h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

We could use the same argument about cars couldnt we?

It would be a lot better as an anology to guns but pornography is different.

First what is pornography. In certain hands an issue of cosmo is porn, yet it is clearly intended as a fashion lifestle magazine. So should see through bloses be banned?

Is a calendar of fremen in suggestive poses porn?

We might all agree about some things but where is the line?

A gun is a gun, unless its had its firing mechanism removed and then in that state its an ornament of antique. So should all those racy pictures of Josephine Baker be censored.

Or should we be honest with ourselves and say some people like things we as individuals feel are distasteful , but not worry as long as no laws are being broken in its production or intent.

Id be surprised if a rapist had never seen any porn or a murderer had never seen someone shot or stabbed on TV but is it safe to say such crimes are the soley down to or majorly influenced by media input?

Remeber all the crimes we are talking about predate printing. Nop one was ever shot with a gun efore guns were made so its right to restrict guns if you can prove no one was ever rapped or sexually harassed prior to the advent of Playboy I will personally go and burn the entire top shelf of every newsagent I ever go into.

one love

We could use the same argument about cars couldnt we?

It would be a lot better as an anology to guns but por nography is different.

First what is por nography. In certain hands an issue of cosmo is porn, yet it is clearly intended as a fashion lifestle magazine. So should see through blouses be banned?

Why dose it matter who makes more profit do people get so exercised about the profit sharing possibilities for othe producers/models/actresses?

What about charity calendar of firemen in suggestive poses then?

We might all agree about *some* things but where is the line that says *all* this is OK and all this isnt?

A gun is a gun, unless its had its firing mechanism removed and then in that state its an ornament of antique. So should all those racy pictures of Josephine Baker be censored.

Or should we be honest with ourselves and say some people like things we as individuals may feel are distasteful , but not worry as long as no laws are being broken in its production or intent.

Id be surprised if a rapist had never seen any porn or a murderer had never seen someone shot or stabbed on TV but is it safe to say such crimes are the soley down to or majorly influenced by media input?

Remeber all the crimes we are talking about predate printing. No one was ever shot with a gun efore guns were made so its right to restrict guns if you can prove no one was ever rapped or sexually harassed prior to the advent of Playboy I will personally go and burn the entire top shelf of every newsagent I ever go into.

one love

We could use the same argument about cars couldnt we?

It would be a lot better as an anology to guns but por nography is different.

First what is por nography. In certain hands an issue of cosmo is pown, yet it is clearly intended as a fashion lifestle magazine. So should see through blouses be banned?

Why dose it matter who makes more profit do people get so exercised about the profit sharing possibilities for othe producers/models/actresses?

What about charity calendar of firemen in suggestive poses then?

We might all agree about *some* things but where is the line that says *all* this is OK and all this isnt?

A gun is a gun, unless its had its firing mechanism removed and then in that state its an ornament of antique. So should all those racy pictures of Josephine Baker be censored.

Or should we be honest with ourselves and say some people like things we as individuals may feel are distasteful , but not worry as long as no laws are being broken in its production or intent.

Id be surprised if a rapist had never seen any porn or a murderer had never seen someone shot or stabbed on TV but is it safe to say such crimes are the soley down to or majorly influenced by media input?

Remeber all the crimes we are talking about predate printing. No one was ever shot with a gun efore guns were made so its right to restrict guns if you can prove no one was ever rapped or sexually harassed prior to the advent of Playboy I will personally go and burn the entire top shelf of every newsagent I ever go into.

one love

We could use the same argument about cars couldnt we?

It would be a lot better as an anology to guns but por nography is different.

First what is por nography. In certain hands an issue of cosmo is pown, yet it is clearly intended as a fashion lifestle magazine. So should see through blouses be banned?

Why dose it matter who makes more profit do people get so exercised about the profit sharing possibilities for othe producers/models/actresses?

What about charity calendar of firemen in suggestive poses then?

We might all agree about *some* things but where is the line that says *all* this is OK and all this isnt?

A gun is a gun, unless its had its firing mechanism removed and then in that state its an ornament of antique. So should all those racy pictures of Josephine Baker be censored.

Or should we be honest with ourselves and say some people like things we as individuals may feel are distasteful , but not worry as long as no laws are being broken in its production or intent.

Id be surprised if a rapist had never seen any porn or a murderer had never seen someone shot, poisoned, strangled or stabbed on TV but is it safe to say such crimes are the soley down to or majorly influenced by media input?

Remember all the crimes we are talking about predate printing. No one was ever shot with a gun before guns were made so its right to restrict guns. Now if you can prove no one was ever rapped or sexually harassed prior to the advent of play boy I will personally go and burn the entire top shelf of every newsagent I ever go into.

one love

Are you going to keep reposting until all the typos are fixed?

taking your first attempt:

"Is a calendar of fremen in suggestive poses porn?"
Only to the Bene Gesserit.

Tresja vu?

Hey! I actually get the Bene Gesserit joke!

OK - so what we're saying that is that the justification of the art is in the intention of the artist, right? Yes - a sound argument.

So...what if the artist creates a shoddy piece of art which, due to its ignorance, unintentionally offends?

Is this the same as a car designer who, through negligence, designs in a fault which accidentally injures?

"No one was ever shot with a gun before guns were made so its right to restrict guns."

This is selective reasoning. Applying that same argument to the topic of porn, we get, "No one was ever raped by a porn-crazed rapist before porn was printed, so it's right to restrict porn."

After all, the gun is just a method. But I suspect murder took place before the invention of the gun.

No not quite Blathers.

If no one was ever raped pre porn Id accept you had the right idea.

If you took all porn out of a society (from xxx to saucy calendars and everything in between) there would still be sex crimes. Just as there were before the internet, VHS, film and even the priniting press.

If you took away all guns how many people would be getting shot?

one love

I have to say I agree with blicky.

The question really is not "If you took away all guns, how many people would be being shot?", because the answer is obviously "None." The proper question is "If you took away all guns, how many people would be being KILLED?", and the answer is undoubtedly a lot fewer, and for several reasons.

Guns make it *easy* to kill people. They enable people to kill on impulse in a way no other tool does. They enable people to kill in a very impersonal, "clean" way - you don't have to get your hands dirty or look your victim in the eye. The act of pulling the trigger is physically and psychologically divorced from the result in a way few other methods are. They enable people to kill who might otherwise be physically incapable of doing so by virtue of lack of size or full intention. And most importantly of all, they enable people kill accidentally.

Controlling guns make a lot more sense than controlling porn.

H.

<>

And the legs of grand pianos which the Victorians used to cover up in case the inflamed male passions they also covered up necks, ankles and wrists of women as they were considered erotic and hence a threat to civilised men. Of course, cleavage and boobs were everywhere as these were not considered at all erotic in the same way.

Before long all women would be wearing the full muslim style dresses (mind gone can't rememeber name of it - not hajib) and men would start finding them erotic! Maybe there is just a need to find something sexy and we replace one thing that has been banned with another to replace it. Maybe that is why breasts became sexier after the Victorians stopped blokes drooling over ankles and wrists.

I agree with Alfster. The arguments are the same. Hoo and blicky, you two are getting caught up in semantics. Just because we have a simple verb to encapsulate "received physical injury from a projectile fired from a gun" doesn't mean it's ethically any different from "committed sexual assault due to porn-induced psychosis."

The end result of one is death. The crime is murder. Are you saying murder never happened before the invention of the gun?

The end result of the other is sexual assault. The crime is rape. The two cases are parallel.

And both guns and porn are perfectly benign tools that are abused only rarely. Billions of people find gratification through porn without resorting to violence. Millions of gun owners never draw their weapons in anger, much less fire them.

So the question is, are we going to take away the rights of the many because the few will abuse them? Take away the guns. Take away pornography, too. But don't stop there. Abusive hate speech is always present, so we need to practice censorship. People abuse prescription drugs, so we need to clamp down on those... we should only give them out on a dose-by-dose basis. Let's everyone queue up at the pharmacy, and we might get our dose in time to get back into line for the next one. A lot of people get hurt driving, too, so let's get rid of all those cars.

Or... we could exercise some common sense. It is true of ANY right, that it will be abused by a few citizens. The only thing we can do is to protect the right despite abuse, or else we deny that right to everyone. And pretty soon, we have none whatsoever.

<>

Thank you, Blinky, for illustrating my point so exactly! Your knowledge of "religions" is obviously very limited, for you not to know, or know about the huge number of left-wing Christians in all countries, including mine.

Your insult above, directed, I assume, at me, is just your usual way of talking on hootoo, and deserves no better answer. The last 3 words, are as usual, unintelligible.

PS - why do you always say "one love" - it seems you, my friend are being a hypocrite! The pot calling the kettle black!

<>

Yes. The aforementioned example of a painting depicting child rape. Or anything similar. It seems to me that there are people who like the idea of causing hurt and/or offence, and it makes me think of 13 year olds who want to think they're so grown up, and so they rebel against whatever they think "the olds" have got.

(Do children brought up as fundamentalist atheists decide to "become religious" to annoy their parents?

)

"Do children brought up as fundamentalist atheists decide to "become religious" to annoy their parents?"

I have precisely one data point in relation to this question - the experience of a schoolfriend of mine who is also a former active researcher and Scout on this site. She went to the same middle school as I did, but did not go to the same high school - the best in the town - because it was a church school and her parents were firm atheists.

She did not become religious. She did, however, loathe her entire time at high school. I couldn't say whether she directly blamed her parents for that, or whether that caused any problems in their relationship. But she didn't become religious out of rebelliousness.

It may even be worth mentioning she had a particularly rebellious sister, who didn't become religious either.

So, two data points. Hardly conclusive. Anyone else?

H.

I was born in a wishy-washy Anglican family, net result 1 child is Christian, 1 agnostic, and 1 atheist
nothing very conclusive there either

Well....at the moment my 7 year old son is saying he is Christian...but that's because he doesn't want to be teased at school. Mind you, he believes in Santa too.

But getting back to the 'acceptable limits of art' issue (to avoid the thread becoming yet another Della vs The Rest of the World). As a secondary question: Do artists have a social responsibility?


>>And the legs of grand pianos which the Victorians used to cover up

Urban myth, by the way. The Victorians were a racy lot. It was actually puritan New Englanders circa 1810.

Oh Della Im not so stupid that I dont know about socialist pratitoners of religion that's why i use the word "largely".

Read the post properly before you respond if you dont it only makes you look stupid.

Della I was responding you your post and I used the word "you" in it. ODo you think I was refering to you?

Read the post properly before you respond if you dont it only makes you look stupid. And it saves me repeating myself.

blicky honey . . . it's Christmas eve. Lighten up already. Have a bit of and give Della a hug.

And give me one too while you're at it . . .




az

Sure thing pretty momma.

Just tense about giving the his eye drops and tablets. Liz has gone to her folks till Sunday and Im zoo keeper till she gets back.