XXX Domain for Pornography - your thoughts?

[cordex]

.xxx would keep congress from passing laws to ban it, same reason they don't ban adult pay for view cable shows.

If Congress wants to ban something, they'll ban it.  Little things like the Constitution have never gotten in the way before.  Now, maybe that ban will be overturned later, maybe it won't.

Plus how the hell can congress ban somehting that is hosted from Goat's A-hole Third World Nation with no laws or flavor of the week government.

Easy, just regulate the money.

[Mannlicher]

As far as I am concerned, its all a none issue.

[Jamisjockey]

If I want to watch pregnant lesbian transvestites copulating with donkeys while I'm surfing for penile enlargment products, Uncle Sam can kiss my red-white-and blue hiney.

OK, "Quote Of The Day" award goes to JJ for that one! 

I'd like to thank the Academy, my chosen diety, my family, and of course my acting coach.....

[Werewolf]

"Plus how the hell can congress ban somehting that is hosted from Goat's A-hole Third World Nation with no laws or flavor of the week government."


Make it illegal for you to access it, and slap the *expletive deleted*it out of the big internet providers if they don't block such sites.

Sounds like...

Sounds like...

the war on drugs...

Nahhhh... sounds more like gun control applied to some words and pictures that some in their infinite wisdom figure others shouldn't be exposed to.

[Werewolf]

No. It should all "go away". 

What other forms of people control do you support?

What form of people control did he propose? 

By espousing that all porn should go away he is taking it upon himself to decide what others should be allowed to read/view. That is no less than thought control.

[Jamisjockey]

{snip}

It takes seconds or less to navigate away from an objectionable site.  Anyone who gets traumatized in that amount of time needs thicker skin.
{/snip}

(With all due respect...) How many seconds of looking at porn does it take for the image to be etched into the mind of a man? I have seen men and families ruined by porn. Porn reduces women to two-dimensional lifeless images. No big deal? Google Ted Bundy. Ever see what happens to a teenage male that stumbles upon internet porn?

One of the world's oldest industries? You use that to justify Internet porn? Give me a break.

Porn is art, like a crucifix in urine is art, like lamp shades made of human flesh is art. No thanks. Are you okay with it as long as it's not your mother / wife / son or daughter ?

Job 31:1, "I made a covenant with mine eyes; why then should I think upon a maid?"

/soapbox

Don't stuff your religion down my throat.   You keep your puritanical morals, and I'll stick to my hedonistic perverted ways. 

[Eleven Mike]

I'm undecided.

I don't know if I agree with Levercaster, but all he said is that pornography is bad, it hurts people, it should go away, and then he quoted the Bible.  What's the problem?  He didn't say anything about censorship, did he? 

By espousing that all porn should go away he is taking it upon himself to decide what others should be allowed to read/view. That is no less than thought control.

Are you serious?   

Don't stuff your religion down my throat.   You keep your puritanical morals...

Where is he stuffing religion down your throat?  Why do some people fly off the handle whenever a religous person says, "that's wrong"?  How can you get so huffy about his moral opinions, when you're telling him what to do?

[BakerMikeRomeo]

Plus how the hell can congress ban somehting that is hosted from Goat's A-hole Third World Nation with no laws or flavor of the week government.

Like Cordex mentioned, they do it by cutting off the money. The "ban" on online poker websites recently wasn't actually a ban on betting on poker online, or a ban on running a poker website online, it was a ban on BANKS sending your MONEY to a poker website where you bet it.

...

(With all due respect...)

By which you mean none. Don't be disingenuous, you don't have any more respect for a porn-permissive image-nut like me than I have for a banhappy virulently moral person like you. I hate phrases that include the word "respect": you don't respect ME, I don't respect YOU, and we don't respect each other's opinions, we might respect the rules which give us the opportunity to express our selves and opinions, but we certainly don't respect each other.

How many seconds of looking at porn does it take for the image to be etched into the mind of a man?

I dunno, I can't always remember what the pictures looked like, that's why there's.. hm.. 4.31+2.64+uh...1.95 = 8.9 GB of the stuff kicking around on my hard-drive (which reminds me, that thing is making unsavory noises and I need to back this stuff up before the drive croaks and all my hard work goes down the tubes)

I have seen men and families ruined by porn.

I have seen men and families ruined by guns. Ban them, quickly! Get bent, the fact that some other fool can't separate the high-gloss low-shadow squealing-banshee airbrushed-business world of porn from reality has no bearing on me.

Porn reduces women to two-dimensional lifeless images.

No big loss, I don't like girls anyway.

No big deal? Google Ted Bundy.

Guns are no big deal? Google Columbine, Patrick Purdy, Port Arthur!

Ever see what happens to a teenage male that stumbles upon internet porn?

Yeah. I totally had to uninstall games and rearrange my drives to make room. Also, I had to cleverly name folders and set up an inscrutable password to keep prying eyes from my shameful stash.

Now I'm gonna go hit 4chan, Fchan, and all my favorite lascivious bittorrent trackers, just to spite you.

~GnSx

EDIT: regarding the original topic, I don't have anything against the creation of a .xxx domain, any more than I have something against a .sweet domain so I can register www.thebusiness.sweet, but forcing companies to switch domains grates on my nerves.

[Perd Hapley]

a banhappy virulently moral person like you.

I love how no one can oppose anything without everyone jumping to the conclusion he's "ban-happy."  And, Gunny, he didn't actually oppose porn on moral grounds so much as pragmatic grounds. 

FWIW, though, I think Lever is a little over the top.  It's not as if everybody who looks at porn becomes some kind of non-functional addict. 

[cosine]

Maybe a sigline from the past would calm things down a bit.

[Perd Hapley]

How long have you been using that?  Never noticed it before.

[BakerMikeRomeo]

I love how no one can oppose anything without everyone jumping to the conclusion he's "ban-happy."

He can oppose it all he likes. He can filter it out from his own networks and forbid himself from associating with people who partake of the porns all day long. The way Levercaster speaks of it, it doesn't sound like he's saying "you shouldn't look at porn because it's bad for you", it sounds a lot more like "we need to make sure nobody can look at porn." But I am jumping to conclusions, because I'm a dick; hopefully Levercaster will make his position clear.

And, Gunny, he didn't actually oppose porn on moral grounds so much as pragmatic grounds.

"I've seen..." and "Ted Bundy" doesn't sound very pragmatic to me. Sounds like, respectively, anecdotes and selected occurences, just like the rhetoric used by every other person or group trying to advance an agenda that doesn't have a gripe any more legitimate than "Well I just don't like it!" (see also: the "killology"/ban video games movement, the gun banning movement, and the this-that-and-the-other ban movements.).

~GnSx

[Perd Hapley]

Moral argument:  "I oppose porn because it's evil."

Pragmatic argument:  "I oppose porn because it hurts families and damages young people." 

[cosine]

How long have you been using that?  Never noticed it before.

I've only been using it for about ten minutes. That's why you didn't notice it before.

[BakerMikeRomeo]

Pragmatic argument:  "I oppose porn because it hurts families and damages young people."

I shall modify my argument then: It doesn't sound like a "pragmatic" argument so much as a "subjective, selective, irrelevant BS" argument which is accompanied by a looking-down-your-nose-at-me tone which makes me think "moral high ground" and thus, my confusion between moral and pragmatic arguments.

~GnSx

[Eleven Mike]

a looking-down-your-nose-at-me tone which makes me think "moral high ground"

Is there something wrong with having the moral high ground?  I thought that just meant that a person was more ethical than his opponents.

Why do you think he's looking down his nose at you?  He didn't even direct his comment at you.  Why can't he say, "porn is bad for you" without someone feeling like he thinks he's better than them?  How can you escape the charge of self-righteousness when you're also giving an opinion on what is right or wrong to do? 

[BakerMikeRomeo]

Is there something wrong with having the moral high ground?  I thought that just meant that a person was more ethical than his opponents.

Sorry, I meant the "moral high ground" to mean "I believe that I am better than you, and thus possess the moral high ground."

Why do you think he's looking down his nose at you?  He didn't even direct his comment at you.

Maybe I'm a little too eager to make the jump from "I think all of this should disappear" to "I think this should be legislated out of existence." And the latter really hacks me off.

  Why can't he say, "porn is bad for you" without someone feeling like he thinks he's better than them?

He didn't say "porn is bad for you" he said, basically "I wish porn would cease to exist" and later made a point about porn destroying families and making murderers.

How can you escape the charge of self-righteousness when you're also giving an opinion on what is right or wrong to do?

His claim that it is wrong to look at or possess porn, my claim (though depending on Levercast's clarification if/when he posts it, may not be related to his point at all) is that it is wrong to ban or otherwise legislate against porn. I am self-righteous because I believe that the way in which he made his points insinuates a desire for policy that I find utterly abhorrent. I believe that he believes that he's a right to decide what I can or can't ogle at in private, and I think that such is bad news.

So I'm not not self-righteous, because I think I'm right.

~GnSx

[Eleven Mike]

So, who decides what the domains are?  Is this a govt. regulation, or are ISPs involved in the decision?   

I agree with the point of view that it could be hard to classify what should be XXX.  But haven't the courts and various laws already hashed out a lot of that kind of thing?

[Eleven Mike]

Maybe I'm a little too eager to make the jump from "I think all of this should disappear" to "I think this should be legislated out of existence."

Yes, you are.  Too many people are.  I wish that tendency would disappear, but I don't wish to outlaw it. 

[BakerMikeRomeo]

So, who decides what the domains are?  Is this a govt. regulation, or are ISPs involved in the decision?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_top-level_domain
This article helps some, but it isn't really clear on who is doing all the establishing or introducing or what-have you. There's a block at the bottom with links to the various other articles for different domains, but I have to run and do a bunch of chores, so I don't have time to read all of them.

What I gleaned, though, is that some domains don't even mean anything anymore (.com can be just about anything, not just companies or what-have-you; like half of the webcomics I read are .net, and certainly aren't network infrastructure; .org, etc.) while others are somehow restricted, but like I said, the article doesn't say who's doing the restricting. I, for one, think that there ought to be a gunnyskox.edu, because I am severely educational.

Yes, you are.  Too many people are.  I wish that tendency would disappear, but I don't wish to outlaw it. 

Oh, BURN. That is a BURN, by Captain Burns (of the USS Hot) over here. I'm gonna need some ointment for this BURN.

But yeah, I am definitely on edge about I'm-better-than-you-are-because-you-do-something-I-find-distasteful people being politically active, so maybe I'm busting false-positives all over the place, but it's a result of there being so many goddamned people around who want to legislate totally irrelevant crap out of existance because they turn their nose up at it: smoking, video games, drinking, gambling, porn, junk food, guns, gaargghghrraghble. So I'm a touchy bitch about all of it. I'll try to demand clarification next time before I wig out on somebody.

~GnSx
"He 'wigged out' on me yesterday!
"What a great phrase!"~T-Rex, Dinosaur Comics

[Eleven Mike]

Well, OK, I'm glad I entertained you, or something.     As one of those overly-moral, prudish kill-joys, I'm a little annoyed by those who DO want to ban everything.  I can't stand flag-burning or homosexuality, but I don't want my tax money wasted on arresting such people. 

[Werewolf]

I'm undecided.

I don't know if I agree with Levercaster, but all he said is that pornography is bad, it hurts people, it should go away, and then he quoted the Bible.  What's the problem?  He didn't say anything about censorship, did he? 

By espousing that all porn should go away he is taking it upon himself to decide what others should be allowed to read/view. That is no less than thought control.

Are you serious?   

You're darn tootin' I'm serious and anybody who believes in personal responsibility and individual freedom would be too. There's a very dangerous implied agenda in the statement, "It should all go..."

Whether it be guns, alcolhol, tobacco or porn.

[ilbob]

Just how would one prevent someone from having porn on a domain that is not XXX?

I am not opposed to such an idea, but it does not change anything. Legit porn web sites have tags that identify them as such and the filtering programs recognize those tags, so there really is no benefit to an XXX domain for filtering purposes.

[Jamisjockey]

I'm undecided.

I don't know if I agree with Levercaster, but all he said is that pornography is bad, it hurts people, it should go away, and then he quoted the Bible.  What's the problem?  He didn't say anything about censorship, did he? 

By espousing that all porn should go away he is taking it upon himself to decide what others should be allowed to read/view. That is no less than thought control.

Are you serious?   

Don't stuff your religion down my throat.   You keep your puritanical morals...

Where is he stuffing religion down your throat?  Why do some people fly off the handle whenever a religous person says, "that's wrong"?  How can you get so huffy about his moral opinions, when you're telling him what to do?

Because they use those religious/moral opinions to dictate what others do through legislation, etc.  That's why.

[BakerMikeRomeo]

Admittedly, I have only seen the bad side of porn.

Well, in the story you posted, the math teacher was definitely looking at the child porn. The kiddy porn is bad news, and I am certainly with you on putting a stop to the abuse of children (the laws against viewing or possessing child-porn stipulate that since the making of such porn almost necessarily involves abusing the child, that the porn itself is also bad news, I am on the same side as these laws).

Perhaps there is a good side that I have missed. Please feel free to educate me.

There doesn't have to be a good side for it to be wrong for anybody to involve themselves in my personal matters that don't affect them. I enjoy porn because I enjoy it, and I don't perceive that it is negatively affecting things I value, so I have no reason to not enjoy it. I recognize your point that there exist people who are addicted or who are likely to become addicted to porn, and those people can seek help from their friends, or from professionals, or whoever, but their deficiencies have no bearing on me or my rights (any more than the existence of violent criminals or alcoholics have any effect on my right to arms or to imbibe what I may).

I'd still like to know if you'd approve of governmental policies banning the creation/distribution and/or possession of pornography; if you don't, I'll apologize for some of my previous posts.

~GnSx