Should we ban pornography?

[Petrolheadia]

Yeah, but there is something logically wrong. It's not logical to ban something "because my God says so".

Values do not need to be justified by logic, and at their root they cannot be.

They can.

For example, you can justify the "no killing" rule with the fact that the economic value of a human life is somewhere between $50k and $129k a year.

[Xelsis]

Pornography isn’t covered by the Bill of Rights.

See Miller v. California, Roth v. US, and Jacobellis v. Ohio

All mental gymnastics. The whole point of freedom of speech is that allowing governments to censor content gives them too much power.

Sure, and the point of the Second Amendment is to allow the citizenry to defeat the army of a tyrannical government, but you don't see too much argument for private civilian tac-nuke purchases.

Or, heck, the point of, in that same amendment, freedom of religion is that allowing governments to ban religious practices gives them too much power, but human sacrifice still gets you arrested.

Putting pornography in as a protected First Amendment category can have a justification attempt made with enough stretching of the Amendment-but it's a whole darn lot of stretching to make that case.

[Petrolheadia]

You know what they say, never trust an inoffensive centrist democracy.

I wasn't being serious.

Nothing better than a post-factum statement.

Any basis for this statement? At all?

I've dealt with addicts - drug addicts, alcoholics, porn addicts, they all say the same stuff.

So do "wrong-both-ways" fallacy users.

Good luck banning those things! Because I am oh so sure, that liberals, atheists(Including me), religious people who drink alcohol for ceremonies(Most religious aside from Islam), the Healthcare system(And if you allow only them to use drugs, then #LegalizeIt people), and many more will absolutely not support your radical and orwellian ideas!

If I ran for office and an atheist, a liberal, an alcoholic or porn addict voted for me I would never take my elected position. I would resign immediately.

Tell me where and when you'll be campaigning. You've got one guaranteed vote.

Just think of the children.

Liberals don't care about children.

Now, how that isn't caring about kids is a matter of another thread...

It just suffices to say that I think a lot of the problems with homosexual parenting comes from the straight's prejudice.

[The Slytherin]

No, but it’s production should be highly regulated.

1. Surely you meant to say "its."

2. Define "its production."

Its Production- the process of producing, directing, and distributing pornography.

[Free Missouri]

Pornography isn’t covered by the Bill of Rights.

See Miller v. California, Roth v. US, and Jacobellis v. Ohio

All mental gymnastics. The whole point of freedom of speech is that allowing governments to censor content gives them too much power.

Political content. Hence why burning a flag, while not technically speech, is protected.

Government, state governments included, have a vested interest in regulating obscene content.

[The New California Republic]

But the point is that not everybody else is. So to force Islamic morality on everyone else by banning pornography would be nonsensical and unjustifiable.

Abrahamic morality is superior to "moral relativism".

Nope. Again that is you using your religion to deflect the argument. Using religious reasons to counter a critique against using religious reasons as the justification for banning something. That certainly is a new one, I'll give you that!

[Topoliani]

If I ran for office and an atheist, a liberal, an alcoholic or porn addict voted for me I would never take my elected position. I would resign immediately.

Good, that means you won't be able to get ANY position in ANY political field

[Petrolheadia]

Yeah, but there is something logically wrong. It's not logical to ban something "because my God says so".

It is if you don't want to go to Hell.

Well, subscribe to my morality if you don't want to go to an abandoned Blockbuster after death.

That is what my religion says.

[War Gears]

But the point is that not everybody else is. So to force Islamic morality on everyone else by banning pornography would be nonsensical and unjustifiable.

Abrahamic morality is superior to "moral relativism".

Considering it leads people to murder, rape, steal, etc. in the name of God, then no it doesn't.

[Topoliani]

It is if you don't want to go to Hell.

Well, subscribe to my morality if you don't want to go to an abandoned Blockbuster after death.

That is what my religion says.

That doesn't sound like too bad of a fate tbh

[The Parkus Empire]

Pornography isn’t covered by the Bill of Rights.

See Miller v. California, Roth v. US, and Jacobellis v. Ohio

All mental gymnastics. The whole point of freedom of speech is that allowing governments to censor content gives them too much power.

Nope, the whole point is to be able to express dissenting opinion from the government. And anyway, this is not about censoring porn, since porn already IS censored during most TV hours and in public.

[Ifreann]

First Amendment, though.

I do not believe any judge has ruled the First Amendment covers pornography, and probably never will, because it was never intended to and never has.

Tut tut, America.

---

First Amendment, though.

Covering pornography under the First Amendment really requires a quite vigorous stretching of the language in a way that would never be applied everywhere else (certainly not for the Amendment which follows it).

The First Amendment already covers expression other than literal speech. I don't see why any stretch should be necessary.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

I said ban on everything except vaginal.

The point remains that it cannot be "gender-neutral" anyway.

Have fun explaining your point to lesbians.

I know one, I can give you her number to have you explain your views to her.

You do realize I was only referring to a hypothetical ban on everything except vaginal, to make the point of why nothing could count as gender-neutral, right?

I'm guessing giving people's phone numbers on the forum could get your posting privileges suspended. Even if you post it anyway, I'd hate to be mistaken for some PUA trying who's only trying to neg her due to doubt that her lesbianism is genuine. If you don't think I tend to tell activists the same things in person that I do on this site, though, you don't know me.

[The Batavia]

Well, subscribe to my morality if you don't want to go to an abandoned Blockbuster after death.

That is what my religion says.

That doesn't sound like too bad of a fate tbh

Yeah, 7.5/10 might convert

[Petrolheadia]

But the point is that not everybody else is. So to force Islamic morality on everyone else by banning pornography would be nonsensical and unjustifiable.

Abrahamic morality is superior to "moral relativism".

Let me put it in a different way.

"Going by the advice of some despot in the sky, whose existence is unproven, is superior to checking all the circumstances and making a balanced decision".

Sounds sensible?

[The Parkus Empire]

Tut tut, America.

We always have the option of amending our Constitution, which we have done many times.

[Xelsis]

Covering pornography under the First Amendment really requires a quite vigorous stretching of the language in a way that would never be applied everywhere else (certainly not for the Amendment which follows it).
The First Amendment already covers expression other than literal speech. I don't see why any stretch should be necessary.

You're actually making the argument that "It covers something, and therefore should cover everything" ?

[The Parkus Empire]

Values do not need to be justified by logic, and at their root they cannot be.

They can.

For example, you can justify the "no killing" rule with the fact that the economic value of a human life is somewhere between $50k and $129k a year.

Nope, people waste money all the time, this is presuming money is an "objective" value. It's not, even among this who value it highly, its value is relative: a hundred dollars is worth much less to a millionaire than to someone who is homeless, for example.

[Reploid Productions]

You're mentally ill imo for wanting a theocratic nightmare that wpuld be cruel oppressive and tyrannical and ironically satanic in how it achieves these things.
Please get help. Not an insult it's legitimate concern of your and your family's safety and society's safety from someone who could bring oppression to the world.

Oh goddamnit. Now I gotta go flag down an uninvolved mod.

[The Batavia]

You're mentally ill imo for wanting a theocratic nightmare that wpuld be cruel oppressive and tyrannical and ironically satanic in how it achieves these things.
Please get help. Not an insult it's legitimate concern of your and your family's safety and society's safety from someone who could bring oppression to the world.

Oh goddamnit. Now I gotta go flag down an uninvolved mod.

He did make kind of a fair point though.

[Petrolheadia]

They can.

For example, you can justify the "no killing" rule with the fact that the economic value of a human life is somewhere between $50k and $129k a year.

Nope, people waste money all the time, this is presuming money is an "objective" value. It's not, even among this who value it highly, its value is relative: a hundred dollars is worth much less to a millionaire than to someone who is homeless, for example.

Still, that's less money circling around. It's pretty obvious it's better to have more money in the economy than less.

[Reploid Productions]

Oh goddamnit. Now I gotta go flag down an uninvolved mod.

He did make kind of a fair point though.

And it's a point that can be made without calling his opponent mentally ill and a threat to his family's safety.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

If I ran for office and an atheist, a liberal, an alcoholic or porn addict voted for me I would never take my elected position. I would resign immediately.

Good, that means you won't be able to get ANY position in ANY political field

Eh, depends on where they were running for office more than for which job.

[Ifreann]

Covering pornography under the First Amendment really requires a quite vigorous stretching of the language in a way that would never be applied everywhere else (certainly not for the Amendment which follows it).
The First Amendment already covers expression other than literal speech. I don't see why any stretch should be necessary.

You're actually making the argument that "It covers something, and therefore should cover everything" ?

Am I? Here though I was making an argument that a right to free expression should cover expression without arbitrary exceptions.

[Petrolheadia]

Oh goddamnit. Now I gotta go flag down an uninvolved mod.

He did make kind of a fair point though.

Yeah, it seems like the guy just wants to give advice; it's just that the grammar gives a shitposting vibe.