Michelle Bachmann Ban On Porn?

[poetry_writer]

banning porn would be great - but we have freedom of the press - and with the good comes the smut. As long as their is demand, their will be porn, unfortunately, the demand is growing thanks to the internet.

We ban other things that are not good for us and unhealthy for society. Just sayin...

[jp1]

We ban other things that are not good for us and unhealthy for society. Just sayin...

Yes, I suppose the porn ban will be coming along about the same time the big mac ban happens. There are already happy meal toy bans in places so it wouldn't surprise me. God forbid people actually take even a little responsibility for their own lives and those of the people they care about. Lets just give government the power to control every aspect of our lives so that we don't even have to think any more. That's gotta be the best solution...

[Mangano's Gold]

Yes, I suppose the porn ban will be coming along about the same time the big mac ban happens. There are already happy meal toy bans in places so it wouldn't surprise me. God forbid people actually take even a little responsibility for their own lives and those of the people they care about. Lets just give government the power to control every aspect of our lives so that we don't even have to think any more. That's gotta be the best solution...

Ultimately, I think it is all about judgment calls. To take the Big Mac example, why do we ban lead paint on kids' toys? If parents don't want their kids to play with lead toys, they shouldn't let them.

For porn, why not legalize heroin? How far should the government go to protect people from themselves? If you decide to legalize heroin on philosophical grounds, should you then allow heroin dealers to advertise? Send direct mail with free samples to potential consumers in the prime demographic?

IMO, there is no way to get around judgment calls. I think that we have to make them one way or the other, for better or worse. Banning porn seems to me to be pretty solidly in the "bad idea" camp.

[jp1]

But there's a difference between toys with lead paint and toys that are just toys. Toys by themselves are not inherrantly harmful. Do kids really view the happy meal toys as a reason to gorge on fast food? I had plenty of happy meals as a kid. I survived without ever becoming remotely overweight. Chomping on lead paint is a completely different scenario. Every kid that does so will likely be harmed. And most kids, especially at teething age, are likely to want to chomp on paint.

There was a blurb on the news the other day about how many public swimming pools wouldn't be opening on time this summer because they didn't have some new safety drain thing installed. A whole one kid per year had died in the US over the last 10 years by being sucked into the drain of a pool. I'm sorry those kids died. But is it really worth it to keep millions of kids from going swimming on the off chance that one might drown this summer? And if it is then why don't we just shut down all swimming pools forever because someone might someday drown in one of them.

Ultimately I think I agree with you. Lead paint on kids toys is a really really bad idea and ought to be banned. There's no good to come from any lead painted toy. Happy meal toys, on the other hand, can be enjoyed by plenty of kids without ruining their lives. And if it becomes apparent that the toys are causing obesity or other problems for the kid then it should be up to the parent to be responsible and act like a parent and say no to future happy meals.

By the same token plenty of people can enjoy porn without destroying their lives. And frankly, unlike with kids, if an adult can't manage their life and if porn destroys it then so be it. As an adult I want to be able to make my own decisions about what to do with my life. I don't need to spend all of it as a little kid, first to my parents and then to my government. If the government should be involved at all it should be to offer help and assistance to people who realize that the porn (or drugs in the case of heroin users) is causing them problems and they want help from someone.

[Mangano's Gold]

You make some good points, jp. I think it still comes down judgment calls, though. For example, what if it wasn't one kid per year that died in the drain, but seven, or seventy, or seven hundred? How many before Big Daddy Government steps in? Your judgment, I'm guessing, is that government steps in somewhere greater than one death but less than all of kids who swim in public pools. The judgment must be made somewhere.

As for lead paint/Happy Meals, I think one is just an easier call than the other. Happy Meals probably don't adversely affect every kid. I doubt being exposed to lead paint did either (kids stop putting everything in their mouth by two or three) but it is foolish to allow the sale of such toys when there are better alternatives. I'd say that eating the glorified salty, fatty, artificial "food like substances" at a young age surely contributes to the obesity madness (and its consequences) we see today. No doubt, I'd take my kids to McDonald's before letting them play with Chinese lead toys, though.

[Glo]

Backman and her tea-party cohorts are getting to be nothing but a bunch of thugs!!

[Gingerella72]

Just saw where Mitt Romney has refused to sign this pledge.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/07/...dge/index.html

I'm not a conservative but good for him.

The idea of an elected law-making official signing a pledge like this is a dangerous thing, imo. It puts their priority towards the special interest group behind the pledge, instead of on upholding our secular laws. Bachmann and Santorum can yap all they want about how much they agree with the sentiments of the pledge, but in the end it all comes down to getting campaign money....which they wouldn't have gotten from The Family Leader if they hadn't of signed the silly thing.

[peggy]

Just saw where Mitt Romney has refused to sign this pledge.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/07/...dge/index.html

I'm not a conservative but good for him.

The idea of an elected law-making official signing a pledge like this is a dangerous thing, imo. It puts their priority towards the special interest group behind the pledge, instead of on upholding our secular laws. Bachmann and Santorum can yap all they want about how much they agree with the sentiments of the pledge, but in the end it all comes down to getting campaign money....which they wouldn't have gotten from The Family Leader if they hadn't of signed the silly thing.

Agreed and agreed! Every tea partier who cries about 'nanny government' has been officially put on notice that Michelle Bachman is ready and willing to be the head 'nanny'! If they vote for her after seeing her many pledges/promises, then they are raciest, homophobic phonies posing as concerned citizens!

OK maybe that was a bit harsh, but I'm feeling a bit uncharitable towards the tea partiers who are blackmailing regular republicans into bumper sticker blabbing idiots who are willing to drive this economy over the cliff for a vote.

[jp1]

You make some good points, jp. I think it still comes down judgment calls, though. For example, what if it wasn't one kid per year that died in the drain, but seven, or seventy, or seven hundred? How many before Big Daddy Government steps in? Your judgment, I'm guessing, is that government steps in somewhere greater than one death but less than all of kids who swim in public pools. The judgment must be made somewhere.

You're right, at some point there would be enough deaths that I would agree that the government should do something. However, that number (for me at least. everyone's mileage will differ on this) is WAAAAY higher than 1 per year. For instance I just saw on ABC news that 156 people died in national parks last year. (it was in a story about the hikers in yosemite that jumped the guardrail to play in the water and drowned) I don't have stats on the number of people going to national parks last year versus the number that swam in public pools. I also don't know the total number of deaths in public pools, only those that got sucked into drains. To make a fair comparison one would have to work all those numbers to come up with a real apples to apples comparison, but at first glance it would seem that national parks are substantially more dangerous than public pools. But can you imagine how quickly anyone suggesting that we should close all national parks due to this "danger" would get laughed aside as an absurd alarmist who was freaking out over nothing? Most people would say that of course there are dangers in national parks. After all it's 'wilderness' with all that goes along with wilderness. And my response would be "and they're swimming pools. Drowning is one of the more common ways that kids in the US die every year. Swimming pools are enjoyable but also have serious risks." The people in yosemite jumped a guard rail. Perhaps like the pool drain covers we could put big chain link fences up in national parks to keep people from the dangerous parts.

Personally I don't want to go down that road. I'd rather expect people to use a little judgment to keep themselves safe, which includes not jumping guardrails and not swimming to the bottom of a public pool where the drain is. At yosemite they have signs in multiple languages warning of the dangers of going in the water where the people drowned. I'd much prefer signs at public pools saying "don't swim to the bottom of the deep end of the pool where the drain is. The suction is quite powerful" or something to that effect.

[poetry_writer]

But there's a difference between toys with lead paint and toys that are just toys. Toys by themselves are not inherrantly harmful. Do kids really view the happy meal toys as a reason to gorge on fast food? I had plenty of happy meals as a kid. I survived without ever becoming remotely overweight. Chomping on lead paint is a completely different scenario. Every kid that does so will likely be harmed. And most kids, especially at teething age, are likely to want to chomp on paint.

There was a blurb on the news the other day about how many public swimming pools wouldn't be opening on time this summer because they didn't have some new safety drain thing installed. A whole one kid per year had died in the US over the last 10 years by being sucked into the drain of a pool. I'm sorry those kids died. But is it really worth it to keep millions of kids from going swimming on the off chance that one might drown this summer? And if it is then why don't we just shut down all swimming pools forever because someone might someday drown in one of them.

Ultimately I think I agree with you. Lead paint on kids toys is a really really bad idea and ought to be banned. There's no good to come from any lead painted toy. Happy meal toys, on the other hand, can be enjoyed by plenty of kids without ruining their lives. And if it becomes apparent that the toys are causing obesity or other problems for the kid then it should be up to the parent to be responsible and act like a parent and say no to future happy meals.

By the same token plenty of people can enjoy porn without destroying their lives. And frankly, unlike with kids, if an adult can't manage their life and if porn destroys it then so be it. As an adult I want to be able to make my own decisions about what to do with my life. I don't need to spend all of it as a little kid, first to my parents and then to my government. If the government should be involved at all it should be to offer help and assistance to people who realize that the porn (or drugs in the case of heroin users) is causing them problems and they want help from someone.

Porn is garbage that destroys families, homes, treats human beings like pieces of meat. Nothing is good about it. It usually destroys an innocent party involved, like a spouse. I know women who have caught their husbands looking at it. they were devastated and their marriages did not always survive. Its crap.