Jurors Made To Watch Hard Core Porn Movies : RSS 0.91http://www.plime.com/en-usJurors Made To Watch Hard Core Porn Movies : RSS 0.91http://www.plime.com/<![CDATA[Jurors Made To Watch Hard Core Porn Movies]]>http://www.plime.com/plime-com/l/64032/1/
  comments (32)  share edit history (0)
< 1 2 >
<![CDATA[doggylives @ 6/3/2008 2:49:42 AM]]>http://www.plime.com/l/64032/1/rss0_91.rss#q33« pocksucket : Erm... they do... They're called Bylaws.

There are thousands of them ranging from how much council tax is to whether or not you can have a fire on the beach in June.
 The stupid...it burns! Doh

Yep, Bylaws, way to expose the fact I didn't properly think before I typed. What happened to British solidarity, eh? *eye roll*]]><![CDATA[chinook @ 6/3/2008 12:17:11 AM]]>http://www.plime.com/l/64032/1/rss0_91.rss#q32« Mershaullk : I'm so damn sorry that I forgot a word in one of those many sentences. That should have read "...more prone to enjoying real life violence." Changing that one word has no effect on the rest of my argument. I hate to sound rude, but you have jumped ahead and became rude yourself. No, it does not make me rude. I responded to your comment. Even without the word "enjoying" the sentence fit in with the rest of your statement.

« Mershaullk :I also meant to add that someone enjoying fake violence doesn't exactly change the world for the worse. If someone is at home killing someone in a video game, it isn't hurting society in the least.
What does video games have to do with porn? Where in any of my above comments did I say someone who is entertained by violence is harming society?



« Mershaullk :If all you mean is that you don't like these types of things, then okay, but you are implying that this somehow has a negative impact on society.
All I said was that some people have a high tolerance for violence and find more and more violent acts entertaining. Where did I imply this has a negative impact on society? Please learn how to read what is written and not what you want to see.

« Mershaullk :That must mean that you somehow think that the enjoyment of violence in movies, video games, etc. somehow has some effect on the real world. Thus also implying that you think these people will somehow seek out real violence or not care if real violence is occurring.
Once again, you are jumping to conclusions. Please stop trying to read between the lines of what I write, because clearly you aren't very good at it.

Where the hell did I say that people who are entertained by violence will not care if "real violence is occuring"? Oh, that's right, I DIDN'T! You are trolling for an arguement here, but I'd prefer to debate something solid instead of things you poorly and wrongly infer from my comments.]]><![CDATA[Kendar @ 6/2/2008 10:51:08 PM]]>http://www.plime.com/l/64032/1/rss0_91.rss#q31<![CDATA[Mershaullk @ 6/2/2008 9:20:15 PM]]>http://www.plime.com/l/64032/1/rss0_91.rss#q30« chinook : Not once in that comment did I say or imply that someone who enjoyed violence would be more prone to violence! I just said that in my opinion, people who find violence entertaining may find themselves progressively entertained by more and more violent things.I'm so damn sorry that I forgot a word in one of those many sentences. That should have read "...more prone to enjoying real life violence." Changing that one word has no effect on the rest of my argument. I hate to sound rude, but you have jumped ahead and became rude yourself.

I also meant to add that someone enjoying fake violence doesn't exactly change the world for the worse. If someone is at home killing someone in a video game, it isn't hurting society in the least.

I believe that YOU are making an assumption that turns out to be, for the most part, incredibly wrong. I've told you this before; please stop trying to read between my lines because clearly you aren't very good at it.
If all you mean is that you don't like these types of things, then okay, but you are implying that this somehow has a negative impact on society.

That must mean that you somehow think that the enjoyment of violence in movies, video games, etc. somehow has some effect on the real world. Thus also implying that you think these people will somehow seek out real violence or not care if real violence is occurring.]]><![CDATA[chinook @ 6/2/2008 9:00:17 PM]]>http://www.plime.com/l/64032/1/rss0_91.rss#q29« Mershaullk : I just don't understand this argument. Many people would call me "desensitized" to violence. I play violent video games, I watch violent movies, and I occasionally see very violent pictures on the internet and don't really bat an eye. (Though, with the pictures, I don't actively look for them.)

According to all of this, I should love violence and look for it wherever I go. That's not true. I don't particularly have a hankering for, nor enjoy, real life violence. I don't like boxing, American football, wrestling, etc. (I will admit that Rugby and real football (what some would call "soccer") are interesting to me.)

This holds true for nearly everyone I know that I would call as "desensitized" as me. Whether it be from violent pornography, violent movies, or violent video games, this "desensitizing" doesn't seem to make people more prone to real life violence. I believe you are making an assumption that turns out to be, for the most part, incredibly wrong.

The reason I enjoy violence in movies and video games is that it is entertaining. It also has a big potential to be hilarious, as anyone that has ever free-roamed on a GTA game will know. This is all because it isn't real. No one is actually getting hurt.Wow. To steal a Katie (Tundramonkey) line here, you've just won yourself a:

Gold Medal in Jumping to Conclusions!!


Not once in that comment did I say or imply that someone who enjoyed violence would be more prone to violence! I just said that in my opinion, people who find violence entertaining may find themselves progressively entertained by more and more violent things. Most people I know have a tolerance limit for violence, regardless of whether it is real or not, and based on my observations and experiences, those who enjoy violence in movies/games/books etc seem to enjoy progressively more violent movies/games/books etc.

I believe that YOU are making an assumption that turns out to be, for the most part, incredibly wrong. I've told you this before; please stop trying to read between my lines because clearly you aren't very good at it.]]><![CDATA[ieldanth @ 6/2/2008 8:03:52 PM]]>http://www.plime.com/l/64032/1/rss0_91.rss#q28
If you were to take the average person today and teleport them to a Roman arena just before they fed people to the lions, I doubt that person would find it entertaining.

Especially if that person was teleported into the ring.]]><![CDATA[mewhitenoise @ 6/2/2008 7:56:50 PM]]>http://www.plime.com/l/64032/1/rss0_91.rss#q27
I myself would find the described video disgusting, and would not watch it, but I would not try to stop people from being able to.]]><![CDATA[Mershaullk @ 6/2/2008 7:37:07 PM]]>http://www.plime.com/l/64032/1/rss0_91.rss#q26« chinook : I'll argue almost the same about violence.... some people have such high tolerances for it they find more and more violence to be entertaining instead of repulsive.I just don't understand this argument. Many people would call me "desensitized" to violence. I play violent video games, I watch violent movies, and I occasionally see very violent pictures on the internet and don't really bat an eye. (Though, with the pictures, I don't actively look for them.)

According to all of this, I should love violence and look for it wherever I go. That's not true. I don't particularly have a hankering for, nor enjoy, real life violence. I don't like boxing, American football, wrestling, etc. (I will admit that Rugby and real football (what some would call "soccer") are interesting to me.)

This holds true for nearly everyone I know that I would call as "desensitized" as me. Whether it be from violent pornography, violent movies, or violent video games, this "desensitizing" doesn't seem to make people more prone to real life violence. I believe you are making an assumption that turns out to be, for the most part, incredibly wrong.

The reason I enjoy violence in movies and video games is that it is entertaining. It also has a big potential to be hilarious, as anyone that has ever free-roamed on a GTA game will know. This is all because it isn't real. No one is actually getting hurt.]]><![CDATA[nikneven @ 6/2/2008 7:17:15 PM]]>http://www.plime.com/l/64032/1/rss0_91.rss#q25<![CDATA[ieldanth @ 6/2/2008 6:23:35 PM]]>http://www.plime.com/l/64032/1/rss0_91.rss#q24« Mershaullk : If they are willing, I fail to see how "harm" should be considered illegal. If they want to do something to their own body or have someone else do something to their body no one else has the right to say that they can't.

As long as they're only harming willing people, it really shouldn't matter.Never said it should be illegal, just that is where my line is. I am just not entertained by people being hurt, willing or otherwise. I also think it speaks to a certain lack of feeling when someone needs such levels of stimulation. Each iteration gets progressively more intense as they become immune to things that would even make Mengele vomit.]]><![CDATA[gfmusic @ 6/2/2008 6:07:53 PM]]>http://www.plime.com/l/64032/1/rss0_91.rss#q23« doggylives : When I read the headline I thought, " I wish I'd get picked for jury service". Then I read the article.....Yeah, that's some pretty disturbing stuff. A blogger on the linked site said...

Posted by ( Bill_H ) on May 29, 2008 at 1:39 p.m.

As said, "Don't like, don't buy it.".... Unless he's forcing someone to star in or watch his films, let's leave consenting adults alone.
I guess Bill_H forgot that the defense forced the jurors to watch it.]]><![CDATA[theshirtpocket @ 6/2/2008 5:48:32 PM]]>http://www.plime.com/l/64032/1/rss0_91.rss#q22« chinook : I personally don't see the difference. Does this mean that these pornography films should be labeled as not obscene if a little special effects are used so that it's not entirely real?I'm just saying that's what the difference is, not whether it's good or not. Personally, I wouldn't be so repulsed by 2 girls 1 cup if I knew that was chocolate whipped cream that was being squirted out. But then again, people wouldn't find it erotic if it was fake, right?

Also, I think that western society, in general, has a problem with violence if it is real. Not to the degree that sex would, of course. I know that some TV Cops-type programs have had public fallout because they showed someone actually getting shot and killed. Also, the Faces of Death (is that what it's called) series has had generated some negative feedback for the same reason. The fact that they do show it to begin with obviously agrees with your point, however, as sex won't get put up at all, real or fake.

But what you said brings up a good point (if it's fake does that make it any better or worse?). But I think that can get into the video game debate, something I don't know what to think of because the evidence is so convoluted. Obviously, common sense should prevail in any case, but I read somewhere that common sense died.

« chinook : I'll argue almost the same about violence.... some people have such high tolerances for it they find more and more violence to be entertaining instead of repulsive.
I couldn't agree more.]]><![CDATA[chinook @ 6/2/2008 5:28:59 PM]]>http://www.plime.com/l/64032/1/rss0_91.rss#q21« theshirtpocket : I think it's the fact that the horror films are fake (I'm assuming you mean the Hollywood ones), while the scat/necrophilia/etc in porn films is generally real. I personally don't see the difference. Does this mean that these pornography films should be labeled as not obscene if a little special effects are used so that it's not entirely real?
I'm more curious as to why western society so readily embraces violence but openly repels sex (the fact that porn is so popular tells me that this society secretly embraces porn as well, but that it's shameful to be open about it).
I'd rather watch this porn than some disgusting movie in which we see someone's brains get pulled out of their eyesockets.

« theshirtpocket :Such is the problem with pornography...if you build an addiction to it you may also build a tolerance to things you may have otherwise thought wouldn't turn you on.
I'll argue almost the same about violence.... some people have such high tolerances for it they find more and more violence to be entertaining instead of repulsive.]]><![CDATA[theshirtpocket @ 6/2/2008 5:19:15 PM]]>http://www.plime.com/l/64032/1/rss0_91.rss#q20« chinook : From the comments:

I completely agree. I find chop-em-up horrer movies to be just as disgusting and obscene as some of the more vile porn movies. Why is horrid violence okay but sex not?I think it's the fact that the horror films are fake (I'm assuming you mean the Hollywood ones), while the scat/necrophilia/etc in porn films is generally real.

« ieldanth :
To me, it depends on how desensitized you are as to what you will find pleasurable. The more desensitized, the more extreme your porn needs to be. If you find yourself so desensitized that you need to watch others suffer in order to gain pleasure, you need to take a break, maybe even get help.
Such is the problem with pornography...if you build an addiction to it you may also build a tolerance to things you may have otherwise thought wouldn't turn you on.]]><![CDATA[pocksucket @ 6/2/2008 5:14:39 PM]]>http://www.plime.com/l/64032/1/rss0_91.rss#q19« doggylives : This is total BS, I don't know about the others but laws in Britain don't vary from one city/town to the next.Erm... they do... They're called Bylaws.

There are thousands of them ranging from how much council tax is to whether or not you can have a fire on the beach in June.

Seriously, do you think that by the time that tropical fish shops were around that this law would have been passed?
The fish shop law one is BS though. That much is true. But these laws aren't necessarily archaic. If there were anything to this one, it would be an attempt to circumvent an existing law to create loophole topless bars.

Much like 10 pin bowling being invented because there were laws against the more traditional 9 pin bowling on a Sunday.]]><![CDATA[chinook @ 6/2/2008 4:44:47 PM]]>http://www.plime.com/l/64032/1/rss0_91.rss#q18
While I don't agree with his form of entertainment, I don't see how this is a crime. No one is forced to watch his stuff if they don't want to. Vomiting is not for everyone, but there are obviously guys out there that like it, or he would be out of business. I don't like it personally, but I also don't like the Texas Chainsaw Massacre type movies that show blood, gore, dismemberment, and even... vomit. Is that obscene?
I completely agree. I find chop-em-up horrer movies to be just as disgusting and obscene as some of the more vile porn movies. Why is horrid violence okay but sex not?]]><![CDATA[pvisi111 @ 6/2/2008 4:13:55 PM]]>http://www.plime.com/l/64032/1/rss0_91.rss#q17« Mershaullk : If they are willing, I fail to see how "harm" should be considered illegal. If they want to do something to their own body or have someone else do something to their body no one else has the right to say that they can't.

As long as they're only harming willing people, it really shouldn't matter.Exactly. If you're of age and consenting to producing "harm" videos I do not think it should be considered illegal (unless maybe there is some permanent physical damage involved). When you start making things illegal because some people are offended by it then you're censoring people's freedom (and right) to express themselves.]]><![CDATA[Mershaullk @ 6/2/2008 3:58:18 PM]]>http://www.plime.com/l/64032/1/rss0_91.rss#q16« ieldanth : Well, the line, for me, is when the porn causes harm(real, physically evident harm) to the participants. This includes such things as child porn, snuff films, and rape videos.

To me, it depends on how desensitized you are as to what you will find pleasurable. The more desensitized, the more extreme your porn needs to be. If you find yourself so desensitized that you need to watch others suffer in order to gain pleasure, you need to take a break, maybe even get help.If they are willing, I fail to see how "harm" should be considered illegal. If they want to do something to their own body or have someone else do something to their body no one else has the right to say that they can't.

As long as they're only harming willing people, it really shouldn't matter.]]><![CDATA[ieldanth @ 6/2/2008 3:50:17 PM]]>http://www.plime.com/l/64032/1/rss0_91.rss#q15« pvisi111 : Agree 100%. I personally feel that censoring something as "obscene" is in violation of an individual's freedom UNLESS it is unlawful (child pornography).
Well, the line, for me, is when the porn causes harm(real, physically evident harm) to the participants. This includes such things as child porn, snuff films, and rape videos.

To me, it depends on how desensitized you are as to what you will find pleasurable. The more desensitized, the more extreme your porn needs to be. If you find yourself so desensitized that you need to watch others suffer in order to gain pleasure, you need to take a break, maybe even get help.]]><![CDATA[pvisi111 @ 6/2/2008 2:55:47 PM]]>http://www.plime.com/l/64032/1/rss0_91.rss#q14« 2manyusernames : That is part of the problem with "obscenity". It has to be one of the few laws that is not really defined. It is purely subjective and can differ from area to area.

What is obscene in Ottumwa, Iowa might not be obscene in San Francisco. Even what is "obscene" is up to the arbitrary opinions of a handful of people.Agree 100%. I personally feel that censoring something as "obscene" is in violation of an individual's freedom UNLESS it is unlawful (child pornography).

Again, what is obscene in one place is not considered obscene in another. You can even break it down by individuals. I might find something to be totally ok, but my neighbor could find it extremely offensive. Who is right? Basically we both are. It's a matter of opinion which everyone is entitled to, which is again why I think that unless something is beyond extreme it shouldn't be censored.]]><![CDATA[Boomshank @ 6/2/2008 2:54:56 PM]]>http://www.plime.com/l/64032/1/rss0_91.rss#q13« doggylives : This is total BS, I don't know about the others but laws in Britain don't vary from one city/town to the next.

Seriously, do you think that by the time that tropical fish shops were around that this law would have been passed?Such is the problem with taking legal advice from junk emails.]]><![CDATA[maven @ 6/2/2008 2:52:11 PM]]>http://www.plime.com/l/64032/1/rss0_91.rss#q12
And you'd be surprised--tropical aquariums aren't a recent invention.]]><![CDATA[doggylives @ 6/2/2008 2:43:52 PM]]>http://www.plime.com/l/64032/1/rss0_91.rss#q11Topless saleswomen are legal in Liverpool, England - but only in
tropical fish stores.This is total BS, I don't know about the others but laws in Britain don't vary from one city/town to the next.

Seriously, do you think that by the time that tropical fish shops were around that this law would have been passed?]]><![CDATA[pfortnerhaus @ 6/2/2008 2:38:05 PM]]>http://www.plime.com/l/64032/1/rss0_91.rss#q10« 2manyusernames : That is part of the problem with "obscenity". It has to be one of the few laws that is not really defined. It is purely subjective and can differ from area to area.

What is obscene in Ottumwa, Iowa might not be obscene in San Francisco. Even what is "obscene" is up to the arbitrary opinions of a handful of people.You've got that right. There are some old odd sex laws all over the place.

"SEX LAWS.....

--Most Middle Eastern countries recognise the following Islamic law:

"After having sexual relations with a lamb, it is a mortal sin to eat its
flesh."

--In Lebanon, men are legally allowed to have sex with animals, but the
animals must be female. Having sexual relations with a male animal is
punishable by death.

--In Bahrain, a male doctor may legally examine a woman's genitals, but
is forbidden from looking directly at them during the examination. He may
only see their reflection in a mirror.

--Muslims are banned from looking at the genitals of a corpse. This also
applies to undertakers; the sex organs of the deceased must be covered
with a brick or piece of wood at all times.

--The penalty for masturbation in Indonesia is decapitation.

--There are men in Guam whose full-time job is to travel the countryside
and deflower young virgins, who pay them for the privilege of having sex
for the first time. Reason: under Guam law, it is expressly forbidden
for virgins to marry.

--In Hong Kong, a betrayed wife is legally allowed to kill her
adulterous husband, but may only do so with her bare hands. The husband's
lover, on the other hand, may be killed in any manner desired.

--Topless saleswomen are legal in Liverpool, England - but only in
tropical fish stores.

--In Cali, Columbia, a woman may only have sex with her husband, and the
first time this happens her mother must be in the room to witness the
act.

--In Santa Cruz, Bolivia it is illegal for a man to have sex with a
woman and her daughter at the same time.

--In Maryland, it is illegal to sell condoms from vending machines with
one exception: prophylactics may be dispensed from a vending machine
only "in places where alcoholic beverages are sold for consumption on the
premises."
"]]><![CDATA[drweir @ 6/2/2008 2:26:41 PM]]>http://www.plime.com/l/64032/1/rss0_91.rss#q9
/"Welcome to the world of Dino Velvet!"]]><![CDATA[2manyusernames @ 6/2/2008 1:49:56 PM]]>http://www.plime.com/l/64032/1/rss0_91.rss#q8« kidsizedcoffin : So it is perfectly legal for two consenting adults to do the acts portrayed in the video, the crime is filming it?

Darn you tigertony for making me think of "2 Girls 1 Cup".That is part of the problem with "obscenity". It has to be one of the few laws that is not really defined. It is purely subjective and can differ from area to area.

What is obscene in Ottumwa, Iowa might not be obscene in San Francisco. Even what is "obscene" is up to the arbitrary opinions of a handful of people.]]><![CDATA[bingo @ 6/2/2008 1:46:50 PM]]>http://www.plime.com/l/64032/1/rss0_91.rss#q7
I think the distribution is what made it illegal, not the filming.

Glad I wasn't on that jury!]]><![CDATA[kidsizedcoffin @ 6/2/2008 1:37:30 PM]]>http://www.plime.com/l/64032/1/rss0_91.rss#q6


Darn you tigertony for making me think of "2 Girls 1 Cup".]]><![CDATA[tigertony @ 6/2/2008 1:35:21 PM]]>http://www.plime.com/l/64032/1/rss0_91.rss#q5<![CDATA[doggylives @ 6/2/2008 1:34:26 PM]]>http://www.plime.com/l/64032/1/rss0_91.rss#q4<![CDATA[Maven @ 6/2/2008 1:29:04 PM]]>http://www.plime.com/l/64032/1/rss0_91.rss#q3
I had to 'examine' packets of crack as a juror. All things considered, I think I'd prefer porn.]]><![CDATA[pvisi111 @ 6/2/2008 1:28:57 PM]]>http://www.plime.com/l/64032/1/rss0_91.rss#q2