Should Pornography be banned in the US?

[GuessTheAltAccount]

To be fair, that's a strawman of what the religious were saying. They didn't say they would be like that without God, they said everyone else would be.

They only assume that to be true of others because that is what they themselves are like.

You don't know that. None of us are mind readers.

[Delvian States]

They only assume that to be true of others because that is what they themselves are like.

You don't know that. None of us are mind readers.

It is, however, what I tend to think most likely true about them.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

To be fair, that's a strawman of what the religious were saying. They didn't say they would be like that without God, they said everyone else would be.

I can't dig it up right this second and I doubt Mr. Jillette was replying to it directly, but I've seen video of a man listing the atrocities he'd commit if he didn't believe God was real.

The version I'm familiar with has Penn describing someone asking it of Penn, not claiming it's true of oneself in one's capacity as the person asking it.

As well, even individual religious people might not be as awful as they think but may have just been gaslit by religion. Religion's disgusting propaganda about human nature is awfully contagious. -.-

[Cook-Out]

To be fair, that's a strawman of what the religious were saying. They didn't say they would be like that without God, they said everyone else would be.

their failure to understand that some heathens simply don't want to rape/kill/burn/etc implies that they themselves would want to rape/kill/burn/etc. if not for their god.

You misunderstand. I'm only saying that if there were no God, there would be no standard for morality. That doesn't mean that I think everyone who is an atheist is a rapist murderer. it just means that atheists have no grounds for setting moral standards.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

You don't know that. None of us are mind readers.

It is, however, what I tend to think most likely true about them.

Based on what?

[Osmauri]

"A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance;" this currently does not correspond to the moment to do so! We must ban!

I don't think that you understand what I meant.

I wasn't laughing in celebration, I was laughing at the idea that violently enforcing a ban on pornography would end in anything less than the enforcers getting shot.

I have a brilliant idea: force everyone into a pit with pool noodles and force them to beat the shit out of each other
I'm sure everything will be solved at the end

[Delvian States]

their failure to understand that some heathens simply don't want to rape/kill/burn/etc implies that they themselves would want to rape/kill/burn/etc. if not for their god.

You misunderstand. I'm only saying that if there were no God, there would be no standard for morality. That doesn't mean that I think everyone who is an atheist is a rapist murderer. it just means that atheists have no grounds for setting moral standards.

There are moral bases that have nothing to do with any kind of theology or religious dogma or superstition whatsoever. Just saying. Utilitarians, for instance. Whether Bentham or Mill. The idea of the greatest good for the greatest number of people is compelling enough for many folks.

[Fahran]

To be fair, that's a strawman of what the religious were saying. They didn't say they would be like that without God, they said everyone else would be.

their failure to understand that some heathens simply don't want to rape/kill/burn/etc implies that they themselves would want to rape/kill/burn/etc. if not for their god.

Not really, no.

This fundamentally misunderstands the argument. It’s not about the will to commit atrocities, but, rather, about where one’s morals and ethical frameworks originate. It’s essentially asking the philosophical question Nietzsche spent most of his career striving to answer, albeit with the intention of compelling the infidel to profess that he or she has no good answer and must descend into nihilism.

[Osmauri]

their failure to understand that some heathens simply don't want to rape/kill/burn/etc implies that they themselves would want to rape/kill/burn/etc. if not for their god.

You misunderstand. I'm only saying that if there were no God, there would be no standard for morality. That doesn't mean that I think everyone who is an atheist is a rapist murderer. it just means that atheists have no grounds for setting moral standards.

The grounds we have:
"Hey, murdering people isn't fucking cool, man!"

[Juansonia]

their failure to understand that some heathens simply don't want to rape/kill/burn/etc implies that they themselves would want to rape/kill/burn/etc. if not for their god.

You misunderstand. I'm only saying that if there were no God, there would be no standard for morality. That doesn't mean that I think everyone who is an atheist is a rapist murderer. it just means that atheists have no grounds for setting moral standards.

"god says so" is pretty much the same as "I said so" or "My pa told me" in terms of quality of a moral standard.

[Necroghastia]

their failure to understand that some heathens simply don't want to rape/kill/burn/etc implies that they themselves would want to rape/kill/burn/etc. if not for their god.

You misunderstand. I'm only saying that if there were no God, there would be no standard for morality. That doesn't mean that I think everyone who is an atheist is a rapist murderer. it just means that atheists have no grounds for setting moral standards.

Surely appealing to social contract is as much if not more valid than appealing to deities that cannot be confirmed to exist?

[Fahran]

You misunderstand. I'm only saying that if there were no God, there would be no standard for morality. That doesn't mean that I think everyone who is an atheist is a rapist murderer. it just means that atheists have no grounds for setting moral standards.

The grounds we have:
"Hey, murdering people isn't fucking cool, man!"

That’s not a rigorous argument. You’re saying simply “this is axiomatically wrong.”

[Osmauri]

The grounds we have:
"Hey, murdering people isn't fucking cool, man!"

That’s not a rigorous argument. You’re saying simply “this is axiomatically wrong.”

How is this for an argument:
There's better ways to solve a disagreement than by stabbing my neighbor with a rake.

[Fahran]

You misunderstand. I'm only saying that if there were no God, there would be no standard for morality. That doesn't mean that I think everyone who is an atheist is a rapist murderer. it just means that atheists have no grounds for setting moral standards.

Surely appealing to social contract is as much if not more valid than appealing to deities that cannot be confirmed to exist?

Cannibalism, the subjugation of women, and slavery can all be negotiated within the context of social contracts.

[Cook-Out]

You misunderstand. I'm only saying that if there were no God, there would be no standard for morality. That doesn't mean that I think everyone who is an atheist is a rapist murderer. it just means that atheists have no grounds for setting moral standards.

There are moral bases that have nothing to do with any kind of theology or religious dogma or superstition whatsoever. Just saying. Utilitarians, for instance. Whether Bentham or Mill. The idea of the greatest good for the greatest number of people is compelling enough for many folks.

"Greatest good for the greatest number of people?" How would you define good? You can't. If we are just hurtling through space on this spinning rock, created by chance, no God, simply more evolved animals, there is no good, there is only chaos.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

To be fair, that's a strawman of what the religious were saying. They didn't say they would be like that without God, they said everyone else would be.

their failure to understand that some heathens simply don't want to rape/kill/burn/etc implies that they themselves would want to rape/kill/burn/etc. if not for their god.

Hardly that.

I've had crushes on one girl to the point of not caring if I thought some other girl wanted me. Doesn't stop me from assuming the opposite of everyone else.

Others meticulously edit videos / deviantArt editorial cartoons / etc... that argue, at length, for free, that only the promise of exorbitant personal profit can motivate hard work, despite being exceptions to their own narrative. I don't share their worldview, but I admire their willingness to believe themselves to be an unrepresentative sample of the big picture.

[Necroghastia]

Such pornographic disease has marred the lives of individuals. Youngsters are currently given free access to it. Evil destroys life. Outlaw it with a knife!

outlaw it with a knife? pretty sure we've moved past carving laws into things, homie

[Fahran]

That’s not a rigorous argument. You’re saying simply “this is axiomatically wrong.”

How is this for an argument:
There's better ways to solve a disagreement than by stabbing my neighbor with a rake.

What makes it better? Again, you’re not really offering an ethical justification here. You’re making blanket statements that have no support behind them. Mind you, that’s a common accusation made even against serious ethicists such as Kant, but they at least do the footwork of setting up ethical frameworks to support their statements.

[Necroghastia]

Surely appealing to social contract is as much if not more valid than appealing to deities that cannot be confirmed to exist?

Cannibalism, the subjugation of women, and slavery can all be negotiated within the context of social contracts.

I mean... the same can be said of religion, y'know.

[Juansonia]

I don't think that you understand what I meant.

I wasn't laughing in celebration, I was laughing at the idea that violently enforcing a ban on pornography would end in anything less than the enforcers getting shot.

I have a brilliant idea: force everyone into a pit with pool noodles and force them to beat the shit out of each other
I'm sure everything will be solved at the end

How is that relevant?

their failure to understand that some heathens simply don't want to rape/kill/burn/etc implies that they themselves would want to rape/kill/burn/etc. if not for their god.

This fundamentally misunderstands the argument. It’s not about the will to commit atrocities, but, rather, about where one’s morals and ethical frameworks originate. It’s essentially asking the philosophical question Nietzsche spent most of his career striving to answer, albeit with the intention of compelling the infidel to profess that he or she has no good answer and must descend into nihilism.

I can think of at least one way to invert it: "How is your god any better a moral basis than myself? "

[Delvian States]

There are moral bases that have nothing to do with any kind of theology or religious dogma or superstition whatsoever. Just saying. Utilitarians, for instance. Whether Bentham or Mill. The idea of the greatest good for the greatest number of people is compelling enough for many folks.

"Greatest good for the greatest number of people?" How would you define good? You can't. If we are just hurtling through space on this spinning rock, created by chance, no God, simply more evolved animals, there is no good, there is only chaos.

What brings about the maximum benefit or happiness to the largest number of individuals.

[Necroghastia]

There are moral bases that have nothing to do with any kind of theology or religious dogma or superstition whatsoever. Just saying. Utilitarians, for instance. Whether Bentham or Mill. The idea of the greatest good for the greatest number of people is compelling enough for many folks.

"Greatest good for the greatest number of people?" How would you define good? You can't. If we are just hurtling through space on this spinning rock, created by chance, no God, simply more evolved animals, there is no good, there is only chaos.

How do you define good with a god?

[Delvian States]

I have a brilliant idea: force everyone into a pit with pool noodles and force them to beat the shit out of each other
I'm sure everything will be solved at the end

How is that relevant?

This fundamentally misunderstands the argument. It’s not about the will to commit atrocities, but, rather, about where one’s morals and ethical frameworks originate. It’s essentially asking the philosophical question Nietzsche spent most of his career striving to answer, albeit with the intention of compelling the infidel to profess that he or she has no good answer and must descend into nihilism.

I can think of at least one way to invert it: "How is your god any better a moral basis than myself? "

Especially an evil god like the one in the Bible.

[Techocracy101010]

Laughs in .30-'06

"A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance;" this currently does not correspond to the moment to do so! We must ban!

Me laughing as i aim a rifle at the 1000 lbs of tannerite in my house after i left the burners running without igniting as the anti porn team storms it.. Shoulda let me use hentai haven in peace..
you will never defeat soxs

[Fahran]

You misunderstand. I'm only saying that if there were no God, there would be no standard for morality. That doesn't mean that I think everyone who is an atheist is a rapist murderer. it just means that atheists have no grounds for setting moral standards.

"god says so" is pretty much the same as "I said so" or "My pa told me" in terms of quality of a moral standard.

It’s really not. You and your father aren’t omnipotent, omniscient, or responsible for all creation.