The people of the United States are about to lose their country, their
Constitution and Bill of Rights and go to war with another Civil War against
each other and the news media is being vigilant about sex, lies, and videotapes
as their lead stories? The degradation of ones morality is not limited to
pornography and the pictures they look at and its very narrow minded for the
news media to be concerned of this one subject when our very country is now at
risk, and its not because of pornography. Why don't they, the
news, instead be vigilant about preserving free speech and free press and
accountable and meaningful noteworthy information to unite this country and
liberate us and themselves from the socialism and oppression we are forced to
live with the help of the news media supporting our downfall? Set some new
priorities to help this country out of this catastrophic implosion we are about
to have blow up in our face. Time for the news to become about Americans again.
Thank you Dawn Hawkins for being so diligent! NO thanks to Mr.Obama for doing
"I can't even think about that right now — it makes me
cry."I think that sentence really does sum it up nicely.
Thinking makes her want to cry. I think this is indicative of the emotional
maturity of anti-porn advocates: becuase they can't handle adult situations
they assume nobody can.
Evidently AmPat thinks we don't have enough freedom, and it's somehow
the news media's job to make sure we're "unified". V. Mom must
feel that there's too MUCH freedom, and that if any pornography (legal,
too?) shows up anywhere, it's President Obama's fault. I can't
agree with either of them.
Mark B,Obama is the leader, and as he said, will lead by
example.Neither Obama or Clinton set an example for morality, and
our country is rotting from within.
Mukkake,So a crying mother who's husband took illegal pictures
of their children, abused them, and so on- would be just as immature and unable
to 'handle it'. The possibility of a simple expression of sorrow for
children being harmed negates your argument completely.Also, in your
comment you implied that no anti-porn argument can be valid. This is prejudicial
logic and self-serving.I may not convince you, but I will stand up
for what I believe in. Many liberals argue that they have to express their free
speech everywhere, including in my home or in an airplane owned by someone else.
This suggests it isn't free unless you can invade other people's
rights too. Maybe if I'm extended the same courtesy and can read the Book
of Mormon aloud in schools, other's homes, and where I please- then those
shouting 'abuse of free speech' would see the problem with their own
logic.Also, a friendly question- have you ever read the Book of
socialism' is still pending judicial review. Although it is true that
people are willingly accepting such anti-democratic government.
I just don't know what worf means by Obama not setting an example in
"morality", nor do I know what he means by the phrase "rotting from
within". Perhaps DN should consider prohibiting vague accusations in these
posts. BTW, did Bush banish pornography when he had all three
branches of government on his side, or was he just too busy looking for
wmd's in Iraq?
Re: Mark B 9:58 a.m. March 20, 2012"Mom must feel that there's
too MUCH freedom"Decent society puts limits on our
"freedoms" in many areas. You aren't allow to yell "bomb"
in an airport, "fire" in a movie theater, have intimate relations with
little girls, or possess associated types of porn. You are free to possess all
the legal porn you want, but possession of porn involving little girls earn you
a prison cell and a place on our registered sex offender's registry when
you get out.
While I oppose pornography in all its forms due to its degradation of women I do
have to note that the article tries to blur the line between illegal pornography
(i.e. childhood pornography) and those types that the courts over the years have
found to be legal (not all forms of pornography are illegal. distasteful,
disgusting yes illegal no). I also notice that while they accuse Obama of doing
nothing they provide no examples of cases that should be being prosecuted and
are not being pursued by this administration.
Mr. Santorum would like to ban bad movies and bad internet; his rivals are
silent on the issue, probably because one of his rivals was on the Board of
Directors at Marriott Inc. and is no authority on the issue. Mr. Santorum is
right: religion and morality and faith are more important than politics and
popularity. And I must add that I am confident Mr. Obama wants the best for
his daughters and for all daughters. Much of Hollywood dislikes Mr.
Obama's support for traditional marriage----so he must be doing some things
Mark B,"Perhaps DN should consider prohibiting vague accusations
in these posts."Such a policy would be highly impractical. Also,
I personally think most 'misunderstandings' come from refusing to
listen far more than a lack of well presented information.Also, an
argument being vague may not be inappropriate either. It is one thing to say
"Porn is wrong" to an LDS audience that already knows many of my
premises. It is another to say it to an atheist audience whom I'd have to
provide more information to. "Knowing your audience" is important with
logical arguments. Where this paper enjoys a large conservative reader-base, I
don't think Worf's comment will be read as having "empty
accusations" by many.Lastly-"porn is wrong"
and "Porn is okay" are equally vague/clarifying statements. Saying
"Hitler was evil" is also vague. But vagueness doesn't invalidate a
claim. Providing reasons often doesn't convince people anyway. I'd
rather suggest "read the Book of Mormon and decide for yourself" instead
of trying to convince anyone to agree with my own experiences. That doesn't
invalidate my claim but strengthens it.
VOR's suggestions are all level-headed. My suggestion about DR's
policy on vague accusations was not entirely serious, though I have found, in
general, that the MORE vague the accusation, the fuzzier or less factal it may
be.And no, I still don't what worf was referring to in his
Mark B,"I still don't what worf was referring to"I'm assuming "I still don't know". Either way, you got
a laugh out of that one. It's a valid point, more than I realized at
first.In hindsight, I would argue that accusing would require
explaining or showing your rational, evidence, etc- in order to be credible. The
analogies I provided are valid, but possibly only in situations where disputing
is not involved. One can't dispute my beliefs or experiences, etc- they are
subjective. But where credibility is in dispute (an objective argument)- such as
someone standing on trial, a president, etc. then clearly one must 'back
up' their claims.-------christoph,1- I
disagree with Hollywood often, but claiming that 'conflicting intentions
with Hollywood must be partially/completely justified' either relies on a
false dichotomy (no 3rd opinion existing) or circular reasoning (that one is
right BECAUSE they disagree), both fallacious arguments.2- I rarely
agree with standing presidents decisions (Obama included), but his real stance
regarding marriage is unknown. He has supported of both 'sides' on
different occasions (search youtube). This would suggest avoidance rather than
revealing his true opinion/support.
@VORWhile I understand your point I would also remind you that President
Obama has admitted on more then one occasion that his views on marriage are not
settled in his own mind and something he still wrestles with. I know that not
taking absolute unbendable stands has become a political liability in todays
political climate regardless of party affiliation but I am not sure that is a
The President of the United States will go to the aid of the college student
that Rush defamed but not for Dawn Hawkins when the man on the airplane was
definitely offensive as were some other passengers. People have their
conscience to guide them with their lives. Courts are not necessarily guided by
their conscience but by what they feel, know or are persuaded to know about
their interpretation of that law. Justices aren’t necessarily appointed
for their Constitutional and liberty causes and have a lifetime appointment to
inflict bias opinions on the public in the United States. Social activities are
important and this type of MIM is a God send with moral people. Liberty is
important but not at the expense of what other people suffer when forced with
someone else’s blatant disregard for personal beliefs and moral values.
@JWB "The President of the United States will go to the aid of the
college student that Rush defamed but not for Dawn Hawkins when the man on the
airplane was definitely offensive as were some other passengers." that was a
bit of s stretch by any measure. One was a concerted and ongoing direct and very
derogatory attack against a person, the other was a thoughtless self centered
act by a granted not very smart passenger.