Smut for Smut

[Violet]

What in porn necessarily deals with morality?

The human element. If you take pictures of one human to show to other humans, hopefully for a profit, you have entered a very moral realm. Human interaction with self, environment, and especially other humans is by necessity where I find a moral value of porn and big macs.

I think photographic pornography is always bad. If you share intimacy beyond the boundaries of that intimacy, Isn't that what perversion is? ..taking it too far?

Not necessarily... but I agree for the most part. Perversion is simply doing things outside of the norm... if all of my friends wear black hats, and I chose one day to wear a white one instead: I am being perverted. That the word has since the late 19th century been used frequently to describe sexual abnormality does not detract from its original, more interesting meaning

It's my opinion that photographic pornography is usually bad... but I understand that I'm probably way off from the targeted audience In fact... it's my opinion that pornography is almost always less than mediocre... with little 'good' porn spaced between utter sludge... and 'excellent' pornography like a little gold mine that one is not guaranteed to find even over an entire night of looking for it. I find myself particularly drawn to people genuinely in pleasure... and I don't often see that, sadly.

@ the italic: It's specifically intimacy that I crave... as can be noted by my 'porn preferences' and my actions in life with others What would I do if intimacy weren't ever shown with the otherwise tasteless porn...? :S All I'd really have left would be 'sex stories'... and 80-90% of those are shit too :S

Porn actors do a bad job of hiding it too. It looks like they're trying so hard to protect their image for a partner or prospective partner. Even those that do seem very much into it and enjoy it, in my opinion are like anyone who fully embraces grossness. I don't believe any human being is that/ completely insensitive. Sex is great and pornography spoils it.

Most "porn actors" (and cameramen) don't keep the feelings 'intimate' (for me) at all... looking at the camera, being clearly lackluster/bored with the 'proceedings', taking close-ups of people's sexual organs, not enjoying themselves, etc...

Again, for the most part I agree... but there are likely exceptions of course.

---

How did America's defense system "fail"?

Right now in how little time can America scramble fighter jets, launch an anti missile system or defend the pentagon with what the fuck ever they have defending the pentagon. Is the answer less than an hour? The failure is the inability to stop the attacks.

Perhaps not an inability... but a lack of having considered that the hijacked planes were going to be used as weapons. If I were the government... I would have at the time assumed that the people in the hijacked planes were going to be used as hostages for negotiating purposes unknown to me at the time... and I likely would have had the military prepared to snipe every one of the captors and prepped emergency medics to help the assumed hostages as fast as possible.

Now that the attacks have happened... the government is amazed by the unprecedented attack (that being flying hijacked commercial jets into skyscrapers with the apparent tri-intent of sending a message, killing a number of people, and going to heaven)... and immediately does what it can to evacuate the buildings and the surrounding area (while also attempting to minimize the damage to the buildings (this being notably the fire).

I would not pin this on a necessarily inept government (not to suggest that it is or is not one)... but on an unprepared government (or rather a wrongly prepared one... much like the camper who goes camping in a drought hit with a flash flood).

For what purpose? The stupidity of such a notion is staggering.

Yeah, compare Afghanistan and Lockheed. Who has profited from the subsequent open ended wars, and whose country is occupied? Look back to when Eisenhower warned us about the military industrial complex, and try to fathom the worst case scenario of a government that serves corporate interests above human interests.

Corporate interests are human interests as well... that doesn't make them wrong/right, good/bad, or whatever inherently. Every merchant has an increased chance of prospering in wartime (And also an increased chance of failure)... wartime is both very profitable and very risky. It comes as no surprise to me that there were companies and nations that made out very well because of the wars (in particular companies and nations that manufacture wartime products and services). But does one only consider the profiteers from the wars, and not also those who nearly went bankrupt (such as the American banks and some automobile manufacturing companies)?

I don't think any of them should be overlooked... but neither should any of them be given special status over the others. Lockheed makes jets... modern warfare needs jets. Lockheed makes money. I don't see why there should be any sort of conspiracy behind it.

And dear Tav, thank you for replying.

It's not the issue of the reader to try to decipher what the author COULD have meant.

I'm actually asking you NOT to decipher what I could have meant. If I say Loose change did not make me a truther, I was one from day one. That is pretty clear. Day one is not the first day I saw the film, that would be a nonsensical sentence. It makes sense to me, but again I apologize if it did not in translation.

Of course... making sense to you doesn't mean it's logical, rational, true, or anything really Also, it not making sense to me does not necessarily mean you're wrong... but that's what I think of course

It functions as a wall as well as an ecosystem for microorganisms and sentient life.

Ummm... Is the driftwood an ecosystem, or the beach it washed up upon? As far as I know there are only one kind of sentient life on this planet, dolphins are a close second. And as far as I know, neither driftwood or a beach are a suitable ecosystem for humans. I passed over it because as an analogy it was terrible. I mean is the driftwood also a "wall"? Or is the beach the 'wall'? As a 'wall' neither of them are very functional...

Considering that I'm a fisherwoman who absolutely fucking hates it when driftwood gets caught in her nets (you would not believe how fucking terrible it is to get a log out of a net on the flats or even worse being the beach: HELL)... can I answer that driftwood was an invention of every dimensions' combined evil designed specifically to make life hell?

Yes... driftwood is an ecosystem. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driftwood The beach it eventually washes up on is also an ecosystem. My body is an ecosystem. There are lots of ecosystems in lots of places

No exercise took away any of the 14 planes that are ready and fueled 24/7 to intercept aircraft that day. However, this was not something they had trained for.

So these planes wait all day, every day for an attack. These planes have been on alert since before I was born. But the one day we needed them, not a fucking peep. Either gross negligence, or something worse. But hey, as per you , they never happened to train for this one thing. So for over an hour they stood there scratching their heads.

Again, as I explained above, the attack was unprecedented. That's the interesting thing about fighting with other people... you never can be prepared for when they do something really... stupid. They were hardly scratching their heads... it is likely indeed that they were preparing for a ransom demand (or the like) or other standard kidnapping procedures. Are you suggesting that they would have prepared for something that didn't even occur to their minds until it happened?

This is all in the 9/11 Commission Report. Have you read it in its entirety?

Yup. Did you get the new revised edition that mentions how building 7 (with a lot of very interesting things in it) burned for a while, and then every support failed at once and the building collapsed (form fire) in seconds. At least it garners a mention, they skipped it in the first edition hoping no one noticed a third collapsing building.

*flick*-->/|||||||||||||||| = __________ = *clumpclumpclumpclumpclumpclumpclmpclumpclumpclump* = rubble

^ Does that illustrate how "every support failed at once"? It really wasn't at the same time, but it would have been very fast with weakened supports. If you're going to blame something other than a massive plane probably moving in the excess of 1700 kmh colliding with supports (that were never designed for that type of punishment) spread about in a building little wider than the plane itself... and I'm somewhat amazed they didn't bring the building down instantly and more amazed still that it took several hours of fire eating away at what remained of the supports, further fueled by the winds at that altitude, to bring those buildings down.

Imagine if they had instead hit lower in the building... where the weight was even greater... and suppose instead of hitting the building dead-on they had chosen to eradicate the supports on a side.... it would have fallen much faster, and likely would have toppled upon other buildings. Why the fuck didn't they hit the buildings closer to the ground... is the question I ask. And I can answer that question with certainty: by being as dumb as the camel fuck between their ears.