[Luke -Jr]

On Saturday 19 July 2008, Leo Mauler wrote:
> --- On Wed, 7/16/08, Luke -Jr <luke at dashjr.org> wrote:
> > On Wednesday 16 July 2008, Oren Beck wrote:
> > > Consider how YOU would write a RFC draft to sever adult from non-adult
> > > content ! 
> >
> > 1. Please don't refer to immoral images as "adult"; there are still some
> > decent adults  left, no matter how many damn themselves with this crud.
>
> And to top it all off, why is a photograph of a nude woman "pornography"
> while a painting of a nude woman is "art"?  This distinction has allowed
> people to get away with all kinds of stuff in the Pornographic Painting
> Industry.  Sculpture too, as you can even see "David's" tallywhacker on
> half a dozen websites, entirely for free.

It seems you need to review the difference between nudity and porn...

Main Entry: por·nog·ra·phy
1 : the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to
    cause sexual excitement
2 : material (as books or a photograph) that depicts erotic behavior and is
    intended to cause sexual excitement

Main Entry: nude
2 a: devoid of a natural or conventional covering; especially : not covered by
     clothing or a drape
  b (1): of the color of a white person's flesh
    (2): giving the appearance of nudity <a nude dress>

> Immoral images can be adult, its just in how you present them.

Immoral images are inherently abusive and not appropriate for any audience.

> > 2. Standards on how to say "I am porn!" never work because the porn
> > industry does not want filters blocking access to them. Not only do they
> > *want* children and others to get addicted, they certainly aren't going to
> > participate in something any ISP blocks off entirely without user consent.
>
> Porn filters never work because of the sheer collective lust drive of
> teenage boys.  There could be 100% acceptance of a porn filter and teenage 
> boys would still get access to porn. 

Not if they don't know it exists. Your claim depends on incompetent parents.