how-to block ads
|
pupowski$
join:2001-01-15
Atlantis
| reply to billsweat
Re: Give unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's...
said by billsweat:
I don't follow Billy Tauzin closely. Trent Lott and Jerry Fallwell say some things that I don't agree with but generally we're on the same page. If I had to pick a spokeman it would be Ralph Reed or Billy Graham. Do you listen to what they say or just their reputations in the liberal world?
I have no idea what the "liberal world" is, unless you mean the mass media, and I don't find TV or Tabloids credible. I have always held Billy Graham in high regard, but I regard Ralph Reed as an opportunist, and Fallwell as a cynical buffoon. Trent Lott is tarnished by the company he keeps, Tauzin is corrupt, and a good example of why we need political reform. Bob Dole, Barry Goldwater, and William F. Buckley commanded respect, but this crop of conservatives has brought more corruption and abuse then anybody in memory, except Bill Clinton. They indulge a pornography of power, which is far more dangerous.
You can influence the laws with your moral beliefs, but you cannot impose them by fiat or manipulation. Christians also believe in honest business and government, so did conservatives, until they gained power. If you haven't noticed conservative values go down the tubes with the republican majority, you must not be paying attention.
--
Revolution is just evolution with more bandwidth | |
pupowski$
join:2001-01-15
Atlantis
| reply to billsweat
said by billsweat:
1. I agree that we're a little off topic but there was a reference to porn links in AOL pages clearly intended for children.
Perhaps we can find common ground against spam, which I don't appreciate either. Nobody is arguing in favor of pornography for or about children. That is deviant behavior. The point of contention is how do adults surf unfettered, while children are protected. In my view it is the responsibility of the parent or guardian to decide what sort of material their child is exposed to. You seem to want some material off the net to protect your children at the expense of other surfers. We simply have different points of view.
--
Revolution is just evolution with more bandwidth | |
billsweat
join:2001-04-24
Burton, MI
| reply to pupowski$
1. I agree that we're a little off topic but there was a reference to porn links in AOL pages clearly intended for children. I've equated that to porn spam. Maybe that's a separate discussion. I hate spam of any kind. I get lots of unsolicited snail mail which is the same as spam in my mind. I don't get any snail mail with porn. Why is that? Because there are very stringent rules about mailing adult material. All I'm asking for is that those same rules apply to the net.
2. Are you pretending to not know what child porn is? Because 12 year olds can get married, it's acceptable to distribute pictures of them engaged in sex acts? I actually sympathize with the professor. I'm probably guilty myself. You open the e-mail that's titled "Here's the information you requested" and there it pops up. If you're referring to me, you're right. I can just ignore it. That same argument doesn't apply to children.
3. I don't follow Billy Tauzin closely. Trent Lott and Jerry Fallwell say some things that I don't agree with but generally we're on the same page. If I had to pick a spokeman it would be Ralph Reed or Billy Graham. Do you listen to what they say or just their reputations in the liberal world?
4. You're just plain wrong. If you read the context, the religious leaders were trying to trick Jesus into saying if it was right or wrong to pay taxes. If he said yes, they were going to accuse him of supporting a corrupt government. If he said no, treason. If you think about it (and have the same belief in God that I do), what doesn't belong to God? There's nothing there that prevents anyone from working to fashion the laws according to their moral beliefs. I don't think that we're really arguing if child porn and giving children porn are wrong. I think we would both agree that they are. Our disagreement is if that should apply to the web. My question is, why shouldn't it? | |
pupowski$
join:2001-01-15
Atlantis
| reply to billsweat
said by billsweat:
It would be against the law for someone to walk up to a child and hand them pornography. Why is it all right to email it to them?
It's not, but spammers just flood everyone. I don't like spam either, but Google isn't spamming anybody, it's a search engine.
said by billsweat:
What does 12 year olds getting married have to do with pedophiles who stalk 12 year olds, pretending to be 12 year old boys?
Am I supposed to know what you're talking about? The age reference was simply to indicate "kiddy porn" is difficult to define, particularly above a certain age. A local professor's life was ruined by a high profile trial for viewing "kiddy porn". He was acquitted, and it turns out that none of the "children" were identified. A couple "Expert Witnesses" testified two girls "must be under 14 years of age". That kind of sexual witch hunt is unacceptable, so is having your morality replace freedom of information on the internet. If you don't like it, don't look. said by billsweat:
The "zealots" that I know don't knowingly "support corrupt politicians and businessmen who cheat the public, underpay workers, defeat the law, and live lives of decadent excess".
I guess you don't hang out with Trent Lott, Billy Tauzin, or Jerry Fallwell.
said by billsweat:
You're taking the "Give unto Caesar" quote out of context. In the U.S., there is no Caesar.
No I'm not. Caesar means the government, the statement was timeless. It means don't force your religious beliefs upon the secular world, they each have their place.
--
Revolution is just evolution with more bandwidth | |
|
