The legalization of Pornography

Themadfapper said:
I personally don't give a darn what becomes of porn. I simply don't agree that the sky would fall if it became illegal, or that "prohibition" would increase porn usage. Back before the internet, there were plenty of porn/sex addicts. I used to see them in the seedy part of town in sex shops and wankatoriums [ which I assume are mostly out of business now thanks to the internet. I also knew people who had obvious problems with porn and jerking off. It's far too common, but restriction is unlikely despite how utterly nauseating and repulsive a lot of the porn out there is much less making it illegal.

America has come a long way from Playboy, though. Television and news sites are littered with scantily clad breast monsters. They are making it tough to walk the straight and narrow. I think what is more likely than illegal porn is it being illegal to not jerk off, or be in some kind of weird sexual relationship. Seems more the direction things are heading.
Click to expand...
Yeah man I get what you're saying and agree with you for the most part. You hit the nail on the head pointing out The culture of hypersexualization of the masses.
 
ConstraintsTheory said:
I am not for censorship nobody should have the right to tell someone what they can watch or not. However I see nothing wrong making it difficult to access and/or taxing it in some way.

Smoking and drinking all have a "sin" tax applied when you buy those types of products and if the price of cigarettes keep going up I'll end up quitting it's an expensive habit.

However, I think the vast majority of people on here can come to an agreement that it's the accessibility of porn that we want to fix. We don't want it too available that young children to get ahold of it but we don't want to trample on peoples(adults) life choices.
Click to expand...
Yes, I think most people of many different persuasions can agree on this at least. It's just common sense.
 
Buzz Lightyear said:
Yes, I think most people of many different persuasions can agree on this at least. It's just common sense.
Click to expand...
It's not really common sense. Youre talking about the government limiting what you can intake. We could all say we don't want kids to watch it, but for that to happen it would have to be limited. A vast majority of the Internet is some sort of porn. Its not so much sense for the gov to create taxes or limit this know, isn't it? It would be common sense if you would start/support an anti-pornography group, if that's what your goal is.
 
wethebest said:
It's not really common sense. Youre talking about the government limiting what you can intake. We could all say we don't want kids to watch it, but for that to happen it would have to be limited. A vast majority of the Internet is some sort of porn. Its not so much sense for the gov to create taxes or limit this know, isn't it? It would be common sense if you would start/support an anti-pornography group, if that's what your goal is.
Click to expand...
If you put the issue on a continuum - where you start with a few basics constraints on access to P, and at the other end you have complete censorship - I think most people can at least agree on some kind of basic constraint.

And for that you don't really need a lobby group as most people already agree. All you need is a bill to be promoted by some representative, and then passed..... and enforced.

Surely there would be someone in the system willing to be an advocate for this cause... and the advocate should come from the most 'liberal' sector... somewhere way over on the left, lest politicians and Americans think it is just another puritanical conspiracy to subvert the American way of life.

This is just good basic common-sense regulation. Anyone opposed to it would just be showing their ideological prejudices.
 
Last edited:
Another reason for the 'liberal' Left to pick the issue up, for a minimum of regulation of internet access [to minors], is that they are less prudish on such matters. Also, a vestige of the logic for order and the public good survives on the Left.

The Right tends to leave things split between the public and private - they do not want to mention what kinds of things go on in private, whilst also hesitant to regulate what goes on in the public realm. The [to my mind, Protestant] logic of freedom and individual rights predominates here.
 
Buzz Lightyear said:
If you put the issue on a continuum - where you start with a few basics constraints on access to P, and at the other end you have complete censorship - I think most people can at least agree on some kind of basic constraint.

And for that you don't really need a lobby group as most people already agree. All you need is a bill to be promoted by some representative, and then passed..... and enforced.

Surely there would be someone in the system willing to be an advocate for this cause... and the advocate should come from the most 'liberal' sector... somewhere way over on the left, lest politicians and Americans think it is just another puritanical conspiracy to subvert the American way of life.

This is just good basic common-sense regulation. Anyone opposed to it would just be showing their ideological prejudices.
Click to expand...
A few basic constraints would result in, over a period of time, becoming banned. We have WAY to many restrictions from the government right now. If anything, we need to get rid of this, not support it.

The only way to "put a few basic constraints" on porn would have to be through government. I can sit here and name numerous examples of why what you are proposing won't work. We don't need a bill, we need to take away laws.
 
wethebest said:
A few basic constraints would result in, over a period of time, becoming banned. We have WAY to many restrictions from the government right now. If anything, we need to get rid of this, not support it.

The only way to "put a few basic constraints" on porn would have to be through government. I can sit here and name numerous examples of why what you are proposing won't work. We don't need a bill, we need to take away laws.
Click to expand...
So you disagree that having some system in place to ensure that little boys and girls, say under the age of 12, are not exposed to hard core pornography is a bad idea??
 
I don't support porn but having the government step in and restrict it is the worst thing rn. Am I going crazy?!?!
 
wethebest said:
I don't support porn but having the government step in and restrict it is the worst thing rn. Am I going crazy?!?!
Click to expand...
Not sure about crazy....but you sure have the ideological blinkers on. I guess you think something like, 'No government is good government'.

I think 'no government' is even worse than 'big government'. What is need is a small government that can do the necessary regulation. Government in moderation.
 
Buzz Lightyear said:
So you disagree that having some system in place to ensure that little boys and girls, say under the age of 12, are not exposed to hard core pornography is a bad idea??
Click to expand...
Again, if the system involves the government making laws.. yes it's a really, realllyy bad idea. If it's a separate organization raising awareness and that becomes a successful tool for not having these children watching porn, then I'm all for it.
 
wethebest said:
Again, if the system involves the government making laws.. yes it's a really, realllyy bad idea. If it's a separate organization raising awareness and that becomes a successful tool for not having these children watching porn, then I'm all for it.
Click to expand...
So you think governments making laws is worse [more evil?] than protecting children from vicious pornography.

Due to the nature of technology and the free market, no regulation would be possible without government involvement. It would as simple as putting age restrictions on all devices. Like what they do with alcohol these days... you need to be a certain age to legally access the alcohol... or cigarettes. Do you think all age restrictions, all government regulations, should be removed from these substances? And that children should be allowed to freely buy them?
 
Last edited:
Buzz Lightyear said:
Not sure about crazy....but you sure have the ideological blinkers on. I guess you think something like, 'No government is good government'.

I think 'no government' is even worse than 'big government'. What is need is a small government that can do the necessary regulation. Government in moderation.
Click to expand...
Ok.. And the government right now is huge government. Try to think of this like people on the welfare system. The welfare system should be drastically cut and have more outside organizations become more prominent (judeo Christian center, homeless shelters, etc).

Create similar systems for reducing porn usuage, you don't have to run to the government. The government is not in moderation. Moderation would be good, but it is far to large at the moment, espically in this day and age
 
Buzz Lightyear said:
So you think governments making laws is worse [more evil?] than protecting children from vicious pornography.
Click to expand...
You're letting your emotional context getting in the way of reason. The fact of the matter is if somebody watches porn, they aren't hurting anybody else but themselves. And I specified drugs earlier bc it's the same way. The gov shouldn't interfere at all. There should be separate organizations (I feel like you don't grasp this part, but that's the last time I'm gonna say this lol) There are other ways to accomplish things besides gov intervention.

You could ask the same question. So you think gov making laws is worse than protecting children from drugs/porn/actions in which they aren't harming someone else? My answer is going to be the same. Not through gov intervention. If it was would I want gov to step in if they are robbing/murdering people? Yes, only bc it's harming others not just themselves
 
wethebest said:
You could ask the same question. So you think gov making laws is worse than protecting children from drugs/porn/actions in which they aren't harming someone else?
Click to expand...
People are indirectly harmed through porn consumption by porn users. Porn is known to sponsor crimes such human and drug trafficking plus some women are forcibly made to participate in the videos that are made.
 
aarondf said:
People are indirectly harmed through porn consumption by porn users. Porn is known to sponsor crimes such human and drug trafficking plus some women are forcibly made to participate in the videos that are made.
Click to expand...
Of course. Indirectly is the keyword. Anything can be indirectly negatively effecting others. Drugs as well (cartels, robbing/killing ithers for drugs, etc).

I wouldn't say porn is good. I dislike porn. I think it should be nationally recognized as bad and disliked than banned. Start separate organizations, if it's disliked then people would start to not watch it anymore and the porn industry will eventually die out. Damn I said it again. There's other ways besides gov intervention. I'm repeating myself...

One other thing that might be an interesting thought to leave you on. Drugs are illegal and they have cartels, gangs, etc just bc the's drugs are illegal. If you make porn illegal do you think the same thing won't happen to that industry. I mean, open your eyes people. There's a prime example right there
 
wethebest said:
You're letting your emotional context getting in the way of reason. The fact of the matter is if somebody watches porn, they aren't hurting anybody else but themselves. And I specified drugs earlier bc it's the same way. The gov shouldn't interfere at all. There should be separate organizations (I feel like you don't grasp this part, but that's the last time I'm gonna say this lol) There are other ways to accomplish things besides gov intervention.

You could ask the same question. So you think gov making laws is worse than protecting children from drugs/porn/actions in which they aren't harming someone else? My answer is going to be the same. Not through gov intervention. If it was would I want gov to step in if they are robbing/murdering people? Yes, only bc it's harming others not just themselves
Click to expand...
Perhaps, but I could equally say you are letting classic liberal ideas get in the way of your practical reason/ common sense.

We supposedly all have the right to do what we want as long as our actions do not negatively impinge on others. And for the sake of the argument, and with adults in mind, I concede that.

But we are not talking about adults, so the liberal logic does not apply. Isn't a child's access to pornography going to have a negative impact on their life? Yes, because they are not yet the developed, free, rational, independent person/ agent that the liberal theory has before it in its model of society. This is why all liberals SUPPORT having laws to protect children. This is why there are laws prohibiting the sale of cigarettes and alcohol to minors.

Put your prejudices to one side for a moment and think about it.
 
Last edited:
Buzz Lightyear said:
Perhaps, but I could equally say you are letting classic liberal ideas get in the way of your practical reason/ common sense.

We supposedly all have the right to do what we want as long as our actions do not negatively impinge on others. And for the sake of the argument, and with adults in mind, I concede that.

But we are not talking about adults, so the liberal logic does not apply. Isn't a child's access to pornography going to have a negative impact on their life? Yes, because they are not yet the developed, free, rational, independent person/ agent that the liberal theory has before it in its model of society. This is why all liberals SUPPORT having laws to protect children. This is why there are laws prohibiting the sale of cigarettes and alcohol to minors.

Put your prejudices to one side for a moment and think about it.
Click to expand...

It's such a poisonous lie. Convincing people that indoctrinating them and brainwashing them can't hurt them. They can advertise and promote drugs and convince children to use them and brainwash them with every kind of perversion. This as long as it isn't the actual act of murder [ even though it will lead to bad behavior] is supposedly liberty. If anyone ever speaks a word of religion, of course, that is tyranny and has to be shut down immediately with full force [ this is when harming others openly is mandatory].


Freedum to sell drugs to your children and get them hooked before they can even think for themselves. You, of course, don't have any freedom or course of action to stop them because that would be tyrannical. We know that freedum can't hurt anyone it only does good.

I'm gonna go off topic in here and start talking about my favorite movie and I will post 100x in a row cluttering the thread any Mod who stops me is being tyrannical and part of an oppressive government. Kidding of course. There have to be rules and boundaries or there is chaos.
 
Last edited:
Themadfapper said:
It's such a poisonous lie. Convincing people that indoctrinating them and brainwashing them can't hurt them. They can advertise and promote drugs and convince children to use them and brainwash them with every kind of perversion. This as long as it isn't the actual act of murder [ even though it will lead to bad behavior] is supposedly liberty. If anyone ever speaks a word of religion, of course, that is tyranny and has to be shut down immediately with full force [ this is when harming others openly is mandatory].


Freedum to sell drugs to your children and get them hooked before they can even think for themselves. You, of course, don't have any freedom or course of action to stop them because that would be tyrannical. We know that freedum can't hurt anyone it only does good.
Click to expand...
You're talking crazy bro
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top