The Forum > General Discussion > Why no federal government study on pornography?
Why no federal government study on pornography?
- Pages:
-
- 1
- Page 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- ...
- 14
- 15
- 16
-
- All
Posted by pelican, Wednesday, 2 April 2008 10:01:53 PM
| |
PORNOGRAPHY IS BAD.. EVIL..IMMORAL destructive.. and degenerate!
Steel.. remind me to interpret all your other posts in the light of your last one... Porn is 'food' for the depraved. True 'porn' has a satanic element quite apart from the factual side of 'people doing sexual things to each other'. Perhaps this is spiritually discerned rather than being so obvious it smacks you in the face. DEGENERATE..... it reduces human sexuality to the animal, promotes the utterly selfish nature of such interaction. EVIL... because it draws people into an attitude mind set which is destructive to well rounded relationships. It also spits in the face of God and His creative mandate to humans. BAD... because it objectifies humans. DESTRUCTIVE because it promotes values which are not compatible with healthy family life and human relationships. IMMORAL. Because it flies in the face of 'morality' established by God for the well being of people and their families. Now..in all that little 'rant' there are: a) Some subjective assesments. b) Some assessments based on a Christ centred view of life. I admit this...I confess.. guilty as charged. To me, its as clear as the bruise on my stomach from the motorized post hole digger which locked up at the bottom and hit me so hard in the gut that the bruise is an intense purple. So there is PLENTY wrong with porn. If there was not... it would have a different name. If we have to wait for a 'federal government study'..to discover the above, we will be waiting for a longggg time. Why not simply 'repent'.... now that would be novel. Posted by BOAZ_David, Thursday, 3 April 2008 5:42:25 AM
| |
Excellent BOAZ_David.
I stand entirely with you in your response. I knew porn at an early age in the 60's, what kid didnt, when it was nothing special and had an opportunity to watch it grow, along with the sex crime it created. In the early 60's, times were pretty quiet. There were no murders much (the Graham Thorne case being the biggest event). There were few recorded (media) sex offences then a huge flood of filth hit society in the 70's. Sex crime leaped...and kept on leaping. All of us baby boomers observed it including all of the now older policticans. So we knew the cause. The John Howards knew it. They all knew! The problem was the politicians wanted their jobs more than tackle the problem. Porn became more intense, as time clicked over, until we have today (2008) the situation where rapes are everywhere. Child rapes, adult rapes, granny rapes. If you younger guys want to sit around all day and play with yourselves in front of photos of naked women thats your problem...but dont tell me, an observer of the sex crime/porn connection, that it doesnt harm society. Its killing people. I reckon there wouldnt be one of you porn-ites that could walk along a street anywhere and not strip every single woman you come across naked in your mind for the sake of your carnal, fallen lusts. One step further...is reaching out and grabbing. Add the alcohol and the dugs as many porn-ites will do and thats exactly what happens. Theres nothing noble or honorable in being a porn practicer. Posted by Gibo, Thursday, 3 April 2008 8:42:38 AM
| |
Right.
Boaz, here's the thing. Our society is secular. That means, we don't all buy into the deities worshipped by you and Gibo. So for starters, your immorality argument: "flies in the face of morality established by god" means absolutely nothing to me, and I'm somewhat annoyed you project that onto others. Boaz, I know you'll disagree because of the way your world view is shaped, but I'll say it anyway - your god has no authority here. What's more, in a secular society, this is the way it has to be. As for the rest of the reasons, there's no backing there. Your 'destructive' argument is a fallacy. You don't prove it's destructive at all. Objectifies humans? How's that different to any other form of modelling? Your 'evil' rant, is just the destructive rant, bundled up with the morality rant. It's a repeat. The 'degenerate' argument is very similar to the 'bad' one. So, to translate your entire rant to a more simple translation: It's bad because it's bad because god says it's bad. You'll forgive me if I prefer to rely on the actual studies, and refuse to kowtow to a godbotherer censorship lobby. Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Thursday, 3 April 2008 9:28:29 AM
| |
This must be the Adam and eve forbidden apple teachings?.....BOAZ you realise I hope that people like you in the 19th century and earlier believed a woman's skin to be pornographic. That is, anything above the ankle. By their standards you are as evil as you describe, and so is every christian on the planet. Not only that, but I believe the vast majority of christians in this respect are hypocrites (if they hold the same values as you, which i believe they don't). You are christian extremists.
I guess at least you have the presence of mind to admit that your view is a religious and subjective. The human body and sex are natural. You need to crawl out from under the rocks you are living, or are you walking out in the open amongst us? If you are, you must have your eyes shut and sealed since even at beaches some women are topless. Posted by Steel, Thursday, 3 April 2008 9:49:53 AM
| |
http://www.sexinchrist.com/pornography.html
Gibo and Boaz help is at hand ;-) No apologies for double entendre. But I found this wonderful link discussing the issues Christians have with pornography. To OLO censorship BigBrother, this is a legitimate site, please don’t delete as being “unnecessary”. Thank you Posted by Fractelle, Thursday, 3 April 2008 10:12:16 AM
|
Funny you should say that I find the same thing on OLO at times. Just shows how diverse and interesting people are and that even between very different people there can be more to unite us than divide us.
I respect your posts on OLO but I have to disagree with your comment that someone who is anti-porn is not necessarily broadminded. There are many reasons why someone might take this view (particuarly violent porn) other than strong religious beliefs and still be advocates of free speech.
As a relatively new poster here, I find that most of the 'tempers' or passions arise usually from miscommunication. The difficult part is we don't have the benefit of the 'whole picture' in that we cannot see body language or facial expressions only words on a screen. :)