"John Knight" <jwknight at polbox.com> wrote in message news:<nwOa9.13952$Ic7.1309426 at news2.west.cox.net>...
> "4dtvman" <tmitchell-01 at att.net> wrote in message
> > > You used to have to enter a back alley or
> > > a
> > > > fire hall at midnight with a secret password to watch a "girlie" film.
> You
> > > > can now observe "high-quality adult videos" on the Internet for free
> or
> for
> > > > a nominal fee. You can now subscribe to HBO, Cinemax, or Showtime and
> watch
> > > > full frontal nudity at midnight. You can discreetly rent or purchase
> adult
> > > > videos to watch in your own privacy.
> >
> > You have a problem with this kind of freedom? I'd fight to the death
> > before allowing someone to take away my freedom to watch full frontal
> > nudity on videos and pay cable channels. Like Patrick Henry said,
> > "Give me liberty or give me death".
> >
> >
>> This isn't "freedom" you're demanding--this is "license".
License, freedom, whatever you choose to call it doesn't matter. The
fact still remains that I, as an adult living in the greatest country
the face of the Earth, have a right to read, view, and listen to
whatever I want. When and if that right ever goes away (and I hope to
God it never does), America will cease to be great and we might as
well live under the rule of the Taliban.
>> And you propose to deny the vast majority American parents the *right* to
> protect their children from pornography.
No one is (at least I'm not) proposing to deny you that right. I
believe that parents should have the right to TOTALLY control (no
matter what Hillary Clinton says) what their minor children read,
view, and listen to. This ncludes the right to home schooling or
whatever. However, that right need not interfere with the rights of
adults. If you don't like what Hollywood is dishing out today, then
don't let your kids attend movies or rent/buy videos and don't
subscribe to HBO, Showtime, or Cinemax. If you don't like what's on
MTV, then don't subscribe to basic cable either. Heck, remove all TV's
and radios from your house if you wish. It's your right and it's not
child abuse.
>> I happen to disagree with Mr. August that pornography is all that harmful to
> children. Exposure to feminism and "liberalism" and "humanism" and jews and
> nigger music and Mexicans is FAR, FAR more damaging to children than
> exposure to nudity.
I'm not going to be drawn into an argument with your racial and
anti-semetic remarks, but I WILL agree with you that exposure to
feminism, liberalism, and humanism is indeed far more damaging to
children than exposure to nudity.
>> Exposure to our public "school" system is literally and figuratively child
> abuse to many if not most American parents, which makes exposure to nudity
> almost trivial by comparison. Exposure to moral minors like the Clinton's,
> our supposed "moral leaders", is a billion times worse than seeing Britney
> Spears' buns.
I agree 100%. By the way, where can I see Britney Spears' buns?
> The anti-Christ, pro-jew jew Yawk Times, which should be
> relegated to the junk heap of jewish failures because it can do nothing less
> than preserve the world's highest crime, homicide, rape, incarceration, and
> divorce rates [read: ours], is worse than Hustler Magazine to many American
> parents.
Other than that, the New York Times is a pretty good newspaper, huh?
>> But that doesn't reduce the *rights* by one ounce of the hundreds of
> millions of Christian parents to protect their children from the
> pornography, blasphemy, and profanity that passes as nigger music and "art".
See my comments above.
> The notion that nigger profanity should be "protected" because some White
> guy might have made a nickel off of owning slaves centuries ago,
I don't think it has anything to do with slavery and if it does, it
shouldn't.
> while
> children are prohibited from reading the Holy Bible in the classroom today,
> is "license", not "freedom".
I hope that children DO read the Holy Bible as much as possible. Then
perhaps they won't turn out to be anti-semetic, racist
conspiracy-theorists.
