tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8385392963347857134.post5335839438758979071..comments2023-10-23T09:51:37.441-05:00Comments on Blog of Pro-Porn Activism: Workplace Pornography: A "Virulent Cancer"!Renegade Evolutionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17905949172886730262noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8385392963347857134.post-64084659802464422632009-02-24T22:55:00.000-06:002009-02-24T22:55:00.000-06:00Sorry for being late to comment...I'm still fendin...Sorry for being late to comment...I'm still fending off the aftereffects of my govenor's embarrassing attempt of an SOTU response.<BR/><BR/>Anyways...I'm usually not down with the right-wing libertarianism of Reason magazine, but they hit this subject head on perfect. The issue here is NOT porn, but, as IACB said, people goofing off on company time and with the company's dime using the company's servers for their own purpose. <BR/><BR/>But...aren't companies already free to offer swift and strict punishments for those misusing their assets for any reason?? Have the Washington Times editorialists ever heard of filtering software or simply blocking at the server level access to outside sites?? <BR/><BR/>And what about those businesses that tend to do their business relatively well, yet don't censor their workers access?? It may even be that access to porn might even improve a company's bottom line by helping to motivate them to work better....but I guess that that wouldn't mesh too well with their agenda, now wouldn't it???<BR/><BR/>Yeah...kinda misplaced in their priorities, those folks at the Washington Times. <BR/><BR/><BR/>AnthonyAnthony Kennersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00103420620416144653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8385392963347857134.post-10252762024058000902009-02-24T22:08:00.000-06:002009-02-24T22:08:00.000-06:00oh god that made me laugh.oh god that made me laugh.Renegade Evolutionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17905949172886730262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8385392963347857134.post-40161567132533923542009-02-24T20:41:00.000-06:002009-02-24T20:41:00.000-06:00Ah yes, The Washington Times, house organ of Sun M...Ah yes, The Washington Times, house organ of Sun Myung Moon and lickspittle fan rag of Geo. W. Bush.<BR/><BR/>Now there's a fair and balanced source for you.<BR/><BR/>Evidently, with a society teetering on the brink of economic collapse, two wars in progress that the W.T. helped sell at untold cost in blood and treasure and a health care system down on its rims, we should all really be worrying about the "cancer" of porn in the workplace.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the heads-up, W.T.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8385392963347857134.post-65643180748618540232009-02-24T20:20:00.000-06:002009-02-24T20:20:00.000-06:00I figured the above hit the nail on the head – the...I figured the above hit the nail on the head – there isn't a porn problem here, but a fucking off on the public/company dime problem, and there's some pretty simple ways of dealing with that.<BR/><BR/>Other than that, of course, I offer my usual objection, that no, the study that was quoted in the article does not conclusively say that porn reduces sex crimes. Its a correlative study that could be interpreted in a lot of ways. The study does serve, however, as a powerful counter-argument against oft-quoted correlative studies that claimed porn increases sex crimes.iacbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267608319896053702noreply@blogger.com