Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Libertarian Discussion Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (2659)	5/8/1999 2:54:00 PM
From: dave rose	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13056

<<<<are we comfortable with continuing the circulation of materials which may very well increase the incidence of violence and abuse?>>> I am comfortable considering the alternative of censureship. daverose

To: Neocon who wrote (2659)	5/8/1999 6:25:00 PM
From: Dave Reed	1 Recommendation Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 13056

Since I said that exposing people to involuntary risk is an example of force, let me respond to you here. I think we may have a different view of what this means. If I hold a gun to your head with one bullet in it and pull the trigger, I've committed a crime, even if the gun doesn't fire. If I get drunk beyond any ability to control my car but I drive anyway, I've committed a crime even if I don't get into an accident. What happens if I sell paint thinner, which a certain percentage of my customers may use to get stoned before driving school busses? What happens if I write a book that causes a small number of my readers to take over Russia and establish a regime that will go on to kill millions of people? What if I make pencils knowing that some number of kids will poke their eyes out with them? What if I sell guns? I don't think any of the above are acts of force. What about polluting the air knowing I'll give some people cancer? What about building a munitions factory next to an elementary school? What about selling bad bolts to airplane manufactures but telling them that they are good ones? I think all of these are acts of either force or fraud. The difference is one of choice. Who is making the choice that directly leads to harm? Was there another choice that they could have made that wouldn't lead to harm? If pornography causes me to act in violent ways, it is my responsibility not to consume it. People must take responsibility for their own actions. We can't possibly construct a society that works any other way. Dave

To: Neocon who wrote (2659)	5/9/1999 1:48:00 AM
From: Andy Thomas	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13056

One thing I read about a certain study on erotica: The study showed that the users of masturbation aids (erotica) would find a certain publication or two which were to their liking, and stick with those. Generally when one of these publications tried to go "deeper" into something more "hardcore," or changed the format of the magazine, they lost subscribers. So as an aside, the users of erotica pretty much have set tastes and aren't led deeper and deeper into something they weren't "into" in the first place (not that anyone here ever claimed that). One of the most popular magazines today is "Leg Show," and it's edited by a woman, Diane something or other. She does a thoughtful editorial every month, and the pictures are stunning. Most every picture in that magazine is a full-bodied shot: from the top of her head to the ends of her fingers and the tips of her toes. Contrast this with a magazine such as "Club," where the model's body parts are cut and pasted for "closeups." Diane once mentioned that the editors of most men's magazines (mostly men themselves) look at their customers as a bunch of sick perverts and give them sick and perverted material. Diane on the other hand has elevated Erotica to an art form. This doesn't mean that sitting around reading Leg Show is preferable to going out and actually talking to women, but some guys are so shy they don't seem to really have any other outlet. FWIW Andy

To: Neocon who wrote (2659)	5/12/1999 12:32:00 AM
From: MeDroogies	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13056

That causality has yet to be proven in any meaningful way. I remember somebody burning down their house because they saw "Beavis and Butthead" using matches. Beavis and Butthead came under attack, naturally. I watched that show a million times, and could never understand the problem people had with it. It was damn funny. The kids who burned their house down - was it because their parents left them alone for extended periods unsupervised or because they watched TV? I am hard pressed to say that there is a causal relationship between abusive porn and violent acts. It is likely that a violent person enjoys abusive porn, therefore buys it. I also believe that person is likely to be violent whether or not the porn is available. Similarly, I think the kids would've eventually burnt down their house without Beavis and Butthead. Why? Because it was likely their nature to play with matches (like any kid) and they were able to point to a supposed "catalyst". If the show actually produced arsonists, then based on its ratings we'd have upwards of 3% of all homes aflame right about now.