Search results

Sir. I'll have you know this is the internet. Rehashing arguments had months ago is what the Internet has been for since scientists at DARPA had the first spat over whose office had the hotter secretaries!

Then proceed to do everything in their power to make such work difficult (see California's AB5 on contract-work) and preach against the toxic impact of OnlyFans and such (while ignoring big porn production houses in California...unless they're pressuring actresses to film with certain people to...

I ascribe to an objective set of morals myself--though I'm drastically incapable of even approaching living up to them. Describing societies, not everyone shares my morals and that merits recognition in pragmatic terms of how those with weaker or differing morals from my own (or even the same...

Personally? No. Descriptively? Yes.

Feelings on moral degradation is certainly purely subjective. There can exist an objective morality. I'd even be of the mind there is. Mankind is not good at grokking it (in the Christian conception because of simple inability to live up to it and the world being fallen, in other conceptions...

I mean...You can think something is morally degrading for society. I might well disagree. Whether something actually is 'degrading' would have to be based on an analysis of its harm, negative effects, and what unforeseen (or foreseeable) consequences could/would result from changes to the status...

We seem to have quite immediately drifted from the topic of porn actresses to an entirely different category of people and context of action. Though one where 'don't let your kids interact with these people if you object' is...still a quite viable solution. Don't let your kids interact with porn...

In order: Yes, Yes this is my personal feeling on the matter, and It depends--varying based upon a subjective desire for societal endpoints that have differing goals. Whether a 'steady relationship' equates to a 'good' one, for instance (and plenty of assumption based on averages of what the...

Except 'degrading' is a matter of opinion--I refer you back to how 'degrading' some people find men who go into the wrong work. If you want to contest that, you'll forgive me for not believing the only so far presented evidence related to this (presuming it's relevant--which is another...

Because not everyone views it as degrading the way you do so your premise is biased from the start, and there's a good deal of money in it for those who don't have your particular views on the matter--in much the same way that some men 'degrade' themselves by going to work in oilfields instead...

Not necessarily. It presumes that good intentions or even usages by an authority in the present do not save a policy from being put into practice in the future by flawed and imperfect men--or actively exploited by bad actors to serve their own desires and ends. One need not be a Gadsden flag...

I'd note, despite my own disagreement with his desired actions and somewhat like those 'regressive leftists' who'd condemn pornography by government action in the name of protecting people/society from its influence, that @The Name of Love has a point on its capacity to harm individuals. We can...

Because any read of his statements with even the barest knowledge of liberal worldview (which you've already shown a recognition of--if not an acceptance) doesn't bear out your presentation? This is not 'inconveniences my daily habits'--as belied by the last sentence and the lack of mention of...

Opposing your position does not necessitate someone having an addiction to porn. You're doing that 'baseless namecalling' and 'presumption of motives' thing you were complaining about moments ago.

Relevant to note the Hays' Code was a standard self-imposed by (monopolistic/oligarchical) Hollywood studios via the Motion Picture Association in an active effort to curb government, local and federal, agencies involvement...And the degree to which it 'worked' (even within your own standards...

Except it's not a double standard because a lack of action--particularly on behalf of a government--is distinct from an action of endorsement or proscription. Liberty being reflected in politics does nothing to harm your values unless you consider the mere possibility of competing values...

This is not how responsibility or liberty works. Liberty is not an 'imposition' on those who would not take advantage of it, restrictions on it, meanwhile, very much are. If you hold a different opinion on something's virtue...You don't avail yourself to it. If you view violence as forbidden by...