juris PRUDE ence
What, exactly, is the problem Reinhard has with pornography?
In his Sunday article he does not explicitly deny his own use of pornography. The reader is left to assume, then, that he does view pornography on some limited level. (Watching cable and seeing the Rockstar billboard count as low-level pornography, don't they?) The level of ponogrpahy that Reinhard finds acceptable, and views on a daily basis, is left to the reader's imagination.
Yet he describes "live sex shows with masturbation and sexual intercourse" as "nauseating."
Logical Flaw #1
Because Reinhard finds an extreme form of pornogrpahy to be nauseating, it should be illegal, he concludes.
If someone wants to masturbate in front of someone else, that is not against the law. Voyeurs abound; people pay to enter the Ace of Hearts, a club where they can have sex in front of each other. These acts are not condemned by Reinhard's nausea.
It is only when someone pays someone else to engage in this viewer/viewee relationship that "nausea" has set in.
Reinhard's problem, then, is that someone is making money off of this relationship, not that the relationship exists. He never addresses this monetary linchpin to his nausea in his article.
Logical Flaw #2
Reinhard finds the length of the judicial opinion to be proof of the shaky ground it stands on.
The distance from the Bottle Bill "can be measured in the length of the majority opinion. It says something that it took 21 dense pages to show" the majority opinon, Reinhard writes.
Justice De Muniz's short dissent, Reinhard continues, is obviously more logically coherent, since it is shorter. Sound bites encompass the complexities of a case much better than long winded opinions, it seems.
Of course, this is coming from a man whose favorite argument consists of "You're wrong. I'm right. End of story." This logical flaw is not surprising in Reinhard, but is noteworhty because of its patent absurdity.
Logical Flaw #3
Reinhard says this judicial opinion is what people "do best if they lack restraint or common sense: reason their way into anything they want."
This coming from a dittohead? You're looking mighty black there, Mr. Kettle.
Logical Flaw #4
Reinhard proposes a constitutional amendment to ban live sex shows because "you need not be a Victorian-era Oregonian to understand that such conduct demeans viewer and viewed alike."
Now we must ban all activities that are demeaning? With a constitutional amendment?
That is the exact reason why the Oregon Supreme Court ruled the way it did. We cannot legislate morality. Anybody in power would then have the arbitrary authority to decide what is moral and immoral, and what is legal and illegal.
I find that Fox News "demeans both viewer and viewed alike." Does that mean there should be a constitutional amendment banning Fox News?
In his Sunday article he does not explicitly deny his own use of pornography. The reader is left to assume, then, that he does view pornography on some limited level. (Watching cable and seeing the Rockstar billboard count as low-level pornography, don't they?) The level of ponogrpahy that Reinhard finds acceptable, and views on a daily basis, is left to the reader's imagination.
Yet he describes "live sex shows with masturbation and sexual intercourse" as "nauseating."
Logical Flaw #1
Because Reinhard finds an extreme form of pornogrpahy to be nauseating, it should be illegal, he concludes.
If someone wants to masturbate in front of someone else, that is not against the law. Voyeurs abound; people pay to enter the Ace of Hearts, a club where they can have sex in front of each other. These acts are not condemned by Reinhard's nausea.
It is only when someone pays someone else to engage in this viewer/viewee relationship that "nausea" has set in.
Reinhard's problem, then, is that someone is making money off of this relationship, not that the relationship exists. He never addresses this monetary linchpin to his nausea in his article.
Logical Flaw #2
Reinhard finds the length of the judicial opinion to be proof of the shaky ground it stands on.
The distance from the Bottle Bill "can be measured in the length of the majority opinion. It says something that it took 21 dense pages to show" the majority opinon, Reinhard writes.
Justice De Muniz's short dissent, Reinhard continues, is obviously more logically coherent, since it is shorter. Sound bites encompass the complexities of a case much better than long winded opinions, it seems.
Of course, this is coming from a man whose favorite argument consists of "You're wrong. I'm right. End of story." This logical flaw is not surprising in Reinhard, but is noteworhty because of its patent absurdity.
Logical Flaw #3
Reinhard says this judicial opinion is what people "do best if they lack restraint or common sense: reason their way into anything they want."
This coming from a dittohead? You're looking mighty black there, Mr. Kettle.
Logical Flaw #4
Reinhard proposes a constitutional amendment to ban live sex shows because "you need not be a Victorian-era Oregonian to understand that such conduct demeans viewer and viewed alike."
Now we must ban all activities that are demeaning? With a constitutional amendment?
That is the exact reason why the Oregon Supreme Court ruled the way it did. We cannot legislate morality. Anybody in power would then have the arbitrary authority to decide what is moral and immoral, and what is legal and illegal.
I find that Fox News "demeans both viewer and viewed alike." Does that mean there should be a constitutional amendment banning Fox News?
posted by platon at 12:13 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home