Right around the corner? No. Of course not. How many times and different ways does this need to be said? Those who have a keen interest in achieving the equivalent of a mass persecution against "sexual deviants" (Just another way of saying "undesirables. Amazing how little of the actual terminology changes) have learned well from history that the way to do it (and get away with it, unlike the Nazis) is to do it like the boiling frog. Very gradually. They have also learned that "The P word" (Paranoia) is very effective in stifling anyone who tries to sound the alarm. Again, I would like to know what is so bad about being paranoid? I've said it so many times. If you're paranoid about something like this and you're wrong, you lose nothing. OTOH, if you don't have a healthy fear of people who are interested in criminalizing something you do every day and you're wrong, you stand to lose a lot. By the time you actually have to worry about being "disappeared" in the middle of the night over something like porn, there won't be anything you can say or do about it. Edited by - randomprecision on 2/14/2010 5:42:39 AM
pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07
Posted - Feb 14 2010 : 5:41AM
Paranoia is unhealthy, on the right or left. It distorts reality and justifies extremism. One of the major weapons of the right wing is [ invalid url ] being victimized by the evil liberals. That is how they justify going after homosexuals and porn. The Nazis believed that the German people had been stabbed in the back in WWI by effete commie intellectuals (sound familiar?) and jews (which to them were the same thing). Again, paranoia. The far-left 'feminist' anti-porn activists of the late 70s and 80s were able to get people stirred up through exaggerating the violence in pornography, via the promotion of paranoia. Besides, to drag up the Nazis whenever practically anything is debated is to belittle the significance and suffering that took place under them. Let's say all hardcore pornography was made illegal in the US, in other words culturally the US reverted to the social mores before 1970. Certainly that would be a loss for freedom of expression and sexuality but is that really comparable to systemic genocide? Hardcore porn wasn't legal in Britain until 2000, were they just like Stalinist Russia then? Edited by - BlackSix on 2/14/2010 5:59:31 AM
Not a shred of evidence exists in favor of the idea that life is serious - Brendan Gill 723 Posts 4/09
Posted - Feb 14 2010 : 3:19PM
Censorship is very much a part of tyranny, of course, but making dire predictions about censorship as the start of a domino effect leading inexorably to atrocities like the Holocaust or "los desaparacidos" in Argentina sounds like what it is – hyperbole to make Max Hardcore far more important than he is; to whitewash a maker of disgusting misogynist porn into a selfless martyr for fourth estate freedoms. As such, though censorship as a tool of totalitarianism can certainly lead there, few believe that putting Paul Little in prison is the beginning of despotism in America. The moral guardians learn. In 1933, they banned ‘Ulysses’ and, in 1966, ‘Fanny Hill’. Both cases only exposed them as the sanctimonious, unsophisticated misanthropes that they are. Both court decisions overturning the bans ridiculed the banners. The latter decision about Cleland’s book helped to open the way for the public acceptance of porn. So now, they hunt for people like Max Hardcore, whose stuff is so vile that juries won’t think they’re restricting freedom of the press, so much as they are putting a pervert out of business. The anti-porn crowd went after Little precisely because anyone who defends Little appears to be defending misogyny, abuse, rape fantasy and urolagnia. Porn haters can point to any outrage over Little’s conviction as actual PROOF of their contention that porn corrupts the mind, in this case, by turning large numbers of people into defenders of misogyny. They turn censorship from an abridgement of freedom into a protection of freedom, contending that squelching pornography frees the millions who watch it from its corruption. They would rejoice over DK’s absurd adoration of Little as “one of the greatest pornographers who ever lived” and his wish “that his work would inspire many, many others to make porn in his style” as proof of that corruption. Little becomes their argument for the NEED to eliminate pornography and his successful prosecution makes other prosecutions against all other erotic producers like John Stagliano possible. In the public mind the illogical syllogism works: Paul Little is a pornographer, Paul Little’s stuff is shocking and disgusting, ergo all porn is shocking and disgusting. Thus, Max Hardcore may be the best FRIEND that the anti porn crusaders have had in years (watch DK lift this one out of context and go after me about it). The moral guardians have learned to impose their views on others, by making those views the sensible ones to have. Max Hardcore helps them do that by being what they wish people to believe ALL erotica producers are. That’s the REAL domino theory at work here. Prosecute makers of the most extreme porn, paint the defenders of a free press as defenders of perversity, use their defense of freedom as proof of their corruption, and sit back and allow the public to conclude that porn makers, not porn’s detractors, are the bad guys. I’m old enough to remember when Communism was the Great Evil, when people got and kept enormous political power in this country by convincing the people that the commies were everywhere, knew everything, were smarter and stronger than we were and had ‘brainwashed’ our government leaders, our writers and artists, even our actors, into subverting America into a communist state. Only they, the moral guardians, were strong enough and perspicacious enough to prevail over the Red Menace. There was no Holocaust, nothing like ‘the disappeared ones’ but the moral guardians, almost unnoticed, turned this country into the very paranoid restrictive state they claimed to be protecting us against. Before they were seen for the despots they were, they had ruined thousands of people, simply by ACCUSING them of communist sympathies, no proof required. That’s what REALLY scares me about the moral guardians. Now it’s porn and perversity, not communism, but it’s really the same. Porn is everywhere, it’s stronger than we are to resist its corruption. Only they, the moral guardians, are strong enough to take it on and destroy it, and, in the name of ridding the world of its Max Hardcores, they will take away your freedom to watch and do and think what you please, even in the privacy of your home, even among consenting adults. Even while you are warning of future tyranny and predicting future pogroms, that tyranny is right here, right now, restricting our liberty in the name of protecting it. Don’t defend Paul Little. Defend your own integrity, your own capacity to see Max Hardcore and take him or leave him. Ask the moral guardians what gives them the right to steal from you your right to choose whatever you want to read or look at or do that harms no one, not even them. Forget what they are going to do eventually. Kick them where it hurts for what they’re doing right now.
[Link]
Zablon Deactivated User
162 Posts 2/10
Posted - Feb 14 2010 : 3:21PM
Will this guy ever get out? It seems like he has been there for an eternity.
lol....I like duefuss. He is a heck of a writer. This makes for good debate fodder because it is legitimately controversial....there are compelling arguments on both sides. My instincts are libertarian. When they wanted to let the Nazis march I said "Good, get them out in the open, let people see what they are." On the other hand, I don't think anyone with a sex life and a porn habit can reasonably deny that what you see on the screen sometimes sneaks into what you want in the bedroom. To the pornography community, the problem is one of identity....everything naked is called "pornography". Blue-haired ladies seeing a Max movie are going to be just as compelled to shut down Vivid as they are to delve into finding a moral line in between. If there were a separate name/title/identity for the S&M, rough sex, vomit stuff, it could be firewalled from the main stream adult biz and stand on its own. I'm not saying that is what I want, just pointing it out. The analogy would be if the Nazis marched in Skokie, and outraged citizens called for the banning of all political parties since the Nazis were one and they called for genocide....
Not a shred of evidence exists in favor of the idea that life is serious - Brendan Gill 723 Posts 4/09
Posted - Feb 14 2010 : 5:23PM
but where the hell else am I going to put it?Why not? I have a perfect right to dispense whatever advice I like, just as you can ignore it, which you've obviously decided to do. Too bad. It's pretty good advice, if I do say so myself. Freedom does not just mean that you get to say and do what YOU like. I get to say and do what I like too. Upsetting, apparently, but there it is.Now DK, if you think talking down to people like they were children strengthens your authority, you need to go back to kindergarten and see how that makes you feel now. Not that you will go back and read my posts -- a prodigious task I know -- but if you did, I expect it would be the first time you read all of them. In them, I have indeed expressed facts: dates, names, quotations. These are fucking ADT posts, not a doctoral dissertation, so I did not cite sources for these facts (if I had it would not have surprised me to have you criticize THAT somehow -- APA style when it should have been MLA or something). Anyone can Google them if they care, that's what I did, mostly. I also expressed OPINIONS. These are NOT facts, but conclusions of my own, which I took pains to detail and give my reasons for having. You cannot disagree with facts; that's what makes them fact. You can disagree with opinions, as you have with mine. But I was not aware that ANYONE has EVER been required to PROVE an opinion. Until now, that is, when you want me to state that Joe Dokes of Moline Illinois watched a Max Hardcore vid, jumped up, and said, "Keen! I think I'll go choke my girlfriend until she vomits on my foot and then pee on her!" and went and did that very thing. First, if I had such proof, you would dismiss it, quite properly, as anecdotal and Joe Dokes as a guy who would have abused his wife anyway. Second, that degree of proof is nearly impossible to obtain for anything. Finally, the only proof I need for an opinion is to say it's mine; if I do, it has to be. Had I statistical proof that MH inflamed pathological abusers to abuse, you would of course dismiss it as flawed too, for the simple reason that you wouldn't agree with me if Max Hardcore’s appeal to abusers were as proven as the efficacy of the Polio vaccine. You may whisper thanks that there isn’t such proof, because if there had been, your boy would be looking at a LOT more than 4 years. When I cite legitimate Psychological constructs and diagnoses, it becomes ‘absurd amateur Psychology’ I mention John Locke, quote the Gettysburg address, and you semantically roll your eyes with bemusement:Then, when I suggest that your goal here has become to make me look ridiculous and yourself look like the Resident Wit, you act surprised and declare that nobody’s trying to put anybody down you only came here to decry the injustice to Paul Little. I, too, denounced that injustice, just not on the basis of MH’s greatness. But that agreement you ignore, and, as if it weren’t there, pounce on me for saying unequivocally that Little was responsible for uncounted (which, BTW, could also mean zero) acts of abuse. That’s what I meant by taking something ‘out of context, because that’s what it is. I didn’t say so unequivocally, either. I said I felt so, and I still do. And you expect close readers here to think you’re just here to defend Paul Little? I’m not sure anymore if you give a shit about Paul Little. Now argue that I never SAID it was my opinion. Why? Because I didn’t type IMO at the start of every sentence? We’re supposed to be adults here. Posthum, for example, writes English better than I do, and I think it might be his SECOND language, and HE (she?) knows I’m expressing my opinion, not pontificating. Why don’t you know that? He (she?) knows that I agree with detesting Little’s conviction. Why don’t you seem to know that, at least. It’s plain enough. Or act distressed that I got so worked up about nothing, and that you never dreamed I would be upset, and you want me to be just the happiest little old guy that ever was. But you see, ridiculing somebody and then acting like you didn’t doesn’t obviate the ridicule. Pretending that you don’t want to win an argument by belittling your opponent instead of rebutting his argument doesn’t hide that that’s exactly what you are doing. If you want to be appreciated for your clever put downs and subtle but devastating confutations stick with those friends you gather in the glow of your monitor to laugh at me. I don’t know about any others, but I just think you AND your opinion that Max Hardcore is a great pornographer is silly.
Two postings above, in his latest rant against the superb and unjustly persecuted pornographer Paul Little, the aptly self-named duefuss criticizes the hyperbole of another contibutor to this thread. Duefuss, of all people, doesn't like hyperbole, it seems!! Duefuss misses the irony of his condemnation, for, just a few days ago, in this thread, duefuss was writing about the audience for Little's porn, saying that "in that audience is every rapist and woman hating thug and killer in the world". Yep, duefuss actually wrote that absurd and unsubstantiated claim. You can look it up. And, that's just one example of this Little-hating duefuss' crazy claims. Talk about extraordinarily nutty hyperbole!! It is outrageous, in my view, that politicians and their employees expend even one cent of tax revenues attempting to suppress, interdict, confiscate, or prohibit any sort of porn depicting consenting adults. The government's assault on Little's porn may be a wedge for a future assault on the vanilla porn that is favored by so many posters on this site. There is a segment of the public that wants governments to suppress porn, and the imprisonment of the unjustly incarcerated Little is blood in the water for these folks and for the politicians and their employees who see career advancement opportunities in the suppression of porn. Looney claims about the putative social evils incited by Little's porn, such as those repeatedly advanced here by duefuss, should be viewed as encouragement to the anti-porn nuts and nothing more.
Unfortunately, anytime you bring up any fear of anything these days, there's going to be someone there to call you paranoid. It's an incredibly easy defense (One word and a bunch of generic assumptions) to nip all debate in the bud. Like the bumper sticker says, you may be paranoid but that doesn't mean they aren't out to get you. I presume that quote speaks for itself. And I don't think it's unhealthy or unreasonable at all to suggest that there are people who, if they had their way, would round up all porn fans, lock them up and throw away the key. That's how extreme that mindset is and everyone knows it. That is why you see the comparisons to Nazis. Not necessarily because people fear being herded into gas chambers and slaughtered by the millions. As I said, those who have this mindset know that is too obvious (at least for the time being). As my old man always used to say "There's a first time for everything". The minute you decide something couldn't possibly happen, it's at least twice as likely to happen. That is why the Holocaust happened. That's why most of the victims didn't flee when they saw German public opinion and laws getting more extreme. Many people apparently just didn't believe it could happen. Some people realized something bad was happening and fled, leaving their families behind (and never saw them again). I would guess if they felt that strongly about it that they tried to convince their loved ones to come with them. Why do you think they stayed?Paranoia is an irrational fear. IOW - It's something you have absolutely no reasonable evidence of. There's more than enough evidence that various people (Even some on the left) are attempting to criminalize things like porn and demonize and vilify people who consume it. I also believe there is no real limit to the lows these people would stoop to if they knew they could get away with it. And if it ever happens, it will really be no different than persecuting someone for their race or their religion. A person's sexuality (Sexual habits and tastes are as much a part of who they are as a religion). I believe Max is a target of convenience. If you go hunting, you generally take the animals that are easy to get first. The typical hunter will also take the biggest and most desirable animals first. From there, the scope of these things creeps and and drifts and it is generally 100% intentional and planned. What makes the fear of relentless sexual persecution more realistic as time goes on is, as you said, the left has an anti-porn element as well. The obvious way for those of an anti-porn mindset to be more effective is to join forces (at least on this issue). If an unholy alliance between the most extreme elements of the left and the right (And other disparate political groups) doesn't sound like something you should fear to you, I don't know what else to tell you.This is kind of ridiculous (but I've heard it before). The main reason the holocaust needs to be remembered and taught in every school and studied by every person is because nothing even remotely like it should never happen again (Although it has and will in the future). What's worse than forgetting history? Knowing history and believing that it happened in some kind of an alternate reality and that the perpetrators of the worst horrors in history were anything other than flawed human beings. Again, I'm not saying these people are Nazis. I'm saying they could be roughly the same animal in different clothes (And slightly different goals). I do not mean to belittle anyone. I believe we honor the victims of the holocaust and similar events with our vigilance. Additionally, although Jews were the main victims, they were not the only victims. Many minorities were targeted as well, including sexual minorities. For instance, the Nazis used records of magazine subscriptions to find gays. What follows is a quote from a page I stumbled on one day when doing research on discrimination against gays and other minorities. You will notice that the text I quoted bears an uncanny resemblance to what is generally referred to as thoughtcrime and the idea that this whole Max Hardcore debate has been centered around - "Between 5,000 and 15,000 homosexuals of German nationality are estimated to have been sent to concentration camps. James D. Steakley writes that what mattered in Germany was criminal intent or character, rather than criminal acts, and the "gesundes Volksempfinden" ("healthy sensibility of the people") became the leading normative legal principle". Here is another quote from the same page - "The Gestapo raided gay bars, tracked individuals using the address books of those they arrested, used the subscription lists of gay magazines to find others, and encouraged people to report suspected homosexual behavior and to scrutinize the behavior of their neighbours"Of course not. Again, everything starts somewhere. Who knows what would happen if porn were outlawed in the US today? You and I know that wouldn't stop people from downloading it from the web. It would lead to the government taking progressively more and more aggressive action to try and stop it. Where would that go? I don't know but like I said, we know where it tends to go when the thought police become angry and determined. It's like parents who mercilessly beat their children for misbehavior. It starts with the desire to control their behavior and leads to outright abuse. I feel that this is a danger because the only way to change prevailing attitudes about porn and sex at this stage is through the use of brute force. In summary - The holocaust is often used as an example because it's a good example of something that didn't necessarily start out as an obvious threat to millions of people. I doubt that anyone really thought it would end the way it did. I don't thing anyone means to insult Jewish people or their heritage in making comparisons. I certainly don't. I don't think the fear of some kind of mass persecution against sexual minorities at some future date is unrealistic or irrational at all. Who would have ever thought, for example, that in 2010, there would be Americans who have committed no crime on watchlists or that there would be blatant mass surveillance of completely innocent people? That was unthinkable before 9/11. Basically, my point is this - On terms of sheer taste, Max is impossible to defend. If you believe that a person who jerks off to distasteful porn is a criminal, you've already taken one step on a frightening path. We've heard some anecdotal tales of horror from some of the girls who worked with him and some people who knew him. This is true. But again, he wasn't charged with any of that and as far as I know, none of it was presented as evidence in his trial. He was charged with being offensive and he's in prison because the jury was offended. He was not given an opportunity to defend himself. The wording of this law is such that if your jury is offended/outraged/disgusted/whatever, you go to jail. That's a very frightening precedent that we can't afford to excuse based upon other things he is rumored to be guilty of. It's as toxic to a free society as it gets. Edited by - randomprecision on 2/15/2010 4:09:40 AM
Not a shred of evidence exists in favor of the idea that life is serious - Brendan Gill 723 Posts 4/09
Posted - Feb 15 2010 : 3:40AM
You just see what you want to see, don't you? Like a pit bull, you grab one phrase by the throat, rip it out of context, and shake it until it means exactly what you say it means. An audience -- for porn or anything else -- is not only the people who watch it. It is also the people who have never seen it and may not even know it exists, but who WOULD like it IF they did see it. Thus, a critic may say that the audience for 'Avatar' is young people and lovers of fantasy, which it may be. But that doesn't mean that EVERY young person and EVERY fantasy science fiction fan on the globe HAS seen it. It means its the kind of picture those people would enjoy(see definitions 2 and 3). In that sense "every rapist and woman hating thug and killer in the world" IS the audience for Max Hardcore. Actually I rather like hyperbole when it's done well. And what about the 'superb' pornographer Paul Little? I guess you go in for 'extraordinarily nutty hyperbole' yourself. And you can keep up that 'aptly named Duefuss' stuff if you like; It's been done at least six times by others though, and it was fairly lame the first time. After a while, it gets to sounding like you're too lazy or inept to come up with anything original. edited to fix quote format
So what's your argument? Every porn viewer around the world has the duty to defend MH? Everyone who doesn't is a 'traitor'? I think you're trying to play the same fear-mongering game the porn haters play. 'All of you better agree with me or your precious porn is going to go away!' I'm a bit under the impression you believe the whole forum population here to be stupid. Truth is that even if the whole forum affirmed you in your opinion on him the opponents of the industry would keep up legal action against all sorts of pornographers. There's no obligation for anyone on ADT (or any other adult forum) to hush up about their disgust with the stuff he shot and you're not going to get people on your side by making everyone who doesn't like Max look like the last nail in the coffin of porn. How about you stop stealthily seeking allies and stick up for your own views yourself? It's ironic that you out of all people accused me of presenting my own view as everybody else's. The word hypocrisy jumps to mind.
You know it occurs to me that you can relate the MH pornography debate to ultimate fighting. Personally, I find ultimate fighting barbaric. I am sure that it results in backyard deaths and general violence among its young viewers. But it is consenting adults. And the participants know they are far more likely to suffer irreparable body harm than doing 20 minutes with Max (emotional harm notwithstanding).
[/quote] Well, lol....on one level, I could say the Nazis started more innocuous.....they didn't START with prison, they started with yellow triangles sewn into Jews' clothing. There is a reason for the NRA's success. They chose as their dogged outer perimeter issues like handguns and automatic weapons, not "rifle" as their name suggests. Let Max's fisting and pissing and etc be banned, and what is next? Hustlers "Golden Showers?" Do you think the people wanting to ban Max are tolerant of the next level down and will stop there when then smell blood? Once censorship begins it is a slippery slope with momentum. [/quote] I'm quite happy that people are willing to make comparisons like this. I'll add that in addition to political repression as against the Jews, and political repression against firearms ownership, you might also add political repression against smoking. It's all intolerance, or bigotry and we all have it to a certain degree. It's a question of how much, what form, and how much political or legal power is used to advance it. The NAZIs had a great deal of power. They were halted in this repression area only because they extended their govermental influence to other countries to a larger degree than what the western world would accept. The Junk-Science, Anti-Smoking Mob has quite a lot and are far more corrupt. The Firearms Prohibition Mob, is temporarily set-back but have high ranking political allies in the Obama Administration. To me it's all part of a Prohibitonist kind of mentality, and it's all hugely and obviously UnAmerican. Besides being dangerous. Some kinds of people cannot see past thier own personal agenda and care little for the rights of others, or the greater good, or the health of the Republic. D. Jolly Edited by - Jollymann on 2/17/2010 12:53:29 PM
Not a shred of evidence exists in favor of the idea that life is serious - Brendan Gill 723 Posts 4/09
Posted - Feb 17 2010 : 12:52PM
Political repression against smoking? I smoke myself, but never for a minute did I think smoking bans were political. It's a health issue, period. You've no more right to inflict secondhand smoke on others without their permission than you have to beat them with a stick. As for equating smoking bans even remotely with official state anti-semitism and anti gun laws, do I have to say it? No German's health was ever diminished by having Jews for neighbors, nor does any responsible gun owner shorten the life of strangers with his shooting hobby. My old man died of emphysema. I watched him do it. We're both idiots for smoking, and if it doesn't kill us it won't be our fault, but at least I'm not whining because I'm not allowed by law to be a rude inconsiderate jerk in public places. edited due to the usual shitty typing. Edited by - duefuss on 2/17/2010 12:54:19 PM
I disagree totally. It's absolutely political. It's morality. It's prohibition. It's about the money. It's a fraud. Especially the "second hand smoke" crap. It's corruption. It's as despicable as anything else. Also it's pure bigotry. Health? That's just the left wing excuse. It's absolutely UNAmerican. Sounds kind of familar huh? However it's also technically off topic. I mentioned it as a piece of the picture. I dispise the stamping out of liberties. I stand for freedom. So should we all. You don't have to like all of it, you just have to accept all of it, unless it obviously treds on your freedom. Otherwise put on the jackboots and the armbands. Edited by - Jollymann on 2/17/2010 1:08:32 PM Edited by - Jollymann on 2/17/2010 1:15:39 PM
Not a shred of evidence exists in favor of the idea that life is serious - Brendan Gill 723 Posts 4/09
Posted - Feb 17 2010 : 1:50PM
Okay I get your point, but no liberties of yours were stamped out by the public smoking bans because you never EVER had the liberty to harm others (and if you want to preserve the ludicrous notion that tobacco smoke is harmless after you've exhaled it) nor did you ever have the liberty to annoy people. Only recently would a public smoking ban have been necessary. Even when I was a child, although people smoked freely in public places, if someone asked you not to, the civil thing to do was to refrain. Now people get up on the table and start wailing about trampled rights they never had in the first place. Rights are things everybody has, not just you. Your rights stop at any point where they get in the way of another's and vice versa.
My issue with cigarettes is with the product. It is an addictive carcinogen, and a drug delivery system. It should be sued or legislated out of existence.
i have a porn shoot idea: a woman wearing jackboots kicks a smoker in the nuts. if he loses his cigarette she kicks him again and walks away. if he keeps it she blows him.
You can also buy his euro versions on DVD at www.totallymax.com. This is a site that apparently Jaded Video offloaded Max's movies to, but I am pretty sure they are affiliated.
Apparently. They're like Jacks in the Box. They keep popping their little heads out of the box. BAN, blaw, blaw, PROHIBIT, blaw, blaw, TAX, blaw, blaw, ARREST, blaw, blaw, FINE, blaw, blaw, RESTRICT. Luckily, these type are easy to spot. They're the whinny little intolerant babies at the first whiff of smoke. D. Jolly
lol....to the extent this smoking Nazi stuff is aimed at me, I'm not passionate one way or the other about the issue. If asked, however, I must say that it is ridiculous to believe that cigarettes would be approved today as a product. And it is ridiculous to ignore the virtual holocaust they have caused through America in the last two centuries in terms of lives, suffering and healthcare costs. To be fair, the same could be said about other products, alcohol, for instance. And, I might add, I've virtually never ran into a defender of cigarettes who was not laboring under a personal addiction to them (altho, of course, in internet debate now no one involved will smoke cigarettes, right? :-) ) But I'm no prude. Never smoked cigarettes, went right to pot. And I must say I like the situation cigarettes are in compared to pot -- taxed heavily, regulated, with clear warnings on their health, and no ridiculous legal penalties for using.
Not a shred of evidence exists in favor of the idea that life is serious - Brendan Gill 723 Posts 4/09
Posted - Feb 19 2010 : 10:39AM
Actually, we keep popping our little heads out of the Constitution and basic tennants of human decency like The Golden Rule. MY RIGHTS, blah, blah, I CAN DO WHATEVER I WANT blah, blah i WANT TO SMOKE, SO I'VE DECIDED IT'S HARMLESS, blah, blah, ME, blah, blah, ME, blah, blah. ME! We are easy to spot -- everywhere. We're the smokers who are considerate of others' comfort and health, who are intolerant of selfish and self righteous arrogant adults that never got past being spoiled brats and start moaning about their rights as soon as they don't get their own way in everything. edited because my typing never improves. Edited by - duefuss on 2/19/2010 10:46:12 AM
So much rubbish. It's pretty easy being on the side of individual liberty. I'm not the prohibitionist here. The Constitution huh? Oh sure Jefferson, Adams, etc, they all promoted draconian laws? Really hated personal freedom? Do you really think those guys would of had an ounce of sympathy for hysterics and junk-science and health NAZI rules like you seem to promote? They'd of thought you were out of your mind, and they'd probably miss the spittoon and put the tobacco spit on your shoe instead. On the other hand Joseph Gobbles probably would of approved. He especially liked state controls and the use of the power of the state to enforce things, or subvert the law, or to promote public health. A brilliant zealot. Not that unlike others in state offices now like Health and Human Services and also W.H.O. The Golden Rule eh? Like do onto others or something like that? Who said anything about wanting to violate that? I'd say that the Golden Rule was just fine before bans and prohibitions. In fact, most people I knew who smoked before were some of the most considerate people I knew. And also far neater than I am. That is from a rational person's perspective. Before the nitwits, loonies, extremists and propagandists took over. The "fake cough" types. The "wave their hands" all over the place types. The "pointing and screaming" types. You know nuts. Everyone got along fine before that. Before freedom was wrongfully assaulted in this one more way. Even though my thing is an occasional cigar with a drink, and I might go months without one, I've been known to go out of my way actually bum a fag, (which I don't actually enjoy) and light up just to show solidarity against pinheads like this. Also there are a lot of stupid assumptions here. Like somehow anyone who smokes a little cigarette is inconsiderate. Not true. People won't normally try to get right next to someone who doesn't like it or blow smoke in your face, unless you get too bossy with them. This business about how I can't be even in the same room with you smoking or be standing in the same vicinity is nonsense. That's not consideration, that's intolerance, and very bigoted anti-social intolerance at that. Shame on you for promoting it. Shame on smokers and normal people who accept hysteria and stupidity and agree to act like convicts or criminals. Here's a little rule you probably totally forgot about. "Live and let live." Kind of like you putting up with a whiff of cigarette smoke in a free country just like I put up with seeing too many self mutilated freaks, fat fuckers, and morons who seem to think that anywhere standing right next to you is their personal phone booth, even shoulder to shoulder. Probably many of the same idiots with the cellphone gluded to thier ear are the same ones would make a federal case over someone having a little smoke standing there, minding his own business 15 ft away. Who are the true brats? The ones who got along fine before and showed rational consideration, or the intolerant babies who go for the bans who have to have it just their way, like a kid in the supermarket who knows Mom doesn't want a scene? I'll add that it wasn't the smokers who tried to shackle you, prohibit pornography, impose gun control. You meant to jam the baloney down their thoats and warp what was before a more civil society. Being on the side of personal liberty and personal freedom with the smallest interference from the state, that's a fine place to be in. It places me pretty much always in the right, especially in a freedom loving, freedom based republic. Not just mine either, all of ours. I happily like being in that place. However in an increasing police oriented state, where our nature and traditions, and values are traded and repalced by political correctness, narrow mindedness, and security, our voices are not heard as much. I think our friend Max Hardcore understand this too. D. Jolly Edited by - Jollymann on 2/22/2010 11:32:55 PM Edited by - Jollymann on 2/22/2010 11:36:34 PM
[Link]
Zablon Deactivated User
162 Posts 2/10
Posted - Feb 19 2010 : 10:13PM
I read many costars reported him to the police. I'm sure most of them were false reports.
So would I. My main interest in all of the Max threads has been simply getting at the truth - whatever it is. I don't really care. I'm just tired of reading stuff with no credible sources. I don't doubt that Max is/was bad news. It's not rocket science. He didn't seem like a nice man. But whatever the sources are for any and all rumors, it would be great to see them posted so everyone can evaluate their fidelity without having to search all over the web for them.
Max Hardcore was just a little to "on the edge" for what I considered good porn--however I did laugh at some of the stuff he did and the looks on the girls faces....one questions I have, during his trial did any of the girls come forward to his defense on the stand ?(to me that would say alot) Thanks
Not a shred of evidence exists in favor of the idea that life is serious - Brendan Gill 723 Posts 4/09
Posted - Feb 20 2010 : 12:21PM
Actually, you are. You want to prohibit others from their fresh air by filling it with tobacco smoke.Actually, Adams, as I recall, didn't smoke. I don't know about Jefferson, but he did write a little: "...Man is endowed with inalienable rights; that among these are Life, Liberty, and The Pursuit of Happiness." I doubt he would object to any law that protected the health of one person from the recklessness of another. Be that as it may, you don't know any better what Adams and Jefferson would have thought about anything than anyone else at this point, since they both died on the same day 184 years ago , July 4th.Boy! the double whammy. First you wrap yourself in the flag; now we're trotting out the Nazis. Not that I mentioned them, but Herr Goebbels and Company killed men, women and children because they were Jews or gay or disabled or Gypsies or just because. And you want to say? What? That today we're telling Jollyman he can't make other people sick just because he feels like it, and tomorrow we'll be gassing Jews? Why does everyone think the Nazis are a valid analogy for whatever they are arguing? The Germans in the 30’s didn’t LOSE their rights by the actions of some government that stole them surreptitiously one by one. The Germans, like the Italians before them and like nearly every people in recorded history from the Greeks onward GAVE their rights away in a bunch. They gave them to demagogues who told them what they wanted to hear, told them there were simple answers to all their problems, convinced them that all their misery was someone else’s fault: the Jews or the Barbarians, or the Communists, or the Democrats -- and that they would take care of everything; made them afraid, convinced them that they were weak and the enemy was strong. As Posthum said most excellently on this very forum “Make people believe there's evil lurking around every corner and they'll love you for 'protecting' them from it.” Ironically, it was the very fear of losing their ‘rights’ that made them so willing to give them away to the despots that destroyed their liberties. Ironically, it is the very invokers of Nazi tyranny and the Holocaust who so fear for their liberty and prosperity that they are ready to give them up to another’s protection. If you have so little confidence in your own and the people’s ability to preserve your freedom after all this nation has gone through to keep it as well as it has, then you are the very one whose fear is most likely to surrender that freedom to someone who convinces you they are protecting it for you. I don't hear you hollering about Nazis because you can't insulate your furnace pipes with asbestos anymore or get lead in your paint, or send your kids to school without polio shots. Those are health related prohibitions too. So why no moaning about them? Could it possibly be because you don't WANT asbestos or lead pooisoning or for your kids to get polio, but you DO want to smoke, and you DON'T want to wait until after the dinner or the drink or whatever?No not "Like do onto others or something like that." Like, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." And your righteous indignation about a smoking ban makes you sound to me like the first guy who'd invoke it if it did you any good.How ever could I have doubted you and your polite smoker friends. I'm sure your 'solidarity' is an inspiration to us all.Actually it is true. Smoking a little cigarette in the presence of anyone without their permission IS inconsiderate, but not even close to how inconsiderate, boorish, and self degrading as "light{ing} up just to show solidarity against pinheads" and to prove to everyone just how annoying you can be.A little rule I forgot? Never mind that it’s a rewording of the “do unto others or something like that,” live and let live is EXACTLY the ethic of the smoking ban itself. You simply have no right and never did have the right to harm others or to annoy them, just as they have no right to harm you. The smoking ban doesn’t say you can’t smoke and live your life how you wish. It does insist that you let others live as they want to as well. And you are scolding me? Who the fuck are you to scold anyone? Little kids who throw temper tantrums in the grocery store because they can’t have everything they see are scolded by their mother. That’s what you’re doing: throwing a tantrum because you can’t poison the atmosphere for everyone around you when you feel like it. Just because you are an adult doesn’t make that any less bratty. It’s worse, really, because adults are supposed to be able to get along, to behave for the welfare of all. Who’s the one who wants things his way here and to hell with everybody else?Agreed. You have every right to live your own life as you please, and I have defended that right, I think, consistently in other contexts here on ADT. But there’s a difference between one’s right to smoke or drink or watch erotic movies in one’s own home or among mutually consenting adults, and doing those things in public places, where others are essentially forced to tolerate what you are doing against their will or welfare. I’m sure you would not condone drunk driving or viewing porn on the street in full view of strangers, but insisting you be able to smoke around other people without their consent is just as absurd. Because you don’t want something to be true does not make it false. The health threat of second hand smoke, the smoke exhaled by others, to non-smokers, has been scientifically established and repeatedly demonstrated. You can call it pseudo science and liberal conspiracy all you want. But even if there WAS a doubt about the danger to health of smoking and second hand smoke, being around a smoker when one does not themselves smoke is VERY unpleasant: it smells terrible and creates a choking atmosphere. You have no right to do that to others, and, even if you did, doing it brands you to everyone who sees you annoying others, just to satisfy your own whim or craving, as a selfish, inconsiderate, rude, and unpleasant person. You may not care what others think of your behavior, but their opinion of you can have consequences to you that you do care about. In the end, what EITHER of us says on this issue is irrelevant. The fact is that smoking in public will become increasingly difficult to do legally and the penalties for doing it more severe. Like it or not, that is the way of the world these days. You can understand and accept that, or you can rant and rave about it and get yourself all worked up until you make yourself sick or do something you’ll regret later, but it won’t change a thing. You didn’t ask for it, but my advice would be to pick another battle to fight to preserve personal liberties, a battle against censorship or something that seeks to prohibit you from doing as you please without harming others or intruding or their liberties. Smoking just isn’t that battle. edited to fix quote Edited by - duefuss on 2/20/2010 1:14:14 PM Edited by - duefuss on 2/20/2010 1:15:53 PM
Well I still stand by everything I've said. That is because I am in principal right. In fact it's pointless to wage this little rhetorical war any more. This all illustrates a difference in reasoning, logic, and acceptance of principals and acceptance or rejection of popular, if flawed, or valid information. I'm kind of sick of it actually. I really have gotten down to the basics in this discussion, even though I tried to avoid it. That means whoever read my words has chance to consider the issue. At some point the reasonable man will say, "yes indeed I accept this perspective philosophically, and that is the more true American way of things, or I accept the reverse". Probably most already know how they feel about it. I know exactly where I stand on libertarian issues or so called "heath issues". Especially where there is political dogma and motivations are firmly attached. Indeed, many things are black and white, especially ones concept of freedom, personal or otherwise. I do not like having it diluted, infringed, or compromised. However I feel I have explained what considerate "within reason" is with this matter. I don't do well with extreme rules or hypersensitivity. I oppose it naturally. I feel everyone ought to oppose it. I do think that an important qualification is in order. I don't base my views about anything along these lines on personal comfort or being annoyed. That has absolutely nothing to do with the heart of the issue. It's besides the point. Just like I wouldn't be for military intervention (say Iraq) based on it being presumed easy. Or against it because it might be presumed or proven costly (say Iraq). It's principal. Too many people are for or against something because of what they like and don't like. That's selfish and silly. For the record, I find cigarette smoke smell not so pleasing. That doesn't mean I wont have a face to face conversation with someone who is smoking. That would be ridicules and dippy to me. That doesn't mean I wont have an occasional cigar. That doesn't mean I wont sit down at the table for blackjack in Reno. Cigars and pipes for that matter smell better to me. However, I simply make sure that I don't let myself become too intolerant. In fact so much so that I carry a Zippo lighter in case someone needs a light, especially a lady. When I don't have the lighter, I have a match. An old habit. That's what pockets are for. D. Jolly
Not a shred of evidence exists in favor of the idea that life is serious - Brendan Gill 723 Posts 4/09
Posted - Feb 20 2010 : 6:28PM
It's alright. I NEVER expect to change anyone's mind. None of us ever changes any mind but our own. But if all you have said here about your own conduct and views is the truth, no rationalization or pretense of a courage of your convictions changes the impression you've given me, and I have to believe many others who've given themselves a headache deciphering all of this, is that you are a very self centered person who indeed places the indulgence of his own appetites and whims above all compassion for the ease and comfort of those around him. If that is a mistaken impression, then it is. I hope so. But nothing you've written here makes it a mistake. Of course, you don't care, and though there's some reason why you should, it's clear that my words won't make you care. I hope something will, though, because I prefer to believe you aren't the callous, narrow minded person you've made of yourself in this exchange. I expect, on the contrary, that you probably do NOT actually light up among strangers that might be discomforted by it, that you actually ask permission to smoke in the presence of others. I expect that you have defended smoking in public as a matter of individual rights and never intended to defend selfishness and bad manners as you have done. It is simply that you have picked the one issue, among so many valid issues of personal liberty, that was NOT about an individual's liberties at all, but about an individual's responsibility in a free society to look out for the other guy. I like believing that you have that particular responsibility in full measure, and that you would not argue for a moment that the liberties we both cherish would be possible without it.
Hey, even the SCOTUS had to bail on pornography -- "you know it when you see it". Perversion is in the eye of the beholder. Reasonable people can disagree. Peace out.
Mr. Duefuss: Now you've gone ahead and made it personal, when I was intending to cease the whole thing and not make it personal. Spare me your warped, and condescending, greatly misguided, outlook on life. You are exactly the sort of person who I find impossible to take. A whining, badgering, politically correct self-righteous little poof, who employs the power of the state to stamp out any rational, civil, or conventional outlook on life, for our own good, whether we like it or not. Not unlike the worst minions of the worst kinds of regimes. Men with Brown Shirts in imposing office rooms. We are obviously in totally different worlds with a completely different world view. It's a good reminder to me and ought to me for everyone here as to how dangerous and politically enabling, your kind can be. You're the lawyer, the informer, the secret policeman. Or simply the clone of a real person. Someone who buys into the muck to make it harder and more miserable for everyone else on the basis of internal security, or public health, or morality. Go back to the pods from where you came or the laboratory. Which is just about as antiseptic a place as you'd expect us all to live in. In some ways you're a culture-destroyer. Plenty of zealous men are like that. I just don't meet them very often. Believe me sir, if I heard you mouth off for a minute I'd make sure to bum any smoke I could find and light it up. In fact for that matter, I'd make sure everyone had a light at the same time. Then you could amuse us all with your pretend cough. I think you might even recruit new smokers on the basis of disliking your attitude. Just keep your distance, OK? I find you too difficult to take. D. Jolly Edited by - Jollymann on 2/20/2010 10:45:47 PM Edited by - Jollymann on 2/22/2010 11:38:44 PM
Not a shred of evidence exists in favor of the idea that life is serious - Brendan Gill 723 Posts 4/09
Posted - Feb 21 2010 : 2:47PM
Thank you. I really didn't know that. Isn't it extraordinary how you can debate any issue with some people for only so long, before they decide that insulting you is relevant to the debate?
but where the hell else am I going to put it?Why not? I have a perfect right to dispense whatever advice I like, just as you can ignore it, which you've obviously decided to do. Too bad. It's pretty good advice, if I do say so myself.
