102. tckrulak - May 21, 1999 - 9:07 AM PT
ChristinO:
"Were you aware that child molesters often keep pictures of children that are as innocuous as ads from the Sears catalogue? Should we ban all pictures of children because some sicko might get off on it? Should our entire society live like criminals just because some of us are?"
I didn't even mention children, but to address your point, I have no problem w/ Sears ads. Almost anything can be twisted into something sick if someone wants to get a thrill. Anyhow, I don't see anything in my post that suggests that we should live like criminals.
103. tckrulak - May 21, 1999 - 9:09 AM PT
Incog:
"But I'm not even sure you have to "originally" have a screw loose before exposure to things like this degenerate you."
Upon further reflection, I agree.
104. Jenerator - May 21, 1999 - 9:14 AM PT
Incog,
I saw it. I've had people constantly interrupting my fraying this morning. Since I want to keep it private, I'm keeping it short. That way, no one will see what we're talking about (pornography's influence/predators/serial killers).
105. incognito - May 21, 1999 - 9:18 AM PT
understood jenerator, just keep it in mind as you have already guessed that i don't take too kindly to people blowing off my questions!
ChristinO I've seen the "I have nude pictures of my kids so does that mean I'm sick or a criminal?" line of reasoning before. I think it tends to go too far and *can* be used to argue that we must therefore allow *ALL* forms of nudity no matter how graphic or deviant. Not saying you are using it this way, just pointing out an observation!
106. ChristinO - May 21, 1999 - 9:37 AM PT
Trckulak,
My point is exactly that: "Almost anything can be twisted into something sick if someone wants to get a thrill." It doesn't have to be pornography. It can be a kitchen garbage disposal. The object of obsession is not at fault. Were it to be removed it would simply be replaced by something else. The problem is the obsessive tendency.
107. ChristinO - May 21, 1999 - 9:39 AM PT
Incog,
Which post of mine are you referring to? I have not mentioned family photos of naked children.
108. incognito - May 21, 1999 - 9:41 AM PT
There is a small irony in all of this. I grew up in a very strict family where very little "worldly" activity was allowed. I have had friends, though, that grew up where the adage "anything goes" was more the norm.
Some of these friends have become Christians later in life and when we talk about what is proper or improper to allow in our lives, I am told that because I led a "sheltered" life that I don't have a clear grasp of reality.
But the opposite is the case. I have seen how allowing small "harmless" things in our lives can ruin us, whereas my friends grew up never having to worry about being "ruined." Their lives were already in shambles and it was the norm. But from my "sheltered" perspective, I have seen dozens of times how well-meaning people allow things into their lives that erode relationships and trust, and the whole time they are chastising me for being too sheltered in my thinking, when I have seen these things destroy people so many times before.
So I tend almost always toward the very strict side, where you don't need to worry about the slippery slope because you aren't even flirting with it.
109. incognito - May 21, 1999 - 9:42 AM PT
"Since I want to keep it private, I'm keeping it short. That way, no one will see what we're talking about (pornography's influence/predators/serial killers)."
Geez I hope your boss didn't walk by when you were typing that "excessive absenteeism due to chronic masturbastion" stuff!
ChristinO sorry Sears photos and family pics were melded together in my mind!
110. tckrulak - May 21, 1999 - 9:55 AM PT
ChristinO:
"It doesn't have to be pornography. It can be a kitchen garbage disposal. The object of obsession is not at fault. Were it to be removed it would simply be replaced by something else. The problem is the obsessive tendency."
Of course the "object of obsession" is not "at fault." The criminal is. I have not been calling for a ban on porno! But to suggest that pornography plays no role in the overwhelming majority of sexual crimes is ridiculous! Pornography is not morally neutral like a garbage disposal. Porno a) degrades women (which I would think would be something you would be outraged about, but maybe you are involved in the industry so that could be a reason for your defense of the medium), b) the hard-core stuff depicts S&M and even deaths that certainly desensitize a person towards killing and the abusing of women. I would certainly agree that the "innocuous" stuff like Playboy can be the first step down a slippery slope.
111. tckrulak - May 21, 1999 - 9:56 AM PT
The last sentence should be "I certainly agree *with Incog*...
112. CharlieL - May 21, 1999 - 10:11 AM PT
Message #97 - ""Porn is not a causal factor in sexual crime."
Are you serious? Show me a sexual criminal who is NOT into porno. Seriously, I don't think you could do it."
Show me an alcoholic who didn't drink milk as a child. Seriously, I don't think you could do it.
Does that mean that milk leads inevitably to alcoholism?
Same argument, same fallacy.
113. tckrulak - May 21, 1999 - 10:28 AM PT
CharlieL:
"Show me an alcoholic who didn't drink milk as a child. Seriously, I don't think you could do it.
Does that mean that milk leads inevitably to alcoholism?
Same argument, same fallacy."
I am not saying that porno is the *only* reason one becomes a sexual criminal, but it *obviously* plays some sort of role when nearly 100% of sexual criminals that I have heard of are into pornography. Might there be some who are not? Sure, but I would bet my paycheck that 99% of them are into porno to some degree or other. There is a link. Closing your eyes, clicking your heels, and saying "Porno is good, porno is good, porno is good" does not make it so.
114. incognito - May 21, 1999 - 10:30 AM PT
I don't think attempting to link milk and alcoholism is quite as powerful an argument as linking porno to sex crimes!
115. AzureNW - May 21, 1999 - 2:16 PM PT
It's significant that even in a state population where non-whites are the majority, the recent high-school shooting in Georgia appears to have been at a school that was almost entirely white and the perpetrator was a middle-class white kid from a nice family. Again.
116. AzureNW - May 21, 1999 - 2:19 PM PT
The perpetrators of these kinds of crimes are not neglected and abused children exposed to all kinds of horrible images. They are *consistently* well-cared for, middle-class boys from nice families.
117. AzureNW - May 21, 1999 - 2:21 PM PT
Maybe the answer is to stamp out white middle-class family values.
118. rickc2000 - May 21, 1999 - 2:25 PM PT
I was recently offered the opportunity to purchase tickets for a series of stage performances that featured, among other things, murders, rapes, suicides, sexual seduction, dismemberment, incest, burial alive, adolesent sex, drug and alchohol abuse, female disrobment to music, adultery, lots of infidelities, and many wore crimes and unwholesome acts. At first I waas shocked. But then I decided to by the season tickets to the opera anyway.
119. ChristinO - May 21, 1999 - 2:30 PM PT
"But to suggest that pornography plays no role in the overwhelming majority of sexual crimes is ridiculous!"
I have not made any such suggestion. I have said repeatedly that sexual predators are drawn to graphic and violent pornography. I even went so far as to say they might be pre-empted or discovered by tracking such. Of course I rescinded this proposal because it's more important to me that we not live in constant fear of Big Brother.
What I have said and what government commissions have found is that pornography does not CAUSE sex crimes or MAKE sexual predators. Mass consuption of violent pornography can be a WARNING SIGN of a larger disorder.
Not all pornography is degrading. I'm not involved in the industry but I have friends who are to some degree. I've seen more pornographic materials than my mother but likely less than my brother. You seem a bit hysterical and uniformed on the reality of the subject.
120. rickc2000 - May 21, 1999 - 2:32 PM PT
re message 113, Another side of the "sex criminals are all into porno" argument is that porno provides a more "socially acceptable" outlet for people who might commit sex crimes if the porno was not available.
The issue is very complex. While porno may degrade women, ect. one cannot ignore the free speech issues. It is often said that the speech that needs to be protected most is that which is most upsetting to the mainstream of society.
121. tckrulak - May 21, 1999 - 2:36 PM PT
"Not all pornography is degrading."
Please, enlighten us. What are some examples of pornography that that are uplifting to women? The purpose of porno is to find sexual gratification or tittilation to some degree by eyeing a naked body. This makes the subject just a piece of meat to be used and discarded (in a fashion) by the viewer. Some other factors may come in to play from the subject's POV, but when one boils it down that is the nature of porno. I do not find that to be anything but degrading to the subject.
122. Jenerator - May 21, 1999 - 2:39 PM PT
tckrulak,
Some feminists believe that pornography is not exploitative because it allows the woman to CHOOSE to show her naked body in sexually explicit ways.
Yikes!
123. tckrulak - May 21, 1999 - 2:43 PM PT
Jen:
Gotcha! IMO, whether they believe it to be degrading or not has no bearing on whether it *is* or is not degrading. But what would I know, I'm just "hysterical and uninformed." :-)
124. ChristinO - May 21, 1999 - 5:43 PM PT
Tckrulak,,
"What are some examples of pornography that that are uplifting to women?"
The first thing that comes to mind is any of the films produced by Candida Royale. They are made specifically for a female audience with an eye toward female preference in erotica---more story-line, no face covered in semen shots and better music. Same lousy acting and low production quality.
The Red Shoe Diaries also come to mind. They are a soft-core production of the cable chanel Showtime and are a big hit with women.
"The purpose of porno is to find sexual gratification or tittilation to some degree by eyeing a naked body."
So if they did it with their clothes on it would be okay with you? There's plenty of video out there like that. The purpose of pornography is to sexually stimulate the viewer through whatever means be it nudity or suggestion or explicit sex.
"This makes the subject just a piece of meat to be used and discarded (in a fashion) by the viewer."
If it were only about being a piece of meat they wouldn't have story-lines at all. The camera would turn on, the couple would already be naked and they'd "perform" until the man climaxed and then it would be over. There certainly wouldn't be fan clubs for porn stars. There wouldn't BE stars because it wouldn't matter who they were.
Degradation is not decided just by the viewer but also by the recipient. I work in an office full of women who don't find it in the least degrading to be treated like idiot children while the boss blusters around making everyone's work-load heavier through his sheer stupidity. I find it degrading as hell.
You would likely view Annie Sprinkle's performance art as degrading to women. She feels exalted and special and I happen to agree with her even though it is not something I would be comfortable doing myself.
cont.
125. ChristinO - May 21, 1999 - 5:44 PM PT
cont.
I see that you agree with Incog's easier safer road of just labeling it all dangerous and filthy and not to be considered and that's fine for you, but you can hardly expect to be taken seriously on a subject that you don't appear to have had any experience with.
How much hardcore pornography have you seen? Any? Do you know the difference between hardcore and S&M or are you parroting what you've been told because it sounds plausible? Or is it that you fear that any exposure to any of this is going to grab you by the short and curlies and hurl you down the road to depravity?
126. cllrdr - May 21, 1999 - 5:47 PM PT
Remember Patsy on "AbFab"?:
"What do you mean 'sexist'? *She's* the one holding the whip!"
127. AuNaturel - May 21, 1999 - 9:58 PM PT
"While porno may degrade women, ect. one cannot ignore the free speech issues."
Ignoring free speech issues is traditional when one disagrees with the speech. It's how the right and the left both do things.
128. AuNaturel - May 21, 1999 - 10:14 PM PT
"Not all pornography is degrading."
tckrulak:
"Please, enlighten us. What are some examples of pornography that that are uplifting to women?"
Now that is a fast turn around? You shift the debate from "not degrading" to "uplifting" in a single sentence. But try this on:
Pornography is uplifting if one walks away with a better understanding of life than one had before viewing it. It is uplifting if it reinforces values or feelings that make a positive contribution to life. It can be uplifting if all it does is to cause one to think.
Lady Chatterly's Lover is certainly poronography. Shakespear in Love is pornography. American Gigolo is pornography and so is Pretty Woman. (Literally. The greek derivation of "pornography" is writing about whores.) So is Titanic. The list could go on and on. Every one of these movies contains a powerful sexual theme. Every one of these sexual themes are portrayed in much greater explicitness than the plot requires for the precise reason that we wish to be titilated. Every one of these movies is uplifting and shows strong admirable females.
Go crawl back into the woodwork.
129. AuNaturel - May 21, 1999 - 10:19 PM PT
"The purpose of porno is to find sexual gratification or tittilation to some degree by eyeing a naked body. This makes the subject just a piece of meat to be used and discarded (in a fashion) by the viewer."
The purpose of film is to provide a vicarious experience. It is your own insecurities and hangups that make you see sex as degrading while other vicarious experiences as not.
130. AuNaturel - May 21, 1999 - 10:21 PM PT
"IMO, whether they believe it to be degrading or not has no bearing on whether it *is* or is not degrading. But what would I know, I'm just "hysterical and uninformed."
Sole guardian of the definition of degradation, are we now? And what is degradation other than subjective belief and opinion?
You're right about the hysterical part though.
131. ptboya - May 22, 1999 - 11:48 AM PT
Those people now crawling out of the woodwork claiming that this, that and the other sub-culture is responsible for violence in the US would do well to look at those sub-cultures in other countries.
Violent video games…one of the causes-du-jour. Very big in Japan. In fact many of the games' software was written in Japan. But where's the violence in Japan?
Violent movies. This purported cause doesn't wash. Examine those countries where violent movies have wide currency. The level of violence doesn't correlate with the level of viewing.
Pornography…Bah! Humbug! Porno is widely consumed in Japan. I repeat…where's the violence in Japan? Well it does exist, but it is less lethal because access to lethal weaponry is controlled.
Guns are the problem. Access is barely monitored. Hells bells, you need a license to have a fucking dog, where's the sense in this laissez-faire treatment of weaponry? Do you die-hard NRA types truly believe there is no level of gun technology that should be restricted? What about rapid fire cluster bullets…my invention…is that ok? How about bullets that are mini-bomblets…is that cool? Is there no line you NRA types are willing to draw? Are you so concerned about your putative right that you would assert that (as one fraygrant did in a previous thread) you are willing to concede 40,000 deaths/year (his figure) to protect that right. We put up with vehicular deaths you say, why not gun deaths?
Is there no line you NRA types are willing to draw?
132. ptboya - May 22, 1999 - 11:49 AM PT
The problem is a willful misreading of the Bill Of Rights-Article IV
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
That pairing of the *need to have a well-regulated militia* with *the right to bear arms* has been noted by the US Supreme Court. The right to bear arms is not absolute legal doctrine but is, or has been, absolute political doctrine. It is well past time to get sensible about controlling lethal weaponry in the US.
133. judithathome - May 22, 1999 - 2:00 PM PT
ptboya:
Good posts...
134. AuNaturel - May 22, 1999 - 6:44 PM PT
"The problem is a willful misreading of the Bill Of Rights-Article IV"
Wrong article. You are also the one willfully misreading it.
135. stamper - May 22, 1999 - 9:35 PM PT
ptboya
Let me through the porcupine back to you. You are convinced that since Japan and other countries have pornography and violent video games but don't have the violence America has it must be the guns. Right, have i stated your argument correctly?
What if i could name two countries where people are well armed and yet do not have the violence we have against there own people? O.K. Isreal and Switzerland. You see, btboya, guns have been common as dust in America for longer that you have been alive, unless you are the 2,000 year old man, and yet it is only the last ten years we been having these school shootings.
You rant, "Where do you draw the line?" Could you please state clearly where you think the line should be drawn? Would you prohibit Daisy Rifels?
136. cllrdr - May 22, 1999 - 9:44 PM PT
Oh get real, stamper. There weren't any Daisy Rifles at Littleton.
137. incognito - May 22, 1999 - 9:45 PM PT
stamper the quality of your post is amazing, no spelling errors, no discombobulated sentences. It is almost as if you have been transformed!
What happened? :-)
138. stamper - May 22, 1999 - 9:52 PM PT
incognito
I am glad you noticed that. I have decided that if i am going to make it on the Fray i must bend to your rules and preview every post. If i use a word i'm not sure how to spell i must look it up if i can. I don't think it speaks much to the thought, but it's like the saying, "When in rome do as the Romans do."
It seems i got off on the wrong foot and am trying to do better. But if i get excited about something i am lible to fall back to my natural way of speaking. I never was a great speller.
139. stamper - May 22, 1999 - 10:03 PM PT
cllrdr
Before i make a comment can i ask you about your name? Now some names i look up in the dictionary, like incognito=with the real identity concealed. But your name is not in the dictionary and i do believe that English words must have at least one vowel. I was playing scrable once with Dolly and she made the word QYX. I claimed it was not a word because it had no vowel. She claimed y was a vowel if one wanted it to be. Well i settled the discusion. I flipped the board over and sent those little tiles to hell and gone. So much for y being a vowel.
Now what in the world does your post mean in regard to my post. Do you know what a Daisy rifel is? You might put out an eye with one, but that's about it. Littleton was a massacre.
140. AuNaturel - May 22, 1999 - 11:28 PM PT
Incog:
You are incorrect. Stamper did not make an entire post without spelling errors. Rifle is correct, rifel is not.
You get the Dan Quayle Golden Potatoe award.
141. AuNaturel - May 22, 1999 - 11:32 PM PT
Incog:
Even given Littleton, the homicide rate on high school campuses was still half this year of what it was last year. This sudden rash of crazed gunslingers is a fashion and will fade when the media gets bored with it.
142. stamper - May 23, 1999 - 12:16 AM PT
Au Naturel
picky, picky, picky!
143. AuNaturel - May 23, 1999 - 1:12 AM PT
WRT the "well regulated militia" phrase, this is from
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. TIMOTHY JOE EMERSON ;
where the RTKBA is recognized clearly as an *individual* right.
"Richard Lee Henry's view that a well regulated militia was the entire armed populace rather than a select body of men was reiterated by proponents to a bill of rights. As “M.T. Cicero” he wrote to “The Citizens of America”:
"Whenever, therefore, the profession of arms becomes a distinct order
in the state . . . the end of the social compact is defeated . . . .
No free government was ever founded, or ever preserved its liberty,
without uniting the characters of the citizen and the soldier in those destined for the defence of the state . . . . Such are A WELL REGULATED MILITIA, [emphasis mine] composed of the freeholders, citizen and husbandman, who take up arms to preserve their property, as individuals, and their rights as freemen.
"HALBROOK, supra at 72 (citing STATE GAZETTE (Charleston), Sept. 8, 1788)."
"Well regulated militia" was a term that meant that everyone who wished to could be armed. For (per George Mason and James Madison) "the militia was the *whole of the people* excepting certain political figures".
I can BURY anyone who wishes to debate the *individual* nature of the RTKBA as enshrined in the Bill of Rights with historical documents and references on the subject. There is no doubt of it. The tired old canard that the 2nd "only authorizes states to organize and arm militias" has exactly zero historical evidence to support it.
144. RyckNelson - May 23, 1999 - 5:39 AM PT
Along with the pop culture of violence is the equivilant pop culture of sex. The pervasiveness of pop culture sex has an overwhelming affect upon me personally. In the context that I am a parent of one child whom has to sift through this very culture. I am admonished by said child when I employ parental understanding by reading YM which my 14 year old is, in my opinion too young to absorb. That is, immature to evaluate the sexual content of the mag.
Why does she even have it, Grandma! The I gotta be hip Grandma! Well, that aside it's water under the bridge.
Now that exposure is done, over ten or so issues, what my response has been is to confound my daughter by actually seeking the mag out and reading it. This is perplexing to her, but mostly confounds her. She thinks it's sacred territory for her to be exposed to. Imagine that.
Well, I do it anyway, I read stories of sex I once read in my earliest twenties, in no other than Penthouse and Playboy. It makes me angry that such explicit sexual portrayments are occuring in teen mags. But, is this exposure undermining us or helping us to know what the teens we're rearing are up against and up to? Complexity is the issue of the day.
Parents wont know unless they read what their kids are reading, listen to what their kids are listening to and doing what their kids are doing. Go to the places they hang at and observe for a bit, NO not when they're there, when they're not! Listen to their music, what's it like, you're not spying or getting hip, well maybe you are, but it's important to get the hype they are exposed to and then wait for opportunities to explore the psyche and ideas evolving in your child.
But, this is what I'm finding overwhelming, so, supportive parents out there what do *you* do or think of all this?
145. RyckNelson - May 23, 1999 - 5:58 AM PT
I found Mr.Weisbergs article explored violence openly and thoughtfully. I don't see it as a slam on Hollywood, it touches on Hollywoods method of evasiveness wrt the issue of the day. Doing it by evaluating the spectrum of violence types.
The article may come accross a bit conservative but, its explanitory tone keeps that from happening for me. Again it drew my attention to types of violence rather than absolute good and bad. IMHO I think this is what makes it a readable article, letting the experiences of the reader evaluate how the context applies to them.
The article does cause sensations of (what do you want me to do?) What can I do. The teen is very much into exploring what the boundries of life are. I would like a sociologist to explore where teen pop culture is at any given year. It's too dynamic because of media. Media is drawing this huge purse string to their collective bussom. It's an enormous problem that media is in effect forcing exposure of violence and sex upon OUR children. They have no stake in that life, they want the dollars. The content of shows like MTV have evolved from the eighties videos to scenes of nearly naked or in some cases naked coeds on spring break.
Don't we have a problem with this? I suppose not. But, every year another coed dies of alcohol overdose and how many of our young ladies are forced into sex or raped? Do we realy know?
146. cllrdr - May 23, 1999 - 7:07 AM PT
Ryck -- The world isn't simply divided into Hollywood "here" and "You and Your Kids" placed "over there." As Wexxford will be only to eager to elucidate, we're less a culture than a market, driven by "market forces." While sexandviolence (it's one word -- I've checked) are labelled "adult" said labelling doesn't forego the interest of other *younger* consumers with a source of income and few defences when it comes to "impulse buys."
Still and all there's the bottom line: Which of the following require bullets in order to operate?
1) Leonardo DiCaprio
2) Marilyn Manson CDs
3) Tech-9's
4) "Doom"
5) Tom Selleck
147. cllrdr - May 23, 1999 - 7:09 AM PT
stamper -- My name is an abbreviation of Cellar Door. These are the words Marcel Duchamp declared were the most beautiful in the English language.
148. RyckNelson - May 23, 1999 - 7:27 AM PT
cllrdr
What of media driven culture? What of media driven consumerism. These are creations of entities, corporations after the consumer dollar. Their motivation isn't without guile. Greed is good as the saying goes. I'm not against the profit needs of the media society, far from it, the entertainment needs I alone posses are far to great. I support media with many of my consumer dollars. It's the disposition of greed and the consumer driven error that I see occuring. Consumer hardly drive their consumption. I say this with immense cynicism and complexity is its rule. There is a state in which consumers are seeing what to buy and not determining what they desire by themselves. Take this pathetic Old Navy crap being spewed upon T.V. airwaves. Drawstring pants indeed, Old Navy tie-dye my ass! It's horrible clothing. It belongs with bell bottoms and sagging. I'm a seventies child so I'm predisposed to hate cloning of these fads, sagging not included.
149. AuNaturel - May 23, 1999 - 8:37 PM PT
"It's an enormous problem that media is in effect forcing exposure of violence and sex upon OUR children."
How forcing? I have an 11 year old daughter and a 6 year old boy. They don't watch a lot of television but what they do watch is mostly Nickelodeon, Discover Channel, PBS and so on. When we go to the movies whatever we see is our free choice.
"content of shows like MTV have evolved from the eighties videos to scenes of nearly naked or in some cases naked coeds on spring break."
I have watched a lot of MTV. I have *never* seen a naked coed or guy on spring break on MTV. I have seen skimpy bikinis, sure. Nothing you don't see on any public beach at any time. What would bother me is depictions of out of control drunkenness or irresponsible behavior. You get some of that, but not as much as one might fear. Both I and my kids prefer VH1 anyhow. You don't like MTV? Its your TV, don't watch it.
Still, in "Daria" MTV has one of the finest shows on televsion. It has me and my 11 year old enthralled.
150. Raskolnikov - May 24, 1999 - 9:16 AM PT
Cellar: Duchamp also thought a shovel hanging from a hook was "art", so I'm not so sure about the quality of his aesthetics...
I have always wondered about your name, though. Good to know the answer.
151. Wombat - May 25, 1999 - 11:59 AM PT
Stamper:
Actually, Switzerland's armed forces are a "well-regulated militia," and the firearm in most residences belongs to the soldier in the house. The weapons are inspected regularly, and God help the soldier who is missing some ammo.
Israel is similar, although there have been more cases of politically-motivated "misuse" (Baruch Goldstein, for one).
Any logical rationale for the second amendment died when the Indians were subjugated toward the end of the 19th Century.
152. AuNaturel - May 25, 1999 - 2:48 PM PT
"Any logical rationale for the second amendment died when the Indians were subjugated toward the end of the 19th Century."
Fine. Then you are welcome to try to repeal. Until then you're stuck with it.
153. AuNaturel - May 25, 1999 - 3:13 PM PT
"Actually, Switzerland's armed forces are a "well-regulated militia,""
In terms of the American Constitution and law, The Swiss would be considered a "select militia". A select militia is one formally organized by the government. The Swiss government merely took this to the point of "selecting" every adult male. Even in this description, the US National Guard doesn't qualify as a select militia since we don't get to keep our guns and ammo at home.
The militia refered to by Lee is the general militia:
"composed of the freeholders, citizen and husbandman, who take up arms to preserve their property, AS INDIVIDUALS, [emphasis mine] and their rights as freemen."
Since the general militia is intended as a counterpoint to the select militia and any standing army that might be formed, their rights are never to be infringed on by the government they are the bulwark against.
Much ado is made about the "Well regulated militia", but the phrase itself is but an explanation of one reason why the rest of the amendment was needed. One might as well say:
"A literate electorate being neccessary to the preservation of a free state the right to keep and read books shall not be infringed."
There was never the slightest question that the right expressed was an individual one. If the founders had meant the 'rights of States to arm militias shall not be infringed" they'd have said that.
154. arkymalarky - May 25, 1999 - 6:39 PM PT
Then how does the word "regulated" apply?
155. AuNaturel - May 25, 1999 - 6:47 PM PT
"Consumer hardly drive their consumption."
Affluence does that. Advertising only lets you know what's out there.
156. AuNaturel - May 25, 1999 - 7:20 PM PT
Armed and trained in the used of their arms. In the general militia one was expected to do this oneself. Per Madison in the Federalst,
"The best to be expected of the most of them is that they be armed."
This is why I have no great problem with the notion of requiring training in the law and safe use of one's weapons. Or that simple safety devices be provided with them. I don't think background checks are particularly effective at separating guns and criminals, but I'll live with them.
I think there is a colorable case that the RTKBA was also intended to apply to personal defense issues. One of the reasons given in the Dred Scott ruling was that Negores freed by escaping to the North would now be able to posess arms and display them in front of current slaves. They could even then form antislavery militias. Later during the 14th amendment debate, part of the rationale for passing was to strike down laws prohibiting blacks from owning weapons.
I get iritable when someone insists that I am a "gun loon" for simply protecting what I consider a right. Unless they conceed that right, I have no reason to believe their ultimate goal isn't confiscation.
157. AuNaturel - May 25, 1999 - 7:26 PM PT
156 was in reply to 154.
158. cllrdr - May 25, 1999 - 7:31 PM PT
Au -- Your children's viewing habits are quite literally the norm today. My Style Consultant, Tiffany, is now 10 years old. One night about a year ago my boyfriend and I were babysitting her. She walked into the aprtment, saw the news on television, and announced (rather grandly as is her wont) "That's for grown-ups. I don't watch that. Can we watch Cartoon Network or Nickeodeon?" We were only too happy to comply.
I think she's typical of a lot of kids today. The stuff coming out of the tube is *overwhelming* them. Cartoons and Nickelodeon are safe (and very welcome) harbor to the Media-weary pre-adolescent.
159. CalGal - May 25, 1999 - 7:35 PM PT
I dunno if anyone is interested, but CoralReef and I beat the trend of this thread by nearly six months in this FrayFilm debate: Children and Violent Movies.
So I thought I'd give us credit for being ahead of the curve.
160. Jenerator - May 26, 1999 - 2:00 PM PT
Au,
Since we were talking about addiction to pornography in here, I thought I'd post the May 10, 1999 issue of Fortune magazine on sexual addiction. It's a different perspective, but it's still interesting.
161. incognito - May 26, 1999 - 2:06 PM PT
Sometimes I'm amazed at what you read Jenerator. "Addicted to Sex?" What do you do, pop in "sex" in a search engine and go surfin'? I hope your boss wasn't looking over your shoulder! ;-)
162. incognito - May 26, 1999 - 2:08 PM PT
9724
163. AuNaturel - May 26, 1999 - 2:10 PM PT
"God help the soldier who is missing some ammo."
Right. The soldier is required to keep a minimum amount of ammo on hand. When he shoots the firearm he has to replenish what he uses. But the Swiss militia members still have the ammunition and weapons immediately on hand and could easily go on a killing spree if they wished. You should research things before talking about them
164. Jenerator - May 26, 1999 - 2:16 PM PT
Incog,
I receive Fortune magazine where I work.
165. incognito - May 26, 1999 - 2:17 PM PT
a likely excuse! :)
9724
166. Jenerator - May 26, 1999 - 2:19 PM PT
Why do you have 9724 on your posts now?
167. incognito - May 26, 1999 - 2:21 PM PT
I don't know
630
168. Jenerator - May 26, 1999 - 2:21 PM PT
They're not on mine.
739
169. incognito - May 26, 1999 - 2:24 PM PT
well then you're blind too, among other things! :-)
9724
170. Jenerator - May 26, 1999 - 2:25 PM PT
I understand now, but since I have all of the big cheese in front of me, I can do nada.
171. incognito - May 26, 1999 - 2:28 PM PT
Actually I was doing this to bug people silly and to see how long it took before somebody asked about it. You were the first one.
Just pick four digits and try it, it's fun. In time I think we will all go crazy!
9724
172. Jenerator - May 26, 1999 - 2:40 PM PT
3837!!
173. ChristinO - May 26, 1999 - 2:43 PM PT
From Fortune Article:
"And anyway, there's fierce controversy over whether hypersexuality can even be called an addiction. The American Psychiatric Association says no, an addiction must be a physiological dependence on chemical substances like drugs or alcohol. What looks like sex addiction is more likely behavior symptomatic of something else, such as an anxiety disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, or manic depression, says Chester Schmidt, a psychiatry professor at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and head of the APA work group on sexual disorders for the latest edition of the Diagnostic & Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, the APA's bible of mental problems. Calling it sex addiction, he says, amounts to pop psychology--although he bets the association will "take another look at this area" in its next revision of the DSM. "
Officially it is not an addiction even though the article continues after this segment to refer to sex "addiction" which I find to be sloppy journalism. The other thing to note is that the article was sparked not by clinics treating sexual offenders but by clinics treating people whose sex lives had started interfering with their ability to maintain their professional lives.
These people have an obsessive compulsive disorder that manifests itself sexually. Pornography didn't make them into obsessive/compulsives.
174. ChristiPeters - May 26, 1999 - 2:53 PM PT
hmmmmm...
Perhaps when reading accounts of the number of criminals who like pornography, it is good to rmemeber that correlation does not a causality make.
175. ChristiPeters - May 26, 1999 - 2:54 PM PT
that's "remember", not "rmemeber"
176. AuNaturel - May 26, 1999 - 3:57 PM PT
"correlation does not a causality make"
Far and away the most common logical error on the Fray and probably in the world in general.
177. wexxford1 - June 2, 1999 - 5:42 AM PT
Remember how America cheered when TV showed endless footage of our gallant lads destroying Iraquis in the little old desert storm war?
Where would we be if the violent ways of our armed forces were given full TV display to show the morons where their money goes ? Violence is 100% Americanism when its showered on them nasty little furriners who will not lick Uncle Sammy's boots .Real violencce ? That's OK.
Hollywood violence ? We're not sure .
178. wexxford1 - June 2, 1999 - 5:44 AM PT
ChristinO- Guess you had not heard that Fortune staffers are now getting "Sexual Addiction " tests ? In the good old days all the researchers were lesbians so the subject never came up . Now the Fortune women are banging the men into exhaustion .
179. stamper - June 3, 1999 - 11:32 PM PT
i have gotten in the habit after being on the Fray for almost three weeks of reading any post that has RIP on it. so when i saw that on this Thread i went back to square one and started to read and i have a few thoughts.
ChristiPeters, in post 20 you make a statement about how society looks at a single mother. my baby sister, Rose of Sharon, raised her boy Joey all by herself and he is now 17 and a fine young man. it is as judithathome says in post 42. the mothers society are concerned about are the ones who do not seem to care for their little children. maybe it is drugs or they had them at too young an age or whatever. but children need lots of attention and you are providing that for yours.
au natural, you underestimate the power of advertisment and salesmanship to create a need where one did not exist before. i have made my way as a salesman several times in my life and i know what i am talking about. i agree that the word addtictive is way over used and is like an excuse for bad behavior. you, though, in post post 76 and 80 make a cop out for bad behavior by saying miswired and wrong in the head. it sounds good but it is still a cop out. in post 128 you talk about pornography being uplifting. i got nothing against pornography myself 'cause i always could handle it. but we all know what gets uplifted.
CharlieL, in post 112 you make a very poor comparision. i think it would be called a post hoc ergo procter hoc failure. you say pornography no more leads to bad behavior any more than milk to acholism. but that is plain silly, if i may be so bold, for there is no relationship between milk and achohol. the real question is, does the drinking of alcohol lead to alcoholism. we know that it does and it does not, depending on the individuals potential. let us say a man would have a potential to become an alhoholic if he drank but he never did touch the stuff for some reason. would his life be different? i will not beat a dead horse, but
180. stamper - June 3, 1999 - 11:36 PM PT
(cont.)
i hope you take my meaning.
now to my spelling
through=throw
there=their
someone already got rifel
Wexxford, some times i think we have something in common but i cannot put my finger on it. i am reminded of sonething i once read, "things are in the saddle and ride man." keep up the good work.