Truth Soup

While explicit material probably isn't morally commendable, I think Truthmeister's post and the cited article are typically bereft of sound reasoning and based largely upon appeals to emotion.
In her article, Cheri Pierson Yecke--who evidently considers herself to be a conservative--violates what I thought was supposed to be a central premise of conservative thought... That being that actions should be judged according to a standard of self-determination and individual accountability.
Rather, Pierson Yecke bases her essay on the premise that explicit material somehow has "caused" a myriad of sickos from Ted Bundy to 19-year-old Ryan Mely to commit violent crimes.
To me, this echos the classic liberal sentiment that guns "cause" murder.
She cites in Mely's case that his father (himself a convicted offender) used to "bond" with his son by having the two of them view explicit material together.
Rather than place the blame where it belongs -- in the obviously twisted and miserable parenting standards of Mely's father -- Pierson Yecke tries to convince us that the over-riding, if not sole, cause of Mely's deviancy is the explicit material itself.
While I could agree that such material might help facilitate an offender's mentality, I would see it as a relationship of correlation, rather than of direct cause.
Just as most people who consume beer don't become alcoholics and drunk drivers, many who casually view explicit material never become "addicted" and move on to violent crimes.
Reason would dictate it's more likely that people like Mely and Bundy were twisted to begin with, and explicit material simply became an accessory in their distorted view of reality.
Pierson points out that both Mely and the fictitious character Jud Fry are eccentric and "feared" loners. Yet, she then launches into the illogical premise that it was explicit material that somehow made them that way.
A more reasonable, locigally sound assessment would be that these two people became obsessed with explicit material because they were unwilling or unable to form healthy relationships or active social lives... not the other way around.
Also, if explicit material is such a problem, what's the solution?
Outlawing it altogether would indeed be a sticky business, and could not be done without trampling standards of individual privacy and freedom of expression.
After all, who gets to decide what's "allowable" and what's not? Evangelical puritans? Hard-core hedonists?
In either case, I hope not.
Pierson Yecke is trying to build the premise that because some people have demonstrably become addicted to explicit material, and that some people addicted to such material also happen to be offenders, then the material is universally evil and dangerous.
This notion is flawed on its face. And if we follow it through to it's logical conclusion, then any substance, product or activity that might be addictive and could possibly lead to harmful behavior is universally bad and should therefore be banned.
The fact of the matter is, we can't base our laws on any one group's assessment of what is "morally acceptable."
No, morality is clearly best forged in an atmosphere of privacy and self-determination.
Things that clearly should be illegal.. such as films depicting forcible rape or children.. already are illegal.
Products involving paid actors and consenting adults, while they might not be morally wholesome, clearly can't be too vigorously censored without blatant disregard for our basic rights to privacy and self-determination.
I find Pierson Yecke's article to be based mostly on blatant appeals to hysterical fears, and utterly void of any new or sound ideas.

That's nonsense, Mark. Pornography and the objectivization of women is a disgrace in our society. Most of Europe is already way far gone, but the U.S. isn't far behind.

Pornography destroys marriages. Pornography eats away at the soul. It makes promises that real life can never keep. It leads to a lust and thirst for a fantasy that does not exist. I don't know whether Bundy et al were nuts to begin with, but I know plenty of people who are not convicts that struggle with the lure of pornography on a regular basis. There may be some people that have managed their use of porn "reasonably", whatever that means. But its like doing a "little" cocaine. The rush that comes from using porn is very addictive. A little leads to the desire for more, and more never satisfies. It just continues spiraling.

The numbers of people, especially YOUNG people, that now have access to porn, are staggering.

Fortunately, there is hope...

http://www.firesofdarkness.com/

It is ridiculous to say that government can not legislate morality. Government always has and always will. In the beginning, it was Judeo-Christan morality. The decades and immoral people have managed to chip away at the foundations and we are now on the brink of allowing and endorsing same gender marriages.

The slippery slope continues its slide. There are those who see it and those who don't. It is this difference that truly sets apart the red states from the blue states.

Your answer, Bob, is predictibaly long on appeals to emotion, non-sequitors and the confusion of cause and correlation.
If explicit material is as addictive as you claim, then nearly every adult male in the United States would be hopelessly hooked by now. Have you ever watched a dirty movie, Bob? I have, and so did nearly every guy I went to college with. Dirty movies were practically expected at fraternity parties.
In fact, I'd venture to say I've never met another man who hasn't looked at an explicit film or magazine at some point in his life.
So, while this proves your premise that explicit material has permeated our society, it also blows away your contention that such material is almost instantly addictive to anybody who is exposed to it.
Again, if what you're saying is true, then almost every man in America would be a deviant.
You also need to face the fact that the United States is not, was not and never should be a theocracy. While it's true that most of the Founding Fathers believed in a Creator of some sort, to contend that our nation was founded on "Judeo-Christian morals" (whatever that means) is hugely innacurate.
For example, while Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin both acknowledged a Creator, neither of them was a practicing Christian, and both voiced open distain for organized religion of any sort.
(Franklin, by the way, was a nortorious womanizer--was it because he looked to too many dirty pictures?)
For a society you claim is "way for gone", Europe seems to be doing quite well. In fact, crime rates, and social problems are much lower there than they are here.
The "slippery slope" argument is a blatant logical fallicy, and does not hold water.
In fact, in many areas, I'd say the United States is more moral now than ever before.
True, such things as marrige rates might have been in better shape before, but one could easily argue that was because many women stayed put because such things as domestic violence and philandering husbands weren't talked about--rather, they were silently tolerated.
For that matter, so was racism. Back then, it was perfectly acceptable to view blacks, Mexicans and other non-white males as less than human. And don't forget, in the "Good Old Days" there was a brothel in just about every town.
So, you tell me, were women and other minorities better off back when we were all so "moral"... in the good old days before there was explicit material everywhere?
And in the part of the country I'm in (Wyoming) shootings and stabbings were common place during drunken revelry between ranch hands down at the old saloon.
And let's not forget the prohibition area, when the level of violence in places like Chicago made current murder rates look like a walk in the park.
What about slavery? Under the supposedly "moral" government of the past, this blatantly immoral activity was tolerated--and even encouraged-- for decades.
Point is, Bob, America is no less "moral" now than it ever has been. And in many ways, it is far more moral.
And so what about same-gender marriges?
I don't agree with gay relationships, but marrige is a proven way to stabilize society and force people to grow up. Assuming you're married, you know first-hand that keeping a marrige together requires commitment and maturity.
So, why not let gays get married? Isn't that better than forcing them to stay in illicit relationships?

Wow, I don't even know where to start. Your arguments remind me of someone else I know very well. Me, about 20 years ago. Mark, I'm not interested in debating you. I learned a long time ago that some people "get it" and others don't. It took intervention from God in order for me to see clearly. Since I am not Him, I'm not going to try to change your mind.

Suffice to say I believe your premises are based on incorrect/incomplete data, erroneous interpretations and outrageous presumptions about what I believe, which will no doubt lead to incorrect and dangerous conclusions.

Merry Christmas :-)

Fair enough, Bob.
I'm not God either, and I suppose my views, like anybody's, are subject to Human error.
I think you and I both value sound morality, but perhaps we differ on how to best impliment it, at least on the social level.
In any case, God willing, we'll have more interesting subjects to chew on another time.
Merry Christmas to you too.