Patrick Gallagher wrote: > Peemm wrote: > >> Jonas Jørgensen wrote: >> >>> DeMoN LaG wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Um, two of my female friends don't have anything against >>>> pornography, one of them is actually turned on by it. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Cool friends! ;-) >>> >>> Most of the girls I know don't have anything against pornography >>> either. Phillip C.E.T. Jones' opinions is from a time when men was >>> considered superior to women. >>> >>> /Jonas >>> >> >> Sorry, Jonas, but I have skimmed through all the postings, and even >> though I no longer believe in Phillip M. Jones' chivalry, I must say >> that he understands something you and your friend DeMoN LaG don't. >> Pornography is nothing you get "turned on by". Porn is a substitute >> for real life. You might as well use heroine. And the producers of >> porn don't care about your pleasure; they want to get money - YOUR >> money! This is the offensive part. You are dealing with a kind of >> robber here - not just a spammer. >> >> /P.M. >> > Pornography is a part of real life - many couples enjoy watching the > stuff together, as do some single people... Obviously it's a market > that's in strong demand, or it wouldn't be the most profitable business > on the internet - it's also a legal business so long as they follow > legitimate business practices, and follow guidelines.
Yes, it is part of "real life" if you by this expression mean "our society", but I meant "happy life" or something similar. I don't think a happy and content person would show the slightest interest in porn, at least not at those moments when he or she is really at one with the world. > > Spam - regardless of what it's for - is the disease. You can choose what > you watch, what you search the internet for (you might end up with porn > on occasion, but if you're not seeking it, it can be avoided.) and who > you talk to, but you can't choose what kind of SPAM shows up in your > favorite newsgroups or your inbox. Doesn't matter whether it's for > kleenex or penis enlargement or a new flower delivery service, it's all > equally offensive. > > Patrick > Well, do you think spam for flower deliveries is equally offensive as "teen4play" or "Stacie4play"?! This is like saying that giving a fellow being some flowers is equally bad as tricking him or her into "performing" in front of a camera (- yes, people CAN be tricked into doing things they don't like [mentioned to answer another post in this thread] -). Now, I don't think you would put it like this, you are obviously stretching your point that spamming is the sick thing here, and in this matter I totally agree. /P.M.
