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.'"
Don't let the state nany, take some responsibility (Score:3, Insightful)
to be shy about and really, rather than demonising it, we should be celebrating it. It's one of the activities that transcends all cultures on this planet and that is universally enjoyed.
The Christian faith (who's political wing is the Republican party) for some reason believe that sex is bad and that pornography is somehow immoral. I don't know how they reached that conclusion, after all, one need only look as far as Job's daughters antics in the book of Genesis to see that the Bible is no authority on sexual morality.
I just think that Children are not as vulnerable as these people make out. As young as twelve or thirteen I was viewing pornography because I was curious and felt a drive to seek out such material. Far from damaging my psyche, it made me a lot less nervous about my sexuality. I look back and see that period of my life as an important part of my sexual development.
I'm sick of the "What about the children?" being used as a front to foist laws upon on us. This law isn't designed to protect our children, it's a law that takes the first bold step in pushing the Republican party's religious mantra on those who do not want and care about it.
Without wanting to be flame-bait, the Republican part engages in what I call "henry ford" freedom:
You can have any freedom you want, as long as it's Republican. The essence of freedom is about allowing people to do something you don't personally agree with. You may not agree with abortion or gay marriage but believing in freedom is about having the maturity to realize that the people who are gay or have abortions are consenting adults and are fully aware of the consequences of their actions.
Simon.
Re:Don't let the state nany, take some responsibil (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Don't let the state nany, take some responsibil (Score:5, Funny)
Oh, sheesh, thank god... at least it will never pass then.
Re:Don't let the state nany, take some responsibil (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Don't let the state nany, take some responsibil (Score:3, Insightful)
Than covering a boob on a famous statue? Shirley, you jest. It seems to describe everything wrong with censorship and exposes small-mindedness and the evil hardcore Christians have in their hearts. By hardcore Christians, I mean those who would impose their will on us, rather than turn the other cheek.
Re:Don't let the state nany, take some responsibil (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem is not the politi
Re:Don't let the state nany, take some responsibil (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Don't let the state nany, take some responsibil (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Don't let the state nany, take some responsibil (Score:5, Insightful)
Which you were pretty much stood with how much money you made -- if you are rich or expect to be rich, vote republican. If you are poor, liberal, or know you aren't going to be rich, vote dem. The problem at this time is, the Republicans aren't *ACTING* like Republicans anymore (they used to stand for less taxes through less government and less debt, "the market will provide a solution"). The republicans have been taken over by these leech christian neocons (the neocon philosophy in one sentence is, "Might makes right.") who have driven the republicans control of all 3 branches of government, but who have completely sold out the principles of less government in favor for democrat like handouts, except the handouts are going to corporations and the wealthy. At least the new deal arguably helped the poor?
So long story short, is, if you believe in true republican ideals, right now you need to vote democrat.
Re:Don't let the state nany, take some responsibil (Score:5, Insightful)
I used to vote democrat on occasion. I might again if they would stop trying to put me out of work. I used to have a good job in mining. The Democrats demonized that industry right out of the country, as far as I can tell, to provide high-quality low-cost vacations for the urban elite.
My current job depends on low-cost hydro-electric power, so what do the Democrats want now? To tear out the 4 dams on the lower Snake River and at least one on the Columbia, in order to "save the salmon" which are supposed to create a booming "eco-tourism industry". (Not just minimum wage, but seasonal minimum wage at that. Starve slowly for six months, quickly for the other six. What a deal!) That would raise electric rates enough to close down this job too. (Ironically, we make silicon for solar cells.)
So, once the democrats start saying people are more important than fish, trees,and so on, as well as stop nannying and otherwise trying to micromanage my life, I'll consider voting for them again.
Here's to Bill Proxmire, the last Democrat I voted for for a reason other than "lesser of two evils."
Re:Don't let the state nany, take some responsibil (Score:3, Interesting)
And I don't know how you can say that Socialism doesn't work...Have you ever taken a look at Socialist countries? Canada, for one, Sweden and the other Scandinavian countries for other examples. Democratic Socialism works, and has
Sex is natural (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Sex is natural (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Sex is natural (Score:4, Insightful)
If everyone involved consents and enjoys that gangbang, it seems okay to me.
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. Now if doing this fulfills someone's psychological or sexual needs, then it's their business. But boys shouldn't grow up thinking that women orgasm from giving blow-jobs or they're going to be pretty disappointed with their partners (and their partners might be pretty pissed, too).
The problem is one of context. US society (and UK society to a lesser extent) is deeply repressed on the subject of sex. It's all very closed doors. And oddly enough, this is why so many boys grow up thinking of sex as being something purely physical. The only porn you get is brutal, wham, bam, say thank you ma'am stuff. There's no exposure to sex between two people who love each other.
So, I think that it's the moralising people who surpress normal exposure to sex, nudity and desire that are responsible for guys growing up thinking of it in the way portrayed in porn. Because if it's kept out of normal life, made illicit, then what else do they see but the porn?
I mean - which is going to prepare people for sexual maturity most - (Not work safe) This [domai.com], or this [pornstarmovies.org]? Maybe you see sex is just fucking, and hey - it's good exercise - but for most of us, the best sex we'll ever experience is with someone we love. If people want to protect children from corruption, they should let those children know that it's okay and to have sex with someone you love and that it doesn't have to be 8" this, 36DD that and treat the other person like an object.
I seem to have ended up arguing for more sincere and tender porn. Well, why not. It would appeal to a lot of people, I'm sure. But mostly what I am getting at is that US and UK society itself should be more open on the subject of sex.
And then maybe people wouldn't be using it as a sales technique everywhere I look as well.
Re:Sex is natural (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Sex is natural (Score:3, Insightful)
People who dress up like Frodo Baggins do it because they are paid to, and b
Re:Sex is natural (Score:3, Insightful)
For crying out loud. The whole point of my comment is that entertainment does not have to be about reality.
Do not meddle in the affairs of LotR fans, for they are unsubtle and very pedantic.
I understood your point, and it is well made. I'm getting jumped all over here by people who seem to think I'm an porn-burning fanatic (woe to those who tread the middle ground, for they shall piss off both sides), but at least *your* point addressed what I actually said.
My answer to you would be, fair enou
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
Re:Sex is natural (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem here is that you are not arguing for more sincere and tender porn, but instead making a bigoted argument against everything else.
Where in my post did I argue for restricting people's ability to create or obtain porn? I'll answer that question for you - nowhere.
Here's another one: where did I say people were wrong to enjoy it? Nowhere.
You have decided you know who I am (a moralising bigot) and have re-interpreted everything I said into something you feel you can have a good shout about.
Re:Sex is natural (Score:3, Funny)
Re:torrent.. (Score:3, Funny)
Actually, I was just referring to the general moaning, groaning and Vidal Sassoon hair tossing that porn-star women seem compelled to do whenever they're lucky enough to have a dick stuck in their mouth. I mean if you have a monster like that at your disposal, there're places where you could get a heck of a lot more pleasure out of it, you know?
Re:Sex is natural (Score:3, Insightful)
No, it's not normal. Neither is being blonde-haired or black-skinned in the US (or blonde-haired and black skinned). Normalcy is a statistical concept, not a moral one.
If someone likes getting money for sex or being watched during it, good on them. It's their choice to make, not yours or mine.
Totally OT: Point of clarification (Score:3, Insightful)
Job's children died in the first chapter of Job when a wall fell on them. Perhaps you mean Lot's daughters? And the Bible called them evil. I don't get your statement.
Sorry for the off-topic post. I just like to make sure people who criticize the Bible at least get the stories right.
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: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:Totally OT: Point of clarification (Score:4, Insightful)
Time for my clippy impersonation...
Sounds like you're referring to Gen:19 5-8 [skepticsan...dbible.com]
You might also be interested in the rest of the Skeptic's Annotated Bible [skepticsan...dbible.com] - a fantastic website containing the complete, unaltered KJV bible, that also happens to have sidenotes pointing out the contradictions, absurdities, morally questionable, and other interesting bits.
Finally, Lot is called "Just" and "Righteous" in 2 Pet.2:7-8, but the bible tells us on several occasions that There are no just or righteous people [skepticsan...dbible.com]
Good thing nobody bases their lives or morality around this book! Just think how confused they'd be!
Re:Don't let the state nany, take some responsibil (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Don't let the state nany, take some responsibil (Score:5, Interesting)
As someone who was once addicted to porn, I can tell you that it can seriously screw up your notions about the realities of sex. Easy access to pornography on the internet during my single years definitely caused me some problems once I got into a real relationship. It's hard to settle down with one woman when you've been going through 20 different girls every night, even when that one woman has the advantage of being real and not just an image. I'm still trying to deal with the effects that such easy access to pornography has dealt to my psyche.
Granted, that's my problem and my responsibility, and no one else's, and I'm not advocating the nanny-state. But don't be so quick to think that porn never hurt anybody.
Re:Don't let the state nany, take some responsibil (Score:3, Insightful)
The genetically successful male breeds with as many partners as he can, as often as he can.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Don't let the state nany, take some responsibil (Score:4, Insightful)
This is bullshit. Evolutionary success depends upon producing the most children who go on to have more children, not to spread the most of your genetic material around. A well cared for child that receives proper parental attention, who grows into a stable adult, is a greater "success" and will likely breed more and better children than five kids who are malnourished and mentally underdeveloped without the interaction and protection of the father.
I'm not disagreeing with your first statement. Monogamy can be hard, but don't pull that "men are hardwired for infidelity" crap. The notion that women are "supposed" to try desperately to hold on to one man while men are "supposed" to want to spread their baby batter everywhere is a product of our culture, and is a cop-out for both sexes.
Re:Don't let the state nany, take some responsibil (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Don't let the state nany, take some responsibil (Score:4, Interesting)
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.h tml [thegreatdebate.org.uk] search for "Red Queen"
Re:Don't let the state nany, take some responsibil (Score:4, Interesting)
Do you view porn as being addictive, or do you view yourself as having an addictive personality?
I have to admit, I'm a little defensive and biased since I run adult sites for a living. I've had easy access to porn for over 10 years online and I look at porn every day as part of my business.. and I've never had any problems with addiction, or my relationships etc.
I have suffered a serious drug addiction to speed in my past, and so I understand how powerful and devastating addiction can be. It caused me to steal from people I love, it kept me up all night on binges, it affected my work life and my social life etc. I had to go through rehab and group therapy etc. Yet I've never experienced any of the warning signs that might lead me to believe that I could be addicted to porn. I've never thought about porn (at least excessively) while away from it. I've never neglected any responsibilities so I could look at porn (never left work, never missed a bill so I could pay for porn etc.) I've never once gotten bored of my wife or turned her down for sex so that I could go jack off to 20 different girls instead etc.
I'm not trying to downplay your addiction. I am fully aware that there are people who suffer through addictions to porn. And, as someone who suffered drug addiction, I understand the power of addiction and I understand how serious it can be on ones life.
I'm just wondering, do you think porn is addictive ? Or are people who get addicted to porn the type of people who would also easily get addicted to gambling, video games, hookers etc. ?
Yes, take responsibility for your own actions. (Score:4, Insightful)
But to ban something because some people get addicted to it is nonsense. Some people are addicted to overeating, should we ban food next?
How about this, we all become responsible for our own behavior. The guy that you were responding to blames the porn for his addiction to it, instead of laying the blame on himself for no control. Moderation in all things is best, but some people have no control. So does that mean that since some peoples lives are ruined by alcohol, drugs, porn, gambling and food we should ban it all...you know...just in case?
Re:Don't let the state nany, take some responsibil (Score:4, Insightful)
There are many, many, MANY Christian men who struggle with addiction to pornography. I'm not one of them (thank God!) but the ones who are tell all kinds of stories about wanting to quit viewing it, but simply cannot. I can think of some reasons why this is a problem:
1. Christian women expect their Christian men to be monogomous and faithful to only them. Having their men look at porn is extremely offensive to them, it makes them feel inadequate.
2. Porn gives men unrealistic expectations of what sex should be like.
3. We believe that God created sex to be a PRIVATE expression of love between a MARRIED man and woman. Pornography violates and distorts this in the most complete manner imaginable.
Jesus said, (in Matthew 5:27-28) "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery;' but I tell you that everyone who gazes at a woman to lust after her has committed adultery with her already in his heart." This is the problem for Christians -- it is IMPOSSIBLE to look at porn without violating this.
I can see why it is a bigger problem for Christians than non-Christians. Non-Christians are simply absorbed into the sex-focused culture of our day, and don't see anything wrong with it. And frankly, that is their problem. I am not going to preach to a non-Christian about proper sexual viewpoints -- if they reject God anyway, what is the point? They might as well live like they want.
Christians also must battle between what their flesh wants and what the spirit of God in them wants. Paul goes on a long lament in Romans 7 that he keeps doing the things he knows he should not do, and does not do the things he knows he should do. This is exactly what porn addicts experience.
I will also point out a great Christian ministry that helps men (and women) get out of this trip. Setting Captives Free. [settingcaptivesfree.com] The site has a number of testimonies about how porn has wrecked their lives, and how they were able to find freedom.
Re:Don't let the state nany, take some responsibil (Score:3, Insightful)
2) no, it doesn't. It only sets "unreasonable expectations" if you (or your partner) are too narrow minded to enjoy the activities you want to enjoy. The people in pornography are not cartoons - they are real people actually doing those things. Some of us do those things without a camera handy.
3) BFD. You have your beliefs and I have mine. You're free to your beliefs so long as you don't try to legislate them on me
Re:Don't let the state nany, take some responsibil (Score:5, Insightful)
Hundreds of millions of people have "easy access to pornography" and no relationship problems. Obviously, your utilization of on-line pornography was a symptom, not a cause, of your problems.
If you don't want to have easy access to pornography on-line, you have many ways of putting yourself in a position that you don't: get rid of your home Internet connection, connect through a filter, or join a monastery.
I used to worry about this... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Don't let the state nany, take some responsibil (Score:5, Interesting)
It is because of this that profiteers hate it. Why? Because instead of buying products, people will have sex. This is bad for the economy.
Getting into Freudian philosophy and science, has it ever occured to you that perhaps large or covetted things like computers, cars, possessions like iPods or other things are just temporary mental replacements for the lack of sex drive or the lack of sex at all? Maybe that intimacy we experience with our toys is what replaces the intimacy between two people?
The control of sex is the control of basic human emotion and instinct. If you control sex or the sex drive, the base of all instinct in mammals, you control the person is belongs to. Don't have sex! Buy these indulgences and be saved from Satan! Having sex is a sin and will breed disease! Come to church more and fork over your money!
Not all churches are like that, or even the ones who used to do that stuff actively *coughcatholiccough*. But the fact remains, the meaning of life for a human being, at the base, is to reproduce, be happy, and keep yourself occupied.
Supression of instinct, especially sex, breeds a consumer - someone looking for something to fill the void. In a society where you can turn on the TV and see a child with all of his limbs amputated or a "precision" American bomber carpet bombing populated areas, I find it disgusting that this society bars SEX, SEX of all things, from television, but allows people to go on TV, preach about beating up prostitutes and being a "playa" or how various thousands of people are dying.
Neither should be barred. But the one you'd think wouldn't be, is.
Re:Don't let the state nany, take some responsibil (Score:3, Funny)
"Bukkake is when a Mommy and a Daddy and a Daddy and a Daddy and a Daddy and a Daddy and a Daddy all decide that Mommy needs some special facial moisturiser" (from bash.org)
Re:Don't let the state nany, take some responsibil (Score:5, Insightful)
Republicans use religion as a stepping stone to gain office, but that ignores the commandment against using the Lord's name in vain, which seems to be the most misunderstood commandment. People seem to think it has somthing to do with not saying "goddamnit" which would have been relevant back when people thought that they could actually invoke the name of a god to curse other people.
In other words, you're breaking a commandment if you use the name of God to further your own selfish interests.
25% tax on Delaware Corps (Score:3, Interesting)
How about a 25% tax increase on all the corporations who register in tiny dipshit Delaware in order to avoid paying taxes in their home areas?
Taxes that are supposed to go to pay for children's services like health care, security, and education?
Oh? No longer interested? Fuck you, shitheel politician whore!!!
Re:Don't let the state nany, take some responsibil (Score:3, Interesting)
Unfortunately, he set the tone for all those that followed.
Re:Don't let the state nany, take some responsibil (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Don't let the state nany, take some responsibil (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd just like to make the small point that morality does not require theology. There are lots of us atheists who have a very strong sense of morality which has nothing to do with illegality.
Re:Don't let the state nany, take some responsibil (Score:3, Funny)
Amen to that brother!
Re:Don't let the state nany, take some responsibil (Score:4, Insightful)
Likewise, there are lots of religions people who really have a limited sense of morality and just do or don't do whatever their church tells them. Morality is really an intellectual construct and a static "book" cannot cover every possible shade of gray.
I would hazard to guess that "athiests" are generally more intelligent than religious people, because at least they've thought about the plausibility of their beliefs and came to conclusions. Whereas, I would guess that most supposedly religious people are actually "athiestic" about religion (in the "not caring to ponder" meaning) because they have never invested much thought into either religion or morality and just believe and do what other people tell them.
Re:Morality or Ethics? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Morality or Ethics? (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Religions do not necessarily involve gods (Score:3, Informative)
(The last point about Buddhism not strictly being a r
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 wi
Re:Don't let the state nany, take some responsibil (Score:5, Insightful)
And we as a rather advanced society have finally separated church and state, thank God. We don't mandate morality, just non-freedom-hurting behavior. Two consenting adults doing horribly awful acts of sexuality to each other may be disgusting, but it's not anyones responsibility to "teach them morals". Government is not parenthood and the church can't call the police or the lynchmob. I hope it stays that way.
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:Don't let the state nany, take some responsibil (Score:5, Insightful)
Another proof at how the left wing doesn't know what its extreme left wing is doing.
This is the state of the Democratic party, sadly. They're trying to woo moderates back into the fold(Hillary Clinton etc) by imposing conservative morality. The lesson of the last 5 years is: the more people you threaten and alienate, the more popular you are to conservative voters. I hate seeing the Democrats give up like this, I wish they could find a smarter way to fight the insanity of the american voter.
Re:Don't let the state nany, take some responsibil (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Don't let the state nany, take some responsibil (Score:3, Insightful)
Let me see if I follow this discussion.
P: Aghh! It's censorship. Nasty censorship! Gah, evil Republican censorship!
Q: Um, actually it's evil Democrat censorship.
P: Well, the guy's obviously not a real Democrat.
Quite a brilliant argument -- your party is always right, because anything it does wrong doesn't really represent your party.
So,
Re:Don't let the state nany, take some responsibil (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Don't let the state nany, take some responsibil (Score:4, Insightful)
And who the hell mod'ed a racist insightful?
Mod parent troll (Score:5, Insightful)
And the next thing we will see is beastiality becomming[sic] normal.
It is normal and accepted. In Sweden. And in fact its on the rise over there.
Maybe sex is a choice a 14 year old can not make, because they don't have the maturity to understand what it means.
A mere century ago, the usual age for marraige in most cultures was 12 to 16. Can you explain to me what has changed from that time, besides the views of society?
If you know anything, most catholics register as democrats
Most catholics aren't American.
Maybe if sex is something sacred, then the divorce rate and infidelity would not be so high.
Oh get over yourself. Sex is just a physical activity, the very same as sports. You can play in a team or by yourself, and it releases very much the same hormones. If you mean loving relationships, then yes, perhaps that should be seen as being important. But what would you have us do, codify what exactly qualifies as sex and when people are allowed to have it? One size fits all may be the mantra of the modern corporate, shiny, market-segment and demographically organised world, but believe me the truth isn't that simple. And as for porn, who cares? It's more okay to show a man getting torn limb from limb by explosions than to watch paid professionals do their dance? And if you are whining about impressionable young minds, I suggest that parents take some responsibility for what their children get to see and hear, and stop depending on legislation to do their damn jobs for them. Christ.
You are making out that your apparently severely stunted worldview is the definitive version, and backing up your perspective by hurling accusations of paedophilia, which should be added to the godwins law lexicon of failures in debate. What a boob. Just another troll that knows how to burble a bit of fire and brimstone and get the mob riled up.
Re:Sounds like you don't understand the industry.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Not unless you give me money. See how this works? People do things they normally wouldn't do for money. It's called a job.
"I know it when I see it" is all very well but... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:"I know it when I see it" is all very well but. (Score:3, Funny)
I think looking at pricewatch.com is pornography.
Imagining buying 8 10KRPM SCSI drives with a decent scsi RAID card... ooooh. that gives me feelings inside that rivals large breasted women and shorn vaginas.
or even looking at what kind of rack servers are available. Beowulf clusters of multi-processor servers with RAM and storage totals calculated in Petabytes.
I'll be back in a minute. gotta get a tissue.
Re:"I know it when I see it" is all very well but. (Score:3, Funny)
Ha! (Score:5, Funny)
It's (almost) all in that proposal! (Score:5, Funny)
Cute Trick (Score:5, Insightful)
If you oppose it, then you must be someone who preys on children, right?
Great tactics on the part of the Senator. Think of the children!
ThinkGeek better watch out... (Score:4, Funny)
Who decides? (Score:3, Interesting)
Are we going to tax web pages which talk about breast cancer, just because they contain the word breast?
And how would such taxes be collected, Especially if the server resides outside the US?
Re:Who decides? (Score:4, Interesting)
They will have a definition of porn as anything with penetration. Or anything used for a prurient purpose. Anyone can tell the difference between porn and a breast cancer website. I highly doubt the breast cancer website will has pictures of the ass, or women moaning.
If the server is outside the USA, it will be blocked. Just like a tarriff, if a company does not pay, they can not sell their product inside this country.
Taxes would be collected by forcing pornographic websites to register with the IRS. If they don't and get caught, then the owner will probably go to jail for tax evasion.
Re:Who decides? (Score:3, Insightful)
How do you propose that the US "government" identify every single pornographic website that does exist, and will exist in the future, and block it, and keep this entire system up to date...
And to think, the criticism the "free" nations of the world give China for its Internet censorship...
Re:Who decides? (Score:3, Interesting)
Gee, that almost sounds familiar [wikipedia.org]. This is real rich. The entire political system seems hell-bent on turning this place into a police state---the Republicans in the name of family values and moral sanctity, and the Democrats in the name of increased tax revenue.
And people scoffed when I said I wanted to break away and start up an isolated farming comm
Thank goodness (Score:3, Funny)
I hope all the porn sites move overseas (Score:3, Insightful)
The US just changes its enforcement of the record keeping laws (2259 it is called, if I recall correctly). It is a sword of damocles hanging over porn webmasters. See fleshbot.com for more info.
The sooner the online porn stuff just moves offshore (ala the casinos), the better. Then they can tell the Govt. to find a new whipping boy.
Re:I hope all the porn sites move overseas (Score:3, Interesting)
Isn't it obvious... (Score:3, Insightful)
They should keep kids away from violence (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:They should keep kids away from violence (Score:3, Insightful)
Porn -- Pedo (Score:3, Insightful)
Children interested in sex doesn't correlate to children being groomed by pedophiles.
Get a friggin grip.
This is ridiculous... (Score:3, Interesting)
There are gazillions of loopholes, that will needed to be plugged before they can see money flowing in.
age-verification software (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:age-verification software (Score:5, Funny)
How on earth can someone reliably "verify" the age of a person of the web?
That's easy. Just ask them: a/s/l?
Offshore (Score:3, Insightful)
Nevada ranches WANT to be taxed... (Score:5, Insightful)
So maybe this is a good thing for the porn industry.
Taxes (Score:5, Insightful)
Down with stealth taxes!!!
The logic here... (Score:4, Insightful)
Also, this is proposing some kind of direct link between adult porn and kiddie porn. The fact that there will be a bill linking it will be enough for a lot of people to see adult porn as causing kiddie porn...
The government started taxing porn..... (Score:3, Funny)
Great Idea! (Score:5, Insightful)
I think everyone is missing the point (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyone with at least half a mind can see that the Senator couldn't care less about pornography or child porn for that matter.
Taxing an industry does nothing to regulate said industry, all it does is take money from it. If he wanted to regulate it, and pay for the regulation, then he'd attach fines to the laws. But the truth is, what he wants is an easy way to "break into" the internet industries.
These people tax us in everything we do. We have ONE industry taht is currently not taxed to death and beyond and that is the internet.
This is an excuse. He and his friends have to be stopped cold right here and now. Don't think that it's just him either. I'll bet you anything a bunch of his buddies got together and thought this would be a great way to start a new "cause" and thus manage to rip us off in the process.
We have to stop this guy now. Unless of course, you like the idea of your local congressman and senator mucking about in even this part of our lives.
-ron
Obligatory Braveheart (Score:5, Funny)
Don't tax porn, tax the churches... (Score:5, Insightful)
This may be a bit off topic,, but the article is so vague and short almost anything will fit into this discussion.
Some slashdoters may have noticed that the church has become a major player in politics recently. Part of their tax exemption is based on staying out of politics. The Bush administration is going after many conservation groups with the IRS because they have broken the politics rule.
Churches own billions of $$$ worth of prime realestate in the heart of our cities tax free and thus are a burden on cash starved public schools that depend on real estate taxes for survival.
I don't really need to go into the occasional priest's daliance with young boys, that's just an anomily.
So why try and tax internet porn, most of which is offshore, difficult to track, etc.? Tax the churches which have been getting a free ride in this country for far too long.
Churches need to be placed under the same guidelines as other institutions. They should not get any special benefits just for being churches. If they want some kind of benefits for nonprofit stuff/community service, then they should be under some guidelines for all nonprofits/community servers.
Here are a couple links to taxing the churches...
http://www.sullivan-county.com/identity/cal-tax-ex empt.htm [sullivan-county.com]
http://www.taxchurches.com/ [taxchurches.com]
The guy requires a globe or atlas or something... (Score:3, Insightful)
Look at gambling. The biggest centres are offshore in countries with loose (or non-existent) tax and gambling laws. The same thing will happen with porn. The people who run these operations are not stupid guys with their dicks flapping in the wind. They're smart, they're business savvy,and they probably make more than the senator in question. (Funnily enough, for the same job - sticking your dick in places it may or may not belong.)
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: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.
Do the police really need more money? (Score:3, Insightful)
In my city the Chief of Police makes $151k USD and his lieutenants make at least $110k USD per year. I know primary care medical doctors that don't make that kind of money.
I say we tell the police to stop messing around with their "busy work" like arresting people for simple marijuana possession (the number one reason for criminal arrest in the US) that costs the taxpayer on average >$8k USD per arrest, cut back on the number of police officers, stop buying them a new >$30k USD cruiser every two years and do some real work.
While there are a lot of good cops out there, the system that governs them is corrupt and needs major overhaul. Sen. Carper's tax is just more pork (no pun intended) for Washington to give out.
Fuck that.
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.
25% tax on porn?? (Score:3, Insightful)
Do they have any idea how much money that is? I'm all for it - we could probably eliminate all other taxes the government collects and still double the budget.
funding pork with a tax on porking (Score:3, Informative)