The Political Problem of Pornography

[Whitestrake Pelinal]

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.

If you find that you must sate your feelings of lust you are worse than a mere animal. Unlike lesser animals you have the capacities for knowledge and self-control.

If you require external aids to masturbate, you are an addict.

 

[The Name of Love]

As much I appreciate the sentiment, is just posting a picture allowed by the rules?

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).

Someone didn't actually read my opening post. The argument was that porn had negative effects on human behavior (less religiosity, less family formation, more egalitarianism) that, in aggregate, will cause society to collapse. It's not that hard.

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.

I would have to see the stats on violent content to determine whether should be regulations on it, but pornography is definitely harmful.

Also "individualism fuck yeah" isn't an argument. In the first place, what the heck do you mean by "collectivism" and "individualism"?

If you find that you must sate your feelings of lust you are worse than a mere animal. Unlike lesser animals you have the capacities for knowledge and self-control.

If you require external aids to masturbate, you are an addict.

Amen.

 

[Deleted member]

@The Name of Love that post makes an argument, just in picture form, so it was indeed allowed.

 

[MementoMori]

I would have to see the stats on violent content to determine whether should be regulations on it, but pornography is definitely harmful.

Also "individualism fuck yeah" isn't an argument. In the first place, what the heck do you mean by "collectivism" and "individualism"?
Amen.

Well I guess I shouldn't be surprised that somebody advocating for banning porn would also consider banning "violent" content.

It is also a matter of individualism vs Collectivism/ Statism. Since you're advocating that a perceived problem should be eradicated through the threat of violence from the state or at the very least through censorship.

It is an argument in which if you believe so strongly that "Porn is Bad" then you are free to personally abstain from porn consumption and discuss it as a viewpoint/belief and debate its merits.

But what you're doing is advocating for the state to basically "enforce" that viewpoint, which is tyrannical. And would lead nowhere good.

 

[The Name of Love]

@MementoMori You didn't even answer my question. What do you mean by "individualism" and "collectivism"?

It is also a matter of individualism vs Collectivism/ Statism. Since you're advocating that a perceived problem should be eradicated through the threat of violence from the state or at the very least through censorship.

It is an argument in which if you believe so strongly that "Porn is Bad" then you are free to personally abstain from porn consumption and discuss it as a viewpoint/belief and debate its merits.

But what you're doing is advocating for the state to basically "enforce" that viewpoint, which is tyrannical. And would lead nowhere good.

In case you haven't noticed, I'm not a libertarian. I think libertarianism is false. So the insistence that what I'm advocating for is "tyrannical" holds no water for me. You probably think that anything the state does besides the enforcement of self-ownership rights is "tyrannical."

Tyranny implies rule without rationale, rule via fiat, without regards to the customs of the people or the moral law. What I'm proposing is both just (because porn is immoral and the good of its prohibition would outweigh any evils caused by its enforcement) and within the customs of America (see the Comstock laws). It's not tyranny to prohibit pornography.

 

[MementoMori]

Well I guess we just have to agree to disagree then. I guess I'm just overly cynical of the state grabbing even more power over its populace. Because what the state grabs hold off it barely ever lets go and the state has taken a lot of rights already.

 

[The Name of Love]

Well I guess we just have to agree to disagree then. I guess I'm just overly cynical of the state grabbing even more power over its populace. Because what the state grabs hold off it barely ever lets go and the state has taken a lot of rights already.

Well that's to be expected of a libertarian. To be fair, I'm also cynical about the current United States government grabbing more power over its populace, but that's because I don't trust the people in charge. They are the ones responsible for the proliferation of pornography, after all.

 

[Captain X]

 

[ShadowsOfParadox]

...I suppose you also want to give up video games because crunch time is terrible. Also Japanese products since companies there literally work their people to death to such a degree they have a word for it, karoshi, and it's on their national death statistics. For that matter since drug testing can often be cruel if only because sometimes the drugs have very terrible indeed side effects that you want to give up medicine. For that matter lots of difficult/impossible to automate crops get harvested via underpaid and overworked individuals who are often illegal immigrants so I suppose you'll need to drop all of those crops.

If you want to drop something on the moral grounds of "some of it profits off of human suffering" you'll drop a LOT of things out of your life. And I hope you've never bought diamonds... or any electronics whose rare earths came from China.

 

[Scottty]

I notice a distinct lack of fangs compared to the original. So don't tread on her, or else... what?
Would be more convincing if she had a couple of revolvers mounted on that belt.

 

[The Name of Love]

...I suppose you also want to give up video games because crunch time is terrible. Also Japanese products since companies there literally work their people to death to such a degree they have a word for it, karoshi, and it's on their national death statistics. For that matter since drug testing can often be cruel if only because sometimes the drugs have very terrible indeed side effects that you want to give up medicine. For that matter lots of difficult/impossible to automate crops get harvested via underpaid and overworked individuals who are often illegal immigrants so I suppose you'll need to drop all of those crops.

If you want to drop something on the moral grounds of "some of it profits off of human suffering" you'll drop a LOT of things out of your life. And I hope you've never bought diamonds... or any electronics whose rare earths came from China.

“Buying child pornography is no different from buying a computer.”

 

[ShadowsOfParadox]

“Buying child pornography is no different from buying a computer.”

"Buying porn produced via slave labor is no different from buying a computer produced via slave labor"

 

[The Name of Love]

"Buying porn produced via slave labor is no different from buying a computer produced via slave labor"

So you deny that, by your logic, buying child pornography is no different from buying a computer?

 

[ShadowsOfParadox]

So you deny that, by your logic, buying child pornography is no different from buying a computer?

I'm arguing that if you want to ban/drop a thing because a segment of the industry profits off human misery there's a whole bunch of industries that do that so you ought to be dropping all of those.

But no, there is no difference between buying child porn and a computer produced via slave labour, often of children.

There is, however, a difference between buying child porn and a computer NOT produced via slave labour.

 

[Scottty]

Back in the days of the Roman Empire, just about everything was produced by slaves. The New Testament didn't forbid believers from buying things in the shops.

But some things, such as sexual exploitation of children, are intrinsically exploitative and enslaving - as well as being grossly immoral in other ways.

 

[ShadowsOfParadox]

Back in the days of the Roman Empire, just about everything was produced by slaves.

Roman "Slavery" was very very strange by today's understanding of what "slavery" means. Of course, there's also interesting questions regarding the differences between Slavery at the time and Slavery now even if in all other respects it's identical. Namely, these days we have these fascinating ideas about things like "Humans are Equal" and other interesting ideas.

Context is important. And if you are of the opinion that because there's nothing in the Bible about not buying slave labour produced things it's fine to support slave labour by buying things made with it... Well, I find myself holding you in similar regard as those Muslims who are of the opinion that marrying a nine-year old is fine because Mohammed did it.

 

[The Name of Love]

I'm arguing that if you want to ban/drop a thing because a segment of the industry profits off human misery there's a whole bunch of industries that do that so you ought to be dropping all of those.

But no, there is no difference between buying child porn and a computer produced via slave labour, often of children.

There is, however, a difference between buying child porn and a computer NOT produced via slave labour.

But sexually abusing people, especially children, is on a different level of evil from “slave labor.” Remember, we’re talking about the third world, a place that is not as capital-intensive, so the working conditions will be poorer and the wages will be lower. Thus, what would be slave labor in first world countries isn’t necessarily slavery in third world countries.

 

[ShadowsOfParadox]

Remember, we’re talking about the third world, a place that is not as capital-intensive, so the working conditions will be poorer and the wages will be lower.

...You seriously need to do some actual research into whats being called "slave labour". Because it's significantly worse than you are thinking right now.

 

[The Name of Love]

...You seriously need to do some actual research into whats being called "slave labour". Because it's significantly worse than you are thinking right now.

"Educate yourself!"

Obviously, you are not being serious about this, so I'll assume I'm right and carry on.

 

[Scottty]

Roman "Slavery" was very very strange by today's understanding of what "slavery" means. Of course, there's also interesting questions regarding the differences between Slavery at the time and Slavery now even if in all other respects it's identical. Namely, these days we have these fascinating ideas about things like "Humans are Equal" and other interesting ideas.

Context is important. And if you are of the opinion that because there's nothing in the Bible about not buying slave labour produced things it's fine to support slave labour by buying things made with it... Well, I find myself holding you in similar regard as those Muslims who are of the opinion that marrying a nine-year old is fine because Mohammed did it.

Don't misrepresent me like that. I am NOT saying that because they had slavery back in Biblical times therefore it's fine to have it today. I'm simply rejecting any attempt to guilt me other others here over things beyond our control.
Given a choice, we should obviously support companies that treat their workers well. But in this world we're not always given that choice.