Just an open question since we keep getting situations like this where the industry effectively admits it is incapable and unwilling to act to stop the worst elements of the industry (child exploitation, human trafficking, forced involvement, rape etc) that it's probably best to just ban the industry together.
Notice though I said using real people, with AI slowly getting better and CGI improving, why do we need real people to make porn? Just have something animated to be realistic enough as I don't give a fuck about pixels or a drawing. Have whatever kink you want, have entire porn snuff films whatever as no REAL people are getting harmed in the making if it. The worst that can happen is stressed artists trying to meet deadlines.
This might also affect adult streamers which is just a bonus as it'll be like a re-run of Projekt Melody when she became more popular since she did more than just strip and stare blankly at the camera till donations came in. A lot of porn or porn in all but name streaming (which I include Twitch on that) get money off just simply being pretty and that's it, denying that as an easy route will probably cause a shift in a lot of media.
I wouldn't advocate a FULL ban as no matter your feeling on it generally, it is a release so going full puritan invites a backlash and probably just forces more men to deal with insufferable feminist women. But just making that release fully fictional based than support an industry that sweeps horrific practices under the rug for money is probably for the best.
The only man made rule that has no exceptions is the rule that states: there are exceptions to the rules. This is because we're finite, imperfect, mortal creatures, with a limited understanding of truth. A rule of logic we don't yet know can alter our conclusions of what we do know, even if everything we know is correct and the logic is sound. Reality itself is where all of these different rules of logic meet, sometimes resulting in exceptions to widely held rules. A wise person understands this, and can see that reality isn't black and white. Logic is, but reality isn't. Manmade rules have exceptions. Free speech is one of them. Not even far left "dirty pinko commie" people believe in absolute free speech. Ad hominems don't disprove anything I've said.
Fine, go ahead. Argue whatever you wish. Stop trying to deflect, and answer the question. Why do you believe porn is speech and should be allowed under free speech?
I admittedly struggle with it just like every other guy on the planet. Our sex drive is strong for a reason. This is one of the reasons why pornography is so dangerous and destructive. It short circuits men's brains into meaningless, hollow pursuits. Porn addiction is real, and many men struggle with it. Do you say the same thing about people espousing for the banning of drugs being drug addicts, or people advocating for bans on abortion being addicted to abortion, or people advocating for the banning of pedophilia being addicted to sex with children? Your argument doesn't make logical sense.
The irony of your comment isn't lost on me. You literally did what I said people do in your position. You used logically fallacious arguments and gaslit me. Typical.
You are still desperately clinging to all of your original strawmen, because you are clearly incapable of arguing your position without them.
I see only a few people in this thread arguing against banning porn on free speech grounds, and I am not one of them, so asking me to defend that position is either ignorant or dishonest. Most people in this thread seem to oppose the idea of banning porn for purely practical reasons (blanket bans of ubiquitously available artefacts don't work and have never worked) or out of a general distrust of government and power structures, or a belief that individuals are ultimately responsible for their own moral upkeep.
As for your assertion that only porn consumers oppose banning porn, I don't consume porn and still oppose banning it. For the reasons stated above, and because I think people should be free to earn a living from pornography if they want to, as well as free to consume it if they want to, in the same way alcohol and cigarettes are destructive to our health, but should still be legal.
And even though I am not making and have never made the argument that porn is speech and falls under free speech protection, you certainly appear to believe both, because you have just made the argument, in the context of supporting a prohibition on porn, that there are or should be exceptions to total free speech. And the only people who believe that are Communist scum.
You can be held liable for defamatory speech because that is, in fact, a legitimate limit on total free speech. This is not communism. I don't know where the argument goes from here, but it is what it is.
What straw men? Point them out. Be specific.
I've seen no logical justification for why porn is speech or why porn should be allowed under free speech. I've explicitly asked why people view this way, and gotten no answer. I've also described how porn is dangerous and destructive upon people in my longer reply, which you said I wouldn't give.
Yes they have. You can't completely eliminate a thing, but you can prevent a lot of it. Just because you can't completely eliminate a thing doesn't mean you shouldn't. Murder is illegal but murders still happen. Are you seriously suggesting we should make murder legal, using your own argument? You're making a fallacious argument. You're also conflating modern government enforcement, government which is both inept and evil, often secretly participating in things they "ban" (like drugs), with what could be legitimately banned by a genuine government. Granted, I wouldn't trust modern Western governments to ban porn, or much less anything else. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be done, or it could never be done.
With current governments, I agree. That doesn't mean, however, that people don't have a right, individually and collectively, to enforce their views upon whatever group they're a part of.
Every individual is responsible for their own actions, but that doesn't disprove anything I've said. If you take your argument to its conclusion, it means you're ultimately arguing for the removal of all laws, because each individual is "ultimately responsible" for their own decisions.
Then you're in the extreme minority. Every single person that I've argued with and seen arguing for porn have been porn consumers. Many initially deny it, but then quietly admit to it when pressed.
So, you're fine with people earning money through other immoral actions as well? How far do you take it? Selling drugs, murder, pedophilia, forming monopolies, colluding with government? If you truly believe people should be free to make their own choices and morality, should you not be fine with those, so people can "earn a living". I imagine your defense will be "but porn isn't hurting anyone", and you'd be wrong. Porn hurts people. It's a control mechanism. It hurts men, women, and society itself. Just because it's less immediate doesn't make it less true.
You either didn't understand my comment or are intentionally taking what I said out of context. I'm not sure. In either case, I'll restate that porn isn't speech, isn't art, and shouldn't be allowed under free speech laws. Nowhere in that statement do I imply that porn is speech. I'm arguing against the position that "porn is speech". It's not. I only said that there are exceptions to absolute free speech, because even if one assumes porn is speech, to give room for multiple interpretations, it still shouldn't be allowed under free speech laws.
Again, this is insisting that anyone who argues the latter must also argue the former. It is a straw man.
Assertion that the only people who oppose banning porn must be consumers of it. Also a straw man.
This is the second time I've told you not to ask me to defend a position that I am not advocating, and yet here you go again.
There is a fundamental difference between profiting off of immoral activities that victimize people against their will, especially children, and profiting off of immoral, even harmful activities that consenting adults engage in of their own free will. Lumping them all together in an effort to slander and shame me is gaslighting, strawmanning, positively leftist moralfagging.
You could use the same argument to advocate for banning tobacco, alcohol or any other vice. The idea that vices and addictions are used by nefarious forces to control people's behavior, but that those who seek to ban those vices are not seeking to control people's behavior is absolutely ludicrous. Oppressing people for what you believe to be their own good is still oppression, and I would argue that it is an even more megalomaniacal and immoral form of oppression than simple tyranny. And that is quite aside from the fact that societies all over the world have tried banning each of these things, and that countless individuals in those societies still consume them.
That doesn't mean my entire argument is null and void. That's not how arguments or logic works. I asked others to explain their views, they didn't. They just downvoted.
You're the only one that's replied in opposition to my stance. You explained how you believe porn should be allowed because of other reasons, reasons which I addressed.
As a blanket statement against everyone, yes. But it's observed reality. Do you also believe racism, bigotry, and misogyny are also wrong, because blanket statements are "hateful"? You're advocating for the exact same thing as the globalist left, just in a different position.
Wrong. While children are rightfully protected by their family until they reach an age where they can make their own decisions, that doesn't mean everyone that's not a child can make good decisions. A bad thing is bad if its done to an adult or a child. The only reason some things hold more weight against children is because one of the foundational requirements for civilization to exist is that we must protect our children. It's a biologically driven imperative to protect our offspring, so our family and people can persist in the future. There are also exceptions where certain adult activities (sex) should be rightfully hidden from children. That doesn't mean, however, that all activities "legal" that can be done to adults is somehow fine.
You're still arguing for a position which would require you to make all actions (good or bad) legal, because according to you, everyone should be able to make their own decisions. You can't have it both ways. Either immorality should be illegal and enforced, depending on the views of the people, or legal and not enforced.
Taking your positions to their logical conclusion, and extrapolating them into areas you didn't consider, or wish to address (because it paints your argument poorly), doesn't mean I'm gaslighting you, or straw manning.
Calling me names doesn't change the arguments. Address the arguments. You claim to be logical, but use ad hominems (logical fallacies). This is why I press people in debates. They admit to things they normally wouldn't.
Yes, and? You act like somehow disproves everything I've said. I also said that the local and state governments should hold the most power, and people can rightfully decided what is allowed and what isn't, so long as people are free to move.
Wait, what? This statement doesn't make sense. It's globalists that are pushing porn and sexual degeneracy on the public. Globalists aren't trying to ban porn. They're actively trying to make it more widely available. They're exposing kids to it. They're trying to normalize it and all forms of sexual degeneracy. The only people advocating for the banning of porn are on the right, and very, very few people on the left arguing that it harms women, which by itself is true.
Where are you getting this idea that the people advocating for banning porn are using porn itself as a control mechanism? It's not me, or anyone else advocating for banning it. We're not in power. It's globalists that are in power, on both sides of the political spectrum at the higher echelons. They're the ones that have legalized it, using false arguments surrounding free speech. They're the ones using it as a control mechanism. They're the ones hurting people, in far more ways than just easy access to porn.
Interesting use of words. It's the left/globalists that can't let go of using "oppression". It's so commonly used it's one of the keywords to identify them. Their entire worldview, at least with how it's pushed on us, is through the oppressor/oppressed dynamic.
You're also arguing in bad faith. Do you feel "oppressed" by any other moral law on the books, or any law whatsoever that even has an inkling of moral justification to it? Laws are meant to enforce the people's moral, religious, and philosophical views upon the society they're in. It's only oppression if people are prevented from leaving. Go live in your hedonistic libertarian hellworld. I've had enough of it. I'm going to force my views on the groups I'm in, because I've seen, we've all seen, the fruits of that poisonous tree. It results in good people too afraid to enforce their views upon society when the most evil, hedonistic, degenerate aren't afraid to force their views upon society. It pushes us closer to civilizational collapse. We're experiencing Rome 2.0 and Weimar Germany 2.0 at the exact same time.
You're also arguing for strict individualism. Individualism, by itself, is a failed and self destructive philosophy. So, too, is collectivism by itself. Reality meets in the middle. That's where the debate is. You're saying, explicitly or implicitly, by mistake or incompetence, that people don't belong to groups, that people/groups don't have a right to exist, that we're all atomized individuals making our own decisions independent of the group, that people/groups don't have a right to enforce their will, that we have no collective mutual interests or views. All those assertions, whether you admit to making them or not, are wrong.
Wow. Banning porn to protect people is "megalomaniacal tyranny". How easy it is for you to hate someone for taking away a tool of control being used against your fellow man.
This is what I hate about most debates I'm in. People love to skim through what is said. They don't listen or consider, they only want to speak. That's not how debates work. That's not how conversation works. If you'd bother to read my long form dissection of porn, you'd realize that's not why we invented speech in the first place, the purpose of speech. You're bypassing all of them, just to talk. You haven't listened or considered.
If you'd bother to actually read what I posted, what you just directly replied to, you'd see that I already responded to this. Just because people ban something doesn't mean it goes away completely. Just because you can't completely get rid of something doesn't mean you shouldn't try. Just because you can't completely get rid of something doesn't mean it's right, and trying to ban it is wrong. Murder, rape, theft, and pedophilia are all illegal, and they still exist. Using your own argument, do you suggest we make those legal too?
.....
In any case, go ahead and continue to believe that enforcing your views upon society is wrong. I don't agree with that viewpoint, and I'm going to enforce my views upon whatever group I'm in. If you don't assert your views, but I assert mine, then I'll get what I want, and you don't. Call me a tyrant all you want. I don't care.