David f

Thank you so much for your illuminative insights and your assurance that one can engage in oral sex without a manual.

Once again, I must draw posters’ attention to Mr Fungochumley’s pitiful lack of perception. His two claims – one referring to me as a “he” and one that “he” has a phobia about germs are both fallacious. In fact, I expose myself to germs constantly. No doubt that could be a reason why I have such a sturdy immune system and I pay little attention to the state of my keyboard.

On the other hand, I would be reluctant to allow a porn freak, the use of my keyboard (or the monitor!) – particularly when their ambidextrous skills exceed the task of merely massaging keyboard letters!

It appears that the consensus here is not to filter pornography on the internet. Unfortunately, parents are not supervising their children’s internet viewing and few solutions have been offered to prevent young children from viewing pornographic material.

Rstuart. You state: “So here is our Professor of Ethics actively seeking to have pictures of a healthy activity most of us will participate in for the bulk of our lives banned.”

Do these “healthy” activities – the pictures to which you refer, include the myriad of bestial depictions of naked women shagging dogs, pigs, horses, donkeys, snakes and monkeys? Or the elderly author’s special recommendation of “men ejaculating on women's faces, double penetration, male-female anal sex, bondage, rape scenes and so on?”

These porn sites are provided by men for men which indicates to me that their private and personal sex lives are rather “limp.” Nevertheless, I guess internet porn provides some relief for the lonely, the depraved, the sexually incompetent and let's not forget the ugly - aye...that's for sure. And at least it keeps the kiddies occupied!

I don’t think referring to someone named dickie as a “he” shows a “pitiful lack of perception”, dickie. A tad harsh, even for your worship. A reasonable misapprehension, I would have thought, not a fallacy. Thank you for enlightening me about something. I, unlike you, am happy to recognize error (I simply mu-u-u-st draw posters’ attention to dickie’s recent Poynter and Gilling & Muscat commentary). I would share some of my similar thoughts on this issue with you, but as you are such a pestilent little nit, I couldn’t be stuffed.

Dickie,

You appear to have an inordinate knowledge of what is available. I take it comes from many hours of "research", as I have seldom seen most of what you describe and never seen some other items like bestiallity.

As with most things you will find most things if you look for it as you will in the city. Most of us choose to refrain. You should try it.

dickie: 'Do these “healthy” activities – the pictures to which you refer, include the myriad of bestial depictions of naked women shagging dogs, ...'

Well since you ask - yes they do, at least in the sense that the participants aren't likely to be physically hurt or get sick, nor are they likely to go out and harm anyone else. This is my definition of unhealthy. Don't get me wrong, I like you think there are more productive outlets for libido. But that's no reason to ban it.

My issue is, when it comes to girls shagging dogs versus hate sites apparently our Professor of Ethics ranks the porn as worse than hate. So lets do a thought experiment. Lets say after seeing images of people shagging dogs, every girl on the planet immediately felt the urge to race out and do the same thing. What would we end up with? Confused but happy dogs and a lot of startled husbands I expect. Now lets do the same thing - but with hate sites. We would end up with a lot of people shrieking abuse at each other, bashings ...

You are probably having trouble getting past your personal feelings on pictures of shagging in general dickie, but the logic is pretty clear. While I don't really hope up much hope of you going where the logic points, I have much, much higher expectations of a Professor of Ethics.

Our professor would also be aware that in the western world, or at least the part of the world connected to the internet has been deluged with images with girls shagging dogs over the past decade. Yet I am not aware of a single newspaper headline along the lines of "Naked teenage girls caught in dorm with randy dogs". However where I see people espousing extreme views on jihad, race and so on do attract some adherents, I also see news headlines of bombs, death and destruction. I am hoping even someone like you dickie can appreciate the difference between that and shagging the odd beastie.

Dear rstuart

Your vacuous hate site red herring has no relevance to the issue I have raised – pre-pubescent and pubescent children’s exposure to graphic and pernicious pornography.

Hate sites are of less concern to the discerning since children do not have a propensity to hate. Their sexual urges are paramount where they are at their most vulnerable.

Nevertheless, those who forget the past are liable to repeat it. Perhaps it has not occurred to you that racial tensions have always been part of Australian society and have always been resolved.

Do you know anything about the race riots on the WA goldfields in the 20s? What about the 40s rstuart when we had to “endure” an influx of new Australians after WW11? So how did we Aussies refer to them? “Dings, wogs and garlic munchers” eh? And what about the “slanty eyes” – the “yellow plague?” Oh my god!

Of course that had no influence on who we children chose to have as best friends at school. In fact my buddies were “dings, wogs and garlic munchers” with whom I broke bread and whose gracious parents offered me the occasional thimble full of grappa.

So now the “towel heads” must endure a similar treatment. The Aussies who know no better deny the realities, that perhaps all suicide bombers are Muslim but not all Muslims are suicide bombers.

Children appear to have a heightened perception of this fact and I am pleased to say that among my grandies’ little mates is a “league of nations.” These children are our future rstuart - not an ageing dung heap of denialists and "free" market racketeers!

In regard to pornographic internet material rstuart, frankly I simply cannot imagine my grandchildren at 12 or so, sitting on the face of some callow youth or a pubescent, seductive nymph - youths and nymphs who have been significantly influenced by free access to a bombardment of pornographic websites - websites established by malignant predatory wan**kers who have descended into an unconscionable depth of depravity!

Dickie has effectively argued that our right to express opinions is not under threat because it has already been taken away:

"Are they not yet aware that freedom of speech and freedom of information has been suppressed and censored for decades ... ?"

This ignores the fact that a good many people, who have opinions of which our governments disapprove, do have the right to express those views.

I believe that one of the reasons we aren't yet living in a fascist dictatorship is that we still have the right to free speech as limited as it is.

Let's not allow this to be taken away from us by kidding ourselves that it already has.

(As I recall the German Communist Party employed a similar rationale to justify not treating seriously the Nazi threat in the 1930's. The situation was said to be so bad under the rule of the pro-capitalist German Government that surely the Nazis seizing power could not have made the situation any worse, could it?)

The best way to stop this assault on free speech is to attend protest rallies on Saturday 13 December:

http://wearechange.org.au/

Melbourne:
12pm-5pm
State Library
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=46838735931

Brisbane:
11am-3pm
Brisbane Square
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=42526399601

Sydney:
11am-4pm
Town Hall
Check http://www.nocensorship.info forums for Sydney updates

Adelaide:
12pm - 4pm
Parliament
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=39343300875

Hobart:
11am - 1.30pm
Parliament Lawns
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=39329861995

---

Again, for the record, I don't count myself amongst "the usual 'Get Clive' stormtroopers".

As I wrote earlier, I think that Clive Hamilton has a lot of worthwhile ideas to offer, but his support for mandatory net filtering is reckless and dangerous and, moreover, are in contradiction with what he, himself wrote, in "Silencing Dissent".

Also, again, I do think this society has become over-sexualised as Clive Hamilton has correctly pointed out, but I also believe that all adults, including (and, perhaps, especially) "the lonely, the depraved, the sexually incompetent and ... the ugly" should have a right to view legal explicit sexual material in the privacy of their own homes.