Should we ban pornography?

[Liriena]

Or you'll just create an unregulated black market that will make things even worse.

Ahem:

It's OK Thermy, we could just set up our own illegal gay porno store if they banned gay porn, disguised as a bookstore or something, just like they did with the speakeasies during Prohibition. We would make a shit ton of money.

Oh, and I could write gay erotic literature and feel like a libertarian hero about it.

[Free Missouri]

Hence my idea: ban unpaywalled pornography, or otherwise regulate it so damn hard that all of it becomes economically infeasible not to be behind a paywall.

You can legislate the live-action stuff as "protecting the actors and actresses," but any regulation of the animated stuff would be censorship, full stop.

and 90% of the traffic is to "tube" sites that hold both but mostly live action. regulate the live action enough and they'd have to go full-stop paid or they'd have to go full-stop animated.

And then we can levy an extra tax on the production of the animated, just like we do other vices.

[Ethel mermania]

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.

There is no "your morality" or "my morality" because morality is objective. There is only one morality, the moral law from God, regardless of human opinions.

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.

Agreed with this response to Reploid. Morality is not subjective.

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.

Again, morality is objective and it already applies to all people, regardless of whether they want it or recognize it or not.

Morlaity can only be subjective. There is NO possiblity of an objective morality. Murder to you is justice to me.

[Xelsis]

You can legislate the live-action stuff as "protecting the actors and actresses," but any regulation of the animated stuff would be censorship, full stop.

and 90% of the traffic is to "tube" sites that hold both but mostly live action. regulate the live action enough and they'd have to go full-stop paid or they'd have to go full-stop animated.

And then we can levy an extra tax on the production of the animated, just like we do other vices.

The latter is my personal position. Leave it legal for private consumption, just slap on the taxes to get some revenue out of it.

[Thermodolia]

>insert completely unenforceable law here for 15 minutes of feelgood altruism

the chances of this ever leading to anything positive are so slim you can get it through the eye of the needle

A lot of the suggestions of how to ban porn will most likely lead to a revolution and eventual execution of those who supported said ban

[The New California Republic]

The two tops made themselves sexually compatible somehow (I didn't ask for details!), and they both lived happily ever after in a big fabulous house with 2 cats. I like to think that it was love that did it.

That's the point. Love won't make water and oil mix-they're incompatible. If it's something you can make work with relational effort, then you were never incompatible in the first place.

Way to rain on my gay parade. The love part was just thrown in there for effect, it wasn't intended as part of the argument. They were sexually incompatible, then they weren't. That is a possible thing you know, people aren't necessarily stuck in a permanent category forevermore.

[Thermodolia]

You can legislate the live-action stuff as "protecting the actors and actresses," but any regulation of the animated stuff would be censorship, full stop.

and 90% of the traffic is to "tube" sites that hold both but mostly live action. regulate the live action enough and they'd have to go full-stop paid or they'd have to go full-stop animated.

And then we can levy an extra tax on the production of the animated, just like we do other vices.

I too want to have a revolution

[Katganistan]

I don't support porn, I have watched porn and I do not like it. I want certain types of porn banned like Gay porn, Child porn and BDSM. I would want some categories of Porn banned

Child porn is illegal, as it should be.

Anything between consenting adults should be treated as a "not my thing so I won't watch it" choice, not a "I HATE IT YOU CAN'T WATCH IT" thing.

[Trumptonium]

>insert completely unenforceable law here for 15 minutes of feelgood altruism

the chances of this ever leading to anything positive are so slim you can get it through the eye of the needle

A lot of the suggestions of how to ban porn will most likely lead to a revolution and eventual execution of those who supported said ban

I have no doubt that a ban on porn will lead to a 'mysterious' freefall in the election results of the party proposing such legislation, especially among men, however I think that a France 1792 style mass guillotining of politicians is rather unlikely.

[Thermodolia]

and 90% of the traffic is to "tube" sites that hold both but mostly live action. regulate the live action enough and they'd have to go full-stop paid or they'd have to go full-stop animated.

And then we can levy an extra tax on the production of the animated, just like we do other vices.

The latter is my personal position. Leave it legal for private consumption, just slap on the taxes to get some revenue out of it.

Which is what states like California already do

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

I'm pointing out that you're rejecting surveys, regardless of how scientifically conducted, as worthless as a whole, which throws out most active research in social science right off the bat.

Yes. Yes I am.

There is a difference between public attitudes on a matter, and governmental right, as you argued. That there is little public will for criminalization of adultery does not mean the government lacks a right to criminalize it. (Not to say that it does, but that the argument does not show such.)

Fine, but you claimed polygamy laws to be about stacking the deck in monogamy's favour, and that isn't necessarily the case.

I personally don't especially favor any governmental regulation of marriage.

So... how exactly do you deal with visitation rights? Or inheritance issues? Or power of attorney?

If it is to be recognized as a government-approved contract, it would not be unreasonable to treat adultery as a breach of said contract.

Fair enough, then, at least that's consistent.

[Thermodolia]

A lot of the suggestions of how to ban porn will most likely lead to a revolution and eventual execution of those who supported said ban

I have no doubt that a ban on porn will lead to a 'mysterious' freefall in the election results of the party proposing such legislation, especially among men, however I think that a France 1792 style mass guillotining of politicians is rather unlikely.

I was thinking more of a soviet style mass execution than a France 1792

[Xelsis]

That's the point. Love won't make water and oil mix-they're incompatible. If it's something you can make work with relational effort, then you were never incompatible in the first place.

Way to rain on my gay parade. The love part was just thrown in there for effect, it wasn't intended as part of the argument. They were sexually incompatible, then they weren't. That is a possible thing you know, people aren't necessarily stuck in a permanent category forevermore.

Given that the point being argued against is that incompatibility is permanent, there is not much practical difference between compatibility not being a thing, and compatibility being reversible.

I'm pointing out that you're rejecting surveys, regardless of how scientifically conducted, as worthless as a whole, which throws out most active research in social science right off the bat.

Yes. Yes I am.

Very well.

There is a difference between public attitudes on a matter, and governmental right, as you argued. That there is little public will for criminalization of adultery does not mean the government lacks a right to criminalize it. (Not to say that it does, but that the argument does not show such.)

Fine, but you claimed polygamy laws to be about stacking the deck in monogamy's favour, and that isn't necessarily the case.

I cannot see how criminalizing the alternative is not stacking the deck in its favor.

I personally don't especially favor any governmental regulation of marriage.

So... how exactly do you deal with visitation rights? Or inheritance issues? Or power of attorney?

Negotiation, arbitration, the same means as any agreement or contract.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

You can legislate the live-action stuff as "protecting the actors and actresses," but any regulation of the animated stuff would be censorship, full stop.

and 90% of the traffic is to "tube" sites that hold both but mostly live action. regulate the live action enough and they'd have to go full-stop paid or they'd have to go full-stop animated.

And then we can levy an extra tax on the production of the animated, just like we do other vices.

Carbon taxes are a pragmatic way to make polluters pay for the consequences of their pollution, not a "vice tax."

And selective taxation still constitutes censorship.

[Thermodolia]

I personally don't especially favor any governmental regulation of marriage.

So... how exactly do you deal with visitation rights? Or inheritance issues? Or power of attorney?

Easy. Civil unions for everyone. Marriage is not something the state recognizes and is only something religious institutions carry out.

Basically under this plan if you get married in a church religious ceremony you won't be married in the eyes of the state but must go down to the local court to make it official

[Katganistan]

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.

https://courses2.cit.cornell.edu/social ... ndment.htm

You believe incorrectly.

[Kennlind]

I beg to disagree. Maybe for you lot who let the doctors hook you up on drugs, God saved me after I chose not to take any.

Dude I haven't been on any drugs and it's still something you can't just get over. Trust me I wish I could

Maybe not for you, but I was clinically diagnosed with it and I feel a million billion times better than I was back then.

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.

It wouldn't be a dictatorship. And liberalism & atheism aren't thoughtcrimes, they threaten the safety and morality of society.

I don't support porn, I have watched porn and I do not like it. I want certain types of porn banned like Gay porn, Child porn and BDSM. I would want some categories of Porn banned

Child porn is illegal, as it should be.

Anything between consenting adults should be treated as a "not my thing so I won't watch it" choice, not a "I HATE IT YOU CAN'T WATCH IT" thing.

It should be treated as a "serious problem that needs to be outlawed and treated like any drug"

>insert completely unenforceable law here for 15 minutes of feelgood altruism

the chances of this ever leading to anything positive are so slim you can get it through the eye of the needle

A lot of the suggestions of how to ban porn will most likely lead to a revolution and eventual execution of those who supported said ban

"WAAAAAAAAA DONT TAKE AWAY MY PORNNNNNNN LET ME DO WHAT MAKES ME FEEEEEEEEEEEL GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOD"
Starting a revolution because politicians banned porn... the most western Casus Belli I could think of.

There is no "your morality" or "my morality" because morality is objective. There is only one morality, the moral law from God, regardless of human opinions.



Agreed with this response to Reploid. Morality is not subjective.



Again, morality is objective and it already applies to all people, regardless of whether they want it or recognize it or not.

Morlaity can only be subjective. There is NO possiblity of an objective morality. Murder to you is justice to me.

If morality was subjective then it wouldn't exist.

[Kennlind]

I'm a USian, so I say leave it to the individual states. Not something the Federal government should legislate.

First Amendment, though.

It's a damn good thing I hate the waste of paper that is the constitution

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

We should at least ban it for the youth. It has become far too casual and the fact that a large portion of, if not most teenagers have watched porn regularly, is simply vile.

It is banned for youth. They watch it anyway.
Just as underage drinking is banned for youth.
Just as underage smoking is banned for youth.

What you need is enforcement. Fining both the youth practitioner and the supplier (if it's clear the supplier has not taken sufficient steps to keep it from kids) would be good.

If a kid presses the "I'm over 21" button though -- fine should be 100% on them and their family.

Or you could accept that it's better for teenagers to find out what they're into through porn than have sex in real life.

I'm WELL over 21 and I still think telling teens not to watch porn was bullshit.

[Thermodolia]

First Amendment, though.

It's a damn good thing I hate the waste of paper that is the constitution

Good thing you don't live in the US so I don't have to care what you think

[Katganistan]

Ignoring your garbage sources, no people won't have to pay for porn. They didn't have to pay for porn pre-2013 so they wouldn't do it now. Besides it's not that much to pay for porn. I only pay about $50 a month for two sites.


Well ok then...


Not an addict. And no I'm not going to stop watching porn and my health is fine


Oh joy the thought police is here.


Um you can't get over depression. Trust me

I beg to disagree. Maybe for you lot who let the doctors hook you up on drugs, God saved me after I chose not to take any.

It's nice that your anecdote says that worked for you.
Science works for a lot of other people.

[The New California Republic]

Way to rain on my gay parade. The love part was just thrown in there for effect, it wasn't intended as part of the argument. They were sexually incompatible, then they weren't. That is a possible thing you know, people aren't necessarily stuck in a permanent category forevermore.

Given that the point being argued against is that incompatibility is permanent...

Where did either of us claim that incompatibility is permanent? I challenge you to find either of us making that claim.

[Topoliani]

I beg to disagree. Maybe for you lot who let the doctors hook you up on drugs, God saved me after I chose not to take any.

It's nice that your anecdote says that worked for you.
Science works for a lot of other people.

Last time I checked, it was the immune system and antibiotics that cured my Stomach infection without any god-ly involvement

[Kennlind]

I beg to disagree. Maybe for you lot who let the doctors hook you up on drugs, God saved me after I chose not to take any.

It's nice that your anecdote says that worked for you.
Science works for a lot of other people.

Drugs are a temporary solution. They do not work for anyone. They make people feel happy, and make them think they need to rely on them so they give drug companies more money.

[Alvecia]

It's nice that your anecdote says that worked for you.
Science works for a lot of other people.

Drugs are a temporary solution. They do not work for anyone. They make people feel happy, and make them think they need to rely on them so they give drug companies more money.

Holy shit, I thought this kind of dangerous thinking was only found in shitty low budget Christian movies