why oh why did it have to be VS?

[ro-monster]

For me, yes, it would matter.  No, I wouldn't use the site anymore.  This is in the situation where the site owners/creators also operated a site I considered morally reprehensible, and the connection between said owners and the other site was apparent to me.

I used to frequent bondage.com; I know the people who founded and ran it. But I would have certain ethical problems with supporting them now, knowing they are owned by a company that also promotes Christianity, which is morally reprehensible to me.

Reality is, however, that just about anything you can use or buy is probably owned, somewhere up the line, by a corporation whose ethics you despise. There are all kinds of surprises if you start digging.

[sleestak]

For me, yes, it would matter.  No, I wouldn't use the site anymore.  This is in the situation where the site owners/creators also operated a site I considered morally reprehensible, and the connection between said owners and the other site was apparent to me.

Do you have cable television?  You realize, of course, that your cable company broadcasts and profits from those adult pay-per-view movies to which all subscribers have access.  Likewise, your internet service provider profits from the large number of people who use the internet primarily to visit adult-oriented sites. 

If you truly want to free yourself from supporting corporations involved in adult enterprises, you pretty much have to go off the grid completely.  Nearly all forms of electronic media profit from the adult entertainment industry.

[duc_fan]

   I knew that last post of mine would bring people out of the woodwork lookin' for a fight...

ATO, I agree with your assessment of people who show up at public events and start hatin' on everyone.  Personally, I don't believe they represent Christianity in an actual Biblical sense.  I'd challenge them to show me the verse(s) that backs their behaviour, which I agree is doing more harm than good.

I will "boycott" sites whose parent companies support reprehensible behaviours because I cannot in good conscience knowingly fund an organization that also creates and profits from something I find highly objectionable.

I used to frequent bondage.com; I know the people who founded and ran it. But I would have certain ethical problems with supporting them now, knowing they are owned by a company that also promotes Christianity, which is morally reprehensible to me.

You find reprehensible a faith whose text tells the followers to provide for the poor/widows/orphans, that the follower cannot (and should not try to) force anyone else to follow it, and that the greatest commandment is love?

I'm not saying there aren't bad things done by people who profess to be Christian.  I am saying the text itself does not advocate those behaviours.

Now, if you just don't like your Creator telling you that certain behaviours are bad for you (lust, greed, drunkeness, etc)... well, that's between you and Him.  I'm not sure I'd call a whole faith "reprehensible" because of that.

Or... were you just being tongue-in-cheek, playing devil's advocate? 



And lastly, sleestak, no, I don't have cable.  I do have internet.  While my provider might profit from people who buy the service to go do their own thing, to my knowledge said provider is not the one creating, maintaining, and selling ad space on those sites (key difference).  The service provider isn't making moral choices for the people who buy the service.  To judge Verizon, Qwest, or other service providers for the misuse of their service would be like passing judgement on Snap-on when a criminal uses a breaker bar to bash a victim's head in.  The responsibility lies with the user at that point.

Same goes for people who misuse Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Taoism, Hinduism, etc, as justification for evildoing.  The fault lies not with the religion, the fault lies squarely on the shoulders of the individual misusing it.


Mods: if we're way over the religion line, just say so, and I'll bow out.  My goal here is to answer questions and clarify misunderstandings.

[junior varsity]

I don't think we're over any lines, but if so, i'm thinking we could move it to the politics section.

I would think, then, from reading your post, that you would not, in good conscience use a service provider that did not block access to the pornographic, or otherwise objectionable sites (2g1c is not pornographic in my eyes, just gross, though the music was lovely).

There are such service providers that offer such a product.

[Grampa]

man..... simple... boobies on the DML comments were all I was look'n for.


and one SacDuc anal referance would have been welcome.

[Adam in TX]

Bibleboy,

I don't profess to subscribe to any particular faith (although I do feel like I hold myself to a reasonably conservative moral code). I just wanted to say that I really liked your response above.

And I think there may be some carryover between the sites just because of their templates. I actually did look around the bigchurch site and found several lines like: "find your hot christian mate on bigchurch.com"

[slowpoke13]

fine...

dude, if Penthouse bought the DML, I would enjoy being engulfed by those marvelously enormous, airbrushed ads. So much so, that I would welcome a good pop-up too. Ain't no need for some blocker to censor that. And finally, finally, Sac's question of "anal?" could be found in those hallowed pages of penile enlargements and friend finders.

No?

[junior varsity]

"find your hot christian mate on bigchurch.com"

Oh No!