Should we ban pornography?

[Salandriagado]

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.

Nope. Evolution doesn't have a purpose. It just is.

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/

The answer is very much no, no matter what some silly guest blogger says. Purpose is a human construct, and the only purpose that we have is the purpose that we claim for ourselves. You should also read the final paragraph of that article, rather than just reading the title and assuming the contents. I'll quote the relevant portion here for you:

So, in the end, the full answer is no -- we do not bestow having babies as the sole guardians of life's meaning.

[Old Tyrannia]

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

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

Kiger: *** Warned for flaming. *** We don't allow personal attacks on other posters here; perhaps you should brush up on the rules.

[Ifreann]

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

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

Are you familiar with Betteridge's Law of Headlines? "Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no."

And lo and behold, if we read to the end of that blog post

So, in the end, the full answer is no

---

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.

There is no more an intended purpose to sex than there is to mountains, or diamonds, or comets, or anything else that arose from the laws of the universe ticking over. Stuff just happens, what the hell.

---

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!

You'd want to be careful with that sort of thing. The Penis Police are a ruthless bunch.

[Ors Might]

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

Are you familiar with Betteridge's Law of Headlines? "Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no."

And lo and behold, if we read to the end of that blog post

So, in the end, the full answer is no

---

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.

There is no more an intended purpose to sex than there is to mountains, or diamonds, or comets, or anything else that arose from the laws of the universe ticking over. Stuff just happens, what the hell.

---

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

You'd want to be careful with that sort of thing. The Penis Police are a ruthless bunch.

Really trying not make a feminist joke right now..

[What R Ye Doin in Muh Swaomp]

Gay porn is so hard to come by. In more ways than one.

[Herzegovenia]

“-Makes it difficult to last long during sex”
HAHAHAHAHA, no.
Thanks to porn, the very first time i made sex, i already lasted 40 minutes.
Porn trains people, they just need to have self control. Last long watching porn? Well, that means you can last long in bed. Self control training through porn is absolutely incredible.

[Kohr]

-It creates emotional bond with artificial world
-It results in a short term high, eventually results in feelings of emptiness, low self-esteem and deep loneliness, similar to drugs
-Means you can’t get aroused by just your spouse
-Porn wrecks your libido
-Porn makes you sexually lazy
-Makes regular intercourse seem mundane
-Makes it difficult to last long during sex

Even if all this was true, it shouldn't merit banning pornography. If someone wants to deal with all of that, that's their problem and not mine. Furthermore, banning porn is simply impractical because of how hard the internet is to regulate.

[Sovaal]

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

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

I think their point is that we shouldn’t base our social laws on evolutionary ones.

[Computer Lab]

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/

I appreciate that you selectively quoted the sections that agree with you and avoided the majority of the opinion piece that disagreed with you. Makes it really easy to dismiss your claims.

From your own 'source':

But from almost every other perspective -- individual, group, moral, environmental, or concern for life as a whole -- the answer to the question is no. Meaning from these perspectives -- from life as it is actually experienced -- is up to us. Reproduction and genetic survival may be the meaning of Life, but it is not inescapably the meaning of your life.

So, in the end, the full answer is no -- we do not bestow having babies as the sole guardians of life's meaning. But we do need to respect and grapple with the view. Differential genetic success, as a result of reproduction and environmental conditions will -- for better or worse -- provide the template for what humans will become in the future. It is to evolutionary genetic success that we -- and all life -- owe our existence, and to which the future of all life on Earth depends. Including creatures that create our own meaning. We perform our solos with passion, but we are playing in nature's grand symphony.

Funny, ain't it? Given that your quote comes from the middle of two sections detailing why the answer is no, this can't be ascribed to unintentionally grabbing a source that argues against you without realizing it. You had to have known it disagreed and cherry picked it to use as a source. That's bad form in debates, not just because it's disingenuous, but mainly because it tends to backfire.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

“-Makes it difficult to last long during sex”
HAHAHAHAHA, no.
Thanks to porn, the very first time i made sex, i already lasted 40 minutes.
Porn trains people, they just need to have self control. Last long watching porn? Well, that means you can last long in bed. Self control training through porn is absolutely incredible.

Also, how long does it take to switch condoms after ejaculating? Does a woman really lose all the progress-toward-orgasm of the previous few minutes' worth of intercourse?

[Kennlind]

-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).

Religion has been the cause of only 7% of wars in human history and it doesn't create a bond with an artificial world. Funny how you atheists point to religion every single time people call you out for your hedonistic & decadent behavior.

“-Makes it difficult to last long during sex”
HAHAHAHAHA, no.
Thanks to porn, the very first time i made sex, i already lasted 40 minutes.
Porn trains people, they just need to have self control. Last long watching porn? Well, that means you can last long in bed. Self control training through porn is absolutely incredible.

Imagine lying about how long you lasted during the first time you had sex, and then attributing it towards porn. I've never met a single girl who finds sex-obsessed porn addicts to be attractive in the slightest.

[Petrolheadia]

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).

Religion has been the cause of only 7% of wars in human history

7% too many.

and it doesn't create a bond with an artificial world.

If it is real.

IF.

“-Makes it difficult to last long during sex”
HAHAHAHAHA, no.
Thanks to porn, the very first time i made sex, i already lasted 40 minutes.
Porn trains people, they just need to have self control. Last long watching porn? Well, that means you can last long in bed. Self control training through porn is absolutely incredible.

Imagine lying about how long you lasted during the first time you had sex, and then attributing it towards porn. I've never met a single girl who finds sex-obsessed porn addicts to be attractive in the slightest.

You don't have an argument? One simple step to winning a debate - calling your opponent a liar!

---

Honestly, dude, are you even trying to argue?

[La Vendee]

But that still equates to: "God told me that something is immoral, and that moral code applies to everyone, even if they don't believe in said God. It is right to force that morality on everyone, as their opinions are fallible, so their opinions don't matter really. All that matters is that we obey the word of God, whose existence I cannot prove, but I do not need to, because human opinions are fallible, except for the opinion that I know God exists and I know what he wants". Do you not see one tiny little problem with that?

No problem except that God is not an opinion.

This does not imply that such a thing exists. "It not existing is scary and complicated" is not an argument for the existence of anything.

E.g: you've argued that we shouldn't "force" people to use more dangerous stimulants instead of porn, but there is nothing objectively wrong with endangering people.

No. But subjectively, I think that there is something wrong with it.

That subjective thought is worthless. Even "I think murder and rape is wrong" is worthless as a subjective thought. Only objective morality can exist. Btw ""It not existing is scary and complicated" is a strawman you created, not me.

You're missing my point. We can prove things in maths. That's how we know them to be true, and how we know how true they are. That's how we know it's pointless to contradict them.

Again: mathematics only applies within a system of reasoning. If you want to claim that it also applies to the real world, then you need evidence.

And since you insist, here's a proof that 2+2=4 (in the PA system):

Mathematical proofs are based on a mathematical system that mathematicians tell me to believe. Point being "God's existence is something Christians tell me to believe" is invalid for arguing against objective morality.

On the other hand, I can tell you that God is an Invisible Pink Unicorn and can you prove me wrong?

Sure. God has revealed himself in Jesus Christ. It is self-evident.

God commits no evil? If that's a fact then I'm the queen of England. And I'm a guy. If God is real, and in this case he isn't proven to be real so lets just say he is, and he created EVERYTHING as per Genesis, that means he also de facto created evil, he created suffering. Mate I don't get what goes trough your tiny mind with this God bullshit, and how you're so sure there's only one, you DON'T KNOW IF HE'S REAL. THERE'S 0, ZERO EVIDENCE THAT HE IS, but hey since you believe in a specific religion out of about 4,200 and claim that the god you believe in is real, I guess your god is real then huh? But then again, every other religion claims THEIR god is real... so which is the real one? Or is none at all?

Ad hominem attacks will receive no response.


----

Back to the point of this thread: Arguments based on subjective morality against the banning of porn are self-defeating because there is no true right or wrong in that POV. The moral relativist/subjectivist must concede that even something as heinous as child rape is not worse than a selfless act of charity, because the child has the moral worth of a lump of dirt. It is a disgusting worldview indicative of a seared conscience.

[Herzegovenia]

“-Makes it difficult to last long during sex”
HAHAHAHAHA, no.
Thanks to porn, the very first time i made sex, i already lasted 40 minutes.
Porn trains people, they just need to have self control. Last long watching porn? Well, that means you can last long in bed. Self control training through porn is absolutely incredible.

Also, how long does it take to switch condoms after ejaculating? Does a woman really lose all the progress-toward-orgasm of the previous few minutes' worth of intercourse?

It takes several (between 2-10, at the VERY least) minutes for a man to regain an erection after a real, full orgasm, and even then, stimulation becomes painfull due to the fact your penis is overstimulated. The same thing happens to females after too many orgasms; it is called, for females, clitorial overstimulation.
So to awnser your question: several minutes, and therefore, likely yes, it would end any progress already made towards the female orgasm, altough i cant say for sure has i am not a woman.
That’s not to say you can’t please her with your mounth and hands in case you finnish too early, or simply is not going to make sex (yet or at all) that night, and that is very effective with enough practice, and i (like most males) consider it extremely fun.

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).

Religion has been the cause of only 7% of wars in human history and it doesn't create a bond with an artificial world. Funny how you atheists point to religion every single time people call you out for your hedonistic & decadent behavior.

“-Makes it difficult to last long during sex”
HAHAHAHAHA, no.
Thanks to porn, the very first time i made sex, i already lasted 40 minutes.
Porn trains people, they just need to have self control. Last long watching porn? Well, that means you can last long in bed. Self control training through porn is absolutely incredible.

Imagine lying about how long you lasted during the first time you had sex, and then attributing it towards porn. I've never met a single girl who finds sex-obsessed porn addicts to be attractive in the slightest.

Mate, i didn’t lie. We started at around seven PM, and after we finished, i looked at my watch only to realize we were almost late. It was 19:40 something and we needed to leave at 20. If it was ANY less then that, it wasn’t by much. Over 20-30 minutes, at the very least.
And about attributing it to porn; i use to last around 5 minutes by myself, but then, watching porn, i noticed i needed to learn how to control myself and last longer. I learnt just that, and soon, i was masturbating for 30 min to 1 hour. Now, i usually last around 40 min 1:40 hours masturbating. Nice, full filling, 1-2 hour sessions. It’s healthy and it did a lot of good to my sex life.
And about the fact that you’ve never met a woman who felt attracted to a man with a porn addiction; first things first, i don’t have a porn addiction. When traveling and such, i often spend days without masturbating or watching porn. And second, let’s just say i haven’t had any notable problems with that.

Also; this:

Imagine lying about how long you lasted during the first time you had sex, and then attributing it towards porn. I've never met a single girl who finds sex-obsessed porn addicts to be attractive in the slightest.

You don't have an argument? One simple step to winning a debate - calling your opponent a liar!

---

Honestly, dude, are you even trying to argue?

Thanks, Petrolheadia!

[Ethel mermania]

Fuck, I knew I was doing something wrong.

Are you talking about sex or hand-to-hand combat?

God willing both

[Ethel mermania]

What you're telling me is that mass murder, theft, and deception is horrrible for humans but fine for God? That's textbook tyranny. To believe that the Christian God has perfect morality is to believe that tyranny is perfectly fine as long as the tyrant says it's okay.

We exist to serve God, so not only is God ruling over us perfectly fine, it's absolutely desirable.

You may want to tell him that, I for one want a word about the holocaust.

[Neanderthaland]

Are you talking about sex or hand-to-hand combat?

God willing both

Finish Him

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

You don't have an argument? One simple step to winning a debate - calling your opponent a liar!

Eh, NSG always picks-and-chooses about this anyway, even though none of us know one way or the other. I'd rather we didn't lend significance to unverifiable anecdotes in the first place, frankly.

So back to the earlier point about continuing sex after first orgasm...

http://theconversation.com/the-human-pe ... ut-it-6366

Well, the reason is not entirely clear, but it’s believed to be down to our mating systems and strategies. In the 30th anniversary edition of his book, The Selfish Gene, evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins suggested the lack of a human baculum is the result of “sexual selection” by female humans looking for healthy males.

That is, having a penis that relies on “hydraulics” to become erect (rather than a bone) means there will be some males with poor erectile function. If Dawkins is right, an innate female desire to guage a male’s suitability as a mate was responsible for “selecting” a penis that shows such suitability (or lack thereof).

There's a reason I brought up fatty foods earlier. If this is meant to improve the circulatory system by making males with poor circulatory systems flaccid, it stands to reason that fatty foods, not porn, might be responsible... not for premature ejaculation itself, but for it getting in the way of female orgasm. Porn might make guys hyped up enough for sex to ejaculate prematurely. It might also make them hyped up enough to remain erect after busting off. By what standard do we jump to conclusions about this either way?

But then again, how would you verify this? If male researchers were assigned to this and the guy went flaccid after busting off, how do we know it wasn't because there were other dudes in the room taking notes?

And if you assigned exclusively female researchers to taking notes on this... what's stopping people who would want porn criminalized from counting the presence of female instead of male researchers to help him remain hard as "just another form of fornication"?

[Petrasylvania]

God willing both

Finish Him

Is blood supposed to be white?

[Ransium]

Finish Him

Is blood supposed to be white?

Just a reminder, despite the topic of this thread, let’s keep things PG-13.

[The East Europan Imperial Alliance]

Why do these threads keep popping up?

Also, 1000th post!

[Topoliani]

Why do these threads keep popping up?

Also, 1000th post!

Because nationstates has very diverse ideas

Mostly bad ideas though

[Kenmoria]

But that still equates to: "God told me that something is immoral, and that moral code applies to everyone, even if they don't believe in said God. It is right to force that morality on everyone, as their opinions are fallible, so their opinions don't matter really. All that matters is that we obey the word of God, whose existence I cannot prove, but I do not need to, because human opinions are fallible, except for the opinion that I know God exists and I know what he wants". Do you not see one tiny little problem with that?

No problem except that God is not an opinion.

No, but belief in a god is definitely an opinion. What else could it be? The truth is not an acceptable answer here as the existence of a god is unprovable. This renders your religious argument against pornography useless.

[Slugville]

No. What the hell? #NutNeutrality

[Topoliani]

No. What the hell? #NutNeutrality

This is the best # in the history of the world