Forget Betamax, tell us more about the girlfriend ! 

That's a story for another time.....   

Well, "right now" seems like "another time" to me... especially since you previously said "another time" at "another time"... 

So what your saying is we each gotta give ya $20 ?

 

 

I hope people notice the virtuosity of Inspector's above post in that virtually the entirety of it could be re-written as follows (for this one single sentence example), and the same arguments hold in both cases:

"I wish everyone would place the blame for sex related crimes on the people who commit them and not on porn."

"I wish everyone would place the blame for gun related crimes on the people who commit them and not on guns."

Would you say the same about drugs? Place the blame on people and not on the drugs? Just curious because porn has a number of differences than guns and a better analogy would be drugs in my humble opinion.

Not disagreeing with inspector either but porn has its own issues not comparable to guns. I do think we need to deal with the problems stemming from porn but legal action won't work

First, I wouldn't use the word "blame", as it often has a connotation that the assignment of responsibility is undeserved ("victim blaming", etc.). I would say that individuals are responsible and accountable for their actions. The two legal exceptions are 1. for people of inherent "diminished capacity" (I would not  grant a "diminished capacity" defense to a person who voluntarily consumed some substance that resulted in an altered state, e.g. the common "violent drunk"), and 2. for people "under duress", (e.g. committing a crime while they or a family member is held at gunpoint, etc.).  The "choice" to use drugs/guns/porn/vehicle/etc. and/or commit a crime is that of the individual, and that person should be held wholly responsible for those actions. Attempting to "regulate" the objects rather than the individual who has committed a crime is both prior restraint AND either completely ineffective (see: "Prohibition") or so marginally so as to not possibly warrant the restriction of a right (see: "BEAR arms") and/or individual liberty and freedom. There is no direct causal link, i.e. the object does not cause the individual to commit a crime, and even if it could be proven that there WAS a causal link for some people with some kind of brain disorder that would not warrant all those objects being made illegal for the other 99%+ of the population in a supposedly "free country".

First, I wouldn't use the word "blame", as it often has a connotation that the assignment of responsibility is undeserved ("victim blaming", etc.). I would say that individuals are responsible and accountable for their actions. The two legal exceptions are 1. for people of inherent "diminished capacity" (I would not  grant a "diminished capacity" defense to a person who voluntarily consumed some substance that resulted in an altered state, e.g. the common "violent drunk"), and 2. for people "under duress", (e.g. committing a crime while they or a family member is held at gunpoint, etc.).  The "choice" to use drugs/guns/porn/vehicle/etc. and/or commit a crime is that of the individual, and that person should be held wholly responsible for those actions. Attempting to "regulate" the objects rather than the individual who has committed a crime is both prior restraint AND either completely ineffective (see: "Prohibition") or so marginally so as to not possibly warrant the restriction of a right (see: "BEAR arms") and/or individual liberty and freedom. There is no direct causal link, i.e. the object does not cause the individual to commit a crime, and even if it could be proven that there WAS a causal link for some people with some kind of brain disorder that would not warrant all those objects being made illegal for the other 99%+ of the population in a supposedly "free country".

I just wanted to make the distinction because of how addiction actually affects brain chemistry while gun ownership does not.

Really? Haven't you seen people drooling at guns shows and gun stores and zombie-like voicing the cliche "Don't tell the wife..."? On a serious note, "addiction" is a very highly debated concept, with some people claiming people can be "addicted" to reading on the internet or soda or meditation, etc. No matter what one is "addicted" to (or not), the commission of a crime is a "choice" for which a person must be held accountable, otherwise, no one is responsible for anything, because there will always be a "reason"/"mitigating circumstance" they couldn't help themselves (poor upbringing, childhood neglect, "learning disabilities", etc., etc., etc.). You know, pretty much how "progressives" now view things. Everyone will be "treated" for their "problem", but will be immune from "punishment" because they (we) are all helpless cogs in the big bad stream of harsh life... no one can really "help" what they do. You know, like politicians "addicted" to power.

Society has decided to make certain drugs illegal because of how it affects the brain, the health benefits, and because of bad decisions people make when using the drug.

That's a lie. A total lie. Compare all the scientific data from quality studies regarding the "affects on the brain, the health benefits" etc. of alcohol and cannabis (for instance) and tell me what society has done for what reasons. If you have shred of honesty in your answer you will completely refute your claim. (The exact same arguments apply in the case of tocacco vs. "vaping" (See: "A Billion Lives"))

A similar argument can be made against pornography no trying to control pornography in the same way you would drugs is not only more difficult but runs into First Amendment issues.

Yeah, and it would be a similarly false argument, which is mere (usually religious-based) morality masquerading as bogus "scientific research". How long have "some people" preached against the evils of sexually explicit material, only to be publically revealed that they were more "perverted" than the people they preached against? It's like a really bad joke... it'd be laughable except they exploited so many people in course of their "careers". Do I need to name names?

Some believe that instead of criminalizing drugs we need to focus on treatment and education. I think we need the same for pornography because simply trying to outlaw it would do nothing. You have to change the end user

Sure. Good luck with that. Probably be a bill in the legislature next year creating government centers for the mandatory treatment of "addiction" to "porn", so we can "change" those "end users" (See: "A Clockwork Orange").

Really? Haven't you seen people drooling at guns shows and gun stores and zombie-like voicing the cliche "Don't tell the wife..."? On a serious note, "addiction" is a very highly debated concept, with some people claiming people can be "addicted" to reading on the internet or soda or meditation, etc. No matter what one is "addicted" to (or not), the commission of a crime is a "choice" for which a person must be held accountable, otherwise, no one is responsible for anything, because there will always be a "reason"/"mitigating circumstance" they couldn't help themselves (poor upbringing, childhood neglect, "learning disabilities", etc., etc., etc.). You know, pretty much how "progressives" now view things. Everyone will be "treated" for their "problem", but will be immune from "punishment" because they (we) are all helpless cogs in the big bad stream of harsh life... no one can really "help" what they do. You know, like politicians "addicted" to power.

That's a lie. A total lie. Compare all the scientific data from quality studies regarding the "affects on the brain, the health benefits" etc. of alcohol and cannabis (for instance) and tell me what society has done for what reasons. If you have shred of honesty in your answer you will completely refute your claim. (The exact same arguments apply in the case of tocacco vs. "vaping" (See: "A Billion Lives"))

Yeah, and it would be a similarly false argument, which is mere (usually religious-based) morality masquerading as bogus "scientific research". How long have "some people" preached against the evils of sexually explicit material, only to be publically revealed that they were more "perverted" than the people they preached against? It's like a really bad joke... it'd be laughable except they exploited so many people in course of their "careers". Do I need to name names?

Sure. Good luck with that. Probably be a bill in the legislature next year creating government centers for the mandatory treatment of "addiction" to "porn", so we can "change" those "end users" (See: "A Clockwork Orange").

There is science to addiction, it is studied medically.

You might as well say "There is science to anthropogenic global climate change, it is studied climatologically" or "There is science to "gun violence prevention", it is studied medically". My point is that not all "science" is equal, and a LOT of it is "advocacy research" wherein the "scientists" apply for grants and know that if their "research" provides certain kinds of "results" they will continue to receive grants, otherwise, not so much. If you think that isn't true, well, you're living in a dream world. And "addiction research" is one of those fields. From what I've read, the total massed "scientific" knowledge regarding "addiction" and "treatment" for it has resulted in such scientific treatments being equally as "effective" as people quitting on their own. How can that be "science"?

There is of course room for debate on where you draw the line on what is considered addiction and what isn't but I am not trying to get into that.

Because if you did, you'd have to admit that the whole concept of "addiction", and how it is applied, and how it is "treated" "scientifically" is bogus. There is no agreement ("consensus") on exactly what addiction is, nor how to "treat" it. See: Liberty University's new "digital addiction detox center".

I fully agree that ultimately incomes down to personal choice. Some people are dealt a worse hand in life and may have more difficulty in resisting the desire to do wrong but as you said it is their choice. The idea with drug treatment though is that you help someone develop tools to overcome the addictive traits. As I have heard many times over, treatment never works if someone doesn't want it to work.

Yes, of course. The corollary that you fail to see, as borne out by the statistics is that when someone DOES want to quit, they can quit on their own just as effectively as when they are under "scientific" treatment.

I am not sure what part of my statement you are considering a lie.

That's very simple. Here's your quote (emphasis mine): "Society has decided to make certain drugs illegal because of how it affects the brain, the health benefits, and because of bad decisions people make when using the drug." You didn't say "some of the reasons", you clearly stated that the reasons certain drugs are illegal is because of their physical and psychological/social consequences, and nothing could be further from the truth. Again, see: alcohol and cannibis, tobacco and vaping, etc.). Those medical/psychological/social cost/benefit reasons are NOT how those decisions are made by lawmakers, and anyone who claims they are is lying.

I generalized in that statement to combine multiple reasons that go into the justification for banning a substance. I am not saying that they apply universally to all drugs nor am I saying that there are no other factors included. Yes we can throw politics and such in there, and you would be right, but my point was never to debate decisions to criminalize certain drugs, only to point out that society has decided to make it illegal. Not making any judgement there. Now as for the science I am not sure what you are getting at. I doubt you are suggesting there is no scientific proof to show that drugs (generally speaking) are harmful to the body/brain but not sure what scientific data you are requesting.

Some people think sugar is a "drug" that is enormously harmful to individuals and has huge costs to society and have scientific evidence to support that claim re brain chemistry and total body physiology and thus conclude that it should be banned except as "naturally occurring" in the natural amounts in whole foods. With enough money and/or "enthusiasm", scientific justification for a LOT of substances being harmful can be confirmed by "research". You seem either very naive about that fact, or are deliberately avoiding the flaws in your arguments regarding the justifications for treating certain "addictive" objects/substances in the variety of ways they are or aren't treated.

There is a daily large body of evidence to support that pornography is harmful, it is not just some trumped up religious value.

You mean the same way video games are harmful? Or watching TV is harmful? Or exercising "too much" is harmful? Who funded the studies that you are basing your conclusions upon? What journals were those studies published in? Please provide links to what you believe are the three strongest studies proving that "pornography" is harmful.

In fact you will find christians and some groups of feminism on the same side of this issue.

Yeah, except for completely different and unrelated reasons. The christians do so because they think they have some exclusive access to the pipeline to the creator of the universe who tells them what is good and bad  and wants them to impose that upon everyone else who may not share their "insight and knowledge". The "feminists" do so (mostly) because they believe it "exploits women", and that even though one of the major tenets of feminism is that women are fully equal, free, intelligent, autonomous beings, that these women in porn, 99%+ of whom are there claiming they are exercising the intelligence and autonomy in choosing to earn a living doing porn, are really too stupid and brainwashed to know that they are being exploited by our misogynist society. The feminists would apply the same argument to most of the arguments made by many christians about the "proper roles" of women in society. And even if everyone in the world agreed that porn is evil and bad and made people do bad things, if they were all wrong and basing their opinions on bogus research or holy books or faulty philosophies, well, they'd all be wrong.

And no, I am not just basing this on something I heard in church. I have done a decent bit of reading on the subject since college and it is most certainly not bogus. I will leave it at that for now otherwise it might derail the topic into a porn debate.

Never said you were doing anything based on anything at all, including church attendance. But if you really have evidence that porn causes people to do bad things to other people, then you would support the legislation that is being proposed all across the country, almost exclusively by Republicans, to block people form accessing it, and maybe even support their hypocrisy in making the law to prevent such harm allow people to be harmed by the porn-crazed merely paying a $20 fee. Show me your "scientific" evidence that porn causes people to harm people. Then show me the evidence that people who do harm after viewing porn won't pay a $20 fee to overcome the inability to view porn and then harm people. Then show me the evidence that the people proposing this legislation are not 1. liars, and/or 2. hypocrites, and/or 3. stupid. I also note that you had no comment on the many christian religious/political leaders who have crusaded against porn and/or homosexuality only to have been discovered to be porn/prostitution "addicts" or homosexuals.

Good luck with trying to treat drug addiction? I am not taking a political side on that issue though it does seem we have a problem with our justice system and rehabilitation so I am willing to consider all options.

Considering the recidivism rate (and I suspect that the small percent that aren't recidivists are most likely those convicted of non-violent "drug crimes" (i.e. possession/use) or people who have become more circumspect or skilled in committing their crimes), I think most of us know how "rehabilitation" "works".

I want to add something to what is being discussed.

Being addicted is a choice. Addiction does not mean you cannot stop. It means one makes a choice not to stop. Addiction is medically studied but it is meaningless after you know and understand it is a lifestyle choice. The addicted person chooses to start, and chooses to continue, and if they want, chooses to quit. It makes no difference if it is a physical or psychological addiction or both. Granted, being addicted makes it tough to stop. But again, until one makes the decision to stop they are making the decision to continue with their addiction. Being addicted does not take away one's choice to stop being addicted nor does it take away the fact that one chooses to stay addicted.

No matter what the medical community lies and says to those of you who feel being addicted is a medical condition, it is still ones choice to start, continue and stop.

I've lived with addiction in my family my whole life.  I've heard it stated some people have "an addiction-prone personality".  Today it would be stated they have an obsessive-compulsive tendency.  Just like gambling, there are "reward" centers in the brain that give one a good feeling when they win.  They become addicted to that feeling and it becomes something the continue to seek, often to the detriment of other aspects of life, like paying bills or taking care of the family. 

Alcohol and drugs become an easy "vacation" from the stresses of life.  They don't fix the things that cause stress, but they mask the feelings of stress and make you feel happy for a short time.

Those are psychological addictions which may be tied to the physiological release of chemicals in the brain that create pleasure. 

Add to that the physical addiction where you no longer feel good while taking the drug, but you feel bad if you don't.

You have to recognize that you're addicted and need to stop before a choice can be made.  Then you need the willpower and maybe even medical assistance to get past the withdrawal and stop the addictive behavior.

Porn addiction is 100% psychological.  The real question is, were you already a perv before you started craving porn, or did porn make you a perv? Just like video games don't make people serial killers, however serial killers may become obsessed with playing violent video games.

Take my word for it. The whole time you are addicted, you know it. You recognize it the first day you think you can't go a day without a hit. And depending on the drug or alcohol, it does not take very long. The thing is you don't want to admit it and will will lie and deceive to make sure no one else knows it. That is the part that takes the longest. It may take a time or two or a few weeks or months to become addicted. But you know, believe me you know it once you cannot do without it. Overcoming the fear and taking control of your life is what takes years.

I know from personal experience.

How does that relate to porn?  Is addiction to porn the same as a substance addiction?

Sorry, never been addicted to porn. But if it is anything like being psychologically addicted to pot, which is not physically addicting, I feel it is a lot easier to break the addiction. If you want to. I have an old friend who is addicted to porn. I mentioned him in an earlier post. He probably spends several hours a night watching and downloading. It's sad because he finally got a girlfriend after like 20 years and the porn was more important to him. She broke up with him. He admitted to me that one night when he called me up drunk and crying that he lost her because he chose the porn over her. Those were his words. He chose... No matter how you look at it, the person knows when it is getting out of hand (pun intended). When they start planning their day around their addiction, when they stop doing their normal routine in order to fulfill their addiction, when they push away their old family and friends to fulfill their addiction, they know. They may not want to admit it, but they know. They like to play the victim until they come clean. Then you'll hear the reality of it.

As a side note, Flapp, you might enjoy this since you are into the IT world. My friend and I worked together at a very well known networking company. We were developing products for the SAN/NAS industry so we had access to hundreds of gigabytes worth of hard drive space. We worked in the software and hardware development laboratory. We each probably had 15 or 20 computers at our disposal at any one time. He set up 2 or 3 of his development machines to down load porn pretty much 12 hours a night. When he got home he would download and erase everything from his machines. So one night he ran out of room on all his machines and decided to use the company's  anonymous FTP site to store his porn on. So he gets home and forgets to download and erase the porn from the FTP site. And the next morning the IT admin was trying to figure out why the FTP partition was so full. Fortunately, my friend encrypted and password protected the files (changed names as well) and uploaded the porn from one of the development machines so he covered his tracks. Except for one file which had to do with something gross that I won't get into. The IT admin was puzzled over that one for many months. Then one day the IT admin found out that one of the company Windows hard drives had a secret hidden Linux partition on it. And it was filled with porn. Turns out my friend hacked into one the company servers and installed hidden Linux partition on it. Only way the IT admin found out is he just installed (going to make up these numbers) a 10 GB hard drive without partitions and the next morning it only had 7 GB available. My friend never got caught. 

An epidemic of federal employees watching pornography on government computers during work hours has gotten so out of
control that legislation has been introduced in Congress to contain the embarrassing crisis.

Porn has for years been part of the job at some government agencies and in fact a number of federal audits have long
documented the enraging details of how our tax dollars are being wasted. Judicial Watch has also reported on this for
years, especially the porn crisis at the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the agency charged with policing
the nation’s financial industry. While the economy crumbled, the SEC was preoccupied with pornography. In fact, high-ranking
managers at the agency regularly spent work hours gawking at pornography web sites on their government computers
while the country’s financial system collapsed.

We’re talking dozens of SEC employees, including senior officers with lucrative six-figure salaries viewing explicit images
on their agency computers during work hours. One senior attorney at the SEC headquarters in Washington D.C. spent
up to eight hours a day accessing internet porn. When his government computer ran out of file space, he downloaded
pornographic images on compact discs and stored them in boxes in his office. One agency accountant tried to access
porn websites 16,000 times in one month and got busted with hundreds of pornographic images on her computer hard
drive. Another SEC accountant used his government computer to upload his own sexually explicit videos onto various
porn websites that he frequented during business hours.

Lots and lots of stories like that in government and military.  We had a company employee become a victim of a porn addict.  The porn perv used this PC at night alone to download porn -- a PC not assigned to him in case anyone discovered it.  The guy left the organization before the investigation started.  My co-worker was the assignee of the PC the perv was using!  Once they told him the dates and times of the downloads, he knew who the culprit was.

The drive held about 10GB of pictures and videos.  Never heard if anything ever happened to the porn junkie.

Then there's this:

http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2015/02/law-introduced-curb-porn-crisis-govt-agencies/

I am not surprised. What does surprise me is the entirety of the problem. It's disgusting to me that so many government employees don't have the integrity to not look at porn at work using computers paid for by the taxpayer. Sick. Don't get me wrong, I'm not against someone watching porn if that is what they choose to do. But to do this during work hours, at the office on government computers shows a total lack of integrity on the part of the employees, the management, the unions and ultimately the politicians that know about it and don't do anything about it. Can you say Obama and Hillary?

I know similar things occur at the local level here.