WTF????

Here's a progressive politician talking about the common good and where his policies would provide for that common good, and then wham! He goes off on porn.

Well, ok, but WTF does that have to do with progressive public policy?

Tom "wasn't sure that censorship was the answer" - begging the question that would lead to "but I'm not rejecting it".

I don't know about you Nathan, but I've had enough religion mixed with my public policy for the last few years, and I'm a little bit sick from it's long term effects. Why am I incensed about porn, you might ask? Much like the Global Gag Rule that is injuring tens of thousands of women every year in developing countries, that was some serious pandering to another set of religious-based OPINIONS that wound up censoring information desperately needed (certainly more needed than porn).

Religious litmus tests like anti-abortion, anti-porn, anti-gay....do we really want to have the left go through that kabuki also?

Alphonse ( Al ) Kada
Iranians are fighting the Americans in Iraq so they don't have to fight them on the streets of Tehran

Who the hell is tom?

But it is interesting that some liberals condemn religiously-based OPINIONS the way conservatives often condemn sexual imagery or other libertine values. You get the sense that some liberals aren't really looking for a live-and-let-live society but to clone themselves and their values everywhere.

Nathan, I can't speak for anyone other than myself. But, what I condemn is the prospect of religiously-based LAWS, which have their origin in publicly espoused religiously-based OPINIONS.

~~~~~~~~~~~
Is est vicis muto probo.

Come visit PROJECT: Lucidity
Where everybody knows your name...
unless you use a pseudonym

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/tableforone/2007/nov/01/our_culture_war_on_greed

I capitalized OPINIONS because Tom in his post wasn't talking about "forcing" anything.  He was acknowledging that a lot of people are upset by the materialism, sex and other excesses in modern society.  And frankly, a majority of the population have some allegiance to the religious values Tom is talking about.

So either we get politicians who can speak to those values but channel them in a progressive direction or we'll have elected leaders who just call for censorship. 

And while I can wax poetic on the evils of religion in history, plenty of nasty folks with little spirituality have done great damage as well.  Hate and violence has come from a lot of different sources, religious and secular, over the years.

I doubtt that liberals want to restrict free speech. However the far left, which shares some of the same authoritarian if not the totalitarian, inclinations of the right. One of the scarier elements of the last couple of decades is the number of people who think they know better what believe should say, hear, read or believe and that government should be used to enforce their views.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

"I welcome politics inspired by Aristotle or Shakespeare or Rawls."

Amen to that.

"you'll never find...

...another love like mine."

On the porn issue, there is a whole realm of non-conservative feminists who have deep antipathy to the values embodied in prevalent porn in our society. As long as they don't jump to government censorship, why shouldn't liberals celebrate the diversity of opinions as what makes a pluralistic society great?

A thought occurred to me when I read this and maybe I'm taking this too literally but isn't it possible to have a diversity of opinions and to disagree with many of them? It seems almost obvious to me but the more diverse and numerous the opinions or beliefs, the more people you'll find yourself in opposition to right?

I suppose I feel it's just as healthy and worthy of celebration to disagree. I don't think you'll find very many liberals that want to restrict a person's beliefs. I know I certainly don't. But there's believing and there's imposing and I think this ends up being the real rub.

Religion is getting a bad rap here--and I say that as a terminally lapsed Catholic who neither prays or attends services that don't include decent food and drink in the aftermath.

Religion is not the problem here. The problem is religious flim-flamers and the accreting mountain of ignorami that buy into their bullshit. Christianity, in particular, has become an object of fashionable hostility--not because of the tenets of the faith, but because of the bogus interpretations of those tenets.

"Do unto others," goes the aphorism. "As you would have them do unto you."

Who finds that objectionable?

So, as far as porn goes. I suppose we could find a consensus that tolerates it so long as we keep it away from kids...

...and, probably pets.

I think you have to consider that most people believe in souls and that souls can be damaged by mechanical, mercenary and predatory sexuality depicted as if it were healthy for relationships. Certainly, mechanical, mercenary and predatory killing is depicted and virtually practiced in videogames. In essence, the programming, if "unfettered" by parental intervention, religious conscience and intelligent folks who still believe there is such a thing as wisdom, would train the children of tomorrow to live as demons.

The fact that the porn saturation of Western society happens in the context of the rest of the ailments Tom has been talking about suggests that porn is part of the training of minds to complete a sort of anti-stationing of the cross, moving from indulgence to indulgence until challenged (even oil field to oil field) and then whipping out the big guns to level all who protest our excesses. Oh, but you would say that porn is unrelated to selfishness, and selfishness is good?

Look: nudity that respects privacy, the outer appearance of which is called "modesty" is a lost art of living as a whole being, not just a sexual being. Sheesh. For crying out loud. Enough already of severing the human soul into parts and then exploiting her divided qualities for cash while crippling the folks involved.

C.S. Lewis wrote wisely I think when he pointed out that the "prudishness" (prudence?) of the Puritans and moralists of the Victorian era was an extreme reaction to an extreme licentiousness that had come before. What force gave the pendulum its push to the extremes? What came before.

What is WTF? The World Troll Federation? :o]

You've got it the other way around.

Religious folks do not generally want to use politics to arrive at their goals, however, politicians see the religious as a great and disciplined constituency they can use. Therefore they tempt its adherents with the prospect of fear and protection, and both parties create the extremes by which this is possible for every election.

Politicians radicalize the religious in this country by suggesting that if they don't get politically involved to stop X or Y, they'll lose their religious freedoms. And frankly, some of the things anti-religionists have done in the name of the Democratic party in various levels of government from coast to coast has been extremely provocative and confirmatory of the politicians' fear game. Just ask Jay Sekulow who has handled intrusion cases nationwide.

I'm somewhat sympathetic to Tom's opinion on porn and even the idea that torture and war are linked to a broader culture of selfish materialism.

What bothers me isn't so much his opinion, but his apparent insistence that this be a political opinion. Yes, I realize that he doesn't intend to coerce anyone. But it isn't coercion that's the problem here--it's the notion that we must look to public debate and dialog to determine all right and wrong--not just in matters of force and economics, but in religion and aesthetics as well. We The People decide not only what is permissible, but what is beautiful, sublime, and worthwhile.

Maybe this is my Protestant "pray in the closet" roots showing, but I find something wrong with this even when I kind of agree with the opinion in question. When Tom talks about whether "any of us honestly believe that the ready availability of internet porn is not destroying something sacred within us", well, I don't believe the sacred is knowable, universal, or arguable. The problem with politics is not merely coercion, but that political arguments presume that there is one correct knowable answer.

The debate could go meta here, but let me try to distinguish two things.   One, if folks say, "hey Tom, you're linking porn to materialism and greed in society, but there are clear studies that show that people who watch porn are also less materialist," that's disagreeing with his argument.

If commentators say, "hey Tom, you condemned porn; that must mean you're one of those religious cranks who are out to censor everyone and oppress the non-religious", you have a broader manifestation of intolerance.

Some forms of intolerance manifest themselves in not taking an argument seriously and assuming that because of whom a person is, they must be saying something different and more sinister than what they actually said.  In many ways, that kind of assumption of dark motives and not listening is the most prevalent kind of intolerance that exists, far more common that straight up hatred and name-calling.

I suspect that smedley gave you a zero because, by posting your ratings policy (and complaining of having been previously labeled a concern troll), you have displayed a massively fragile ego. Smedley didn't really give you a zero because your comment merited it--he gave you a zero because you're inordinately obsessed with ratings.

I don't care what kind of rating you give me. I'm going to give your original rating a 3, because (1) you fail to explain what the Delaware issue was, though you do provide a link of sorts, (2) the Delaware issue doesn't seem to have a lot of relevance to the issue that's being discussed in this forum. Under normal circumstances, that might merit a 2. However, the listing of your misguided ratings policy has spurred some interesting and legitimate discussion.

Well, I may be wrong, but isn't it at least implicit in Tom's post that his religious beliefs are the reason for his opposition to pornography and a number of other social ills? (It certainly seems to be the subject of his post today.)

If this is so, then my response is to argue that religious beliefs should not be the basis for public policy, period, because religious beliefs are highly variable and are based upon faith as opposed to reason, and that any public policy stemming from religious concerns or convictions has the danger of imposing religion upon me.

This response does not make me intolerant.

I am pleasantly surprised at your opinion on this.

The discussions on the topic on this site have just reinforced what has become my own credo on it:

Just say no to culture wars in politics; culture wars belong in culture.

Culture, you know: art, movies, literature, music, human rituals, religions, that kind of stuff. History has shown you can actually change cultures over time with all of the latter, through exchanges and trade between cultures, but few in history have been successful at changing culture by force of law or war without tons and tons of blowback. If you are going to force culture change by politics or law or war or similar, it better be something mighty important enough to be worth all the blowback.

Re: Nathan, you made a statement about some liberals condemning religiously based opinions. Your damned right we do. When you consider the harm that has been done by these so-called OPINIONS (does capitalizing the word make it less threatning) throughout history I have nothing but condemnation for those who force them on the rest of us.

Please put down that great big tar brush and tell us what specific opinions are you talking about? There are lots and lots of very different religious ideas. Which do you object to? "Do unto to others as you would have them do unto to you"? The Eightfold Way? That social injustice is an outrage to God?
You sound almost like the old racists who would focus on some specific act of crminality or dysfunction in a minority community (never mind it was a common sin of all humankind) and would use it as proof positive that "those people" are inferior and need to be kept in their places.

Um, you're the one that brought ratings up. If you examine my history of posts you'll find that I've argued against ratings from the very beginning. My ratings policy shows that I don't care about ratings. I rate you down if you abuse other people. I rate you up if your argument was truly excellent, regardless of what side you take. If your argument is merely meh, than whatever d00d.

You've been here about nine months, perhaps you just weren't around for the ratings wars. The signature that you have some sort of problem with and use as e-psychiatrist to ascribe all sorts of qualities to me and profile me came out of that war as I described why I did not condone calling people trolls or concern trolls and why I did not slavishly rate every post one way or another.

Not only don't I care what rating you gave me, you can give me a 0 or a 5, whatever d00d. You'll note that I haven't rated you at all, and you can read my response to smedley asking if I think he's a troll or a concern troll.

Whatever d00d. (Does playing e-psychiatrist work for you? Most people think it's obnoxious.)

I came here to agree with Nathan and point to another aspect of that as seen in just the past two days with the University of Delaware. That part of the conversation is apparently lost to you, who would prefer a conversation about how woeful my ratings policy is and what that means about me as a human being on a thread in which Nathan Newman deplored how many liberals just want to speak with clones of themselves? Is this some sort of performance art show that you are creating?

Is there some reason you have to convince us all that your reasons for being intolerant are okay and correct or recognize how special you are?

Here professor, I've changed my sig to help you understand.

-- my ratings policy
If I think you argued well: 4 or 5
If I dislike or disbelieve your argument: no rating
Exceptions:
If you call someone a troll, you get a 1.
If you call someone a concern troll, you get a 0.

A lot of condemnation of porn is because it leads to masturbation. And one of the old saws about masturbation is that it causes insanity.

While there may be a correlation I think the causation runs in the opposite direction. Just look at some of these mentions of alzheimer's and masturbation

I'll use this as an example of what I meant. I posted it earlier on Tom's page:

I always like to use this argument: if you believe that morality is tied to religion, then presumably you believe that murder is immoral because God "said so." But since God is all-powerful, then certainly he could have instead decided that murder was morally commendable, and that helping old people cross the street is a venal sin. But if that seems just wrong to you, consider the alternative: God had a reason to declare murder immoral. The philosophical inquiry into ethics is the attempt to discern that reason. Such a reason would be a basis for a general agreement about ethics which is independent of particular religious beliefs.

If you go through this socratic argument with people who thinks that their moral beliefs are rooted in their religious beliefs, some (but not all) will realize and admit that there's something deeper going on about their moral beliefs.

I think many religious people and many atheists, undergo many of the same reasoning processes, although they may not realize it until pressed.

Such a one track mind on sex you have.

Whether or not someone looks at porn is an individual decision, but the censorship is the point, you sanctimonious jerk.

Don't talk down to me like I have no belief system. I studied my catechism, was made a member of my Lutheran church and was an acolyte for five years.

The point of my comment was that because censorship is even being considered as a panacea to porn, once that step is advocated by a policy maker, we end up with the Global Gag Rule, foisted on the world as a condition of US aid, that censors the word "ABORTION". No one may utter it and continue to receive aid. And you're worried about the violence to women from porn? How about the fact that unsafe abortions and lack of reproductive planning is responsible for 40% of the deaths in women in Nigeria? And why is there the dearth of information? Because of "moralists" such as yourself that have been very quick to censor what they are uncomfortable with.

Get over it, BuckO. Keep your repressed lifestyle and your repressive public policies where they belong-

With the right wing.

PS- WTF stands for What The Fuck.

Alphonse ( Al ) Kada
Iranians are fighting the Americans in Iraq so they don't have to fight them on the streets of Tehran

I'll be praying for you, leftAhead.

There are members that have been around for a long time and are considered trusted users. I think the privilege goes with that. One has to collect enough good karma, by earning ratings I guess, to qualify.

Yeah, I guess I don't really mean that. I've been called "libertarian" on many occasions, but I'm all for regulation that promotes public health and protects civil liberties.

No, liberals believe in personal freedom, libertarians believe in freedom of economic transactions. In those examples, the liberal isn't restricting what you do with yourself, but what you can use economics to make other people do or not do. In a hypothetical world in which one man owned all property in the nation and required everyone to be Christian to live here, liberals would object but libertarians would insist on that one man's right to do with his property as he chose.

It's not that we have a different definition of morality than conservatives, it's that we have a different definition of liberty than libertarians. Ours actually makes sense.

I disagree. Libertarianism is about freedom from constraints, not just economic constraints. It's just that those who advertise the fact that they are libertarians seem to be more interested in money than in motorcycle helmet laws. That's not the fault of the ideology, but the fault of the proponents.

If it's any consolation, Jerry, your post is only the second, possibly the third, post that I've given a zero rating to. I suppose you are entitled to your opinion that it constitutes "abuse." But then again, ratings are inherently subjective, aren't they? And I think that's the whole point.

I think it's related to the number of posts you've made, because I was one of the first members, and it took me a very long time to become so privileged as I didn't post nearly as much as others.

I'm pretty sure trusted user status here is still achieved the same way it always was, by what ratings you have.

The power to zero is definitely taken away if your karma score drops below a certain level. The idea behind that is that you want people that the community considers good peace officers should be the ones able to zero, or partially censor so that lurkers and others with low karma can not see troll comments and be tempted to feed, or respond.

They changed the software here to Drupal a while back and then custom added a ratings system. But when they were using Scoop, they had the "karma" level set very high, you could see that easily with the way that system.

The way it works in Scoop, and the way it probably still works now with this custom Drupal, is that any comment that you make that is not rated gets a score of 3. It was clear to a lot of regulars that if you made a lot of comments in a day that didn't get rated, you lost your trusted user status. You had to keep your average above 3 to have trusted user. One thing this is meant to do for the proprietor, if they set the level so high, is to discourage lots of idle chatter, like long strings of one liners like is common on Daily Kos, and to discourage tit-for-tat one-line debates taking over threads, to encourage more thoughtful posting. The same theory is inherent in other software forum tools where they have a setting where you can only post so many comments within a certain time span and then you get a "locked out" message that tells you to go take a coffee break and you can post again in an hour.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I always got the impression that Josh Marshall chose a high setting originally because he wanted to encourage this place to have thoughtful commenting rather than lots of one-liner quips, and to discourage people with lots of time on their hands, with a special grudge or with a tendency to knee-jerk from dominating threads, i.e., thinking and composing before posting.

Alright Tom. Now do that in pig latin. Dare ya.

Allsburg, don't you worry. I don't even want to touch your door handle. :o(

Please read the posts and comments more closely--no one's proposing government censorship.

Responses to Howard indented in this one.

Again, a rather sweeping statement, not limited by geography, or clear definition of "soul". Coincidentally, I ran across a http://home.btclick.com/scimah/mindandsoul.htm>comparison of the idea of a "soul" in Christianity and a "mind" in Buddhism. Now, I wouldn't go so far to say as all Christians and all Buddhists agree with the definitions and qualifications in the article, but it's far less of a sweeping statement that "most people".

Most peoples around the globe believe in the human spirit or soul. That's been true to date.

Who are most people, anyway? A Wikipedia breakout of religious adherents puts Christians and Muslims as the largest groups, at a total of about 53%. OK--numerical majority, not necessarily a Bush-style "mandate". Do all denominations have a clearly shared definition? It would be silly to suggest anything more than "something nonmaterial".

You're not saying much here Howard. This isn't too relevant. Seems like a tizzy.

I'd hesitate to say Jews routinely put as much emphasis on "soul" as these other Abrahamic religions; I find there is more of an element of individual right choice than a directed morality. A late friend of mine observed his mixed Jewish-Buddhist marriage worked mostly because the two both had temples, and they found more commonality with each other than with Christianity or Islam. Yes, I know "anecdote" isn't the singular of "data", but I have enough humility (that's supposed to be Christian, right?) not to be throwing around lots of "of courses" and "most peoples".

Thanks for that research, Howard. What's it got to do with the fact that most people in the world believe they have souls? That remains the fact. Different shades of definition don't change it.

I note Mike again doesn't define "relationship" here, and whether, for example, if Muslim polygamy and status of women is beneficial to human values -- recognizing not all Muslims practice this sort of relationship.

I'm not a Muslim, Howard. That's a pretty good reason why I don't pretend to speak for them other than in general terms. I know they believe they have souls. And I'm certain that Muslim relationships are damaged by the phenomenon that is the topic at hand as much as others. It's a hunch. You want I should check my wallet to see if I have enough cash to hire Zogby to follow up on my hunches for you?

So now you're referring to me in the 3rd person. Great Howard. Thanks. 

As mentioned in my first link, there is a considerably different concept of the non-material human aspect, and of deity, in Buddhism, and to a lesser extent in Hinduism, the two forming the estimated 18% in the Dharmic religions. About 12% were considered irreligious, and the rest of the population is pretty fragmented. Still, when there are 500 million in Chinese traditional, 400 million or so animists, etc., I find there to be a fair bit of generalization going on.

I believe they have souls. When its my opinion, that's what you'd expect, wouldn't you? I stick to my guns on this one, H.

When I find expressions such as

anti-stationing of the cross,

, I'm not sure that the Muslims, Hindus, and Taoists are getting all that represented.

Howard, I'm not Muslim, Hindu or Taoist. Why would I represent them beyond generalities? To try to prove I've read a recent Encyclopedia piece on some outdated details from a census survey about them? I'll let them post their opinions. I do know Hindus find Western sexploitation to be pretty sick because to Hindus sexual relationships in marriage are sacred. I agree with them in general on that point.

I still note that Mike has yet to comment on my suggestions on more inclusive terms than "soul", such as the transcendental, numinous, or self-actualized states. Might I assume that it's his definition or the highway?

Might I suggest that your assumption that transcendental, numinous or self-actualized states are inclusive of "soul" is your version of "your way or the highway?" Seems hypocritical to me Howard.

This isn't just about porn. Mike's positions, to me, are getting more and more annoying as generalizing a large number of particular Christian views, not even of all Christians.

Howard, I speak for myself in my opinions and I'm Christian. Why should I speak as if I were not and adopted multiple definitions, some conflicting that I don't believe? You can do that to your heart's content, but if I did that, it would be disingenuine. 

It's hard to keep him on one topic; in the post to which I responded, there's a stew of violence and relationships and porn and mercenaries and a few other things.

It's not really your job to censor comments to keep them on the scope that pleases you, is it Howard? No way. Beyond that Howard, your characterizations are off base today. Lots of bending the truth and mixing yourself up in others' exchanges, failing to distinguish between yourself and others in responding for them. Odd, inconsistent, and not your usual class.

In the tradition of Gadsden independence, Don't tread on me, H.

So for you, a culture of abortion, porn, contraceptives in lunchboxes and kids who don't pray on your watch is the culture of American dignity?

If teachers were asked to uphold the constitution of the US, would you omit the very important part of the First Amendment that triply protects religious speech, exercise and non-establishment, to include prayer?

Aht-way the uck-fay?

Iskey-way ango-tay oxtrot-fay?

Ee-say ou-yay.

I don't understand why we can't put all internet porn on it's own domain, .sex, .adult, .smut, or whatever.

That would in no way limit free speech, but it would allow those of us who find it offensive to block it from our family computers.

I think porn does harm people by giving them false expectations, especially youngsters.

If that makes me a prude, fine, but it seems to me that there is some common sense steps that could be taken that wouldn't limit "free speech" and make "prudes" like me more comfortable. There must be some reason that people find it addictive. We regulate other addictive substances, for the common good.

CSPAN junkies visit http://spannerbackup.ipbhost.com

Look Ace,

Change culture all you want. Just don't do it by sliding your agenda in by force of law.

And you still haven't addressed the issue that I raise:

Where do you stand on the Global Gag Rule?

Answer that question without obfuscation and I'll listen to what you have to say. Snark your way out of it again and you will reveal your true agenda.

Alphonse ( Al ) Kada
Iranians are fighting the Americans in Iraq so they don't have to fight them on the streets of Tehran

I guess I just dont want my political leaders to act like school marms and scolds.

I mean, they can if they want, of course. That's their right. But they shouldn't expect my support because I think it's sill at best and dangerous at worst.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com