Should graphic pornography be banned?

[Michael19682]

This sort of reasoning would only be relevant to a question of legality in a theocracy.

Not true at all. Images and their likeness can be protected civilly. That’s’ enough to make it “relevant” in a democracy, where common morality CAN ALSO be expressed through law. You radically sever summarized opinion with theological groundwork; in this case, there is layered groundwork all over the thread and throughout the entire nation.
Even if it were legalized without hope of ban, I say that its significant threat to minors should make a new category, “controlled images”: and from that one can see how absurd its place is. With only harm and no value, it could be banned for the harm alone.

 

[Michael19682]

newadvent.org/cathen/14039a.htm

I think anyone can see in that article the awkwardness caused by the the authors trying to reconcile the church’s historical affirmations of slavery with the eventual condemnation of slavery in Vatican II. They are trying very hard to rectify the two because they do not want to admit that the church changed its position on this moral issue.

How do you know what the Church authors didn’t want to admit? Conspiratorial? are you?

 

[friardchips]

I remember it. But also some spam messages use a hoax unsubscribe link as a method of verifying that some one is actually receiving the e-mails. Remotely displayed images in e-mail also have been used to do the same. Other data suggest that that regulation has had little impact on the overall volume of spam (Which still floats around accounting for 70% for all e-mail). But there have been improvements in techniques for spam detection. There’s also now domain authentication on e-mails to help in spam detection and avoiding false positives along with a number of other changes that have all contributed to the reduction in the visibility of spam.

Consider the following chart from several years back. Google was graphing a change they saw in the volume of spam sent through their mail servers vs. how much of it was able to get through.

http://www.google.com/mail/help/images/spamchart.gif

I don’t think regulations themselves have been successful on the fight for spam.

Right then. So this basically proves at least with one set of source material that spam filters don’t do much. So, take your own personal feelings out of the equation for a second, and care about those that are sensitive about it, and you have a situation where unless pornography is banned there is no way to prevent spam, and filthy advertising, getting through to people’s inboxes.

No disagreement there. But I don’t equate the existence of a visual depiction of sex to be harm. There’s a Kama Sutra position’s video on Netflix. It doesn’t interest me, but I’m not bothered by it being there.

This is where the issue is. I can’t force you to look at positive websites and read stories of when this stuff has ruined people’s lives. That is up to you. And maybe it is going to take something in your life to happen in order for you to have a change of heart. I can’t say I hope for something bad to happen but this is why suffering is allowed, to all people, because sometimes it is the only thing that sensitizes. It is a shame that even if you don’t care about the world around you that you don’t at least try to understand people’s points of view (unless this is why you are on this forum?).

Maybe because there are people out there who have things to say against pornography and other pro-life issues is enough to suggest that there are serious negative consequences that result from a lack of respect for each person’s dignity they are born with (however healthy they might be as a baby, we all have a human soul). A typical atheist viewpoint is unfortunately usually compiled from the angle of having to have everything proved and right in front of you. The problem with this angle is that for some reason proof in people’s personal accounts are not considered proofs in the atheist world and yet the documents an atheist will read to back up their own opinion will be written by a human being, just one with an opposing view to the Christian, or pro-lifer; peer review or not, graphs and all, are all compiled by humans. So the only choice you have is to start trusting people from all sides, or, buy an island and hide from humanity forever and be not much more than an animal feeding your every hunger at the sacrifice of true love for others. I am not trying to slam you but do hope you try and look a bit deeper than what you are already doing. If you don’t have a conscience then for crying out loud get one before you do allow your world to be slam-dunked into the nether regions.

Nope, I’m just another dissenting opinion here.

Nope

Thanks for sharing that info. and for your previous dialogue

 

[Michael19682]

Which provides some cute examples, but ignores some important details. Many of the 15th century bulls against slavery could be roughly summarized as “If we even enslave converts, no one will want to convert.” For example, the first bull is concerned with the enslavement of blacks only after they have converted. The second is concerned with the enslavement of indians who had sought shelter in Catholic institutions. In fact the author of the second bull, Paul III, later wrote a bull authorizing the ownership of enslaved Muslims.

Slavery is to be condemned and it was. Slavery to Christ, as the Biblical Paul refers to himself and imputes as a title on true followers, Rom 1:1, 1 Cor 7:22, is distinct from the historical servitude we refer to. Yet even today we see slavery in mental institutions. There, the authorities claim it is mere confinement for safety reasons only. I sense the seed of a parallel in the historical context of Church (justification/inability) to manage overbearing power structures in a peace promoting way. Sometimes advocacy for the historically underprivileged involves almost medical like reasoning…the result is discomfort, even pain, before a cure can be drawn from the sketch of mere palliative treatment. And timing is crucial!

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Right then. So this basically proves at least with one set of source material that spam filters don’t do much.

That’s contrary to what I’m saying. I think it’s showing that most of the filtering that does occur is through the spam filter and not through regulation. I think the regulations on spam haven’t change the behaviour of the most egregious of spammers.

So, take your own personal feelings out of the equation for a second, and care about those that are sensitive about it, and you have a situation where unless pornography is banned there is no way to prevent spam, and filthy advertising, getting through to people’s inboxes.

Banning spam didn’t stop people from spamming. I don’t think that banning porn will have an impact on of e-mails that have already been banned. Nor do I expect it to have an impact on materials that originate outside of the borders of the country in which one lives.

This is where the issue is. I can’t force you to look at positive websites and read stories of when this stuff has ruined people’s lives.

Positive websites?

It is a shame that even if you don’t care about the world around you that you don’t at least try to understand people’s points of view (unless this is why you are on this forum?).

Are you operating under the belief that I do not care about the world around me?

Maybe because there are people out there who have things to say against pornography and other pro-life issues is enough to suggest that there are serious negative consequences that result from a lack of respect for each person’s dignity they are born with

Some one’s inclination to look at sexual images isn’t a statement of the person’s disposition to abortion. Let’s not conflate those two. I’m not quite sure what you are referring to on the dignity comment.

A typical atheist viewpoint is

…I’m not sure this is relevant. Many of the people of which I know that possess pornographic material and make use of it are also Christians. I think you may be applying to me characteristics that are not necessarily descriptive of me.

 

[ChainBreaker]

Graphic pornography was banned in America until the middle of the last century. Since then, it has flooded our culture along with many other symptoms of the the decline of Christianity (ban on prayer in the schools, abortion rights, same-sex marriage, etc.)

Should censorship be restored? Does anyone believe it could happen legally and would the public accept it? Why or why not?

Is there among Catholics a sinking feeling that our civilization is lost to the hedonists and moral relativists, and that no government action can or should be taken to reclaim the ban on pornography?

In the matter of pornographic movies, how is this to be distinguished from prostitution, since in both cases the actors are paid for sexual activity?

How many human lives have been sullied and/or destroyed by addiction to pornography?

“Yes, we did produce a near perfect Republic. But will they keep it, or will they, in the enjoyment of plenty, lose the memory of freedom. Material abundance without character is the surest way to destruction.” Thomas Jefferson

I don’t agree with oral sex, because i think it undermines the dignity of those who are involved. That being said i feel the same way about pornography.

However it would be a kind of fascism for the government to impose my moral beliefs on those who want to perform oral sex and share it with those who want to view it, regardless of whether or not i am actually right.

A Government that enforces laws against any and all sin as catholics see it is just as sinful as the sins it is trying to prevent if not more so.

Just because something is sinful does not mean i should not have the legal freedom to commit sin. Other standards have to be considered since we live in a pluralistic society with different beliefs about how one should conduct themselves sexually. Its simply ridiculous that people should go to prison for making a porno just because i disagree with it morally.

The war on pornography is essentially a cultural war and not a legal one; and ought to remain so. The degree of freedom we all enjoy, even though it allows for the manifestation of sin, opens the door for the communication of divine revelation without tyranny.

It is a common mistake for Christians to assume that legal rights are essentially about objective moral rights.

Christian legalism is a mistake even though it may appear righteous. It’s a wolf in sheep’s clothing, precisely because the faith is designed to win the hearts and minds over to God on a cultural/communal level and not a legal one.

We are not here to legally enforce heaven on earth.

Ridiculous.

 

[friardchips]

I don’t agree with oral sex, because i think it undermines the dignity of those who are involved. That being said i feel the same way about pornography.

However it would be a kind of fascism for the government to impose my moral beliefs on those who want to perform oral sex and share it with those who want to view it, regardless of whether or not i am actually right.

A Government that enforces laws against any and all sin as catholics see it is just as sinful as the sins it is trying to prevent if not more so.

Just because something is sinful does not mean i should not have the legal freedom to commit sin. Other standards have to be considered since we live in a pluralistic society with different beliefs about how one should conduct themselves sexually. Its simply ridiculous that people should go to prison for making a porno just because i disagree with it morally.

The war on pornography is essentially a cultural war and not a legal one; and ought to remain so. The degree of freedom we all enjoy, even though it allows for the manifestation of sin, opens the door for the communication of divine revelation without tyranny.

It is a common mistake for Christians to assume that legal rights are essentially about objective moral rights.

Christian legalism is a mistake even though it may appear righteous. It’s a wolf in sheep’s clothing, precisely because the faith is designed to win the hearts and minds over to God on a cultural/communal level and not a legal one.

We are not here to legally enforce heaven on earth.

Ridiculous.

There is a difference between making something for private use and making the stuff for public consumption. Both are sinful but one involves, with purposeful intent, degrading the rest of society.

It is not about forcing Heaven on Earth - this is relativism again. It is about educating the masses including the ones who don’t know that what they’re doing is going to kill their souls and the ones they employ and the ones who consume the poison chalice.

It is a form of evil that says anything goes without concern for what one’s neighbour is doing. And because these things cause other bad things to happen as a consequence - a knock on effect - to rid the world of the evil is to make for a safer place.

I think it may come down to cleaning up illegal slave trade markets. Once this stops I think people will see a lot less of this stuff around because people will then know the truth - be educated - behind the ‘harmless fun’.

 

[friardchips]

Christian legalism is a mistake

It is a moral duty for Christians to be involved in politics, especially sanctity of life issues, and a spiritual duty not to allow politics to enter into religion.

 

[edwest2]

Not true at all. Images and their likeness can be protected civilly. That’s’ enough to make it “relevant” in a democracy, where common morality CAN ALSO be expressed through law. You radically sever summarized opinion with theological groundwork; in this case, there is layered groundwork all over the thread and throughout the entire nation.
Even if it were legalized without hope of ban, I say that its significant threat to minors should make a new category, “controlled images”: and from that one can see how absurd its place is. With only harm and no value, it could be banned for the harm alone.

Human Dignity requires Human Decency in all things. If we are to call ourselves civilized then we must be civil.

Peace,
Ed

 

[friardchips]

That’s contrary to what I’m saying. I think it’s showing that most of the filtering that does occur is through the spam filter and not through regulation. I think the regulations on spam haven’t change the behaviour of the most egregious of spammers.

Banning spam didn’t stop people from spamming. I don’t think that banning porn will have an impact on of e-mails that have already been banned. Nor do I expect it to have an impact on materials that originate outside of the borders of the country in which one lives…

The banning of pornography made for public consumption would of course have an effect on the amount of explicit advertising people receive in whatever form. This goes without saying. Spam filters or no spam filters. You are tying yourself up in knots in this dialogue.

Positive websites?

• Exactly what I mean.

Are you operating under the belief that I do not care about the world around me?

I am going by your posts only.

Some one’s inclination to look at sexual images isn’t a statement of the person’s disposition to abortion. Let’s not conflate those two.

If one cared about the effects of lust then…do I have to spell it out.

I’m not quite sure what you are referring to on the dignity comment.

What don’t you understand about this comment?

…I’m not sure this is relevant. Many of the people of which I know that possess pornographic material and make use of it are also Christians. I think you may be applying to me characteristics that are not necessarily descriptive of me.

I am not applying any characteristics whatsoever. I am going by your posts.

So your Christian friends possess pornographic material? You mean not just on the internet then but in magazines and DVDs? And what, they let you know this? They show you this stuff? They may be Christians but not one’s practicing their faith obviously. This statement sounds to me unrealistic. You mean they are lapsed Christians? What about your atheist friends? Do they?

 

[ChainBreaker]

It is a moral duty for Christians to be involved in politics,

True to an extent. It is not true however that it is a Christians moral duty to impose ones beliefs on society.

and a spiritual duty not to allow politics to enter into religion.

Like wasting resources on anti-abortion campaigns, creating an “us vs them” paradigm, instead of bringing people to the light of God as Jesus did.

 

[ChainBreaker]

. It is about educating the masses

You can do that without the legal system.

It is a form of evil that says anything goes without concern for what one’s neighbour is doing.

Forcing ones beliefs on people is evil to. It does not matter whose right. You have the freedom to evangelize if you believe these things are wrong.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

You are tying yourself up in knots in this dialogue.

Nope, I’m not. The Volume of unsolicited e-mail in existence isn’t impacted by policy. The amount of spam that people actually see in their inbox has reduced due to individual and combined efforts of various mail and technology providers. This highlights that regulations have been ineffective and explains the reduction in spam that you’ve seen isn’t from people deciding en masse to conform to regulations.

I am going by your posts only.

The post in this thread are only on a limited topic. They would be insufficient for determining if I have concerns about the world around me.

If one cared about the effects of lust then…do I have to spell it out.

I speculate that this is leading up to a slippery slope argument.

What don’t you understand about this comment?

I don’t know how you conceptualize “dignity.” So I don’t know what it is you are trying to indicate.

So your Christian friends possess pornographic material? You mean not just on the internet then but in magazines and DVDs? And what, they let you know this? They show you this stuff? They may be Christians but not one’s practicing their faith obviously. This statement sounds to me unrealistic. You mean they are lapsed Christians? What about your atheist friends? Do they?

They are usually DVDs. Though some also have recordings of themselves and an occasional Kamma Sutra book (is this considered porn?) After half a lifetime or more of friendship and earning trust there’s a lot that they don’t mind letting me know. Though the other things are out of the scope of this thread. I’m aware of it’s existence. When undeleting pictures that were accidentally deleted from memory cards they’ve warned me some of their photographs might be pornographic.

They identify as Christians, they still go to their churches. They don’t consider themselves lapsed Christians. If you’ve never encountered it then I can understand why it would sound unrealistic to you. At present none of my friends self identify as atheist. There are those that identify as non-religious and one non-religious that more openly questions the existence of people’s god-concepts. Some among them I know to be in possession of porn. For the others I don’t know.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

True to an extent. It is not true however that it is a Christians moral duty to impose ones beliefs on society.

This reminds me of the Blue Laws. At present the only one of which I know to still exist where I live is prohibition of the sale of alcohol on Sunday. But I remember my father having complained of others like one that prevented him from being able to legally purchase diapers on a Sunday when a sibling and I were very small. It was from a regulation that had been put in place in an attempt to try to enforce keeping a day of worship.

 

[friardchips]

True to an extent. It is not true however that it is a Christians moral duty to impose ones beliefs on society.

Hello! There is a fine line between coercion and education and a sensitive one at that. It is a valid point. I think now we are expected to live the gospel more than preach it literally so then others can choose to come to religion but I think there must still be a place for preaching and speaking out because otherwise where does education come in to it? There has to be a time when someone questions one’s faith too and then there is a moral duty to witness to the faith. Witnessing to the Good News did not stop with the end of Revelation. It is a moral duty as a Christian however to share one’s enlightened perspective on matters regarding ‘sanctity of life’ (but I think you were agreeing with that: underlined?).

Like wasting resources on anti-abortion campaigns, creating an “us vs them” paradigm, instead of bringing people to the light of God as Jesus did.

This is one of the issues I have. On the one hand one needs to campaign because ultimately the Christian does not believe in the murder of innocents. Well, imagine Jews now being gassed. We’d have something to say about that, right? Well, there are babies murdered in horrifying numbers. There is a polish doctor who changed his mind about abortion in a dramatic turn-around: ‘The Hand of God’, and this book needs to be read.

But the issue on the other hand is that sometimes pro-lifers can be aggressive and I wonder if they put more people off than they do invite them to listen. This is problematic. The organisation I am thinking of I don’t think is Catholic. I don’t want to make more boundaries but sometimes evangelicals can be a bit that way inclined - a bit more aggressive. I agree that it is the light of Christ that changes opinions so at some point more things are going to have to be done to change how things are achieved. But at least they are trying in their own way and this is better than those who don’t care at all. I do wonder if damage is done occasionally in the ‘doing’ without proper prior consideration.

 

[friardchips]

Nope, I’m not. The Volume of unsolicited e-mail in existence isn’t impacted by policy. The amount of spam that people actually see in their inbox has reduced due to individual and combined efforts of various mail and technology providers. This highlights that regulations have been ineffective and explains the reduction in spam that you’ve seen isn’t from people deciding en masse to conform to regulations.

Okay. So any minimal reduction, which you pointed out was the case in an earlier post, is not down to regulations. I am with you.

The post in this thread are only on a limited topic. They would be insufficient for determining if I have concerns about the world around me.

One can only surmise by the words you post. I am not doubting your sincerity but I am entitled to build a picture from the words you use to express yourself. And when one reports lack of awareness over one topic this will naturally suggest a lack of awareness to a topic inextricably tied in with the first.

I speculate that this is leading up to a slippery slope argument.

Cause and effect is a real eventuality.

I don’t know how you conceptualize “dignity.” So I don’t know what it is you are trying to indicate.

No one is conceptualizing anything. I was a graphic designer. I know what conceptualizing is and this isn’t it.

They are usually DVDs. Though some also have recordings of themselves and an occasional Kamma Sutra book (is this considered porn?) After half a lifetime or more of friendship and earning trust there’s a lot that they don’t mind letting me know. Though the other things are out of the scope of this thread. I’m aware of it’s existence. When undeleting pictures that were accidentally deleted from memory cards they’ve warned me some of their photographs might be pornographic.

They identify as Christians, they still go to their churches. They don’t consider themselves lapsed Christians. If you’ve never encountered it then I can understand why it would sound unrealistic to you. At present none of my friends self identify as atheist. There are those that identify as non-religious and one non-religious that more openly questions the existence of people’s god-concepts. Some among them I know to be in possession of porn. For the others I don’t know.

This whole paragraph to me sounds as if you stand in a very special and therefore responsible position. If you know these things and these people trust you with private details of a more intimate nature then it seems to me that you have a duty-of-care towards your friends to find out more about why pornography is a sanctity of life issue, not by judging, which you are obviously not doing because at the moment you don’t apparently care anyway - and it is not good to judge the person - but by educating yourself. This enlightened understanding has in itself the power of expression to move hearts into deeper knowledge of love.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

One can only surmise by the words you post. I am not doubting your sincerity but I am entitled to build a picture from the words you use to express yourself. And when one reports lack of awareness over one topic this will naturally suggest a lack of awareness to a topic inextricably tied in with the first.

Your entitlement to construct a picture is not being challenged. Your stance that “* don’t care about the world around [me]” (#262) has been formed without a discussion of what I care about or my thoughts of the world around me. It would be like concluding from some one’s lack of interest in a book suggest the person has no interest in reading.

This whole paragraph to me sounds as if you stand in a very special and therefore responsible position.

It’s not hard to get into such a position. Not that I would suggest trying to get there. There are some pretty disturbing things to be known about the otherwise uninteresting people walking about. Also in such a position there seemed to be assumed but never mentioned restrictions that I am to apply to myself. For example, I’ve got the door code and alarm code to a friends house. Were I to use it to enter her house and remove certain items in the name of improving her health and her condition despite the positive motivation I think it would be seen as a violation and barriers would be put up.

If you know these things and these people trust you with private details of a more intimate nature then it seems to me that you have a duty-of-care towards your friends to find out more about why pornography is a sanctity

of life issue
I selectively intervene in people’s lives. It’s not necessarily from a sense of duty, but my motivations are another topic. The primary social missions to which I try to contribute doesn’t have a relationship to porn. Having such deep access to someone’s life enables me to discover other areas in which assistance is needed. On such occasion is a coworker I had that was entertaining thoughts of terminating her own life. I had to enlist the assistance of a psychologist in that situation.

But as mentioned, when Mike and Tina decide to buy their book of sexual positions or DVD showing other things they can try out it’s not something about which I care. When a coworker decides to have a “Slumber Party” (a small gathering in some one’s house in which sex toys are displayed and sold) I’m not interested. When I see a person is about to make a bad financial decision, put their child at an academic disadvantage, or is about to make a decision that I believe will have major consequences (ex: drinking alcohol or grapefruit juice while on certain medications) I’ll step in.

If a porn ban were on a ballet I would vote against it. There’s not a clear line between art and porn and I’d expect other consequences of such a law. It’s not hard to come up with a sexually stimulating picture of some one in a non-sexual scenario or an image of a sexual scenario that some one doesn’t find sexually stimulating. It’s in part dependent on the viewer. I don’t think that a law can distinguish between the two.

but by educating yourself. This enlightened understanding has in itself the power of expression to move hearts into deeper knowledge of love

.

Some studies say porn increases rates of sexual crimes. Some suggest no effect or are inconclusive. Some have argued that the wider availability of porn is what has lead to the reduction in rape rate in the USA. Some argue it’s not the porn but the impact of longer prison sentences and DNA fingerprinting. So on…

I’m actually thinking about checking out the “Encyclopedia of Sex Work” mentioned earlier in the thread once I can get my hands on one. The last sex related book that I purchased that I had learned about through these forums was a school sex ed book called “It’s Perfectly Normal….” Though I can’t say I found it as upsetting as some of the others in these forums. It’s on my coffee table now. Guest have found it to be amusing.*

 

[friardchips]

You can do that without the legal system.

How? If a system does not fight against that which desensitizes a nation morally then all that will happen is that people will end up not knowing the difference between what is good and what is evil and governments themselves will cease to combat these things altogether and may ultimately not end up caring themselves. Governments are made up of people in the public eye and have the power to send ripples of confidence or unease through the nation they are leading. The only way a government can show support much of the time is to take decisive action because otherwise the voters end up thinking that they just don’t care or their opinions are just hot air to get people on side.

Forcing ones beliefs on people is evil to. It does not matter whose right. You have the freedom to evangelize if you believe these things are wrong.

Forcing belief is definitely wrong. But this particular topic is not only about religious belief. Because I have belief means I can evangelize in a certain kind of way - without imposing or enforcement - but there are consequences linked to wide consumption of pornography, which are in themselves enough reason for the production of explicit material to be stopped, through a ban: slave trade; abortion; single parent families. This all occurs further down the generational line due to a lack of commitment to love, which sets the foundation-bricks for family, and there is no love in pornography - it is lust. And one generation sets the example for the next. So it would not get better but worse. Unless we think it is preferable for Hell to exist on earth in which case we needn’t fight for anything and be wet lettuces about everything that happens.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

How do you know what the Church authors didn’t want to admit? Conspiratorial? are you?

Because it is a core church principle that the church doesn’t change its positions on basic issues of morality.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Not true at all. Images and their likeness can be protected civilly. That’s’ enough to make it “relevant” in a democracy, where common morality CAN ALSO be expressed through law. You radically sever summarized opinion with theological groundwork; in this case, there is layered groundwork all over the thread and throughout the entire nation.
Even if it were legalized without hope of ban, I say that its significant threat to minors should make a new category, “controlled images”: and from that one can see how absurd its place is. With only harm and no value, it could be banned for the harm alone.

Which harms, specifically?