NYCEMS9115 Posted April 28, 2011 Author Posted April 28, 2011 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. Racist? What the heck are you talking about? 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. I know, I was just mocking the people who condone, or in this thread a Constitutional Right, people to watch Porn in the Library. When you get caught up between the Porn and Public Library; I know its crazy but it's true!
DwayneEMTP Posted April 28, 2011 Posted April 28, 2011 Is it just me or does it seem like maybe Crotchity and nycems9115 might be the same person? Look at the language, and the ducking and dodging troll like behavior of the posts and tell me I'm wrong...? Mike, I wish I could give you points brother. Your posts have been intelligent and well presented. I'm jealous of them. And Herbie, it would be difficult for me to disagree with you more, but I've sure enjoyed your posts. Thanks for participating my friend. Pretty cool. Dwayne
HERBIE1 Posted April 29, 2011 Posted April 29, 2011 Let's try a different tactic here. Think back on what was considered to be offensive over the years. Let's keep it simple- just the past 100 years or so. Think about what was deemed acceptable vs offensive or vulgar, and compare it to today. Think about what we would tolerate on TV, on the radio, in print, and in the movies. Think about societal standards for conversations and personal interactions. Does anyone disagree that we as a society have become infinitely more tolerant of damn near anything and everything? Is this a good thing? My point is, just because something is pervasive does not mean it's a good thing, or that we should simply adopt it as the new "norm". The Constitution has not changed over all these years, but our interpretation of it certainly has. Think about gun laws. Think about how our views on gun ownership have evolved. Has the 2nd amendment changed, or have we changed in our interpretation of it? Guns are actually banned in many places based in large part on our current interpretation of what defines a militia. Some things SHOULD change, and have. Civil rights, a woman's right to vote- nobody would argue the merits of these changes. Saying that someone has the "right" to view pornography in a public library? How well do you think that would have gone over back in the 50's? Yes, society DOES change. It's inevitable, but I suggest that not every change is something we should be proud of or we should embrace. Change has consequences- and again- not all of them are positive.
Happiness Posted April 29, 2011 Posted April 29, 2011 The concept of It takes a village to raise a child is great but horribly wrong. Take a look at your villagers, I know mine and there are some that are not going near my child. Should porn be allowed in library's why not if it is legal. If your 7 year old is in the library looking at porn then maybe you should be in the library with them to make sure they arent. We have decided that everyone else is responsible for my child, I am responsible for my child and no one else. Once you make society the parent then you have lost all of your control as THE PARENT. Really people there are worst things out their and really I would be more worried about what my kids see on the tube than what they see in a library. Our society is very sexual and we have to teach our children what we think is right or wrong not what the guy down the street thinks is. If the guy/girl is in the library showing children porn then I would think that he/she is breaking the law and should be arrested. If you have good communication with your kids they will ask you questions about what they may have seen and their is your opportunity to let them know you may think it is wrong. Some people think the color purple is wrong for Barney or the teletubbie because for some reason it is affiliated with being gay, so because that person thinks it's wrong should I expect the government to protect my child from the color purple, I dont think so, if I think it is wrong then I have to protect them. Funny things kids are, they ask questions when they are young and you can answer them how ever you want. For example my son when he was about 4 or 5 was having a bath with me and said "I have a penis mom and you have hair" And I answered yes your right. He never ask anything else, he was happy that I had confirmed he had a penis and I had hair. Sometime we think that have to go into some elaberate explanation when kids ask these types of questions and really they want simple answers. Now if they keep asking more questions then you didnt answer the question so they could understand.
NYCEMS9115 Posted April 29, 2011 Author Posted April 29, 2011 I disagree; I'm wrong. I agree; I'm wrong... Label me all you want. It is what it is. Because my opinions differ; I get insulted. Cool... Is it just me or does it seem like maybe Crotchity and nycems9115 might be the same person? No, it's just you. To compare me to someone who thinks his race is supreme is retarded. But your entitled to your opinion.
DwayneEMTP Posted April 29, 2011 Posted April 29, 2011 I disagree; I'm wrong. I agree; I'm wrong... Label me all you want. It is what it is. Because my opinions differ; I get insulted. Cool... What opinions? That America sucks, porn sucks, anyone that disagrees with you doesn't know the difference between right and wrong? You shouldn't feel insulted by me but by your complete lack of any effort to produce something in this thread instead of simply strutting around like a self righteous child. If you have at some point outlined and defended a point, please quote it here...there is nothing I would like more than to apologize for not noticing that you've not really embarrassed yourself and wasted everyone's time. Dwayne
NYCEMS9115 Posted April 29, 2011 Author Posted April 29, 2011 I do not insult members on this site but many resort to insults rather than constructive debates. What opinions? That America sucks, porn sucks, anyone that disagrees with you doesn't know the difference between right and wrong? You shouldn't feel insulted by me but by your complete lack of any effort to produce something in this thread instead of simply strutting around like a self righteous child. If you have at some point outlined and defended a point, please quote it here...there is nothing I would like more than to apologize for not noticing that you've not really embarrassed yourself and wasted everyone's time. Dwayne What do I have to outline? That I don't think PORN should be in the Library. Quote what? My opinion? That I think it's not a proper place for PORN. Because I used humor to give an example. I need to quote that? What research do I have to do? Plz educate me. Maybe I should throw in profanity to get my ideas across. Thanks for throwing your $0.02 in; I would appreciate a $1 though... "All the best."
Lone Star Posted April 29, 2011 Posted April 29, 2011 Let's try a different tactic here. Think back on what was considered to be offensive over the years. Let's keep it simple- just the past 100 years or so. Think about what was deemed acceptable vs offensive or vulgar, and compare it to today. Think about what we would tolerate on TV, on the radio, in print, and in the movies. Think about societal standards for conversations and personal interactions. Look at how things that were considered ‘offensive and vulgar’ back then were handled as well. Look again at “Catcher in the Rye”. It was considered too risqué and vulgar for children, yet it was given as a book for required reading. The response it got was all the copies were pulled from the school, and burned. Now look at the uproar that was going on when the Westboro Baptist Church proposed burning the Quran in protest for the Muslim Center being placed too close to the site of the Twin Towers. Is this an acceptable ‘throwback to days gone by’? Maybe we should also ban works of art by Monet, Michalangelo, Van Gogh, da Vinci, Picasso, Rembrandt, et al simply because they went through a period of painting nudes! Some of those could also be constrewed as 'vulgar' because they could be interpreted as 'sexual images'...again, just where are you willing to draw the line between 'good nudity' and 'bad nudity'? Or is it simply 'acceptable' because those images hang in a museum and are called 'masterpieces', as opposed to being viewed in some mass produced 'offensive magazine' like "Hustler", "Playboy", "Penthouse"? My point is, just because something is pervasive does not mean it's a good thing, or that we should simply adopt it as the new "norm". The Constitution has not changed over all these years, but our interpretation of it certainly has. Think about gun laws. Think about how our views on gun ownership have evolved. Has the 2nd amendment changed, or have we changed in our interpretation of it? Guns are actually banned in many places based in large part on our current interpretation of what defines a militia. Actually, the pervasive attitude on guns ISN’T from the interpretation of what defines a militia. It’s due in part to the overabundance of the ‘anti-gun crowd’ like Ellen deGeneres, Rosie O’Donnell, Sarah Brady, Oprah Winfrey and others; along with the multitude of lawsuits suing the gun manufacturers because their product was used to kill another human being. The U.S. Supreme Court actually ruled in favor of the second amendment and upheld the interpretation that gun ownership was in fact, a personal right…not one solely reserved for militias. Saying that someone has the "right" to view pornography in a public library? How well do you think that would have gone over back in the 50's? Since we’re now 60 years past that time frame, there’s no need to continue with the narrow-mindedness that was ever pervasive at that time. We (hopefully) have ‘moved on’ from that mindset and advanced as a civilized population. Maybe we should start hunting for the ‘red menace’, the ‘yellow hordes’ and rounding up everyone that we can think of and label them as ‘subversives’? Since you’re so keen on those particular social values, and that way of life; let me ask you this in all seriousness….if your wife/girlfriend/significant other gets a little bit ‘mouthy’, do you crack them in the teeth to show them the ‘errors of their ways’? If not, then please explain why not; after all, it was ACCEPTABLE ‘back then’….. 1
HERBIE1 Posted April 29, 2011 Posted April 29, 2011 Look at how things that were considered 'offensive and vulgar' back then were handled as well. Look again at "Catcher in the Rye". It was considered too risqué and vulgar for children, yet it was given as a book for required reading. The response it got was all the copies were pulled from the school, and burned. Now look at the uproar that was going on when the Westboro Baptist Church proposed burning the Quran in protest for the Muslim Center being placed too close to the site of the Twin Towers. Is this an acceptable 'throwback to days gone by'? Why are standards such a bad thing? Maybe we should also ban works of art by Monet, Michalangelo, Van Gogh, da Vinci, Picasso, Rembrandt, et al simply because they went through a period of painting nudes! Some of those could also be constrewed as 'vulgar' because they could be interpreted as 'sexual images'...again, just where are you willing to draw the line between 'good nudity' and 'bad nudity'? Or is it simply 'acceptable' because those images hang in a museum and are called 'masterpieces', as opposed to being viewed in some mass produced 'offensive magazine' like "Hustler", "Playboy", "Penthouse"? Read the definition of pornography. The term never existed before the mid 1800's, and It certainly does not apply to classical art. We have no way of knowing the intent of the artists who made those nude paintings and sculptors, nor do we really know how their work was perceived by their peers. Actually, the pervasive attitude on guns ISN'T from the interpretation of what defines a militia. It's due in part to the overabundance of the 'anti-gun crowd' like Ellen deGeneres, Rosie O'Donnell, Sarah Brady, Oprah Winfrey and others; along with the multitude of lawsuits suing the gun manufacturers because their product was used to kill another human being. The definition of militia was one of the main legal arguments about whether or not gun bans violated the 2nd amendment. The issue certainly did gain traction with the anti-gun left, which actually proves my previous point. Do you really think the views expressed by the celebrities you mentioned are representative of most Americans, or those of a vocal minority? The U.S. Supreme Court actually ruled in favor of the second amendment and upheld the interpretation that gun ownership was in fact, a personal right…not one solely reserved for militias. Regardless. Did that deter the anti-gun crowd, or are they still making the same arguments? Did they simply accept the USSC ruling? Since we're now 60 years past that time frame, there's no need to continue with the narrow-mindedness that was ever pervasive at that time. We (hopefully) have 'moved on' from that mindset and advanced as a civilized population. Maybe we should start hunting for the 'red menace', the 'yellow hordes' and rounding up everyone that we can think of and label them as 'subversives'? Call me narrow minded, a prude, paranoid- a right wing lunatic, a throwback- whatever label you wish. Guess what? I still believe there is NO REASON why we should allow pornography in a public library where children are present. None. Since you're so keen on those particular social values, and that way of life; let me ask you this in all seriousness….if your wife/girlfriend/significant other gets a little bit 'mouthy', do you crack them in the teeth to show them the 'errors of their ways'? If not, then please explain why not; after all, it was ACCEPTABLE 'back then'….. Last time I checked, it was NEVER acceptable to hit a woman. Not 60 years ago, not 100 years ago, not 200 years ago. Did it happen? Yep. Probably no more often than it does today. The only difference is women had no rights or recourse back then. I seriously hope you are not suggesting this behavior is something I condone or engage in. I'm not liking the tone or insinuation in that last passage.
paramedicmike Posted April 29, 2011 Posted April 29, 2011 Last time I checked, it was NEVER acceptable to hit a woman. Not 60 years ago, not 100 years ago, not 200 years ago. Did it happen? Yep. Probably no more often than it does today. The only difference is women had no rights or recourse back then. While I would really like to agree with this comment, I cannot. To clarify, I do not believe it is acceptable to strike a woman unless in self defense. But to argue that it has never been acceptable to hit a woman is wrong, misguided and woefully ignorant of history. I suggest reading up on the history of spousal abuse and the abuse of women in general. I think you'll be disgusted and surprised at what you find. Not only was it practiced but in many situations and locations there existed a level of public tolerance of the abuse. Even today, in some cultures it is not only acceptable behaviour but encouraged under certain circumstances. Fortunately, in today's society here in the US domestic violence is both condemned and illegal. But that was not always the case.
Recommended Posts