warlock56
Premium
join:2002-07-31
Arlington, TX
| Your thoughts on adult businesses
Don't know why I didn't start this topic a while back when it was a hot button item up in Richardson. Many people wanted that risque store shut down because of what it sold. Was located right on 75 if I remember right. I saw on the news people at the city council imploring them to shut it down because it corrupts our values or whatever. One woman was so emotional she about cried because she was so adamantly against it.
My question is why? What did this business do to inflict injury on those people to warrant the city forcing it to close down? The city, after all, did issue a business permit. It pays its taxes just like everyone else, but because it sells certain items it will create more crime or prostitution in the area? Jeez people get a grip.
Oh but Victoria's Secret or Fredericks of Hollywood in the mall are all ok?
--
The moment the idea is admitted into society, that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. -John Adams, 1787 |
|
mobbo
join:2005-04-13
Denton, TX
 ·Verizon FIOS
| I think if something is offensive... don't buy it. If a store starts up, there is obviously a market for it. Starting a business is hard, especially if you need investments from banks or VC's. You have to prove there is a market for it. The people wanting to shut the place down are banking on the fact that people who use that stuff aren't going to be as adament about keeping it open as they are about shutting it down.
We don't need the government babysitting us. This reminds me of that lawmaker in NYC wanting to ban people from listening to iPods while crossing the street all because one idiot got creamed while jammin' out to some tunes.
My feelings are that the people who want to control adult-oriented businesses are bored as hell and probably have sex once every 2 years in only the missionary position. |
|
Aggie Dan
Stop... Reverse That.
Premium
join:2001-01-30
Frisco, TX
clubs:
| said by mobbo  : in only the missionary position. And what is wrong with missionary? It's on of my top 20 positions. *grin*
All kidding (and kid creating aside) I don't like the knee jerk reaction of some of these people that want regulate what can or cannot be in certain areas like that.
Granted, the city people are able to set broad guidelines for what kinds of people can occupy a certain space. Whether it be zoned residential, multi-family, single family, etc. So long as there are no bars or adult establishments within a certain radius of schools/churches or ehatever, then why would it be an issue.
Granted, there are some adult establishments (posing as spas or massage parlours0 that need to be shut down due to illegal activities going on there. As I recall there was a big todo about that recently. But if you're going to go after something, go after establishments like that.
Adult novelty shops and strip clubs? We already have too much in the way of laws governing them as it is. We don't need anymore.
--
Note : The statements made by myself are my own and not the opinions of my employer or of my coworkers. 15.81 GHz Crunching Power | My Random Thoughts... Yes, I have thoughts. |
|
Beachtrader
join:2002-01-31
Mckinney, TX
| reply to warlock56
Morality is a funny thing.
Used for the right reasons it helps people define limits or boundaries which can help them avoid physical or mental pain and anguish. However, taken to the extreme it causes confrontations which lead to pain and anguish. Many a war have been fought over morality (or at least used as an excuse).
The problem with morality is when person A believes their morality is so much better than person B's morality and therefore person B must accept person A's morality. But, your beliefs do not make it right for everyone; they make it right for you. This, however, does not stop people from trying to convert person B to person's A morality. Because they believe so much they are right person A becomes blinded to the fact that different people can have different opinions. A lot of the times this is okay when it is done in the privacy of their own home. This changes in public though.
When you have something (in this case adult stores) out where person A can see them (they like out of sight out of mind) it threatens them. Not physically, but it lays out the possibility that someone might be tempted by this store or that their beliefs questioned. No one likes to have someone or something confronting their beliefs whenever they drive by a store. The problem comes with who draws the line which says what is moral and what is not.
To one person adult stores are okay, to others not. Maybe this is an easy decision on the bible belt; in NY, NY you would have a different decision. The problem comes when you start legislating everything on morality. Take for example the adult store. It's easy, right? What about saying women cannot show their face or body in public? What about saying that any women who is alone with a man not her husband needs to be put to death? Too much? Well, that is the morality of some middle east countries. I read just recently about how a town in Iraq stoned to death a teenage girl because she went off with a boy she liked. The town felt this was immoral and therefore "required".
Some people (person A) who oppose the adult store will say this is too far and a ridiculous comparison. But, while this person A totally believes in their righteous call to eliminate adult stores, the town in Iraq totally believe in their decision. And, no I am not saying anyone opposed to adult stores believes people should be stoned to death. I am saying this is why you cannot legislate morality--what you believe is what you believe; not necessarily what should be law.
We all have different beliefs and morality. Once you start down the slippery slope you can't stop. Some will say they can easily define limits on morality legislation. And maybe they can. But chances are the next person who comes along can't. The founders of the country setup the constitution because they wanted to limit government, not to enable it. Providing the government with the power to legislate everything is the wrong thing to do. That's why we have the separation of powers and why the courts do through out a lot of issues of morality legislation.
People (person A) take offense when their morality legislation is declared invalid by the courts, but they should actually be glad. For tomorrow could bring someone in power who now deems that women should not work or be covered up. Again, person A will say we would never get to that. But, can you absolutely guarantee that? No, you can't. Ten years ago I would have said someone would *never* be arrested for not having a government issued ID on them just walking down the street. Today, however, it is possible. A policeman can stop you; ask you for an ID and if you don't have it they can detain you. Don't believe me? See this:
»www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar···n21.html
From the article:
"The Supreme Court yesterday upheld a state law that makes it a crime to refuse to tell the police one's name when stopped for suspicious behavior, a ruling that strengthens the ability of law enforcement officers to detain citizens even where they lack enough evidence for a full arrest."
What's suspicious behavior? Currently anything a police officer believes is out of the ordinary. Jaywalking, hanging around. Looking around nervously...
So yes Virginia you can slip down the slippery slope. And that's why you shouldn't legislate something which is not a public harm, but just a morality issue. Because you never know where you are going to end up tomorrow. |
|
T1 Rocky
join:2002-11-15
Dallas, TX
 ·Time Warner Cable
| Great topic.
I agree with what everyone has said so far. One of the biggest arguments that I hear against porn is that it chews up the participants and spits them out 5 years later. In my opinion, what industry doesn't do this? Look at the baby boomers and their rapidly disappearing pensions. They put in 50 years at a company and then when it comes time for them to recieve their pensions the company's reduce or even cut them all together! I'd much rather get laid for 5 years and come to the realization that this isn't a long term plan than put in 50, lose my earning potential and come to the same realization.  My father is a 40 year Delta pilot who is no longer legally allowed to fly because of his age and he now has to do insurance appraisals because Delta decided pensions were not profitable.
What about the argument that porn teaches us that women are a piece of meat? I think that there is some validity to this statement (doesn't give me the right to dictate to other's that they are not allowed to watch it though.) What's your argument against the "meat" argument? |
|
MrBradTX
join:2001-05-23
Carrollton, TX
·RoadRunner Cable
| said by T1 Rocky :What about the argument that porn teaches us that women are a piece of meat? I think that there is some validity to this statement (doesn't give me the right to dictate to other's that they are not allowed to watch it though.) What's your argument against the "meat" argument? I often wonder whether those who make that argument have solicited the opinions of the actors, to determine whether they feel they are being exploited. |
|
T1 Rocky
join:2002-11-15
Dallas, TX
·Time Warner Cable
|  I'm not referring to the actors. I'm talking about the cosumer. There's rarely any love, personality or even dialogue in porn these days. As bad as it sounds, in porn movies women are sperm recepticles. So if men watch enough of it, do men stop seeing women as people and just as recepticles? And do women who watch enough of it start thinking that their place in society is on their backs?
That's the only argument against porn that I think carries any validity.
What do you guys think?
|
|
busboy789
Premium
join:2002-11-19
 ·WildBlue
| said by T1 Rocky :I'm not referring to the actors. I'm talking about the cosumer. There's rarely any love, personality or even dialogue in porn these days. As bad as it sounds, in porn movies women are sperm recepticles. So if men watch enough of it, do men stop seeing women as people and just as recepticles? And do women who watch enough of it start thinking that their place in society is on their backs? That's the only argument against porn that I think carries any validity. What do you guys think? well, does watching a movie about killing people make me or others that watch it go out and kill?
I think one must give others enough credit to be able to discern between fiction, fantasy if you will, and reality.
--
Motorola Canopy 900 MHz |
|
