The Political Problem of Pornography

[Deleted member]

If there does exist pornography that is beautiful, it'd be like a beautiful woman whose heart is wicked; the beauty only serves evil.

And it's for essentially the same reason why I can say with confidence that customs of temple prostitution are inherently better than pornography, which coarsens and cheapens the human soul and life in a way that's much worse than even the buying and selling of sex.

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.

But I'm not a Catholic and neither was René Guénon at that point. So it's a Traditionalist argument. So I just beg you to read his works, as he was much wiser and more enlightened than I or any of my compatriots are, and we can only walk shallowly in his footsteps.

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.

I think the simple answer is that such safety valves didn't encourage anything. They discouraged it. It's the same way temple prostitution at least forced some disaffected young man who couldn't have a normal and healthy sexual relationship to get experience with a woman who had plenty of it, and possibly some confidence as a consequence. It required effort, it didn't dehumanise anyone, it channeled a social problem into an acceptable place which rendered it part of the overall social order. Becoming a Kathoey in Thailand or a Hijra in India or a Femminielli in the Two Sicilies isn't encouraged, it isn't easy; however, it's there, because in the mystery of humanity, all the discouragement in the world simply won't stop some people. And if your society is ruthless and controlling enough to forbid that entirely, then sooner or later the erudite and polite ones in the number of some such group will create seeds of doubt in the enforcers, and delegitimise the entire system. If you hew to tradition, then those same sorts become like the "Gurus" of the Hijra in India, and enforce order on their own community to uphold the overall social mores of their culture.

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 apologise. Modesty is near and dear to my heart, so I swung off and engaged on it out of a feeling of passionate at the original comment. I concur that there's no real distinction between secular and religious law.

 

[ShieldWife]

I’m against child molestation, where there is a clear victim and a clear perpetrator. No one should be forced to have sex without their consent and a prepubescent child cannot meaningfully consent to sex and so it is within the bounds of government to protect children from being raped just as it protects adults from being raped or people from being murdered, robbed, assaulted, etc.

I (nor anyone else who objected to outlawing pornography, to my knowledge) said that we want anarchy.

Having a government that protects the rights of citizens is far different an laws which prevent entirely consensual behavior between adults. In fact, not only is there a fundamental philosophical difference, but prohibiting consensual behavior also requires a more intrusive state.

 

[The Name of Love]

And it's for essentially the same reason why I can say with confidence that customs of temple prostitution are inherently better than pornography, which coarsens and cheapens the human soul and life in a way that's much worse than even the buying and selling of sex.

I'll... take your word for it.

But I'm not a Catholic and neither was René Guénon at that point. So it's a Traditionalist argument. So I just beg you to read his works, as he was much wiser and more enlightened than I or any of my compatriots are, and we can only walk shallowly in his footsteps.

The point being, I've heard that same traditionalist argument made over and again by Catholics, and it has never once rang true to my ears. And I say this as a Catholic that thinks Protestantism is a nonsensical heresy! If Guenon was right, we wouldn't expect violent leftist revolutions gaining mass support in Catholic countries, and yet that happened. Why?

I think the simple answer is that such safety valves didn't encourage anything. They discouraged it. It's the same way temple prostitution at least forced some disaffected young man who couldn't have a normal and healthy sexual relationship to get experience with a woman who had plenty of it, and possibly some confidence as a consequence. It required effort, it didn't dehumanise anyone, it channeled a social problem into an acceptable place which rendered it part of the overall social order. Becoming a Kathoey in Thailand or a Hijra in India or a Femminielli in the Two Sicilies isn't encouraged, it isn't easy; however, it's there, because in the mystery of humanity, all the discouragement in the world simply won't stop some people. And if your society is ruthless and controlling enough to forbid that entirely, then sooner or later the erudite and polite ones in the number of some such group will create seeds of doubt in the enforcers, and delegitimise the entire system. If you hew to tradition, then those same sorts become like the "Gurus" of the Hijra in India, and enforce order on their own community to uphold the overall social mores of their culture.

Would you accept the Aztecs ritual human sacrifice or female genital mutilation this way? There are a number of disgusting and barbaric practices that served a "useful social function" in a similar way to what you're describing. Am I, as a traditionalist, not allowed to condemn them? To call for their reform? What is the limiting to this, so that we don't fall into mere cultural relativism?

I apologise. Modesty is near and dear to my heart, so I swung off and engaged on it out of a feeling of passionate at the original comment. I concur that there's no real distinction between secular and religious law.

That's okay, CG. I completely understand where you're coming from. My issue was that a lot of people like Bacle obfuscated the issue.

I’m against child molestation, where there is a clear victim and a clear perpetrator. No one should be forced to have sex without their consent and a prepubescent child cannot meaningfully consent to sex and so it is within the bounds of government to protect children from being raped just as it protects adults from being raped or people from being murdered, robbed, assaulted, etc.

I (nor anyone else who objected to outlawing pornography, to my knowledge) said that we want anarchy.

Having a government that protects the rights of citizens is far different an laws which prevent entirely consensual behavior between adults. In fact, not only is there a fundamental philosophical difference, but prohibiting consensual behavior also requires a more intrusive state.

I understand that distinction. The reason why I brought up anti-child porn laws is that they would require an equally-extensive state apparatus to deal with it.

 

[Deleted member]

I'll... take your word for it.

I really want to talk about the dynamics of sacral temple prostitution, but I think it's a better subject for another thread a little while in the future.

The point being, I've heard that same traditionalist argument made over and again by Catholics, and it has never once rang true to my ears. And I say this as a Catholic that thinks Protestantism is a nonsensical heresy! If Guenon was right, we wouldn't expect violent leftist revolutions gaining mass support in Catholic countries, and yet that happened. Why?

Because even Catholicism is being eaten by modernity. Guénon ended up converting to Islam for a reason. He gave up hope in the west. Look what happened in the United States--the Catholics became more and more like mainstream western Protestants. If there is a hope for Catholicism it's arguably in the third world now, or else in very small numbers of sincerely faithful traditionalists in Europe and the US having quite large numbers of children and essentially rebuilding a hollowed out church from the inside out by demographics. I mean, the forces unleashed by the White Anglo-Saxon Protestant World have turned back onto the whole globe and are consuming it through American mass-market media. Guénon, like Schopenhauer, said we had to turn back to the east and admit our spiritual errors to restore our civilisation.

Would you accept the Aztecs ritual human sacrifice or female genital mutilation this way? There are a number of disgusting and barbaric practices that served a "useful social function" in a similar way to what you're describing. Am I, as a traditionalist, not allowed to condemn them? To call for their reform? What is the limiting to this, so that we don't fall into mere cultural relativism?

I believe wicked societies which fall into destructive tendencies receive the accruance of dharma: The Aztecs were overthrown with good reason, their ordained time had come because they had fallen into a nihilistic error.

Firstly, of course, the reality is that I don't regard the practices we're talking about as necessarily being disgusting and barbaric and on the same level as Aztec ritual human sacrifice or FGM. I have certainly previously defended blood sacrifice as a sacral concept... But I hope that isn't too controversial because in Christianity you celebrate with the blood and body of Christ at Mass every week. When it is a voluntary act, blood sacrifice has enormous ritual power. It is initiatic, sacral, and redemptive. Indeed, that is a universal understanding.

But if you see the very uncompromising and rigid stance toward legislating morality of the west, and then centre it in Guénon's context of the west in fact having spiritually lost its way, at a very early stage, you would certainly see why I justly say that your attitude already reflects anti-traditionalist influences, as you acknowledged might be the case. The Traditional view sees the truth as experienced through ritual, through aesthetics, and therefore, there is a measure of uncertainty in literal terms in how we come to our understanding of the truth. The truth is best known by the Hesychast monk in Christendom, in my view of things. If you allow that attitude to permeate society, my perspective makes perfect sense from a traditional light.

Isn't that why trial by combat was understood to settle the Will of God? The Aztecs were judged.

But it was the societies who purged the traditional exceptions which created the modern clown-world, the Eclipse, the Pit; not those who kept fast to them.

That's okay, CG. I completely understand where you're coming from. My issue was that a lot of people like Bacle obfuscated the issue.

It's quite all right.

 

[The Name of Love]

I really want to talk about the dynamics of sacral temple prostitution, but I think it's a better subject for another thread a little while in the future.

If you want to, just DM me.

Because even Catholicism is being eaten by modernity. Guénon ended up converting to Islam for a reason. He gave up hope in the west. Look what happened in the United States--the Catholics became more and more like mainstream western Protestants. If there is a hope for Catholicism it's arguably in the third world now, or else in very small numbers of sincerely faithful traditionalists in Europe and the US having quite large numbers of children and essentially rebuilding a hollowed out church from the inside out by demographics. I mean, the forces unleashed by the White Anglo-Saxon Protestant World have turned back onto the whole globe and are consuming it through American mass-market media. Guénon, like Schopenhauer, said we had to turn back to the east and admit our spiritual errors to restore our civilisation.

So are you saying that the French Revolution and the Bolshevik Revolution were both caused by Anglo-Protestantism?

As an aside, I don't think turning towards the East would really help us. A sincere spiritual traditionalist of an Eastern tradition might be as devout and austere a moralist as any Western traditionalist, but a modern could easily adopt their entire metaphysical worldview without changing their lifestyle a single wit and be living in a manner consistent with those metaphysical beliefs. To see what I mean, contrast Buddhism and Hinduism with Christianity. In these Eastern religions, there is not a personal God acting as a moral lawgiver that is the ultimate reality, but an impersonal Absolute utterly indifferent to us; there is no soul in the Western sense because there is no permanent or abiding self at all; and there is, as a consequence, no ultimate significance to our compliance or non-compliance with the moral law.

The Eastern traditionalist's moralism does not stem from any metaphysical belief, whereas a Christian traditionalist would have to reconcile their immoral behavior with the Last Judgment and the hope of personal immortality and eternal fellowship with one's maker. Eastern religions cannot pose a moral challenge to contemporary Western decadence for that very reason, and we so desperately need such a moral challenge. I see the problems of the West stemming from a gradual divorcing of metaphysics from objective notions of truth, goodness, and beauty. Because of this, an Eastern religion whose metaphysics has no such moral component will be unable to hold back the modernist tide.

I believe wicked societies which fall into destructive tendencies receive the accruance of dharma: The Aztecs were overthrown with good reason, their ordained time had come because they had fallen into a nihilistic error.

Firstly, of course, the reality is that I don't regard the practices we're talking about as necessarily being disgusting and barbaric and on the same level as Aztec ritual human sacrifice or FGM. I have certainly previously defended blood sacrifice as a sacral concept... But I hope that isn't too controversial because in Christianity you celebrate with the blood and body of Christ at Mass every week. When it is a voluntary act, blood sacrifice has enormous ritual power. It is initiatic, sacral, and redemptive. Indeed, that is a universal understanding.

But if you see the very uncompromising and rigid stance toward legislating morality of the west, and then centre it in Guénon's context of the west in fact having spiritually lost its way, at a very early stage, you would certainly see why I justly say that your attitude already reflects anti-traditionalist influences, as you acknowledged might be the case. The Traditional view sees the truth as experienced through ritual, through aesthetics, and therefore, there is a measure of uncertainty in literal terms in how we come to our understanding of the truth. The truth is best known by the Hesychast monk in Christendom, in my view of things. If you allow that attitude to permeate society, my perspective makes perfect sense from a traditional light.

Isn't that why trial by combat was understood to settle the Will of God? The Aztecs were judged.

But it was the societies who purged the traditional exceptions which created the modern clown-world, the Eclipse, the Pit; not those who kept fast to them.

"Legislating morality"? All human law is based on moral law and serves the common good. That's where it gets its authority. To say that social conservatives are unique in their "legislation of morality" is fallacious. Ultimately, everyone legislates their morality because that's just what the law is. You, no more than I, are guilty of wanting to "legislate morality." To say otherwise, to attempt to divorce politics from ethics, is the mistake of Machiavelli. I kindly suggest reading Edward Feser's article on this topic. In short, I think it comes from the modern assumptions about politics that traditionalists ought not hold to.

That said, if you are wondering about my relative rigidness compared to you, it's because the world needs it. Modern man is like a spoiled child that flouts their parents' wisdom while indulging themselves in whatever passions they wish. And such children need discipline. In an age of internet pornography, drag queen story hour, and "pedophilia is just a sexual orientation," I think such rigorism is warranted. Perhaps when the society has reoriented itself towards what is true, good, and beautiful, we can start to talk about the excesses of the Puritans and the Platonists. But not now.

 

[Scottty]

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.

I think I've had occasion to complain of this before - people like the author you refer to treat Protestantism as if it were all one thing, which they equate with Calvinism/Puritanism. That is not at all accurate.
Guenon seems to inhabit a world in which people like myself, and a whole lot of others, simply do not exist. Did he know nothing of the many reactions against Calvinism from within the broader Protestant clade?
Methodists, anyone? Quakers? Pentecostals?

The point being, I've heard that same traditionalist argument made over and again by Catholics, and it has never once rang true to my ears. And I say this as a Catholic that thinks Protestantism is a nonsensical heresy! If Guenon was right, we wouldn't expect violent leftist revolutions gaining mass support in Catholic countries, and yet that happened. Why?

Because in the justice of God, nations that rejected the Reformation got the Revolution instead.
Seriously - as far as I know at least, no Protestant country has ever yet fallen to a commie revolution. Only Roman Catholic and Orthodox countries suffered that fate.

A more mundane explanation can be offered, of course. Roman Catholicism insisted on trying to keep the social order the same, despite that old order not really working properly anymore. They closed the lid tight and sat on top of it, while the pressure grew.
Only one way that ever ends.

Would you accept the Aztecs ritual human sacrifice or female genital mutilation this way? There are a number of disgusting and barbaric practices that served a "useful social function" in a similar way to what you're describing. Am I, as a traditionalist, not allowed to condemn them? To call for their reform? What is the limiting to this, so that we don't fall into mere cultural relativism?

I saw an interesting mini-essay online, which I've tried to dig up again but no luck so far, to the effect that the practices the Aztecs had adopted of ritual human sacrifice and cannibalism, were something actually quite repulsive to the older traditions of the Nahutl peoples. Cannibalism in particular being a huge taboo.
The writer put it in more familiar terms by saying: "they had made the Black Mass the official state religion".

Which brings us to an important point on this - just because something is claimed to be a "tradition" doesn't mean it's good, but also... doesn't mean it's necessarily even a real tradition!
Some "traditions" are historically quite shallow.

 

[Deleted member]

@The Name of Love I said “But if you see the very uncompromising and rigid stance toward legislating morality of the west” I was clearly referring to a specific approach to legislating morality, not to the concept itself. To wit, please give me the charity of not assuming I am a-traditional. I am saying the specific western approach to moral legislation is problematic, not that the concept is problematic or that there is some kind of social legislation other than moral legislation. Obviously the legislation of morality pertains to the entire sphere of a government except for details of the operation of law, budget mechanisms, appointment of state officers and so on.

I will start a thread on the eastern morality topic sometime in the next few days, because it’s important.

 

[Lanmandragon]

I think I've had occasion to complain of this before - people like the author you refer to treat Protestantism as if it were all one thing, which they equate with Calvinism/Puritanism. That is not at all accurate.
Guenon seems to inhabit a world in which people like myself, and a whole lot of others, simply do not exist. Did he know nothing of the many reactions against Calvinism from within the broader Protestant clade?
Methodists, anyone? Quakers? Pentecostals?



Because in the justice of God, nations that rejected the Reformation got the Revolution instead.
Seriously - as far as I know at least, no Protestant country has ever yet fallen to a commie revolution. Only Roman Catholic and Orthodox countries suffered that fate.

A more mundane explanation can be offered, of course. Roman Catholicism insisted on trying to keep the social order the same, despite that old order not really working properly anymore. They closed the lid tight and sat on top of it, while the pressure grew.
Only one way that ever ends.



I saw an interesting mini-essay online, which I've tried to dig up again but no luck so far, to the effect that the practices the Aztecs had adopted of ritual human sacrifice and cannibalism, were something actually quite repulsive to the older traditions of the Nahutl peoples. Cannibalism in particular being a huge taboo.
The writer put it in more familiar terms by saying: "they had made the Black Mass the official state religion".

Which brings us to an important point on this - just because something is claimed to be a "tradition" doesn't mean it's good, but also... doesn't mean it's necessarily even a real tradition!
Some "traditions" are historically quite shallow.

In the US at least evangelicals like penacostals and Baptists are far more relgious and traditional than Catholics. That's been my experience at least. I see alot of supposedly Catholic folks with pro-choicr bumper stickers as an example.

 

[The Name of Love]

@The Name of Love I said “But if you see the very uncompromising and rigid stance toward legislating morality of the west” I was clearly referring to a specific approach to legislating morality, not to the concept itself. To wit, please give me the charity of not assuming I am a-traditional. I am saying the specific western approach to moral legislation is problematic, not that the concept is problematic or that there is some kind of social legislation other than moral legislation. Obviously the legislation of morality pertains to the entire sphere of a government except for details of the operation of law, budget mechanisms, appointment of state officers and so on.

I will start a thread on the eastern morality topic sometime in the next few days, because it’s important.

I apologize for being uncharitable towards you, and I hope you forgive me.

I look forward to reading that thread.

In the US at least evangelicals like penacostals and Baptists are far more relgious and traditional than Catholics. That's been my experience at least. I see alot of supposedly Catholic folks with pro-choicr bumper stickers as an example.

Those groups are offshoots of mainline Protestantism, which has all of the same exact problems as Catholicism, only double. The Catholic equivalents of conservative Evangelical groups can be found in the more hardline Conservative/Traditionalist Catholic circles.

 

[Lanmandragon]

I apologize for being uncharitable towards you, and I hope you forgive me.

I look forward to reading that thread.


Those groups are offshoots of mainline Protestantism, which has all of the same exact problems as Catholicism, only double. The Catholic equivalents of those groups can be found in the more hardline Conservative/Traditionalist Catholics.

Maybe so but nearlyeveru Catholic be ever met was a leftist or left leaning. Even the Pope himself is left leaning. I find your assumption that Catholics are more traditional than Protestants to be highly dubious. I'm sure there are hard core Catholics who are traditional but I'd wager they're in the minority.

 

[The Name of Love]

Maybe so but nearlyeveru Catholic be ever met was a leftist or left leaning. Even the Pope himself is left leaning. I find your assumption that Catholics are more traditional than Protestants to be highly dubious. I'm sure there are hard core Catholics who are traditional but I'd wager they're in the minority.

Where, exactly, did I say Catholics were "more traditionalist"?

 

[Lanmandragon]

Where, exactly, did I say Catholics were "more traditionalist"?

When you spent half the thread ragging on Protestants? Seems pretty straightforward but it's not worth arguing about. Because I don't hold with any religion or sect as the case maybe. I just don't buy Catholics are somehow more resistant to leftistism.

 

[The Name of Love]

When you spent half the thread ragging on Protestants? Seems pretty straightforward but it's not worth arguing about. Because I don't hold with any religion or sect as the case maybe. I just don't buy Catholics are somehow more resistant to leftistism.

I didn't spend half the thread ragging on Protestants.

 

[Lanmandragon]

If you want to, just DM me.



So are you saying that the French Revolution and the Bolshevik Revolution were both caused by Anglo-Protestantism?

As an aside, I don't think turning towards the East would really help us. A sincere spiritual traditionalist of an Eastern tradition might be as devout and austere a moralist as any Western traditionalist, but a modern could easily adopt their entire metaphysical worldview without changing their lifestyle a single wit and be living in a manner consistent with those metaphysical beliefs. To see what I mean, contrast Buddhism and Hinduism with Christianity. In these Eastern religions, there is not a personal God acting as a moral lawgiver that is the ultimate reality, but an impersonal Absolute utterly indifferent to us; there is no soul in the Western sense because there is no permanent or abiding self at all; and there is, as a consequence, no ultimate significance to our compliance or non-compliance with the moral law.

The Eastern traditionalist's moralism does not stem from any metaphysical belief, whereas a Christian traditionalist would have to reconcile their immoral behavior with the Last Judgment and the hope of personal immortality and eternal fellowship with one's maker. Eastern religions cannot pose a moral challenge to contemporary Western decadence for that very reason, and we so desperately need such a moral challenge. I see the problems of the West stemming from a gradual divorcing of metaphysics from objective notions of truth, goodness, and beauty. Because of this, an Eastern religion whose metaphysics has no such moral component will be unable to hold back the modernist tide.



"Legislating morality"? All human law is based on moral law and serves the common good. That's where it gets its authority. To say that social conservatives are unique in their "legislation of morality" is fallacious. Ultimately, everyone legislates their morality because that's just what the law is. You, no more than I, are guilty of wanting to "legislate morality." To say otherwise, to attempt to divorce politics from ethics, is the mistake of Machiavelli. I kindly suggest reading Edward Feser's article on this topic. In short, I think it comes from the modern assumptions about politics that traditionalists ought not hold to.

That said, if you are wondering about my relative rigidness compared to you, it's because the world needs it. Modern man is like a spoiled child that flouts their parents' wisdom while indulging themselves in whatever passions they wish. And such children need discipline. In an age of internet pornography, drag queen story hour, and "pedophilia is just a sexual orientation," I think such rigorism is warranted. Perhaps when the society has reoriented itself towards what is true, good, and beautiful, we can start to talk about the excesses of the Puritans and the Platonists. But not now.

My mistake I mixed you and the general up apologises.
On the topic I find porn to be immoral. I don't think we should empower the state to legislate it though. Of course I'd also legalize drugs and prostitutes as well. Because I don't recognize the states right to tell private citzens what to do with thier bodies. Barring actions which have direct and intentional harm to other citzens. If a person is to weak and undisciplined to control themselves then that's there problem not mine. I see no reason to allow the state to impose rules onto me because of the weakness of others. The whole collapse angle isn't convincing either. Because if your culture is so weak as to be unable to raise it's children correctly. Then said culture deserves to die.

 

[ShieldWife]

From my personal experience, living in the American south, I see a lot more conservative Protestants than Catholics. By conservative, I don’t mean that they just prefer the letter R to the letter D, but people who actually live their values. There are exceptions though, and it may be different in more heavily Catholic regions of the world.

I can’t really take a stand on any advantage that Catholicism or Protestantism have in terms of theology. I’ve known good very solidly conservative people from both divisions of Christianity.

The distinct disadvantage that Catholics have is the importance they place on the Catholic Church itself, which is quite frankly rotten at the highest levels - from aiding and abetting child molestation on a massive scale to supporting the Islamic conquest of Europe to supporting globalist authoritarians in their efforts to enslave the world. I know some great Catholics but anyone who believes that the Catholic Church itself has some kind of divine authority is going to have issues, cognitive dissonance at the minimum.

 

[Porkchopper]

Let block porn. Well @The Name of Love are you going to come to my house and suck my dick if I get an itch? Are you going to pay someone to fuck me if I get a bit groiny? If the answer is no then fuck off.

Also the hypocrosy is pretty hilarious. Conservatives want small goverment. Except over issues that they dont like then the government can come in and tell you what to do in your own home with your own things and your own body.

 

[Lanmandragon]

Let block porn. Well @The Name of Love are you going to come to my house and suck my dick if I get an itch? Are you going to pay someone to fuck me if I get a bit groiny? If the answer is no then fuck off.

Also the hypocrosy is pretty hilarious. Conservatives want small goverment. Except over issues that they dont like then the government can come in and tell you what to do in your own home with your own things and your own body.

No certain conservatives want that the rest of us argue against it. The right is no more a monolith than the left.

 

[The Name of Love]

My mistake I mixed you and the general up apologises.

No problem.

On the topic I find porn to be immoral. I don't think we should empower the state to legislate it though. Of course I'd also legalize drugs and prostitutes as well. Because I don't recognize the states right to tell private citzens what to do with thier bodies. Barring actions which have direct and intentional harm to other citzens. If a person is to weak and undisciplined to control themselves then that's there problem not mine. I see no reason to allow the state to impose rules onto me because of the weakness of others. The whole collapse angle isn't convincing either. Because if your culture is so weak as to be unable to raise it's children correctly. Then said culture deserves to die.

It's fine if you don't recognize the right of the state, but the fact of the matter is that the state does have that right. Your recognition of it is irrelevant.

Your view of culture also reflects a sort of Social Darwinism, and that's fine as far as it goes. But aren't there precious, valuable things that are fragile? Are we social conservatives so wrong to protect those things?

From my personal experience, living in the American south, I see a lot more conservative Protestants than Catholics. By conservative, I don’t mean that they just prefer the letter R to the letter D, but people who actually live their values. There are exceptions though, and it may be different in more heavily Catholic regions of the world.

No, you are correct that Catholics in America are generally left-leaning (or at least split fifty-fifty). But if I were to be charitable to @Captain-General, I'd say that it's not so much individual Catholics who are traditionalist as their theology. Protestant theology can best be described as "if Catholics aren't doing it, and I can justify it with my interpretation of Scripture, then it's God's will." To put it another way: if Protestantism were proven to me to be true Christianity, I'd reject Christianity as a nonsensical religion.

I can’t really take a stand on any advantage that Catholicism or Protestantism have in terms of theology. I’ve known good very solidly conservative people from both divisions of Christianity.

The distinct disadvantage that Catholics have is the importance they place on the Catholic Church itself, which is quite frankly rotten at the highest levels - from aiding and abetting child molestation on a massive scale to supporting the Islamic conquest of Europe to supporting globalist authoritarians in their efforts to enslave the world. I know some great Catholics but anyone who believes that the Catholic Church itself has some kind of divine authority is going to have issues, cognitive dissonance at the minimum.

It's not "cognitive dissonance" to believe that the Church has a divine authority, but its leaders are flawed humans prone to corruption.

Let block porn. Well @The Name of Love are you going to come to my house and suck my dick if I get an itch? Are you going to pay someone to fuck me if I get a bit groiny? If the answer is no then fuck off.

Also the hypocrosy is pretty hilarious. Conservatives want small goverment. Except over issues that they dont like then the government can come in and tell you what to do in your own home with your own things and your own body.

First, get over yourself and apologize to me for using such vulgar language. If you don't, I will report you.

Second, you are correct that conservatives do want a small government that only intervenes in specific cases. But there's nothing hypocritical about that. The principles conservatives adhere to - Natural Law, Burkean traditionalism, etc. - just so happen to entail, quite systematically and coherently, a view of the proper scope of state power that rejects both the extreme of statism and the opposite extreme of pure laissez-faire. The idea that, if one supports the idea of a small government, then one must also support legalized pornography, is based on a political philosophy that is as crude and simple-minded as your language.

 

[Whitestrake Pelinal]

 

[MementoMori]

I'm not exactly the most educated about politics and whatever political ramification of porn on politics (whatever the fuck porn have any influence on politics, but whatever).

But it sounds to me the argument for the censorship of pornography is the same and almost word for word the same one used for censorship for "violent" content.

The usual talking points is often repeated "it corrupts the mind", "it would destroy society", "look at all these charts I have", "what about the children", and last but not least "its for the good of the society"

And so my usual response is, Fuck off Commie and your bloody dogmatic collectivists belief. Individualism fuck yeah.