Should we ban pornography?

[Thermodolia]

That would tempt them to have sex. That and legitimize the idea that personal experience is a representative sample. Not as clear-cut an alternative as one might think.

Still, freedom of speech is freedom of speech.

And pornography with no artistic value (which none of it has any value whatsoever beyond being able to get someone aroused who's so terribly twisted his fantasies that only the most extreme forms can get him aroused)

*looks at the porn I watch* Nope no twisted fantasies here. I watch what's considered slightly vanilla. Hasn't changed since I first started watching it at the age of 14-15

[Thermodolia]

The myths you derive spiritual guidance from provide your morality, they do not provide the morality for people who prefer a different set of myths from which they derive their spiritual guidance, nor do they provide the morality for people who do not require any form of spiritual guidance.]

So no, "God says so" is still not a valid argument.

As before, only from a perspective of subjective morality. If you believe that each person has their own individual morality, then you do not believe that one person's spiritual guidance applies to others. If one believes in objective morality, they believe that their spiritual guidance applies to all, regardless of belief.

In essence, "God says so" is not a valid argument if you already believe "God says so" is not a valid argument, and it is essentially the same from the other side as well. Taking a position on whether "God says so" is valid is just that-showing one's already-held position.

If I said we should ban non kosher foods even for those who aren't Jew because my god says it's a sin to eat unclean food you would rightly think I'm crazy. Because you god doesn't say that you shouldn't eat unclean food.

[Thermodolia]

Nope. "God said so" still isn't a valid argument, which forms the basis of the universal morality you have in mind. You cannot apply your own religion-based morality on everyone, including people who do not follow said religion. Your morality is invalid according to people who do not hold the same religious beliefs as you, as believers of other faiths or no faith just see a big empty nothing in the place you are pointing to as justification for your morality. So yes, morality very much is relative.

Once again, it is only an invalid argument if you start with the presupposition that it is invalid, and that morality is subjective. If that morality is objective, the opinions of anyone else are irrelevant, and "God said so" is the only valid argument. If morality is subjective, then it never will be valid. It's circular reasoning.

So it's a valid argument to say I should kill you because my god said to kill unbelievers? Because following your logic to its natural conclusion we reach that point. That everything is perfectly fine when we say my god said so. There has to be a line at some point

[Xelsis]

As before, only from a perspective of subjective morality. If you believe that each person has their own individual morality, then you do not believe that one person's spiritual guidance applies to others. If one believes in objective morality, they believe that their spiritual guidance applies to all, regardless of belief.

In essence, "God says so" is not a valid argument if you already believe "God says so" is not a valid argument, and it is essentially the same from the other side as well. Taking a position on whether "God says so" is valid is just that-showing one's already-held position.

If I said we should ban non kosher foods even for those who aren't Jew because my god says it's a sin to eat unclean food you would rightly think I'm crazy. Because you god doesn't say that you shouldn't eat unclean food.

If you believe that eating non-kosher foods is sinful for all people, that's an entirely reasonable demand, from that perspective.

After all, if my theoretical God said it wasn't immoral to murder, you wouldn't call it unreasonable for you, with your hypothetical anti-murder God, to demand that I be banned from murdering as well.

Once again, it is only an invalid argument if you start with the presupposition that it is invalid, and that morality is subjective. If that morality is objective, the opinions of anyone else are irrelevant, and "God said so" is the only valid argument. If morality is subjective, then it never will be valid. It's circular reasoning.

So it's a valid argument to say I should kill you because my god said to kill unbelievers? Because following your logic to its natural conclusion we reach that point. That everything is perfectly fine when we say my god said so. There has to be a line at some point

And where that line is drawn is something that'll be decided by either "My God says so." Or "I think so" (Or some sort of appeal to authority or popularity, e.g. "Lots of people think so" "These important people think so", etc.).

Pornography or otherwise, the validity of "My God says so" on its face is circular, no matter which side you take on it.

[Topoliani]

Morality is not objective


My morals and the Catholic god's morals are obviously far different if I am willing to argue AGAINST the banning of porn

Objective morality does not mean that everyone has the same beliefs. It means that there is one truth regardless of what people believe.

Sorry bud, It doesn't work like that.

There cannot be "One True God Given Morality" if Morality is, by definition, man-made

Even IF this God's morality is the one True morality, then Which morals are actually his and not the writings of some desert civilization?

In Ephesians 6:5-8, it clearly states that Slaves should obey their masters, so does that mean it's morally wrong to, oh I don't know, rebel against a Pimp?

I even have some Old Testament as well, In Exodus 35:2 it is LAW by god that those who work on Sunday should DIE.

So, if Morality IS objective, does God's morals include THIS?

[Alvecia]

Objective morality does not mean that everyone has the same beliefs. It means that there is one truth regardless of what people believe.

Sorry bud, It doesn't work like that.

There cannot be "One True God Given Morality" if Morality is, by definition, man-made

Even IF this God's morality is the one True morality, then Which morals are actually his and not the writings of some desert civilization?

In Ephesians 6:5-8, it clearly states that Slaves should obey their masters, so does that mean it's morally wrong to, oh I don't know, rebel against a Pimp?

I even have some Old Testament as well, In Exodus 35:2 it is LAW by god that those who work on Sunday should DIE.

So, if Morality IS objective, does God's morals include THIS?

Don't forget that the Old Testament doesn't count because we need an arbitrary reason to disavow the bulk of the really nasty moral code

[Topoliani]

Sorry bud, It doesn't work like that.

There cannot be "One True God Given Morality" if Morality is, by definition, man-made

Even IF this God's morality is the one True morality, then Which morals are actually his and not the writings of some desert civilization?

In Ephesians 6:5-8, it clearly states that Slaves should obey their masters, so does that mean it's morally wrong to, oh I don't know, rebel against a Pimp?

I even have some Old Testament as well, In Exodus 35:2 it is LAW by god that those who work on Sunday should DIE.

So, if Morality IS objective, does God's morals include THIS?

Don't forget that the Old Testament doesn't count because we need an arbitrary reason to disavow the bulk of the really nasty moral code

I also gave a New Testament verse, so I am still in the Green

[Alvecia]

Don't forget that the Old Testament doesn't count because we need an arbitrary reason to disavow the bulk of the really nasty moral code

I also gave a New Testament verse, so I am still in the Green

*lowers away inquisition hat*
aww, maaan

[Ifreann]

Sure it is.

Nope, it's not. Doing so is telling your partner that they alone can't quench your sexual thirst.

Even if that's true, what makes you think that's a bad thing? Or to put it another way, why are you working from the premise that a healthy relationship requires that each person is the be all and end all of the other person's sexuality?

---

Which God? Because the Christian God sure as hell does not have the objective morality. People who have the objective morality don't stone people for collecting wood on the wrong day or for going to bed with the same sex, and they sure as hell don't unleash a plague on his own subjects because SOME of them were GRUMBLING against them. A God containing the objective morality doesn't break the rules they set, so they shouldn't kill, steal, lie or become envious.

There is only one God and frankly it's ridiculous for a human to act as if they understand morality better than the creator and definition of morality. It's like arguing to the universe "but 2+2 isn't 4, I know it!"

Difference being we've proven addition. Very comprehensively, actually. Like, maybe you're thinking "But it's obvious, you take two things and then two more things then there are four things", but what I'm saying is that we've proven addition from first mathematical principles. Hundreds of pages of symbolic logic.

Whereas God and his morality are things that Christians tell us we just need to believe in.

[Thermodolia]

Nah, I don't. Use your head on this one. We don't need statistics to prove common sense, bruv.

Handwaving things as "common sense" shows one doesn't have said sense.

Common sense says that porn isn't the cause

[Thermodolia]

To you all demanding proof, let this sink in very well, and meditate on the idea, because it should be self-explanatory (and honestly this subject doesn't require statistics, just think about it and even talk about it with people of variant values): A relationship is a profound bond between two individuals that share many things with each other. Shared attributes in the relationship are what give it beauty, stability, and longevity. If the relationship holds only one thing, whether it be money, sex, or whatever else is singularly valued, then the relationship is bound to fall.

The fact that y'all demand of proof tells me you haven't experienced very much in this area, and I'm telling you all from experience and observation away from the internet.

Look dude sex is extremely important in a relationship. If I'm not sexually compatible with someone it's generally not going to work out.

[Xelsis]

To you all demanding proof, let this sink in very well, and meditate on the idea, because it should be self-explanatory (and honestly this subject doesn't require statistics, just think about it and even talk about it with people of variant values): A relationship is a profound bond between two individuals that share many things with each other. Shared attributes in the relationship are what give it beauty, stability, and longevity. If the relationship holds only one thing, whether it be money, sex, or whatever else is singularly valued, then the relationship is bound to fall.

The fact that y'all demand of proof tells me you haven't experienced very much in this area, and I'm telling you all from experience and observation away from the internet.

Look dude sex is extremely important in a relationship. If I'm not sexually compatible with someone it's generally not going to work out.

Strange, then, that sexual satisfaction is rated more highly in marriages where the couple never tried it out before they got together-those same marriages that have vastly lower divorce rates, but would have much lower "sexual compatibility" by simple odds.

It is almost as if the concept of "sexual compatibility" is a product of culture.

[The New California Republic]

Look dude sex is extremely important in a relationship. If I'm not sexually compatible with someone it's generally not going to work out.

Indeed. It is especially important amongst men who like men, vis-à-vis what role is preferred, unless some degree of versatility is agreed upon by both etc. Contrary to that, straight relationships have a default setting in terms of roles, not that it excludes either from assuming a different role, if both people want to get a bit more creative and such.

[Thermodolia]

Very well.

First, individuals who want to stop viewing pornography are having a difficult time doing so. Their frequency of viewing pornography (3-5 times a week or more) is related to elevated depression, anxiety, and loneliness. Those who view it frequently also experience less overall happiness and life satisfaction. These are the results of research on more than 3,000 married and single men and women.

Bull fucking shit. The underlined is fucking shit. Why because thousands of people jack it off 5 times a week and don't have any of that.

Second, women who discover their partner's involvement in pornography report experiencing tremendous amounts of fear and anxiety. Here are four specific statements to which this group responded:

I experience intense feelings of indescribable fear since discovering my partner's sexual behaviors.
75 percent of women (791 of 1,062 respondents) answer that at least half of the time they experience intense feelings of fear.

Since discovering my partner's behavior, when I see sexually suggestive images I feel anxious.
80 percent of the women (833 of 1,062 respondents) answer that at least half of the time or more they are anxious when they see sexually suggestive images.

When I am in social settings I don't feel like I belong anymore.
62 percent of the women (607 of 1,062 respondents) answer that at least half of the time they don't feel like they belong in social settings.

I feel like I am emotionally on edge more now than I used to be before all this happened.
84 percent of the women (889 of 1,062 respondents) report that at least half of the time they are emotionally on edge in contrast to what they felt before they discovered their partner's behaviors.

That has less to do with porn and more to do with societal views about watching porn. If watching porn and sex in general was no big deal then 99% of those women wouldn't feel that.

What we see in these responses is fear, anxiety, avoidance of social bonding, and feeling emotionally on edge. Individuals using pornography are not doing well, and their partners are not doing any better. The evidence is clear, from this sample of more than 4,000 individuals, that involvement in pornography is hurting individuals and their relationships.(https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/in ... ationships)

Bull fucking shit. I can find you 10s of thousands of couples who say porn has benefited them

The underlined portion is underlined because it indicates to me that for those who seemed to bear a prolonged crave for pornography found themselves lonely by a larger magnitude.

Or it's a shitty study being shitty

Here's more from the source:

The challenges couples and society face are real. Far too many couples don't know how to deal with pornography in their relationship. My research indicates that many women are experiencing trauma and many men are struggling with compulsive behaviors and other mental health concerns like depression and anxiety. These real-life challenges make relationship bonding and connection much more difficult.

Once again the bolded is not caused by porn but by other factors. Plus society's views on sex and porn play a major role

[Xelsis]

Very well.

Bull fucking shit. The underlined is fucking shit. Why because thousands of people jack it off 5 times a week and don't have any of that.

"My grandmother smoked a pack a day and she lived to be a hundred and ten. Smoking isn't bad for you!"

That's the same argument you're making. I'm sure there are thousands of people who live to a ripe old age as smokers. That doesn't mean that smoking isn't related to an early death.

[Topoliani]

Bull fucking shit. The underlined is fucking shit. Why because thousands of people jack it off 5 times a week and don't have any of that.

"My grandmother smoked a pack a day and she lived to be a hundred and ten. Smoking isn't bad for you!"

That's the same argument you're making. I'm sure there are thousands of people who live to a ripe old age as smokers. That doesn't mean that smoking isn't related to an early death.

Bullshit

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Bull fucking shit. The underlined is fucking shit. Why because thousands of people jack it off 5 times a week and don't have any of that.

"My grandmother smoked a pack a day and she lived to be a hundred and ten. Smoking isn't bad for you!"

That's the same argument you're making. I'm sure there are thousands of people who live to a ripe old age as smokers. That doesn't mean that smoking isn't related to an early death.

One article vs. overwhelming scientific consensus. Bit of a false equivalence there.

Besides, even adultery, let alone casual sex, is perfectly legal. The former probably more for fear of enforcement being worse than the crime (though frankly where to draw the line between porn and everything else is murky enough to share such concerns) but it still goes to show that the government hasn't the right to stack the deck in favour of monogamy.

[The New California Republic]

It is almost as if the concept of "sexual compatibility" is a product of culture.

Let me put this another way. If I am a guy who is a "top" exclusively, and the guy I am going to try to be with is also a "top" exclusively, then the fireworks will not happen, they just won't, not as far as full sex goes. Sure, other stuff could happen, but full sex won't happen. However, some same sex male couples do make that work, I have known of cases of two men that are both "tops" being able to have a very successful relationship together. But sexual compatibility is definitely a tangible thing, it isn't some cultural imaginary.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Look dude sex is extremely important in a relationship. If I'm not sexually compatible with someone it's generally not going to work out.

Strange, then, that sexual satisfaction is rated more highly in marriages where the couple never tried it out before they got together-those same marriages that have vastly lower divorce rates, but would have much lower "sexual compatibility" by simple odds.

It is almost as if the concept of "sexual compatibility" is a product of culture.

Or surveys can be lied to. Especially by people who think "God" will judge them for complaining about sexual dissatisfaction. Which may or may not correlate with those who practice abstinence before marriage in the first place.

[Thermodolia]

Look dude sex is extremely important in a relationship. If I'm not sexually compatible with someone it's generally not going to work out.

Indeed. It is especially important amongst men who like men, vis-à-vis what role is preferred, unless some degree of versatility is agreed upon by both etc. Contrary to that, straight relationships have a default setting in terms of roles, not that it excludes either from assuming a different role, if both people want to get a bit more creative and such.

Definitely. And if I tried not having sex before getting married then it's going to be very awkward. Because I could end up being with someone who's the same role as me which isn't going to make either of us satisfied and will more than likely end up in an open marriage

[Thermodolia]

Bull fucking shit. The underlined is fucking shit. Why because thousands of people jack it off 5 times a week and don't have any of that.

"My grandmother smoked a pack a day and she lived to be a hundred and ten. Smoking isn't bad for you!"

That's the same argument you're making. I'm sure there are thousands of people who live to a ripe old age as smokers. That doesn't mean that smoking isn't related to an early death.

No that's not the argument I'm making. The entire survey was based off of people who thought they had a porn problem not people who actually just watched porn. If you took 10,000 people who actually just watch porn the numbers would be way different

[Katganistan]

Why?

"Verily those who love that indecency should spread among the believers deserve a painful chastisement in the world and in the Hereafter. Allah knows, but you do not know.": Quran 24:19

"He (Satan) will incite you for shameful things and encourage you to do universally accepted wrong things: Quran 24:21

Pornography is satanic in origin, it is designed to lead us astray and into Iblis' fold.

Which doesn't explain why anyone who doesn't follow your religion should give a shit abut what it says, and why a secular society should be expected to knuckle under to theocratic authoritarianism.

[Katganistan]

So, because it's addictive and can ruin people's lives, we should ban it?

Well, there goes my beer and video games

You think this an argument? I agree with you! We NEED to ban alcohol too!

Because that worked so well the first time.

Also: used in church services. HELLO?


If YOU don't like it, don't drink, and don't watch porn. Simple.

[Thermodolia]

You think this an argument? I agree with you! We NEED to ban alcohol too!

Because that worked so well the first time.

Also: used in church services. HELLO?


If YOU don't like it, don't drink, and don't watch porn. Simple.

"But but Kat!! How am I supposed to make everyone do what I want?!!" Or if you prefer "wahh wahh!! I'm not getting my way"

[Katganistan]

Nope. I want to prohibit: Porn, Alcohol, Drugs, Fornication, and Atheist & Liberal thought. If you get addicted to video games it's not the fault of the game, but something wrong with you as the person. For example, I was only "addicted" (and I use that term lightly) when I had depression. When I got over that, I rarely played them outside of when I was sick or there was nothing else to do.

You know, 1984 was a cautionary tale, not a playbook for setting up an authoritarian dictatorship where thoughtcrimes get you imprisoned or killed.