ShieldWife
Marchioness
Well, okay then.Oh, she wouldn’t get mad at you. She’d laugh at you.
You’d probably prefer her to be angry.
Well, okay then.Oh, she wouldn’t get mad at you. She’d laugh at you.
You’d probably prefer her to be angry.
This is a good point, but this thread was about the political problem with pornography. Even if it were morally legitimate for an individual to use pornography, there is a considerable political problem with pornography.The fervor and extent to which people defend porn— which runs the gamut from "so what, if you don't like it don't watch it" to "it's natural and if YOU don't like it, it's YOU who is weird" and beyond— is really shocking. After all, why would anyone devote time to watching drug addicts and teenage runaways have sex (let alone devoting time to defending and/or celebrating the same)?
Doing so is the telltale behavior of an addict, albeit of a particular kind. Presumably the person shooting heroin every night or getting shitfaced at the bar five or six times a week can at least more or less acknowledge that his behavior is, to borrow a word, "problematic." Not so for the porn addict (Or at least not explicitly. One can infer that their spirited defense of porn consumption is a tacit admission that what they are doing is wrong— you don't see people defending traditional virtues like fortitude, prudence or temperance with such vigor because virtue doesn't need a defense.) The porn addict/apologist is instead motivated by a need to have his pathological and self-destructive behavior viewed by his peers and his society as not only legitimate but also praiseworthy. Not at all coincidentally, the exact same need is evidenced by the foaming at the mouth apologists for gay and/or transsexual lifestyles.
It's a good bet that this is a result of social atomization: the acceptance/celebration demanded from society from these broken individuals serves them as a sort of ersatz sense of belonging and community that could be found in a traditional society. No doubt other factors are at play— the family of related vices descended from society's inability to distinguish liberty from libertinism being obvious candidates— but I think alienation and atomization are at the (shriveled, rotten) heart of it.
The problem is that you start with the assumption that the state should do anything at all, and never justify the means that the state must go to in order to enforce the action you want from it.The fervor and extent to which people defend porn— which runs the gamut from "so what, if you don't like it don't watch it" to "it's natural and if YOU don't like it, it's YOU who is weird" and beyond— is really shocking. After all, why would anyone devote time to watching drug addicts and teenage runaways have sex (let alone devoting time to defending and/or celebrating the same)?
Why do you assume that people have to engage in something to not want it to be outlawed? There are people who don’t view pornography who think it should be legal. There are people who don’t take drugs who think that drugs should be legalized. There are straight people who think that gays shouldn’t be persecuted.The fervor and extent to which people defend porn— which runs the gamut from "so what, if you don't like it don't watch it" to "it's natural and if YOU don't like it, it's YOU who is weird" and beyond— is really shocking. After all, why would anyone devote time to watching drug addicts and teenage runaways have sex (let alone devoting time to defending and/or celebrating the same)?
Doing so is the telltale behavior of an addict, albeit of a particular kind. Presumably the person shooting heroin every night or getting shitfaced at the bar five or six times a week can at least more or less acknowledge that his behavior is, to borrow a word, "problematic." Not so for the porn addict (Or at least not explicitly. One can infer that their spirited defense of porn consumption is a tacit admission that what they are doing is wrong— you don't see people defending traditional virtues like fortitude, prudence or temperance with such vigor because virtue doesn't need a defense.) The porn addict/apologist is instead motivated by a need to have his pathological and self-destructive behavior viewed by his peers and his society as not only legitimate but also praiseworthy. Not at all coincidentally, the exact same need is evidenced by the foaming at the mouth apologists for gay and/or transsexual lifestyles.
It's a good bet that this is a result of social atomization: the acceptance/celebration demanded from society from these broken individuals serves them as a sort of ersatz sense of belonging and community that could be found in a traditional society. No doubt other factors are at play— the family of related vices descended from society's inability to distinguish liberty from libertinism being obvious candidates— but I think alienation and atomization are at the (shriveled, rotten) heart of it.
What can the state legitimately do, in your eyes?The problem is that you start with the assumption that the state should do anything at all, and never justify the means that the state must go to in order to enforce the action you want from it.
Remember, no matter what you ban, some black guy will get shot by the police because he had that thing and wasn't willing to comply with the police enforcing your ban.
No, it's not an ad hominem. To point out the fervor with which people defend pornography and theorize that it's probably because they themselves enjoy it isn't the same as saying "they don't want porn to be banned, so that must mean they are a porn addict." Come on, ShieldWife, you are better than this.Why do you assume that people have to engage in something to not want it to be outlawed? There are people who don’t view pornography who think it should be legal. There are people who don’t take drugs who think that drugs should be legalized. There are straight people who think that gays shouldn’t be persecuted.
It’s really just an ad hominem argument - don’t want to kill witches, must mean you’re a witch too. Don’t like punching Nazis, it must mean you’re a Nazi.
No, it's not an ad hominem. To point out the fervor with which people defend pornography and theorize that it's probably because they themselves enjoy it isn't the same as saying "they don't want porn to be banned, so that must mean they are a porn addict." Come on, ShieldWife, you are better than this.
Defend its borders, track down thieves and murderers, enforce liability, basically anything you can justify someone getting possibly shot over.What can the state legitimately do, in your eyes?
Defend its borders, track down thieves and murderers, enforce liability, basically anything you can justify someone getting possibly shot over.
Actually @prinCZess makes a good point here.Liberty is an imposition because you are talking about what the political order should be, and all politics is inherently an imposition. Questions of politics always concern questions about the common good (that is, what is good for all members of the political community). Part of the problem I have with liberalism is that it seems to posit that it doesn't have a substantial vision of the good while invoking "liberty" as the highest political value, which is, in fact, a substantial vision of the good.
I don't see anything wrong with "moral crusades" because laws ought to be derived from ethical considerations of contingent circumstances. What I'm noting here is a double standard. If I value natural order in the Aristotelian-Thomistic sense and want to see my values reflected in politics, I'm "imposing my moral standards" or going on a "moral crusade," and that's wrong for some reason. But if you value liberty and want to see your values reflected in politics, you're not imposing anything, you are "liberating" people. This anti-conservative fallacy is discussed in greater detail here. Highly recommend you read it.
As an Aristotelian, I believe the moral character of individuals is inevitably deeply influenced by the character types and sensibilities prevailing in the society around them. A society where people are free to commit all manner of vices is, therefore, unlikely to create a lot of morally upright individuals and would be, therefore, an unjust society. Your assertion that "if individuals are incapable of holding themselves from vice, they are at fault personally and individually" is correct but entirely misses the point. The question isn't whether people are at fault for succumbing to vice, but whether or not we want a society where the majority of people succumb to this vice. And I think we ought not to. As I pointed out earlier, pornography promotes both the decline of religiosity and the decline of the family, and both of those things are central to a functioning society.
Do you concede that, if you had your way, if your ideal society came to fruition, you would be creating a society that I don't consider to be just?
I conceded my views on sex are in the minority, and that the liberal views on sex are themselves widely popular, and then said that that's not an argument for the wrongness of my position. It's like you ignored how I gave my arguments for my position (porn undermines family formation and religiosity, promotes egalitarianism, promotes unrealistic ideas about sex and women), provided some responses to possible counter arguments (like "how will it be implemented without tyranny ensuing?" or "doesn't this violate the first amendment?" or "Don't you see how unpopular your position is?"), and then gave an aside as to why I think our current status quo is in place (because our elites favor it for nefarious purposes).
What's so fallacious about that? Where did I not address liberal views on sex? Where did I use "circular reasoning"? It just seems like you are throwing accusations and seeing what sticks.
Your solution would only work only if we assume a Cartesian view of the individual whose ideas are entirely their own. But in fact, we as individuals are shaped by our societies irrevocably. I wouldn't have the values I had without my parents, my Church, my peers, and my choice in reading material and friends. I can choose these things, sure, but it was unlikely I would ever come to these opinions I have on my own, and those choices were heavily influenced by my previous experiences and values, which were also shaped by society. I had to actually go out of my way to not do these things.
Now before you strawman me, I'm not saying people don't have free will and they aren't responsible for their actions. They are. But can you understand my wanting a society that reflects my values, especially when I think the things that I value (traditional families and religion) are essential not only for individuals but for the political order itself? Can you blame me for wanting a political order whose goal is to help people become the best they can be while giving them enough liberty to grow? I don't think it's fair to presume that I'm some kind of control freak that hates freedom because I disagree with you on what the political order is?
If you are curious about this, I think we can have a broader discussion about political philosophy (which is why I started this thread; to be a place of dialogue between people of differing political philosophies). Stop, take a deep breath, and recognize that I'm not some evil boogeyman.
Well yes. I think you could make the case for a paleolibertarian or fusionist order, where private institutions rather the state enforces moral laws. I don't personally agree with it, it's a position that's out there for everyone to make.
The crime there is slavery, not porn.Filming a pack of strangers jizzing all over some crying teen runaway's face under threat of canceling her plane ticket home isn't something you'd be willing to get shot to prevent?
Here's a tip; lying does not work when we can just scroll up and see the truth for our own eyes.And even if I did imply that they were porn addicts (which I didn't)
Actually @prinCZess makes a good point here.
People would rebel against your impositions.
Your familiar with prohibition and the drug wars I’m sure?
Did you know young people in Iran use discrete means to arrange sexual or romantic encounters outside of the traditional purview? How do you plan on stopping that?
And yes people can develop identities and values that are not in accord with the dominant norms of their society. That was kind of the essence of the sexual revolution. It’s the essence of the Bible Belt kid becoming an aggressive atheist as soon as they don’t face crippling social stigma once they’ve moved to California.
You don’t seem to consider rebellions against your program will exist and unless you are willing to use severe means to suppress them, they will bring down your impositions and any government doing the imposing.
And even if I did imply that they were porn addicts (which I didn't), that's not even that condemnatory.
Doing so is the telltale behavior of an addict,
In terms of political capability to do anything, I do kind of think the ship has sailed.
Again, I really do think prostitution is a healthier outlet for the insatiable male drive.
Prostitutes are actually real, and also there is some responsibility involved-their not free.
I know this will sound callous, but I have little interest in the concerns, sentiments, feelings, or state of the prostitutes. They exist to serve a need, nothing else.Given how exploitative prostitution is ~99% of the time, I'd say you're absolutely wrong.
Given how it almost guarantees a miserable life for the prostitute, I'd say you're wrong.
Given it's a lot easier to move away from a secret porn addiction than it is from habitually visiting prostitutes, I'd say you're wrong.
I'd just say you're wrong in general.