excellent parents. That being said, I'm also convinced that when it comes to 'the village' forcing their morals and values on your children, you and the other parents wouldn't hesitate to put an end to it. I agree with your assessment of giving up rights and not being able to get them back once they've been stripped away.
DwayneEMTP Posted April 28, 2011 Posted April 28, 2011 So my example is not cool. I'm sorry about my made up story. However, PORN in the Library is not cool neither... I guess I didn't make my point. I do apologize for common sense and the ability to know the difference between right and wrong. The old concept; Majority Rules, is in order here; so PORN is cool in the Library. I got it; it has been ingrained into my head. I have to thank the thread and the members who've posted... No need to apologize for common sense and/or knowing the difference between right and/or wrong. You need to apologize for littering the thread with this whiney, self rightous bullshit. If you have a point, make it. If you can't then save us all the "Oh my heart hurts that all can't be as divine as me...." shit. So far the only difference between some jerkoff masturbating at the library and your posts in this thread is that your verbal cum ends up spraying us all...but still, is equally offensive. Dwayne 1
Just Plain Ruff Posted April 28, 2011 Posted April 28, 2011 Ruff, I believe sir, that we have a miscommunication error here. I didn't mean to imply that you were forcing anything on me. I asked that question to illustrate my point about 'it takes a village to raise a child'. From discussions on the many subjects that we've covered, I'm convinced that you, Dwayne and others are excellent parents. That being said, I'm also convinced that when it comes to 'the village' forcing their morals and values on your children, you and the other parents wouldn't hesitate to put an end to it. I agree with your assessment of giving up rights and not being able to get them back once they've been stripped away. Indeed we apparantly do have a miscommunication. Please don't think I was angry with you. i'm not. Thanks for the compliment on the parenting thing. I appreciate that. I've lost your phone number. I also am in agreement that if the village starts to put their morals upon my child and tries to force those on me and my family, I'm going to fight back. I don't believe that the majority have any right tell me what I can and cannot do in raising my child except in rare occasions. ONe of those occasions would be if they thought I was injuring/mistreating my child which of course I would never ever ever do so that would be a moot point.
Recommended Posts