Klein_Helmer

Thank you, this is interesting; and I am glad to see that the forum has been moving along at a good clip for the last few days. Unfortunately, I have to, for the time being, take my leave (I should probably get some work done today). I will be sure to address your response as soon as possible.

Dravin, perhaps I am having a major derp moment here. Would you consider framing your idea with another example, one that could be observed in the United States? ie, Could you describe an activity which is not legally forbidden, but is also not a right? I think the fact that no such roads exist is causing me some difficulty.

In the case of your example, what is the distinction? No. If I am the state, and you are my citizen, and I enact a law prohibiting an activity to which you believe you have a right, I have not violated said right, I have taken it away. It is impossible to legislatively violate rights, only to grant them and take them away. e.g. I believe that women and minorities should have the right to vote, which they now do. However, in recent decades, they did not have such a right. Would you dispute that?

This example does not seem to work. How is it you imagine you would not have the legal right to go as fast as you wanted were it not prohibited by law? No, it is not being violated, it is being taken away.

Haha. I actually sound more like Enrico Caruso... I wish.

Will you please clarify your position here. Are you saying that you believe the creation of pornography should not be considered a component of free speech, and a right, but it should also not be prohibited? If people are not disallowed to make it, would not their making it be an exercise of their right to do so?

Looking forward to it. I have a feeling my point will become fairly obvious.

If you had your way, how would this be legislated? Please see my earlier inquiry to the thread starter.

The thread from yesterday seems fresh enough, and there is already a wealth of informative posts in there. Creating a new one will only dilute the conversation. Haha, OK. What is pornography, where is the line? Who is to make such a determination? Which forms of pornographic media should be banned? Film alone, the written word? Have you read Shakespeare? Some of that is straight lewd, shall we ban his works?

1. In that case, you should read and evaluate them before responding - which you should do in the already active and information rich thread. 2. Does anyone here not believe porn is protected speech?

Thank very much for your thoughtful response. I am looking forward to giving it a closer reading, and offering a few more thoughts of my own. I will not be able to do so just now, but I wanted to be sure you were aware that I had read your post, and appreciate the time you took to put it out.

What did you think of Who wants to Marry a Millionaire and the like, or any number of fashionably meaningless (heterosexual) celebrity marriages?

It seems the debate has resumed, and this thread is in need of a dissenting opinion. Would anyone care to address my earlier thoughts on the matter, from a secular point of view? I believe that could make for some laughs, and after all, is there any other reason to be posting on internet fora? Vort? monkeytown?

Dravin, may I interpret your and others' recent activity in this thread as an overruling of Che's earlier judgment? I would rather not make another thread; I would not want to become overexposed, after all.

Owned. Alright, funkytown, see you on the front page.

Has this degenerated into petty trolling? If it has not, and you are being serious, allow me to clear something up for you: It is not your place to moderate this forum, and I am not interested in your misguided thoughts on what is or is not relevant to this thread. I will say this one more time, as you are the one who seems to be having issues of comprehension: Discuss this issue with me in a mature fashion, or let it go. Stop saying you would be able to rebut my arguments, and have a go. I am nearly quivering in anticipation.

It is a good thing you have explained your jest, and indicated it to have been, "funny on several levels." I fear, had you not, it may have gone unappreciated. Truly you are a wordsmith with a sparkling, silver tongue. Unfortunately, with regard to substance, you have missed your mark; and it was a wide miss. If you are looking for a genuine discussion of this matter, pursue it. If you are looking to ineffectively trade verbal barbs, you should probably bow out. Here is what I have said, I will gladly respond to any objections you may have.

As I suspected. Fare thee well.

I will never be able to wrap my mind around the notion of a grown man engaging in an activity known as, *sigh*, "tweeting."

Quoted for posterity. I will return when time allows. I suggest bringing popcorn.

Do not address me with imperatives. I was responding to the young man's thread in a manner both courteous and germane. I endeavored to explain to him the reasons for his perceived misfortune, and how he might avoid such things in the future. If you seek to dispute that which I have said, you will need to do better than a coarse and impolite, "No."

Good post.

I wanted you to provide documentation for your assertions that : A. The notion that Muslims were responsible for the September 11th attacks was indicative of American ignorance. B. The United States government was involved in some form of insidious mischief during the time of the attacks. C. The danger faced by Americans during this time was not that of Muslim extremists, but rich, power hungry, American men. You have still not addressed any of these very specific claims. If the intent of your post here was to make me aware of the past and present evils visited on developing nations by the West, your words were unnecessary. I absolutely abhor the better part of the United States' foreign policy.

Cheers.