the Porn Squad - Page 5 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 09-21-2005, 09:19 PM   #61
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,494
Local Time: 05:50 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox


what that for me, or at the fact that many of the products we enjoy were made under deplorable conditions?
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 09-21-2005, 10:16 PM   #62
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 05:50 AM
Irvine...

I think we have no common ground....
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 09-21-2005, 10:31 PM   #63
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,494
Local Time: 05:50 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
Irvine...

I think we have no common ground....


i'm sorry you think that.

from this thread, i don't see how you could draw that conclusion.

i still think i made a very relevant comment: if one's concern is the exploitation of individuals, how is the exploitation of porn actresses (and actors, let's not forget, there are male porn stars as well) any worse than the exploitation of, say, the vietnamese workers who sew Pumas or the guatemalan children who make t-shirts?

where's the christianist outrage on that?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 09-22-2005, 06:49 AM   #64
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 05:50 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




i'm sorry you think that.

from this thread, i don't see how you could draw that conclusion.

.................

where's the christianist outrage on that?
Maybe I think that because of comments like the one above and I am hardly a conservative Christian.

If every thread is going to turn into a thread used to vent disdain towards the Christian right....it gets old.

Your point may be valid, but it had NOTHING to do with my attempt at seeking a common point on which all could stand in the thread.

Your point also does not invalidate that there may be some truth to the position of the "christian" community on this topic.

I feel that while some members of the forum may very clearly have been wounded more deeply than I could ever understand by a portion of the Christian community.......I do not see why every thread has to deteriorate into comments like the one above. Is it too difficult to stick to a topic and seek common ground?
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 09-22-2005, 06:56 AM   #65
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 05:50 AM
[Q]"Based on a review of past successful cases in a variety of jurisdictions," the memo said, the best odds of conviction come with pornography that "includes bestiality, urination, defecation, as well as sadistic and masochistic behavior." No word on the universe of other kinks that helps make porn a multibillion-dollar industry.
[/Q]

SO from the part of the article, not put out.......

Why wouldn't you want your governement to make certain that people are not being illegally video taped doing these things....

Which, I find interesting that it was mysteriously absent from the initial posting.......Maybe because we would like to lead the thread in a certain direction?

If this is the type of pornography that they are looking at following up on, then, why shouldn't I want them making sure my wife was not being illegally taped, my daughter, my students?

Why NOT?
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 09-22-2005, 09:06 AM   #66
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,984
Local Time: 05:50 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox

That is where my concern is. I could give two shits if someone is looking at Playboy. However.....if Joe shmo is making videos of girls in mini skirts at the mall without there consent...then I do expect the government to be proactive.
I agree, I do think something should be done about that. That is outrageous and most definitely criminal in my mind. A total despicable invasion of a girl's/woman's privacy and a gross violation of their dignity to say the least..
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 09-22-2005, 09:42 AM   #67
New Yorker
 
sallycinnamon78's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 2,977
Local Time: 11:50 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by MrsSpringsteen


I agree, I do think something should be done about that. That is outrageous and most definitely criminal in my mind. A total despicable invasion of a girl's/woman's privacy and a gross violation of their dignity to say the least..
Couldn't agree more.
__________________
sallycinnamon78 is offline  
Old 09-22-2005, 10:18 AM   #68
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,494
Local Time: 05:50 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox


Maybe I think that because of comments like the one above and I am hardly a conservative Christian.

If every thread is going to turn into a thread used to vent disdain towards the Christian right....it gets old.

Your point may be valid, but it had NOTHING to do with my attempt at seeking a common point on which all could stand in the thread.

Your point also does not invalidate that there may be some truth to the position of the "christian" community on this topic.

I feel that while some members of the forum may very clearly have been wounded more deeply than I could ever understand by a portion of the Christian community.......I do not see why every thread has to deteriorate into comments like the one above. Is it too difficult to stick to a topic and seek common ground?


oh Dread.

i used the word "christianist" -- what that means is the appropriation of the trappings of christianity, and not the message, in a political context. further, as has been mentioned in the thread, Gonzales appears to be trying to up his socially conservative credentials with the GOP's socially conservative base -- many of whom would label themselves Conservative Christians, yet not all Conservative Christians would be the GOP base -- so that he becomes a more appealing choice for the vacan seat on the Supreme Court. the big concern with conservatives, as is common knowledge at least in DC, and i had thought in the media, is that Gonzales is too socially liberal to make said GOP base happy, particularly after the 2004 election.

and that is just one strand of thought going on here. there are many others, but this is the political aspect to it, and yes, it does lead back to the GOP base. when you have a government that is controlled, at all levels, by one political party, it's difficult for all roads not to lead back to the base.

it's not disdain towards the christian right, it's an examination of the faults of the political system -- that, often, bad decisions and misapproriation of resources, time, energy, and effort occur because a certain element crucial to success in elections expects to get their fair due. this happens on *all* sides of the political spectrum, it just so happens that in this particular case, the base is conservative.

what frustrates me is that i feel as if i go to greath, painstaking lengths to be specific and to make distinctions between different groups of people who have different political ideologies who might also happen to fall under the vast umbrella of what's called Christian.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 09-22-2005, 10:23 AM   #69
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,494
Local Time: 05:50 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
[Q]"Based on a review of past successful cases in a variety of jurisdictions," the memo said, the best odds of conviction come with pornography that "includes bestiality, urination, defecation, as well as sadistic and masochistic behavior." No word on the universe of other kinks that helps make porn a multibillion-dollar industry.
[/Q]

SO from the part of the article, not put out.......

Why wouldn't you want your governement to make certain that people are not being illegally video taped doing these things....

Which, I find interesting that it was mysteriously absent from the initial posting.......Maybe because we would like to lead the thread in a certain direction?

If this is the type of pornography that they are looking at following up on, then, why shouldn't I want them making sure my wife was not being illegally taped, my daughter, my students?

Why NOT?


firstly, i edited the article because of the new FYM rules -- it was a lengthy article, and i just wanted to get the gist of it across and provided a link to the article in question. there was no manipulative intent at all.

secondly, if someone is being illegally taped, that's a crime. in fact, that's not necessarily pornography at least as i understand it.

however, there are some people who participate in porn films that involve the above activities, and it is entirely consensual and they are paid to do so. while i have absolutely no interest in ever watching any of the mentioned activities, i don't think that they should be illegal.

someone setting up cameras in a woman's lockerroom -- yes, absolutely. there's a crime being committed. if someone wants to urinate on someone and film it, then whatever floats your boat, i suppose.

at the end of the day, however, i am ultimately more concerned with underfunded levees, rampant cronyism, and a government that appears utterly inept at pretty much everything it does than i am with hidden cameras. it's simply a matter of priorities, that's all.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 09-22-2005, 10:30 AM   #70
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 10:50 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
That is where my concern is. I could give two shits if someone is looking at Playboy. However.....if Joe shmo is making videos of girls in mini skirts at the mall without there consent...then I do expect the government to be proactive.
I agree.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 09-22-2005, 11:46 AM   #71
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 02:50 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
however, there are some people who participate in porn films that involve the above activities, and it is entirely consensual and they are paid to do so. while i have absolutely no interest in ever watching any of the mentioned activities, i don't think that they should be illegal.
Is it entirely consensual every time?

I am surprised by the lack of concern if there is non-consensual acts taking place in the porn industry.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 09-22-2005, 12:05 PM   #72
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 05:50 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




oh Dread.

And this is as far as I read.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 09-22-2005, 12:05 PM   #73
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,494
Local Time: 05:50 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


Is it entirely consensual every time?

I am surprised by the lack of concern if there is non-consensual acts taking place in the porn industry.

how do you prove non-consent? how do you know?

it doesn't seem as if we are all on the same page as to our understanding of pornography, the difference between mainstream porn and underground, black market porn (which is no more legal than heroin).

perhaps i'm naive here -- the only porn i've ever really seen were mainstream (but hard core, i.e., intercourse) videos, magazines, and lots of internet sites.

absolutely the government should go after child pornographers (with a *vengance*). absolutely the government should go after tapes of women in public restrooms. but that already goes on. porn is regulated. it seems as if the crux of this investigation is to crack down on certain types of porn that are legal, but a bit more outre. which begs the question, where do you stop?

it's less that there's no concern with non-consensual acts -- and i'm quite concerned about photographic those who are unaware, that is a crime and yes, law enforcement should do something about it -- and more that this doesn't seem to be the point of the investigation. it's all well and good to be "against" porn for myriad different reasons -- it cheapens sex, reduces people to objects, fosters bad attitudes, etc. but i am against fast food for myriad reasons, yet i don't think it should be made illegal.

(though i would argue that an obese america is much more unhealthy than a porn-obsessed america)

and i'll again point to the political aspect of this.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 09-22-2005, 12:07 PM   #74
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,494
Local Time: 05:50 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox


And this is as far as I read.


well, you're the last person i'd want to be at odds with, but if you're not even going to give me the time of day, that leaves me very disappointed.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 09-22-2005, 12:07 PM   #75
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 05:50 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


Is it entirely consensual every time?

I am surprised by the lack of concern if there is non-consensual acts taking place in the porn industry.
As am I.

Am I saying that the government should be channeling all of its resources into this area....

No....

Do I believe that it should not be monitored to some extent.

Absolutely....
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:50 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com