> Get leading spam protection and 1GB storage with All New Yahoo! Mail.
demolitionred, 13 Sep 2006 12:21:30
Martion Salter accused me -- and by extension you lot -- of defending all porn implying I would let peopel watch child porn....
rovacs, 13 Sep 2006 14:07:19
Moron Saltmines better watch his mouth.
Author wrote:
> Martion Salter accused me -- and by extension you lot -- of defending all porn implying I would let peopel watch child porn....
Teddy, 13 Sep 2006 23:55:48
He's a gobshite. In the sad realisation that "necrobabes" etc doesn't ACTUALLY feature people being killed on camera, he has to throw a bit of mud at the voices of reason, in the hope it sticks and helps to forward his lickspittle career...
T.
Author wrote:
> Martion Salter accused me -- and by extension you lot -- of defending all porn implying I would let peopel watch child porn....
phantom, 14 Sep 2006 18:03:29
I would agree with that to an extent.
As said 'politics is perception'. it's not the policies but the man with the
nicest smile who
wins elections these days.
it is not without reason that one camp is trying to paint the other as
sticky perverts and weirdos in macs who
are looking at abhorrent material. It's a powerful image and one difficult
to overcome. So, indeed,
perhaps it that same vein it does help to paint the supporters of the
proposal as people of a puritan
streak who are simply out to destroy the fun for others. Porn is about sex
and sex is about fun, right?
If religious groups who responded to the consultation were in favour of
banning violent porn, it's only fair to ask
if this means they wholeheartedly support legislation, found pretty much
everywhere in the western world,
which allows mainstream pornography. for if they don't then their support is
pretty meaningless..
In the Home's Office's camp on this issue are to be found militant feminists
who would ban page 3 tomorrow
and organizations such as mediawatch who would take us back to the 1950's
tomorrow.
some damage might indeed be done to the government's plans by showing what
company they keep.
but yes, it's a tricky one. one has to tread carefully, shouting abuse will
very quickly turn into an own goal.
yet, Vernon Coaker's allies on this are hardly members of 'Cool Britannia'..
Perhaps it would be worth drawing our own parallels. just as government
always likes to draw the analogy to child porn,
We should highlight the similarities between militant supporters of this
legislation and the militant animal rights activists who
rob graves for their cause. both are driven by zealotry of sorts. the animal
rights activists trying to shut down testing
laboratories in the UK are generally loathed.
regarding the question where next, it's worth noting that since the ban on
fox hunting there has been several violent attacks
on anglers. clearly it didn't stop there. once again, this could be another
parallel.
Phantom
_____
-OJT- [mailto:snowdrop-explodes@talk21.com], 14 Sep 2006 18:03:29
Sent: 09 September 2006 22:59
While it is poor logic, when seeking to persuade the public, ad hominem
attacks work.
I think that painting the supporters of this proposed law as being
unreasoning haters of all things sexual is a tactic that can work. The
fact that almost all the organisations to respond have been "ban all porn"
type people, this has some mileage in it, at least as far as the general
public are concerned - in terms of perception as opposed to logic, it looks
good.
And it offers that question - if you let them do this, what will they come
for next?
Ta,
SnowdropExplodes
graham wrote:
Hi there,
Having been looking through what's been written about these proposals in
various comments forums etc, something's occurred to me.
This debate seems to have become somewhat polarised into two camps:
1) The "I may not like it, but if you're an adult I'm not going to say
you can't look at it" side.
2) The "I'm anti-porn, so I'm going to jump on any bandwagon that will
help me further my agenda" side.
I'm wondering if this might be a good approach for countering at least
some of the opposition, ie that the "anti" campaign is really after a
bigger target which is *all* porn and they're just using the Longhurst
case as a justification for their activities?
What do people think?
Cheers,
Graham.
--
If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
Report abuse
http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D5728
_____
Inbox
s.rd.yahoo.com/evt=40565/*http:/uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html> full of
spam? Get leading spam protection and 1GB storage with All New Yahoo! Mail.
Attachment:.
message.html (text/html)
Ms_Tytania, 14 Sep 2006 21:10:14
"Martion Salter accused me -- and by extension you lot -- of defending all
porn implying I would let peopel watch child porn...."
Relax baby, and have lots of patience: he's a politician. They spin. They
hit under the belt. And above everything else, they lie. Trouble is, the
media will go along with their lies too :(
Itziar Bilbao Urrutia
http://www.helloitzi.co.uk