The answer to the first is obvious: age of consent is still a thing, and you damn well know it. If a person is too young to legally consent to sex in their jurisdiction, then they obviously cannot make porn either. Those laws are not about the 'porn' aspect, they are a natural extension of the 'age of consent' laws. But I expect you already knew that, and were grasping for anything to keep this asinine argument alive.
To enforce "age of consent" laws requires an oppressive state apparatus. Therefore, you aren't actually against such "oppression" when it's your morals on the line.
The answer to the second is 'No, You Busybody Prude'. One, there are beautiful works of art that could be considered 'pornographic' or 'titilating', which you would erase with you 'snap'. Two, pornography is not morally wrong to either make or consume; just because some Judeo-Christian prudes have problems with it does not make it a morally wrong thing.
If there does exist pornography that is beautiful, it'd be like a beautiful woman whose heart is wicked; the beauty only serves evil.
Also "porn is not wrong because I don't have a problem with it" is not a good moral argument. But the reason I asked that question to differentiate between people who, like me, see the problems with porn but may disagree with me on how best to solve them, and people like you who see nothing wrong with it.
Oh ffs, really, you're going to go at this from those angles to try and justifiy your moral busybody BS?
Why do you continue to waste time on an argument you have already lost in every way possible? Your 'porn ban' will never happen, and you need to get that through your head.
This isn't a good look for you. How about, instead of acting offended that I dared have a different opinion, you tone down the insults and discuss things with me like an adult? Alternatively, you can continue to make petty attacks at me so that I can block you. Your choice.
A very big one: It leads directly to Atheism.
Directly. Protestantism is next to atheism. Protestantism
created the modern atheistic worldview. Puritanical moral codes are part of the thought process which next leads to the denial of God. You must read René Guénon's
The Crisis of the Modern World to fully understand this argument, but I at least make the assertion here and encourage you to do so; I am not the Master himself, I cannot make his argument for him, I can only repeat it and encourage you to read it
at the source. Protestant cultures didn't outcompete Catholicism, they started a wildfire, a terrible wildfire which turned back on them and has destroyed them utterly and in the process almost fatally damaged the Catholic world as well. They unleashed a destructive creativity of modernism which demolished traditional society in most of the world. The "decadence" was actually
wisdom, the wisdom not to disturb custom, and understand that our ancestors, closer to creation, were wiser than we are, and that practices long established should not be foolishly disturbed.
One of the most tired tropes I hear is how Protestants created the modern world, and if all of Europe were still Catholic, then there wouldn't be problems. This ignores how many of the modern mistakes in intellectual philosophy originated Catholic thinkers like William of Ockham and Rene Descartes; it ignores the role Catholic repression the Leftist uprising in Catholic countries like France; and it ignores the special role non-Christian religions like Freemasonry and Judaism played in bringing about the modern world. Ultimately, the problems of modernity are the fault of the Catholic Church because they were the ones in power at that time, so they have the ultimate responsibility for not handling the problems. This entire "blame the Protestant" narrative comes from disgruntled reactionaries that are jealous that their preferred regimes (such as Prussia or the fascist states or the
ancien regime) collapsed under their own weight. To me, they are throwing stones through glass houses. The blame for Atheism is not found in the contradictions of Protestantism (for every false religion must lead to Atheism), but the failure of Catholicism. Only when we Catholics are able to accept modernity as a result of our failures will be able to avoid making that mistake.
I apologize for the small rant, but I hear too much of this cliché within traditionalist Catholic circles, and I am tired of it.
I would say that it is the great virtue of traditional societies, that they found a place to fit everyone in, because the condemnation of classes of people who cannot be compelled to fit in with the rest of society, and perpetuate spontaneously (like homosexuals and transsexuals, who are created by fundamental defects of the spirit which cannot be undone), is the worst kind of moral trap. Fitting them into sectors of society where they do not damage society is the traditional solution, duplicated in countless cultures around the world, and is far wiser, because it creates a moral framework in which demanding their adherence to society requires no impulsive moral guilty or shame. Puritanical laws are simply too brutal for the human spirit to impose upon your fellow citizens for sustained periods of time. The Puritan world had completely destroyed itself by the 19th century, it took only three hundred years for the descendants of Calvin to turn themselves into Unitarian Universalists. The conflict between human nature and harsh application of moral law destroyed them in the blink of an eye. There are other cultures which have maintained their customs for thousands of years ... Because Tradition provided them with safety-valves and because the system was total, integrative, it included everyone in their place.
I understand where you're coming from: such safety-valves in traditionalist societies have served the wider order of things. I fail to see how a custom that encourages mental illness in the population could act as that safety valve though. Similarly, I don't see how a traditionalist could defend the current state of affairs involving more and more young men masturbating their lives away. I see that as a problem that needs addressing, and the best way I think to deal with an addiction is to use coercion. If people hit rock-bottom because they get in trouble with the law, then they will be forced to re-evaluate their life choices.
--------------------------------------------
Also, with regards to
@Bacle and
@Captain-General's discussion over the burkha. The entire point I was
actually making was showing how any so-called "religious law" could have a "secular" function (because said secular function is stated within the religion in question), thus showing the entire religious law/secular law dichotomy to be a false one. The discussion of whether the actual argument ("women ought to wear burkhas to not tempt men") is a good one is entirely irrelevant to my actual point.
--------------------------------------------
I do understand certain laws against child pornography when the creation of that pornography involves the molestation of a real child. Anybody who participates in that, including people who financially reward its production, should be punished.
I'm glad you agree with me. But ShieldWife, banning child porn involves a state apparatus invading people's privacy. Such a thing can be used for evil. You wouldn't want a state apparatus to do such a thing, right?
I wouldn't do that. I don't feel like I have the right to force my preferences on everybody in the world. I don't think that pornography is universally bad, though even if I did, I would feel uncomfortable using such cosmic power to control the lives of others to that extent.
I don't share your discomfort. Anti-child porn laws already control people's lives to such an extent. There's no reason why just expanding the scope of such an apparatus would be any more harmful.