Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Useless Warrior
I disagree and I think I have a small analogy that is a pretty fair comparison. It's going to seem like I'm nit-picking, but it's the point of my arguement, so... I'm eating a bowl of Raisen Bran right now. Generally, I like cereal. Yes, saying that UW likes cereal is a pretty sound statement. However, I don't like the overly sweetened shit my kids demand every time we pass through the cereal isle of the grocery store. I don't think that I'm hypocritical if I say, I like cereal, but I won't eat Fruit Loops.
To say that pornographers are hypocrites for being selective or being offended by a certain genre of porn would mean that we must accept ALL pornography; legal, ethical, or not. Pornography is an industry, not a virtue or belief system. There really isn't any hypocrisy here - just selectivity.
|
I get your point UW but we have two threads of agruments here. 1. What should be legal? and 2. What is ethical?
There isn't a country in the world that doesn't have some limits on free speech. Libel and slander laws limit speech for instance. So we debate what should and should not be legal. [I say with porn its got to be informed consenting adults.] On the otherhand ethics, some might say, is personal taste. [I find the sight lame, offensive and I will not promote it thereby exercising my market power in a free society.]
So I agree with your post but I want to clear up that you can have opposing legal and ethical opinions about the site in question and not be in conflict.
---art
P.S. If you know the tune sing along ... this is the thread that never ends. It goes on and on my friends. Someone started writing it not knowing what it was, and they'll continue replying to it forever just because, ... [from the top] ...