Future of porn (and this site) is really uncertain right now…

[BootmanLA]

2 hours ago, ellentonboy said:

I can't imagine elected officials getting their collegeus to back a bill to limit access to porn, when I would estimate msybe 90 percent of the males on Capital Hill have porn on their personal laptops or personal smart phones.

Here's the thing, though: most representatives in government assume that they'll never get caught up in the laws they pass. They're generally happy to pass restrictions on behavior (by wide margins) and then proceed to break those restrictions themselves because they don't think they'll ever get caught.

[PozBearWI]

12 hours ago, ErosWired said:

I actually get very tired of hearing this, as though all choices are equally valid and have no effect on anyone but the chooser. That’s just bullshit. This legislator may make his own choice to villainize sex, but he’s also going to take that conviction and make it the law of the land so that everybody has to live as he sees fit. 

If a man chooses to believe that people of color are inferior and uses racist language according to that choice, is that also just fine? Of course it’s not fine.

If a man decides homosexuality is unnatural and an affront to God, is it just fine for him to make that choice? No, it isn’t, because in one way or another, subtly or overtly, he’s going to act on that conviction at some point, and what he does will be wrong. If his son comes out as gay and he chooses to send his son to conversion therapy, is it just fine for him to choose that for his son? No, it isn’t, because his actions will likely cause harm to his son.

If a man decides he wants to smoke while standing at a gas pump, is it just fine for him to make that choice? No, it isn’t, because he runs the risk of destroying life and property.

 I could do this all day, because there’s no end to the examples of ways some personal choices are not fine, and can’t simply be accepted because it’s “their personal choice.”

Sir, if you choose to quote me, quote all of me.  When you snip out the center part of a sentence and use that for your rant; you have failed to set context and thus taken us down some path attributing it as responding to what I said.  Please don't do that again.  

[PozBearWI]

4 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

I know plenty of high schoolers who could easily save up $100 from a single paycheck. $1,000 would take a few weeks, perhaps a few months, but it's still not out of range.

Secondly, a LOT of porn consumers are not about to go down to their post office with ID and demonstrate to the government that they're purchasing porn. Aside from the general privacy issues involved, who's to say the government wouldn't keep a record of all such transactions, and if later these flash sticks are de-legalized, going after those who have them?

Add in that many modern internet devices, including most tablets and phones, can't use flash drives.

Most importantly, this is a solution to a problem that doesn't really exist. 

I would submit that there are plenty of records about which of us is buying porn and where.  Registering to buy porn we essentially already do when we sign up for any website.  Going to the Post Office seems like it would be redundant.  

Truly the forces are pretty clearly opposed to allowing OTHERS to view or own porn.  

[ErosWired]

56 minutes ago, JimInWisc said:

Sir, if you choose to quote me, quote all of me.  When you snip out the center part of a sentence and use that for your rant; you have failed to set context and thus taken us down some path attributing it as responding to what I said.  Please don't do that again.  

I think you’ll find that truncating quoted matter to direct attention to a given passage is common practice across the web. I do so in the majority of my replies to posts, and intend to continue. 

Regardless of the brevity of the quote, my comments did not address yours out of context; they merely disagree with your plain statement as posted, and as repeated in your original reply to me. If you feel that your position needs clarifying, issuing a follow-up post to that effect is your prerogative.

Issuing demands is not.

Perhaps you are in a real-life situation in which you are accustomed to issuing orders like “don’t do it again” to people obliged to obey them; I am not your subordinate. You posted in a public forum. How I respond to it or any public comment is my choice - and according to your argument, making my own choice is just fine.

[hntnhole]

15 hours ago, ErosWired said:

If a man decides homosexuality is unnatural and an affront to God, is it just fine for him to make that choice?

I think there's a fine point to be made here. 

The act of making a personal choice in what a person honors, what they don't, is indeed something we all do.  We need to make all kinds of choices about how we're going to live our lives.  As it happens, I detest one particular "food", and I choose not to eat it - ever.  That, however, does not give me the right to forbid others to eat that disgustment.  

Thus, the harm only presents itself when the man you describe decides it's appropriate for him to tell others how to make personal decisions.  You're almost certainly correct that a man who decides that:

15 hours ago, ErosWired said:

No, it isn’t, because in one way or another, subtly or overtly, he’s going to act on that conviction at some point, and what he does will be wrong.

Almost inevitably that man will commit a seriously inappropriate act, and harm others with his bias.  

Thus, acting in a supposedly superior way, judging others for not recognizing the "supremacy" of his judgement is where the problem starts - not with one single person reflecting on what it right and good and proper for themselves in their interpersonal connections.  That man could keep his hatreds to himself, and not project his corruptions onto others, and be ok.  But, as you point out, his presumed supremacy will almost certainly become apparent at some point, and that's when he crosses the line.

 

[hntnhole]

6 hours ago, ellentonboy said:

So they are a little more conscious on that subject than one might think.

and for good reason, apparently !!!   

Per the Pope/nuns, I remember the tour guide pointing out some of the little peepholes at the Vatican ... for what it's worth ... one more example of how the rules are for the benefit of the powerful, not the powerless.

Per the Romney reference, I'm not a Republican, but I don't think he would have been so bad as President.  He never had a chance, of course, with the old "multiple wives" thing, The currently Powerful mumbled about the gold dishes, but accept their own ridiculous histrionics as perfectly normal and true and respectable.  

Thanks for the reply.

[PozBearWI]

2 hours ago, ErosWired said:

I think you’ll find that truncating quoted matter to direct attention to a given passage is common practice across the web. I do so in the majority of my replies to posts, and intend to continue. 

Regardless of the brevity of the quote, my comments did not address yours out of context; they merely disagree with your plain statement as posted, and as repeated in your original reply to me. If you feel that your position needs clarifying, issuing a follow-up post to that effect is your prerogative.

Issuing demands is not.

Perhaps you are in a real-life situation in which you are accustomed to issuing orders like “don’t do it again” to people obliged to obey them; I am not your subordinate. You posted in a public forum. How I respond to it or any public comment is my choice - and according to your argument, making my own choice is just fine.

Then sir you are clueless about how context sets the stage for understanding.  

[Zencoli]

19 hours ago, UKFFBBBtm said:

I don't want to pay anything for what I can currently get for free

Oh I agree fully with you there. But I’d rather protect our lifestyle then let the government criminalize it

[Zencoli]

So what should we do? Like we are talking about church history, arguing about context, and we are making excuses for not doing something.

I have not had a great experience with posting on rawtop’s site in the past nor do I have much of a nice opinion of him, BUT RAWTOP is providing a service that has work a lot towards “normalizing” our content, making each of us a community. 
 

the fact that he has posted this thread alone should be enough indication that he feels the future of our community is in jeopardy. 
 

there has to be something we as a community can do to protect this community, if we allow the Governments of the world dictate to us that we are wrong, defective, or unworthy of equality… we have conceded their viewpoint and our silence, fears, and lack of efforts set not just us back, but everyone who has stood up against these kinds of attacks as well.  
 

we built this community, we need to be responsible and defend it somehow. So my ideas have some flaws, but with everyone here, surely we can come up with something, to ensure the community survives… and not repeatedly “hope/believe” the bill won’t make it.

[Zencoli]

11 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

I know plenty of high schoolers who could easily save up $100 from a single paycheck. $1,000 would take a few weeks, perhaps a few months, but it's still not out of range.

Secondly, a LOT of porn consumers are not about to go down to their post office with ID and demonstrate to the government that they're purchasing porn. Aside from the general privacy issues involved, who's to say the government wouldn't keep a record of all such transactions, and if later these flash sticks are de-legalized, going after those who have them?

Add in that many modern internet devices, including most tablets and phones, can't use flash drives.

Most importantly, this is a solution to a problem that doesn't really exist. 

While I would agree that the problem does not exist atm, it’s possible.

the point of the “costs in my idea” was to raise money for legal defences, and building the community. Not about stoping kids from being kids. 
 

While it’s not ideal to have to go to the post office to get the device, and while it’s true the government could use that to track who is into pornography (virtually everyone is)… Apple, Alphabet, the Government, and god know who else already track everyone anyways. So to me, this is the privacy vs security fear mongering. It basically distracts from the situation and also create another non-existent tangent. 
 

I also came up with this idea on the spot trying to see if I could motivate a brainstorming process to help kill this bill. I built it off the “Roku Stick” and other such inter web streaming services. I am sure there are better solutions if we worked together to overcome 

[Zencoli]

Anywho. Sorry for the tirades. I can stop if no one wants to figure out what we can do. 
 

I guess I mistook the point of RAWTOP telling us about the situation. 

[ScorpionFF]

Bollocks! It'll be a real shame if BZ is lost. I like it on here, and have had the pleasure of speaking with a few good fellas over time too. 

Personally, I view the world now as being in utter chaos. Digital Armageddon as I perceive it to be. I wish I had the opportunity to fuck off to live on another Planet, even if it would mean that I was the only human there. I'd go right fucking now - Get me off of this dump ... Where could I go? I have always fancied Uranus, LOL.

It is times like this that I realise my gratitude towards rawTOP for bringing us this space. As an isolated individual it has been and is a great outlet for me. 

Btw, yesterday I was very surprised to see the site where I find pictures that I like to admire and appreciate on various levels pertaining to my inner pig that I share on here no longer working. What the fuck is going on?

Stay tuned for the new future of debauchery; pictures and stories about my dinner, cute little kittens, and that time that I sneezed. Will that be allowed? Will making a sandwich be a crime? Answers on a postcard to:

FUCK this shit! ... hahaha

[ScorpionFF]

12 hours ago, ErosWired said:

I think you’ll find that truncating quoted matter to direct attention to a given passage is common practice across the web. I do so in the majority of my replies to posts, and intend to continue. 

I just truncated, I am ever so naughty, LOL.

It is common practice I agree. I do it myself in the majority if not all of my replies and in messenger too, it helps me tremendously with what I wish to say, and as ErosWired quite correctly states; it directs attention to a given passage. 

Keep truncating! 😋

[PozBearWI]

Just because you make truncating quotes to make them devoid of original meaning doesn't make it a productive practise.  It distorts original meaning.  In the instant case, he made it the opposite of my original intent.

That said, I don't give a crap save that when I am misquoted, I am going to point that out.  

It isn't "naughty" @LeatherScorpionFF, it is just dumb.

[ErosWired]

On 12/20/2022 at 7:36 PM, JimInWisc said:

Then sir you are clueless about how context sets the stage for understanding.  

One of my degrees is in journalism. One of the first things we learn in the discipline is the necessity of context. Again, if you feel the need to further explain your original point, you have every opportunity to do so. I’m certainly not going to engage you any further.