From: Eric Cordian <emc@wire.insync.net>
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 08:51:13 +0800
To: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
Subject: Why Jodi Hoffman Must Bite My Johnson
In-Reply-To: <199711032057.MAA08856@k2.brigadoon.com>
Message-ID: <199711040037.SAA08312@wire.insync.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



One of those Ranting, Spewing, anti-Porn FemiNazis Belches:
 
> Try as I might, I cannot forget standing on the steps of the Supreme
> Court building with my husband and 10 year old daughter in the
> freezing drizzle.
 
Thus the "right" of parents to subject their minor children to
freezing drizzle, but not naked pictures, is affirmed.
 
> me what this is all about, this 'fight censorship' rhetoric.  It's
> nothing more and nothing less than a lot of egotistical, self-serving
> brats who absolutely refuse to grow up, including you, Declan.  Don't
> you realize that YOU are a major reason for the downward spiral of
> society?  Instead of trying to protect children, you want to empower
> them.
 
Actually, many of us have known for a long time that "child
protection" is just a codeword for "child disempowerment." Thanks for
confirming this.
 
The parents who whine the loudest about porn are the same parents who
want a Constitutional Ammendment declaring that those who do not vote
have no civil liberties, that anything short of lasting physical
injury is not abuse, and that the goverment has no power to interfere
with the "right" of parents to do as they wish to their slaves.
 
Fortunately, the Net is and will continue to be a level playing field,
which is ability-based, and not age-based.
 
> Even a moron knows that when you do so, that power has to be taken
> from someone.  Unfortunately, that someone is the parent.
 
Perish the thought.  I mean, it is inconceivable to some people that
any minor inconvenience on the part of some adult is not worth entire
gas chambers full of people under 18.
 
> I have to ask myself just how many on this list have children.  Not
> many, I would say. Someone on this list, I forget who, has made
> numerous attempts at convincing us that pornography 'does no harm' to
> children.
 
One wonders why the first word out of the mouth of any self-righteous
scumbag sexuophobic parent when they are disagreed with is - "You
obviously don't have children."
 
> It is exactly at this point that I must draw a line. Studies have
> shown that an event which lasts even so much as three-tenths of a
> second, within five to ten minutes has produced a structural change in
> the brain. Exposure to porn causes actual brain damage, especially in
> a child.
 
"Change" is not the same as "damage." Of course you probably regard
anyone as damaged who is not a frothing sexually inhibited lunatic
like yourself.
 
> So, keep protecting your porn-induced orgasms.  That's exactly what
> happened with the Hitler youth, etc...  After all, I'm sure it does
> help to blur the lines of reality.
 
"Puritanism" might be defined as the fear that someone, somewhere, is
having a porn-induced orgasm.  Stable people tend to worry about their
own orgasms, and not their neighbors.  Perhaps if you had a few
orgasms yourself, you might lose interest in the orgasms of others.
 
[Nonsense Deleted]
 
Please bite my enormous throbbing love sausage with an ice cube in your
mouth. 

--
Eric Michael Cordian 0+
O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division
"Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"