|
|||||
|
| Porn Users Forum » The 'Great Porn Debate' |
| 1-29 of 29 Posts | Page 1 |
| Thread Nav : Refresh Page | First Post | Last Post | Porn Forum Home |
| 02-14-12 06:12pm - 4695 days | Original Post - #1 | |
|
BubbaGump (0)
Active User  Posts: 109 Registered: Jan 08, '12 Location: USA |
The 'Great Porn Debate' I was browsing through Netflix last night and came across a Nighltine episode of 'the great porn debate', taking place at Yale University. I had heard about this traveling debate before but never saw one myself. Ron 'The Hedgehog' Jeremy and a female adult performer were going up against the pastor of the xxx church and one of his members. I thought it was worth some discussion as I enjoy debates in general and this subject would probably make for good conversation on the board. Has anyone seen one of the debates? As an actual debate, I thought it fell well short of containing any substantial or original content. Most of the arguments and rebuttals were classic fare.The purpose of a debate is to convince an audience of the merits of your position and fend off crticisim from the opposition. Unfortunately, I did not think either party was that successful. Jeremy came across more as a pitchman for the industry and his opponents didn't fare any better in this regards. Jeremy was relying on his Charisma and legendary status to appeal to the largely male-dominant college crowd. His celebrity status definitely gave him an advantage here and I think some in the audience were more interested in his presence. The pastor actually never played up the religion card and there were only a few passing references to Christian dogma. I think it has finally sunk in with the opponents that using the 'Jesus' card is not going to win you many converts in such a debate--especially at a place like Yale. The first objection was that young, naive, uneducated, unemployed women looking for easy money is ripe ground for exploitation. Women are being preyed upon and coerced into the business with the promise of easy money. It went back and forth for a bit with no real substance. It wasn't until an audience member posed a question that anyone was given any real food for thought. Most of the criticism and responses were the usual fare. In fact, the only novel or interesting anti-industry criticism or pro-industry rebuttals came from the audience. One in particular stands out --'How is being paid $1,000 for a couple of hours performing on a set any more exploitive than a single mother of three working for $7.20 flipping burgers at McDonalds?'. It was one of the very few ideas presented in the debate that could have led to some interesting and unique dialogue. Unfortunately, the pastor wouldn't touch that one with a ten-foot pole and for some reason, Jeremy never went on the offensive with this. He seemed to be sticking to canned answers. Nothing original of unique from anyone. It was a bit disappointing, albeit entertaining, just due to the presence of the legendary Hedgehog. | |
|
||
| 02-14-12 06:22pm - 4695 days | #2 | |
|
pat362 (0)
Active User  Posts: 3,575 Registered: Jan 23, '07 Location: canada |
^I'm sure there's an audience for those type of debate but I find them a waste of time because you have 2 groups with diametrically opposed points of view using the same old arguments and each has it's own merrit and neither is going to sway one person to their point of view. Long live the Brown Coats. | |
|
||
| 02-14-12 10:01pm - 4695 days | #3 | |
|
turboshaft (0)
Active User Posts: 1,958 Registered: Apr 01, '08 |
I agree, and these types of debates are probably more about attracting crowds than settling any argument (whether such a thing really exists outside of the "experts"). That and I'm not taking anything too seriously from a school that graduated George W. Bush (or John Kerry, if you like).  "It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hardcore Commie works." - Gen. Jack D. Rippper, Dr. Stranglove | |
|
||
| 02-14-12 10:11pm - 4695 days | #4 | |
|
anyonebutme (0)
Active User  Posts: 294 Registered: Aug 23, '09 |
Porn is a very complex business, with a lot of varied perspectives, and the interactions between most everyone in the business stay very much at a superficial level. Take for example, the average pro NFL player earns $1.9 million per year, and 78% of those athletes file for bankruptcy within two years of retirement - add on top of that the new findings on the long-term health effects of concussions that have been given large scrutiny the past few years. The question "How is being paid $1,000 for a couple of hours performing on a set any more exploitive than a single mother of three working for $7.20 flipping burgers at McDonalds?" is not a question that can be conclusively determined within the span of 3 seconds, which I suspect is probably about how long most people spend on this topic  The only real truth in the porn business is that every girl has a unique experience. Edited on Feb 14, 2012, 10:14pm | |
|
||
| 02-14-12 10:24pm - 4695 days | #5 | |
|
turboshaft (0)
Active User Posts: 1,958 Registered: Apr 01, '08 |
This is a good question, but you have to remember we're in a country where thoughts seem to matter more than actions. This is why the values crowd will always view a flash of Janet Jackson's bare nipple as more immoral than the level of infant mortality, say, or the very idea of gay marriage as somehow more offensive than continuing to maintain the world's highest known rate of incarceration. I mean really, who cares about children's healthcare or poverty levels when people are fucking on camera for money and nobody's stopping them?!  The regular howls from the anti-porn prudes always remind me of the classic H.L. Mencken quote: "Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy."  "It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hardcore Commie works." - Gen. Jack D. Rippper, Dr. Stranglove | |
|
||
| 02-15-12 07:14am - 4694 days | #6 | |
|
Ed2009 (0)
Suspended Webmaster  Posts: 509 Registered: Sep 12, '09 Location: Wales, UK |
I don't see how the pastor in that debate can rationally claim the moral high ground. He uses 'belief' in a made up entity to control people. That seems blatantly immoral to me. At least the performers are doing it through choice, whereas the pastor uses fear to make his members do what he wants them to. Does anyone else find it scary that people like that are still allowed to persist? Webmaster of StripGameCentral and A Measure of Curiosity. | |
|
||
| 02-15-12 11:03am - 4694 days | #7 | |
|
BubbaGump (0)
Active User Posts: 109 Registered: Jan 08, '12 Location: USA |
I don't think objecting to porn on moral or ethical grounds could be called irrational. Personal morals and ethics are not based on reason. If I see something I find morally objectionable, it is never because I reasoned myself into that position. I feel it to be unethical based on my own feelings-perhaps empathy or some vague notion that this just isn't right or I have a sense of guilt or shame. I guess one could argue that framing ones moral views based on religious dogma or edicts- I.e. someone told me I should feel this way and believe this- could be considered irrational. However, I would not label this irrational-perhaps naive and gullible. Religious beliefs can be framed as irrational but it's hard to really get inside anyone's head when it comes to personal judgements so I can't say someone is behaving irrationally by allowing religious views to guide moral convictions. I can consider the religious views themselves irrational, however. But someone objecting to porn for personal moral reasons I would not call any more irrational than my finding someone clubbing a baby seal to be immoral and unethical. I can't prove or disprove my feelings that clubbing a baby seal is wrong. I just feel that it is. I don't object to clubbing baby seals by using the argument that it is irrational to do do. Sexual morals and ethics are a different animal and seem to be all over the board. I guess many people have been fretting over what everyone is doing in their bedroom for many centuries. I think the obsession with the subject comes from the association of sex and nudity with feelings of shame and guilt. Sex is often referred to as 'doing the nasty.' To a large degree these feelings have been born out of our early experiences with Religious ideology. If you are told from a young age that masturbation is inherently wicked and evil and any type of sexual expression outside of marriage is equally nasty, you are obviously going to carry this baggage with you into adulthood. As far as my own convictions, I obviously do not object to porn on moral grounds but do have my limits. When I come across something like max hardcore, those feelings I mentioned kick in and I get that sensation that, 'this just isn't right.' I would not attempt to debate it with anyone nor would I tell someone they are wrong for having a different feeling. I would just not give such an individual my business and would steer clear. As far as porn, in general, however, it's just entertainment and the human body is not evil. As long as the participants are not being coerced or harmed, whatever floats your boat. Edited on Feb 15, 2012, 11:15am | |
|
||
| 02-15-12 11:09am - 4694 days | #8 | |
|
messmer (0)
Disabled User  Posts: 2,582 Registered: Sep 12, '07 Location: Canada |
Even though I heartily dislike the puritanism behind so much of religion I would not accuse any pastor of promoting a belief system solely for control of others. It happens, of course, but I think the vast majority really believe in their God and are not in it for control but because they want to serve God somehow, mostly by loving their neighbor as they love themselves. Look at the Salvation Army and how much good they have done over the years. Most of our universities and hospitals have their roots in Christianity as well. The problem came with people like Calvin and Knox, as only two examples of how NOT to serve God, who felt that having fun was unchristian and passed their warped theology on to others with similar narrow minds. I have never considered human sexuality to be something to be shunned or condemned, and my belief system (not exactly orthodox Christianity) can happily co-exist with Porn if it is something that is done voluntarily and willingly. I get a hell of a lot more outraged when I see dead children in the streets, or even when I look at the blatant hypocrisy of Politicians who preach family values yet manage to practice in secret the very things they publicly condemn. But it is not only the religious that pose a threat. We have a secular (albeit right-wing) Government and at this moment we face a huge threat to our privacy and freedom in Canada with a Bill coming up that would allow Police to obtain all the information from your ISP as to your browsing habits, which web sites you subscribe to, the real name behind your handle, the contents of your emails etc. WITHOUT a warrant. This is done in the name of protecting children from sexual predators. There need not be reasonable suspicion .. any cop could simply decide to go to my ISP and ask for my most private details because he is curious about what I am up to. This by a secular Government and not by a religious organization. Scary times! I wonder if the average Canadian will finally stand up for freedom and say to his Government: "You can't do this, my right to privacy is way too important for me to allow you to do away with it. You have other means to catch pedophiles, you do it every day and if there are suspicions, then get a warrant first. Sorry, I got carried away!  | |
|
||
| 02-15-12 01:09pm - 4694 days | #9 | |
|
Micha (0)
Active User Posts: 321 Registered: Jul 04, '10 Location: san jose ca |
Bubba wrote: If I see something I find morally objectionable, it is never because I reasoned myself into that position. As I think back, I remember using reason to determine these positions and find no need to re-reason that position. They are positions that do not need to be re-thought, they have become part of my emotional package and the response is emotional. Sex for me has always been a friendly activity. Max Hardcore is many things, but he is not friendly. In sex, as in all other things in life, if you do something that leaves a bad taste in your mouth, don't do it again. unless life also gives you water and sugar, your lemonade is gonna suck. | |
|
||
| 02-15-12 02:38pm - 4694 days | #10 | |
|
Ed2009 (0)
Suspended Webmaster Posts: 509 Registered: Sep 12, '09 Location: Wales, UK |
I don't dispute that many religious people do a lot of good, but they don't need to be religious to do good, there's nothing stopping them doing good anyway. I can't help feeling that someone who only does good under duress (out of fear of what will happen to them if they are not good) is really a good person. As to religion, there are enough monsters in this world without creating imaginary ones too. Webmaster of StripGameCentral and A Measure of Curiosity. | |
|
||
| 02-15-12 04:23pm - 4694 days | #11 | |
|
messmer (0)
Disabled User Posts: 2,582 Registered: Sep 12, '07 Location: Canada |
Well, with many, if not most, the desire to do good does not come from fear but from love. If God loves me unconditionally that will motivate me to do the same for others. But now we are on dangerous ground .. arguing or even talking about religion tends to be very divisive and gets many hot under the collar. So let's leave it there.  | |
|
||
| 02-15-12 05:19pm - 4694 days | #12 | |
|
BubbaGump (0)
Active User Posts: 109 Registered: Jan 08, '12 Location: USA |
Yeah, religion usually creates arguments. I just started this topic as I thought it would make for interesting conversation. Really, what I was saying earlier was that regardless of how you have come to define your personal values or ethics, especially with regards to situational stuff like porn, this is unique to each inidivual and reason or argument usually isn't going to change anyone's mind. Everyone is entitled to their thoughts and views and these should be respected. The only issue I would take is if someone were to tell me that their subjective values should also be mine, and they would try to force this on me. I would then take exception. Other than that, I really don't judge anyone differently if they see porn as morally offensive, regardless of why or how they arrived at this view. The fact is, there are many people who do object to it and I don't doubt their sincerity. Some arguments I have seen do have a bit of merit but they are usually references to extreme situations that are not the rule. Quite honestly, when I come across someone like Max Hardcore, it's hard not to side with them on some points. When people take these extreme examples, I can see where they are coming from if they think this is representative of all porn--which is how the spind doctors usually present it. Most of those in the anti-porn movement tend to equate the entire porn industry with extreme hardcore, violence, and degradation. They ignore the bulk of the industry, which is simply softcore, nude glamour, or classic style gonzo porn that is about as violent and degrading as anything racy you would see on Broadcast or Cable TV, minus the full nudity and pentetration. It's not wrong to watch simulated sex, but if you catch site of bare tit, a wardrobe malfunction, or a shot of insertion, it becomes degarding and evil. As far as softcore, it is usually low key enough that if you objected to it, the vast majority of people would likely classify you as holding extremely conservative values tthat would border on prudish. Again, it's fine to pay a Victoria's secret model to pose for a bra ad in a Newspaper. But if you pay here to flash bare tit, it becomes degrading.  Somewhere along the line, Western civiliation tagged the human body as nasty. Indigenous populations in Africa and Australia don't have this problem. I am not into hardcore or extreme stuff myself. Yeah, I have seen some stuff I would subejctively classfiy as a bit nasty and over the top--even degrading. But I just never really cared for hardcore in general. Its the extreme stuff that just hands out ammo to anti-porn industry. Edited on Feb 15, 2012, 05:35pm | |
|
||
| 02-15-12 06:24pm - 4694 days | #13 | |
|
messmer (0)
Disabled User Posts: 2,582 Registered: Sep 12, '07 Location: Canada |
^ Yes, BubbaGump, but there can even be an argument made in favor of the nasty, over the top and "degrading" stuff because for some who live that life style this is the spice of life. Ask anyone seriously involved in BDSM (no, I'm not one of them) and they would tell you that the act of degrading is fun (if they are the dominant partner) or that being degraded is fun (if they are the submissive in the relationship). Who knows what lurks in anyone's background that makes them want to live their lives in a way that the rest of society would find disgusting. And if it is a life style that is chosen willingly, with no one getting hurt, then no one should have the right to interfere. Our former Prime Minister Trudeau had it right when he said: "The State has no business in the bedrooms of a nation!" | |
|
||
| 02-16-12 12:29am - 4693 days | #14 | |
|
turboshaft (0)
Active User Posts: 1,958 Registered: Apr 01, '08 |
If you really want to protect children may I suggest keeping them away from religion. What else lets otherwise seemingly rational people do what amounts to physical and emotional abuse to children? Try justifying things like circumcision, confession, or faith healing outside the authoritarian confines of religion and you'd be rightly considered a criminal suspect or at the very least a serious nutcase. Sorry, I still get angry every time I think of the phrase "Born and raised ______," as if religion is something that can only be acquired by simply being born and raised that way--a poor excuse for terrible parenting.  "It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hardcore Commie works." - Gen. Jack D. Rippper, Dr. Stranglove Edited on Feb 17, 2012, 12:35am (turboshaft: Spelling mistake) | |
|
||
| 02-16-12 08:36am - 4693 days | #15 | |
|
Cybertoad (0)
Disabled User  Posts: 2,158 Registered: Jan 01, '08 Location: Wash |
We are all human, and influenced by who raises us. Pastors and Porn stars are simply a product of upbringing no more no less. And the path they choose is the path they use as structure for their lives. Knowing what is harmful or not is purely speculative and subjective to the people in the discussion. You take 10 specific PU users and have them talk about this. Then take 10 more and talk separate. Obviously the answers will be different based on how we are wired. Elsewhere in the world what we might see as abuse is normal day to day stuff and some may look at us and thing we have lost our minds. Since 2007 | |
|
||
| 02-16-12 12:17pm - 4693 days | #16 | |
|
messmer (0)
Disabled User Posts: 2,582 Registered: Sep 12, '07 Location: Canada |
Since I despise religion because it tends to destroy spirituality I won't argue about its ill effects on some but I think you don't give enough credit to agnostic or atheist humanity which is in ascendancy in the West, with the possible exception of the U.S. (just going by the Republican candidates who seem to do their utmost to woo the extreme religious right)! Someone pointed out that people don't need religion to be good, and they were right, but the reverse is also true, people don't need religion to be evil. | |
|
||
| 02-17-12 12:33am - 4692 days | #17 | |
|
turboshaft (0)
Active User Posts: 1,958 Registered: Apr 01, '08 |
Hey, sometimes I worry that my own neighbors think this about me.  Still, I admit religion going after kids makes sense--hook 'em young and you've got a paying customer for life.  "It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hardcore Commie works." - Gen. Jack D. Rippper, Dr. Stranglove | |
|
||
| 02-17-12 12:37am - 4692 days | #18 | |
|
turboshaft (0)
Active User Posts: 1,958 Registered: Apr 01, '08 |
And I don't think you give enough credit to the near-theocratic religiosity of a huge number of Americans. "It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hardcore Commie works." - Gen. Jack D. Rippper, Dr. Stranglove | |
|
||
| 02-17-12 10:22am - 4692 days | #19 | |
|
messmer (0)
Disabled User Posts: 2,582 Registered: Sep 12, '07 Location: Canada |
I do, and it scares me. The U.S. is still a super power and the thought that you might end up with some religious extreme right-winger at the helm of Government really frightens me. I was talking about the world in general. Look at how many people Stalin alone killed under state sponsored atheism. | |
|
||
| 02-17-12 10:54am - 4692 days | #20 | |
|
Ed2009 (0)
Suspended Webmaster Posts: 509 Registered: Sep 12, '09 Location: Wales, UK |
Don't forget that Stalin was an intensely paranoid criminal (he was a criminal before he entered politics) and was probably going mad in the last year or so, driven so through fear that he was going to be overthrown at any second. Had he got any kind of religious justification behind his choices, he could actually have been even worse. Because he didn't trust anyone or follow any deity idea, he often took ages to make vital decisions and almost lost the war in the process. Don't forget the devout Catholic, who had the full backing of the Catholic church, who executed several million people in death camps, more than half of them Jews, because the Catholic Church was very anti Jew at the time (and still is from what I hear). I would never view someone being religious as being any kind of safety net or guarantee of morality. Webmaster of StripGameCentral and A Measure of Curiosity. | |
|
||
| 02-17-12 11:42am - 4692 days | #21 | |
|
BubbaGump (0)
Active User Posts: 109 Registered: Jan 08, '12 Location: USA |
sdulpicate post sorry Edited on Feb 17, 2012, 11:52am | |
|
||
| 02-17-12 11:51am - 4692 days | #22 | |
|
BubbaGump (0)
Active User Posts: 109 Registered: Jan 08, '12 Location: USA |
I usually try not to think in black and white terms when it comes to religion and politics. I try to judge others the way I would want them to judge me - not by what they believe or what they do in the bedroom but by how they behave towards others. Some people in life can be asshats, ones belief system notwithstanding. I dislike these individuals not because of what they believe or don't believe but because of what they do. Stalin was an asshat. Not because he was an atheist but because he was an amoral sociopath. Someone like Ted Haggard was an asshat, not because of his Christian beliefs but because he was a hypocrite. | |
|
||
| 02-17-12 01:37pm - 4692 days | #23 | |
|
messmer (0)
Disabled User Posts: 2,582 Registered: Sep 12, '07 Location: Canada |
I go along with that statement!  | |
|
||
| 02-17-12 05:35pm - 4692 days | #24 | |
|
Ed2009 (0)
Suspended Webmaster Posts: 509 Registered: Sep 12, '09 Location: Wales, UK |
I partially go along with that, but I would find it difficult to trust someone who publicly admits to religion just as much as I would find it hard to trust someone who believes in Father Christmas. It kind of undermines everything else and is difficult to ignore. I certainly could not vote for anyone who publicly admits to it. Anyway, to get back on topic, I don't think someone can sensibly use their religious views as justification for or against anything. Such a debate would be pointless. Webmaster of StripGameCentral and A Measure of Curiosity. | |
|
||
| 02-17-12 06:05pm - 4692 days | #25 | |
|
BubbaGump (0)
Active User Posts: 109 Registered: Jan 08, '12 Location: USA |
Well, I think trust is something earned, not something granted to an indivudal as a deafult personality trait. In my day-to-day life, whether or not I trust someone has nothing to do with what their personal beliefs are. I never ask, really. Would I trust a Christian more than a Buddhist, Atheist, or Muslim around my unattended wallet? I would trust none of them until I knew them well enough to know they are not asshats. Either one could swipe my wallet. An athiest could swipe my ewallet just as easily as a christian or buddhist. Just because they say they are a chritian or athiest or buddhist doesn't mean they obtain a get out of jail free card with me by default. Once the indivudal shows that they are are decent, law abiding people, and this is shown through their actions, not by their words or professions, I would trust them around my wallet. As far as someone using their personal religious beliefs as justifications to make moral judgements, I don't think it is any more irational than someone who is not religious using their own moral convictions to make decisions. Neither of these positions stem from reason or logic, as I stated earlier. I am not a religious person and I am not defending any belief system. I am an agnostic. I just think we tend to overemphasize the place of reason in human affairs when discussing such issues. As David Hume pointed out, "Reason has never motivated a man to do anything." Never happened. Not to Richard Dawkins or the Pope. Like any other animal, we are creatures of instincts, emotions, or feelings. The only difference is that pur species has been bestowed by nature with the tool of reason. Reason, however is just a tool and it is never the impetus to action. Why do we do anything at all? Lift a fork to our mouth, have sex, give to chairty, debate religion, or decide to respond to posts on a porn users forum? The answer is never reason. We are all irrational creatures. Some people harbor strange religious delusions I cannot accept and do not understand. But that does not make them any less rational. It just makes them deluded. Edited on Feb 17, 2012, 06:15pm | |
|
||
| 02-17-12 06:47pm - 4692 days | #26 | |
|
graymane (0)
Suspended  Posts: 1,411 Registered: Feb 20, '10 Location: Virginia |
You want my opinion why the pastor kept mum throughout what appears to be a debate? Before I get an onslaught of "NO's", please bare in mind the aforementioned is a rhetorical question. To wit: The preacher-man probably wasn't risking ruining one of his church-bought-shoes by trying to fit it into his mouth. As for Ron.... I've seen some of his lame attempts at comedy, pitch-man and public speaking ....suffice to say, he's better off using his legionary status of porn's-grandpa-of-staying- power .... and stay outta any and all intellectual pursuits or positions of depending on his brain. | |
|
||
| 02-17-12 10:48pm - 4692 days | #27 | ||
|
turboshaft (0)
Active User Posts: 1,958 Registered: Apr 01, '08 |
I thought we already tried that with George W. Bush. 
This is a frequent go-to argument against atheism (surprised you didn't drop Nazism in there as well), but true, Stalin was an atheist as was the state officially. However it was also a totalitarian government where Stalin was supreme leader. In other words, no gods in any spiritual sense but Stalin was certainly substituted as one. Sorry, but unquestionable submission to any authority figure--whether it's some bearded genocidal nutcase in the sky or a mustachioed one on earth--just ain't my cup of tea, and it shouldn't be for any self-respecting atheist either. A good modern example is North Korea, an officially atheist state where its sole, unelected leader is the son and grandson of the previous two "atheist" dictators, who people are still forced to worship as some sort of divinely empowered beings. Really, what exactly is the difference between a crazy dictatorship and some creepy religious cult with an authoritarian leader? You can't call yourself an atheist and then expect everybody to believe you are god instead, and I don't endorse nor do I wish for any person to claim to be a god any more than I wish to change my complete lack of belief in any imaginary one. "It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hardcore Commie works." - Gen. Jack D. Rippper, Dr. Stranglove Edited on Feb 17, 2012, 11:18pm | ||
|
|||
| 02-17-12 11:16pm - 4691 days | #28 | |
|
turboshaft (0)
Active User Posts: 1,958 Registered: Apr 01, '08 |
True, but Haggard never had any of his parishioners, or whatever they're called in a megachurch, hauled off to a gulag (that we know of...  ). He was really just more of an insufferable hypocrite who, surprise surprise, wound up in a motel doing crystal meth with a male masseuse/escort/sex partner--but who's to judge what one chooses to do in their free time?  But I will concede that I count myself as extremely lucky in that not only am I living in a part of the world where I can safely choose to abstain from all the religious nonsense but also living in a time when most of my serious religious enemies are televangelists with creepy smiles and expensive suits instead of pope/dictators in charge of my entire existence until the day I die (they would probably also be in charge of the funeral, come to think of it). And even on their worst days and in their most bigoted sermons, the modern Christian megachurchers and moral majoritarians are minor league compared to the crazier Muslims around who seem to be obsessed with destroying any culture or population that doesn't like to spend its time either beating up women or mutilating their genitals.  "It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hardcore Commie works." - Gen. Jack D. Rippper, Dr. Stranglove | |
|
||
| 02-18-12 10:42am - 4691 days | #29 | |
|
messmer (0)
Disabled User Posts: 2,582 Registered: Sep 12, '07 Location: Canada |
Messmer wrote: "The U.S. is still a super power and the thought that you might end up with some religious extreme right-winger at the helm of Government really frightens me."
Yes, and he frightened me, too. And rightly so, as Iraq proved so effectively!  | |
|
||
| 1-29 of 29 Posts | Page 1 |
| Thread Nav : Refresh Page | First Post | Last Post | Porn Forum Home |
|
