Senator Carper Calls for Tax on Online Porn 1145
Better-living-thru-taxes writes "Senator Tom Carper (D-Del) is calling for a 25% tax on all internet pornograpy. The money is to help police fight online child pornographers. 'Carper says the bill will keep kids away from X-rated material.'"
Re:Don't let the state nany, take some responsibil (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Don't let the state nany, take some responsibil (Score:1, Informative)
Umm, a *DEMOCRAT* Senator is calling for this.
Another proof at how the left wing doesn't know what its extreme left wing is doing.
And another hint... you don't need to be Christian to be conservative. A lot of us just have some moral and ethical values.
Re:Don't let the state nany, take some responsibil (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Totally OT: Point of clarification (Score:3, Informative)
The Bible has another interesting little episode which essentially approves rape as long as the rapist is forced to marry the woman he raped.
The whole point of the Old Testament is about spreading God's chosen few over the face of the Earth. So anything which boosts the number of children born (rape, polygamy, daughters getting pregnant from their own father) while ensuring that women only get one sexual partner to delay disease transmission by sex, is permissible.
Re:Don't let the state nany, take some responsibil (Score:2, Informative)
Seriously if your kid is trying to get a hold of porn whether or not it's "violent sex, sex with animals, gang bangs, rapes, child pornography, etc." they've already past that supposed age anyway. Well, unless someones forcing them to watch it in which case you have a little more to worry about.
What age might this effect them at anyway? If someone showed me something like that at a real young age I'd have had no idea what it was. By the time I was 8 it would have just gotten an "eww" at the most.
require XXX domains? and what about all the other methods to get porn irrelevant to websites? If a kids looking for porn in the first place there's no point of trying to further censor sex from them, they're past that breaking point.
I swear if I see one more parent stuck in this whole "child innocence" delusion I'm going to go on a killing spree. Get over it, your kid will be the same dirty old sexual beast that you are one day.
Re:Don't let the state nany, take some responsibil (Score:0, Informative)
Those voting districts [washingtontimes.com] were revamped by Republicans.
funding pork with a tax on porking (Score:3, Informative)
Usual /. idiocy... let me help (Score:3, Informative)
So Religion was right to warn/forbid against promiscuity... kills of the flock, less cash in the coffers.
2) It's not about sex it's about pr0n. No one is trying to take your pr0n away. They want to tax pr0n and use the money to help pay for Kiddie pr0n investigations, and prosecutions.
Look if you ever find yourself defending kiddie pr0n or kiddie pr0nographers just stop and admit you lost the debate. It's unwinnable. If Buscho said they were invading Canada tomorrow to rid the North America's from kiddie pr0n the World would jump right in line and scream KILL CANADA. It's just how repellent kiddie pr0n is. Deal.
3) As for the Christian Right -- they're not calling for this. Some Democrat is -- clearly in an attempt to make Democrats seem more Family Friendly. Whatever.
Now SlashDopes if you don't understand number one... I'm with ya. I'd love to bang the snot out of every thigh high booted, thong showing, belly button ring wearing cock tease I see on the E train. It's just a really bad idea.
If you think for a second number two will go down as advertised you must really buy in to this Government is there to help us bullshit. That money is going in the same BLACK HOLE the 2B USD the FCC was supposed to use to wire up all of our schools. The Government isn't evil, it's incompetent and bloated. Cut it down immediately.
As for number three if you need anymore proof that all the politicians are whores then you'll never get it.
Please return to your orgies at your places of worship you Baalist bastards!
Re:Totally OT: Point of clarification (Score:3, Informative)
Nope. Lot was generally a bad guy, and Bible doesn't gloss over this. Lot is only spared from the desctruction of Sodom because his brother, Abraham, asked God to save him. Lot himself chose to split from Abraham and do his own thing (i.e. left God's chosen band). All of his children were evil and their descendants were enemies of Isreal.
So, no... I don't think the Bible is trying to say the "here, take my daughter" thing was very good at all.
Re:Don't let the state nany, take some responsibil (Score:5, Informative)
Comment removed (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Sex is natural (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Not possible (Score:3, Informative)
Separation of church and state simply means that the state cannot promote/demote any belief over another. It does not mean you can't have religious people in power.
Re:Intelligent Accident. (Score:2, Informative)
1) The "conspiracy of the doves" (100% doves) -- the ideal case (no-one gets hurt), but rapidly deteriates if you have even one hawk
2) The point "60% dove, 40% hawk"
If the doves are taken as being purely ethical and the hawks as purely unethical, you can see that the ethics and morality are not eraticated, in fact they tend to outnumber the hawks. The exact ratio depends on how "unethical" the hawks are. The more damage they do, the more that being "ethical" pays off.
It's a good thing this is the case, otherwise there wouldn't be a place in the world where you could step outside even one instant without being mugged or turned into a slave.
On the whole, people *are* more ethical and moral than not and it's a way societies work best.
Also, the "conspiracy of the doves" ethical model also does work (see the GPL), but it relies on enforcement to ensure that there are no hawks.
The problem you're having is that the fundies try to move from "60% dove, 40% hawk" to "conspiracy of the doves" through less than "100% dove" means. If you believe the "Selfish Gene", that's doomed to failure since the fundies themselves are the hawks that drive things back to the "60% dove, 40% hawk" level.
Nobody can tax online content (Score:3, Informative)
You can only tax what is delivered. No taxes no delivery, simple as that.
By doing so all that US will get is the destruction of its online porn industry (if it can be called industry), all players will migrate to Canada and Mexico, or to some other country where they are not taxed.
Politicians are not worry about technical issues, all they want to do is pretend that they really worry about people.
Re:Don't let the state nany, take some responsibil (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Don't let the state nany, take some responsibil (Score:3, Informative)
To learn more of evolutionary sexuality: use google, but here's one to start you of http://www.thegreatdebate.org.uk/sexualselection.
Re:Sex is natural (Score:5, Informative)
"People who do this, do it because they are paid to, and in some cases, because they're desperate for some kind of approval or attention. It's not normal."
1) Many people experiment sexually. They do so in private, many people would prefer not to be recorded when having sex. Hence the need to pay people to participate in a commercial product. Just because people are paid to do something on film doesn't mean that other people don't enjoy similar scenarios in their private lives.
2) Everyone requires some kind of approval or attention, it is normal
Subscribing to the idea that there is some sort of norm by which human sexual behavior can be judged is dangerous. It devalues humans which stray from it and is in-fact a subtle or not so subtle form of bigotry. Its also rather ignorant (of facts) as the individual making the statement usually assumes their own preferences to be the norm, as you do below...
"...boys shouldn't grow up thinking that women orgasm from giving blow-jobs or they're going to be pretty disappointed with their partners...
People often are poorly educated in many ways, blaming a lack of education on pornography is similar to blaming sci-fi on for a warped view of actual science. These are both entertainment mediums designed to allow the viewer to fantasize, they are not intended to educate. For an education on either subject many forums exist in western society.
"US society (...) is deeply repressed on the subject of sex."
This is a unsupportable generalization which has sadly become commonplace. Some elements of all societies are "prudish", some elements of all societies are "liberal". One of the nicer aspects of society is the great diversity of views allows an individual to associate with individuals who share (or challenge) their view point.
"...this is why so many boys grow up thinking of sex as being something purely physical."
There are at least two ways to refute this statement:
1) Both men and women commonly have sex with persons with whom they are not interested in pursuing a monogamous relationship (which I'm subbing in for love as I have no desire to evaluate love rationally). Many individuals facilitate between short term sexual relationships and long term monogamous sexual relationships, it is not a uniquely male behavior.
2) There is the archetype of the tough guy (alternatively "pimp", "playa", "gigolo", etc) who must subjugate his sexual partners to avoid de-masculine-ization (sp). Its often present in young men, suggesting that it is sometimes an immature attitude and that many will "grow out of it". I would speculate that such an attitude is often born from fears of rejection, not pornography. Though pornography will often reflect the attitude of this archetype, I doubt its a primary cause, or even a secondary one.
"There's no exposure to sex between two people who love each other."
On the contrary, this is the most common depiction of sexuality in our popular culture. While I don't have statistics that compare the prevalence of perceived emotional involvement per sexual act viewed (or read, etc), its very, very common for characters to be emotionally involved in most dramas that depict sexual acts.
"Because if it's kept out of normal life, made illicit, then what else do they see but the porn? "
Many would argue that our society is completely saturated with sex. You can view depictions of sexual acts and relationships on prime time tv. There are many other examples.
"...which is going to prepare people for sexual maturity most - (Not work safe) This, or this?"
You reinforce the point I made above by presupposing your own tastes and experiences as the model by which all others should be judged.
There can be ar
Atheism is not a religion (Score:5, Informative)
Nothing religious about it. Simply a lack of belief.
Saying that atheism is a religion is precisely like saying a lack of belief in the healing power of pyramids is a religion.
It takes more than an atheist viewpoint to make a religion. Count on it.
Re:Usual /. idiocy... let me help (Score:3, Informative)
Now we giggle.
you have to pretty much be TRYING to get AIDS to get it.
I'd love to bang the snot out of every thigh high booted, thong showing, belly button ring wearing cock tease I see on the E train.
Please return to your orgies at your places of worship you Baalist bastards!
I sure hope this is a joke, though either way wading through this much incoherent text makes my brain feel like mush.
Religions do not necessarily involve gods (Score:3, Informative)
(The last point about Buddhism not strictly being a religion requires strictly definining religion as theism--I used a more reasonable definition that it is a system of beliefs held with faith.)
It does take "more than an atheist viewpoint to make a religion" but an atheistic viewpoint does not preclude being a religion.
Re:Who decides? (Score:2, Informative)
I'm not so sure about that [freedomforum.org].
And the word is tariff. Besides, a tariff only applies to imported goods, and I don't recall ever seeing a digital good being taxed due to tariffs.
Re:Morality or Ethics? (Score:3, Informative)
- Ethics = a code of conduct. The phrase "legal ethics" is used commonly, and in a way that has little to do with what most would consider "right" and "wrong". Human conduct is "ethical" if it complies with a given code of ethics - the same action could be ethical under one code and unethical under another, and that state of affairs is within the common use of the word (such as a reporter with a professional obligation to do one thing and a moral obligation to do another). Ethics defines "right (what you should do)" and "wrong (what you shouldn't do)".
- Morals = a code of conduct (a kind of ethics) which defines rules for the betterment of moral entities. Morality defines "good = what makes people better" and "evil = what makes people worse" in addition to right and wrong.
More technically, you'd need to speak of "moral actors" and "moral entities" which may not be the same set, but that's pointlessly pendantic for ordinary discussion. By this definition, an "ethical" code might have as its aim the betterment of people (which would make it also a moral code) or some other aim (such as the betterment of a single entity) which would not.By these definitions, a code of conduct handed down from a religion could go either way. In some religions, the point is to maximize the happyness of all people, in others the point is pretty arbitrary, such as making God happy, regardless of the consequenses for people.
Ultimately, there's not much agreement on the definition of "moral" vs "ethical" and it's best to spell out what you mean. It's also useful to distinguish between:
- A code of ehtics - a list of actions which should or should not be taken.
- Normative ethics - a set of principles from which you can use to determine whether a given action should or shouldn't not be taken.
- Meta-ethics - a set of requirements you use to determine whether a set of normative principles makes sense, such as logical consistancy, or cultural relativism, or divine edict, or maximization of common good, or whatever.
It's pointless to argue about the morality of a course of action unless you share a set of normative ethics. It's pointless to argue about whether a set of normative ethics makes sense when you can't agree on a set of meta-ethical principles. If one person believes that normative principles must be a logically consistent set of rules that maximize "goodness", and another believes that normative principles are whatever God decides, they can only argue past one another.Arguments about meta ethics usually devolve into arguments about either theology or epistemology (the definition of "know"), which aren't much fun really, since everyone basically just asserts that their intuitions about the subject are unquestionably correct.
Re:Religions do not necessarily involve gods (Score:3, Informative)
Nor does it mean the opposite. Some atheists, including myself, do not see any need to apply ardor, or faith, to a proposal without any evidence. Nor do we have a cause or principle involved, except the several-intellectual-layers-removed principle that confidence in a proposal requires evidence -- Sagan's "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is a good summing up of the problem with theism from my point of view. Not only do we not have extraordinary evidence, we have no evidence at all. I do not find the various theist arguments for a god or gods compelling for this specific reason.
I never said that an atheist couldn't be religious; I said that atheism isn't a religion. They're not the same thing at all. Just so we're clear.