Jonas J�rgensen wrote: > > Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T. wrote: > > > Kryptolus wrote: > > > >> You know. He probably believes it's his job as a man to protect the > >> women of this planet from all the dirt. > >> Don't forget to keep the women inside the house. You never know what bad > >> things can happen to them in the real world!! > >> > >> Any case. Drop the 'manly' act. This is how opression of women worked in > >> the first place. > > > > Yes I do if there is any chivalry left in the world. There is no > > opression about it. It offends me as well, > > > > And no I think women can go anywhere and do anything they want so long > > they are Physically able to the do the job. > > You mean that you believe that everyone is equal? That I can agree with. > > > Its one thing to view art, its another to have to deal with pornography. > > What we are talking about is out, and out porn. > > I don't understand what you mean. Did you mean to write "only" or am I > just unfamiliar with this usage of the word "out"?
yes in this form it means the same as "only", or "strictly". > > > Also You don't mean to tell me that demeaning acts of pornography is not > > oppressive to women? > > If a person, male or female, wants to be a porn actor, what right does > anybody else have to prevent them from doing so? It's their choice. They > can do what they want with their lives, just as you and I can do > whatever we want with our lives. That may or may not be true. Sometimes the female may be tricked into doing the photos. Sometimes they are in a relationship with a Man and pose for him only. Then the cad sells the photo's. > > I believe that, generally, a person should be allowed to do whatever > [s]he wants to unless it in some way harms other people. Pornography > does *not* harm anyone, since those who are offended by it or are simply > not interested in viewing it can simply choose not to do so. And to > answer your question, no, I honestly do not see how it is oppressive to > women in general that some persons choose to create pornography. > Offending, sure, but oppressing? How? If you don't want to view it, no > problem, don't view it. It's that simple. I don't wish to view it. And I am sure that, it was not the intent of the group to be the purveyor of Porn (At least I hope not). > I wouldn't be comfortable with some authority telling us that what is > morally acceptable and what is not. How would we know that that > authority would not make mistakes? What if that authority made a > decision with which I did not agree? What if it made a decision with > which *you* did not agree? We have this nice thing called "free speech", > you know. Ever heard of it? I don't see why it shouldn't apply to > pornography as well. > > [Boy, we really need a netscape.public.mozilla.off-topic... or > netscape.public.mozilla.bad-attitude, even :) ] > > > Like i said I believe some of you want it to continue just to get your jollies. > > Ah, the AOLTW-Netscape-Mozilla-China-Communism-Pornstar conspiracy > theory. Nice! ;-) No I didn't say that, It just seems there have been complaints - not just from me - about it, and nothing has been done to relieve it. Has nothing to do with AOLTW, Netscape, Mozilla, China, Communism. > > /Jonas -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Phillip M. Jones, CET |MEMBER:VPEA (LIFE) ETA-I, NESDA,ISCET, Sterling 616 Liberty Street |Who's Who. PHONE:276-632-5045, FAX:276-632-0868 Martinsville Va 24112-1809 |[EMAIL PROTECTED], ICQ11269732, AIM pjonescet --------------------------------------------------------------------------- If it's "fixed", don't "break it"! mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/default.htm> <http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/america/default.htm> <http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/message/default.htm> <http://home.kimbanet.com/~pjones/birthday/index.htm>
