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.
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.
Your observations. Not reality.
If an adult consents to engage in harmful or immoral activity, they have the right to do so, and they are giving any other parties involved permission to profit from it. Because adults have free will, and can choose to do that if they want to. Neither you nor anybody else has the right to prevent them from making such a decision: Your belief that such individuals are your moral inferior does not give you veto power over their decisions or behavior.
As long as their actions are not harming others who did not consent to participate in those activities, then yes. It is not the role of government to arbitrate morality. It is the role of government to protect people's rights.
It does make sense. You are seeking to control people's behavior by banning an activity that you find morally objectionable. That you believe your motivations are better than those of the globalists who are seeking to control people's behavior is irrelevant. You want to take away the freedom of adults to consume porn because you don't like it, full stop.
Quite aside from the fact that making this argument in favor of government authoritarianism only further empowers the left to use these arguments to take away your rights when they regain power, this view is also fundamentally at odds with the very concept of individual rights and human autonomy upon which our entire civilization is based. It's not any more acceptable coming from a moralfagging paleoconservative than it is coming from a leftist.
It is the responsibility of parents to ensure that children are not accessing or being exploited by activities that are harmful to them, not the government. Just as it is the responsibility of parents to educate their children about sexuality, not government-run schools.
Bans are a tool of control being used against my fellow man, you moron.
For the last fucking time, I am not making a free speech argument regarding porn, so all of your carefully-crafted ad nauseum talking points about the nature of free speech and why porn is not included are lost on me. I don't care. If you had bothered to read what I said, you would know that.
I can't say "everyone is this way" since I haven't met everyone, but I can make educated extrapolations based on a lot of observations. Based on what I've seen from many years, what I said is true. You can deny it all you want, which is what you're weirdly trying to do. Most studies on this subject also show that most men, the vast majority, are consumers of porn.
You're still sticking to this argument? Why? Do you really, REALLY think people exist as atomized individuals devoid of all commonality and mutual interest? Do you really, REALLY think not a single law on the books is based on widely accepted morality by the majority of people, or even has hints of moral justifications?
According to your own logic, it would require you to throw out all of those laws, because you can't enforce morality on other people. Right? Otherwise it would be "tyrannical" and "moralfagging".
Bull! People absolutely have a right to enforce their morality in the spaces they're in. I'm not sure if you know this, but nations are meant to be homogeneous. People are meant to group up to pursue mutual interests and goals with like minded people. Who do you think is pushing diversity, in every conceivable way, upon Western civilization? The exact same people pushing porn on us. They're intentionally dividing us, by people, by varying morality, by varying religions, languages, and philosophical beliefs. That's not how nations naturally exist.
A house divided against itself can't stand. We're being intentionally replaced and divided, and you're defending the people doing it, defending the means by which they control us. Why? I have no idea. I just find it incredibly questionable.
Government does both. It's not an either/or scenario. What is government currently doing? It's enforcing the edicts of the people in power and infringing on our liberties. You also keep skipping over the part where I say that governments, in their best form, should be more powerful at the state and local level. But hey, in the current form, I don't trust current Western governments to ban anything. All of this kind of stuff will be decided after the collapse and reformation of nations. Western civilization is headed toward collapse. Every single metric points one way. One of the reasons for it is people like you, afraid to enforce their views, and telling people like me that I can't, with vociferous antagonism, a viciousness I don't see aimed at the people in power who are responsible.
Do you not recall how this conversation started, with how venomous you were? You may as well have just admitted that you've already decided you hate me, that we've already interacted in the past in a way you didn't like, and have an ax to grind. Are you using an alt? I don't remember talking to you before.
Ah, I misread.
Yes, and? It's within my rights as a person of the groups I'm in.
Wait, you're seriously condemning me to the same level as globalists, that my motivations are no better than theirs? Holy moly. Your objective measure of reality is insanely questionable. Globalists wish to control people, to kill and replace White people in our own countries, to use us to fight their wars using false flags, killing millions upon millions of people, for their own ends, import drugs en masse to keep us sedated and sick, put propaganda in schools, news, Hollywood, and social media to keep us stupid and brainwashed, put demoralization and normalization propaganda in their media to keep us weakened, brainwash us into false ideologies and philosophies to keep us failing, separated, and weak, attack, denigrate, and undermine femininity and feminine women, attack, denigrate, and undermine masculine men, to keep us weak, unable to fight back, and separated from our own people, make divorce common and encouraged to reduce the number of marriages and children, implement abortion to reduce the number of children further, push porn and LGBTQ on the entire populace, to move us away from what works, they indoctrinate children into their perversions, attack, denigrate, and undermine all traditions which enabled our success in the first place, print money out of thin air and reduce our spending power through inflation, mass import non-whites to replace us and perpetually reduce average wages, push women into the workforce en masse so they're less likely to pursue husbands and have children, reducing everyone's wages, now requiring both parents to work to earn less than the father used to be able to earn on his own, and they gaslight and lie to us the entire time, censoring and attacking anyone who dares question any aspect of their hellworld...
...and you say my differences to globalists is "irrelevant"? All because I want to ban porn to protect people, especially from globalists?
Are you mad?
Oh okay, it took me a while to realize that you're just making a long form admission that you're an anarchist. You don't actually believe in government, in any form. You think people should be able to do whatever they want. You'll disagree of course, but your other statements are in opposition.
Government by itself isn't evil. The form it takes and how it acts is what makes it evil. As I'll say again (and again, so maybe you'll read it), concentration of power into large centralized governments is bad. Local and state governments should hold the most power. Current forms of government are too corrupt to trust with banning anything. This will all be decided after the collapse. For the record, I don't want to live anywhere near you. I assume the feeling is mutual. Go live in your libertarian anarchist "paradise". I'll live in one of my making.
Thanks for confirming again that you're skimming what I say and that you're a self destructive individualist. Why does civilization exist? Why does any group of people exist? It's because we can achieve more together than we can apart. That means sacrificing individuality for the common good, or collective interest. This happens naturally because people are supposed to group up with like minded people that have the same or near similar views. Forced diversity of ideas is another control mechanism of globalists. Feel free to have your own ideas, but enforce them in your own city and state. I want nothing to do with them. They've already proven to be failures.
Individualism, by itself, it inherently self destructive. So, too, is collectivism by itself. Reality meets in the middle. That's where the debate is. You're advocating for self destructive individualism while the globalists are ever increasing their hold over the collective. You're advocating for a losing position against an entrenched enemy not playing by your rules. You're crying out "I will lose" as loud as you can through your philosophies. What's the first reason people group up? It's for mutual survival. You have completely abandoned the concept of the collective for your own selfish individual interests. You decry "individual rights" but don't give a damn about what happens to anyone around you. You not only want to allow destructive pursuits for people, but actively attack anyone who dares take it away. You attack anyone advocating for the collective interests. You've broken down civilization itself, robbed the people of all mutual endeavors, down to mutual survival. You might as well wear a big sign that says "kill me" with how self destructive your philosophy is. The problem is that you're not just advocating it for yourself, you're advocating it for everyone. Do you not realize the hypocrisy of your stance? You're actually enforcing your philosophical views on others, to their detriment. I only advocate for banning of porn, to help people. You decry about imaginary "rights" being infringed, but in reality its only porn I want to ban. Porn isn't a human right.
I don't know if you know this, but the communities we're a part of are supposed to uphold our views and help raise children. It's collective self interest to keep children safe, healthy, and free from subversion and degeneracy. A people that can't protect their children deserves to die. This mutual interest doesn't end at childhood either. A people that can't protect one another deserves to die. Your society deserves to die. You leave all responsibility on the individual, and not on everyone else for allowing such evils to exist. You rob everyone of collective shared interests.
This has already been addressed multiple times, and refuted multiple times. The name calling isn't required. Address the arguments.
Go reread everything. You've skimmed over stuff I've already addressed and refuted, multiple times. That, or you're intentionally ignoring it because you don't have an answer. I'm increasingly leaning toward the latter, as you've approached this entire debate in bad faith. Don't believe me? Go reread what your initial reply to me was. It reeks of hatred, not just for disagreement over this, but over previous engagements. Of what, I don't know.
Also, again, you're directing an unusual amount of vitriol at me, merely for suggesting banning porn, a control mechanism used to harm your own people. You deflect and say this isn't about speech, but then claim I'd be infringing upon peoples rights by banning porn. Which is it? So, the only reasonable conclusions is that you either don't care about your own people, you don't belong here (we're not your people), you're lying about your motivations, or your a complete, unequivocal moron. I really don't like using ad hominems in debate, as it detracts from the purpose, but in this case it's a reasonable extrapolation from your expressed views given the current environment in the world.
I've read everything you said. There was one passage I misread one word, but I went back and reread it and addressed it above. I also quoted and broke down nearly every part of your comments. You've conveniently skipped over a lot of what I said.
It doesn't matter, though. You'll continue to enforce your philosophical views on people that are known failures, and I'll enforce mine after the collapse, caused in part by people like you who will be in the vast minority afterward, for reasons you apparently can't comprehend. Hell, I doubt you'll even survive, as you've completely sworn off the entire idea of collective mutual interests. Go be a "rugged individualist", see how far that gets you in civilizational collapse. Remember, grouping up is wrong. Each person needs to make their own decisions and look out for themselves, remember?