The Political Problem of Pornography

[Bacle]

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.

To paraphase Anderson Dawes from The Expanse: "Wrong or right; don't get distracted by that, it will only confuse you."

See, the problem you have, and why you are wrong (not simply in the minority, but just wrong on this issue) is because you do not seem to be able to look outside your own values, your own background, to see the biases that have you have been indoctrinated into.

You cite your parents, your Church, etc as building your values, and thus your views on things. Guess what, you are in the minority because the Puritanical bent you have taken is unhealthy for a pluralistic society and the fact other societies which do not share your view are still functional, going concerns belies the weakness of your arguments.

I value liberty, and believe the US Constitution is the best and most stable governing document existing in the world today. It's tenants are about as close as I come to an ideological underpinning for my values. But I also value practicality and realism above any particular ideology second only to the Constitution.

You hinder you're own thoughts by clinging to tightly to Aristotle and what are obviously Judeo-Christian underpinnings/views on what is moral. When one clings too tightly to any specific school of theory or thought, they lack the ability to adapt and expand their values/worldview as the times change and flaws/fallacies in their vaunted 'thought-leaders" teachings are laid bare. It is the same for those who cling to Kant, to Marx, to Calvin, to Luther, to Mohammad, to any particular ideology or worldview.

As with biological evolution, social evolution lives by a rather simple rule "Adapt, or die." The US Constitution is constructed to be adaptable, with only the Bill of Rights being close to sacrosanct, and that is only because those rights ensure the adaptability of the document and nation itself.

You're wish for a porn ban would not stop there, and you know it; don't dodge around this. You would kill our Bill of Rights, our Constitution, and the soul of our nation in pursuit of your Puritanical desires. There are other ways to address the issues you want to blame porn for causing/promoting; as mentioned above, no fault divorce and the BS custody/welfare system is far more to blame for undermining the family than porn is.

So please stop making it harder for the rest of us on the Right to gain ground by continuing this sort of Puritianical BS, which you can only back up with biased data from groups with blatant agendas.

 

[prinCZess]

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.

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 existing in society a harm against them--which is a fair position that can be consistently held I suppose, but one that makes your ideas seem vulnerable and unsteady in ways values shouldn't be, because if you believe and uphold your values as actually superior you should be quite capable of convincing society of such absent mandates and laws.
Not imposing something is not an imposition. Imposing something is. If we disagree on this...Iunnow, not much to be said further, it's a pretty fundamental divide and plays into most of the rest of my objections below (especially per why I find your argument unconvincing since...by my differing framework you're not even really making one thanks to our differing starting-points).

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?

Not at all (or, I suppose I should say, not really?)--because your just society is perfectly capable of existing within mine. Perhaps even necessary to some degree--as argument against excess and hedonism in favor of self-control and measures of denial are valuable perspectives to have. The opposite case, we'll note, is not possible--hence the above and the imposition of your ideals being an issue. Your society and culture can exist within a libertine one. A libertine society you actively seek to destroy. The two ideals are not equivalent and one is fully capable of pointing to or arguing against injustices or wrongs in society without mandating rights.

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)

Because you've taken those items themselves as positive or negative from the outset without requisite establishment or argument of such. This might be more excusable in the case of the first, families generally being rightly valued. But 'religiosity'? Whose? And your link from it is to porn viewing causing liberalizing social views...Which you'd have to make a case against and DON'T--what, precisely, do you object to in, as the article highlighted, more liberal attitudes women holding jobs, positions of power or abortion (the latter being much easier a case than the former two). Egalitarianism? Not the scare-word to most folks you use it as. You present them as fundamental negatives--others do not share your belief and flat assertions of such will win you no argument or minds on the topic (see here ). I'm not ignoring your arguments, I'm pointing out they're flat assertions of negatives you don't expand upon because of self-evident, to you, negatives that aren't self-evident to broad sections of the rest of society which, in fact, sees a number of them as positives (women in positions of power or holding jobs being okay to laudable by most folks). You note the popularity of the opposing viewpoint there, but you don't do anything but assert your own as being superior and argue that obviously because of these things showing more egalitarianism folks should worry about pornography. The issue isn't the opposing viewpoints popularity or even my adherence to them--it's your lack of addressing why they're more popular and instead using flat 'these things are bad to me, so porn needs to be banned' rhetoric.

As I said above--lot of this seems to be differing starting-points and standards.

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?

I can understand it, certainly. I can also object to it because of differing values (and, if we want to get into it, a rather long history of your values overlapping with societal and cultural problems that go unrecognized or covered-up by religious and moral 'authorities' in the interest of shoring-up their authority) and, as mentioned, the capability of your political and personal values existing and influencing culture and society in my liberal utopia--whereas you're seeking the active destruction of my own to achieve your own. THAT'S where you'd be a 'control freak' (a term I'd note I never used...though I suppose I came close enough as to make the implication pretty clear. *shrug* Can't apologize because I still see your argument the same way, but you're not some boogeyman. Just wrong )

I'd also assert your fundamentally flawed from the get-go in presenting free will as weaker or overly-influenced by societal trends and predilections. Society is an influence on an individual, certainly. The individual is superior and is fully capable of breaking free of prior social constraints or perspectives passed on to them--which is part of the objection to your societies function as well, I'd note. Your treatment of that 'free spirit' is fundamentally objectionable to me.

You may disagree, and seem to on the basis of how you'd foresee a more prosperous and virtuous future for that person in your society as justification. Your conception of 'enough liberty' is not mine, and it comes across as fundamentally arrogant (and I don't mean this as an insult, I mean it as a basic description in the barest sense of the word) of you to presume it's applicable to anyone beyond yourself or, maybe at a stretch, those who share your particular focus and positions on these topics.

*shrug* I can't abide that kind of personal appeal to and assertion of authority and 'knowing-best'...*shrug* Fundamental disagreement in approach it seems to me. A universal point being that to appeal outside those who share your incoming assumptions you'd have to extend upon why positions like those you object to in links becoming more prominent are negative to society as a whole--asserting porn is bad because it encourages an egalitarianism you object to is going to require you pointing to why that egalitarianism is bad if you want the argument to extend beyond those who share your objections.

 

[The Name of Love]

See, the problem you have, and why you are wrong (not simply in the minority, but just wrong on this issue) is because you do not seem to be able to look outside your own values, your own background, to see the biases that have you have been indoctrinated into.

I'm going to stop you right there. This is the basic bitch genetic fallacy. You don't know me, you don't know how I came to believe what I believe, and I could easily just say "well, you are wrong because you were indoctrinated to believe people like me are always indoctrinated."

It's amusing how you were trying to presume my motivations and then, based on my motivations, claiming that I am wrong. From now on, anyone who tries to "debunk" me by presuming my motives will be considered unintelligent or dishonest.

How about you actually engage the arguments on their face next time rather than writing an entire fanfiction story about my life, okay?

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 existing in society a harm against them--which is a fair position that can be consistently held I suppose, but one that makes your ideas seem vulnerable and unsteady in ways values shouldn't be, because if you believe and uphold your values as actually superior you should be quite capable of convincing society of such absent mandates and laws.
Not imposing something is not an imposition. Imposing something is. If we disagree on this...Iunnow, not much to be said further, it's a pretty fundamental divide and plays into most of the rest of my objections below (especially per why I find your argument unconvincing since...by my differing framework you're not even really making one thanks to our differing starting-points).

I disagree that lack of action is different from an action of endorsement or proscription, and I already explained why liberty does harm "my values" (because I view individuals as inseparable linked to society. I don't think a political order that makes it very difficult to live a virtuous life is a just political order, and a libertine political order would do just that. In making liberty the highest value, you are, in fact, imposing your values onto wider society. Now, you can argue that your ideal of liberty is the common good and ought to be imposed onto society for the good of all that live in it. That's a valid argument we can discuss. But I can't discuss ideas with a position that pretends not to be a position.

Not at all (or, I suppose I should say, not really?)--because your just society is perfectly capable of existing within mine. Perhaps even necessary to some degree--as argument against excess and hedonism in favor of self-control and measures of denial are valuable perspectives to have. The opposite case, we'll note, is not possible--hence the above and the imposition of your ideals being an issue. Your society and culture can exist within a libertine one. A libertine society you actively seek to destroy. The two ideals are not equivalent and one is fully capable of pointing to or arguing against injustices or wrongs in society without mandating rights.

I don't believe my just society could exist within yours. As Lincoln once stated "A house divided upon itself cannot stand." At best, this will create two separate political societies that will peacefully co-exist but be mutually exclusive. There cannot be a compromise between our positions on the level of political philosophy, only on the level of practical policy; that is, if you and I were in a political coalition together fighting for some common cause, I'd find a way to accommodate your concerns provided you reciprocated. But this is not that.

I could link to you a paper on the fallacy of libertarian neutrality, if you like.

Because you've taken those items themselves as positive or negative from the outset without requisite establishment or argument of such. This might be more excusable in the case of the first, families generally being rightly valued. But 'religiosity'? Whose? And your link from it is to porn viewing causing liberalizing social views...Which you'd have to make a case against and DON'T--what, precisely, do you object to in, as the article highlighted, more liberal attitudes women holding jobs, positions of power or abortion (the latter being much easier a case than the former two). Egalitarianism? Not the scare-word to most folks you use it as. You present them as fundamental negatives--others do not share your belief and flat assertions of such will win you no argument or minds on the topic (see here ). I'm not ignoring your arguments, I'm pointing out they're flat assertions of negatives you don't expand upon because of self-evident, to you, negatives that aren't self-evident to broad sections of the rest of society which, in fact, sees a number of them as positives (women in positions of power or holding jobs being okay to laudable by most folks). You note the popularity of the opposing viewpoint there, but you don't do anything but assert your own as being superior and argue that obviously because of these things showing more egalitarianism folks should worry about pornography. The issue isn't the opposing viewpoints popularity or even my adherence to them--it's your lack of addressing why they're more popular and instead using flat 'these things are bad to me, so porn needs to be banned' rhetoric.

As I said above--lot of this seems to be differing starting-points and standards.

Fair enough. I did assume that those things were bad. But do you concede that, if someone did not like those things, then they ought to be against pornography? And would you like for me to explain why each of those things are bad?

I'd also assert your fundamentally flawed from the get-go in presenting free will as weaker or overly-influenced by societal trends and predilections. Society is an influence on an individual, certainly. The individual is superior and is fully capable of breaking free of prior social constraints or perspectives passed on to them--which is part of the objection to your societies function as well, I'd note. Your treatment of that 'free spirit' is fundamentally objectionable to me.

And I find your treatment of the individual typical of a liberal. It's the idea of the Enlightenment. But I don't really think the Enlightenment was correct on these things, I think Aristotle had it right, and that, since the Enlightenment, we've been circling the drain.

*shrug* I can't abide that kind of personal appeal to and assertion of authority and 'knowing-best'

Again, throwing accusations at me and hoping they stick. But whatever. You're an honest interlocuter, at least.

 

[LordsFire]

I'll keep my part in this to one specific issue:

You propose the means the Israelis are trying to use to soft-ban pornography, making it so people have to actively opt-in to access sites that host porn via contacting their ISP. From the look of it, this isn't even a system that has been implemented yet, much less proven to actually be effective.

How do porn-hosting sites get put onto the list? What punishment is there if they aren't put onto the list, but are supposed to be?

What precisely is the negative consequence of having the ISP enable access to such sites?

What is the regulatory body in charge of determining that a site must be on the list? What metrics does it use? Some sites are obviously and blatantly pornographic, but a huge number of generic image-hosting sites have pornographic material on them as well. What about those sites?

To be blunt, I don't think this plan has any chance whatsoever of working. I agree that pornography is unhealthy and destructive, but I think spiritual revival and social pressure is the way to fight this, not government enforcement, and I've yet to see you propose a mechanism that actually works.

Please do give some kind of demonstration of how it would actually work.

 

[The Name of Love]

Please do give some kind of demonstration of how it would actually work.

Give me some demonstration of how "spiritual revival and social pressure is the way to fight this" first.

 

[almostinsane]

When. It comes down to it, putting the genie back into the bottle is all but impossible. It is all but impossible to keep people who want porn from getting to it and it creates a cat and mouse game where porn use rates do not change much.

I know of the negative effects of porn, but it has to be combatted through public awareness. Without public support, your soft-banning idea won't work. And I don't think I trust ant government with that power anyway.

 

[The Name of Love]

When. It comes down to it, putting the genie back into the bottle is all but impossible. It is all but impossible to keep people who want porn from getting to it and it creates a cat and mouse game where porn use rates do not change much.

I know of the negative effects of porn, but it has to be combatted through public awareness. Without public support, your soft-banning idea won't work. And I don't think I trust ant government with that power anyway.

I do trust government with that power, just not the current government.

 

[Deleted member]

This Being an Except of the Speech in Parliament of Lord Lyndhurst on the Occasion of the Debate for the Reading of the Obscene Publications Act of 1857:

"My noble and learned Friend's aim is to put down the sale of obscene books and prints; but what is the interpretation which is to be put on the word 'obscene'? I can easily conceive that two men will come to entirely different conclusions as to its meaning. I have looked into Johnson to see what definition he gives of the word, and I find that he says that it is something 'immodest; not agreeable to chastity of mind; causing lewd ideas.' . . . Suppose now a man following the trade of an informer, or a policeman, sees in a window something which he conceives to be a licentious print. He goes to the magistrate and describes, according to his ideas, what he saw; the magistrate thereupon issues his warrant for the seizure of the disgusting print. The officer then goes to the shop, and says to the shopkeeper, 'Let me look at that picture of Jupiter and Antiope.' 'Jupiter and what?' says the shopkeeper. 'Jupiter and Antiope,' repeats the man. 'Oh! Jupiter and Antiope you mean,' says the shopkeeper; and hands him down the print. He sees the picture of a woman stark naked, lying down, and a satyr standing by her with an expression on his face which shows most distinctly what his feelings are and what is his object. The informer tells the man he is going to seize the print, and take him before a magistrate. 'Under what authority?' he asks; and he is told -'Under the authority of Lord Campbell's Act.' 'But,' says the man, 'don't you know that it is a copy from a picture of one of the most celebrated masters in Europe?' That does not matter; the informer seizes it as an obscene print. . . . But this is not all. Our informant leaves the print shop and goes into the studio of some sculptor or some statuary and sees there figures of nymphs, fauns, and satyrs, all perfectly naked, some of then in attitudes which I do not choose to describe. According to this Bill they may every one be seized - Nympharumque leves cure satyris chori.

The informant next proceeds to the circulating libraries. Under the Bill a circulating library may be searched from one end to another. In the same way the dramatists of the Restoration, Wycherley, Congreve, and the rest of them - there is not a page in any one of them which might not be seized under this Bill. . . . Dryden, too, is as bad as any of them.. . . . Take, too, the whole flight of French novelists, from Crebillon, fils, down to Paul de Kock; nothing can be more unchaste, nothing more immodest, than they are; and when my noble and learned Friend's Bill is passed, every copy of them may be committed to the bonfire with as little mercy as Don Quixote's chivalry books were."

Lord Lyndhurst being three times Lord High Chancellor and one of the most prominent Tory Lords of the Peelite years.

 

[almostinsane]

I do trust government with that power, just not the current government.

Then it is a non-starter because I don't think there is a government in this world that you can trust with that sort of power.

 

[Fleiur]

The porn industry is linked to sex trafficking and grooming. I think one of the solutions and/or steps in addressing the pornography problem is to enforce existing laws against these problems and even strengthen them.

 

[Deleted member]

The porn industry is linked to sex trafficking and grooming. I think one of the solutions and/or steps in addressing the pornography problem is to enforce existing laws against these problems and even strengthen them.

Dehumanisation and exploitation contribute to moral decay in arguably the most profound of all the ways that pornography causes problems. The desensitisation of the users of pornography to the prospect that the images they are viewing may be of slaves or the brutalised is the beginning of a systematic reduction in one's ability to have empathy with other humans.

 

[Doomsought]

An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, an insult for an insult.

Someone being a pervert does not justify assaulting them, stealing form them or kidnapping them, but it sure as hell justifies shaming them.

 

[The Name of Love]

Lord Lyndhurst being three times Lord High Chancellor and one of the most prominent Tory Lords of the Peelite years.

Lord Lyndhurst can be wrong too. I mean, his argument about obscenity only makes sense in a pluralistic society.

Then it is a non-starter because I don't think there is a government in this world that you can trust with that sort of power.

This is a non-starter because I don't really care what your opinion is.

 

[almostinsane]

This is a non-starter because I don't really care what your opinion is.

You might not care, but this is a public debate forum so I will make my opinion known.

 

[Deleted member]

Lord Lyndhurst can be wrong too. I mean, his argument about obscenity only makes sense in a pluralistic society.

You are quite right, however, I think his argument more valuable than modern ones, and of course, at least for those of us in the United States, crafting any measure against obscenity to meet the necessities of a pluralistic society is mandatory.

 

[The Name of Love]

You might not care, but this is a public debate forum so I will make my opinion known.

Do you have any arguments besides libertarian slogans?

You are quite right, however, I think his argument more valuable than modern ones, and of course, at least for those of us in the United States, crafting any measure against obscenity to meet the necessities of a pluralistic society is mandatory.

Well, I would respond to him that the government cannot be neutral on any question. No matter what policy is implemented, it will offend some person, there will always be some person that disagrees. No matter what, the most powerful group will get what they want implemented, whether it be permissive or restrictive.

 

[almostinsane]

Do you have any arguments besides libertarian slogans?

I already made my argument above. You can engage in or not, but there it stands.

I do not disagree with your motives. But as I said above, there doesn't exist any government that can be trusted with the type of power your require to implement even the soft ban you desire.

 

[The Name of Love]

I already made my argument above. You can engage in or not, but there it stands.

I do not disagree with your motives. But as I said above, there doesn't exist any government that can be trusted with the type of power your require to implement even the soft ban you desire.

You stated your argument already. It consisted of "you can't trust government" and "you can't put the genie back in the bottle." These are libertarian slogans I've heard many, many, many times before. Neither of these arguments make sense when you think about them for more than five minutes.

 

[almostinsane]

You stated your argument already. It consisted of "you can't trust government" and "you can't put the genie back in the bottle." These are libertarian slogans I've heard many, many, many times before. Neither of these arguments make sense when you think about them for more than five minutes.

If they don't make sense, then you can easily argue against them. Last I checked, saying "I'm taking my ball and going home" didn't win a game.

 

[The Name of Love]

If they don't make sense, then you can easily argue against them. Last I checked, saying "I'm taking my ball and going home" didn't win a game.

Well, "can't put the genie back into the bottle" is, strictly speaking, a nonsense argument because it can be applied to any policy. Want to do something about California's homeless problem? "Can't put the genie back into the bottle." Want to do something about SJWs in control of giant corporations? "Can't put the genie back into the bottle." Want to stop radical Muslims from taking over your country? Sorry, "can't put the genie back into the bottle!" The fallacy here is in assuming that because the problem seems difficult to solve, we ought not to do anything about the problem and should accept this new status quo.

The "you can't trust government" argument assumes libertarianism is true, and I don't believe libertarianism is true. You'd have to first prove libertarianism to me.