Lathanar

This was not the point at hand, it was whether Americans obey the laws, not whether the laws are right or not, that's a different topic.

This has been asked an answered in here a couple times, but it's a long thread. Basically, no matter how you cut it, you are gaining value from the efforts of another without just compensation.

Fine, since I don't personally know most Americans and I believe a majority of people don't flaunt when they break the law, the only thing you can really go off of is the courts. I picked prison population over crime reports or ticket volume because it's easier, multiple crimes/ tickets might be the same person. The US incarceration rate of 724 per 100,000 is the highest in the world followed by Russia at 564 and Australia at 120 in 2004 for industrialized nations. I think it's quite easily assumable that if we have such a higher proportion of people willing to commit crimes that have sentences in jail as punishment, we have a higher proportion of people that are willing to commit small, ticketable offenses. The average speed driven where I live is normally 10 to 15 miles over the posted limit, we have signs posted at certain intersections posting the number of drivers ticketed for running red lights. Draw your own conclusions.

This question is so far out there, I don't even know how to address it. Here's a good example. It's Super Bowl halftime, watching the show, getting bored, get a drink, come back in when the song is finishing. Justin grabs her shirt, something flashes and the camera view changes really quick and a comercial comes on. It takes a couple minutes to sink in that we just saw her boob on tv, and we start checking google to see if anyone else saw the same thing or we were just nuts. We saw a boob, unexpectedly, and were thinking and discussing the ramifications of that boob for at least an hour. If you equate that to sexual activity, even for the split second that we percieved her flash, then I don't know what to tell you. That was NO sexual activity. The only answer there is that to you it's a sexual activity for normal, non desensitized people. That is far from any kind of proof that it is a sexual activity for all people. I'm sorry, I missed where a right to sexual integrity actually exists. Your whole argument is based on somehow someone is forcing you to think against your will. I really don't even see how you can take this kind of track at all, you have to think to decide on how to act. Someone trying to force, by threat of harm, not persuade you to agree with something that goes against reality is wrong. Showing someone their penis is not forcing tanyone to deny reality in any way, everyone can think whatever the hell they want. If you have sexual hangups due to your culture or whatever, don't try to legislate them on to the rest of us.

Look at our prison system population statistics and you'll answer the first question. Personally, I obey the stupid laws if I'm not prepared to deal with the consequences of breaking them and getting fined. People from the northeast are not the friendliest bunch of people. They are polite, but that's not friendly. Some parts of New England you can live there for 15 years and still be considered an outsider, it takes a while or the right kind of personality to get a sense of belonging, at least from my own experiences and others I've talked to that moved north then came back. The one county I worked in in PA was actually so bad that I had to hire people from outside the county, the locals were just too diffuclt to work with. But then, I'm sure someone who was raised completely up north will have a different opinion. BTW, the Canadians I knew were much nicer to deal with than the yankees. The south is generally very friendly, they will say hi to you when you pass them on the street or in a store (6 years up north I NEVER had a stranger say hi to me when I passed them, and when I said hi they looked at me like I grew an extra head). If you break down, people down here will actually stop to help you out, etc.

This is getting tiring. She recognizes it as a sexual organ. That is not sexual activity, it is the act of perceiving an existent. What train of thought she persued after she regonized it is her choice. 1) Prove that viewing pornography = sexual activity for all people, not just yourself. If you can't, stop trying to say that viewing something that might be related to sex automagically makes you engage in a sexual activity. 2) What rights have been violated.

You know, I'm not quite what exactly is the American culture. There's a bunch of cultures within America, almost to a state or regional level; the Cajuns, the south, Texas, midwest, northeast, etc. Is there actually an over-all American culture that is some intersection of all of them? I've lived in the northeast, Texas and Utah and traveled a bit to other sections and all the subcultures are very different from each other, often there's reference to 'culture shock' when one relocates to different sections of the country.

Who said she immediately thought of sex, she could very well have started thinking wtf, or did he just do that? I imagine a little bit of disbelief was involved first, then either disgust or outrage. She may have thought about what it would be like sleeping with him too, but that would be her choice. Maybe she compared him, maybe she laughed. It's her choice what thoughts go through her head. The real issue with Clinton is in the context of why he had her come to his hotel room.

This is exactly my point, it is my choice to associate something with sex, it is not forced on me whereas you've said that it is forced upon you. It is also my point that what I view as sexual activity and what you do is not the same as for other people, you've said that it is for all people, or at least in a normal state, and who determines what that normal state is btw? So which is it, is pornography or exposing yourself to someone else violating some right of yours by forcing you to think of something, or are you simply thinking of it because you make the choice to. What right is being violated?

You did not answer my question. Prove that viewing pornography = sexual activity for everyone, not just your own psychology. There are a multitude of things that I can see/hear that might flash some sort of 'sex' thought, but I CHOOSE to equate them to a sexual reference if I want to. It is not an automatic thing, it is my consciousness deciding to. If there's an image of a place that maybe I had a rip roaring good time with some girl at, I'll think of sex for longer than a few moments. Should I consider my rights violated since the image which is innocent to others evoked a sexual thought in my head? No one is surplanting or negating my use of reason. There is no rights violation, no use of force to make me think of something I don't want to think of. All political/ideological speech is supposed to make you take a line of thought, make you think about something in a way you normally wouldn't, it's why it's there. There is no force or rights violations in persuasive speech for the same reasons there is no rights violations in pornography.

Prove it. It's not for me and I do not consider myself to be 'desensitized'. If I want to think about or fantasize about sex when I look at an erotic picture I will, but I can also choose not to. It is my choice, my mind does not automagically put me in sex mode. You make it sound like viewing pornography = a sexual activity is some sort of instinctual behavior all humans have built into them.

Are you claiming this is the case for everyone? Or just for you.

You need to look at what a person is trying to get out of the act of beastiality. The only thing that I can think of, and based on other converstaions I've seen on this subject, is physical pleasure, not reason. What other possible value can you get from having sex with an animal? Until you can come up with a solid example of where someone gains value through sex with animals based on reason and not physical pleasure, it will be immoral in my mind. This has nothing to do with rights violations, this is centered on whether the standard of man's values is based on rational self-interest or physical pleasure.

He doesn't really mean offended. He's saying that an image may force a line of thought on a person that they may not want to think about and equating that to initiation of force.

It is not the act of torture that is immoral, it's the reasoning behind it. Boiling an animal alive because it's the only safe way to cook it is much different than boiling it alive to watch it suffer and die. If torture is simply causing pain to a living thing to get pleasure from observing it, then it's immoral.

Are you equating someone displaying pornography, or anything that someone does not "consent" to seeing the same as physical force? I mean, is your whole point here that because an image might make you think of sex, which you say is a sexual activity, then somehow it's immoral because the image is forcing you to think of sex?

Of course the paper is 3 dimensional, the drawing isn't. When you represent something on a piece of paper you are creating a 2 DIMENSIONAL DRAWING. Drawing on the surface of a paper, you can't draw down into the paper or above it. The drawing can easily represent a 3 dimensional object. Is that clear enough for everyone? That takes care of the real world. If a piece of paper were actually 2 dimensional, having no depth, you could STILL create an image on it that would represent a 3 dimensional object.

When is the last time you drew on the side of a piece of paper?

I think it's kind of funny how you can represent a 3 dimensional object on a 2 dimensional piece of paper.

I believe this is covered in OPAR with the concept of justice. If good is a positive value, and evil a negative value, you reward each appropriate to it's value level, punishment being a negative reward. I believe that was the jist of it.

I think what some people are considering casual is not what other people consider casual to be.

Dishonesty would negate the liability. If she said she was on birth control and wasn't, etc. etc.

If you would read what I posted, I'm asking a question of someone else who does not see casual sex as being immoral, not making a statement. I want to know what values they are gaining from it other than physical pleasure.

There are many long discourses over the definition and values and such associated with sex, in OPAR, Love Sex and Romance, Rand's Playboy interview, etc. and several threads on this forum have gone through it. Instead of questioning sex right now, lets look at casual sex, the basis of it's immorality. What values do you get from having casual sex other than physical pleasure? What part of that value is derived from physical pleasure and what part from your cognative faculty other than as you said "You look damn good, you're good in bed, that is value enough for me right now"?

I've been going over what I posted in my head on the way home, and there's something both right and wrong there that I can't put my finger on. I'll have to come back to it after I evaluate it a little more. I will say I wasn't trying to advocate that someone has a right to a job, I was zoning in on the threats being levied against the employee to gain something outside the realm of the job. Just because you are paying someone a wage, doesn't mean you own them.