Should we ban pornography?

[Brazilian Empire]

Are you a real zealot? I thought you guys were extinct.

Why would you think that? I mean, ISIS exists does it not?

Ah, yes. You have a point. But they're too far away from LA we don't even consider their existence.

[Katzenstaat]

Are you a real zealot? I thought you guys were extinct.
Really, this poll is so stupid, I'd suggest you all try to stop explaining how stupid this is and go do something more productive, cause clearly, the author is beyond salvation.

Evolution deniers in fact ironically benefit from natural selection which is why they aren't going extinct any time soon.

Note that Shakers are almost extinct. However that's because their fertility rate is extremely low.

[The New California Republic]

Probably because of the word "objective" itself. It appears neutral, authoritative, and final. The word seems to have an alluring power all on its own, anything "objective" seems desirable, for example "objective knowledge" is seen as somehow superior to "subjective knowledge", regardless of what the knowledge is in relation to. Perhaps further study of the etymology of the word "objective" would shed some light on this...

Again though, you are explaining why it would be desirable to an emotional human.

What I am asking is: Assume you are a philosopher philosophizing about morality as it applies to the real world. What is your argument for objective reality being desirable?
Also, the "as it applies to the real world" is crucial to my question. Because whilst I can probably think off arguments for it in a purely philosophical sense they don't carry over to the real world when applied to real problems and most importantly to ordered societies.

I probably couldn't make an argument for saying that objective morality is desirable in terms of application to the real world, and that is despite actually being a supposed "certified philosopher" with 2 degrees! It is probably one of those questions that even my former Philosophy Professors would struggle with. But that isn't to say that I'm not interested in the question however. I would very much like to read some arguments here that take that direction, but I'm afraid it'd be very forced and insincere if I personally tried to argue for that point.

[Brazilian Empire]

Evolution deniers in fact ironically benefit from natural selection which is why they aren't going extinct any time soon.

Um... how exactly do they benefit from it? I mean... most are so dense headed they should have trouble to adapt to any non-conservative practice.

[Purpelia]

Again though, you are explaining why it would be desirable to an emotional human.

What I am asking is: Assume you are a philosopher philosophizing about morality as it applies to the real world. What is your argument for objective reality being desirable?
Also, the "as it applies to the real world" is crucial to my question. Because whilst I can probably think off arguments for it in a purely philosophical sense they don't carry over to the real world when applied to real problems and most importantly to ordered societies.

I probably couldn't make an argument for saying that objective morality is desirable in terms of application to the real world, and that is despite actually being a supposed "certified philosopher" with 2 degrees! It is probably one of those questions that even my former Philosophy Professors would struggle with. But that isn't to say that I'm not interested in the question however. I would very much like to read some arguments here that take that direction, but I'm afraid it'd be very forced and insincere if I personally tried to argue for that point.

That's basically how I feel as well, only without any qualification to speak about the subject. So I was hoping I'd run into someone here who can. And I did,... only you don't. Now I am not sure if I am to feel vindicated or disappointed.

[Community Values]

"porn needs to be banned because it makes you last five seconds in sex ):<"

[Katzenstaat]

Evolution deniers in fact ironically benefit from natural selection which is why they aren't going extinct any time soon.

Um... how exactly do they benefit from it? I mean... most are so dense headed they should have trouble to adapt to any non-conservative practice.

They breed a lot due to natalist memes in their religions.

You don't see Buddhists doing the same. Not all religions have natalist memes. However it is interesting that even Buddhism correlates with more children compared to secularism in societies with significant amount of Buddhists according to a research paper. We don't know whether it is due to correlation between religious beliefs and poverty or that religion including Buddhism promotes pro-social sentiments which causes more reproduction.

[Ransium]

Are you a real zealot? I thought you guys were extinct.
Really, this poll is so stupid, I'd suggest you all try to stop explaining how stupid this is and go do something more productive, cause clearly, the author is beyond salvation.

Evolution deniers in fact ironically benefit from natural selection which is why they aren't going extinct any time soon.

Um... how exactly do they benefit from it? I mean... most are so dense headed they should have trouble to adapt to any non-conservative practice.

*** Warned for a combination of trolling and flaming ***

The site rules are here please read them now:

viewtopic.php?f=16&t=260044

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

:?:

Um... how exactly do they benefit from it? I mean... most are so dense headed they should have trouble to adapt to any non-conservative practice.

They breed a lot due to natalist memes in their religions.

You don't see Buddhists doing the same. Not all religions have natalist memes. However it is interesting that even Buddhism correlates with more children compared to secularism in societies with significant amount of Buddhists according to a research paper. We don't know whether it is due to correlation between religious beliefs and poverty or that religion including Buddhism promotes pro-social sentiments which causes more reproduction.

Eh, it's possible that a religion known for such unambiguously anti-greed themes erodes greed in a community to a point where less wealth is concentrated in the hands of the greediest scumbags who did the scummiest shit to do it, and in so doing, creates a community where more people can afford children.

Or maybe just lowers the threshold for what's considered an income at which you can afford children.

[Katzenstaat]

:?:
They breed a lot due to natalist memes in their religions.

You don't see Buddhists doing the same. Not all religions have natalist memes. However it is interesting that even Buddhism correlates with more children compared to secularism in societies with significant amount of Buddhists according to a research paper. We don't know whether it is due to correlation between religious beliefs and poverty or that religion including Buddhism promotes pro-social sentiments which causes more reproduction.

Eh, it's possible that a religion known for such unambiguously anti-greed themes erodes greed in a community to a point where less wealth is concentrated in the hands of the greediest scumbags who did the scummiest shit to do it, and in so doing, creates a community where more people can afford children.

Or maybe just lowers the threshold for what's considered an income at which you can afford children.

This might be partly true for Haredi Jews and some Christian groups. The point is that they do want many kids and can afford to let them survive.

[Socialist Czechia]

"porn needs to be banned because it makes you last five seconds in sex ):<"

I tend to disagree, because likely it caused exactly opposite problem in me

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Eh, it's possible that a religion known for such unambiguously anti-greed themes erodes greed in a community to a point where less wealth is concentrated in the hands of the greediest scumbags who did the scummiest shit to do it, and in so doing, creates a community where more people can afford children.

Or maybe just lowers the threshold for what's considered an income at which you can afford children.

This might be partly true for Haredi Jews and some Christian groups. The point is that they do want many kids and can afford to let them survive.

Trouble is the Bible contradicts itself on everything under the sun. What any Christian sects do is incidental.

[Katzenstaat]

This might be partly true for Haredi Jews and some Christian groups. The point is that they do want many kids and can afford to let them survive.

Trouble is the Bible contradicts itself on everything under the sun. What any Christian sects do is incidental.

Or..what they do depends on their sect-specific memes instead of the Bible itself.

[Holy Tedalonia]

This might be partly true for Haredi Jews and some Christian groups. The point is that they do want many kids and can afford to let them survive.

Trouble is the Bible contradicts itself on everything under the sun. What any Christian sects do is incidental.

Eh, its moreso supposed to teach you to help one another rather than contradict itself. Hints why most christians support charities while despising welfare.

[Katzenstaat]

Trouble is the Bible contradicts itself on everything under the sun. What any Christian sects do is incidental.

Eh, its moreso supposed to teach you to help one another rather than contradict itself. Hints why most christians support charities while despising welfare.

It was not the original intention of Bible authors though.

[Brazilian Empire]

Are you a real zealot? I thought you guys were extinct.
Really, this poll is so stupid, I'd suggest you all try to stop explaining how stupid this is and go do something more productive, cause clearly, the author is beyond salvation.

Um... how exactly do they benefit from it? I mean... most are so dense headed they should have trouble to adapt to any non-conservative practice.

*** Warned for a combination of trolling and flaming ***

The site rules are here please read them now:

viewtopic.php?f=16&t=260044

This is absurd, I rarely post anything. I'm neither a troll nor a flamer.

[Reploid Productions]

This is absurd, I rarely post anything. I'm neither a troll nor a flamer.

Dude, the posts in question contributed nothing to the actual topic of discussion, it was just attacks on the OP and religious people. If you want to appeal the warning, pop over to the Moderation forum. Heck, here's the report thread, you can appeal there.

[Holy Tedalonia]

Eh, its moreso supposed to teach you to help one another rather than contradict itself. Hints why most christians support charities while despising welfare.

It was not the original intention of Bible authors though.

Intentions of the Bible Authors are debatable. Its theology not math. There is no real true correct way to really interpret it.

[Brazilian Empire]

This is absurd, I rarely post anything. I'm neither a troll nor a flamer.

Dude, the posts in question contributed nothing to the actual topic of discussion, it was just attacks on the OP and religious people. If you want to appeal the warning, pop over to the Moderation forum. Heck, here's the report thread, you can appeal there.

I ain't appealing anything, I'm not butthurt. But following your logic, none of the posts actually contributed to the topic of discussion, which makes it pointless to post in the first place.

Discussing morality is really complex when we are talking about society as a whole, no one here will be able to tell us if the topic is morally correct or not. We all have our opinions on the matter, but no one can say if it is morally correct or not, cause it's a relative subject. So... forgive my "attacks" and have my honest opinion: this topic is pointless.

[Reploid Productions]

Speaking of the topic folks, while the discussion about morality and religion is interesting, it is getting a bit far removed from the thread topic about whether or not porn should be banned.

[Katzenstaat]

It was not the original intention of Bible authors though.

Intentions of the Bible Authors are debatable. Its theology not math. There is no real true correct way to really interpret it.

No correct way to interpret it? LOL according to the authors' intention.

[Holy Tedalonia]

Speaking of the topic folks, while the discussion about morality and religion is interesting, it is getting a bit far removed from the thread topic about whether or not porn should be banned.

I consider it related. My church believes porn is a sin, and its something I don't religiously agree.

My church is typically good at not being overzealous.

[Neanderthaland]

Intentions of the Bible Authors are debatable. Its theology not math. There is no real true correct way to really interpret it.

No correct way to interpret it? LOL according to the authors' intention.

Even if we knew their intentions with certainty, that still wouldn't necessarily be true within the context of Biblical scholarship.

One of the ideas that Christians have is this notion that their texts are Divinely inspired; in some sense written by God. And so may contain wisdom unknown to their human authors.

[Katzenstaat]

No correct way to interpret it? LOL according to the authors' intention.

Even if we knew their intentions with certainty, that still wouldn't necessarily be true within the context of Biblical scholarship.

One of the ideas that Christians have is this notion that their texts are Divinely inspired; in some sense written by God. And so may contain wisdom unknown to their human authors.

But the church can magically change the intention behind the texts? Lol.

[Holy Tedalonia]

Even if we knew their intentions with certainty, that still wouldn't necessarily be true within the context of Biblical scholarship.

One of the ideas that Christians have is this notion that their texts are Divinely inspired; in some sense written by God. And so may contain wisdom unknown to their human authors.

But the church can magically change the intention behind the texts? Lol.

That's the thing. It has, I mean why do you not think that there are, so many interpretations of the bible? I'm a baptist, and I believe in the bottom of my heart that the Pope and his church are wrong.