Philosophy Now Forum

And thus the paedophiles, rapists and snuff movie makers that hide behind "freedom of speech,"

Hilary Clinton is against any bans and as Gillard here in Australia just luuuvs Hilary, we will probably follow the U.S.of A's stance on this.

chaz wyman wrote:If they do legislate against it, it will give them the power to stop some of the more dangerous and harmful aspects of pornography. And thus the paedophiles, rapists and snuff movie makers that hide behind "freedom of speech," as they do in the USA will not be able to thrive.

There are no dangerous and harmful aspects of pornography. You have been hoodwinked by people who have been hoodwinked by religion, one of the biggest scams on Earth.

On reflection the Ouzo Prophecy could also be included.


Aw........sorrwee BobEee

reasonvemotion wrote:On reflection the Ouzo Prophecy could also be included.

No way, my friend, "The Ouzo Prophecy" exposes an institutional grid, including religion, as the conduit of evil in every society.

.











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










.

I think AMod should make it clear to Wiltrack that mindless posts like the above are simply not acceptable.

chaz wyman wrote:

reasonvemotion wrote:Currently there is an ongoing debate in Parliament regarding internet filtering. The result so.

The leaders of three of Australia's largest ISPs (Telstra, iiNet and Internode) have stated in an interview that the web filtering proposal simply cannot work for various technical, legal and ethical reasons. The managing director of iiNet, Michael Malone, has said of Stephen Conroy "This is the worst Communications Minister we've had in the 15 years since the [Internet] industry has existed," and plans to sign up his ISP for participation in live filtering trials by 24 December to provide the Government with "hard numbers" demonstrating "how stupid it [the filtering proposal] is."

It won't happen here.

Neither will it happen in Iceland where "pornography" as such has been illegal for a very long time, (though available from the top shelf of all good newsagents).

If they do legislate against it, it will give them the power to stop some of the more dangerous and harmful aspects of pornography.
And thus the paedophiles, rapists and snuff movie makers that hide behind "freedom of speech," as they do in the USA will not be able to thrive.

As for Australia, if the government start fining Internet providers, you can bet that they will figure out a way to stop the porn.

Chaz's account of "danger" is unfounded poppycock, only to be found in the minds of Puritan's, that obviously have a deep psychological issue in dealing with their sex, they usually see it as dirty, which is quite absurd as nothing can be more fundamental to the human animal.

On the other hand, the experts say:

"Research concerning the effects of pornography is inconclusive on the issue of crime. Some studies support the contention that the viewing of pornographic material may increase rates of sexual crimes, while others have shown no effects, or a decrease in the rates of such crimes. However, most of these studies focus on various correlations, and correlation does not imply causation."

--Wikipedia--

People that disagree with experts are usually fools that have their own hidden agenda, in this case so as to experience the grandiose feeling of being more dignified, correct, knowledgeable, truthful, powerful, etc, thus in this particular case, megalomaniacal. So I expect this proof of expert proportions, to be argued as if one could possibly know more than them, so as to further ones grandiose visions of self.

reasonvemotion wrote:C.W. added a small stat at the end of my post.

You can still make billions out of porn without endangering women.

Or at least minimise it.

Bill Wiltrack wrote:.

Spew!
.

You've reached a new low.

chaz wyman wrote:

Bill Wiltrack wrote:.

Spew!
.

You've reached a new low.

I wish AMod would verbally slap him around.

.





Help me out...


You have repeatedly spewed that you don't want regulation. ANY FORM of regulation.


Ya know...free market & all.






Oh, except one thing...Bill Wiltrack.




You want Bill Wiltrack to be regulated.



OK. Got it.









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








.

chaz wyman wrote:

reasonvemotion wrote:C.W. added a small stat at the end of my post.

You can still make billions out of porn without endangering women.

Or at least minimise it.

As if billions is the only justification, for such material?

chaz wyman wrote:

Bill Wiltrack wrote:.

Spew!
.

You've reached a new low.

Another testament of someone's deep routed psychological issues of disgust, thus self loathing, of a normal bodily function.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:

Bill Wiltrack wrote:.

Spew!
.

You've reached a new low.

Another testament of someone's deep routed psychological issues of disgust, thus self loathing, of a normal bodily function.

Wiltrack's got more deep-rooted psychological issues than you can shake a stick at, and when he tries to say something beyond the dopey pictures, he makes no sense whatsoever. Of course, he's got that admittedly-heavy drug history, and maybe that has something to do with it, but why should the rest of us be made to suffer his bizarre postings?

Bill Wiltrack wrote:.

Spew!
.

bobevenson wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:You've reached a new low.

Another testament of someone's deep routed psychological issues of disgust, thus self loathing, of a normal bodily function.

Wiltrack's got more deep-rooted psychological issues than you can shake a stick at, and when he tries to say something beyond the dopey pictures, he makes no sense whatsoever. Of course, he's got that admittedly-heavy drug history, and maybe that has something to do with it, but why should the rest of us be made to suffer his bizarre postings?

To each, their perception. But in fact I for one have on occasion seen something more profound contained within some of his dialog, such that I asked myself, whether in fact that it's possible that he is so brilliant that most are incapable of understanding him, including myself. I decided long ago that as to ones perception, one has to not only look at another's words, but must also look at their own understanding, in other words I see that one should give everyone the benefit of doubt, as there is no necessary accounting for any particular understanding/non understanding. This then not only allows everyone's inclusion, but also ensures knowledge and understanding is not potentially missed.

Edit: Wrong spelling of "there"