Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So if pornography is protected by the first amendment and is a victimless thing, according to insane liberal progressives, then the ownership of firearms should not be restricted in any way and fully protected under the second amendment.
So you had to make a fake post about pornography to make an old analogy about guns? Come back when a guy kills 17 people with porn. Then we'll talk.
Well, it looks like I just answered my own question. Evidently it falls under "the artistic expression protections of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution".
But to dig into this a little deeper, what if and why can't the subject of "the artistic expression" be changed to a different interpretation? As in my opinion, it is not Art and who's fooling who? The majority of the people viewing it are not looking at it Artistically.
And where and when did someone draw the line to it being illegal till a certain age, then it becomes legal? That's the part I want to see in writing.
Well, it looks like I just answered my own question. Evidently it falls under "the artistic expression protections of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution".
But to dig into this a little deeper, what if and why can't the subject of "the artistic expression" be changed to a different interpretation? As in my opinion, it is not Art and who's fooling who? The majority of the people viewing it are not looking at it Artistically.
And where and when did someone draw the line to it being illegal till a certain age, then it becomes legal? That's the part I want to see in writing.
Damn, that's 90% of the art I look at. And it is Art....of course, only a small percentage of it. Art is in the eye and mind of the beholder, but when a woman (or man for some) spends a LOT of time making her "temple" (remember, the body is each of our temples) into something that Michelangelo would have loved to carve, that's art. Even better, it's alive.
How can one look at drawings, statues, etc. of ancient times and then claim nudity or the female form is not art?
Nice try tho.
Note - much (most) stuff I look at I don't like. But that's my taste in art. I'd say the same if I was in a store where they sold pottery.
BTW, Trumps 130K Ho - that's not art. I checked her out and....nah. Trump was making fun before of fake boobs.....looks like he doesn't care anymore. She looks like she got the bargain job.
Damn, that's 90% of the art I look at. And it is Art....of course, only a small percentage of it. Art is in the eye and mind of the beholder, but when a woman (or man for some) spends a LOT of time making her "temple" (remember, the body is each of our temples) into something that Michelangelo would have loved to carve, that's art. Even better, it's alive.
How can one look at drawings, statues, etc. of ancient times and then claim nudity or the female form is not art?
Nice try tho.
What you are talking about and Pornography are Two different things.
Did you ever see Michelangelo carve out anything like the extreme examples of what is available online?
If Michelangelo ever did, they would had ran him out of town.
Your statements already reflect the status quo. So what are you arguing?
It appears this thread was created by the OP as a soapbox from which he can make derisive comments about groups of people he disagrees with.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.