Make porn illegal

What's unethical about that? The actors in the porn films are consenting adults. If they aren't adults or they didn't consent to it, then I think it's unethical. I think that if consenting adults agree to do something with one another that doesn't harm either of them, then it's permissible for them to do that.
I don't understand why you think it's "fucking horrible". Telling me to "think about it" isn't an argument. You need to explain why.

No it wouldn't. Again, I refer to LSD. LSD is illegal, but people still use it. The only way to get LSD is to either make it yourself or to make an illegal transaction with someone else who has it. The ban on LSD has created a black market for the drug, because people still want to use it despite the fact that they will have to risk legal charges to get their hands on it. If there was a ban on porn, we would see a black market of pornography rise up. That doesn't solve the problem of porn addiction at all. Does that make sense?

Yes, I think you are being too optimistic. I think you have good intentions: porn addiction is obviously a problem and we ought to do something about it as a society. However, I don't think a ban on porn would be effective. I've already explained why I don't think porn is unethical, so there's no moral justification for banning it. Additionally, I've demonstrated that a ban on porn wouldn't be practically effective either. Banning porn won't stop people from watching it.

I don't think we're in a hopeless situation. As a society, we can do something about porn addiction without the government's help: we have to stop watching porn. It's on all of us, but it starts at the level of individuals like me and you. If lots and lots of people stopped watching porn, the people who produce porn would make less money from advertisements, which means they would need to stop making porn and look for a better way to make money. I also think this is an optimistic solution, but it's far more practical than the solution you're proposing. We can't rely on the government to stop us from watching porn. We need to do it ourselves as individuals.

 

Way to dismiss the opposing side of this issue without creating an argument yourself.

The quoted comment is called a strawman argument, a well-known logical fallacy that people tend to use on the internet all the time. Basically, you're creating a 'strawman' version of a person on the side of this issue that you disagree with so that you can attack the opposing position easier. I made a clear, concise argument earlier in this thread explaining why I think a ban on porn wouldn't be ethical or practical, and there are others in this thread who have made similar arguments. You obviously disagree with the conclusion of those arguments, but instead of responding to them, you made up some phony argument about how people are against a porn ban because they are fans of porn stars, because it's easier for you to respond to that than to respond to the actual arguments people are making in this thread.

If you actually want to debate this important issue, we can discuss it, but you're not responding to anyone in particular with this comment and you're not saying anything substantive, either.

 

Actually, the legality behind porn is the same as the legality behind cigarettes, to my knowledge (at least in the United States). You need to be 18 years old to purchase cigarettes, and you need to be 18 years old to watch porn. I don't see your point.

 

Morally, I view porn the same the same way I view heroin: it's dangerous, it's immoral to distribute and it's immoral to consume.

I can imagine that making it illegal will have bad consequences, so I don't necessarily support that. But morality is a more fundamental question than policy.

 

I am a bit surprised that many users here share my opinion. We certainly are no fans of pornstars anymore, but we see the disadvantages of banning porn.

There is no objective morality.

In the thread there was already the example with drugs, e.g. LSD. You can ban it, but you only strengthen criminals, because by definition criminals don´t obey the law and can profit financially by doing so.

Or let´s say someone loves his motorcycle. But then someone morally "superior" says that it is too dangerous for him, he may have an accident and even kill others. And there are wars for the oil he needs for fuel. And the metal for the motorcycle, it was produced in a way that it harmed the environment and the workers. So let´s take his motorcycle away and put him in prison.

Do you see where all of this leads? You could come up with a million examples of what could be harmful so that we should ban it. Those with "morally superior" point of view want too many laws and restrict our lives. And if you really want to make sure all the laws are not just on paper, but obeyed, you need a police state. And who has to pay the millions of state officials and spies then? Of course we the tax payers.

 

I think that's debatable. I'm not really sure if I disagree, but I don't think it's obvious whether morality is objective or not.

 

Just remember Heroine, Cocaine, Meth ETC are all illegal and we now live in a drug free country right ?
Just remember how well prohibition worked... it made it worse.

People especially in the USA love to do things when they are told not to do them or its illegal.

Besides that it gets into a whole civil rights issues if you ban it bringing even more popularity to Porn like its needs help as it is, banning would see a huge increase I think.

 

It's still important.

Perhaps the rest of your post wasn't a response to me, but I'm not talking about banning anything, yet I still believe in "moral superiority".

 

An objective truth is not the same as "I believe". You believe that some things are right and other things are wrong, but other people may believe very differnt things.

 

I don't understand why people who haven't even made it to the point they aren't jerking all the time themselves, are all obsessed with keeping other people from jerking off all the time. Handle your fucking business and get your own life in order before you try to get involved in how other people are living.

 

Right you are. Morality is still very, very important though.

 

Morality in moderation can stabilize society, even if different societies have very different systems of morality (which again shows it is not objective). If most people agree about some basic moral values, they for example trust each other more and the society as a whole works better.
But if you overregulate everything, people disagree a lot and the effect is negative.

For example somebody has the opinion that you should adopt 10 children, it would be morally good. You should sell your car, your TV etc and give your savings to homeless people. etc. etc.
OK, that would be a valid opinion. But it gets bad when he FORCES his (subjective) moral values upon others.

People should better understand why something is harmful, for example drinking a lot of alcohol, instead of just trying to ban it by force. If people want to find a way to destroy their lives, they will always find it, no matter how much moral values you spread or how much you ban.

 

I agree with everything except this:

That's what laws are, and you agree with some laws, don't you?

I think "morality" originally meant custom/tradition, i.e. the way people in fact behaved. Today, I think we use the word to indicate which things should be customary. When I say dealing heroin is immoral, I mean I think it is harmful to society and therefore should not be done. Of course some people will disagree, but it's an important question and the fate of society depends on the consensus.

 

Many laws have something to do with moral values, but often they are just made to extract more money from the people or to gain more power. Laws should be reduced to a minimum for a lean and effective system.

We should battle our addictions on our own, we do not need a nanny state for that which controls every aspect of our lives.

 

Yeah but to return to my point: You do agree with some laws for moral reasons. Anyway, since this thread is about laws, I'm reluctant to go on any longer about morality. I might make my own thread for that.

 

thought about opening a new thread too. But even if politicians of nation A agree on law X for moral reasons, the politiciancs of nation B may agree on a different law Y and both societies may work - it is still no objective truth because some people agree on certain values to make their society stable.

 

I totally agree, but using that reasoning to justify not taking any moral stances is insane.

 

I've gone back and forth reading this thread. Didn't think my mind could change that many times in a few minutes lol. I do agree that making things illegal doesn't stop people from using them. I don't think we should create dependencies on our government to tell us what we should and shouldn't do in every circumstance either. That's a pretty loaded statement, but I hope it makes sense. We make our own choices, and we should be able to.

The only thing I would consider about it is that it is in a way a form of prostitution. People making money from sex. That may be a stretch as well but that would be a reason to make it illegal. Basically it's still people selling their bodies for profit, it's just on a screen and not in person.

 

You can read about moral nihilism, we do not need to reinvent the wheel here. It´s not insane, but basic philosophy.
This does not mean I am cruel - the opposite, I follow my heart a lot.

Regardless of the moral debate: In multiple posts here we see good arguments why banning porn would most probably only make things worse for practical reasons.

 

Hear that lads? We're not fighting over nothing, it's a battle for @CrimsnBlade's mind!