Pornography?

[Ernestocheguevara]

I'm miffed on this one? What's others views???

[Hoppe]

Nothing wrong with it.

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Nudity is ok, however people using picutures of themselves having sex in order to support themselves is absolutely not ok. Under capitalism you can't blame them, but under a socialist society it is unacceptable.

[Hoppe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 09:01 PM
Nudity is ok, however people using picutures of themselves having sex in order to support themselves is absolutely not ok. Under capitalism you can't blame them, but under a socialist society it is unacceptable.
So, in your communist state men wouldn't get aroused anymore by looking at full beaver shots?

[Commie Girl]

:D Nothing wrong with pornography!

[Vinny Rafarino]

but under a socialist society it is unacceptable


This one should read "under my opinion of a socialist society, it is unacceptable".


Socialism and prono have nothing in common. Without porno, I whould have whacked myself out during the ages of 12- 18.

[Y2A]

Originally posted by thegreathal+Feb 4 2004, 09:33 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (thegreathal @ Feb 4 2004, 09:33 PM)
[email protected] 4 2004, 09:01 PM
Nudity is ok, however people using picutures of themselves having sex in order to support themselves is absolutely not ok. Under capitalism you can&#39;t blame them, but under a socialist society it is unacceptable.
:o Where do I sign OUT?&#33;

I see nothing wrong with it really...if it is their choice. Maybe it should be more regulated. [/b]
Many socialists and feminists feel that it is degrading towards women and thus treats them as objects rather then equals. It&#39;s the truth about your backwords ideology. Deal with it.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by Y2A+Feb 5 2004, 02:45 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Y2A @ Feb 5 2004, 02:45 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 09:33 PM

[email protected] 4 2004, 09:01 PM
Nudity is ok, however people using picutures of themselves having sex in order to support themselves is absolutely not ok. Under capitalism you can&#39;t blame them, but under a socialist society it is unacceptable.
:o Where do I sign OUT?&#33;

I see nothing wrong with it really...if it is their choice. Maybe it should be more regulated.
Many socialists and feminists feel that it is degrading towards women and thus treats them as objects rather then equals. It&#39;s the truth about your backwords ideology. Deal with it. [/b]
Those socialists and feminists dont need to do it then.

[Y2A]

Originally posted by John Galt+Feb 5 2004, 02:50 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (John Galt @ Feb 5 2004, 02:50 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2004, 02:45 AM

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 09:33 PM

[email protected] 4 2004, 09:01 PM
Nudity is ok, however people using picutures of themselves having sex in order to support themselves is absolutely not ok. Under capitalism you can&#39;t blame them, but under a socialist society it is unacceptable.
:o Where do I sign OUT?&#33;

I see nothing wrong with it really...if it is their choice. Maybe it should be more regulated.
Many socialists and feminists feel that it is degrading towards women and thus treats them as objects rather then equals. It&#39;s the truth about your backwords ideology. Deal with it.
Those socialists and feminists dont need to do it then. [/b]
For some reason they feel the need to ***** about it to everyone, it rivals the annoyance of the southern brainless ultra-christan conservatives.

[LSD]

There is absolutely nothingwrong with pronography.


MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr: What exactly would you propose you do to someone who chooses to film themselves having sex?? Arrest them perhaps?

The All-knowing Y2A: I think the fact that out of 9 posts only 1 has opposed pronography shows that it is not an oppinion shared by all leftists.

John Galt: Well, I actually agree with you on something......wow....

[Exploited Class]

Originally posted by Y2A+Feb 4 2004, 07:45 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Y2A @ Feb 4 2004, 07:45 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 09:33 PM

[email protected] 4 2004, 09:01 PM
Nudity is ok, however people using picutures of themselves having sex in order to support themselves is absolutely not ok. Under capitalism you can&#39;t blame them, but under a socialist society it is unacceptable.
:o Where do I sign OUT?&#33;

I see nothing wrong with it really...if it is their choice. Maybe it should be more regulated.
Many socialists and feminists feel that it is degrading towards women and thus treats them as objects rather then equals. It&#39;s the truth about your backwords ideology. Deal with it. [/b]
The likes or dislikes of pornography within a society is not an economical issue.

Saying "many Socialists" have a problem with it or "many feminists" have a problem with it is very inaccurate.

America is very capitalists, yet within it many of its citizens protest and make laws to censor pornography because of their moral issues. It is a conservative vs. liberal issue. Many conservatives will not strike out against pornography using their conservative dislikes or puritan upbringing or social influence reasons, instead they will use an excuse that it degrades women or men or treats them as objects, when it fact they just don&#39;t like pornography.

And to say many feminists think this way in very inaccurate. In fact like almost any group or organization the feelings are very split but this isn&#39;t even a 50/50 split. Most feminists want to side step the moral aspects of it and just say, "women need to be treated well, get paid the same amount as men and not treated like second best." Many feminists see it as empowering to women as well.

The socialist party doesn&#39;t promote pornography, but nobody but the porno industry does.

The overall feeling, from most socialists and feminists is, if anybody is doing it because they have no other opportunity to support themselves and they don&#39;t like it, then it is wrong. If people are doing it against their will, then it is wrong. If people are chosing freely, being treated fairly, protection measures are insured and the work enviroments is a safe atmosphere they are fine with it.

Anybody that thinks that a socialist system is going to swing with their moral wishes of a puritan society is sadly mistaken. A democratic, people&#39;s control socialist system is going to provide for the people what the people wish to have. I tell you, few people are going to actively vote to not have pornography when their vote is anonymous. Everybody here knows what the most popular web sites are right? It isn&#39;t puritan ones.

There are plenty of people that like doing work in the adult industry that they would do it no matter what else you offered them.

And where do some of you think all the porn is going to go? It is all over the web, it isn&#39;t like it would just disapear.

When cavemen found out they could draw on walls, the first thing they drew was somebody naked.
A still camera was invented and 5 minutes later somebody was using it to take naked pictures.
A motion picture was invented and 5 minutes later people were using it to show other people having sex.
The internet was invented, with libraries of information available online, 5 minutes later the first porn site was invented.

If you removed all the porn on the web. There would only be on page on the web and it would say, "please return the porn".

[Y2A]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 5 2004, 03:19 AM
The All-knowing Y2A: I think the fact that out of 9 posts only 1 has opposed pronography shows that it is not an oppinion shared by all leftists.
I am talking about the hardcore left in general, not just the people on these boards. Face it, many of the far-left feel that pornography is degrading to women and treats them as objects rather then equals.

Ok, let&#39;s just forget all this squabbling over if the majority believe this or the majority believe that, the fact is we agree that it should be allowed and that is good enough for me.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 5 2004, 03:19 AM
John Galt: Well, I actually agree with you on something......wow....
We actually agree on most things, just not the means to achieve it. I want to let people succeed on their own merit. You want people to succeed on everyone else&#39;s merit. We both want a meritocracy

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

If a woman wants to film herself having sex, post it on the net and show it to people just for shits and giggles, then that is fine, but if she want to go and sell that movie to make a profit, and try and justify her existance as working class citizen merely by making doing sex acts, then that is unacceptable. I refuse to have the state sanction such a method of "labor".

[Hiero]

i would like to add another question to this conversation. If there was socialism and being a porno actor/actress they would no longer be paid the thousand and millions of dollars that get. So the question is do you think there would even be a successful a porn business as its may be worth it to degrade yourself. Ofcourse there would be the freaks still doing it but would it be able to sustain itself.

[pedro san pedro]

i would like to add another question to this conversation. If there was socialism and being a porno actor/actress they would no longer be paid the thousand and millions of dollars that get. So the question is do you think there would even be a successful a porn business as its may be worth it to degrade yourself. Ofcourse there would be the freaks still doing it but would it be able to sustain itself

most sex workers, even porn "stars" dont get that much money at all.

i dont have a problem with pornography, but would like to see sex workers being treated fairly. many countries still have prostitution illegal, so it is hard for them to get rights as workers

[Iepilei]

Pornography depicting consenting adults doesn&#39;t bother me. Hell, I&#39;m all for it.

I think so many object because they believe the females who choose such an occupation do so because they feel it&#39;s their only means - as strippers and prostitutes turn to their vocations. Perhaps, this is so. To an extent, it&#39;s a form of oppression (restriction).

[LSD]

...but if she want to go and sell that movie to make a profit...

Well, in a communist society nothing would be done for profit, so I fail to see the distinction you&#39;re making between making videos of yourself fucking and making videos of yourself painting.


I think so many object because they believe the females who choose such an occupation do so because they feel it&#39;s their only means - as strippers and prostitutes turn to their vocations. Perhaps, this is so. To an extent, it&#39;s a form of oppression (restriction).

Exactly, pornography under capitalism is a form of oppression, but that is only because capitalism is an intrinsically oppressive system that "trickles down" oppression into every element of society.


So the question is do you think there would even be a successful a porn business as its may be worth it to degrade yourself.

Probably not to the same degree, but it would still be there in one form or another.

[Hegemonicretribution]

I say yes pornography should be there, without restriction fuck it all can see it...however it should not be promoted or profitable. That is there would be no industry as such, I just think that people should be allowed to exchange porn freely and easily the same way they can...erm..stamps ;)?

I would not create, or leave room for private industry in it though. I would have to control this with easy laws making it unproffitable, however I think in this way porn could be enjoyed, without exploitation...however I can thnk of a number of ways to tweek this should any one see faults and exploit them.

[Hoppe]

Let&#39;s write an email to Jenna Jameson and ask if she think she&#39;s being opprossed and exploited.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Lets write one to the little girl sold into the trade from the third world, her parents not being able to keep her anymore...shit no computor and her owner won&#39;t let her out the cage. The girl who dreamed of being a model, tricked into doing nude work because it was the only way to "make it big". There is a seedy side to the seedy industry....no problems with it ethically though, and I disagree only females are exploited.

[Iepilei]

I&#39;m sure you could write her and ask just how lovely her life is thanks to the porn industry. Asking her about all her ups and downs she&#39;s experienced with the &#39;kind generous&#39; souls who inhabit such industries.

Of course, capitalists only look at the exceptions. Chasing dreams and living in the clouds.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2004, 06:14 PM
Of course, capitalists only look at the exceptions. Chasing dreams and living in the clouds.
better than burrowing into the dirt.

[Hoppe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2004, 05:46 PM
Lets write one to the little girl sold into the trade from the third world, her parents not being able to keep her anymore...shit no computor and her owner won&#39;t let her out the cage. The girl who dreamed of being a model, tricked into doing nude work because it was the only way to "make it big". There is a seedy side to the seedy industry....no problems with it ethically though, and I disagree only females are exploited.
Yes very unfortunate. But she could have worked in a Nike factory, which is a lot better.

Iepilei,

You have any experiencd in this industry?

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2004, 08:00 PM

Yes very unfortunate. But she could have worked in a Nike factory, which is a lot better.

Iepilei,

You have any experiencd in this industry?
O.K. am ashamed to say that the wit made me smile, but it is a sad fact. I don&#39;t give much credit to a system that allows a young child to be force into sexual servitude, for the pleasure of some..well. I also think it is sad that they have to sew sneakers together so that rich kids can pay too much for them, or worse, pooor kids struggle to get them at the same rich kid price.

I know these things happen, and an obvious reply is; well what would happen if the industries pulled out? I however think there must be a better way. The question instead SHOULD be, what if they invested more in the areas the use workers from?

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 5 2004, 01:00 PM

...but if she want to go and sell that movie to make a profit...

Well, in a communist society nothing would be done for profit, so I fail to see the distinction you&#39;re making between making videos of yourself fucking and making videos of yourself painting.


I think so many object because they believe the females who choose such an occupation do so because they feel it&#39;s their only means - as strippers and prostitutes turn to their vocations. Perhaps, this is so. To an extent, it&#39;s a form of oppression (restriction).

Exactly, pornography under capitalism is a form of oppression, but that is only because capitalism is an intrinsically oppressive system that "trickles down" oppression into every element of society.


So the question is do you think there would even be a successful a porn business as its may be worth it to degrade yourself.

Probably not to the same degree, but it would still be there in one form or another.
Someone who makes pornography should in no way be exempt from doing socially useful work. Making pornography isn&#39;t enough to justify someone&#39;s existance in a socialist society. If someone wants to make pornography, fine, but that doesn&#39;t mean we should exempt them from doing socially useful work (industry and agriculture)

[bubbrubb]

i dont see anything wrong with it if thats how they need to make a living******not like ive ever looked at it or anything ;)

[Iepilei]

I&#39;ve had associates decend to the midsts of the sex industry, yes. It usually results in drug dependancies and complete withdrawls from previous social interactivities (hence, &#39;associate&#39;).

However, I find it funny how quickly the capitalist mindset can change in regards to the left, communistic minded people. I dare argue with some and be called "idealistic," meaning I support a philosophy which "looks good on paper but lacks practicality." However here, now, I&#39;m called one who not chases dreams and motivations rather one who shelters himself away from it all.

Whatever works to prove a point that doesn&#39;t exist, aye chaps?

[Iepilei]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2004, 11:31 PM
Someone who makes pornography should in no way be exempt from doing socially useful work. Making pornography isn&#39;t enough to justify someone&#39;s existance in a socialist society. If someone wants to make pornography, fine, but that doesn&#39;t mean we should exempt them from doing socially useful work (industry and agriculture)
No, what we&#39;re saying is pornography would still exist as a couple&#39;s mere voyeurism opposed to a profitable industry. If people still feel the draw of the &#39;pink stage&#39; (as it were) they&#39;d be more than welcome.

I wonder if this would fall under a simple barter?

[Loknar]

porn goes both ways much of it is questionable. the porn I will refuse to even look at is the exploited people of t he Balkans and others. the so called &#39;holier than thou&#39; EU seems to ignore the human trafficking problem even though much of it is in Hamburg and Amsterdam.

[Y2A]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2004, 02:56 AM
Y2A--you want to fight me? :P I must say I hate your avatar, although you probably don&#39;t like mine either.

let me make this clear: Feminism = Neo-Nazism. It&#39;s as simple as that. Suffice it to say that Feminists have more rights than males now, with their &#39;holier than thou attitude. Porn = PERFECTLY FINE. I guess it is more of one&#39;s opinion, but I don&#39;t believe it is WRONG, so not a problem that should be fixed by a perfect state. Prostitution is the world&#39;s oldest profession, you know. They say Jesus had his women ;) . But seriously...I don&#39;t know. There have been alot of good issues presented here conflicting with each other. Hmmm...Sexual Expression is one&#39;s right, the most basic form of liberty. You cannot have it very regulated, no matter what form of government. As in regulation is wrong, not regulate some more..
Ha :) I love to piss off communists, but this wasn&#39;t about that. I genuinely think it is representive of all the feelings that come with 9/11.

And as for the "Feminism=Neo-Nazism" I couldn&#39;t agree more.

*Waits for SenoraChe to set him strait on the feminist movement*

[LSD]

Someone who makes pornography should in no way be exempt from doing socially useful work. Making pornography isn&#39;t enough to justify someone&#39;s existance in a socialist society. If someone wants to make pornography, fine, but that doesn&#39;t mean we should exempt them from doing socially useful work (industry and agriculture)

Allright, I&#39;ll accept that.


Feminism = Neo-Nazism.

Feminism:
2. [After F. féminisme.] Advocacy of the rights of women (based on the theory of equality of the sexes). (Cf. WOMANISM.)

Neo-Nazim:
A revival of, or resurgence of support for, Nazism or Nazi ideological principles.

Oh yes, definetly the same thing.....

You want to say that some have hijacked some feminist movements, fine, but to say that feminists are the same thing as the Nazis?????????
You find me a feminist who&#39;s killed 2000000 children.

[Iepilei]

I agree with some aspects of the feminist cause, but come now. They&#39;ve become over the top in many instances, isolating their own simply because they choose to stay at home with a baby or they choose to wear high heels and makeup. I&#39;m not a chauvanist by any means, but you have to admit certain aspects of feminism are completely out of proportion.

[LSD]

There are indeed many who have abused the cause, some for personal gain, some out of a bizarre ideological bent. But to say that feminism and Nazism are at all comparable is so fundamentally sickening that it practically defies words.

[RedAnarchist]

Women should have full rights and equality. Denying someone who is female equality is as stupid and illogical as denying someone equality for having the wrong eye colour&#33;

[Autarky]

I agree with the general consensus on Femi-Nazis.

Many people cannot simply admit the biological differences in men and women that grant them different places in society.

[Soul Rebel]

How ignorant can you be about feminism? Can you really be this dense? Its amazing the stupidity that runs through your veins....

Feminism is not equal to Nazism in any way. Where have feminists systematically killed off a group of people? Where have feminists set up systems of oppression? Id like for any of you to tell me in a reasonable fashion, without your stereotypes, how feminism equals nazism.

And im not even going to address you ridiculous stereotypical comments because im sick and tired of having to argue with people so full of ignorance.

Im too tired to address anything so i will do it later on.

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2004, 04:52 PM
I agree with the general consensus on Femi-Nazis.

Many people cannot simply admit the biological differences in men and women that grant them different places in society.
WHOA, you sir, sound like a mascu-nazi&#33;

[LSD]

I agree with the general consensus on Femi-Nazis.

Many people cannot simply admit the biological differences in men and women that grant them different places in society.

What specifically are you refering to?? Which "different places in our society"?

[Autarky]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 7 2004, 12:55 AM

I agree with the general consensus on Femi-Nazis.

Many people cannot simply admit the biological differences in men and women that grant them different places in society.

What specifically are you refering to?? Which "different places in our society"?
Men and women are naturally geared towards different things. I&#39;m not suggesting that women, or men, be prevented from taking whatever role they are capable of doing. However, my real argument if with affirmative action and the placing of token jobs for women.

[LSD]

However, my real argument if with affirmative action and the placing of token jobs for women.

The term "token" implies that such jobs accomplish nothing, but the point of affirmative action is to rectify already existing social inequities. Inequalities that you can hardly deny exist.


What I meant was, like the evil-commie Stalin dictatorship, most Feminists (strong Feminists) take the banner of Feminism and everything it stands for/protects, and run with it. Double-standards, affirmitive action, personal gain...I think that&#39;s what I was getting at.

....examples?


But I think the feminist movement, or at least the groups still advocating it, should have ended. Their mission is accomplished, so they can go home now. I&#39;m sorry, I realize it was wrong to group them all together...but still, most strong Feminists who still try to take part in action or say they do are simply bad and/or crazy. It was a successfull movement, and it should have ended, with women acting as watchdogs all around the world anyway. There&#39;s obviously something wrong when this is still around when everything has been accomplished.

How has the "mission been accomplished"?? When I look around I still see institutionalized sexism.


here is a close enough difference, although admittedly a gap, between men and women CEO&#39;s, for instance, but there is nothing preventing that.)

I&#39;d say "gap" is a bit of an understatement....

[dark fairy]

i see nothing wrong with pornography... the only thing wrong that i see is child pornography and to a certain extent... it is up to one whether or not he or she chooses to look at naked humans and masturbate or arouse themselves what people do with their hands or foreing objects and their body should be upto them ofcourse this is within their property ...{man i can&#39;t spell} {this is just how i feel} {at the time}

[Autarky]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 7 2004, 05:14 AM

However, my real argument if with affirmative action and the placing of token jobs for women.

The term "token" implies that such jobs accomplish nothing, but the point of affirmative action is to rectify already existing social inequities. Inequalities that you can hardly deny exist.

Existing social problems can&#39;t be rectified by placing a quota of women in a particular field, regardless of their ability. This does nothing to correct the mindset of people who hold such sexist views.

Affirmative action seems to be nothing but a blundering and wasteful perpetuation of the sexist mindset.

[Exploited Class]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2004, 03:49 AM
Existing social problems can&#39;t be rectified by placing a quota of women in a particular field, regardless of their ability.

This does nothing to correct the mindset of people who hold such sexist views.


First let&#39;s tear your statement.

Existing social problems can&#39;t be rectified by placing a quota of "minorities" in a particular field(s).

Actually that is exactly what it does, it does rectify social problems, really quick. Try and point out anywhere else in history where 5000 years of oppression were turned around in just 2 to 3 generations? Having minorities in all positions within a society changes perception of where minorities should be in society. Right now we are in a day and age, just 40 years after affirmative action took place, where people now do believe that minorities can be in any position within society because they have hard evidence of it everyday.

Then you said

Regardless of their ability

It isn&#39;t and hasn&#39;t regardless of their ability and that is an extreme statement to make trying to bolster your support. You make it sound like a minority with no high school education can become a NASA scientist just to fill a quote, which is not true.That is not even close to the truth, but your choice of words would support that statment.


This does nothing to correct the mindset of people who hold such sexist views.

Considering in the 60&#39;s and before, college graduated minorities had a difficult time getting a job above entry level janitor or secretary, or short order cook, or clothes washer, I&#39;d say a lot has changed. Most people don&#39;t percieve minorities in good positions as getting there through quotas, like they did in the 60s, because they know that now there is enough of a strong base within the community for minorities to have the qualifications now.

For rapid change of progress and mindset affirmative action is the only way to undo 1000s of years of oppression. By forcing a quota system in the 60s, you might initially put people not qualified for positions in certain positions. However, by doing so, within a captialist system, you are allowing them to earn more, to send their kids to college and allowing minorities to succeed in a short time frame.

Quotas are set so low that any company that can not meet them, is having hiring difficulties and needs to change the people doing the hiring. Enough minorities are now through the college system that they are very much available and qualified for the positions open on the market.


Affirmative action seems to be nothing but a blundering and wasteful perpetuation of the sexist mindset.

People who hold grudges against affirmative action are either short sided of a bigger picture, failures themselves looking for excuses as to why they didn&#39;t get a job and a minority did, watch conservative news and think somehow the reason they couldn&#39;t get into a college wasn&#39;t because they got all Cs on in High School it is because all the minorties took thier spots. Many people against affirmative action feel threatened by it solely because when they see minorities doing something in a high position, they think so poorly of the minorities, the believe they could have only gotten there through a quota system.

And since affirmative action personal stories are always bound, the popular one being, "I didn&#39;t get a position because a minority less qualified than me got it." I will tell my own.

As a woman in the computer industry, there are very few of us. I was promoted to the highest technical support division within our company, Layer 3 networking and corporate networking support. One of the people who didn&#39;t get promoted from my team told me in confidence.

"You know why they hired you and not me? It is because a woman hasn&#39;t been in the position here before and they had to hire you."

I said calmly do him, "You don&#39;t think it is because I have 10 certifications in networking and you have none? That my call times are shorter than yours, I return less merchandise than you (RMAs), have lesser percent of call backs, outbound calls to fix the issue because I didn&#39;t fix it the first time, and higher customer satisfaction, also I can do IP routing tables in my head and you can&#39;t? It is because I am a woman they hired me."

By the way, he was a sexist fuck, who didn&#39;t let his wife work. Nobody else on that team thought I didn&#39;t deserve to be there. Affirmative action didn&#39;t get me the promotion but it make sure it went to the most qualified. If it hadn&#39;t been there, it is possible that some of the lingering sexists still around from a generation ago, like the man who didn&#39;t think I got there on my own merits, wouldn&#39;t have promoted me. Affirmative action protected me from sexists as I climbed through the ranks, it did not push me up the ranks. Ask most women and they will tell you the samething, that is if they didn&#39;t end up believing one of you telling her that she only got her position because of a quota system.

[Autarky]

Yes, affirmative action does an excellent job of jamming in minorities. However, racist and sexist mindsets still prevail. If affirmitive action worked effectively, there would be no need for such a system any longer.

In theory your movement of minorities into senior postions works, but in reality, many these people are thrust into postions that they are not prepared for and bound for failure. The solution, it seems, was more affirmative action.

Women have been on the upturn since the french revolution. Affirmative action is not the catalyst you assume it to be.



People who hold grudges against affirmative action are either short sided of a bigger picture, failures themselves looking for excuses as to why they didn&#39;t get a job and a minority did, watch conservative news and think somehow the reason they couldn&#39;t get into a college wasn&#39;t because they got all Cs on in High School it is because all the minorties took thier spots. Many people against affirmative action feel threatened by it solely because when they see minorities doing something in a high position, they think so poorly of the minorities, the believe they could have only gotten there through a quota system.

And since affirmative action personal stories are always bound, the popular one being, "I didn&#39;t get a position because a minority less qualified than me got it." I will tell my own.

<Insert anecdote>


You may have been "shielded" but the attitudes of these people have not been changed.

[Iepilei]

Originally posted by dark [email protected] 7 2004, 06:37 AM
i see nothing wrong with pornography... the only thing wrong that i see is child pornography and to a certain extent... it is up to one whether or not he or she chooses to look at naked humans and masturbate or arouse themselves what people do with their hands or foreing objects and their body should be upto them ofcourse this is within their property ...{man i can&#39;t spell} {this is just how i feel} {at the time}
Where in gods name did you get that travesty of a "reference" chart?

[dark fairy]

i don&#39;t remember...i don&#39;t find it that accurate though i just like it for keepsake :)

[bombeverything]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2004, 07:45 PM
Women have as many rights as men.

That is bullshit. All societies treat their women worse than they treat their men. In many developing societies, for instance, where food is scarce, the male child is fed before the female, even if there is not enough food for the whole family. Is this your idea of equality? A women’s wage is still about 70% of the male wage. The facts prove that women do not enjoy the same rights as men.

There are as many feminisms as there are women, ranging from liberal feminists to radical feminists. They are not all the same. Your view of feminism is disturbingly flawed.

[bombeverything]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2004, 09:59 PM
If affirmitive action worked effectively, there would be no need for such a system any longer.



Exactly. Without racism or sexism there would be no need for affirmative action.

[bombeverything]

Originally posted by dark [email protected] 8 2004, 03:11 AM
i don&#39;t find it that accurate

That is good to hear :).

[pandora]

Just to clarify, the article discussed deals with violent or degrading pornography which has escalated. Primarily we are not speaking as much about naked pictures but about the joining of nudity with violence as a way of portraying power issues.
Also the fact remains that as more and more of the Fortune 500 companies become pornography brokers, and the original easy going fellows that brought you nude portrayals have been forced out of buisness this has become another global industry. Cheapening the seriousness of what is occuring in the industry by refusing to look at it as a matter of principal leaves those who wish to defend the First Amendment more open to attack due to the incestous relationship between the parent companies making the money and the religious right who are attacking it. It seems a bit convienent.

[pandora]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 10:02 AM
Just to clarify, the article discussed deals with violent or degrading pornography which has escalated. Primarily we are not speaking as much about naked pictures but about the joining of nudity with violence as a way of portraying power issues.
Also the fact remains that as more and more of the Fortune 500 companies become pornography brokers, and the original easy going fellows that brought you nude portrayals have been forced out of buisness this has become another global industry. Cheapening the seriousness of what is occuring in the industry by refusing to look at it as a matter of principal leaves those who wish to defend the First Amendment more open to attack due to the incestous relationship between the parent companies making the money and the religious right who are attacking it. It seems a bit convienent.
I&#39;ve seen corporate America naked, and it isn&#39;t pretty." Lily Burana authoress of "Strip City: A Stripper&#39;s Guide to the United States."

[LSD]

Just to clarify, the article discussed deals with violent or degrading pornography which has escalated. Primarily we are not speaking as much about naked pictures but about the joining of nudity with violence as a way of portraying power issues.

I don&#39;t give a damn if it&#39;s violent pedophilic necrophilic beatiality, you can&#39;t abandon a principle because you find a situation icky. Free speech is free speech.

And free speech must be absolute.