Actors in porno pictures and videos are the people of low status who, it appears, do not know any other decent way of earning their bread. Is it rational to allow our children and young adults to have access to these porno materials including the sexual act through the internet via search websites?

The alternative is censorship, take your pick.

No one has to watch it.

unfortunately Ezhil we are living in the days where secularist have promoted a society similar to Sodom and Gomorah. It won't end well and we will continue to be dumb enough to spend millions on youth suicide while asking why.

runner,

No one would suicide from watching pornography, they might die of boredom, but nothing else.

Talk about a short play of repetitious predictable gymnastics.

An interesting factoid, Professional pornography like other professional media is in the doldrum because of amateurs. Why pay for porn when the internet is flooded with people posting their own activities for their 15 seconds of fame.

The porn 'stars' are of higher "status" than dole bludgers; they cost the taxpayer nothing. But, no one has addressed the question: "Is it rational to allow our children and young adults to have access to these porno materials including the sexual act through the internet via search websites?"

Just who is it who is "allowing" children and young adults to access porn? Any examples? Names and addresses? And, adults, young or old, are perfectly entitled to access whatever they wish to access. Pornography is just one of the whipping boys the media regularly drags out when there is not much around to scare people with.

There is no evidence that pornography harms anyone. Nobody Is forced to watch it. It is probably a comfort for some people. There is enough vicious, life threatening stuff out there to worry us without listening to fuddy-duddies wanting to bring back the censorship of the Victorian era - when there was still a thriving porn industry anyway. Get over it. You have probably watch it yourself.

Porn goes way back,
here are a few pics of the Casa di Vettii in Pompei.

http://www.tripadvisor.com.au/Attraction_Review-g187786-d669198-Reviews-House_of_the_Vettii-Pompeii_Province_of_Naples_Campania.html#photos;aggregationId=&albumid=101&filter=7

There is no indication that Vettii was unique, other houses in the town have similar frescoes.

Is this thread based on the view of a follower of God
If so surely the hard work should begin in houses of worship?
If it is about children being cruelly miss used it has my support
Not yet ready however to forget institutionalised child sexual assault at the hands of Gods followers

Pornography does not take away tax payer's money is not correct and even if we accept that it may not do that it causes more harm by corrupting people's mind and in that sense it is much more dangerous and deleterious specially to young people.We should not rate anything on the basis of money. Impact on society and its well being should be the primary consideration.

This post is not from a believer of god.Celibacy is against nature and so people who claim that they follow celibacy will fail and that is what happens in places of worship. But this need not be compared with man's misdemeanor in exploiting the social conditions of some men and women to make money using rather misusing them in pornography.

Belly,

"Not yet ready however to forget institutionalised child sexual assault at the hands of Gods followers"

Have you forgotten the sexual abuse by atheists?

"TRUMBULL, Conn. (AP) — The American Atheists Organization of Bridgeport have acknowledged in court papers that it documented 32 accusations of sexual abuse of children by atheists associated with the organization for over 40 years...
The Atheist organization is contesting a request from Mr. Powel’s lawyers to turn over all documents regarding sexual abuse by atheists at the organization. In its filing in Superior Court in Waterbury, the leader of the American Atheists said it had compiled 126 boxes of documents and files detailing 32 accusations of abuse by eight atheists at the American Atheists organization."

http://www.nobeliefs.com/comments13.htm

Open the other eye!!

Then there is this,

"The boundaries of art and sex have been blurred for some time - be it increasingly explicit content or the familiar practice of male artists starting a relationship with an attractive female muse.

But, as these Australian cave paintings show, it's certainly not a modern thing for an artist to use his skills to portray sex and pornography.

The series of drawings found on the roof of caves in the inaccessible wilderness in Arnhem Land, in the country's north, clearly shows a couple having sex."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2161118/Aboriginal-erotic-rock-art-proves--28-000-years-ago--men-ONE-thing-minds.html

Hope you will agree with me that modern man must be much more civilised than the cave men of the distant past.

IS MISE highlight, in fact name, these Atheists you say abuse children
ARE YOU defending pedophils qwith in the Churches Faiths?
Seems like you are!
Tell us in detail what you know about them
Any unwanted sexual act against any one, is wrong always and
issy you in not demanding an end to Churches supporting the cover ups is simple, contributing to your faiths death

Belly,

If you were not only stupid and bigoted you would see that I gave a reference.

From your reply, it seems that I have touched a nerve.

Sorry about that (like hell!!).

An article on what pornography does to us. Though it admits this is a newer topic of study, so there's less information on it, what it does point out is the negitive effects porn has on the people who view it.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/hero/201603/is-porn-good-us-or-bad-us

Read the article, do your own reasurch. But don't walk away thinking it's harmless. Most countries have a legal age to be able to drink legally. They do this because there's a danger and harm in drinking causing societies what to protect younger people from. If the same conclusions can at least be acknowledged for seeing porn, then yes taking measures to prevent this harm are nessassary. If that includes censorship, or some like of age ID that can be scanned before a site lets you in, then perhaps it's worth it.

Do the research on your own. See if there is enough harm in porn to protect people from it.

Ise Mise old chap know please I give no weight to anything you say
My opinion of you is constructed after reading your quite bigoted but also mad words every day
It will forever remain my view every pedophil is sub humnan
Too I fear [can be wrong] this thread is a pretence, it poses a question but is it in fact ignoring or supporting something else
Do not dare use freedoms to mask the truth some porn is in truth a sexual crime against the people involved
While not a Christian I will forever believe that faith is worth listening to in matters like this
Do not let yourself see a loss of freedom but not the pain some suffer in making your porn

Belly,

"Ise Mise old chap know please I give no weight to anything you say"

Even when I give a reference?

126 boxes of evidence against atheistic paedophiles from but one organization and you don't like it, getting a bit close to home is it?

Here's another for you to ponder, Richard Dawkins defending mild paedophilia.
http://www.salon.com/2013/09/10/richard_dawkins_defends_mild_pedophilia_says_it_does_not_cause_lasting_harm/

Dawkins, in case you don't know, was a prominent atheist.

Pornography gives a very old man the pleasure of seeing other people doing what he can no longer do. For people who are capable but due to inhibitions or lack of suitable companions cannot engage in the activity it gives vicarious pleasure. One can enjoy a murder mystery or other narrative concerning crime without engaging in felonious activity. One can enjoy pornography in the same way. The only thing that disturbs me about pornography is that so many of the participants are tattooed.

Ise mise quite frankly I do not believe you have such information
Are you hinting some inside knowledge about my side of politics
Again, sorry but your words nothing else forbid me considering anything you say as worth considering
You ARE still a supporter of Pell after all this is the week his appeal is heard

"Ise mise quite frankly I do not believe you have such information
Are you hinting some inside knowledge about my side of politics
Again, sorry but your words nothing else forbid me considering anything you say as worth considering
You ARE still a supporter of Pell after all this is the week his appeal is heard"

Would some kind person please translate the above into understandable English.

Pornography is produced by misuse of camera and other technology.Cinema is another field where camera is terribly misused to cheat the gullible. Both have the same hidden nay overt agenda of making money. People interested in making money at any cost will not follow moral values.
Pornography will lead to problems in sexuality in the young. It may also cause problems for the married couples as they have seen the acts already, resulting in over expectation from the partners. Distraction from studies may be another serious problem in the youngsters. Any way pornography is not an essential item for human life.It is the invention of some misguided , dehumanised individuals for their living.

is mise as you never see anything other than your own bitter and nasty thoughts why bother
Sad little man living a sad little life

Belly,

"is mise as you never see anything other than your own bitter and nasty thoughts why bother
Sad little man living a sad little life"

Now that's English that anyone can understand, you must have finally got Grammarly; good for you.

I am sure those who are so blasé about pornography would be thrilled for their daughters to be prostituted for all to feast on. Champions of women's rights!

A woman walked into the bedroom and caught her
husband watching an adult movie on DVD.

"I told you not to watch that in here," she said
in disgust.

Her husband pointed to his wife's book resting
on the bedside table.

"You're reading "Fifty Shades of Grey?"
he asked pointedly.

"What's the difference between your book and my
film?"

"It's literature!"snapped the wife.

"Let's see." The husband picked up the book and
read bits of the novel for a few minutes.

"The dialogue is cheesy. The plot contrived and
the adult encounters are more unrealistic than
what I was watching."

The wife turned to watch her husband's DVD.
After a few minutes she told him :

"The music is cheesy, you can hear the director
giving instructions to the actress. The DVD keeps
changing angles so quickly and the close-ups
are of things I don't want to see close up and the
lighting is poor."

Her husband bit his lip perplexed. Then he turned the
DVD back on and stared in disbelief for a moment.

"Wow! I didn't even know this DVD had music!"

of course children and young adults need no access to this sites, I think the parent all have the power to regulate every device in their house, better watch something entertaining.

The stories I've come across about porn and adult videos are a discredit to the industry. I've never come across a story of an actor who was in porn and loved it. Instead I've heard two kinds of situations

One that is danger to the actors that are caught up in something bigger where they have no choice. A drug addiction where they make videos or sell their bodies for sex in order to keep their supply of drugs there, or to pay for the drugs that are being given to them. Or part of human trafficking orginizations that are more common in some countries but still seem present in any country.

The other is from stories of "successful" porn actresses. That they do it out of hate and getting paid well. Hate for the men that watch the porn, and justify it by taking their money.

I've never heard of a porn star who says "I chose this life and so should you." That in itself should be a red flag. Porn is an industry built on the misery of it's actors.

Knowing this doesn't make it any easier to resist watching it. The problem of porn is both for those in the industry, and those who watch it. If there's a way to successfully restrict porn from our kids, I think that should be explored. Hope to help the next generation to be better off then the ones that grew up with porn as a continuous issue in their lives, their marriages, or in expectations and loss of social skills as a whole.

A person might be a sleazy politician like Barnaby Joyce. A person might be in the armament industry making weapons to kill people. A person might be in the ad industry persuading people to buy what they don't need. A person might be a lobbyist for a polluting industry working to prevent parliament from enacting legislation that would protect people from the effects of the pollution but add costs to the industry. A person might be in the clergy filling people's heads with nonsense so they are like poor, mistaken Israel Folau who imagines some of his fellow humans are going to an imaginary place of torment.

In my opinion all the above are worse than a porn performer whose acts bring delight to the watchers. Unlike those who are affected by those antisocial individuals mentioned in the above paragraph watchers of porn are in general less harmful to society.

From my first post my mind has been centered on some thing I had just read
A news story about a filthy thing sharing his sexual attacks on his own kids
For me I watched porn, we mostly do, but even deep throat later saw its star tell of being used/harmed
So porn may well be natural, but if someone is hurt in the making?
It will always be true, some defend any type of behavior if they are involved in it
Let's face it country villages around here are known as Paton Place and one? confusion, it is said on fathers day it is known by that name

Following on from the last couple of posts,by David and Belly.

I wonder why people bother to have children at all these days. Years ago ,before contraception, a couple fell in love married and children were the natural result. These days there are options available and couples do not have to have children.

So it makes me wonder. after seeing the daily news, if any more than half the kids turn out OK. There are rapes and murders,robberies and car theft, home invasions and king hit assults. Then it appears that most of the young that attend dances these days are on drugs of one type or another.

So if only half the kids are OK with very few the parents can be proud of, what is the point in having them at all. What a disappointment most would be to their parents after all the hard work of raising them and the sleepless nights, not to mention the costs of feeding and clothing them and education. It all seems a gigantic waste.

If I have horses instead of kids, I can at least sell those that turn out no good.

Why not just not have kids and spend the money on ski holidays?

Porn may be a contributer but not the only reason for our social deteriation.

Dear Belly,

I agree with you. If one is hurt in the making then the activity, whatever it is, may not be good. Sometimes we cannot avoid hurt. A medical procedure may hurt, but it may be necessary for a person's health.

You wrote: “A news story about a filthy thing sharing his sexual attacks on his own kids.” Those acts are criminal acts and should be prosecuted as criminal acts whether or not a recording was made of it.

The wowsers of our society would censor porn. H L Mencken defined Puritanism as "The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.” I believe that is part of the source of the opposition to porn.

Another part of the opposition is the desire to control what people see or think about. If one looks at the Catholic Index one finds that they have put some of the greatest works of the human mind on it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_authors_and_works_on_the_Index_Librorum_Prohibitorum

The above lists some of those great works. Those works can contribute to a wide –ranging education.

Don’t kid yourself. The wowsers would stifle freedom. It sounds innocent. They just want to protect the kiddies. They speak about the desperation of the porn performers. They want to decide what other people should see or think about.

If we want freedom of expression we have to allow what others find offensive. We have to allow porn. We have to allow Israel Folau’s offensive remarks about those his religion condemns. We have to allow religions to be questioned. We have to allow atheism to be questioned.
We can pass legislation to ensure that workers in all industries including porn are not exploited. However, the banning or restriction of porn is more harmful than any damage that porn can do.

We are very blessed with our children.

They have grown up to be decent human beings.

We were involved in their lives from birth.
Sports played a vital part. Especially basketball.
We kept them busy after school and on week-ends
in all sorts of activities. And today we help
with the grand kids.

During their teenage years - there was a time when
they went through the period of hiding the usual
magazines from me. I ended up buying Playboy for
them - because I thought it was in better taste than
the other stuff. They watched some porn - but they
grew out of it.

I didn't make a big deal of things and always ensured
that they could talk about anything with us - no matter
what, we were there for them.

And we still are.

We've been lucky.

Why don't we let people run their own lives and concentrate on our own and those of people close to us. The person who started this thread needs Big Brother to tell him what to do and what to think. Po-faced do gooders give me the pip. Don't approve of something? Don't do it.

David f,

I note that Barnaby the Buck Rabbit and the missus are expecting again.

David F,
Why would you find Israel Folou's remarks offensive?

It seems that you want to deny him his right to an opinion which is contrary to what you are saying.

For me I was not offended. I simply was of the view that he has a right to his opinion and left it at that. If a muslim said the same I would think the same and no offense taken.

What is you opinion about the number of kids that turn out no good or are on drugs these days and why. That nice looking girl that was killed in a Melbourne park is an example.

Dear HenryL,

I find the belief that one is consigned to a place of eternal torment whatever one has done as offensive. You asked why I find it offensive.

I consider the punishment out of proportion to the offense. I find it a silly, stupid religion that maintains that position.

I do not deny him his right to have such an opinion. I do not maintain he should be shut up or punished. Objecting to an opinion is not the same as censoring an opinion. I believe he is in error. However, it is not my right nor anybody's right to censor anybody because one believes they are wrong.

Thomas Jefferson wrote to John Sullivan in 1805. "Truth is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless, by human interposition, disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate; errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them."

Dear HenryL,

Israel Folau is entitled to his religious beliefs.
What he was not entitled to do however was to break
the contract that he had signed not to express those
beliefs in public. He had agreed to the contractual
terms of his employment contract and signed the
contract. He broke the contract several times and was
warned several times but he continued to break it.
Therefore his employer sacked him.

cont'd ...

It would be like an atheist teacher in a religious
school telling students that God did not exist
and that religion was mere superstition. Now
that teacher is entitled to their beliefs - but if
they were to express those beliefs in the religious
school - they would not have a job for long.

Sexual misdemeanor cannot be compared with any other dishonest activity.They may be economic offences.But porno corrupts people's mind.Sex should be personal. Only uncivilised people can post sex in public domain unmindful of the public opinion.
Selling one's physique for a price is the most basal activity on earth.They act in such pornos knowing pretty well that these may be seen by their own relatives including their own children, brothers and sisters.Only shameless people can do this and they do it for the sake of money.
Lazy people will invent some nonsense like porno and justify it saying it gives pleasure to many. Why don't we pause for a while to understand that it affects the sexuality of the masses.

Ezil Sorry can not agree sex is at the heart of who we are and it is said we think about it every six minutes
In fact Church's efforts to make a natural act evil is laughable
Highlighted by the huge number of people preaching that, who are sex offenders
Porno, if it is not using its stars is not evil

The word stars cannot be applied to porn people.Similarly cinema people also should not be called so.People who make huge money by some kind of deceitful activities do not deserve that name. It is like calling broom stick a tuft of silk.
Let us reserve such words as stars for people who really make some contribution to societal welfare. Certainly not to porn people.

Sex is a natural act but it cannot be enacted in public. That is civilisation. Let us not use technologies to make the natural act a barbaric one.

Foxy,
As you said Israel Folau is entitled to his views and I accept that but if he signed a contract to not air those views in public then it is correct that he be penalised by canceling his contract. He was silly to sign such a contract in the first place if airing his views mean't so much to him.

It seems a common fault these days for people not wanting to be responsible for their actions.

What I find amazing today is not only the number of young women who are happy to pose for naked photos to be distributed on the net, but the number happy to perform in sex videos, also to be displayed on the net. These are simply young amateurs, not porn performers.

I can only assume that exposure to a wide ranger of porn material has made this an acceptable, normal activity for todays young people. Only time will tell if this has any effect, good or bad, on our society.

Dear HenryL,

Thank You for being so civil.

Now back to the topic.

According to the Psychology Today article given below
watching porn can have serious side affects for some
people. The article is worth a read:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/au/blog/hero/201603/is-porn-good-us-or-bad-us

Foxy,

Same effect with watching car racing.

Or watching football, cricket, boxing,
horse-racing, et al?

Don't think so.

Watching porn is deleterious in some of its effects. It also is good in some of its effects. It is a two-edged sword. It releases sexual tension and increases sexual tension. We can say the same about the mixed effects of ANZAC Day. The ceremonies remember our fallen and remind us of our past. They also increase militarism and the readiness to engage in new conflict. Advertising makes us aware of products we might find useful. It is also harmful in creating dissatisfaction with what we have. Some of the same objections to porn also apply to advertising. It makes us dissatisfied with our current state by showing us an imaginary venue where our needs are dissatisfied. Alcohol is certainly a mixed blessing. It contributes to traffic fatalities and makes social encounters more enjoyable. The US had what they called a 'noble experiment' when it tried to ban alcohol. I'm sure most of us know the results.

Porn, alcohol, ANZAC Day and advertising all exploit human emotions and desires. There are many views of how we deal with those human qualities. An authoritarian society has the view that everything that is not permitted is forbidden. A permissive society has the view that everything that is not forbidden is permitted. Very few of us are completely authoritarian or completely permissive although I lean to the latter. I think it would be good to discuss the good and bad effects of porn, alcohol, ANZAC Day and advertising in schools. They are all part of our society which we have to deal with. I think we are having a good discussion about porn in this thread.

Foxy,

After watching car racing, certain people are overcome with a desire to drive beyond their abilities, football, tennis et al do not have the same effect.

Is Mise,

I did not mention tennis.
However, football, boxing, horse racing,
and some other sports can have serious
repercussions for some spectators.
Just like watching porn. It is subjective.
Car racing - not so much.

Most of this is our opinions. Just speculation based on whether we see porn as something to stand against, or something that is harmless.

I would like to see some reasurch to back up the views that support the opinions that porn is ok. Because a quick search on porn and it's influence brings up articles that support that port is harmful to the person watching it. Including sources like phychology today.

Add to that the harm the industry does to it's models and actors/actresses, and you have a two fold reason to stand against porn. For both the viewers of porn, and those involved in the making of porn.

At least try to engage the observations and resurch put against porn instead of ignore them and offer your own speculative opinion on the matter. For instance instead of just saying porn has good in it too, point to some reasurch that supports it. Otherwise the speculation that it is good because it relieves stress and is enjoyable is the same to say smoking cigarettes is good and healthy because it's enjoyable and reduces stress.

None of the arguments here to support the current sitution of porn lead me to believe that kids and teens shouldn't be restricted from it's influence like buying cigarettes and beer are restricted under a certain age.

Someone sent me this, & I did not know what to do with it. Then I thought of this thread, so here it is. I have no idea of it's authenticity.

How to Replace Mouse Balls
I don't know how they wrote this with a straight face. This was a real memo sent out by a computer company (IBM) to its employees in all seriousness. It went to all field engineers regarding a computer peripheral problem. The author of this memo was quite genuine. The engineers rolled on the floor! Especially note the last couple of sentences.

Re: Replacement of Mouse Balls.
If a mouse fails to operate or should it perform erratically, it may need a ball replacement. Mouse balls are now available as FRU (Field Replacement Units). Because of the delicate nature of this procedure, replacement of mouse balls should only be attempted by properly trained personnel. Before proceeding, determine the type of mouse balls by examining the underside of the mouse. Domestic balls will be larger and harder than foreign balls. Ball removal procedures differ depending upon the manufacturer of the mouse. Foreign balls can be replaced using the pop off method. Domestic balls are replaced by using the twist off method.. Mouse balls are not usually static sensitive. However, excessive handling can result in sudden discharge. Upon completion of ball replacement, the mouse may be used immediately. It is recommended that each person have a pair of spare balls for maintaining optimum customer satisfaction. Any customer missing his balls should contact the local personnel in charge of removing and replacing these necessary items. Please keep in mind that a customer without properly working balls is an unhappy customer.

Dear NNS,

Porn is not harmless. Alcohol is not harmless. Free speech is not harmless. Patriotism is not harmless. Abortion is not harmless.

One reaction is to ban all of the above because they are not harmless. The US had its experience in the massive corruption and crime resulting from banning alcohol. Free speech in Weimar Germany resulted in Hitler. Suppression of patriotism in India by the British occupiers resulted in the imprisonment of Gandhi. Suppression of abortion resulted in abortion by knitting needle and the backyard butcher and suicide by desperate women. Banning porn is also banning freedom to read and look at what one wants to read and look at. The reaction of the authoritarian to freedom is to ban it because it can be harmful. Yes, freedom itself is harmful. People may jeer at your Gods and your religion and call them fantasies. I believe that belief in God, the devil, hell and the nonsense that go those fantasies are harmful. They corrode the mind. You have a right to your fantasies, and you have a right to call for banning what you don't approve of. You could also try to live with it and realise that people doing things you don't like is a price of freedom.

Dear Hasbeen,

Q. Why do mice have very small balls?

A. Not many of them know how to dance.

David,

"You have a right to your fantasies, and you have a right to call for banning what you don't approve of. You could also try to live with it and realise that people doing things you don't like is a price of freedom."

Spot on, freedom comes first.
To me porn is absolutely boring, I did a paper on it in Sociology III (it was a good excuse to watch!!), the historical research was interesting but the videos soon proved to be repetitively mind-numbing. This was before the days of wide computer use but most video stores had a 'blue' movies under the counter service.

Foxy,

You did not mention tennis but you used the expression "et al", so one could assume that tennis comes into inclusion.

Obviously, you have never driven away from a car race venue.

Dear Is Mise,

Porn has become boring to me. At first the novelty of sitting at my desk and having it freely available was attractive,but it palled on me. However, I think there should be no barriers on people looking at what they want to look at.

I am reading "Joseph Anton". It is Salman Rushdie's account of his life after a fatwa was put on him encouraging believers to kill him for writing "Satanic Verses". I went to a mosque in the West End of Brisbane and was invited to watch their services and sit in as the participants gathered in small groups for discussion after the services. In the group I was in a couple of the men had read "Satanic Verses'. They didn't much like it, but they were for free expression. They approved neither of the fatwa or for banning any written work. In Rushdie's book he also tells of Muslims who are for free expression. The desire for freedom might be a universal.

David,

I read Satanic Verses whilst in hospital recovering from Deep Vein Thrombosis, brought on by not exercising on a flight from India.
The only high point in the book was that I had only very recently walked down the road to Juhu beach that his characters used to reach the sea.

The fatwa was completely unjustified.

Is MIse,

Opinions are subjective after all.

We look at "Satanic Verses" in one way - some
people view it in another way. Personally I enjoyed
"Midnight's Children - much more.

As for car-racing? I have attended the "Grand Prix,"
here in Melbourne. Not my thing. Still to each his own.
The same goes for porn. I thoroughly enjoyed the
series of films - based on "Fifty Shades of Grey."
I've enjoyed "Lady C's Lover," and many more.

"Deep Throat," boring.

Well me too, it became boring after a rainy day stuck in a lunch shed watching men, some of who had never had sex and may still have not slobber over it
Yet right back to Roman times and far beyond it existed
We seem to be having trouble separating the type that victimises its stars and the willing participants stuff

Then there are the 'snuff' movies.

There's a difference between banning and restricting access. If you can't come to terms of restricting access like what is done for beer not being sold or given to minors, then perhaps banning would be the next step. I'm sure there's a way to restrict porn without banning. But if there isn't then yes get rid of it. Not just for the kids and teens, but also for the people who are forced or volunteer to be in that life of industry.

Restricting it might do good to ensure what is out there isn't going through people who are forced or minipulated to be in porn pictures or videos. That it is voluntary. As well as resolve the issue of kids full of hormones getting bitten by the porn industry and can't shake their port adfiction the rest of their life. (Same reason to restrict minors from being able to smoke).

Dear NNS,

Porn is already restricted, and I think that it should be restricted. A parent can get various additions to a device which will restrict access to certain channels. Porn shops cannot display porn scenes in their shop windows in most areas. Zoning would keep a porn shop away from a school. Most movie houses do not show porn. The viewers of porn mostly do it alone. The porn industry has the same regulations as to wages and hours that other industries have. What additional restrictions do you want that we don't now have?

' I believe that belief in God, the devil, hell and the nonsense that go those fantasies are harmful. They corrode the mind.'

you prove clearly that non belief in God, the devil and hell is harmful. Your mind is corrupted without need for further corrosion.

Dear runner,

Nice to hear from you.

It would be even nicer to leave out the
judgements.

'It would be even nicer to leave out the
judgements.'

certainly mean you would not state an opinion Foxy. I doubt whether you would remain silent.

runner,

I try to back my opinions with facts.

Your comments are purely based on your own
beliefs and judgements. There's a big difference.

Dear runner,

Perhaps you have forgotten these words:

Matthew 7:1 Judge not, that ye be not judged. 2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. 3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? 4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? 5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

Are we not brothers? Are you entitled to judge me? Am I entitled to judge you?

funny david f how you quote someone you claim not to believe in. He also declared that all are sinners (corrupt). That obviously does not exclude you or me. At least read the context and then you will see what Jesus was talking about in judging others.

you ask

'Are we not brothers? Are you entitled to judge me? Am I entitled to judge you?'

obviously I am not your ultimate Judge. Every knee will bow before the Judge who is Jesus Christ. The fact that your opinions flow from godless ideology does not prevent me from being able to expose those godless opinions that come from adopting the denial of Your Creator. Hence you endorse baby killing, immorality etc. You are no different to anyone else embracing godless ideology. This forum is exactly for that. A sharing of opinions. Your own mouth (or pen) judges you.

Dear runner,

There is both wisdom and nonsense in the Bible. There is nonsense like the virgin birth and wisdom like the part about judging. Like all other books the Bible was written by humans. One does not have to believe in the man-god, Jesus, or any of the mumbojumbo in the Bible to accept the wisdom found in it. The Bible was written by people trying to find their way in the uncertain world they lived in. You and I are still trying to find our way in the uncertain world we live in. Jesus said nothing about either abortion or homosexuality. Yet people who claim to follow him have views they claim are based on their religion. I place the wishes of the pregnant woman above the life of the fetus within her. I think she has a right to decide she does not want to continue a pregnancy. You would deny her that right. That is the difference between us. I think it is a great advance in human rights that a woman can get a legal abortion. If you can get enough people who agree with you to make abortion illegal again, you won’t stop women trying to get an abortion. You will only bring back the backyard butcher, the attempted abortion by knitting needle and suicides by desperate pregnant women.

You sound like a very angry man. If I had lived your life I might be angry, too. However, the saying about turning the other cheek is a good one. I see no need to return your anger. We can both try to do the best we can do. You and I are both human beings. I am sorry to have been angry at you in past posts. We can disagree without anger and can recognise the humanity in each other.

runner,

That is precisely the point.

Your own mouth or pen or in this case - computer
judges you. Therefore be carefully what you express
and how about others is all that's being advised
here. Practice what Christ taught if you are a
believer.

David f

I have no anger towards you. Why should I? I am however often angry about the murder of innocent lives. You obviously justify it by claiming the unborn is not human and renaming it. I am also angry when deviants force their immoral views down the throat of children and others. This is what Jesus said about those who cause little ones to sin

'But if you cause one of these little ones who trusts in me to fall into sin, it would be better for you to have a large millstone tied around your neck and be drowned in the depths of the sea. Matthew 18:6

And yes that applies to religious people, priests and non religious. Do you agree with Jesus or is He being to 'judgemental'

And yes we are both human thus both corrupted and need the Only incorruptible One in our lives to save us.

Dear runner,

The fetus is human whether you call it a fetus or something else. I haven't renamed a fetus. That is the correct medical term. Those who call it an unborn baby have renamed it. Every sperm cell in a human male is human. Every egg cell in a human female is human. I am an undead human. Some day I will be a dead human. However, I think a woman has the right to terminate a pregnancy which means ending the existence of a fetus.

Jesus never disowned his religion. He was a Jew according to what is told of him. He was not a Christian. People who call themselves Christians have rejected the religion of Jesus. That is their right. They do not have to accept the religion of Jesus, but it doesn't seem honest to call themselves followers of Jesus and reject his religion.

I don't think there is a God. If I am right that means we are all godless. Some godless people think there is a God. You are a godless person who thinks there is a God. I am a godless person who doesn't think there is a God.

There are many religions. Most people with a religion have the same religion as their parents. I see no need for any religion. If a person is kind, considerate and caring it doesn't matter what that person believes. If a person is not kind, considerate and caring it doesn't matter what that person believes either.

'If a person is not kind, considerate and caring it doesn't matter what that person believes either.'

Yep tearing up the bodies of the unborn is very 'kind' David f.

Dear runner,

You don't really seem to care what a pregnant woman wants. Most people think a woman has the right to decide whether she wants to continue a pregnancy. Our current law reflects that view. If you ban legal abortion the backyard butchers, attempted abortion by knitting needle and suicide by desperate women will all come back. Whether you want it or not that is what will happen. In my view that is much more immoral than legal abortion. We differ on what is moral and what is immoral. Who are you to override a woman's choice? I think your opposition to legal abortion is immoral.

To David f.

Although I think pornography is a bad thing, I'd be more ok with it being only there for those who are at least adults. With that in mind porn shops aren't as much my concern as the internet's one click away from any fantasy. I'm not as knowledgeable of the apps or the devices that restrict access for parents to use for their kids. I hope they work well, and if so that helps relieve a lot of the burden for this topic in that I'm presenting for.

For that I just wanted to thank you. I don't know if they do a good job or not but at least it's something. And that's a start.

Dear NNS,

One problem with abortion, pornography, alcohol, prostitution, addictive drugs or other activities that satisfy human desires but also have bad effects is that if you ban them, they go underground. They continue as illegal activities. They finance crime. There is no way to protect the people who engage in those activities. They increase police corruption as police are paid off to let those activities continue.

I could live in a world where there was no abortion, pornography, alcohol, addictive drugs, gambling or prostitution. I've had one alcoholic drink this year. The community where I live is Prins Willem Alexander Retirement Village which is primarily for the Dutch in Australia. The one drink I had was a toast to the King of the Netherlands when the Dutch ambassador visited. Although I sometimes look at pornography it would be no hardship for me to be without it. I don’t gamble. I am very happily married. I have never smoked pot or used any other narcotic. I could also live in a world without prostitution, addictive drugs or abortion.

However, to live in such a world is not an available choice. There is no such world. The choice we have is to make these activities legal or illegal. If these activities are legal they can be regulated. Addiction to substances, gambling or sex can be treated as a medical rather than a criminal problem. Abortion can be a medical procedure which a woman can freely choose. Contraceptive devices and education can make it less likely that a woman needs an abortion. Police are free to pursue murder, rape, robbery and other crimes.

From “The Official History of Criminal Justice in England and Wales”:

“Adult sexual behavior not involving minors, force, fraud or public indecency belongs to the realm of private conduct, not of criminal law. Nearly all civilized countries recognize the futility of making into crimes what are regarded as sins against morality.”

To David F.

I disagree with the idea of making everything legal in order to try and control it. Some things you have to stand against by the laws saying this or that is illegal. By making an activity illegal, you remove it from being an industry that becomes a business, to being a criminal activity that has criminal elements in it. The trade off is that an industry will be more used being a business, but the criminal element will invite underground elements and feed both organized and amateur crime rates.

There are some drugs that should stay illegal. Don't let them become part of a cooperation. Don't make a business out of the same things that greatly harm people and society. It's asking for more trouble then is recognized.

With regards to legalizing or criminalizing certain behaviors, such as abortion, prostitution, gambling and such the same is true as it is for legalizing drugs. Making it illegal adds it to a chain of criminal undercurrents, but making it legal will make it an industry that will be used more. For instance can you imagine if murder was legal? If there was a legal route to have licensed hit men, and have that as a business plan? In the same way that certain drugs should not be legal because of the effects they put on a person (as well as the risk for death in one dose from certain drugs); certain behaviors should not be legal in order to remove them from criminal undercurrents.

(Continued)

(Continued)

Moving the topic back to pornography. I understand that you have to pick your battles. We live in a broken world because we as a human race are broken. With that in mind reducing the harm is sometimes all that can be done so that you can focus your resources and your police on the worse offenses. Restricting porn from a minor is worth the effort though, even if you recognize that it is a bad element in society and let it be there for adults. If it was possible to make the porn industry safe for those in it that would be great too. However unless a country is ready to censor the Internet, there is no way to fight pornography that comes from a source that forces itself on the people they photograph or film, or they use human trafficking and drugs as part of their criminal activity (which porn is just part of, regardless if porn is legal or not).

Dear NNS,

I don't agree that the human race is broken. I think that is your religion talking. In what way is the human race broken? We humans are just one of the species of life on earth. Individuals of our species have the drives to survive and reproduce as do individuals of other species. Some species of life form collectives and live together in groups with different individuals having different functions such as bees, ants and our species. We have more elaborate societies than other social animals. We invent religions and Gods. Part of our problem is that some of the religions we invent don't recognise that we are part of nature but regard us as somehow above it. I think we would be better off if we recognised that we are part of nature. Why do you think the human race is broken?

To David f.

Are you sure you mean what you say? In an earlier post you make it sound like there's nothing that can be done about some of the harms done by people. That you must just let them be. Now you refuse to see mankind as broken in one sense or another. It would be better to realize how mankind is broken and be prepared for it, then to say nothing can be fixed and nothing is wrong.

You can blame these observations on my religious views. That everyone sins and no one is perfect. Or you can look at the world without a religion and come to the same conclusion. Murder, crime, and evil exists among all parts of society in every country by those who break the law. While at the same time, corruption, greed, and neglect exist in every country by those who make the laws and hold the authority of the land.

I don't mean to remove the wonder that can come from people, and the inspiring good deeds. However, it doesn't take much to realize that mankind is it's own environment of its own faults. In governments of corruption, politics invites the same. No one tries to fix the issue, only to try to play the field to win. The same with businesses and greed with regards to CEOs and business plans. The observations can go on and on, from large scale patterns, to individual life stories. The truth is that both on a large scale and individually, mankind is broken.

With that in mind I stick by what I said earlier. Sometimes you have to choose your battles and focus your resources to put out the bigger fires in the world. Restricting access to porn is worth doing for minors, just as we do it for drugs, and drinking.

Dear NNS,

Are there other species besides humans that you consider broken? Are sheep and wolves also broken? I am concerned about our natural environment. By treating it better we help to make the world a better place for humans and other species. I am also concerned about militarism. The making of armaments for profit, nationalism and the rivalries that go with nationalism can lead to war. In Australia the military budget does not even get debated in parliament. My next concern is the divisive force of religion. Religion is a force for many of the animosities that cause people to hate one another. People may regard another group of people who don't subscribe to similar mumbojumbo as less worthy. In most of the western world separation of religion and state has made religion less damaging. In Australia I would eliminate subsidies to non-state schools and chaplains in the state schools. I am also concerned about the fact the many children are not well educated in science and the arts. I am also concerned by the attempt to turn back woman's rights in such matters as making it more difficult to get an abortion or an education, to keep her from deciding whether or who she wants to marry and in general to put limits on what she wants to do with her life. When my wife went to university, teaching, the library and nursing were about the only professions open to women. In most of the western countries and some of the eastern ones the situation now is much better. I am concerned about the lack of freedom in the world. I also would like the end of rock music. What are your main concerns?

As far as porn goes I agree with you in restricting access to it by minors. I don’t know how to manage it, but I would like to see all children not just restricted from porn but also treated with love. I would like to see all people treated with love. Though I disagree with you I should treat you with kindness.

David,

"Jesus never disowned his religion. He was a Jew according to what is told of him. He was not a Christian"

He certainly was not a Christian, to be a follower of Himself would have been out of character.

To David F.

Many other species highlight the brokenness of the world. Even to be an example to us if we study them. Both as a source of inspiration to observe the struggles and faults in the natural world; as well as the inspiring way some animals deal in an unfair situation.

Did you know that some birds are very adulterous, but they still raise and protect the baby birds as if the bird couple were faithful to each other? This is one example in nature where a species rises above the difficulties in life (both for survival against predators and loyalty in the family and towards the family) they are in a witness to us.

With sheep and wolves. Sheep are reliant on mankind to tend to them and care for them. But I have heard some very humorous or aggravating stories of how stubborn and dumb sheep can be. Wolves though they have the good qualities of loyalty and kinsmen ship and teamwork of the pack, they also highlight a brokenness of the world we live in the competitive nature of predator and prey. A Shepard looking after sheep might recognize the difficulties to overcome with sheep, as well as the dangers of predators like wolves. At least acknowledging and respecting the situation they are in, so to better tend to their duties as a Shepard.

David f.

You shared your concerns and asked for mine. Like your concerns, mine are from what I've seen and tried to deal with. I come from a background of being slightly broken. Speed is alway a ticking clock that I lose the race on every time. With that in mind I notice more when someone has a struggle and is handicapped.

My concerns for the world? Look after the widow and the orphan. Tend to the sick and visit those in prison. The world is broken for those who are not on the top of the world, and so compassion is one of the greatest concerns to me. Because throughout my life the two glaring observations that I see is my own faults at not being good enough, as well as the kindness and compassion that I'm blessed to have received that helps me at every age of my life. There are other concerns, but the main one is to help mend a broken and ever breaking world. I'm not that great at meeting these concerns, but they are some of the concerns. How to overcome and push through a struggle whether it's self inflicted or it's something you have no control over. Small things and moves that make it easier to make the right decision or to lessen the burden, are the concerns I see or try to offer.

Porn is like a drug. It is an extra burden. It can do harm to those who watch it, and is both easy to access as well as hard to quit. Those who don't get addicted to meth are better off then those that do and who struggle to get away from it's grip. The same is true with porn. It's a problem in society that breaks many relationships. Divorce rates don't have to be as high as they are if we actually care to make it easier and less of a burden in the everyday lives of people.

Dear NNS,

I don’t know what you mean by broken. People and other animals don’t behave as you would have them behave. Does that mean they are broken?
You have been anthropomorphising birds. Birds do not have marriage so cannot be adulterous. Birds have partners and sometimes have sex with birds other than their partners. There are no standards of sexual morality among other animals and no universal standards among humans. I doubt that there was such a thing as marriage among early humans. They had sex or the species wouldn't have continued. Mothers looked after their offspring or the species wouldn't have continued. The early humans probably lived much like the other animals. There is no reason for birds, or humans for that matter, to follow your standards of morality.

I don’t think that watching pornography is harmful in itself. Addiction to it or patterning one’s real life relationship on what they see in porn can be harmful. Other than that I don’t think it is harmful. Children below puberty I don’t think are particularly interested in it.

I remember watching a debate between DA Arlen Specter and a representative of the ACLU (American Committee for Civil Liberties) on porn. Specter was for banning, and the ACLU man was arguing against it.

Specter went on about how horrible it was and described scenes of depravity in porn. The material had been confiscated in police raids. Specter had gone through a lot of the stuff. The ACLU man outlined Specter’s career as a crime fighter and public servant. As he was doing so Specter swelled up with pride. The ACLU man then said to Specter, “You have spent a lot of time looking at the stuff and getting thoroughly conversant with it?” Specter said, “Yes.” The ACLU man then said, “Doesn’t seem to have hurt you a bit.”

Both Specter and you are trying to put your standards of morality on other people. Maybe you are getting unnecessarily excited

Dear Is Mise,

Your logic is impeccable. Jesus could not be a Christian. However, not only was Jesus not a Christian, he was not the founder of Christianity. Jesus was the leader of a Jewish cult. All or almost all the followers of Jesus were Jews. Paul tried to convert gentiles to the Jewish cult. He succeeded, but what happened to the Jews who were members of the cult. They were wiped out by the Romans in 70 AD and the failed Jewish revolt. Paul was really the founder of Christianity not Jesus.

History is full of lies. Let us not worry about who formed what religion. Let us ponder over whether all the religions created on the earth have achieved the goals they envisaged.That will do a lot of good for the humanity.

To David f.

It's unlikely we're going to come to agreement on pornography. Actually I'm glad that we agree on it as much as we do to at least have it restricted from children and minors. I would like one more challenge for you though. When I've come across the topic of porn in any article or in stories from people's lives. There's never been a positive remark about it. No positive elements that relate to marriage, but instead has been an issue read or heard about that was a defining element leading to divorce. So with this in mind, if you have any source of information of a married couple that wasn't negatively influenced by porn, I'd like to hear it. If you can do better and say that you know of some who think porn in their relationship was a good thing, then yes let me know. Nothing I've seen researched or antidotes heard about porn lead to healthy relationships. For now it seems to be somewhere between open relationships and adultery for the kind of havoc porn does to a relationship. Just a bad idea for any relationship, and for many people an addictive habit they can't kick once they're married. (Look up stats on reason people divorce. Porn is surveyed as a very high percentage for the reason).

As for the birds. I'm sorry for not making it clear. In the animal kingdom where so many species kill the children of the previous father when one takes over as the dominant male in a pack or an animal's family, the small tidbit that many birds are life long partners but unfaithful was a surprise. It was a positive attribute that even if the baby birds were not the father's he would still hunt for them and protect them. In the harsh reality of nature where survival is a top priority, a little bit of surprising family values in the animal kingdom was a refreshing tidbit.

(Continued)

(Continued)

You might not like my reference to the world being broken. But so far you haven't refuted any of the points I made. Just challenged me on judging animals. I'll make it a step easier for you. In the logic that the world is broken, I'm including myself in that perspective. It's not just everyone sins. It's that everyone struggles and fails, actively or accidentally harms others, and are more self absorbed then not. Everyone has a struggle and a hurdle. In our struggles people can do wonders of compassion, just as easily as they turn into a monster under the pressure and hurt of the world we live in. It's the soup we're brewing in, the environment that we live our entire lives in. And yes it's devastatingly broken.

To Ezhil.

When comparing religions don't group them all together as if they are the same. That said, what goals for the world are you talking about? Is it Buddhist goal to seek enlightenment by denying both pain and pleasure, rewards and harms? Hindu goal to seek a better life for yourself and your next life? Christian goal to seek God, and turn from your sins? Or are they the goals that deal with the community which could be vastly different depending on the religion?

The one thing that I've heard is in most religions is some version of the golden rule. Treat others the way you want to be treated.

Dear NNS,

We don’t have to come to agreement on porn or anything else for that matter. What we have to do is be civil with each other and accept that the other person has a different view. I think we are doing that at this time. That is the way to get along in a society. Live and let live. All I can get from your use of the word ‘broken’ is that other group of humans and other species of animals do not behave the way you want them to behave. I think you have made a value judgment that that is wrong. I have not made such a value judgment. If a male lion takes over a pride and kills the cubs of a previous father that is neither right nor wrong. That is normal lion behavior. We humans have developed moral codes where that behavior from a human male would not be acceptable. There may be human societies where that would be acceptable. Different human societies have different standards. The ancient Greeks would leave a handicapped baby in the wilds to die. We would not do that in our society. That does not mean the ancient Greeks were wrong, and we are right. That means that the ancient Greeks have different standards of what is wrong and right from us. We live in a different situation from the ancient Greeks and have the facilities to care for handicapped children. However, if most children were born handicapped we would be unable to care for them all. To deal with that we would have to have a lot of children and only care for the ones who weren’t handicapped if we wanted our society to survive.

Most religions have some version of the Golden Rule. Treat others as you would be treated. There is one big problem with the Golden Rule. Others might not want to be treated as you would be treated.

Dear NNS,

You apparently think it is a good thing to be a missionary. I think it is a bad thing. I think other people with different beliefs from yours should be left alone. You might think that if you were not a Christian it would be great for someone to approach you with news of that faith. I am not a Christian and have disliked the many approaches of one kind or another from Christians who have tried to missionize me. Friday I was at a shopping centre, and I was approached three times by ladies from a local church trying to get customers.

If you adopted my views, it would be bad for you. It would alienate you from your church and your family.

I think there is a basic sickness at the heart of the Christian faith. The basic sickness is the belief that Jesus was a perfect man, and we should be like Jesus. Since no person can be perfect, trying to be perfect leads to failure, and failure leads to guilt. The guilt is neurotic since the failure to achieve an impossible goal is built in. So the sick Christian wails in his or her guilt, “We are all sinners.”

Other religions do not have that sickness. There is a Jewish story that tells of a different attitude. Reb Zosya said, “When I come before the Lord he won’t ask me why I wasn’t like Moses. He will ask me why I wasn’t like Zosya.” To ask that somebody achieve what it is in them to achieve is reasonable. To ask that somebody be perfect is unreasonable and a recipe for guilt.

Islam has Mohammed as a prophet not as a God. They do not have the Christian sickness.

Buddhists do not maintain that a God exists. They do not have the Christian sickness.

I agree with you that all religions are not the same. I think we could do without them all. However, I think Christianity with its record of violence and intolerance and its unreasonable demands is inferior to Judaism, Islam and Buddhism.

To David F.

Moral relativism is a hypocritical cover. Saying both that no one should judge, while also at the same time saying the judgements and the standards that the person holding moral relativism holds. For instance consider your standards. Should you live and let live, or a stand up for the right for abortion? Or on a personal level, should you judge someone on their behavior such as your comments to Runner saying that you think he is an angry person, or should you say their morals are equally justified even if it is criminal (not meaning you Runner, just extending the point from personality clashes of moral relativity to the harder reality of saying moral relativity extends to gangs and murders). With this in mind I find your views of not judging the Greeks by ourstandards to be a hypocritical cover while also judging your perceptions of my views or morals.

{Sigh}

As I write this message I've checked back to the topic on Pornography and see your second reply. Do we really need to repeat the topic of missionaries here? On your views on Christianity? Have I said any points that are weak in themselves that they are not worth considering on their own?

(Continued)

(Continued)

Porn is harmful to a relationship. That is not my morals being forced on anyone. Nor is it my being uncivil by saying so. That's the data known from both what's studied on the subject, as well as what's observed when one partner discovers the other looks at porn. Those in the porn industry have shown no sign of it being a healthy industry to be in. Even those who go into it willingly. That is an observation. If that observation is inaccurate, then counter it with accurate info. However, even if those willing to go into porn are fine through some unstated standard, those that are forced into the industry from an unknown online source, are not so lucky. Again this is not my standards being pushed on another. These are points worth considering themselves. Are these points so weak that they are not worth considering? That the focus should be on my faith, or on unresolved discussions in the past?

If the points I made are not worth considering then how about my request?

<<If you have any source of information of a married couple that wasn't negatively influenced by porn, I'd like to hear it.>> [Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Tuesday, 11 June 2019 2:37:01 AM]

__________________________________

To Ezhil.

I'm sorry if I seem hard in this topic. David and I have some history in past conversations. If you're willing, I would like to hear what you meant when talking about the goals envisioned by religions.

Dear NNS,

I have no information about a married couple who was negatively influenced by porn. I have no information about a married couple who was positively influenced by porn. I have no information about a married couple who was influenced by porn in any way. I am sure that you have information about the negative influences of porn. I am equally sure that you would ignore anything that would mention the positive influences of porn. I would have to search for myself to make a determination about the subject, and I probably will not do it. I do know there is archeological evidence that porn has been around for thousands of years, and it is not a modern development. Porn like religion is a human invention. Banning porn or banning religion is a futile exercise. In my opinion religion is more harmful than porn, but it is futile to try to ban either.

You have gone on about your opinion of porn. However, you have cited nothing that would substantiate that opinion.

The centuries of intolerance, the Crusades, the Inquisition, the persecution of heretics, dissenters and Jews, the forcible conversion of native peoples and the Wars of the Reformation and the current attempt to roll back the rights of equality for women and homosexuals substantiate my negative view of your religion.

You don’t like porn, and you don’t like people doing things that you don’t like. That seems to be the reason for your negative view of porn. What you call an observation that porn is harmful is merely your opinion. I have no reason to accept your opinion.

All religions preach love.They teach rather preach matters that will civilize man. But what do we see on earth? Animosity, bloodshed persecution and what not committed in the name of religion. Certainly that was not the intention of religions.If man cannot change for the better based on religious teachings then what is purpose of all religions?They are not for fun and frolic and to dress in a particular style.Matters concerning the mind and heart are not followed at all but the physical culture and the meaningless rituals dictated are being adopted without fail. Let us ponder over.

Here ya go David f.

4 sites on the effect of porn on those who watch it. 3 of those regarding porn's influence on the divorce rate. Also 6 sites from ex-porn stars regarding the porn industry. Educate yourself. Or don't. That's your call not mine. I've looked into it though. This isn't just opinions without data.
______________________________
Harm from watching porn.
________________________________
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/08/divorce-rates-double-when-people-start-watching-porn

https://fightthenewdrug.org/research-says-married-couples-who-watch-porn-are-twice-as-likely-to-divorce/

https://verilymag.com/2017/07/causes-of-divorce-effects-of-watching-pornography

https://fightthenewdrug.org/3-reasons-why-watching-porn-is-harmful/

__________________________
From inside the industry.
___________________________
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=d8PYWIN_urQ

https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/former-porn-star-porn-was-the-worst-darkest-thing-ive-ever-been-involved-in

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/top-googled-porn-star-exits-industry-reveals-shocking-truth-about-life-on-t

http://fortune.com/2016/02/05/this-is-what-its-really-like-to-work-in-porn/

https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity-life/former-porn-star-bree-olsen-goes-public-im-shunned-by-society/news-story/106695d7e5eec3e050538697cfac7d28

https://www.buzzfeed.com/annanorth/ex-porn-star-speaks-out-about-sex-addiction-in-por

To Ezhil.

So that's what you meant. Thank you for clearing that up. The reason I say not to generalize all religions together is because it stops any accountability from happening and goes on a witch hunt against religion in general.

The churches that I've been around try to make a better community for the area that they are in. If there is any bloodshed in them then be specific about it so they can be held accountable. There are other faults that I've seen. I would rather those issues be addressed and fixed or at least held accountable for.

The goals of every religion are different. Don't generalize religions themselves any more then you generalize the faults that should be dealt with. Let each organization be held accountable for what they do well, and what they do wrong. That includes the organizations from different religions, as well as organizations that are secular and follow a different philosophy or no philosophy at all.

Dear NNS,

I have looked at the references you cite and agree that porn does more harm than good. The studies you cited show its effects on adults.

As a side note I used to work for Philips, the Dutch electronic corporation. We got a request from the Saudi Arabian government to design a device that could examine the contents of a shipping container without opening it. They wanted the device to detect alcohol, weapons, subversive literature and porn. We refused the request because it was beyond our capability.

The studies you cite tell of the bad effects of porn. However, what are the effects of banning porn?

https://www.quora.com/Are-there-countries-where-pornography-is-illegal is a website which gives a partial answer to that question.

According to that site the countries that ban porn have a high rate of porn watchers.

A comment is interesting.

“Porn is illegal throughout the Middle East (Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and so on); China; North Korea; Turkmenistan; Vietnam Nam; Cuba; and Burma, among other places.

Generally speaking, there's a strong correlation between prevalence of porn in a country and respect for individual liberties and women’s rights in that country. The more oppression there is in a country, the more likely porn is to be outlawed.”

With all the damage alcohol does it was worse to ban it in the US than allow it. I think the same thing goes for porn. I agree that porn is not good, but I think banning porn is worse than porn.

I think our society has reasonable restraints on porn.

The effects of porn can be argued; what is not arguable is the benefit to all if posters would remove the 's' from 'https'.

OLO is apparently designed(??) to only respond to 'http', so, as a boon to all, please remove the surplus 's'.

Dear Ise Mise,

Why is the s there? What does it do?

To David f.

I don't see a connection between banning or allowing porn, and whether a country holds civil liberties for the people living there.

I had an intro to statistics class once where a teacher gave an Interesting example where correlation between two things does not mean causation. The example was that the there was a correlation between the rising sale of ice cream, and the increased rate of rapes. The teacher let us think about it before asking "what do you think is the underlying cause between both ice cream sales and rape." The answer was they both occur more on warmer days. Summer time was the underlying cause, not that the other two had anything to do with one another. The point of the lesson could be applied here. Don't assume a correlation (if it's really there) is confused with a causation between two things. There might be an underlying factor between both.

As for banning porn, I've already said that I don't think this is something that can be done easily, and all I would expect in today's world would be to try and successfully restrict it to adults. Even that might be too much to do because it would require a different way we handle the Internet and censoring, monitoring or restricting access to parts of it. Maybe all we can do is have those programs and apps that censor porn sites more available and known to parents. Make the burden easier for them.

On another note. The "s" on the https links I think ether means secure or security. I heard about it a while ago for a format that makes it harder to have viruses on the site your visiting, or it makes the site private so that a hacker isn't able to watch your key strokes or something. Sorry I don't remember which of those two that the "s" in the link is suppose to represent doing, but it was one of those I think. (Maybe both?)

Dear NNS,

You wrote: “I don't see a connection between banning or allowing porn, and whether a country holds civil liberties for the people living there.”

Porn is a form of expression. If you can ban porn you can ban other forms of expression. That means a decrease in civil liberties,

As you stated correctly correlation does not mean causation. You cited studies showing a correlation between viewing porn and the divorce rate of those who view porn. That does not mean that viewing porn was a cause of divorce. There could be some other cause for both viewing porn and the divorce rate. Viewing porn could be a symptom of marital discord rather than a cause of it.

You wrote that you didn’t want to ban porn. I don’t want to ban porn. If you would put no additional restrictions on porn than we have now, what are we arguing about?

Viewing porn cannot be considered a civil liberty. More over civil liberties cannot go against public decency and civilised behaviour.An individual watching another person's sexual activity for whatever reason cannot be called a civil liberty and a civilised behaviour.Statistics has limitations in its application for social behaviour.Psychologists must participate in this kind of topic. Let us have the ability to distinguish between what is normal and otherwise.Money mindedness makes a mess of everything.People who amass wealth by foul means will resort to all sorts of abnormal activities.

To David f.

It's not that I don't want to be rid of porn. It's that I don't think we can successfully snuff it out. As for why we're arguing. It's over 1) whether porn is bad or not, and 2) aparantly my reasoning to not ban porn was a reason you couldn't allow.

Maybe I offended you by saying the wold is broken and mankind is broken. That porn is harmful and there's nothing we can do to get rid of it any more then there's anything we can do to successfully get rid of poverty, or to successfully end deaths from drunk drivers. Thus the concept that the world is broken and we can't fix everything so choose your battles.

As for the argument that porn is a form of expression. I disagree with that completely. Porn is an industry. The closest industry porn can be considered part of is the entertainment industry. Except that. If the entertainment industry had the harms in it for either the performers, or the audience, then there would likely be some kind of social movement to change that industry or to get rid of it. Right now. People are still arguing whether. Porn is bad or not. Even if it is harmful or if people are complaining solely because they disagree with it (not because of harm).

Other industries (besides entertainment) that porn is part of is the human trafficking industry, and the drug industry. The relationships between those industries are connected to porn, just as much as illegal weapons and illegal drugs are industries connected to eachother.

Dear NNS,

Your statement that the world is broken and that mankind is broken implies that in some way the world and mankind are a failure in not reaching some ideal. At least that is how I interpret your remark.

Since I assume the world and mankind are what they are saying they are broken has no meaning to me. How are they broken?

To David f.

I think I gave enough examples in my past replies to explain the world's brokenness. I'll give a few more in this reply, but first a question for you. Why is this so important to you? As you said earlier, "why are we still arguing?"

The world being broken is two part in observations. The first is the world is broken by looking at the world itself. There is so much brokenness in it. Things that an not be resolved. You can help one person maybe even a dozen people to be better then the environment that is broken around them. But you can't fix the environment.

For instance look at politics and politicians. The system of getting things done usually involves lying, false promises, and smear campaigns against others just to get in the door and get voted into an office. The more powerful the office the more true this situation is. From there getting anything done goes through the process both working as a team in the opposing parties and working against the opposing teams. (One party is working together for their issues, while opposing the actions of another party). This isn't just about whether the political parties can agree or not on some issues, and work towards the same goal. But it's about gaining and retaining power from the opposing political parties. In that light there is a reason to drag the other parties decisions and their politicians through the mud when there is an opportunity. Because that mean more of the public will disagree with them and likely vote for you.

(Continued)

(Continued)

This is ignoring the greed, corruption, selfishness, and general lack of caring for the people who voted a politician in office, that persist in the political world. All this is looking at is the dynamics of politics. If politicians go further then just an office in parliament or a congress and becomes the leader of a country, an added level political games and hazards forms by entering That part of world politics. I would say politics is part of the brokenness of the world because if a good man entered the political world, in order to be successful he has to become a corrupt politician.

The dynamics of cooperations changing leaderships, CEOs, and stock market (or even quarter reports) is another system that strains a person at the top from taking care of their company and employees properly instead of, cutting corners for a higher quarter and better stocks in their portfolio before they jump ship to be a CEO in a different or a larger company.

The dynamics of politics strains a person to being corrupt and back-stabbing to those they work with. The dynamics of business strains a person against following through and having loyalty to either the employees or the product. There are many others. The dynamics of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer is another. Issues of fighting crime, fighting drugs, fight poverty, and standing against many other woes of the world have the reality that if you take in one criminal and either put them in prison or, have them turn over a new leaf, there are others that will replace them. Especially with lucrative and harmful prospects like drug making and selling. Porn fits into this area of dynamics. You can fight against it and make some progress (or just clean up a small part of it for a while) but it doesn't last. You can't fix the problem completely. (If porn is too close of a topic you favor, then consider child porn, and how hard it is to successfully get rid of it).

(Continued)

(Continued)

I said there are two parts of looking at the brokenness of the world. The first is looking at the world and it's dynamics. The second is by looking at the individuals. Basically by looking at the dynamics of the world you can see the struggle to fight against being corrupted by the environment you are in. By looking at the individuals and how we are all coming short on one quality or another to be the good people we're suppose to be creates a different dynamic of individuals making a situation worse. Allowing and accepting this part of ourselves and this part in others is what it means to be understanding, forgiving and merciful. But that said, everyone has at least a few things to work on in themselves if they are willing. Working on making yourself better has a positive influence on the enviornment you are in.

Now that I've explained it, the question now rests on you David. Before you say this is meaningless or that you don't understand what I mean by the world being broken (if that was going to be your response). I ask the question I stated earlier.

Why is this important to you? Why are we still arguing?

Dear NNS,

We are no longer arguing as I am weary of this exchange. I listed the things that are important to me several posts back. Porn is not something that bothers me. The attempt to censor bothers me, but I am satisfied with the present restrictions on porn. I don't want less or more.

Maybe we can discuss or argue about something else in the future.

We can agree that it is good to make ourselves better although we may disagree on how to do it.

I can try to be more caring and tolerant and also to keep mind and body active.

I would comment on one thing that you wrote. You wrote "it's dynamics"

It's is the abbreviation of it is. For the possessive 'its' should be used.

First of all man does not require porno. Porno is misuse of technology for making a living.Porno people make a lavish living at the cost of decency and morality of civil society.They never care a bit for the society. How porno can affect society can be discussed elaborately but here it is beyond the limits.
There is no restriction of porno at all. When it is available in public domain like the internet how can any one say there is restriction? In a civilised society porno should be made illegal.Let us not talk of restriction but of banning it for the sake of welfare of future citizens of the world.

To Ezhil.

When you talk about banning porn, are you only including real people in pictures and videos, or are you including other art and sculptures and such. The problem with trying to ban porn is that there is a lot of erotic stuff that is in art, and part of the classics throughout history. Even without going down the road of old historic pieces, defining what porn is and isn't to ban might be more of an issue then you realize.

I don't think porn is going to be banned so easily. The reasoning to ban it completely can lead to a part of culture that people don't want to toss. As well as lead to other to ban all things erotic in one way or another.

It's a bigger battle then I think you realize. It's why I think restricting porn is all that we can do.

I was born in 1925 in the US. Alcohol, gambling, porn, abortion and drugs were all banned. There were great crime empires supported by supplying of the demand for alcohol. Police were corrupted as they and politicians were paid off not to bother the hordes of speakeasies. People were suffering, going blind and dying from the substances in illegal alcohol.

As far as I am concerned if alcohol could be effectively banned I think it would be a good thing. Traffic deaths due to alcohol would disappear. There would be no addicts. However, we know from historical experience that banning alcohol doesn’t work. Alcohol is bad. It does more harm than it does good. I am almost a total abstainer. However, we know what harm banning alcohol does.

One can say the same thing about gambling, porn, abortion and drugs. One can make the case that they do more harm than they do good. However, I think the same thing applies to them. There is a greater harm banning them than there is having them legal.

There is a tendency to attack what one does not like and to ignore greater damage that can be done in another way. Some people who don’t like alcohol, gambling, porn, abortion and drugs ignore the greater damage can be done by banning them.

A few years ago I went to an atheist’s convention in Melbourne. There was a lot of gaiety and discussion but no gambling and very little drinking. I observed no porn or drugs. However, we were picketed by groups of Muslims and Christians. Muslims gamble and Christians drink, but they were more concerned with people who think differently from them. Nearby was that den of vice, the Crown Casino, where various unwholesome activities were going on with the sanctions of the government. I do not think gambling should be illegal, but I think it is immoral. I don’t think the government should be promoting it or making money from it. However, the Christians and Muslims chose to picket respectable, clean-living atheists rather than the den of vice.

Restriction of porn may be the immediate thing to do. But the long term goal should be to ban it.Let us not compare the past with the present as modern man is likely to be much more civilised. The past was the era of kings and rajahs. We know the quality of those ruling class of yester years. They were not men of character.They were mostly goondas except a few.The erotic culture promoted by them was probably not questioned as subjects were powerless and could not utter a word against it. Let us consider ourselves more civilized and also we live in an era much different from the distant past.Justification from the history is unwarranted and has no rationale.Without a legal ban the porn will certainly flourish uncontrolled.

Ezhil,
This is not about the justifications of the past - this is about freedom. Banning porn would be an unwarranted intrusion, and such a ban would not be respected by the people.

>Without a legal ban the porn will certainly flourish uncontrolled.
They said that about alcohol and in the short term that too flourished without a ban. But more recently there's been a huge decline in alcohol consumption. Why do you imagine the same won't happen with porn in the future?

What freedom you are talking about?People should not have the freedom to show their sexual act in the open.Banning porn will not affect people in any respect as it is not needed for both physical and mental health. Rather it is known to corrupt people's mind. Knowing pretty well that porn is not an essential item why should we allow it to go unchecked? Many things may see their natural death ultimately. This does not mean that such obnoxious practice also should be allowed to see its end naturally and no control or ban is needed. The freedom you are talking about to see porn is made possible because of gadgets such as camera, internet, TV etc.Without them you will not have this great freedom to watch porn. Let us change for the better.

Religion corrupts people's minds. Possibly the worst is Christianity with its tripartite god, virgin birth, man-god, eternal life and other nonsense. With its history of horrors it has done far more harm than porn. However, I would not ban it. People are free to accept the nonsense. If one can accept freedom of religion I can't see banning porn which is far less harmful.

I fully agree with your opinion that religion also corrupts the mind. But religion can never be compared with porn.Religion is faith based whereas porn is basal pleasure and technology based.Justifying porn ignoring its harms to especially children because there are many other things including the religions that harm society does not stand to reason. Is it rational to add one more harm to the already existing ones.I think it will not be prudent to do that. Let us try to reduce harmful influences as much as we can.But whatever is its legitimacy, the fact is that porno is misuse of of technology for making easy money at the cost of self respect and morality.

To Ezhil.

If there was a measure to reduce, restrict, or ban porn, I'd support it. I don't know if there's anything we can do to successfully get rid of it all, but I know the need to do so. Twice in my life I've been greatly pulled towards porn, and let it's posion into me. Once as a teen because of the easy access to it through the Internet, and another times an adult after a hard breakup. Both times porn became the thing that is hard to turn away from, like liquor to an alocholic.

If porn was restricted and had reduced access, I'm sure the effect of that would help society greatly. Good luck in your endeavors against porn. It's needed, but I don't know if we can successfully be rid of it. The world is broken, and too often enjoys the evils, harms, and darkness in it, instead of trying to help make it a better place.

Dear Ezhil.

The problem with religion is that it is faith based. A person using his or her reason would not accept the mumbojumbo of religion. Religion asks one to put one's reason aside and accept nonsense on faith. Religion asks one not to question. The Renaissance and the scientific revolution were spurred by questioning religion. The Christian religion has inspired the murder of people with great scientific minds such as Hypatia murdered by a Christian mob, Servetus burned at the stake and Giordano Bruno burned at the stake.

Yet in a free society we must have freedom of religion. To ban porn and to accept Christianity is straining at eating a gnat while swallowing an elephant. It is ignoring a great evil while getting excited over a minor one.

The desire for porn and the desire for religion are inherent in humanity judging from the great antiquity found in the evidence for both. It is futile to try to ban either. To try to ban what is inherent in humanity is a recipe for tyranny.

There can be an inherent desire only for sex and not for porn as it is the invention of dirty minds and of recent origin.Similarly the religions flourish because of the social problems that affect man. Unable to get solutions from fellow men man tries to get some salvation from institutions such as religion and god.Therefore if we try our best to tackle social issues earnestly then the stranglehold of religion and god on the people can at least be reduced. Any way the issue raised is whether children can have access to porn or not and whether porn is a necessity for man. Let us talk on it more.

Dear Ezhil,

Porn is not of recent origin.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_erotic_depictions

“The history of erotic depictions includes paintings, sculpture, photographs, dramatic arts, music and writings that show scenes of a sexual nature throughout time. They have been created by nearly every civilization, ancient and modern. Early cultures often associated the sexual act with supernatural forces and thus their religion is intertwined with such depictions. In Asian countries such as India, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Japan and China, representations of sex and erotic art have specific spiritual meanings within native religions. The ancient Greeks and Romans produced much art and decoration of an erotic nature, much of it integrated with their religious beliefs and cultural practices.”

Not only is porn as old as religion it has been intertwined with religion. Please consult the reference above.

I am talking about the recent pornography and not the porn arts etc.Leaving aside all those primitive cultural practices let us create a new civilisation in which pornography is not allowed to make easy money with utter disregard for public decency and morality,which ultimately leads to social problems.

Dear Ezhil,

I don't want to create a new civilization. I like what we have now with freedom of religion, freedom of art and freedom of political opinion. I like what we have now with morality not the business of government and art including pornography. Nobody could make any money from porn, drugs, alcohol and religion if people did not want it. The recent pornography is just a continuation of the past using modern technology. There are moral police in restrictive societies such as Saudi Arabia. In a free society morality is not the business of government.

We all have moral standards. What I think is important is that everybody has access to a good education and good medical care. I would not put my morality on anybody else. I don't like liquor and gambling, but I would not interfere with those who like it. I like to look at porn occasionally, and I don't want anybody interfering with my amusements.

There are social problems such as war, poverty, disease, inequity of resources, global warming, species extinction and uncontrolled population increase. Morality and decency are defined differently by different groups and individuals. For those who don't like or don't want porn stay away from it. That's easy to do, but leave others alone.

The urge to ban what you don't like is a social problem. Banning porn is a social problem.

You seem to be a hard core pessimist and a self centered individual.You always try to take the discussion away from the main topic.It appears that you argue for the sake of argument. I am no more interested to continue the discussion with you. But I am for banning porn. Let us stop with this

To anyone still involved.

This conversation looks to have reached its limit. Therefore, I want to recap some points on porn, before it gets lost in the distracting topic of religion.

Porn has no redeeming value to it. Instead it harms those who are part of the industry, and to a lesser degree it harms those who watch it. What wasn't mentioned though is that porn watching is like a drug that the body gets use to. With both, in order to have the same desired effect often people search for a stronger dose of the drug, and with porn a more graphic fantasy. This isn't freedom of expression as much as it's willingness to be part of a graphic fantasy that continually degrades women. If you want women to be treated better and respected more in a relationship then stand against porn.

Furthering the point, porn is not a controlled industry with regulations and safeguards practiced. According to porn actors, STD tests are commonly ignored, and porn stages can also be a vehicle for prostration instead of what they agreed to. This is coming from those in the industry that have even some kind of rules and contracts in place regardless if they are upheld or ignored. To the porn sources on the Internet, you never know if the pictures or the video is scripted, or if the actors are forced against their will.

If you can't ban porn, then at the very least you should be ashamed by it being in your society and your culture. Shamed enough because you know it shapes some of the expectations and lack of respect for women in relationships by the influence porn causes to the community. Shame for the harms it does to the people who are in that industry. Because if it is allowed in society, then it is condoning that harm on the people who don't have much else and enter the porn industry to get further hurt by it. Shame because if nothing else, because of the fantasies that are the lifeline of the porn industry.

To anyone who watches or has watched porn, this is the shame you must wear. It's not just a shame of porn being in our society, because it is something you take part in by supporting the industry watching it. It is personally owned by you by your willingness to watch it.

Those who watch porn or watched it in the past support and condone an industry that degrades all women.

Own that shame. It's yours and mine to bare. And if you can, never return to it. Step away from it and never search for porn again.

Dear NNS,

You sure are great for telling others what to do or what they should be ashamed of. I appreciate living in a fairly free society and am glad that neither you, Ezhil nor your like are in control.

It really seems tough to you that other people are not behaving as you would have them behave. I accept that you are free to believe in your silly superstition. You have that right. Unfortunately you are not willing to extend that tolerance to others.

In present day Saudi Arabia, the Dark Ages and in the US during Prohibition we have examples of what happens when your kind is in control. Ban women driving. Ban alcohol. Ban porn. Ban abortion. Ban people reading the Bible in the vernacular. Ban people thinking for themselves. Ban people doing what you don't want them to do. If there are enough of you we will return to the bad old days.

David f.

Don't be greedy and ignore the harms of porn just because you like it.

You keep trying to turn this conversation away from porn and towards religion. But I am telling you that religion isn't the issue. I have given you the issue, without any religious connection to it. Yet instead of facing any of it you try to change the subject. Tell me this. The porn you look at, is it degrading to women or not? The fantasy you like when you look at porn, can you honestly say you feel it is good?

I've had issues with porn so I know it's addictive nature. I also have come to acknowledge the fantasy of porn versus the reality in the news. Quite an eye opening reality check, when you see a similar situation you've viewed in porn being the news story of abuse in real life. Or hear about the expectations that women face in relationships. Things they don't want to do but feel like they are expected to do. Because of these things I try to turn over a new leaf. The more you know about porn the worse the reality of it that comes out. There is no good that comes from it.

Freedoms of society don't extend to actively harming others. In the same way that freedom of speech doesn't extend to slander or fraud; so also freedom of expression is no excuse for actively harming and degrading women. Porn does that.

(Continued)

(Continued)

You say your glad I'm not in control of the government, or those like me either. Be careful not to turn this into a topic of personal attacks. Don't dismiss and ignore the points made about porn by trying to attack the people pointing out the harms of it. You say freedom of society, but what you really mean is that you like porn and support it. It has nothing to do with freedoms or harms. Otherwise you would be able to acknowledge the harms of porn as well.

There could be regulations in porn that are available to those in the industry to protect them, instead of abuses in the industry that ignore rules and regulations because no one else will hold them responsible. There could be regulations in the Internet sites so that porn couldn't come from another nation. That way you can be more confidant that the regulations in each country about porn can actively regulate it and can root out the instances of abuses as well as get rid of child porn and incest.

There are things that can be done, to reduce and punish the harms done in pornographic industries. But as you've said, you're happy with how things are. I'm glad you're not in charge of the government either, but I fear some like you are in charge.

Dear NNS,

I favor reducing the harm done by porn. I have acknowledged that porn, alcohol and other activities can be harmful and have also said that banning an activity because it is or can be harmful is incompatible with a free society. I feel consenting sex by adults with no money involved is no business of the government. However, I think there should be instruction in schools as to safer sex, easy availability of contraceptives and lessening the likelihood of unplanned pregnancies. Any business should be regulated as to fairness, safety and good treatment of employees. That applies whether the business is porn or the garment industry. I am bothered very much by the armament industry. The result of that industry creates international tensions and results in great suffering. That industry is far worse than anything derived from the exercise of human desires. When Turnbull expressed his wish that Australia be one of the top ten arms producers, that turned me off him. I regarded that as immoral. We both are concerned with what is moral and immoral even though we are not concerned with the same issues.

I feel that much of your attitude derives from your religion. We are not compartmented. One part of our being affects another part of our being. If you see that as a personal attack I am sorry, but that is the way it is. In our discussion we have revealed much of ourselves. I think I know where you are coming from, and I think you know where I am coming from.

I feel the concern you express for woman in porn is absolutely phony. A pregnant woman may want to terminate her pregnancy for what she may feel is a good reason. You would deny her that right as you would ban abortion in all cases. You don’t seem at all concerned about what a pregnant woman wants. I want fair treatment for men and women who make their living through porn and to preserve the right of a woman to have a legal abortion.

To David f.

If you say you're good with reducing the harms of porn then what are yours thoughts in the suggestions that were made earlier. There are harms, that much is true. Doing nothing and avoiding to take action is not someone who says they want to reduce the harms at all. There have been suggestions short of banning porn that you've ignored, and continue to avoid commenting on. I don't buy your support, especially since you've also acknowledged that there is harm and accepted it as the price to have and enjoy porn, as well as saying that you are happy with the amount of regulations in place right now.

The call for arms and the industries behind weapon making is a topic I would like to see some control on as well. However sidestepping the issues of porn to go to another issue does nothing except show you really care nothing for the harms done in any industry. Perhaps you can see the fault of the logic if the example isn't porn (which you enjoy and support). Why try to fix a neighborhood gang issue when there are international conflicts going on. Should a community care about the issues they have more control over and the harms done in their neighborhood, or should they focus their attention on matters they have less control over that are far worse? The logic you are showing here of sidestepping an issue that you can act on to reduce harm to focus half heartedly on an issue that there is less control to fix, or no follow through to fix, is logic that supports universal neglect through side stepping any issue because there are "greater problems out there."

(Continued)

(Continued)

Porn causes harm. Don't ignore it. Don't sidestep it. By involving yourself in the industry you are actively condoning the harm that is the bread and butter of the industry. By watching porn you are condoning the industry and the methods used to create it and bring it to you. It doesn't have to be a matter of a free society any more then murder, theft or vandalism (all also which cause harm) are activities that aren't supported by being in a free society.

As for my motivations and my attitudes. You spend more time telling me what I believe instead of listening to what I have to say. There's a good chance you know very little of my convictions or why I hold them. In fact previous conversations have been derailed because you've said your stance on what I believe instead of actually what I wrote. Even to the point that I can correct you and you don't change. You still hold your opinions as greater then anything else here. Thus the topic gets derailed because I correct you and you ignore it and repeat yourself. This is a habitual behavior of yours. Turn from it. It only feeds you with lies that you believe instead of actually be willing to hear and know the truth.

My beliefs are more then a hollow religious opinion that you present it to be. In fact I would argue that everyone's beliefs (both religious and non religious) are more then the common philosophy "that's just your belief" or "that's just your religion." What a person believes is what convicts them. They act on it because they either are sure of it, or they hope on it enough to act on it. It is not dismiss-able enough to say, "that's just your belief," or that's just your religion."

(Continued)

(Continued)

More so then that though, if a person's beliefs can be confirmed by the reality of the world around them, then that only adds merit to their convictions. The excuse that "it only comes from my religion," only gives more merit to my religion when it is right for such convictions. I've given many sources that point to the harms of porn. Not just one harm, but multiple harms. Harms to relationships, harms to to those watching and those "acting," harms by degrading women, harms by a documented addictive nature to porn. If I come to terms to these issues because of my religious attitudes, then perhaps there is merit in those religious beliefs and convictions. They are not as hollow as you believe them to be. (Meaning your conviction on the topic of religion is in error).

That said, no, my beliefs are not just religious teaching that I was taught and accepted without consideration. I was raised with one parent from one religion, and another from a different religion. I have searched based on that. I've also seen the results for what happens when people do or don't follow the teachings in the bible. That only adds to the merit of what's said there (porn is an example of this). I've learned first hand from struggles of my own to see how one lifestyle is faulty and what to be watchful in those situations. Knowledge that I hope to pass on to the next generation so some of them don't have to repeat the same mistakes when they likely confront the same situation.

(Continued)

(Continued)

Now that I have defended myself and where I am coming from, are you willing to move on and actually not try to actively sidestep the topic of porn, and continue to make excuses for it? Or is that change too hard for you to do?

Ezhil says ban porn. A path I would support even if I have doubts on it being successful. That path would be a trail blazer that would eventually have successful results in reducing the harms done by porn. Putting restrictions, safeguards and other options in place by the industry because they don't want the same public banning to occur again. (Or who knows maybe banning would be successful, and porn can be killed off. Even better.)

I've said to change the industry because of the harms I've referenced. Given a few ideas that can be implemented. Ban international porn, so that each country can police effectively the abuses, and the broken regulations in the porn industry. Increase the regulations in the industry or have more outside enforcement take over so those regulations are honored. Punish the people making the porn until they clean up their act. Use the tools we have to restrict porn on a national level so that by default kids don't have access to it. (Instead of the current default being that parents have to know the options and seek them out to protect their kids. But only able to protect them within their own homes.)

What have you suggested? Porn is worth the harms it causes and you enjoy it. To that effect you've sidestepped, and avoided the topic as much as possible.

Dear NNS,

There is really no point in continuing a discussion with a person who is convinced he has the truth. I am not enjoying this interchange.

To David f.

If my points can't be countered then they might not be wrong. Something to think about in future conversations. I think I'm right. Everyone who has a strong opinion on anything thinks they are right. If they can back up their points, and those points can't be countered then don't argue with it being about the person. "That's just your religion," "I can't talk to some who thinks they hold the truth." Stick to the topic and you might find it better to counter them and their points.

I won't apologize for thinking I hold the truth on this matter. It's a topic I've put a lot of thought into and struggled through. If my points stand firm, then they aren't wrong. Even if you don't agree and gave a different opinion, that doesn't make anything better or counter any of the points.

In the last few post you made this issue on porn to be about my religious attitude and about me personally. The criticism in that is that if my points can't be countered then not only does that mean my points might be right but my attitudes or my religion that your crediting might be right as well. Keep that in mind for the future as well.

I am tired of conversations going back to having to defend myself instead of actually be about discussing the topic, the points and counter points. I would rather defend my points on the things I have a strong opinion on, and the points I don't have a strong opinion about. Instead of every topic going back to a debate about the person, a debate about me. Please keep that in mind because I tire of these conversations as well, but I won't back down when I'm not wrong and what I've said isn't countered to show an error in it.

Dear NNS,

If you want to live by the Bible, an archaic book that accepts slavery, forbids mixing different fibers, allows a man to get away with rape if he marries his victim, contains such nonsense as a man-god, a virgin birth and a talking snake you may do so. It is unreasonable for a person who accepts such absolute rubbish and a free society to expect a reasonable person to take on your nonsense. The world was not created in six days and is not 6,000 years old.

The Bible is a book of superstition which is incompatible with a free, modern society.

Sure, you won't back down. Retire to your ignorance, but don't expect anybody with a brain to accept it. Reject freedom. Reject science. Reject woman's rights. Reject common sense.

I do not attack you. You are a human being and entitled to respect as a human being. However, I have no respect for the silly superstition which has you in its clutches.

What does any of that ugly rant have to do with porn? Oh wait, I see it now. NOTHING! You must have a very weak stance if you have no actual counterpoints. Even Exhil, who doesn't agree with religions sees you for who you are. You've got nothing, NOTHING, to say about the topic so as a weak man you change the topic to be able to keep arguing.

David f. Have you always been this bitter and shallow, or only when you are here trying to defend naked pictures you like to look up "occasionally?" Move on David. Religion is not the topic here. Try addressing the actual topic.

Dear NNS,

You wrote: “Move on David. Religion is not the topic here.”

Religion is not the topic, but you previously wrote: “I've also seen the results for what happens when people do or don't follow the teachings in the bible.”

If religion is not the topic, why do you keep bringing in your silly superstition? If you bring in your silly superstition I may comment on it. You justify your position by bringing in your religion, and then deny that religion is the topic.

David

HA! I didn't bring up religion. you did. Continually. Even after repeatingly telling you that religion isn't the point.

•"A person might be in the clergy filling people's heads with nonsense so they are like poor, mistaken Israel Folau who imagines some of his fellow humans are going to an imaginary place of torment."
Posted by david f, Tuesday, 4 June 2019 7:50:08 AM

•"We have to allow porn. We have to allow Israel Folau’s offensive remarks about those his religion condemns. We have to allow religions to be questioned."
Posted by david f, Tuesday, 4 June 2019 9:48:02 AM

•"I find it a silly, stupid religion that maintains that position."
Posted by david f, Tuesday, 4 June 2019 10:32:02 AM

•"People may jeer at your Gods and your religion and call them fantasies."
Posted by david f, Wednesday, 5 June 2019 9:04:28 AM

•"In Rushdie's book he also tells of Muslims who are for free expression."
Posted by david f, Wednesday, 5 June 2019 9:50:29 AM

•"Matthew 7:1 Judge not, that ye be not judged."
Posted by david f, Thursday, 6 June 2019 5:58:48 PM

•"One does not have to believe in the man-god, Jesus, or any of the mumbojumbo in the Bible to accept the wisdom found in it."
Posted by david f, Thursday, 6 June 2019 7:08:12 PM

•"I don't think there is a God."
Posted by david f, Thursday, 6 June 2019 9:02:09 PM

•"I think that is your religion talking."
Posted by david f, Sunday, 9 June 2019 9:11:20 AM

•"My next concern is the divisive force of religion."
Posted by david f, Sunday, 9 June 2019 5:52:24 PM

•"Most religions have some version of the Golden Rule."
Posted by david f, Tuesday, 11 June 2019 6:10:21 AM

•"I think there is a basic sickness at the heart of the Christian faith."
"Other religions do not have that sickness."
Posted by david f, Tuesday, 11 June 2019 6:46:11 AM

•"In my opinion religion is more harmful than porn,"
Posted by david f, Tuesday, 11 June 2019 9:08:42 AM

((CONTINUED))

((CONTINUED))

•"Muslims gamble and Christians drink, but they were more concerned with people who think differently from them."
Posted by david f, Sunday, 16 June 2019 8:33:57 AM

•"Religion corrupts people's minds. Possibly the worst is Christianity"
Posted by david f, Sunday, 16 June 2019 9:35:41 PM

•"The problem with religion is that it is faith based."
Posted by david f, Monday, 17 June 2019 7:55:35 AM

•"Not only is porn as old as religion it has been intertwined with religion"
Posted by david f, Monday, 17 June 2019 1:28:39 PM

•"I accept that you are free to believe in your silly superstition."
Posted by david f, Wednesday, 19 June 2019 5:56:21 PM

•"I feel that much of your attitude derives from your religion."
Posted by david f, Thursday, 20 June 2019 3:34:56 AM

•"There is really no point in continuing a discussion with a person who is convinced he has the truth."
Posted by david f, Friday, 21 June 2019 4:41:40 AM

•"If you want to live by the Bible..."
Posted by david f, Saturday, 22 June 2019 9:06:26 AM

The only reason religion is a topic in here is because you kept introducing it. Basically you sucker punched the topic of porn in favor of mouthing off on people about Christianity or religion. At most I eventually commented a few times to address your constant attack on religion, and Christianity specifically. Get over yourself and move on.

Porn isn't what you want to talk about, nor something you can defend.

Dear NNS,

I have made many references to your religion. It is a source of my concern. I am an American. The worst war my country ever fought in terms of damage done to my country is the Civil War. The South used the Bible as a justification for slavery. That was legitimate since the Bible does support slavery. The growth of great crime empires during the 1920s was due to Prohibition which was an evil brought on by the Bible bashers. Alcohol does a lot of damage, but the attempt to banish it brought on greater damage. In a free society some people do things that other people do not like, but usually it better to live with those things then to ban them and drive them underground.

My country along with other countries fought against the Nazis. The Nazis didn’t invent Jew hatred. It was a feature of Christianity. For centuries the Christian church has persecuted and massacred Jews. The Nazis exploited an intolerant tendency that was deep in the Christian psyche.

Christianity has also produced some admirable people who are leaving or have left the world a better place. William Wilberforce, Roger Williams, John Brown, Martin Luther King jr, Bishop Spong and others.

However, to me you represent the evil side of Christianity the part that wants to control others, that would ban things, that is against woman’s rights, that is against democracy and that is intolerant.

In my reading of history the good that Christianity has done is outweighed by the bad, and the world would be better off without it.

Dear NNS,

It is my view that most religions, not just Christianity do more harm than they do good. They all contain the seeds of intolerance. Christianity does the most damage only because it is the biggest. Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam and Judaism and other religions have their share in the evil.

To David.

None of those concerns are about the issue of porn, nor does your opinion matter to me (I'll explain why in the bullet point on hypocrisy). I have put points into the topic without going in the direction of religion being the main focus. However your stance and your behavior aren't going away in this topic or any future topic. So I'll address it.

Try to talk to me about anything without having to speak for me on my views. If I'm not having to defend my views that aren't part of the subject (sometimes try to ignore the false criticisms in order to value the topic enough to not get buried and derailed); or to continually correct what my views actually are, after you state what they are according to you; then there's a very good chance that you might actually come to see what my viewpoints are, or even see the point I mean in any discussion.

Here are some cliff notes for you.

•I am not a danger to society, to you, or to anyone else. Jesus said to love your neighbor, and to love your enemies. For a while that meant to me to not have any enemies because if you love them they can't be your enemy. However I now see how someone can be your enemy and never give up on being your enemy. Trying their best to trip you up and push your buttons. Loving your enemy is something I now understand as the challenge that it really is.

(continued)

(Continued)

•I am not against women or women's rights. In my opinion women should be treated fairly. Fairly does not mean equally in my opinion, because there are some things that separate the lives of men from the lives of women. Such as women need to be better protected then men do. Crime can happen to anyone but it seems that women are targeted much more often and that awareness means a heightened sense of danger, self defense classes, or just going out in groups instead of being alone and exposed (especially at night). Though there are a few other things to concern the differences between women and men, over all fairness and equality over lap quite a bit. Having the same wage for the same job, and having opportunities in the workforce for well paying jobs, opportunities in politics, sports, hobbies, and much more are part of the overlap where fairness to women is the same thing as equality to women.

But I do not see abortion as a right, any more then I see a mother or father having the right to harm their children after they are born. This is your focus, and as far as I'm aware your only complaint against me on women's rights. We have argued on this matter, but my stance on this isn't just from a Christian stand point. Killing babies is a horrific thing to me.

(continued)

(Continued)

•There is right and wrong. This can be discussed in multiple ways. From ethics and morals, laws and punishment, religion and philosophy, as well as straight pragmatic cause and effect. Anyone who sees the wrongs in the world and tolerates it or encourages it is not in the right. They might avoid doing wrong themselves by tolerating an evil or a danger in the world, instead of getting their hands dirty by standing against it. However that does not put them in being right because they tolerate something bad. Nor does standing up against something wrong while doing something just as bad or worse make someone in the right. The topic of laws, ethics, and results of certain actions, are something I am open to discussing, and something I have opinions on myself.

•I am not against democracy, but it isn't democracy if you have to silence any and all Christian expression and views. From what I see your actions and views show a danger to democracy. If there is anything that disagree with you, you attack it aggressively. There is hypocrisy in your views against Christians being open about their faith, while you push and act as a missionary against Christianity. Don't accuse me of being against democracy while you do much worse.

•Hypocrisy is a value I hate. If I see it in myself I try to remove it. If I see it in others I lose respect for them. Based on many of your actions in these forums I have no respect for you because of hypocrisy and double standards (as well as a single minded disrespect that you've pushed on me without any warning or reason).

•Lastly, my faith and my religious views are a strong element in my life. Don't act like you know what they are before you hear me say what they are. I've put a lot of thought into these areas. You know nothing of my philosophy on life. And I get tired of trying to correct you instead of discussing the topics that are brought up in these forums.

Dear NNS,

Your religious views are a strong element in your life. I consider a belief in heaven, hell, God, the devil etc. as silly and harmful. I consider them far worse than porn or alcohol. Religious convictions drive people to interfere in other people's activities, go on crusades, burn people at the stake, persecute heretics and people of another religion and do many other nasty things. However, it is precious to me that we live in a free society, and I recognise the futility of banning things that full a need for people even if they are silly and harmful. I certainly don't silence your silly and harmful beliefs. In my opinion your views are a considerable danger to society if we look at what has been done by the Inquisition, the Wars of the Reformation, the Holocaust, Christian imperialism, Prohibition, slavery and the other evils inspired or justified by Christianity. However, it would also be a danger to society to ban your views. Religious indoctrination of children as though the Bible and Koran are true has been banned in Sweden.

https://mybroadband.co.za/forum/threads/sweden-bans-religous-indoctrination-in-schools.134125/

I think Sweden has gone too far. I think your Christian beliefs are harmful. I think they deny reason and common sense. However, I would not ban them or your right to express them. If they can be banned other less harmful ideas can be banned. Any dissent can be banned. You have a right to be wrong. I will do what I can to counter your harmful beliefs with reason.

Welp, that was a lot of wasted time. I'm not going to repeat that mistake David. I gave you the information to correct you, and even stressed one major issue with you. You trying to speak for me. And you still don't get it?

Here's the reality check. Your rationale isn't in line with what's real. It's over philosophized and antigonistically analyzed. For what's real, I'll say it again. I'm no threat or danger to anyone. Nor are my beliefs.

Not that I expect you to listen. So hear this instead. Your actions are your own enemy. Your rationale a stepping stone towards harassment. If you couldn't have a civil conversation with Exhil on the topic he brought up, even after he let you know he agrees with you on religion, then you have nothing to offer anyone else either. Everyone else will be able to see your faulty reasoning exactly for what it is. Hopefully one day you'll notice it too. Either way I'm done wasting time with you.

Fight on another conversation if you want, but your views and your opinions are worthless. I already explained why for that too. Fairwell.

Dear NNS,

Farewell, not fairwell. Farewell is a parting hope that the person you are parting from fares well. I hope you do.

Dear NNS,

I just noticed that you wrote. "Killing babies is a horrific thing to me."

It is a horrific thing to me also. However, a fetus is not a baby, and you knows darn well it isn't a baby. Just one of your tricks with language to bolster a bad case with dishonest rhetoric. It is reasonable to place the wishes of an adult woman over the welfare of a fetus.

Jesus said to 'love your enemy'. That's another bit of dishonest rhetoric. It is impossible to love all your friends. how can one love an enemy? Love is a tenuous emotion hard to come by. Jesus also cursed a fig tree because it wouldn't bear out of season. That was kind of stupid. Of course it might not have happened. The gospels were written well after Jesus' death. He might not have as stupid as the Gospels picture him.

I hope that you may emerge from the coils of your superstition.

Love is more then just an emotion. It is actions that you take. If you want an example of loving your neighbor look up the story of the Good Samaritan.

If you want fetus to be used, then use it yourself. Try it. Ask a pregnant woman "when is your fetus due?" Or try to comfort a woman who had a miscarriage by saying "don't cry, it was only a fetus." I'll stick by being respectful to the mother to be by acknowledging an unborn baby for what it actually is. An unborn baby is still a baby. It just hasn't been born yet.

Dear NNS,

I am not a corpse. I will become a corpse, but I haven't died yet. There is a distinction between a living person and a corpse. A fetus is not a baby. It will become a baby if it develops and is born. The distinction between a fetus and a baby is similar to the distinction between a living person and a corpse. The difference is that all living persons will become corpses, but not all fetuses will become babies.

I put the desire of a pregnant woman to terminate her pregnancy above the right of the fetus to become a baby. A pregnant woman may be eager to have a child so she will call her fetus a baby. Calling a fetus a baby does not make it a baby. One can call a dog's tail a leg, but a dog remains a four-legged animal regardless of what you call a tail. Like you I abhor infanticide, the killing of a baby. Abortion is not infanticide even if one calls it infanticide.

We both have invested a lot of time and energy in this discussion. I think it is a very good thing that a pregnant woman should have the legal right to terminate her pregnancy. You apparently do not think it is a good thing. I don't think further discussion will change the opinion of either of us. Let us agree that we both think we are right and will never agree in the case of abortion.

We may agree on other matters.

To David f.

If you don't want to talk about abortion and to agree to disagree, that's fine. Then don't bring it up. I only comented on it because you said I was against women's rights. I am not against women's rights, but am against abortion.

Agree to disagree on that, or don't. But if you voice your disagreement, there's a good chance I'll reply with a rebuttal. The act of agree to disagree rests in your actions. Abortion is not something I am going to stay silent on if it is brought up.

Dear NNS,

I don't see how you can be for woman's rights and deny her the right to have an abortion. When an outside person wants to control a woman's decision whether to have an abortion that person is against woman's rights no matter what excuse that person can give or what rationalism he or she makes.

https://www.debate.org/opinions/should-abortion-be-mainly-the-womans-choice

You are trying to have it two ways. Claiming to be for woman's rights and denying her the right to have an abortion.

David f.

"You are trying to have it two ways."

What a great way of putting it. But this applies to you more then me David. You say let's agree to disagree, only after you voice your disagreements and disgruntlements regarding my position on other matters then the topic being discussed. When I give a reply you back off to say "let's agree to disagree, we've talked about this too much."

Later on I assure you this would be repeated again because that is what you've done here. Drag down my position on any other discussion because you say I'm against women's rights.

So let's get it out in the open right now. Which way do you want it David? To hash it out all over again, and use the wild card "against women's rights" any time you want to discredit me? Or do you want to bury the hatchet and just agree to disagree. Try not to let the issue get between us and move on to other things.

Depending on your answer will be whether I reply to explain my position on abortion or letting it go because your and my views are not compatible. (As you've also said when you've tired of arguing).

You can't have it both ways, make your decision David. I do not play kindly to those who play games of hypocrisy, and my patience is lacking from these kinds of games you play at. (I am trying to be patient, take time before responding to distill some of the first reactions that come up. Make your decision, and I will acknowledge it by your actions to either agree to disagree regarding abortion, or your actions to voice your disagreements.

Dear NNS,

Human rights are not set in concrete.

At this time in civilised, modern Australia there is no death penalty, slavery is illegal and a woman has a right to have an abortion. All of these human rights can be abolished. The death penalty may be reinstituted, slavery may be made legal and abortion may be made illegal. Some would reinstate the death penalty. Some would reinstate slavery. Some would make abortion illegal again. I prefer the present consensus on human rights.

Dear NNS,

The struggle for woman’s rights has been a long, hard struggle. We have until recently and to a great degree still live in a male dominated society. Married women have been denied the right to hold property. Property has been in her husband’s name. Women have been denied the right to vote. When my wife went to university the only occupations for educated women were nursing, librarianship or teaching. While she was going to university occupation therapy became another choice available to women so she chose that. The right of women to vote, the right of women to hold property and the right of women to get equal pay for equal work have all been fought. However, as we have become more enlightened women are attaining these rights. Another right is for women to have control over their own bodies. Included in that right is the right of a pregnant woman to decide whether she wants to continue her pregnancy. That is part of woman’s rights. The right to abortion is being denied in the same manner as the right to vote, the right to hold property and the right to choose who a woman wants to marry or not marry. It is a human right.

My oldest granddaughter is now going to medical school. I have four granddaughters, and I am glad they have opportunities denied women in the past. I am glad they have the right to abortion should they want or need one.

I am happy we have societies that respect and honor women. That recognize their value and give them rights. The efforts for those rights are worth the struggle they went through. But abortion is not a woman's right.

Look at what a fetus is. No matter how you look at it, if you actually look, you can see that a fetus is a person. A very small person but one that is the same as a newborn before they are born. The distinction is so small but it is enough to justify killing through voluntary abortion. Look at it though. what is the distinction between a newborn, and a fetus. Actually use your eyes and look up pictures. The rest of my reply can wait. Go and look it up.

Now look at what abortion is. I don't mean what it represents, but what it does and how it's done. In the past I gave an online source to explain in detail. Look there for reference if you doubt me, but here is what abortion is. Really is. It is killing a fetus. A person so small they haven't been born yet.

Surgical abortion takes on ripping the baby apart limb from limb with a suctioning devise. Or if the abortion is done in a later term, it involves crunching the baby apart tearing the baby's body into pieces to be easier to suck away.

Medical abortions are done by taking a few pills that starve off the baby from the nutrients from their mother. Then just wait for the baby to die and have it ejected from the body. This is a more dangerous procedure for the mother but just as heartless. Instead of ripping them apart they are starved until they are dead. But for the women receiving this abortion the risk is that they don't actually eject the body. These risking infection and potentially death for the mother.

I reject the term fetus because of the rationalization it makes in abortionists. It rationalizes away a Barbaric act against a baby. I wouldn't want a corpse to be mutilated in the way abortion does it's service. Yet it is thought of as a right. Abortion is sickening to think about.

The reason we have abortions as an issue at all is because we have a problem of having babies and don't want them. Want a solution that doesn't involve killing. Try not to have sex unless your ready to have children. Too much? How about adoption plans set aside. If a family member gets pregnant and doesn't the baby, or doesn't think they can be a mother, then the right to adopt is offered to a family member. If the mother doesn't want that member to raise her child or has no family that wants to adopt, then adoption can be offered to adoption agencies to find suitable parents. This costs more and may mean the mother loses all contact with their child, but at least it's better then killing them.

The other option is abortion. It is a sick tool so that society can live it up and not care about the death toll.

There you go David. I gave you the choice you offered of "agree to disagree," and try to move on. But the choice came with the condition to not use abortion as a tactic in debates you disagree with me on. Apparently that was not a choice you wanted. Hypocrite!

Do you want to know the truth? You think I am a monster against women's rights. I am not. I think you are horrible because in every conversation that has sex as an issue you've shown a new side of the discussion to make matters worse. You want to encourage teens to have sex. Thinking this is healthy instead of warning them on the consquences in their relationships, and to find better mates. You support abortion (which rationalizes away one of the consquences of unrestrained sex and lust). You support porn even rationalize the harms of it away because you like to look at porn occasionally. (You do this with no guilt and say you love your wife while doing it). You are a sick sick man.

Dear NNS,

I do not think you are a monster. You are not a monster. You really do not know what I think. You are not a sick, sick man. I see no need to call you names because you disagree with me. I see abortion as a human right and so do most people. You don't.

I don't feel guilt if I watch porn. If I saw things with your eyes I would feel guilt or not watch porn.

We live in a word where not everyone agrees on what is right or wrong. I accept that there are people with your views on abortion and other matters which differ from my views. That makes them neither sick nor immoral. It just means we have different views. To live in a civil society we have to live with people with different views. It is easier to live with people with different views if we don't call them names.

I feel strongly that abortion is a woman's right. It is not a tactic. I don't assume your views are a tactic. We will continue to disagree. I do not agree to disagree. I disagree with you and do not agree.

David.

<<I feel strongly that abortion is a woman's right. It is not a tactic.>>

Sure it is. Why else would you bring it up, or bring up religion for that matter? You don't want to focus on the points addressed to you. It's a tactic. If it's not then follow through in what you suggested earlier. Agree to disagree. Don't bring it up again and use as you have here. Move on. There will be other things to disagree on. As you've said, you're trying to have it both ways.

Dear NNS,

I feel you are posting in good faith. Please give me the same credit. I maintain the right to legal abortion is a human right.

As far as your contention that I support unrestrained sexuality you are right. I think there is too much sex in advertising and too little in reality. What consenting adults or teenagers do to each other in the way of sex is nobody else's business as long as there is adequate contraception and concern for the spread of disease.

David f.

Your actions are what you are know by. If you don't want to be known for tactics then don't use it as such. Also, it helps if you actually live up to what you say. I didn't bring up the idea of agree to disagree. That was your idea on Thursday June 27th at 7:20:02 AM. "I don't think further discussion will change the opinion of either of us. Let us agree that we both think we are right and will never agree in the case of abortion." Of course you only said no further discussion is needed after making a statement on women's rights yourself and having your say for abortion. All I did was say ok, but this is only if you mean it and not to use it again whenever it suits you.

As for you thinking I am a monster, don't play dumb. Are these not your own words?

"However, to me you represent the evil side of Christianity the part that wants to control others, that would ban things, that is against woman’s rights, that is against democracy and that is intolerant."
Posted by david f, Sunday, 23 June 2019 9:21:48 AM

Either way time to move on. If you mean none of this as a tactic, then know that you used it as such, whether you meant to or not. Do better in the future if you want to be known as writing in good faith. Or don't. The choice is yours.

Dear NNS,

Christians have an adage: Hate the sin. Love the sinner.

I shall try it.

I shall hate the sin of Christianity.

I shall love the sinner who is you.

Dear NNS,

We keep posting each other. Do you want to tell me more about yourself and your path through life? Do you want me to tell you more about myself and my path through life? At 93 I am reflecting on my life and trying to learn from it. You may be doing the same. We apparently feel very differently about religion. We can explore why we feel very differently. Do you want to do that?

To David f.

It'd be good to get to know each other, outside of everything we disagree on. I would like to know about your life. If you want to hear about mine I'd share it. How big is your family? You have kids and grandkids. You must be proud. How you've talked about your granddaughter studying medicine, I know you're proud of her. I would like to have a family of my own too. Do you have brothers and sisters you grew up with? I am 36, two older brothers and a wife. It'll be 5 years in a month. No luck with kids yet. Though we both want to be parents, it might not be up to us.

Dear NNS,

I was born in Syracuse, NY, USA. I am an only child and wish I weren’t. When I got married I wanted to have more than one child, and my wife agreed. My older son, William, is a professor of Anthropology at William and Mary. The younger, Seth, heads a group of biochemists in Oklahoma. My daughter worked with the Wilmington, Delaware school system as a school librarian and has recently retired. If you live long enough your children become old people.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0688078516/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_hsch_vapi_taft_p1_i1

The book above is about six people who are quite bright but chose to live undemanding lives. My daughter is the one given the name, Maxine, in the book. I am divorced from my first wife who is now dead. It was not a happy marriage primarily due to my failings. I am very happily remarried.

Each of my children has two children, all unmarried. William’s daughter, Diana, is in his thirties and has told me she is not going to have children unless possibly by adoption. Melanie, her sister, works for an ad agency in Brazil. She is the only descendant not in the US.

Seth’s daughter, Nina, is the medical student. Her younger brother, Adam, is an aspiring comedian. Rebecca’s daughter and her son are both at university.

William and Seth visited me in Australia in March.

In 1980 I went to a conference in Cambridge, UK. There I met my wife who was living in Norway. She came to the US for me. When I retired in 1987 she wanted to go home to Australia where she was born and grew up. Since she came to the US for me I came to Australia for her. I didn’t expect to live much longer and am amazed to be here at 93 with no major health problems.

May you last to my age and beyond and have descendants. My contemporaries are dead, but I have family.

You asked about family, but I want to know now you got to be who you are with your views on life.

Are Snuff movies pornography?

To Is Mise.

Had to look up what snuff movies are. Glad I didn't see any examples from the Google search. Horrible stuff. Porn that murders someone? Horrible stuff.

To David f.

Thanks for sharing about your family. I hoped to find something to relate to with you. Family is the backbone of life. When nothing else goes right, they are still the safety net.

I have two older brothers whom I've always looked up to (even today). One brother is a musician and artist. Now owns his own framing shop. He's sociable person and seems to get along with anyone. The other brother is a cook and has been for much of his life. His philosophy and looking at life fit with much of my own philosophical questions throughout life. Being in the shadow of these two men has been my privilege. Knowing them shaped who I am a lot by just looking up to what they've done, what they've overcome, and who they are.

How I got to be who I am starts out with a head injury at two years old. Lucky to be alive and possibly the first experience to be a foundation in believing in God. Though I don't remember it. The end results are that my speed is slower then everyone else, and my vision is blind on the left side in both eyes (peripheral vision). Long term this means my parents helped me get extra time and help in school. After school, it means my best doesn't cut it. Only recently has that conclusion been chipping away.

A few take aways from this is an appreciation of the generosity and kindness of those who show kindness (as well as the importance for that quality to have). A lot of time philosophizing, trying to make sense of the world. And a nagging feeling of being broken. Eventually I found out that I am not more broken then everyone else, but that everyone has their struggles, their embarrassments, their failures, and some of the common issues in human nature and behavior. It's not just me that's broken, but a lot of the world is broken by how it treats itself, how it reacts to how it's treated, and the various abuses.

(Continued)

(Continued)

My faith starts out as faith in God before it comes to religion. He's looked out for me. Responded to some prayers. And showed His love. I know God exists. This isn't theory, or being manipulated to believe, it's knowledge from experience. As a teen I decided to look into if God spoke through the religions, and if so to know which religions came from God. My mom is Christian, my dad is Baha'i. Faith in God came before faith or understanding in religion. I can go into more detail of this if you want, but my conclusion is that the texts and prophets in The Old Testament are from God, as is Jesus and the texts of the new Testament.

The three things in my life that most shaped it I would say is finding God, having supportive parents, and finding my wife. Each of these three parts of my life has rescued me from one time of depression or another. With my wife, she healed my heart and gave me hope after I'd lost hope in much of everything else. (She healed a bad break down and depression that intensified the nagging feeling of being broken that I grew up with). How I got to be who I am today is impacted because of those who have helped rescue me from my inner struggles.

This might not explain my views in detail. But it is an overview of how I've come to be who I am, as well as a foundation my views are built on. For more information I'd need some direction for what you'd like to know about.

As for you, my next question would be about your careers in life, your studies (college or otherwise), and any significant hobbies you had. Regardless of our differences in views I hoped to find something to relate to with you. With that in mind thanks again for telling about your family.

Dear NNS,

I very much appreciated you telling me about yourself. The sad fact is that we may have difficulty finding common ground to relate to each other besides agreeing on the importance of family and the joy of having a loving wife.

I have rejected religion and think doubt is preferable to faith. I am quite interested in religion and read much about it. I also read much about philosophy and have given lectures on philosophy in Prins Willem Alexander Village where I live

https://www.agedcareguide.com.au/prins-willem-alexander-village

I have been a technical person. My majors in university were physics and mathematics. Not only is mathematics a subject of study, but it is a hobby. I keep learning, reading and thinking about it. I read a lot. The last six books I read are:

The Birth of the West, Paul Collins
Joseph Anton, Salman Rushdie
Philosophy in 50 Milestone Moments, Dan Smith
The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie, Muriel Spark
Brick Lane, Monica Ali
Wuthering Heights, Emily Bront&#1105;
I was involved in computers at an early stage and worked on UNIVAC, the first commercially available computer.

https://www.thoughtco.com/the-history-of-the-univac-computer-1992590

Among other things I was involved in the election predictions of 1952 described in the last paragraph of the UNIVAC story. I have been a soldier, a rocket engineer, a systems analyst and a university lecturer in computer science.

In the late 1950s I got a telephone call. I was offered a job at triple my then salary. It was to work on the Polaris Missile. My background qualified me for the job, but I refused it as it was repugnant to me.

https://www.britannica.com/technology/Polaris-missile

I think refusing that job offer hurt my employment prospects. The man who offered me the job was very angry at my refusal and threatened me. I think he succeeded in affecting my other employment prospects, and my income was affected as a result.

Possibly it was one of the things that caused my divorce. I don’t regret refusing to work on a device that could cause the death of millions as I just couldn’t in good conscience do it.

continued

continued

You and I have different ideas on what is right and wrong.

One of my granddaughters works for an ad agency. To me that is more immoral than working with porn. Ad agencies are in the business of persuading people to buy what they don’t need by appealing to their emotions. However, it is her choice, and I am not putting my morality on her. I am not telling her she shouldn’t do that or she should be ashamed. As a practical matter telling her that would only alienate her from me.

The following expands on what I have said in my previous posts.

The expression, “The world is broken.” implies there is some model or ideal of perfection that the world fails to reach. The world is what it is, and we humans may try to understand it. We have been at odds because my view is much different from yours. I have never been a Christian and see the Christian religion as embodying unreasonable guilt. One is asked to be like Jesus. However, Jesus is assumed to be perfect, but no human can be perfect so there is a built in guilt, a built in failure. We are all sinners and cannot be like Jesus because we are not perfect. That may be where your idea that the world is broken comes from. Plato has a similar idea in his world of forms. Somewhere out of this world there are perfect forms – perfect beauty, perfect horses, perfect whatever, the beauty and horses we see on earth are imperfect copies of the ideals of the world of forms. All real objects and ideas are imperfect copies of ideas and objects that exist in the world of forms. Some Christian philosophers have taken in that Platonic idea as being compatible with Christianity.

Continued

continued

I was raised as a Jew. Although I no longer believe there are some Jewish ideas I still have. There is a Hassidic story:

Reb Zosya said, When the Almighty comes for me he will not ask me, “Why were you not like Moses?” He will ask me, “Why were you not like Zosya?”

In other words, you are not a failure if you don’t achieve some ideal. All we are asked to do is to achieve what is in us to achieve. That is profoundly different from the Christian ideal of trying to be like Jesus.

I find the worldview expressed in the ancient philosophies of Stoicism, Epicureanism and Cynicism as a better way to live and regard the world than any religion I know of.

If I can sum up my beliefs they are: Be kind, and question authority. I have not always been kind to you in our interchanges, and I am reaching out to you to try to be kinder and relate to you as another human being rather than continuing to discuss matters on which we cannot agree.

I have written articles for olo expressing my viewpoints:

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/author.asp?id=4977 points to them.

The articles that most relate to our discussions are:

The culturally imperial and the satanic

There is no god in which we all trust

Secularism and religious tolerance

God is a human invention

Adam's rib

Another perspective on evil

When I encountered you on olo I felt extreme hostility. Perhaps the following will explain why.

http://www.beingjewish.com/toshuv/missionaries.html

I don’t largely share the viewpoint of the person, who wrote that, but I do share his hostility to missionaries, and you identified as a missionary. Jews have clung to their faith in spite of massacre and persecution. I regard Hitler as the logical consequence of the Christian missionary effort to Jews. “We can’t get rid of them by turning them into Christians, but we can kill them.”

If I have offended you I will stop here. Please tell me how you feel about what I wrote. If you want I will continue otherwise not.

To David f

Thank you also for telling about your life as well. We don't need to have a lot in common to be able to relate to each other. At least I don't think we do. Just getting to know the other person helps draw it away from hypothetical and stereotypical assumptions.

I must not know much about ad agencies to know them by emotional manipulation, none the less, I see your reasoning against advertisement slogans based on fighting against manipulation.

The brokenness of the world and the brokenness of me aren't something I know how to explain better then I have already. Though sin and the need for salvation fit into this view, they aren't the source of this view.

Let me give it some examples. That might help.

In school and in life everything is a race. It has been since high school (before then I was still slower then average but didn't notice it as much). I watched people put their pins down during tests and in class assignment and realized I was always cut short of finishing before the class was ready to move on. I've failed tests because I ran out of time and the rest of the class was done sometimes 15 minutes earlier then I was. These are frustrating things but over all I made it. I was an average enough student with some help. Entering the work force though, I realized I can't compete, and can't move up in any field because I can't compete in the lowest level of any job. Unfortunately I didn't know where to turn for better career paths, so I went from one costumer service job to another. Every job was still a race, just finish to be below average, below the bottom standard. As far as I could tell I was a worthless broken piece of humanity, because my best just wasn't enough.

(Continued)

(Continued)

This isn't broken on a morality scale where sin is usually the concern. But it is a brokenness on a functional scale of judgements. If you can't do the work, you aren't suited for it. If you can't meet the expectations of any job, your broken. From there sin enters as a factor and I realized something else. The game is fixed against people more often then not. On a functional level the world is broken.

You don't have to agree with this way of looking at it, and I hope you're not insulted by it. But I thought it needed another try to explain it. Your phrasing it as a moral picture of the world isn't the full picture. Honestly I don't know if you can relate to this concept of brokenness. From what it sounds like from your careers and studies you've been very successful and even had job offers come to you that you had the opportunity to refuse for moral reasons. Even after a divorce you landed on your feet. Being broken is probably a slap in the face to you. One thing to add. The idea of being broken and the world being broken isn't a stand alone philosophy. My other views shape that philosophy as much as it shapes the other views.

(Continued)

(Continued)

I honestly did not know how you felt about missionaries until the hostility I received about it on that first topic. If memory serves me right you said first that I reminded you of a missionary. To me this was a compliment not an insult. Someone who willingly gives up everything to move somewhere else to help another community. To share their faith as well, but to be a service in some way to the community they are going to. It wasn't a compliment I thought I deserved outside of sharing my faith, and I tried to accept it as the compliment that I thought it was intended as.

I didn't know the hostility that was associated with missionaries, or anything that would follow. I don't think I would take it as anything as but a compliment even today, though I might be a lot more cautious and ask "how so," or "what do you mean," before accepting that or other potential compliments from someone else. I don't expect you to change your views of missionaries, and I won't argue about it, but honestly how would I have known? Please understand my confusion. After accepting what I thought was a compliment, I was treated very harshly which followed through several discussions. The accusation of missionary seemed to fit better my accuser then it did me, and I was still coming to grips with it being an insult instead of anything else but an insult. Either way thanks for the article explaining the hostility. If nothing else it is an explanation. (I disagree that what I've said or expressed in any of the conversations as being comparable to Hitler. But it explains the reactions a bit, when all I've done is express my faith, opinions, or occasionally a political view.)

(Continued)

(Continued)

You're answering my questions, so you can continue if you want. If you want more details from me or on something else let me know. It's only fair if this is an equal exchange instead of a one sided interrogation. I have one set of questions for you though.

Based on what you've said for your reactions and hostility initially and afterwards, do you really see my expressing the views I've shared in any of the topics as comparable to Hitler? Do you think of any Christian expressing their views in the same way? If not, then what is the difference? What I walk away from is that the only good Christian to you is a silent one (and maybe not even that). If I'm wrong on that then what's the difference? You've said many times that you view Christianity as a danger, or that my views are a danger, and I have to walk away wondering if you actually read the views I expressed, or if you filled in what I didn't say to make it a danger. Does that make sense? I get the impression from you that Christians (or at least me specifically) shouldn't be allowed to speak about their faith, or about any other topic either because of the faith they (or just me) hold.

I don't mean to start another argument, but I don't understand the comparison of me to Hitler. I don't see what I've said to be anything that I've been accused of either. From gun boats to totalitarian, I don't see the connection. At least not based on what I've actually written. Again this seems a slap in the face that by being a Christian that means I need to be silent on all matters. Do you think these are fair stances you've held?

Dear NNS,

We have wound up in different places with different ideas of right and wrong. I am pleased that you want to continue.

You wrote: “In school and in life everything is a race.”

It doesn’t have to be a race. We live in a competitive society. Part of the sickness of that society I believe is due to Christianity with its built sense of failure – its lugubrious lament – “We are all sinners.” Christianity sets Jesus as an example that a person should be like. As I pointed in my previous post about Reb Zosya, be what you can be. If you succeed in that, that should be enough. You have succeeded in getting a woman to love you. You have the love of your family. Be satisfied with who you are.

If life is a race I am not a winner since I am not on top. In a race there is only one winner. You are articulate. You can express yourself. If you weren’t articulate I wouldn’t be carrying on a dialogue with you.

I don’t relate to the concept of being broken since I don’t think it is reasonable to regard the world as broken if it isn’t perfect. It is what it is. However, I accept that the world being broken is part of your philosophy. I don’t share that philosophy.

Religion is not just a belief system. Shared rituals and customs of religion unite family and community. It may feel so good that a missionary wants to bring these blessings to others.

The person approached by the missionary may have a religion which bonds him or her with family and community. Would the missionary want his or her own bonds broken? Yet if he or she is successful in causing a person to convert that may be the result to the convert. The missionary may be alienating the person from that person’s community.

If you came to agree that Christianity is a silly superstition it would be best if you kept quiet about it to not alienate family and friends.

Continued

continued

It may be to the convert’s advantage to convert. East Indians converted to the English religion could rise in the English civil service. I regard Mahatma Gandhi who remained a Hindu and helped to liberate India from England as a finer person than any of the Indians who took on English religion.

I certainly don’t see you like Hitler. I think you are a person who wants to be a good person and wants to do for others. There is a saying, “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.” The years of Christian hostility to Jews built up an atmosphere where the Nazi hostility to Jews was accepted by most Christians and their churches.
Colin Barnes, a Christian missionary to the Jews, wrote the following book:

https://www.bokus.com/bok/9780956200624/they-conspire-against-your-people/

They Conspire Against Your People

This book explores the extent to which the European churches and their theology contributed to a mindset that permitted the genocide of six million Jews during the Holocaust. Were the Catholic and Protestant churches of Europe rescuers, bystanders or facilitators? What emerges in this historical study is a commonality of word and deed, with the evidence indicating that Christianity in its various forms across Europe was surprisingly united in its view of the Jewish people. The Holocaust was a progression of increasingly lethal measures: vilification, boycotts, deportation, ghettoization, and finally, mass murder. With the exception of the latter, these stages repeated the pattern of the European churches' own Jewish policy in the centuries and years leading up to the Holocaust.This pre-existing pattern, based on the theological view of punitive supersessionism (that God had punished the Jews and replaced them with Christianity as his new people), proved decisive in determining the European churches' responses to the unfolding Nazi programme. Especially important is this study's treatment of Protestant perceptions of the Jewish people, often largely un-researched in the current historical literature. The cumulative effect of support for all earlier Nazi Jewish policies left the European churches morally incapable of opposing genocide. They opted for a guilty, deliberate silence while their presence and theology aided the Holocaust.

continued

continued

I see missionaries as good people who are generally harmful. They may think that society would be better if we all believed in the same things and thought the same way. If we want to live in peace with our neighbour we have to accept that our neighbour is different from us. It is better to accept difference rather than try to make others like us.

Christians have as much right to express their views as anybody else. Most Christians don’t know much about their history. How did Christianity become the dominant religion in the world? At one time the Roman Empire was the dominant force in the western world. Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire and Christians brutally imposed their religion on others. Not only did Theodosius persecute non-Christians, but he also persecuted Christians who did not follow his particular version of Christianity:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodosius_I

“The Christian persecution of Roman religion under Theodosius I began in 381, after the first couple of years of his reign in the Eastern Roman Empire. In the 380s, Theodosius I reiterated Constantine's ban on some practices of Roman religion, prohibited haruspicy on pain of death, decreed magistrates who did not enforce laws against polytheism were subject to criminal prosecution, broke up some pagan associations and tolerated attacks on Roman temples. Between 389–392 he promulgated the Theodosian decrees (instituting a major change in his religious policies), which removed non-Nicene Christians from church office and abolished the last remaining expressions of Roman religion by making its holidays into workdays, banning blood sacrifices, closing Roman temples, confiscating Temple endowments and disbanding the Vestal Virgins. The practices of taking auspices and witchcraft were punished. Theodosius refused to restore the Altar of Victory in the Senate House, as asked by non-Christian senators.
In 392 he became sole emperor. From this moment till the end of his reign in 395, while non-Christians continued to request toleration, he ordered, authorized, or at least failed to punish, the closure or destruction of many temples, holy sites, images and objects of piety throughout the empire.”

continued

continued

“In 393 he issued a comprehensive law that prohibited any public non-Christian religious customs, and was particularly oppressive to Manicheans. He is likely to have discontinued the ancient Olympic Games, whose last record of celebration was in 393, though archeological evidence indicates that some games were still held after this date.”

The pattern of Christian oppression and intolerance has continued through much of Christian history. Only with the rise of the secular state has Christianity been forced to behave reasonably.

I no longer believe in Judaism or in any religion, but I share the Jewish hostility to missionaries. During my life I have had many contacts with Christians who talk about their religion. If I say that I’m not a Christian they may say, “I hope you will become one.” Previously I would never tell a Christian that I hoped he would abandon his religion. I have changed on that and have told you that.

I used to believe that Judaism made people better people. The State of Israel has helped to eliminate that idea. Jews have lived in many countries where they have been second-class citizens. Now Jews have a state other people can be second-class citizens. People have to get permission of clergy to marry. I think there should be civil marriage as there is in Australia, and people should be able to marry who they like. I think there should be a public school system where people of differing beliefs and ethnicities learn together, grow up together and live together. One Jewish sect, the Orthodox, is in control. In a democratic country no religious or ethnic group should be top dogs.

If Judaism instead of Christianity had risen to be dominant I don’t think matters would be much different.

Most religion whether it be Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam or Judaism if it is in power will be oppressive. Religions will support religious freedom when out of power.

Dear NNS,

The following finds abortion a human right

https://www.hrw.org/legacy/women/abortion.html

"Abortion is a highly emotional subject and one that excites deeply held opinions. However, equitable access to safe abortion services is first and foremost a human right. Where abortion is safe and legal, no one is forced to have one. Where abortion is illegal and unsafe, women are forced to carry unwanted pregnancies to term or suffer serious health consequences and even death. Approximately 13 percent of maternal deaths worldwide are attributable to unsafe abortion—between 68,000 and 78,000 deaths annually.

Women’s organizations across the world have fought for the right to access safe and legal abortion for decades, and increasingly international human rights law supports their claims. In fact, international human rights legal instruments and authoritative interpretations of those instruments compel the conclusion that women have a right to decide independently in all matters related to reproduction, including the issue of abortion."

Abortion is the killing of a human being, unborn though it is.

Can it be justified?

Certainly, particularly retrospective abortion in some cases.

To David f.

Sorry for how long it took to reply. The day after I gave my last response I came back to see if there was anything more, except that I couldn't find the topic "pornography." For what it's worth I thought maybe I said something out of step. Broke a rule on OLO that got the topic deleted. I've just recently found it, and read your responses. (Apparently the topic is more then a month old so it no longer shows up unless you change the filter in the general section to go back to the last quarter).

To David f.

You said earlier: "If life is a race I am not a winner since I am not on top. In a race there is only one winner. You are articulate. You can express yourself. If you weren’t articulate I wouldn’t be carrying on a dialogue with you."

For me it has to be a race. In thinking of it as a race with only one winner, that's not what I meant. Think of it as a marathon. A 5K run or walk for a charity. In this situation, everyone is running the race, and though some might have a competitive stance to be first or to beat those they are in the race with, the end result is that most of them are there to finish the race, not to be first. Just to be part of the cause they paid for to be in the race, and to finish to support the cause.

This is where most people are. They aren't the best or the top that make it the first in the race, but at least they finish. I have to strive everyday to be a better man then I am; or to be glad for the help and the kindness I receive when I'm not better. It is a race that I grow tired of often. But experience shows that there is the very real issue of not finishing the finish line. This isn't Christianity that brings this thought out. Christian studies have confirmed some things for me, and more importantly it has helped me in my search for God.

(Continued)

(Continued)

With the point of sin, Christian understanding has helped me understand I'm not the only one who's broken. Everyone is. Everyone has their own struggles and battles, even people who have it all. Therefore to love your neighbor, love your enemy, and treat them the way you want to be treated has the conclusion that we all need it. We're all broken in one way or another or fighting a broken environment we can't escape from. Treating each other with kindness is a way of mending each other in our broken bits. The same is true for turning from our sins are for our own good. The same way a parent teaches their kids from doing wrong and to turn from a harmful influence or a bad behavior can be applied to helping each other out of bad situations.

You don't have to agree with my views of the world being broken or people being broken. But I want to stress two things. 1) that I've had to struggle to finish the race that most people can breeze through, and 2) that I've found God. Both of these before accepting Christianity.

(Continued)

(Continued)

That said, there is a problem with human nature. You picked up on it when you say that religion is better if it doesn't hold all the power. This problem isn't just reserved for religions. It's for anyone who holds too much power. Governments, Kings, dictators, even cooperations who have a monopoly and a lot of money can do great evil because the people who are in charge do these things. Therefore there's a lesson within Christianity. Be humble, and beware of too much power and wealth. Look at Israel from the Jewish history within the bible. According to the bible Israel as a nation was conquered because of their great sins and that there was murder everywhere. From this I don't think of religion as a safe haven from sin any more then Israel was a safe haven from the negative aspects of human nature. It's a slow concept to accept but is a reminder that Christians need God. To not forget that just because a person goes to church or says that they are Christian.

In my opinion the phrase "repent, and turn from your sins," applies to Christians as well as non-Christians. In fact there are several warnings for believers if they don't that are in the New Testament.

Dear NNS,

I just got back from the hospital, and I appreciate your response.

You will do the best you can with Christianity and God, and I will do the best I can without either.

Sorry to hear you've been in the hospital. Hope you're doing ok.

Dear NNS,

I blacked out in the toilet. My wife found me lying on the floor. Tests at the hospital did not determine a cause. Tests showed I was in good shape. Blackout remains unexplained.

To David f.

Either way, the good news is that you're ok, and tests found you are in good health. My limited medical knowledge makes me wonder if it was a low blood pressure, or low blood volume (plasma part of blood, not blood cells). If that was part of it, drinking more water throughout the day might be a solution.

Regarding our conversation so far, I think I've got what I was hoping for, (so far at least). Some aspects of your perspective and life to relate to and fill in as an explanation for where you've stood. Do you have anything more you'd like to say about your life or from your perspective, experience, or gained wisdom? Or do you have any questions for me? Would it help to know some things about me that aren't related to Christianity? Or about perspectives on topics we haven't covered yet on other topics (or explanations on things)? We can stop here if you want, or we can continue.

Right now two topics that can be explored that I don't think I've heard your views on is about justice, and about death. (Sorry if that is morbid. These come to mind probably because of conversations with Yuyutsu in another conversation recently). Outside of that I don't know what else to ask you about, unless you want to share something on your own.

A few other things I can tell you about myself, to flesh out my perspectives and not just be a stereotype of Christianity. I enjoy football (American soccer), enjoy the subjects of biology, anatomy, philosophy, and psychology. One day hope to learn the piano, and also have hopes to write a book (science fiction). Christianity is important to me, but I haven't always been Christian.