Porn is ok but safety of children is not.

[Larkinn]

I didn't say trying to change the law is illegal. I said the ACLU is defending them in their quest to make the sexual molestation of children legal.

http://www.nambla.org/boys.htm

No, they are defending their right to attempt to change the law. Which they do. Why? Because they are American citizens and we have little things called freedom of speech and freedom of association in our Constitution.

 

[Ravi]

I'd think that would pose a risk to the stacks. And the computers.

Porn or smoking?

 

[Shogun]

Good one!



psst: I'm laughing at you not with you, in case you haven't figured that out.

meh.. in case you haven't figured it out yet, your prattle is a significant bellweather of jack AND shit.

 

[AllieBaba]

That's just wrong, Ravir.

 

[Larkinn]

Smoking in the library? I realize you don't object to porn in the library.

Try reading your own question.

I don't object to regulating smoking in the library.

 

[AllieBaba]

No, they are defending their right to attempt to change the law. Which they do. Why? Because they are American citizens and we have little things called freedom of speech and freedom of association in our Constitution.

In other words, they are defending them in their quest to pursue sexual relationships with little boys.

Thanks for agreeing, councilor.

 

[Ravi]

No need to get testy, I just needed clarification.

If you don't mind regulating smoking I don't see how you can mind regulating porn just because you object to one and not the other.

 

[Ravi]

That's just wrong, Ravir.

Sorry.

But it is a good point. Regulating porn in the library will certainly be paid for by keeping keyboards safe.

 

[Larkinn]

Clearly, the majority of us don't see that you have a right to view porn in publicly funded libraries so.. feel free to insist that this is like nazi germany just because you cant look at snatch and jackoff in the public library.

Haha...and you had the nerve to accuse me of a strawman?

*yawn* you must HATE elections. No shit. You mean we all vote for our won perspectives?!@?! holy SHIT, I never realized that!

Not quite, no. And tell me again what public perception has to do with a private debate on a forum message board?

sure. no nudity or sexually explicit images allowed on public library computers.

Wait...I thought it was clear the difference between Michaelangelo and people fucking like dogs? Doesn't this include Michaleangelo?

You want your taxes back because you can watch porn and jack off in public?

Because I'm uninterested in paying the government to censor. Apparently you are. Next we can all get in a circle and ban books. Hoorah!

 

[manifold]

meh.. in case you haven't figured it out yet, your prattle is a significant bellweather of jack AND shit.

I have actually.

You're the one with the hyper-inflated opinion of your own bull shit.

 

[Shogun]

No, its not.


oh yes, I'm afraid it is.


So, what position did I describe of yours?

That those of us who can see why porn should be filtered from public libraries SHOULD be more concerned about available violence on the net.

Did you have any more questions?



Umm, no.

Try to avoid making shit up. I merely commented on the fact that nobody seems worried about it, or feels the need to bring it up. That has nothing to do with validating porn in public libraries, its merely a commentary on peoples priorities.


Commentary which suggests that A) my side SHOULD be more concerned with violence and B) that violence is worse than porn and C) We who see the necessity of net filters are ignoring a greater threat on the net.

Like I said, it's a pretty standard issue strawman rebuttal when talking about obscenity. You are hardly the first person to grab for that particular argument to hide behind.

 

[Larkinn]

In other words, they are defending them in their quest to pursue sexual relationships with little boys.

Thanks for agreeing, councilor.

Which, is obviously not the same as supporting abusing children.

 

[AllieBaba]

Spare me.

 

[Larkinn]

oh yes, I'm afraid it is.

That those of us who can see why porn should be filtered from public libraries SHOULD be more concerned about available violence on the net.

I said that? Thats fascinating. Where did I say that again?

Did you have any more questions?

Yeah. Are you actually reading my arguments?

Commentary which suggests that A) my side SHOULD be more concerned with violence and B) that violence is worse than porn and C) We who see the necessity of net filters are ignoring a greater threat on the net.

Ah. Well now you've gone from an "argument" to something that "suggests" something. Alrighty then.

Like I said, it's a pretty standard issue strawman rebuttal when talking about obscenity. You are hardly the first person to grab for that particular argument to hide behind.

You do understand the difference between a "rebuttal" and something that "suggests" arguments, right?

 

[Larkinn]

Spare me.

The difference is neither minor nor unimportant. ACLU doesn't exactly like Rush Limbaugh either, but yet they defended his sorry ass.

 

[Ravi]

sooooooooooooooo....you're looking like a hypocrite Larkin. You don't object to regulating one type of behavior but you do object to regulating another.

I'm sure there's as much "evidence" that porn is harmful to kids as there is that SHS is harmful to kids.

 

[Shogun]

Haha...and you had the nerve to accuse me of a strawman?

WOW.. are you feeling that desperate, dude? But I'll play. Bold what you think was a strawman. I'll share a chuckle.



Not quite, no. And tell me again what public perception has to do with a private debate on a forum message board?


Uh, because it's the PUBLIC that pays for the library and not the private debators on a messageboard?

Holy shit, is this Stupid Monday or something?



Wait...I thought it was clear the difference between Michaelangelo and people fucking like dogs? Doesn't this include Michaleangelo?

It is clear. Do you have examples otherwise? I mean, perhaps you can't tell the difference between sculpture and www.cockfightinggrannies.com but it's pretty obvious to the rest of us.. You know.. the MAJORITY.




Because I'm uninterested in paying the government to censor. Apparently you are. Next we can all get in a circle and ban books. Hoorah!

You still have every opportunity to go home, look at the net porn, and beat your meat. The government is not censoring your ability to look at porn by making you take it to your private net access instead of the pUBLIC library


After all, libraries probably let adults read an erotic vampire novel with cock-hungry dustjacket pictures, right in the childrens book section too. You know, fuck the kids as long as you can pretend you are putting your foot down.

 

[Shogun]

I said that? Thats fascinating. Where did I say that again?

You alluded to as much by bringing up violence in a thread about net porn. You know, the strawman attempt. Shall I quote you?



Yeah. Are you actually reading my arguments?


yea.. even if they continue to be as impressive as a happy meal toy or cracker jack surprise.





You do understand the difference between a "rebuttal" and something that "suggests" arguments, right?


HA!

squiiiiirm, baby, squirm...

Strawman infernoooo...

 

[manifold]

The discussion on this thread is a prototypical example of how a tangible, concrete issue gets used to start thread, but becomes quickly forgotten as the debate meanders through the abstract ether of philosophical musings. Don't get me wrong, I'm just as eager to engage in philosophical discussions as the next guy, but I also think it is well worthwhile to hammer a pragmatic stake in the ground concerning the source issue.

A couple of things to consider with respect to the specifics of this case:

1. Is internet censorship by a public library a violation of individual constitutional rights? I say no. What say you?

2. Is the mandating of internet censorship, by a community, on it's publicly funded library a violation of individual constiutional rights? I say no. What say you?

3. Is the mandating of internet censorship, by a community, on it's publicly funded library an unnecessary governmental intrusion on individual liberty? I say no. What say you?

4. And finally, how would you vote on this matter in your community? I would vote to censor. What say you?

 

[Shogun]

no, no, no
vote to censor porn.