What straw men? Point them out. Be specific

I'd like a legitimate explanation for why porn is speech, and why it should be allowed.

Again, this is insisting that anyone who argues the latter must also argue the former. It is a straw man.

If I see people who should know better, but still defend the instruments of their own enslavement, I can only conclude it's because they're addicted.

Assertion that the only people who oppose banning porn must be consumers of it. Also a straw man.

I've seen no logical justification for why porn is speech or why porn should be allowed under free speech.

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.

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?

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.

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 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.

What straw men? Point them out. Be specific

I'd like a legitimate explanation for why porn is speech, and why it should be allowed.

Again, this is insisting that anyone who argues the latter must also argue the former. It is a straw man.

If I see people who should know better, but still defend the instruments of their own enslavement, I can only conclude it's because they're addicted.

Assertion that the only people who oppose banning porn must be consumers of it. Also a straw man.

I've seen no logical justification for why porn is speech or why porn should be allowed under free speech.

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.

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?

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.

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 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 the forces which 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.

What straw men? Point them out. Be specific

I'd like a legitimate explanation for why porn is speech, and why it should be allowed.

Again, this is insisting that anyone who argues the latter must also argue the former. It is a straw man.

If I see people who should know better, but still defend the instruments of their own enslavement, I can only conclude it's because they're addicted.

Assertion that the only people who oppose banning porn must be consumers of it. Also a straw man.

I've seen no logical justification for why porn is speech or why porn should be allowed under free speech.

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.

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?

There is a fundamental difference between profiting off of immoral activities that victimize people against their will, especially children, and profiting off of immoral 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.

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 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 the forces which 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 socities all over the world have tried banning each of these things, and that countless individuals in those societies still consume them.

What straw men? Point them out. Be specific

'd like a legitimate explanation for why porn is speech, and why it should be allowed.

Again, this is insisting that anyone who argues the latter must also argue the former. It is a straw man.

If I see people who should know better, but still defend the instruments of their own enslavement, I can only conclude it's because they're addicted.

Assertion that the only people who oppose banning porn must be consumers of it. Also a straw man.

I've seen no logical justification for why porn is speech or why porn should be allowed under free speech.

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.

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?

There is a fundamental difference between profiting off of immoral activities that victimize people against their will, especially children, and profiting off of immoral 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.

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 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 the forces which 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 morally objectionable form of oppression than simple tyranny. And that is quite aside from the fact that socities all over the world have tried banning each of these things, and that countless individuals in those societies still consume them.

What straw men? Point them out. Be specific

'd like a legitimate explanation for why porn is speech, and why it should be allowed.

Again, this is insisting that anyone who argues the latter must also argue the former. It is a straw man.

If I see people who should know better, but still defend the instruments of their own enslavement, I can only conclude it's because they're addicted.

Assertion that the only people who oppose banning porn must be consumers of it. Also a straw man.

I've seen no logical justification for why porn is speech or why porn should be allowed under free speech.

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.

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?

There is a fundamental difference between profiting off of immoral activities that victimize people against their will, especially children, and profiting off of immoral 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.

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 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 the forces which seek to ban those vices are not seeking to control people's behavior is absolutely ludicrous. Oppressing people for their own good is still oppression. And that is quite aside from the fact that socities all over the world have tried banning each of these things, and that countless individuals in those societies still consume them.

What straw men? Point them out. Be specific

'd like a legitimate explanation for why porn is speech, and why it should be allowed.

Again, this is insisting that anyone who argues the latter must also argue the former. It is a straw man.

If I see people who should know better, but still defend the instruments of their own enslavement, I can only conclude it's because they're addicted.

Assertion that the only people who oppose banning porn must be consumers of it. Also a straw man.

I've seen no logical justification for why porn is speech or why porn should be allowed under free speech.

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.

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?

There is a fundamental difference between profiting off of immoral activities that victimize people against their will, especially children, and profiting off of immoral 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.

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 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 the forces which seek to ban those vices are not seeking to control people's behavior is absolutely ludicrous.

What straw men? Point them out. Be specific

'd like a legitimate explanation for why porn is speech, and why it should be allowed.

Again, this is insisting that anyone who argues the latter must also argue the former. It is a straw man.

If I see people who should know better, but still defend the instruments of their own enslavement, I can only conclude it's because they're addicted.

Assertion that the only people who oppose banning porn must be consumers of it. Also a straw man.

I've seen no logical justification for why porn is speech or why porn should be allowed under free speech.

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.

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?

There is a fundamental difference between profiting off of immoral activities that victimize people against their will, especially children, and profiting off of immoral 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.

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 could use the same argument to advocate for banning tobacco, alcohol or any other vice. The idea that addictions are used by nefarious forces to control people's behavior, but that the forces which seek to ban those vices are not seeking to control people's behavior is absolutely ludicrous.