http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/berk ... 297600.stm


Yes because we know how succesful banning something is in getting rid of it.DJ Whistla wrote:The "for the public good" possee (last seen banning smoking in public places) are on your ass!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/berk ... 297600.stm
b - prohibitonselector.dub.u wrote:Yes because we know how succesful banning something is in getting rid of it.DJ Whistla wrote:The "for the public good" possee (last seen banning smoking in public places) are on your ass!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/berk ... 297600.stm
Exhibit A:
-War on Drugs-
yeah true.Jubscarz wrote:You cant deny the intrinsic immorality of it though, whether you discount as the nanny state or not.
boo this man!! wait, are you talkin bout "violent" porn, or just porn in general?Jubscarz wrote:You cant deny the intrinsic immorality of it though, whether you discount as the nanny state or not.
 
 People are gonna do it anyway so we should just leave it be with the potential that it will encourage more people to do so? I dont think thats a good idea. Does this also apply to racism for example? I mean certain people will always be racist, shall we just leave them and their racist media alone? After all its always going to be there so whats the point?people are gonna strangle-fuck others (sometimes themselves - RIP Michael Hutchence) regardless of whether or not they got porno showing em how fun it can be.
(where's the tongue-in-cheek emoticon?)Jubscarz wrote:People are gonna do it anyway so we should just leave it be with the potential that it will encourage more people to do so? I dont think thats a good idea. Does this also apply to racism for example? I mean certain people will always be racist, shall we just leave them and their racist media alone? After all its always going to be there so whats the point?people are gonna strangle-fuck others (sometimes themselves - RIP Michael Hutchence) regardless of whether or not they got porno showing em how fun it can be.
I say yes too.Jubscarz wrote:People are gonna do it anyway so we should just leave it be with the potential that it will encourage more people to do so? I dont think thats a good idea. Does this also apply to racism for example? I mean certain people will always be racist, shall we just leave them and their racist media alone? After all its always going to be there so whats the point?
I agree, I dont think banning will have its intended affect. But the moral arguments for banning it are many. I definitely think that the REASON they are banning it is almost arbritrary and does not get to the root of what are essentially mental health problems within the people that enjoy such deviancy.thc wrote:I say yes too.Jubscarz wrote:People are gonna do it anyway so we should just leave it be with the potential that it will encourage more people to do so? I dont think thats a good idea. Does this also apply to racism for example? I mean certain people will always be racist, shall we just leave them and their racist media alone? After all its always going to be there so whats the point?
I believe in free speech of all kinds, including hate speech. Making these things illegal doesnt stop them. It just forces them to be more secretive about it which I think is more dangerous.
It is impossible to not impose your moral beliefs on others, the political system we live in is based on thousands of years of thought all based on the concept of what is 'right' and 'wrong'.dopedragon wrote: fuck yeah!! kill em all and let god sort em out. jesus would support free speech even if it was talkin bout killin jews...wouldnt he?
no point whatsoever. just like my posts.
seriously, though, you can't just start imposing your moral beliefs on others. thats when people get pissed and start crashin jets into buildings.
i concur. i find the stuff quite despicable but don't believe in prohibition. people with a healthy well balanced mind don't obsess over and fantasize about what equates to abuse which can result in heinous crimes being perpetrated.Jubscarz wrote:I agree, I dont think banning will have its intended affect. But the moral arguments for banning it are many. I definitely think that the REASON they are banning it is almost arbritrary and does not get to the root of what are essentially mental health problems within the people that enjoy such deviancy.thc wrote:I say yes too.Jubscarz wrote:People are gonna do it anyway so we should just leave it be with the potential that it will encourage more people to do so? I dont think thats a good idea. Does this also apply to racism for example? I mean certain people will always be racist, shall we just leave them and their racist media alone? After all its always going to be there so whats the point?
I believe in free speech of all kinds, including hate speech. Making these things illegal doesnt stop them. It just forces them to be more secretive about it which I think is more dangerous.

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests