What we should "talk" about

Originally posted by Moldy Crow
The thing that is the prerequisite for this conversation , and makes the over all social debate so difficult : Define pornography . I haven't yet seen an agreed upon definition here or out in the world . Some would define a dress with a hem line above the knee as pornographic , others draw the line at more than one head of livestock involved . Society can't agree on this , I doubt we can , so how do we have a debate about it ?

We can define what kinds of pornography are damaging to the sexual education and development of curious teenagers. Pornography that demeans and degenerates women is a typical example of this.

Not all pornography is damaging by any means. I learned a thing or two from watching pornos in my early years. What red-blooded teenage boy didn't? It's the more hardcore and extreme material that has become readily available through the internet that will mess up a young man's idea of what sexual pleasure normally is. I don't have any proof that this is happening but when you see the kinds of porn out there and see the age group who use the internet most frequently, it doesn't take a genius...

Originally posted by darvlay
We can define what kinds of pornography are damaging to the sexual education and development of curious teenagers. Pornography that demeans and degenerates women is a typical example of this.

Not all pornography is damaging by any means. I learned a thing or two from watching pornos in my early years. What red-blooded teenage boy didn't? It's the ...[text shortened]... t there and see the age group who use the internet most frequently, it doesn't take a genius...

This post moved because I don't want pornography to pollute a serious look at the important political realignment that has occurred over the past two decades

The new thread is called obscenity

Originally posted by Wulebgr
We should argue, and quarrel if we must, about how right wing Christians (cultural conservatives if you will) became one of the most influential power blocks in US electoral politics.

We should also discuss why that is a bad thing, as it ...[text shortened]... form of government humans have yet devised and put into practice.

W.


See! Gull durned it. You are doing it again.

You just make blind "assertions" and assume you don't have to list examples or reasons for your claims.

What does being "christian" have to do with being conservative? I am an atheist. And a conservative. I reject your assertion out of hand because it is "casting a wide net". A logical error.

Then you blast on ahead with Wild Assertion Number Two... You just flat out state that 'it is a bad thing' without any reason to support your "feelings".

Then blast number three... you assert again, with no reasoning "that it threatens the existence of secular democracy". Does it? Why? How? What mechanism imposes the "threat"? What is the threat?

When you generate a thread in "Debates" forum, you should at least give concrete examples to "Debate". See my thread on "Reality".

Originally posted by StarValleyWy
What does being "christian" have to do with being conservative? I am an atheist. And a conservative. I reject your assertion out of hand because it is "casting a wide net". A logical error.

I said, "one of the most influential power blocks". Where is the wide net?
Get your facts straight before you accuse someone of an error in logic. The error is yours.

Not all conservatives are Christian; not all Christians are conservative.

I doubt you are the only conservative atheist. But, tell me, do conservative atheists form a constituent group to which politicians must pitch? Do you have any data on the number of atheists who will only support political candidates that are oppossed to abortion, and who favor a Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage?