draconix

There wasn't really a choice there for me... I like some horror films, particularly zombie films with lots of gore. However, I dislike ghost movies, and slasher flicks. I'm kind of a weird one.:thumbsup: Oddly though, I have a special place in my DVD collection for Stephen King's stuff. IT had be terrified as a child, today it's just awesome :) and the book is, as in all cases, far superior.

I think that's entirely correct. John Lennon understood that when he sang "imagine," when he sang about people living for today. A comedian once said that if we had a president who didn't think all of our soldiers were going to heaven when they died, then maybe he wouldn't be sending them off to war so carelessly. When you consider that this is it, this is all you will ever get, then the concept of a soldier dying in a battle field over oil suddenly becomes infinitely more tragic. Not to mention how the belief in some special afterlife is what sparked 9/11 and all manner of suicide bombers in the middle east. An afterlife makes this life easy to throw away.

others earlier in the thread have pointed out that the definition of pornography doesn't necessarily explicitly imply the "porn" that would immediately come to mind. In fact, it could also include the romance novels that are so popular among women. With this in consideration, the difference margin is decreased significantly. I've known women who take those novels everywhere they go. Anyway, after saying that you're not surprised that the defenders of pornography are men, you go on to say that you hate porn because of hormones? And that it's against your morality because it monetizes sex? I'm not sure where you were going with hormones, but can I ask if romance novels or illustrated pornography are equally morally wrong, because they both commercializes the of sex? And if so, what about commercials that use sex as a way to sell products? Or movies which contain sexually driven plot-lines, or hyper-sexual lead roles? Sex is commercialized heavily pretty much everywhere, where does your morality draw the line?

I also read somewhere that if you don't use it, you lose it, when referring to a man's labido. Pornography usage I would think helps men "use it" during a dry spell, and helps keep them from losing it. here's some supplementary reading material regarding that. It doesn't talk about pornography directly, but as most people will surely agree, pornography is sometimes much easier to acquire than actual sexual interactions.

Regarding the debates forum thuogh, I think it's important to note that is exactly what the forum is for, debating an issue, hopefully logically, hopefully to a conclusion. It shouldn't really be a fight per say, just a comparison of facts and ideas that people construct into an argument. Other people assist that person by pointing out it's flaws. This helps that person reconstruct their argument, or revise their position. There's going to be some competition going on while people strive to be the first to come to a solid conclusion and bring others to their side of the debate. Anything else would be like going to a football game where the players just kind of stand around for a while. This forum is the arena, debating, the game. However, when it comes to the real world where people are not an "arena," it's ludicrous for someone to try to impose their views on another.

I know a lot of people are indoctrinated at an early age into the belief that their beliefs are supreme, and that others are wrong and must be corrected. Others feel that they need to correct others beliefs for their own good, whether they want to believe in something or not. Why anyone would want that responsibility of dictating behavior is beyond me.

Nintii, did that seminar give out pamphlets that had sources for their findings? Not attacking, I'm just genuinely interested.

It's also logistically different... 2 (or more) people getting paid to produce a video in which they have sex, versus one person paying another for having sex with them.Otherwise, from the perspective of a person doing their job, the job is the same. It's an interesting distinction.

Undoubtedly, we will get there. But I imagine that it would be an ongoing treatment costing millions of dollars. I'm sure it'll be reserved for politicians in high places who pledge their ongoing support (indentured servitude?) of xyz.

I'm opposed to lawes that aim to dictate the behavior of an individual. I am also against governments involvement in the business of dictating morality. Laws are in place to protect an individual from others and vice versa, not to protect one's "immortal soul" from the evils of vice. To that end, I disagree with prohibition of drugs, prostitution, laws regarding seat-belt use under the flag of safety, and so on. Pornography is a luxury, much like a computer is a luxury. We could go without, but would we really want to? Probably not. We live in a society where people are forced to to suppress so much of what hundreds of thousands of years of evolution has trained us to do, I think pornography helps some of us indulge these urges without rampantly fornicating. Not that there is anything wrong with that. I'm looking at you 1960's. As far as the "actors and actresses" involved, most people don't love their job, and there is corruption to go around in any market. I don't think that it would be unexpected for there to be some percentage of people out there scorned by the adult films industry, same as I would expect there to be some people out there scorned by the construction work industry, or by working for the post office. Speaking of which, when was the last time a porn star shot up an office building full of co-workers? I don't mean to belittle the actual, factual exploitation of those within the industry, but the fact of the matter is that exploitation exists in nearly all work environments, but this doesn't mean that all work should be prohibited. Besides, there are already laws against rape. Working in the porn industry does not suddenly make those rules not apply. If enforcement of those laws is an issue, that's not something that creating more laws is going to fix.

Do I fear death? Penn Jillette said it the best in an interview with Piers Morgan: Do I fear death? No. I fear the inevitable pain or mayhem that precedes it, but death itself? Only other people will feel the pain of my death, and that is regrettable, but when I am dead, I won't be able to feel bad about it.

the most exact answer I could find on the list regarding "what is Death" was, "The opposite of life". I chose this answer because it is the simplest and yet conveys so much. In the eternity that preceded your birth, do you remember it? No? That's what death is like. It is the opposite of life.

There are some parents out there incapable of loving their own children, regardless of how terrible (or not) the actually children are. My wife's mother's side of the family is a true testament to that. They have a long line of hatred towards their own kin. My wife and I aim at ending the cycle by abstaining from spawning.

Please try to keep up with me. People being pissed off at you because of the way you used power does not mean that you abused your power, speaking objectively. All it means is that your use of power pissed some people off. "Abuse" is amoral, independent of morality, it is an objective word with a clear definition, regardless of the word's connotation. Abuse of power = misuse, which is defined as using power in a way in which it was not intended to be used. If you grew a business from the start, then you are in charge of your business. If you give yourself a raise, this is not abuse of power, because you did not use your power in a way not intended by the granter of the power: yourself. However, if power is granted to you by those with more power, such as a population of voters, the people determine what they granted the power for, which is what determines the power's intended use, and thus everything else would be abuse. Everything else is just people abusing the word abuse.

Coming at this from a different angle... While a technicality, it's also an important to know what we are actually saying when we talk about abuse of power: Abuse, the root of which is "use" the prefix "ab" to indicate abnormal or opposite. The word implies that for there to first be such a thing as "abuse" there must be a normal "use" which is to be somehow twisted or corrupted in a way to make it abnormal to it's normal use. Power, in the sociopolitical sense, can be obtained in one of three ways that I can think of off the top of my head. Power can be created, the way one creates a business or empire, it can be taken through conquest, or it can be granted by someone with the power to do so. This is also a technicality worth noting, because it is my opinion that the means of obtaining power is what determines what constitutes as it's abuse. Power that is granted, such as the way we elect officials into office, is capable of being abused because we granted that power to the officials with the intention of them acting in accordance with our collective will. Therefore things like insider trading with privileged information acquired by means of the power to which we granted them can easily be qualified as abuse of power. However, power obtained by building up yourself an empire or business has no such direct granting of power, and with nobody to which to be beholden, there is no outside definition of use to be construed. In other words, if you gave yourself the power, it's use is defined by the user, making it's "abuse" inherently impossible. Power that is taken through conquest can get a little more complicated when you consider the fact that the leader of a group on some level is likely granted the role of leadership, which the granters define.