I would make the observation that as the general level of turd in the toilet (to borrow someone else’s term) rises, so does the risk of overflow and all of us getting our shoes dirty.
Not to mention the back of our trousers as they rest on the floor at our ankles!!

I’m not going to stick my head down the Loo by saying it doesn’t matter what we all do in our own time or on our own TV.
It does, everything is incremental.
even turds.

Social experiments cannot simply be called off, by the time the effects can be measured it is always too late, even if the meaning of the measurements could be agreed apon, and entrenchment of the ideologies responsible in the meantime will make even this agreement impossible, in fact may even result in the corruption of the measurements themselves. And I am afraid that non-Socialists who set out to ingratiate themselves with the enemy and show how they can be just as “tolerant”, bear the next most responsibility. Understand how risky it is for me to say what I am now going to say: the glorification of homosexuality is merely a logical latter advancement of the 1960′s sexual revolutionary separation of sexual “fulfillment” from the age-old reproductive function, and the devaluation of married-couple child-rearing; it is just one step closer to the “Brave New World”. Have you read that book? Interestingly, the radical feminist and the sexual libertarian find it an exhilarating read, a prophetic expression of their utopia.

Who do YOU think finds the necessity of incarceration of such people most distressing, the “liberal” who refuses to acknowledge the true underlying problem, for which their ideology is responsible, and refuses even to acknowledge the fundamental requirement to protect society; or the “conservative” who warned us and warned us and warned us all along?

I agree with you. My point was more that Rex was offering up two extremes as though they were the only possible options, and claiming that general moral principles cannot be generally applied. At the same time morals campaigners have the duty to be at reasonably informed.

Its a balancing act, and they are not always going to get it right.

Personally, while I would have not watched Californication, it was at least on at a late hour. I have way more concern about the crap that kids can see every evening on Slutland Street.

And If I have a general idea of what is on a particular program I don’t need to see it to form an opinion.

True to a degree, but I can also think of a few times when I thought I knew what something was about and turned out to be pleasantly wrong about it. It goes both ways.

Bye bye Hels.

The problem with one person choosing to live in a toilet is that sooner or later the toilet overflows and we are all forced to. This is clearly the case with Western civilization.

I believe in personal choice, and I don’t think the state should impose censorship. I oppose the nanny state because its a two edged sword that can just as easily work against morality and genuine moral freedom (as the HRA does).

But I also believe that in a free society people are allowed to peacefully advocate their views and work for what they see as the betterment of society. Consumer activism is a necessary part of civil society. If over time those advocating a certain moral view become the majority then naturally what media outlets are prepared to show is going to change as those outlets reflect the wider society, and sometimes that may involves using consumer pressure.

I don’t buy your arguments regarding TV. Most moral conservatives don’t sit around watching morally degenerate programs, but the idea that this means that cannot have an informed opinion is absurd.

I don’t need to watch a snuff film to know that its wrong. And If I have a general idea of what is on a particular program I don’t need to see it to form an opinion.

Didn’t see your lil post stuck in the middle there

Honest mistake

confusing, but thats not all. There’s a certain mens rights indivudual not representing on this thread. Morfe confusion.

Most of the Rpublicans are mens rights advocates.

this does their curious image and cause no good at all.

Of course in a healthy society we’d have parental controls available on the devices used to access various channels, we’d schedule the more adult programs outside of normal children bedtimes, etc. Those are smart things to do. But they do not cut into other people’s access.

This whole nanny state, interventionist bullshit is just that – bullshit. Time the government let us get on with being adults, rather than trying to legislate that away from us. I know I’m capable of making intelligent decisions. It’s the same deal with politics and this cruddy EFA.

Apart from the obvious electoral advantage Labour, the Greens and their cohorts tried to legislate for themselves this type of thing that DPF highlights is very, very scary. It’s an invasion of somebody’s private life which has no point. It only exposes them to the nutbars and freaks out there. More attempts from Labour and the Greens to shut down people in an election year, to only have government funded political propaganda out in the mailboxes and to the public view.

They nobly plough through all this “filth” and then protest that it will cause the rest of us to become uncontrollable sex fiends (a symptom that somehow they, being pure of heart, manage to studiously avoid) or they don’t watch it, comment from a position of ignorance, and would have the rest of us kept in similar ignorance.

If a supermarket was selling TV dinners that tasted like crap, would they stand outside and demand that the offending items be taken off the shelves? No, they’d assume the market would prevail and no one would eat the stuff (unless they’re nuttier than I thought. Or members of the Green Party and it was GE crap ). Just as I’m capable of chossing what I have for dinner, I’m also capable of choosing what I watch while eating it. And if I choose to consume crap, so be it.

Actually DPF gave a pretty apt summation of part of my argument in the very thread to which you allude, namely:

The bottom line seems to be that prisoners come in two categories – those who want to stop reoffending and those who do not. You do everything you can for the former category, but there is no proven rehab programme that will affect the latter category.

I agree completely, and support harsher sentencing for the latter group. The problem with across-the-board harsher penalties for everyone is that the capacity of the former group to turn their lives around is damaged and sometimes destroyed.

The answer is, I believe, more complex than simply assuming everyone found guilty to be irredeemable (or close enough to it) but to improve our capacity to differentiate between those who would benefit from rehabilitation and those who will simply abuse it as an opportunity to recommence their offending earlier.

I agree we’re not doing a good job of that at present as the recidivism rates – and especially those of persons on bail or parole – demonstrate. But we have to find more intelligent solutions that ever- lengthening periods of incarceration for those who genuinely do want a different life – if not for them, then for their families. Because I agree with you that an absent mother or father, or both, is a likely precursor to a life of offending for a child. And if there’s a mother or father in a jail someplace who’s genuinely remorseful and would benefit from release and rehabilitation, I don’t want to deny that opportunity to them or to their child.

And, Rob, after seeing some of the sick fuckers who’ve vandalised the hoardings of female candidates (of all parties) with misogynistic and sexual graffiti, I’m hardly surprised that DPF knows women who aren’t keen to give these freaks directions to their homes.

Like Rex, I’ve little time for McCroskie’s views, but will defend his right to express them. And he and his family have the same right to privacy and their property rights being respected as anyone else. Either this kind of shit is totally unacceptable for everyone, or it’s all on. I know which option I prefer.

If I’m wrong in assuming that he’s not above a bit of hyperbole to attract media, then I’m sorry if I misjudged him. Ironically, if he is serious in suggesting that he – or someone – should have the right to control what I and other adults choose to watch on TV or at the movies or online (providing no crime has been committed in the making of such work) or read in a book or magazine, then I oppose his views more stronglythan if they were simply stated for effect.

The irony is, I guess, that in wanting to ban things Mr McCroskie sets himself up as an opponent of the very right I’m defending that he should have – the right to say, hear, read and think anything he pleases.

http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2008/10/tauranga_likes_john.html#comments

(Scroll down page about halfway)

We are in denial about the root causes of crime, what causes someone to be destined for a recidivist criminal career by the time they are 3 years old. The lack of a real caring mother is the worst thing and the lack of a real caring father is the second worst thing.

Most unsolved crime is committed not by unknown criminals, but by known ones who have not been connected to all the crimes they have committed. This is why crime drops spectacularly when criminals are locked up sooner in their careers and for longer. It is a barefaced lie to say otherwise. It is true that tougher sentencing does not DETER the recidivist, the drop in crime is simply because people locked up in jail can no longer commit crime.

The result of failing to confront the irresponsible parenting problem, is simply that we will have a crime problem, that we will need to address either by locking up large numbers of people, as the USA has done, or by a police state, with all decent citizens suffering curtailments of their freedom for the sake of a criminal minority that the establishment refuses to deal with directly (Sweden and the UK are heading down this path). The third option is simply to deny the existence of a problem and let the populace live in terror.

Rehabilitation has been tried and tried and tried, and does not work. Faith based rehabilitation has the best rate of success, and even that is low, and ironically faith based rehabilitation is the last thing that the secular pro-rehabilitation crowd have in mind. The problem we have today, is with an “unrehabilitatable” criminal class, a legacy of breakdown in moral values. Social commentators fall into 4 categories. The traditionalist, Charles Murray type has been saying “we told you so” all along. The secular philosopher, Francis Fukuyama type, are coming to inevitable conclusions through sheer intellectual honesty and reason, but cannot bring themselves to make any reference to abstract truth. The third, neo-Marxist Herbert Marcuse type, are damn well out to bring about the collapse of western society and conceal this true agenda in plausible utopian gobbledegook. The fourth type are the young and ignorant who have been stuffed full of Marcuse and Derrida and Foucault at Uni and haven’t yet seen the light. These people eventually either see the light or actively commit to the dark side, they cannot stay in the “ignorant dupe” category forever, as their observations will contradict everything they have been taught. Our institutions are stacked with types 3 and 4, the only people who actually bring truth to the discussion table are the independent charitable operators like Sensible Sentencing.

I recommend:

Francis Fukuyama: “The Great Disruption”
Theodore Dalrymple: “Policeman In Wonderland”
“Fjordman”: “The Greatest Betrayal In History”
C.S. Lewis: “The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment”
Charles Murray: “The Coming of Custodial Democracy” AND “The Underclass Revisited”

Rex, if you are genuinely interested in this topic and you have not read all or some of the above articles, PLEASE do so. Others have commented favourably after reading them.