Wherein the commenter reveals he is a dirty pinko commie.

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.

You may not argue one of these positions without arguing the other.

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?

Obviously if you oppose banning porn, it can only mean you are a consumer of it. There can be no other reason.

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.

Yes, having constructed all of the above strawmen as conditions for engaging with him, the philosopher is now going to accuse the rest of you of gaslighting.

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.

Wherein the commenter reveals he is a dirty pinko commie.

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.

You may not argue one of these positions without arguing the other.

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?

Obviously if you oppose banning porn, it can only mean you are a consumer of it. There can be no other reason.

I admittedly struggle with it just like every other guy on the planet. Our sex drives are strong for a reason. This is one of the reasons why pornography is so dangerous. 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.

Yes, having constructed all of the above strawmen as conditions for engaging with him, the philosopher is now going to accuse the rest of you of gaslighting.

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.