> "Fooled By Folksy Republicans" ITalkCowboyTalk.con> writes:
>

>> "No One" nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
>> news:87wt5kk5b1.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net...

>>> "Fooled By Folksy Republicans" ITalkCowboyTalk.con> writes:
>>>

>>>>
>>>> Have physics, chemistry, and compsci degrees plus a university work
>>>> history;
>>>> the answer is yes.

>>>
>>> Really? If you are actually capable of reading Physical Review Letters and
>>> understanding the papers, then you should know enoughs to realize how
>>> wrong your arguments on this thread are - it amounts to "I don't like it
>>> so it must be bad, objective evidence be damned."

>>
>> Sociological studies and offhand correlation references to crime statistics
>> by social scientists aren't as objective as results garnered from the
>> application of the Schrodinger wave equation, no.

>
> You mean you took some undergraduate courses, and haven't gotten much
> beyond that point. :-) You specifically did not learn to look not only
> at some paper, but whether later work showed that the conclusions in
> that paper were misleading or maybe wrong due to the authors missing
> something that was only discovered later.
>

>>> if one guy at some point in our history published a paper whose
>>> conclusions you like, even if the conclusions were subsequently
>>> shown to be wrong due to an incomplete understanding of the issues
>>> at the time of publication, then you should use that paper anyway
>>> as "proof."

>>
>> Not at all, I'll retract anything of the sort provided you can show my
>> error.

>
> I gave you URL with a whole list of citations. See above for what is
> wrong with our argument.
>
>

>>>>> Sexual slavery is already illegal in the U.S., so it is not relevant
>>>>> to the discussion - none of us want it legalized.

>>>>
>>>> Again, the 'legality' debate is not my red herring.

>>>
>>> It is not a "red herring". The rest of us are simply pointing out
>>> that if something is already illegal with harsh penalties, trying to
>>> make up some nuisance charge is a waste of time.

>>
>> Then let's push for proper enforcement of the law. There's too much of that
>> stuff out there.

>
> Whether there is "too much of that stuff out there" is arguable, but
> if you really think so, will you vote for a candidate willing to raise
> taxes to pay for more law enforcement?
>

>>>> I never claimed to be a porn expert. I'm a programmer now. Do
>>>> you have a sociology/psychology background yourself?

>>>
>>> So what do you program?

>>
>> VB.Net, VC#, and Transact SQL mainly. C++ too, when I need better
>> performance.

>
> You mean you work in an IT shop doing business applications that run
> mostly on PCs.
>
>

>>>You mentioned Phyiscal Review Letters, which those with only
>>>undergraduate degrees in physics typically cannot understand.

>>
>> Depends. Condensed matter physics is easy especially when compared to
>> string theory; even those in the field don't have a good handle on
>> that--string (now m-theory) theory is very hard.

>
>
>

>>

>>>Now you say you are not a "porn expert". You don't sound
>>> like an expert of any kind given that you didn't know that Judith
>>> Reisman is a nut, even though she's claimed that the medieval custom
>>> of "prima nocte" (where a feudal lord would have first dibs on a
>>> bride) is "a pervasive and accepted practice today in the schools of
>>> our American village," a statement so absurd as to be laughable (see
>>> <http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/reisman.html> for her article).

>>
>> I don't have to be a porn expert to posit what ought to be morally
>> and ethically obvious: hardcore violent porn is an assault on
>> fundamental human rights. Do I have to be a porn expert to say we
>> ought to ban sex-torture-porno web sites? One need not be an expert
>> to say that drunk driving is bad, so why does one have to be an
>> expert to say that sex-torture-porno web sites are bad too?

>
> What's a sex-torture-porno web site? B&D/S&M that is kept within
> sensible (i.e., not even mildly serious injuries) limits, ones were
> something worse is simply faked like the shootings in movies, or ones
> where people really are seriously injured (which can be shut down by
> calling OSHA). It is simply not clear what you are ranting about.
>

>>>
>>> You are the one drawing conclusions that something should be made illegal,
>>> which sensible people should not want to do unless there is credible
>>> evidence of it causing serious harm to unwilling parties.

>>
>> I've given plenty of adequate references...but, if you are of age,
>> google the sex-torture web sites for yourself. I won't post a link
>> to that shit here for obvious reasons, but I do want you to take a
>> look for yourself if and only if you are of age. Then let's see you
>> come back here with a straight face and tell me that there is no
>> serious harm done to the "actors" involved!

>
> You did not give any adequate citations. As to those web sites, I
> really don't know which ones you are complaining about, and would
> prefer not to guess.
>

>> Ethics is at the core of law and politics; laws against child porn, murder,
>> and theft have their underpinnings in the notion of ethics.
>>
>> I'm an atheist anyhow; you won't find me in any church.

>
> Oh, you mean you are merely repressed. :-)
>
>
>

>>> So? In Amsterdam, the notorious "red light disttrict" has very tight
>>> geographic boarders. City officials understand that you can't stamp it
>>> out, so they allow it in this area, regularly test the prostitutes for
>>> STDs, and make sure a local neighborhood brothel won't spring up next
>>> the the van Gough museum.

>>
>> Gee, that sound's like a stealth form of censorship to me. ;-)

>
> Nope. It is what is called "zoning". Like not letting factories
> that produce a lot of noise or toxic waste next to a school.
>

>>>> Since 1960, forcible rape rates in the U.S. have multiplied three to four
>>>> fold!

>>>
>>> You mean "forcible rapes" increased when the "baby boom" resulted in a
>>> significant increase in the number of young men at the age where
>>> people are most prone to commit crimes (for those that do so)?

>>
>> The number of young men did not increase three to four fold over that time
>> period, so your objection falls apart on the arithmetic.

>
> Nope - you had a boost in the number of young men in the specific age
> group where they are most prone to commit crimes.
>

>>>> The Internet is chock full of hardcore and violent web sites; these sites
>>>> demean all who are involved with them and they demean us for doing
>>>> nothing

>>>
>>> Mere assertions on your part.

>>
>> No, but I wish they were.

>
> No, mere assertions. You've yet to produce some proof that the Internet
> is "chock full" of such sites.
>
>

>> If you really don't believe that hardcore porn sites are out there, then
>> check it out for yourself, if you are of age: look at the torture-sex sites
>> as these are the worst--there are hundreds of 'em! Then ask yourself if the
>> "actors" are willing participants. Have a teenage daughter? Would you make
>> these same assertions if she ran away and fell into the clutches of the
>> hardcore sex industry? Remember that the exploited-for-profit "actors" in
>> these torture-sex movies were once somebody's baby. Think about that!

>
> So now you go from "chock full" to what could mean "there is one
> somewhere". Your strawman, though is interesting: did you yourself
> have a teenage daughter who ran away? If so, and if your post on this
> subject are any indication, I can think of a good reason as to why she
> might do that: you are completely unreasonable.
>
> As to what you see in some video, don't assume people are being harmed
> no matter what you see. The actor being tortured in some Hollywood
> flick is simply screaming for the camera and nothing is really happening
> to him - they know how to fake it.