[LINK] why calm, rational thought is required....

[Craig Sanders]

On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 10:24:39AM +1100, Stewart Fist wrote:
> Craig writes:
> 
> > sure they are. lots of porn viewers use the term porn or pr0n. they
> > know what they're looking at, they know what it's called.
>
> It's called 'erotica' when it is used in private or between consenting
> adults.  Porn is the label applied by those not involved in the sexual
> stimulation aspects, but experiencing the 'in-your-face' aspects.

actually, it's called 'erotica' in public by people who watch porn but
want it to sound a little more refined and respectable than 'porn'. in
private, and in their heads, they call it porn.


> > unfortunately, however, some people go out of their way to find
> > stuff that offends them in order to be able to complain about it.
>
> Agreed. There are always extreme keepers-of-the-morals of the
> community who take it upon themselves to speak out. But isn't this
> true of all arguable aspects in our society.  You don't judge the mean
> by the extreme.

i have no problem with them speaking out - free speech entitles them
to do that. i object to them lobbying to legislate THEIR standards on
everyone else.


> > they lobby hard to get whatever they don't like banned so that
> > nobody can choose to look at it, even if they want to.
>
> Some do, many don't.  Religious zealots do this will all kinds of
> moral issues.  I am not religious, so that aspect doesn't worry me.
> Except that I recognise their rights also, which includes the right to
> comment on the morals of others.  It only concerns me when they exert
> 'undue' power in the political sense, and these days I don't think
> they exert much -- in Australia, anyway.

that's what i would have said 15 years ago. even 10 years ago, if
someone had suggested to me that the religious right would be a
significant force in australian politics, i would have laughed at them.
it would have been an absurd suggestion.

not these days, though. they're very organised and very influential.
not so long ago, a politician's religious beliefs were (rightly, IMO)
considered private and an impolite subject for discussion - nowadays
they all have to wear their christianity (or whatever) as a brand name.

(BTW, i can understand Rudd's point about reclaiming the "christian"
territory from the religious right - the religious left have basically
abdicated the public debate for years. i can understand it...but i don't
have to like it).



> > there's lots of things that are displayed publicly that i'd rather
> > not see (cricket, football, big brother and other sur-reality TV,
> > etc). i find these things at least as offensive as some people find
> > pornography
>
> Craig is being disingenuous here.  When an argument becomes
> ridiculous, I opt out.

i wasn't, actually. i find those things, especially "reality TV" to
be extremely offensive. they promote cultural values which i find
disgusting....worse than disgusting, i find them actively dangerous and
inimical to the kind of society i'd prefer to live in.

the sports of football and cricket themselves are mostly just tedious.
the all-pervasive obsession with them (indeed with anything related to
sport), and the association with drunk yob behaviour is offensive.


so, i don't find people's pink bits terribly offensive...yet i do find
crass consumerism, yobbo behaviour, and mindless bogan idiocy to be
offensive. what's ridiculous about that?



craig

-- 
craig sanders <cas at taz.net.au>

Currently listening to: Entheogenic - Mindless

The most winning woman I ever knew was hanged for poisoning three little
children for their insurance money.
		-- Sherlock Holmes