Nine Songs!

Porn is not the same thing as child porn? How so? You used the same word to describe both - PORN!
Child Porn is a sub section of Porn. If you say PORN without qualification you therefore include child porn.

But lets take the 'child' out the porn for a moment and develop the argument.

If PORN (sexual images of consenting adults) is as acceptable as alcohol in our culture - because (as ClubMan says) we can't restrict something from the whole adult population just because a few individuals abuse it - then he is saying that porn should be as freely available as alcohol.
And we know what that means, you can see it by walking down Grafton Street any Saturady night.

Incidentally it just occurred to me, since you define your objection to child porn solely on the grounds that it is not like porn between consenting adults, then how do you intend to label the film Nine Songs now that the lead actress is no longer a consenting adult in its distribution?
 
Clubman, I agree entirely.

I had the misfortune to be listening to Matt Cooper last night and hear some rather uninformed debate from two feminists concerning pornography and how it was turning men into violent spouse abusers. One of the two women had never even watched pornography...but was a real expert on the subject nonetheless.

Matt brought a well known porn actor, Ron Jeremy, into the fray and he rubbished a lot of what was being said.

Make no mistake, there is a lot of very harmful pornography/abuse out there on the internet (something which Mr Jeremy also acknowledged). The key point is differentiating between consentual and legislated adult content and the stuff that society needs to filter out. Unfortunately, while there are uninformed and generally right wing comments being made about how porn turns us all into emotionally defunct men, the issue gets largely lost.
 
>Porn is not the same thing as child porn? How so? You used the same word to describe both - PORN!

Most "normal" people see porn as adult movies. Those same people would think of child porn as a criminal act and severe abuse of children. The name "child porn" is just an a name. A way of describing something. You're bandying words about. Utter nonsense.

I'll let Clubman deal with the rest of your post. Once again, you're completely misrepresenting what he said to suit what you want to hear or what you think he said.
 
Gabriel, I see you've decided to ignore awkward questions. Fair enough, I hope it leads you to reflect on your convictions.

I heard that interview on Matt Cooper too. Those women were talking about something entirely different to what we are discussing here.

While they would like to see the total ban of all pornography (which would actually be impossible to define anyhow) I already stated I have no problem with it, when its handled properly. My issue is with its handling. Not with its abolition.
 
My point about the Cooper interview did not necessarily concern your comments. It was merely a tangent to the discussion in general.
 
Porn is not the same thing as child porn? How so? You used the same word to describe both - PORN!
Child Porn is a sub section of Porn. If you say PORN without qualification you therefore include child porn.

If you want the discussion to degenerate into an argument about semantics so be it. However I am fairly confident that most readers, even those that don't agree with my stance on the issue, will have understood my points and realise that in no way did I argue that people should have an automatic right to view child porn or any other porn involving non-consenting participants.

If PORN (sexual images of consenting adults) is as acceptable as alcohol in our culture - because (as ClubMan says) we can't restrict something from the whole adult population just because a few individuals abuse it - then he is saying that porn should be as freely available as alcohol.

Yes - I believe that grown adults should be entitled to view any content (within the caveats mentioned above for those who were not reading carefully) that they so choose and that there should be appropriate rules (e.g. censorship classifications of content) and oversight (e.g. penalties for those who allow it) to prevent unauthorised access to such content (e.g. by children).

And we know what that means, you can see it by walking down Grafton Street any Saturady night.

See what?

Incidentally it just occurred to me, since you define your objection to child porn solely on the grounds that it is not like porn between consenting adults, then how do you intend to label the film Nine Songs now that the lead actress is no longer a consenting adult in its distribution?

I assume that she was a willing participant in, and was remunerated for, the making of the movie otherwise somebody should obviously be charged with kidnapping. Has the actor in question reported any crime to the relevant police/investigative authorities or taken any civil court action in respect of her role in this matter?
 
By the way - I presume that the actress to whom Asimov referred was Margot Stilley whose IMDb bio includes the following information (underlining is mine):

Other than the bit about not wanting the director to use her real name in promotion of the movie above I have drawn a blank on finding more detailed information about allegations that she objected in some way to the movie or its promotion. Does anybody else have links to such information or is somebody telling porkies?
 
If you want the discussion to degenerate into an argument about semantics so be it.

No I don't, but words are very important here, lest anyone misunderstand.

However I am fairly confident that most readers, even those that don't agree with my stance on the issue, will have understood my points and realise that in no way did I argue that people should have an automatic right to view child porn or any other porn involving non-consenting participants.

I didn't think you said that either...but the fact is that the logic of your argument unfortunately extends in that sense.

Yes - I believe that grown adults should be entitled to view any content (within the caveats mentioned above for those who were not reading carefully) that they so choose and that there should be appropriate rules (e.g. censorship classifications of content) and oversight (e.g. penalties for those who allow it) to prevent unauthorised access to such content (e.g. by children).

Well, whaddya know...we agree again! In fact I think your acceptance of the necessity for CENSORSHIP just affirms that our positions are not as different as you might think, and that the unfettered availability of porn is not a good thing!

And we know what that means, you can see it by walking down Grafton Street any Saturady night. See what?

Under 18's out of their skull on drink, when they are supposed to be underage to buy or consume it!

The Irish Times carried an article on the film in question and the author inferred she had withdrwan her name because she had second thoughts about her role afterward. Maybe the Irish Times are telling porkies...it wouldn't be the first time...eh Kevin?

On the other hand, if true (and who really knows whats in her head), it raises questions about this term 'consenting' which you've just brushed away. The feminists would have a field day with you unless you can come up with a better argument. Lets face it, they'd be right if they said that many of the porn actresses who make XXX today and claim to do it freely, write a book next week telling how their abusive boyfriend/drug addiction drove them to do it, and they now regret it. I guess you've heard of Linda Lovelace - par example?

The whole 'consenting adult' argument is just too shaky a foundation to build a solid case for porn upon. Lets face it, most people who get into the 'acting' end of the business wouldn't be the sharpest knives in anybody's drawer.
 
>I didn't think you said that either...but the fact is that the logic of your argument unfortunately extends in that sense.

Clubman's logic made perfect sense to me and I didn't draw any of the conclusions you did.

>Under 18's out of their skull on drink, when they are supposed to be underage to buy or consume it!

Grafton street or its surrounding areas is where you'll find me most saturday nights. I can tell you right now, that although there are certainly a lot of people out of their skull on drink, there aren't half as many underagers as people make out. 18 and over yes...but definitely not under. At least, that's my impression of the situation.

>I guess you've heard of Linda Lovelace - par example?

I've heard her story and it's a very sad one. Ever heard of Judy Garland? Perhaps we should ban Hollywood because of her?

>The whole 'consenting adult' argument is just too shaky a foundation to build a solid case for porn upon. Lets face it, most people who get into the 'acting' end of the business wouldn't be the sharpest knives in anybody's drawer.

Tell that to millionaires like Jenna Jameson. She acts in her own movies and runs one of the biggest adult movie film companies in the US. I haven't personally met many porn stars so can't comment on how sharp or intellectual they might be.
 
Clubman's logic made perfect sense to me and I didn't draw any of the conclusions you did.

Maybe thats because you have identical views on Porn?

At least, that's my impression of the situation.

Obviously not everyone elses though...[broken link removed]

I've heard her story and it's a very sad one. Ever heard of Judy Garland? Perhaps we should ban Hollywood because of her?

Did I say ban porn? You still don't get it, do you?

Tell that to millionaires like Jenna Jameson. She acts in her own movies and runs one of the biggest adult movie film companies in the US. I haven't personally met many porn stars so can't comment on how sharp or intellectual they might be.

Would you choose porn as a career if you had another option that paid as well? On second thoughts...you needn't answer that.

Jenna is a lovely girl, but aging quickly. I hope she's made good provision for her retirement and invested well...we could yet see the 'I regret it all' book. The jurys still out.

For every Jenna Jameson theres a thousand sad cases like
 
>Maybe thats because you have identical views on Porn?

Regardless of my views on porn, I did not misrepresent what he said as I understood the points he was making - quite clearly I might add.

>Obviously not everyone elses though

I believe your point was concerning Grafton street on a saturday night. As I said, there would appear to be very few underage drinkers staggering around Grafton street on an average saturday night. I've no doubt we have a high rate of underage drinking in general.

>Did I say ban porn? You still don't get it, do you?

I'm afraid you're making your point, whatever it is, very badly...bringing semantics concerning the word itself into your argument and continuously misrepresenting what people say post after post.

>Would you choose porn as a career if you had another option that paid as well?

Personally no. I wouldn't be willing to put up with the inherent risks of STD's (HIV in particular) from unprotected sex. But if people choose to do it I don't judge them for it. It would seem from your postings that you do.

>Jenna is a lovely girl, but aging quickly. I hope she's made good provision for her retirement and invested well...we could yet see the 'I regret it all' book. The jurys still out.

I wouldn't hold your breath. She's filthy rich. She could retire tomorrow.

Incidentally, many coal miners also die young. They don't get paid as well mind you.
 
I believe your point was concerning Grafton street on a saturday night. As I said, there would appear to be very few underage drinkers staggering around Grafton street on an average saturday night. I've no doubt we have a high rate of underage drinking in general.

Have you a point to make then? Other than perhaps that all those underage drunks don't go to Grafton Street because you say so - or if they do, perhaps they hide when they see you coming?

I'm afraid you're making your point, whatever it is, very badly...bringing semantics concerning the word itself into your argument and continuously misrepresenting what people say post after post.

Gee, you seem to be losing the rag here.

Personally no. I wouldn't be willing to put up with the inherent risks of STD's (HIV in particular) from unprotected sex. But if people choose to do it I don't judge them for it. It would seem from your postings that you do.

Here's a bit of news for you pornhound...EVERYBODY gets judged by what they do...even YOU.

I wouldn't hold your breath. She's filthy rich. She could retire tomorrow.

Lucky her. If you think that makes it worth the risks I don't know why you don't fancy doing it yourself.

Incidentally, many coal miners also die young. They don't get paid as well mind you.

Don't be a miner then either!
Again...whats your point?

By the way...when you are socialising on Grafton Street every Saturday night, do you proudly tell all the little chickies you chat up that you're a huge pornhound?
If not, why not?
 
No I don't, but words are very important here, lest anyone misunderstand.

Indeed - and I think that I have made myself abuntantly clear on the matter in spite of your attempts to twist what I have said.

I didn't think you said that either...but the fact is that the logic of your argument unfortunately extends in that sense.

It doesn't as I have already pointed out several times. I have never asserted anybody's right to view material which impinges on the rights of non-consenting participants. This would obviously rule out child porn. To even suggest that I am expressing an opinion in favour of the dissemination of child porn is ridiculous, highly insulting and potentially dangerous.

In fact I think your acceptance of the necessity for CENSORSHIP

I agree that children should be protected from certain material and that appropriate classification and enforcement of the relevant rules would be warranted in this context. I do not agree that grown adults should be prevented from viewing any material which harms or impinges on the rights of other non-consenting individuals. I'm afraid I can't make it any clearer than that.

Under 18's out of their skull on drink, when they are supposed to be underage to buy or consume it

Yes - a problem with the enforcement of the laws pertaining to the sale/procurement of alcohol and not a reason for preventing grown adults from indulging obviously.

The Irish Times carried an article on the film in question and the author inferred she had withdrwan her name because she had second thoughts about her role afterward. Maybe the Irish Times are telling porkies...it wouldn't be the first time...eh Kevin?

Could be. Other than the line I quoted earlier from her IMDb bio I can find no other evidence that the actor in question objected to her role in the film, was an otherwise unwilling participant or has condemned it in any way.

and who really knows whats in her head

Now it's getting really silly... :|

The feminists would have a field day with you unless you can come up with a better argument. Lets face it, they'd be right if they said that many of the porn actresses who make XXX today and claim to do it freely, write a book next week telling how their abusive boyfriend/drug addiction drove them to do it, and they now regret it. I guess you've heard of Linda Lovelace - par example?

"The feminists"? Who precisely? Last time I checked there were a broad range of people and groups with differing views that might reasonably be described as "feminist". I wouldn't be as presumptious as to lump them all into a single group with a single homogenous viewpoint on this or any other matter. Anyway, grown adults make mistakes and regret them all the time. Prior restraint to protect an individual against mistakes that they may make is hardly a tenable argument.

The whole 'consenting adult' argument is just too shaky a foundation to build a solid case for porn upon. Lets face it, most people who get into the 'acting' end of the business wouldn't be the sharpest knives in anybody's drawer.

Even if that is the general case then so what? Do you really think that we should make protecting individuals against mistakes, foolishness etc. that they [may] make that cause themselves (as opposed to others) harm a basis for formulating our laws?
 
Indeed - and I think that I have made myself abuntantly clear on the matter in spite of your attempts to twist what I have said.

I'm sorry if you don't like your argument to be teased apart. But thats all I did...no twisting necessary. Get over it.

I have never asserted anybody's right to view material which impinges on the rights of non-consenting participants.

Thats convenient. But impossible to police in the real world.

This would obviously rule out child porn. To even suggest that I am expressing an opinion in favour of the dissemination of child porn is ridiculous, highly insulting and potentially dangerous.

Yes, thats right...porn can be dangerous. Thats why it needs strict controls.

I do not agree that grown adults should be prevented from viewing any material which harms or impinges on the rights of other non-consenting individuals.

And thats where I came in and said there is a time and a place for everytrhing....so we return to the start again...circling, always circling...

Yes - a problem with the enforcement of the laws pertaining to the sale/procurement of alcohol and not a reason for preventing grown adults from indulging obviously.

Don't pretend to be stupid, I know you aren't really.
If a banned substance such as alcohol is accessible by kids, how do you plan to limit porn access by kids, especially if its on sale in the local multiplex, and for hire in Xtravision?

Let me flesh it out again (no pun intended)...you've already said you agree with the necessity for censorship, and you also agree that alcohol is being abused by underage kids.
By allowing widespread easy access to porn you are inviting its abuse also, by kids. As an adult I have no problem with restrictions on my freedoms, even where I think it unnecessary to protect me personally - because there are other more vulnerable people who would suffer as a result. Drugs are another good example of this. I don't agree with the liberalisation of Marijuana, and even if I used it I still wouldn't agree that it should be sold on every street corner.

"The feminists"? Who precisely?

Them...you know...the Feminists! Ask John Waters fer crissake!

Even if that is the general case then so what? Do you really think that we should make protecting individuals against mistakes, foolishness etc. that they [may] make that cause themselves (as opposed to others) harm a basis for formulating our laws?

Nah. Never did. HEY! you're twisting my words now! Whaddya know! What a coincidence!
There'll always be dumb shmucks to make porno movies. Just don't try to tell me they're all multi millionaires by the time they're 35. It insults our intelligence.
 
>Have you a point to make then? Other than perhaps that all those underage drunks don't go to Grafton Street...

Actually, that was your point. I was merely pointing out that from my own experience I don't see that going on in town. Plenty of drunken behaviour...but very little of it underage. Your remark was akin to that of a tabloid. All shock with very little substance.


>Gee, you seem to be losing the rag here.

Not at all...although I gather you'd like that. It's generally how you conduct yourself here.


>Lucky her. If you think that makes it worth the risks I don't know why you don't fancy doing it yourself.

I believe I already dealt with the issue of my own feelings about being involved in the adult industry and the risks involved.


>Don't be a miner then either!
Again...whats your point?

I realise it's subtle...but try again.


>By the way...when you are socialising on Grafton Street every Saturday night, do you proudly tell all the little chickies you chat up that you're a huge pornhound?
If not, why not?

Little chickies? Well...I tend not to refer to women that I meet as little chickies actually!
This seems to be a pattern of yours on this board. Resorting to this rubbish. I think I have seen about 7 to 10 porn movies my whole life. I know a little about it. I'm a man of the world so I know the issues involved. I realise of course that your sad attempt to get a rise out of me is a product of your own inability to hold constructive debate. But I'm afraid I'm not biting. Before you drag this debate downhill, as you invariably do, I'll bow out...unless you have any real point to make.
 
I'm sorry if you don't like your argument to be teased apart. But thats all I did...no twisting necessary. Get over it.



ClubMan
Administrator
Posts: 11114
(23/2/05 10:59 pm)

The problem then is policing/enforcement of the rules and not with the argument that grown adults should be allowed view whatever content they choose.
Click to expand...


I would argue that you did indeed twist my words and, by insinuating from the lack of the caveat/qualification mentioned in several of my previous posts and implicit in my last one above that that I in some way was supporting access to child porn, acted outrageously.

Yes, thats right...porn can be dangerous. Thats why it needs strict controls.

I didn't concede that. I just agree that children are still developing physically and emotionally and should be shielded from certain material until they have reached an age at which they can make informed decisions for themselves whether to consume such material or not.

And thats where I came in and said there is a time and a place for everytrhing.

I'm not familiar with your views on timing but your idea of an appropriate place for it ("Adults watching porn in the comfort of their own home - no problem. Anywhere else is just too 'in your face'.") is much more restrictive than mine.

Don't pretend to be stupid,

Two words to that - posting guidelines!

If a banned substance such as alcohol is accessible by kids, how do you plan to limit porn access by kids, especially if its on sale in the local multiplex, and for hire in Xtravision?

You enforce the relevant rules.

Let me flesh it out again (no pun intended)...you've already said you agree with the necessity for censorship

Not to limit what material grown adults can access, no.

and you also agree that alcohol is being abused by underage kids.

I never actually mentioned "abuse". I just mentioned that access to alcohol/tobacco by those under legal age obviously does occur.

By allowing widespread easy access to porn you are inviting its abuse also, by kids. As an adult I have no problem with restrictions on my freedoms, even where I think it unnecessary to protect me personally - because there are other more vulnerable people who would suffer as a result. Drugs are another good example of this. I don't agree with the liberalisation of Marijuana, and even if I used it I still wouldn't agree that it should be sold on every street corner.

Well we'll just have to agree to differ in spite of the fact that you think that I've agreed to agree with you. I won't even get onto my views on other "consensual crimes" involving individuals and causing no direct harm to non-consenting others (such as those involving personal use of currently banned substances) or we'll never get out of here alive but I'm sure that you can guess. However, before you jump to any more mistaken conclusions please note that I do not condone the trafficking/use of controlled substances while they are still banned under law.

Ask John Waters fer crissake!

Eh?

Nah. Never did. HEY! you're twisting my words now!

Er, how can I be twisting your words when all I did was pose a question for you to answer? :\

Just don't try to tell me they're all multi millionaires by the time they're 35.

And, if you read my contributions carefully you'll also notice that I never said that either.
 
By the way...when you are socialising on Grafton Street every Saturday night, do you proudly tell all the little chickies you chat up that you're a huge pornhound?

Are you a big Austin Powers fan or something?
 
HTML Comments are not allowed

Please note that explains why your post went missing and not, in spite of your claim in a post which has since been removed by another moderator (not me), because it was censored by me.
 
HTML Comments are not allowed

I spent a considerable time last night composing a response to ClubMans posting, only to see it deleted.

ClubMan claims it was deleted by 'the machine' and not him.
Whatever.

Pity, it was rather good....but I can't be bothered to write it all again.

In parting I just have this to add.

ClubMan is a "MODERATOR" on this Bulletin Board. He regularly edits and deletes threads, deletes comments, and locks discussions. Indeed he has just deleted a posting by GeeGee, inserted his excuse, and locked the discussion.

Now if that is not CENSORSHIP, I ask you - what is?

MODERATOR = CENSOR ClubMan!

ClubMan is vehement in asserting his god given RIGHT to access the vilest pornography because "...why should any individual or group decide what content other grown adults should be allowed access?" and yet he registers absolutely no contradiction in his position when he chooses to CENSOR what I write or what YOU can read.

In other words, his convictions on 'freedom of content' only apply when and where, and to whom he chooses.
Specifically, he is the arbiter of our viewing.

This is the attitude of an out and out hypocrite. He can't even see the hypocrisy of his position.

Over and out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register