Should we ban pornography?

[Zanera]

I will use my second amendment rights to protect my porn and beer

Beer is nasty and barbaric and should be done away with tbh

That's racist against the Hun.

[The Parkus Empire]

"the Supreme Court's position on First Amendment protection of obscene material, as articulated in Roth, has not changed"

Of course, ignore all but part of one sentence.

'
Good job there.

The key point is that obscenity is not protected by the First Amendment. If what is basically obscene material has been protected in the past by the First Amendment, it is NOT because it is obscene, but rather in spite of it.

[Vassenor]

We don't exist to do anything. We just exist.

You're quite wrong, we biologically exist to procreate and further the homo sapien line.

So I guess the biologically infertile aren't real humans or something then.

[Ifreann]

You're quite wrong, we biologically exist to procreate and further the homo sapien line.

So I guess the biologically infertile aren't real humans or something then.

They're figments of our collective imagination.

[Zanera]

So I guess the biologically infertile aren't real humans or something then.

They're figments of our collective imagination.

They're robot aliens from Zion 5.

[New haven america]

They're the same thin really

Well, now we know what kind of porn you're watching.

TlhIngan chenmoH.

Sex is always better in the original Klingon.

jop vISIQbogh HaSta? yu'.

[New haven america]

You're quite wrong, we biologically exist to procreate and further the homo sapien line.

So I guess the biologically infertile aren't real humans or something then.

Of course.

[Wallenburg]

Well, now we know what kind of porn you're watching.

Sex is always better in the original Klingon.

jop vISIQbogh HaSta? yu'.

Um...qa'pla?

[Sovaal]

No. I mean this isn’t exactly something you can “ban”, just gonna get a prohibition type deal.

[Kiger]

You're quite wrong, we biologically exist to procreate and further the homo sapien line.

And what about me? I can tell you unequivocally that I don't exist to procreate when having sex with the same sex as me...

Biologically we exist to procreate, doesn't mean you can stray from the reason of existence.

[Kiger]

You're quite wrong, we biologically exist to procreate and further the homo sapien line.

Nature does not intend for us to procreate, or do anything else.

It's just that the creatures that reproduce the best tend to dominate their environment.

It is you who are quite wrong.

So is making babies -- and having genes survive through the generations -- the meaning of life? The answer is yes
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/gu ... ke-babies/

[Kiger]

You're quite wrong, we biologically exist to procreate and further the homo sapien line.

Biology does not attribute a purpose to the existence of humans or any other species.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/gu ... ke-babies/

[Kiger]

Mankind exists to reproduce, individual men and women may well not. If the species in general were completely, or even mainly, engaging in same sex relationships it would not have survived as long as it has.

Mankind exists because of reproduction, not for reproduction.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/gu ... ke-babies/
"So is making babies -- and having genes survive through the generations -- the meaning of life? The answer is yes"

[Kiger]

You're quite wrong, we biologically exist to procreate and further the homo sapien line.

So I guess the biologically infertile aren't real humans or something then.

Don't be a cunt. There are always abnormalities.

[Darussalam]

Nature does not intend for us to procreate, or do anything else.

It's just that the creatures that reproduce the best tend to dominate their environment.

It is you who are quite wrong.

So is making babies -- and having genes survive through the generations -- the meaning of life? The answer is yes
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/gu ... ke-babies/

Once again people are mistaking the positive as the normative.

[What R Ye Doin in Muh Swaomp]

Nah, let 'em do it. I kinda like it.

[New haven america]

jop vISIQbogh HaSta? yu'.

Um...qa'pla?

Qa'pla!

[Asherahan]

-It creates emotional bond with artificial world
Only mentally impaired people have a problem differentiating fantasy with reality.

-It results in a short term high, eventually results in feelings of emptiness, low self-esteem and deep loneliness, similar to drugs
Is there proof of this? And even then if you watch regulated porn then it is your own decision. Too much of anything is bad including being a prude.

-Means you can’t get aroused by just your spouse
Assuming you can't get aroused by your spouse then it is not the porns fault. It means your marriage is failing and you are looking for a scapegoat.

-Porn wrecks your libido
No it doesn't.

-Porn makes you sexually lazy
No it doesn't. I would even argue it gives you incentives to try stuff from it.

-Makes regular intercourse seem mundane
No it doesn't nothing beats actual sex.

-Makes it difficult to last long during sex
No it doesn't.

[Nimzonia]

-It creates emotional bond with artificial world

So does religion, maybe we should ban that too. At least porn never started any wars (although it might if you tried to ban it).

[Kiger]

-It creates emotional bond with artificial world

So does religion, maybe we should ban that too. At least porn never started any wars (although it might if you tried to ban it).

wise words

[What R Ye Doin in Muh Swaomp]

-It creates emotional bond with artificial world

So does religion, maybe we should ban that too. At least porn never started any wars (although it might if you tried to ban it).

It would be like Lord of the Cock Rings.

[The New California Republic]

And what about me? I can tell you unequivocally that I don't exist to procreate when having sex with the same sex as me...

Biologically we exist to procreate, doesn't mean you can stray from the reason of existence.

Nope. I biologically exist to do things that will not result in procreation. Trust me, the way I have sex will not result in babies being created. That pokes a pretty big hole in your theory, doesn't it?

Also, don't use the same source when addressing multiple points, that is just academic laziness.

[Purpelia]

Nope. I biologically exist to do things that will not result in procreation. Trust me, the way I have sex will not result in babies being created. That pokes a pretty big hole in your theory, doesn't it?

No, it really does not. The use of a mechanism for things other than its intended purpose does not invalidate the existence of said purpose.

We humans are intelligent creatures whose one biological advantage is our ability to adapt and think creatively. We can use anything up and including our own biological mechanisms for things they did not evolve for. That does not mean we should ignore the facts they did evolve for a purpose or that we are animals. Just that we should be really proud of our creativity.

[The New California Republic]

Nope. I biologically exist to do things that will not result in procreation. Trust me, the way I have sex will not result in babies being created. That pokes a pretty big hole in your theory, doesn't it?

No, it really does not. The use of a mechanism for things other than its intended purpose does not invalidate the existence of said purpose.

Oh you! Saying that I am using my penis wrongly!

[The New California Republic]

We humans are intelligent creatures whose one biological advantage is our ability to adapt and think creatively. We can use anything up and including our own biological mechanisms for things they did not evolve for. That does not mean we should ignore the facts they did evolve for a purpose or that we are animals. Just that we should be really proud of our creativity.

Yeah that was the point I was making, just not in as many words. I am typing all this on a crappy ancient iPad, which is frustrating as hell for typing things. Normal service will be resumed shortly when I get back to an actual computer with an actual keyboard.