www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall UK to block online porn

This is reasonable, but I think it lacks prudence. Drug prohibition has been a social catastrophe. I see nothing to persuade me that this would be any better, and too much to indicate it would be abused. In the end, we would have a law you rightly consider legitimate, that wouldn't work, and would create and pave the way for a series of evils.

Stuart,

You have been extremely patronizing. I am not stupid.

Also, your responses display that you have not read my posts or Pani Rose's posts. That is rude.

I am utterly shocked at the selfishness of those who put their liberal agendas before the welfare of children, and eve more shocked that Christians are doing this!

Lord have mercy!

Alice

I'm shocked at people who think you can coerce others into virtue, and are willing to open the door to the suppression of the very faith to which they adhere in return for allowing someone else to do the heavy lifting for them.

The I suppose that we should not have any laws at all? How dare those laws coerce the populous into the virtues of not stealing, not killing, not marrying more than one person, not paying their taxes, not speeding, etc.! How dare they allow someone else to do the heavy lifting for them! Why shouldn't every one just intrinsically not want to steal and murder?

And then while we are at it, hmmm... well, what about smokers? They have rights which have been taken away from them. They cannot smoke just about anywhere, can they?!?

However, that wasn't my point at all! It has nothing to do with men and their vices, but everything to do about *children and their precious innocence*!

Again, you did not read my post. If you had, you would have read that what I am happy about FILTERS AND CENSORS, is that little children would not unwillingly come across *harmful and emotionally and developmentally dangerous* material to their innocent and pure eyes.

If you had read Pani Rose's post you would have read about how unwittingly she and some children were ACCOSTED by it.


If you had read Mr. Cameron's thoughts, it is because of these unwitting words in searches and such that children see this GARBAGE.


I am sure that Jesus would agree that children should be protected from such evil and impurity.

But since you do not, and seem to imply that you think that it is a good thing for society to have free pornography on the internet, and thus, that it doesn't matter that little pure children are exposed against their will to hard core porn, then I ask you: would you go show it to your grandchildren, putting your ideas to praxis?? I think and hope not.

I know that it is reassuring to traditionally liberal thinking people to believe that compassion can be achieved by passing the right laws (those defending or catering to the 'underdog') and hating other laws, but in the process others' rights are being trampled--in this case, the rights of the most helpless of all our citizens--the ones that depend on us to have laws that protect their innocence.

I am hoping and praying, dear Stuart, that your ideas are just a knee jerk reaction without actually having read the actual article. I also believe that you are a good and honorable man and that you don't really believe in your heart in the justness of those causes which you passionately defend.

Alice and millions of Americans have a good point. Allowing the ability for unrestricted smut into private homes, public institutions and businesses is unconscionable. No one in their right mind can deny that it promotes denigration of men and women and makes many men think that women secretly want to be raped.

The tired prohibition argument is overused and a poor argument. Don't we restrict benedryl sales to people over 18 who have to show ID? What about the taxes on cigarettes, ammunition and firearms. And why not allow unrestricted arms sales. Maybe I want a tank or rocket propelled grenades as a minuteman. Why can my drivers license be taken away for having three beers and driving one block? Why are some drugs legal and others are not? Why does the government and insurance companies pay for prescribed narcotics? Why is it illegal for me to pray within 10 feet (or whatever) of an abortuary. Violations make me subjected to racketeering (RICO) laws. This crap about freedoms is baloney. Freedom of speech is protected for those in power; those opposed are restricted. The shameful behavior of the raucous pro-aborts in the Texas legislature is a fine example of abuse by the "politically correct."

So you don't want to restrict freedom? There are plenty of precedents for the companies like Time Warner to pay hefty tax premiums for the profits. How about extensive reporting requirements and background investigations like for gambling casinos and firearms dealers?

If the US government can discipline an ordained military chaplain for saying there are "no atheists in foxholes" why can't it restrict porn? http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/...an-Chaplain-Atheists-Call-for-Punishment

Christ is amongst us,
Deacon Paul

That's an awfully mixed bag of laws, Father Deacon, some beneficial, some opposed to justice, others useless, some producing greater evil than they propose to limit, and others just irrational, and with several uncomparable limits placed on sundry uncomparable activities; so it's a little hard to tell what you're driving at.

That said, nobody has argued that pornography or it's availability represents a benefit. Nobody has argued that eliminating pornography is not a good to be sought.

Not every good thing should be accomplished by legislation or by government intervention.

Where did you ever get the idea that a law could protect a child's innocence?

You're right; it is a mixed bag. The point is that every law should be considered on its own merit. To argue that regulating or outlawing something that is most people consider moral because it restricts freedom doesn't carry much water.

I don't think any of us on this forum are inordinately concerned with what "most people consider" in any case.

And it is not disputed that it is the very nature of laws to restrict freedom.

But to consider a law on its merit it is necessary to consider all the likely consequences. It is not nearly enough to say only that the intended purpose of the law is good, so too must be the law. Bad laws almost always start out with noble intentions.

I advise Alice and others like her to remember that every problem began as a solution. Therefore, be not so anxious to enlist the force of law to get what you want. Such actions have a tendency to come back and bite you on a sensitive spot. Pornography is a spiritual problem--maybe one should look for spiritual solutions.

Oh dear--Stuart, you are either not reading what I am writing, or we are talking past each other.

I agree with what you said here:


But...that is not what is being discussed!

The discussion here is how to stop children from the inevitable key words, mistakes, viruses, etc. that pop up and pollute their innocent and pure eyes and souls???

Do you know that (I believe that ByzanTN/Charles said this as well in his post) at one time if a child searched for the White House to do a paper in school, and put in 'whitehouse.com' into the tool bar, pornographic images popped up?

Did you read what happened to Pani Rose's grandchild when he and his mother were looking at the internet.

Since we are only talking past each other, let's call it a day.

I don't think there is anything further to discuss at this point.

Have a nice day,
Alice

For this thing that may be accomplished with widely available free software, you propose state intervention. This is frightening.

The state is intervening to allow gay marriage. Isn't that frightening to you?

Sure. How does this relate to your point?

Alice, at the end of the day, remember that the state does only two things well: kill people and break things. If you need that done, by all means, the state is the place to go. For anything else, the state should be your absolutely LAST resort, and I would tolerate a lot before allowing the state any excuse to increase its power over the individual and voluntary associations of free citizens.