I was not able to watch the video. Something about a violation? But I can imagine what it did say by the conversation that is going on among those who "are" commenting. For the most part I agree with what John has to say. (Jgweed). As far a the others, not!

Most of you are parroting what Larry Flynt offered in his desired to make pornography legal. Issuing violence was far worse than what nudity, profanity and lust did. What a crock! Two wrongs guys don't make a right. Have any of you ever heard that before? Damn!

You find more comfort being what can be considered by most as immoral and will not hear any notion of what morality could mean or represents.

What you are offering is not a sign of any definition that can be applied to maturity, but that of contaminated children who know no better nor do they want to be better. There is much that can be offered as to why that is but to offer it to those so afflicted is a chore. So I will not attempt to do so now.



So you are not a part of that society? If you are not then why complain? Why not effort to fix it? If you can see something society doesn't, wouldn't it behoove you to do something about it rather than try to rationalize it, or are you more comfortable where you are in you profane, lusty, pornographic world? Huh?

If you are, then you, my friend, are just a wrong as the one you are so disgusted with in demanding a reason for nudity, profanity and pornography. How so very sad.



Yeah, television; ain't it a hoot! Sorta distracted you, didn't it. Of course you didn't say what the children's channel was offering? Obviously what it was offering wasn't interesting you or you were not paying attention for a variety of reasons for if you were, you would not have changed the channel, would you? I don't know what your environment is telling you so common sense tells me this is what was happening.

When considering all that television is offering today, from my experience, especially to children, please do all you can to keep them
away from it and occupy all the time you have to that child. It was almost that way once and then television came along and it has never been that way since. That is so very, very, very sad!!!!

.

First of all your use of they is highly ambiguous as you effort to explain your stance. Now don't you think it would be prudent to know exactly who "they" are and why "they" are doing that? As far as the nudity and profanity, it seems you find an enjoyment in that and all I can ask you is...............why?

If you think that is not being done at all hours of the day and night, you are simply not paying attention to what is happening. Hell, man, sex sells! Didn't you know that. What more basal instinct can another use to get our attention, the male species, huh? And you bit and are biting.

.

It would if you wanted it to. Your analogy is weak to say the least. You want it to make sense. That is what Flynt did; using war as a greater obscenity. Crap! The gun in those cowboy movies were a metaphor for justice and could be misconstrued for other just as you are doing to satisfy what you fine more comfort with. The old western was just a depiction of good vs. evil; sex is nothing but self gratification. If one was in interested in good vs evil it would be easy to justify why they are into self gratification more. What you might say a "NO BRAINER".




True! Your point?



No, any two creatures can have sex. There are many who are "having sex" and the sex they are having is incapable of bringing life. Please tell me how you rationalize that if you would?



I don't know about fun and all that so called "fun" represents, but it is beautiful when it is between a man and woman who truly understand what the act is all about. We don't understand all that, that is; as a matter of a fact we are going in the opposite direction.



Nice shot, no cigar! Profanity is just an excuse when one is too damn lazy to effort to find more appropriate language. To use profanity is anger is one thing to use it gratuitously it utter stupidity.



If you think that is what it is, then that is what it will be. How's than!



Thank you. You got 'em!

William

Ive read some self righteous crap in my life but this beats all of it. You have completely ignored his intention in this thread and turned him into a depraved porn loving creep. You should be ashamed of yourself. I wont even start to comment on your blinkered bigoted views as it would give a certain credence to your malignant post. This is the guy ,you, who believes god helps you from getting a ticket from the police, when he ignores starving children. Get real and dont condemn without knowing his intentions. His only intention was to point out the absurdity of bigoted blinkered attitudes towards censorship. YouTube shows violent death but not naked or obscene language. He is not condoning visual sex or obscene language but the twisted sense of right and wrong. I am ashamed you could judge someone so harshly.

It is neither blinkered or bigoted... People who get some creepy joy out of death videos are no different from those who like sex videos...The difference is not of kind, but of degree...

Ive read some self righteous crap in my life but this beats all of it.

You have completely ignored his intention in this thread and turned him into a depraved porn loving creep.

You should be ashamed of yourself. I wont even start to comment on your blinkered bigoted views as it would give a certain credence to your malignant post.

This is the guy ,you, who believes god helps you from getting a ticket from the police, when he ignores starving children.

Get real and dont condemn without knowing his intentions. His only intention was to point out the absurdity of bigoted blinkered attitudes towards censorship.

YouTube shows violent death but not naked or obscene language. He is not condoning visual sex or obscene language but the twisted sense of right and wrong. I am ashamed you could judge someone so harshly.

They are not the same thing and they are not forms of violence. Violence makes people unhappy, it is not enjoyable. Sex is enjoyable, it makes people happier.

When you've brainwashed yourself into believing god would prefer to help you escape a traffic ticket than feed a child, telling us of his charity , I dont have to prove anything. You do it yourself with confident ease.

You and your so pious friend have no idea how your twisted views are seen by reasonable souls. If you can believe the real scenes of violent death of humans is on a par with nudity then your off your fundamentalist head.

Religion has a tendency to warp morality. If in doubt, take a look at this thread:

http://www.philosophyforum.com/philosophy-forums/secondary-branches-philosophy/philosophy-religion/1103-god-willing-prevent-evil-but-not-able-then-he-impotent.html

According to some of the faithful, it is good that God allows people to starve to death, and that babies burn alive in fires. And it is good that people suffer in agony from diseases, as well. It is no wonder that many religious fanatics of the past wanted doctors to not interfere with the pain and suffering of women during childbirth. Why, it is God's will, and God is all good, so it is good that these things happen!

It is no wonder that the Inquisition, in its full glory, lasted for hundreds of years. But the secular authorities, once they got sufficiently out from under the control of religionists, decided it was a bad thing. Otherwise, it would probably still be happening today. You can here see the result on morality of our getting away from religion!

When you've brainwashed yourself into believing god would prefer to help you escape a traffic ticket than feed a child, telling us of his charity , I don't have to prove anything. You do it yourself with confident ease.

You and your so pious friend have no idea how your twisted views are seen by reasonable souls.

If you can believe the real scenes of violent death of humans is on a par with nudity then your off your fundamentalist head.

God has nothing to do with why children are starving, my myopic accuser. When one wants to defend a behavior that is reprehensible one can go to excessive lengths to find a behavior the is more reprehensible. I am not saying yours is that, but it typical of the tactics one uses to defend themselves. You are looking for a God to solve your problems and you can't imagine one. For that to happen it would be prudent to at least believe one exists! Don't you think?

There are billions of starving children in the world and I assure you it is not food for which they seek nourishment. Who, knows you may be one of those and it is my guess you are.

For one who has no idea of what love is, it is no feat, to find many analogies to justify their actions. If I were you, I guess I would be angry too. They are, by far, the hardest to reach. There are many who engage is sex and call it love when in fact it is a desperate act of never being loved. In that respect one can call any act love.



So, you call yourself reasonable? Perhaps tremendously rationalistic, but reasonable, not even close. Many can rationalize that which is not right; hell a child does that when no one is paying attention to them by even hurting themselves, to get the attention they never had. You are lucky here, xris, I hear you and understand why you think as you do. Like I said, some are much more difficult to reach than others. I am tenacious; I don't give up that easily. I know if I do that you will call me names like self righteous. That's been the tactic for a while now. You effort to insult me, behaps before, you could. but no more. I have grown since then. Have you?



Hell, xris, I can think of many things that would make Medusa look attractive.

William

Baring witness to the extremes of both, I have seen the same hollow look on men's eyes. I have felt the same cold feeling afterwards. I have the same nightmares from both. To commit a great act of violence, or a loveless act of sex requires the same distance mentally from what you are doing. Neither is natural.

Ultimately you can justify an act of violence. Unless your a complete pacifist. Judging by how we are so actively debating this subject I don't think anyone who has commented so far isn't capable of protecting something with violence if necessary.

You can not justify something like pornography. A loveless act of sex is purely for self gratification. When something is so selfish it is hard to justify public display.

As it applies to the original post.....I agree with Fido (I think if I understand him correctly) Showing someone a scene of violence can lead to some greater good. Showing a scene of nudity even for a more highbrow reason can only work to cheapen our value of things of this nature.

You fail to recognise your own failings but are only too willing to comment on others,

I have my failings, it's a shame others don't learn from theirs. I did! Misery loves company and that is why I don't reveal them. You'd like that wouldn't you? Sorry! You would find a relief in that which would enable you to exist more comfortably in yours. I have revealed more about my life than anyone on this forum with the exception of perhaps Salima, a dear friend. What about you! Care to go there?

William

You fail to recognise your own failings but are only too willing to comment on others, it was you that started the abusive language, not I. I dont believe in your god so I don't believe he allows children to die of hunger. The problem is, you believe he helped you avoid traffic violations, now if your so naive to believe that crap then what does your opinion count for to a reasonable person?

---------- Post added 01-05-2010 at 05:10 AM ----------

It was not the point of the debate, if you bothered to read it. He was commenting on the double standards society has inflicted on us all. YouTube is only too pleased to show the most horrendous of acts but not allow scenes of any sexual encounter. We are not saying porn should be shown but that violence is just as damaging . My opinion on sexual viewing may differ from yours but it does not conclude I am in favour of hard porn.

Sex without love is a form of violence, and to put it in the faces of those who are offended, who recognized that they are being subjected to violence, and made to witness violence... Now I have said it, that loveless sex is violence, and you deny, but will not refute it... If you are so insensitive as to not realize that people are hurt by it, and are often driven to sex without love out of some disease, or desparation; then you may never get it...Beauty can be a positive curse to a young woman...Her own desires can be turned against her... The desparation for love is such that it drives many to madness, but that should not be exploited... People can be the active participants in their own destruction, but that does not mean those encouraging such behavior are just in doing so....We have to work for a world were life and love are valued, where the honor of young people is guarded, where we do not give people the power to abuse for money, or give them the money or right to abuse in the search for some principal of freedom...The freedom of expression is not always the freedom to offend...

You constantly grind on about something I have never condoned, why is that? You and your fellow evangelist have a certain interest in offending without realising it, why is that? You are both so easy to condemn, why is that? Has it got something to do with you following the same malevolent god?

It was not the point of the debate, if you bothered to read it. He was commenting on the double standards society has inflicted on us all. YouTube is only too pleased to show the most horrendous of acts but not allow scenes of any sexual encounter. We are not saying porn should be shown but that violence is just as damaging . My opinion on sexual viewing may differ from yours but it does not conclude I am in favour of hard porn.