Thread: Parents with daughters. Miss Bimbo.

Originally Posted by anonymouswhitefemale

Whilhelm, I can't help but smirk to myself when people draw upon Hitler as an example to prove their point about something. Trying to cast reflected evil from one thing to the other, often it just sounds desperate and a bit forced. Oh my god! Hitler ate cornflakes! How can you let your kid eat cornflakes, are you crazy?

As for said film, why not have it legal? In a legal computer game I can already go and pick up a hooker, bang her in an alleyway, then stab her with a screwdriver and steal my money back - it's not too far of a step. Although I know that you'd say the former is also unacceptable. The thing is, as I'm sure you are aware of the concept, where can you stop once you start telling people what they see and read; and therefore what they think and say - that is in essence far closer to the Nazi ideal. You disagree with someone else - that's fine, that's your right, but it isn't your right to prevent them from doing what they want to do, as long as it isn't harming anyone who doesn't want to be involved. For your video example, I know a few girls that would like that video, so if you think it's just budding rapists/murderers you'd be wrong.

Anyway, the world is out there - things happen, the news is even one of the worst examples we could ever have. Must we not allow any news reports of acts of savagery? Our kids can see on the news that in africa one tribe went to the next tribe, killed all the men and raped and mulilated their women... It's human nature, you can't fight an eternal battle to live in a fluffy cloud. What you have to do is stop writing angry letters to TV schedulers and teach your children your code of morality.

Oh, and with a straight face: "That video should be legal".

there were actually two other qualifications in that statement, anon. you've covered only one. i think you're okay on the intelligence, but the "reason" is suspect.

what you're describing in your first paragraph - and what little indicated with her reference to "reductio ad hitlerum" - is entirely misplaced. i've clarified - several times - and i'm amazed i've even needed to - i'm not using hitler as an example. your logic here would only apply if i had said, "hitler liked porn, so porn is bad."

what i've shown is that people can be influenced to behave a certain way. with the right use of media & repeated exposure, seemingly reasonable people can be influenced to do unreasonable things.

i haven't suggested that anything is evil, bad, or wrong - simply because hitler did it too. point that out to me, anon.

what i've said is that hitler influenced people to behave attrociously - and one way he did that was to indoctrinate children with his toxic philosophies.

we are doing the same thing today, though with different philosophies, by conditioning people to behave a certain way regarding sex.

LL - it's only a snuff film if the murder is real.

back to anon -

the danger in censoring anything is real. the extreme instances of that behavior is tyranny. you're exactly right.

i wouldn't want that any more than you would.

but you seem to ignore the danger on the other end of the spectrum. the absence of any censorship is chaos. no one makes any rules. anything goes.

i wouldn't want that either.

so what if you know girls who would like to watch a film about rape & murder?? if they would like the film, they aren't the ones the film is depicting, anon. the film depicted a teen who did NOT like what was happening to her.

i know girls who would want to be able to shoplift & not get in trouble. should that have any bearing in whether or not shoplifting is legal??

there is wrong & right, anon.

when we live in a world where people indulge their desires by inflicting pain & suffering on others - through rape & torture - and these aren't fantasies. i understand that, anon - my position against porn doesn't make me a nun. i've participated in a few of those myself.

but these are real rapes - and they have become commonplace as a sexual interest. real, not fantasy. so much so that kids are sold into markets where people can act out their fantasies onto people who don't share the fantasies.

porn that depicts two people sharing a fantasy isn't exciting in that respect. so we have to provide people with films that depict exactly the opposite. real terror. real pain. real suffering.

a world that can tolerate that kind of entertainment is a world that is devouring itself.

when your sexual interests require that you enjoy depictions of another person's sincere suffering - especially children's - then they have gone too far.

they need to be moderated.

there has to be a line, anon. there has to be a boundary, a limit. free enterprise can only be so free. free speech has to have a guideline.

did anyone here follow the unbelievable story of the former president of the ACLU - rust tierney (sp?) - in virginia?

this is the guy who argued against teh use of internet filters in libraries, served on the committee that argued for legalizing simulated virtual child porn...

he was arrested for files they found on his hard-drive, & stuff he had saved to disk. video's of small girls - 2 & 3 year olds - and infants - being tied down & raped. the court transcripts specifically stated you could hear the children crying.

infants, anon.

you're not a father, i presume - and it shouldn't matter. but i would think you could recognize that porn depicting infants being raped by adult males is infinitely bad. sexual interest in that is bad; sexual material targeting that interest is bad.

so where is the line, anon? if it's okay to depict teenagers being kidnapped, raped, and murdered...

isn't the next step to be okay with depicting infants being treated the same way?

or do they have to be 6? 12?

does the age even matter?

is it okay to be turned on by hurting an 84 year old?

"What you have to do is stop writing angry letters to TV schedulers and teach your children your code of morality."

good point, anon. by condoning video games where they can...

"...already go and pick up a hooker, bang her in an alleyway, then stab her with a screwdriver and steal my money back"

your argument twists itself to bite you right in the pocket you pulled it from.

a side note - you used the nazi's to illustrate your point about censorship.

i just want to remind you of something you said:

"I can't help but smirk to myself when people draw upon Hitler as an example to prove their point about something."

i wouldn't want you & i to be playing by different rules here.