Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Actually, our minds think alike. I posted what I said because I was not going to let you make it all about porn exploitation.
Now that we have that out of the way, I mentioned the young prisoners in case you wanted a conversation about age based criteria. And I mentioned the female prisoners about Bagram in case it had to be all about women to be worth caring.
I can answer your question about consent. I side with Glenn, that what matters is the law. If you want a different law, try to get one passed. The law says 18 (depending on which law you are asking about) and that means 18.
I'm making it all about torture? And it's wrong, given the comparison? Why don't you answer the question of why the torture matters so much less than the porn? This country has roughly a quarter to a third of the FBI working on internet porn. How many Torture Victims Protection Act trials or investigations you seen lately?
In his book, Inside the Wire, Erik Saar details at length a female interrogator who strips to her underwear, lap dances on a male prisoner, and wipes fake menstrual blood across his face. Now that you know that there were female prisoners at Bagram, and possibly female high-level detainees at black sites, and given that you know that nudity and exploitation of sexual fears were authorized from the top, and given that you know that when the sexes were the other way around it was inappropriate touching, groping, body contact, do you care about porn or rape?
In Africa recently, the biggest (casualty-wise) single war since World War II occurred, in which women had hot coals placed in their recta so they would burn through and create fistulae. Nobody cared, nobody stopped it, nobody even really knew about it.
But you chase me away for "making it all about torture". Okay, I'll go, go back to discussing the porn guy. Nobody talks about sex and porn as much as torture.
Okay, I'll bite.
Your point about the age of consent being somewhat arbitrary is, contrary to your protestations, neither new nor original. The law draws all kinds of bright lines demarcating when one thing becomes another. That's what the law has to do.
To use your point, I can't go into the Army and be killed in Iraq when I'm 17 either. On the day I turn 18, I can enlist. Replace 17/18 with 20/21, and I can drink alcohol. The cops may not pull me over if I'm speeding modestly, but they most certainly will if I'm going 15-20 miles over the speed limit.
Your argument could just as well be used to lower the age of consent for sexual activity, which you will find to be the case in many European countries. There are obviously some 16-year-olds who are more mature than some 18-year-olds - and for that matter, maybe even some 80-year-olds - but the point is irrelevant. The law can't be written for individual idiosyncracies. For better or worse, our society has decided that people are (except for drinking) adults at age 18, and makes them free agents at that age. In most times and places in the vast sweep of human history, people were effectively adults at far younger ages than 18. To imply that people can't make rational choices at that age is profoundly condescending to intelligent young people everywhere.
We get it. Porn offends your moral sensibilities. The answer to that is obvious: you don't have to consume it. But the poorly reasoned diatribes are really rather ridiculous, and just a thinly veiled attempt to try to assert the superiority of your own moral sense over that of others by force of law. It's authoritarianism, whether you admit it or not.
I would love to hear an Orrin Hatch or any other conservative explain how going after the porn industry in general isn't a direct contradiction of their entire philosophy.
New Deal Democrat (October 5, 2008 07:36 PM ):
We get it. Porn offends your [AKA Smith's] moral sensibilities. The answer to that is obvious: you don't have to consume it. But the poorly reasoned diatribes are really rather ridiculous, and just a thinly veiled attempt to try to assert the superiority of your own moral sense over that of others by force of law. It's authoritarianism, whether you admit it or not.
Thanks, NDD.
I was gearing up to write the very same observation you make, when I saw you'd beaten me to it. There's no way I could possibly improve on how you've stated the matter.
Excellent.
@ Kitt first: It was Glenn who said that we shouldn't coddle people who are of the age of consent. I think he mentioned that these women are adults but men too can be sexually exploited and perhaps -- following Glenn's reasoning -- they should not be coddled either. Not sure he actually used the word coddle -- but something like that. I am glad that you agree with me that age of consent is completely arbitrary and has nothing to do with right or wrong, without some compelling supporting reason.
Do I have you right there?
Actually, our minds think alike. I posted what I said because I was not going to let you make it all about porn exploitation.
You just chose the word "exploitation." I didn't.
Now that we have that out of the way, I mentioned the young prisoners in case you wanted a conversation about age based criteria. And I mentioned the female prisoners about Bagram in case it had to be all about women to be worth caring.
Actually, I am old-fashioned. I always prefer discussion about right and wrong. However, we cannot ignore the fact that whether or not torture is legal it is not just a matter of laws -- they can be quite arbitrarily chosen, as Bush has demonstrated -- or they can based upon things like harm to others, the few or the many. I say the many because I believe that harm can extend beyond those who are the immediate receivers of bad behavior. For instance, our nation has been harmed by a culture of torture.
Harm matters. It is the individual who suffers torture but much harm is done beyond that, wouldn't you agree? Or to you want to contend that the idea of harm and the proscription or freedom of actions should only be confined to acts against individuals?
I can answer your question about consent. I side with Glenn, that what matters is the law. If you want a different law, try to get one passed. The law says 18 (depending on which law you are asking about) and that means 18.
Then you are you agreeing with me that the sexual exploitation or the torture of a person -- the evil thereof -- is not totally dependant upon age? Yes, it is dreadful when 16 year olds are sexually exploited, but also dreadful when 18 year olds are sexually exploited. Yes, it dreadful when 16 year olds are tortured, but also when 18 year olds are tortured.
Has it not occured to you that abuse, sexual exploitation and torture all could come from the same evil root?
Yes, I am old-fashioned. I use words like evil.
I'm making it all about torture? And it's wrong, given the comparison? Why don't you answer the question of why the torture matters so much less than the porn?
I didn't say that it did. You merely made an assumption about me. I feel both are worthy or discussion and since Glenn compared them, then I am on topic.
This country has roughly a quarter to a third of the FBI working on internet porn.
Those resources fight child porn as well -- does that matter?
How many Torture Victims Protection Act trials or investigations you seen lately?
I hope you aren't trying to suggest that I would oppose these -- because that would be both a strawman attack and a smear.
In his book, Inside the Wire, Erik Saar details at length a female interrogator who strips to her underwear, lap dances on a male prisoner, and wipes fake menstrual blood across his face. Now that you know that there were female prisoners at Bagram, and possibly female high-level detainees at black sites, and given that you know that nudity and exploitation of sexual fears were authorized from the top, and given that you know that when the sexes were the other way around it was inappropriate touching, groping, body contact, do you care about porn or rape?
What difference does it make about the sexes being turned around. I am not sure what you are getting at here. Either way would be assault -- probably from the same root as that defect in character that would make a viewer enjoy watching simulated rapes of 12 year olds.
In Africa recently, the biggest (casualty-wise) single war since World War II occurred, in which women had hot coals placed in their recta so they would burn through and create fistulae. Nobody cared, nobody stopped it, nobody even really knew about it.
Probably because this sort of thing -- dreadful though it is -- is hardly new. Ever read Susan Brownmiller's Against Our Will. There is a chapter there about torture and war.
Ever read Alice Miller?
But you chase me away for "making it all about torture". Okay, I'll go, go back to discussing the porn guy. Nobody talks about sex and porn as much as torture.
You tried to chase me away first. What makes you think that exploitative (your word!) porn and torture are not related?
What makes you think the idea that one nation should rule over another is not related to the idea that white should rule over black, that men should rule over women, that adults should rule over children, that the rich should exploit the poor are not ALL -- everyone of them -- related?
(Ah yes, I feed you a bit of straw here, just as you tried to feed me some of yours.)
The poor suffer and have fewer choices. The victor crows and exacts tribute, sometimes in the form of debasement. All of this is about power and the abuse of it.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
Salon headlines in your mailbox
