LOL. Would be hilarious if these retards started putting yellow stars on themselves.

They attack the problem (their own hypocrisy) from both sides. They make ridiculous claims that non-whites were always part of Europe, and then also claim that Europeans are pure evil and deserve to be ethnically replaced. Many lefties and globalist are already saying they want White people to die. The shill comments are all over mainstream platforms saying this, priming people for the next stage of genocide propaganda.

Term limits are only one part of a much bigger solution. There are other things that clearly need to be done to reign in federal government tyranny.

and debates on this usually end up at "The courts have ruled it as such." In other words, because some judge somewhere said so.

Yep, I agree. That's definitely an appeal to authority.

I may be accused of doing the same thing by pointing out that the founders would not have considered porn to be free speech, but I actually don't care about their opinion. I'm only saying that they would know better than anyone what the amendment was intended for.

Also keep in mind that most, but not all, of the Founding Fathers were ardent Christians. They intended for the U.S. to be a White Christian ethnostate. They never, ever would've agreed that porn was protected under the 1st Amendment, nor would they have agreed that porn was speech. Most people back then were very traditional, even by today's traditionalist's standards.

I don't agree with your strawmen at the end, and dagthegnome covered that already.

My personal experience when debating people on this subject, reading what people think and what their views are, generally, for many, many years, and from all of the studies on porn use show that most men consume porn, and many (most?) are addicted to it. I've seen what addicts say when you try to take away their dopamine source. I've been to AA meetings for family members. I know how addiction works. I struggle with my own addictions. Addicts lash out and attack you, using the exact same arguments and justifications that people in this thread use to justify their addiction, even if what you're doing will help them.

You're right, though, my assertion is pure conjecture, but it's in good faith, and supported by a lot of evidence.

Porn isn't speech. That has always been a weak Appeal To Authority argument that always annoyed me because it becomes a thought terminator argument and makes it hard to ever debate the issue

I haven't heard that before. How is advocating porn as speech an appeal to authority? Do you mean relying on what other bad faith actors have said about porn being speech? If so, I agree. Everyone, even many people on the right, just seem to accept that porn is somehow speech, without every questioning it. I unequivocally disagree that porn is speech. It doesn't fulfill any of the reasons for speech. At the most, porn is "bad" speech, in that it's objectively harmful. For more clarification, check out my longer reply to dagthegnome where I dissect porn point by point.

It's not a First Amendment issue, but this just isn't something I want the government to have power over

Currently, I wouldn't want the federal government to have this power either. This is all just academic right now. Western civilization is headed toward collapse, and one of the primary reasons is uncontrolled hedonism. Governments shouldn't be concentrated at the top. I believe the Founding Fathers of the U.S. had it right, that local and state governments should hold the most power and the federal government the least. In this regard, I absolutely understand people's hesitance to ban porn. It's because most people have been gaslit into believing everything needs to be decided on the federal and global level. That's not how people work. People are supposed to form communities around like minded people, who hold very similar views, views which become less common the larger the populace becomes and the greater the distances, which is one of the reasons why large centralized governments should hold the least power, because of decreasing commonality among the citizenry.

However, I absolutely think local and state governments should have the power to ban porn. If people don't like it, they're free to leave. I'd even trust some state governments with doing this currently.

and people will get their rocks off in some other way which might be worse.

Eh, maybe. This is all academic for me, currently. I'm pretty much certain that civilizational collapse is headed our way, and it's accelerating. Every vector is pointing in one direction. Mass violence and misery is going to happen, whether we want it or not. How it plays out, I don't know. All I know is that current Western civilization can't maintain itself. This conversation is more useful for after the collapse and reformation. But, that's a big tangent.

pro-porn people (and I lean more strongly towards that camp) need to come up with better arguments than free speech. Not only is it a weak argument, but even mixing platitudes like "freedom of expression" and making the first amendment about art or entertainment dilutes its actual purpose - which is to protect all our other rights through the public dissemination of anti-government political speech and controversial ideas. So we don't become like the bugmen.

I find this somewhat fascinating, as I've drifted to the "extremes" of this debate. I actually believe that free speech goes far beyond mere criticism of government. It's the idea that people should be free to express their opinions, free from punishment. When you look at it, all a freedom/right/liberty is, is the ability to do something without being punished. People are free to dissassociate from people they disagree with, but that's not really a punishment, even though corporate woke culture is weaponizing it (deplatforming) against people who say any form of wrongthink. Free speech isn't for talking about the weather, it's the idea that people are free to say things other people don't want them to. We've seen what powerful corporations can do under the guise of the "free market". Censorship abounds under "hate speech" rules, and people (mostly leftists) actively defend it, because "technically, the government isn't censoring you", when in reality they only agree with it because it's censoring their political opponents. Concentration of power by itself is dangerous, whether through corporations or governments. I freely admit that. However, natural rights (like free speech) go far beyond what's entailed in the Constitution. Granted, the federal government was meant to protect our liberties, which they're now infringing on.

I'll give a short example. The 2nd Amendment isn't about gun ownership. It's about people being able to protect themselves. The 1st natural right of all life is that it has a right to live. The 2nd natural right of all life, therefore, is the ability for life to protect itself, so it can continue living. The 2nd Amendment is a roundabout way of ensconcing the 2nd natural right of life, by enabling people to carry the most advanced and compact force equalizer, a means of protecting themselves from aggressors, no matter who they may be. If someone advocates for the banning of guns, it means they don't believe people have the right to defend themselves, and ultimately (whether by incompetence or maliciousness) means they don't think people have the right to live, or more accurately, wish to decide when people live or die. The malicious won't admit this, of course, and the incompetent (useful idiots) have never thought about it. Even most avid gun "nuts" haven't even thought of this, because the current arguments are often a distraction, to keep people from the core, foundational reasons, which easily cuts through the bullshit and lies.

In any case, I'm closer to a free speech absolutist. However, the one exception I have is porn. Porn isn't speech, and even if it was, it shouldn't be allowed under free speech laws. Porn is actively harmful to people. It's a control mechanism used by the people in power to keep men lonely, without a wife and children, weak, addicted to degeneracy and hedonistic pursuits, and unmotivated.

Your observations. Not reality.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

It does make sense.

Ah, I misread.

You are seeking to control people's behavior by banning an activity that you find morally objectionable.

Yes, and? It's within my rights as a person of the groups I'm in.

That you believe your motivations are better than those of the globalists who are seeking to control people's behavior is irrelevant.

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?

You want to take away the freedom of adults to consume porn because you don't like it, full stop.

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.

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

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.

this view is also fundamentally at odds with the very concept of individual rights and human autonomy upon which our entire civilization is based.

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.

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.

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.

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.

This has already been addressed multiple times, and refuted multiple times. The name calling isn't required. Address the arguments.

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.

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.

If you had bothered to read what I said, you would know that.

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?

There's still propaganda in media from back then, but it's far more subtle, and they still have good messages.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

positively leftist moralfagging.

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.

You could use the same argument to advocate for banning tobacco, alcohol or any other vice.

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.

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.

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.

Oppressing people for what you believe to be their own good is still oppression

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.

and I would argue that it is an even more megalomaniacal and immoral form of oppression than simple tyranny.

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.

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.

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.

I just started rewatching Farscape. Every single actor and extra is White, except maybe one or two. It's really weird watching it, like an alternate universe. It's like watching old videos of cities before they got diversified. It's evidence of what the West was like before the propaganda and forced replacement.

Same with blondes. Blondes are almost always portrayed as stupid, weak, or evil, or just non existent. Red and blonde hair is predominantly unique to White people. It's a humiliation ritual and conditioning propaganda for the Kalergi plan.

All of the "conspiracy theories" surrounding this show have been proven true ever since Henry Cavill exited the show.

The producers and writers intentionally miscast the characters to insert diversity and piss off the fans. They actively hate the Witcher games and the fans. They actively hate the Witcher stories and lore, but used it to push their messaging. They denied it when the fans rightfully called them out when the show was released, but now admitted to all of it on their social media trying to deflect blame now that Henry Cavill left and the show is failing.

You're defending the libertarian position, that it's wrong for people to enforce their moral views upon the groups they're in.

You are still desperately clinging to all of your original strawmen

What straw men? Point them out. Be specific.

Most people in this thread seem to oppose the idea of banning porn for purely practical reasons

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.

blanket bans of ubiquitously available artefacts don't work and have never worked

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.

or out of a general distrust of government and power structures

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.

or a belief that individuals are ultimately responsible for their own moral upkeep.

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.

As for your assertion that only porn consumers oppose banning porn, I don't consume porn and still oppose banning it.

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.

and because I think people should be free to earn a living from pornography if they want to

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.

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.

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.

Shouldn't we care for our neighbors and people more than that? Shouldn't we want the people we care about to not hurt themselves? If we truly care about someone, would we not tell them when they make a mistake, and if need be, cut them off from known destructive pursuits, just as a firefighter rescues someone from a fire?

By your own logic, should we not get rid of all laws, because people should be free to make whatever decision they wish, guided solely by their own "self-control, moderation, and restraint"? Isn't modern society already like that, with hedonism aplenty? What's happened with Western society as we've let immorality reign? More and more people have fallen to it. That's not the actions of a caring people. It's those of addicts, cowards too afraid to say "this is wrong", too afraid to enforce their morality on others, and others too apathetic to care.

What happens to civilization when hedonism, immorality, cowardice, and apathy reign?

Every single nation on earth, or group of people regardless of size, enforces their views upon the nation/group(s) they're in. Some people are happy to not do so, leaving the rules decided upon by those that are willing to do so, often to the detriment of the group.

There's nothing inherently wrong with enforcing your views upon the groups you're in, only with what's enforced, and if you prevent people from leaving if they don't approve.

A point can often be made more clear by taking it to the extreme. Murder, rape, and pedophilia are made illegal according to current morality, passed by a people who view them as repugnant and wrong. Granted, such laws have logical justifications, but so too does varying views on morality. Even people who are wholly evil have justifications for their beliefs and actions, even if they're wrong. What about moral laws less severe? Do they all get thrown out? Why?

There is a huge expanse of varying political, religious, and moral philosophies, all with varying justifications for their views. Everyone else on earth is fine with enforcing their views upon society. From what I've seen, it's mostly only been White people that have been brainwashed into thinking it's wrong for them to do so. Libertarianism, while justified in many areas, fails to consider the collective interests of the people. What else has been a self destructive philosophy pushed upon the White West, especially among right leaning groups? Rampant individualism, which robs people of collective mutual interests, that we're a part of groups, for good reasons.

You're also forgetting that not every single thing has to be decided on the federal and global level. The United States was set up to where local and state governments held the most power, and the federal government the least. If people don't like specific laws of their home city or state, they can easily move to another more to their liking. If such things are decided on the federal and global scale, it's much more difficult, or impossible, to move away from it.

Lets look at non-white countries which do enforce their views, harshly, like the Islamic Middle East, or Africa, or China. What will they be in the future? They'll remain how they are now. You may disagree with what they're doing, but the end result is far better than the alternative. What's happening to Western countries not enforcing their views? We're being replaced, atomized, and intentionally diversified because the host population, White people, are too afraid to enforce their views. White Western civilization will cease to exist if the current trends hold, and war doesn't break out.

Except that libertarians, or White people in general, don't like to advocate for or enforce their positions/views upon society. We've all been gaslit into thinking that advocating for what we want is somehow despotic and tyrannical. We "live and let live" while the rest of the damned planet is more than happy to exert their will upon us.

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.

But he's not going to link to any of them

Here ya go:

Point 1 (the purpose of speech):

Why did humans invent spoken languages? It was initially to communicate dangers (watch out for that snake/spider/lion/poisonous plant), and to convey helpful information (that plant is edible, that plant treats this ailment, it's better to build here, it's better to plant this now, it's better to hunt like this, it's better to make your spear point like this). Why did humans invent written languages? It was to teach our children this same information. The foremost priority of speech is to convey useful information. What useful information does porn convey? Nothing. People have been procreating long before porn.

What's the purpose of written languages, of teaching our children, and education in general? Is it not to improve over time? Is it not to enable our children to be better than we were, to know more than we knew, to reach farther than we did? Does porn help our children? No.

Point 2 (marriage, civilization, and porn):

What's the basis for civilization? It's the family, not the individual. While a strong individual is necessary for strong civilization, strong individuals almost universally come from strong families. Just look at the modern studies comparing intact households to single parent households. Every conceivable metric for success for the children is greater with the father present, with a 2 parent household.

To go back to the foundation: humans are sexually dimorphic. Men evolved to be bigger, stronger, more logical, and to do the laborious and dangerous tasks far from home/tribe. Men evolved physically and mentally to fulfill their role as protector and provider. Women evolved to be smaller, weaker, more empathetic and emotional, to bear and feed children, and to do the easier and less dangerous tasks within the safety of the home/tribe. Women evolved physically and mentally to fulfill their role as mother and homemaker. It's division of labor and specialization of the sexes, to increase species efficiency, to increase our likelihood of survival and success. That's why when one man and one woman come together to form a complete human that only then can they continue the species. That's why traditional marriage, between one man and one woman, has always been a staple of stable and successful civilization. It works within our evolution/creation to the very advantage it was designed to give, for everyone involved: men, women, children, and civilization.

Men's traditional role is protector and provider, and in marriage he gives exclusive protection and provision to his wife and future children. Women's traditional role is mother and homemaker, and in marriage she gives exclusive breeding rights to her man, takes care of the home, and rears the children. It's a mutually beneficial arrangement between a man and woman. The children are given the most efficient environment for staying healthy, reaching adulthood, and becoming strong members of society. Civilization gains by getting more and strong members, enabling it to continue in stability and success. It's the most basic bargain of civilization, and the species itself, and all parties gain from it.

Does porn damage this bargain? Yes. However, it goes further than porn. All sex outside of the bargain of marriage is destructive. It short circuits the brains of men to pursue images of women (porn), rather than women themselves, or pursue women that aren't his (prostitution), when none gain in the exchange beyond the sex act itself. It's tantamount to eating when you gain no nutrition from it. Eventually you starve to death. It's why prostitution is regarded as "the oldest profession". It's probably why porn will always exist in some fashion or another, because our sex drive is so strong, as it must be to continue the species. It's why "simps" exist, who pay and defend women online for nothing in return. It's why website like OnlyFans exists. On the other side of the coin, it's also why women have largely used their new found powers granted via feminism to give government and corporate globalism greater power, power expressed in terms of protection and provision, the very role men traditionally provide. Government provides protection and welfare, and what women can't attain from government they work a job to provision themselves, replacing their need of men. This is why women have become so ridiculously picky in the Western dating market. However, the illusion of protection and provision provided by government and globalism is blind, fickle, callous, and corrupt. In the end, women will suffer just as much as men under tyranny.

The modern world is a corruption and upending of the natural order, which maintains civilization and the species itself. What's happened to the marriage rates, divorce rates, and the number of children per capita with the wide availability of porn? It's dismal. We're not having enough kids to replace our dying population, much less expand. This means our civilization is dying. What happened to men's ability and willingness to fight? It's almost non existent. Apathy is everywhere. It's why we haven't yet revolted from the tyranny we live under. We have fewer things worth fighting for, and therefore we're less likely to fight. While it's not the only consideration, porn has a heavy hand in it, and it's that destructive.

Point 3 (Kant's categorical imperative):

Kant's categorical imperative states that we should act in such a way that we wish that act becomes universal law, meaning everyone acted that way. It provides a good indication if an action is logical and moral, and if the actor is a hypocrite or not. It shows why murder is wrong, and so too is rape, theft, lying, cowardice, greed, laziness, apathy, ignorance, gluttony, prostitution, LGBTQ, and porn. Through the direct effects of an action becoming universal law, we can determine if society would improve or degrade. If everyone murdered there could be no civilization. If everyone lied, no one could trust each other, and there could be no civilization. If everyone was LGBTQ, we wouldn't have enough kids, and civilization would collapse. If everyone watched porn, we wouldn't have the sex drive to pursue meaningful relationships, we wouldn't have enough children, and civilization would collapse. Kant's categorical imperative teaches us both what is sinful, wrong, evil, illogical, hurtful, and destructive, and what is good, righteous, virtuous, logical, helpful, and productive.

Point 4 (porn and art):

The purpose of art is to convey beauty, virtues, lessons, and betterment of humanity. This is so with everything man creates: drawings, paintings, sculptures, buildings, architecture, tools, furniture, homes, stories, games, even ideas. We build and create things that are beautiful, that add to civilization, to inspire people to better themselves and to protect not just the art itself, but ourselves, our family, our neighbors, civilization itself. This core intent of artistry builds on itself over time in good people, where the art becomes better and more beautiful, and so too does man and civilization improve. This is an extension of the role of men in society. Not only do we protect and provide for our women in the bargain of the sexes, we often extend that role to society itself, to build a better and more beautiful world for our children.

Ugly art demoralizes and destroys. If everything around you is ugly, you will be demoralized, unwilling to better yourself, or anything around you, or be willing to fight and defend things worthwhile and good. That's why the Soviet's invented brutalist architecture. It's ugly and menacing. It's a way to weaken people, as a means to control us. Notice also that brutalist architecture is repeated in Western cityscapes, and the intent of brutalist architecture is repeated elsewhere in all other modern "art". That's why modern "art" is so degenerate and ugly. It's a perversion of the reason for art in the first place. It's why globalists have infiltrated almost all spheres of art creation. It's why globalists are the main purveyors of porn. All of it is meant to weaken and control us.

How can porn be considered art? While some may be more artful, the intent behind it is evil. We can see the intent by who makes the porn, who disseminates it, who defends it, and what the effects of it are, on individuals and society. This is why things like old Greek and Roman statues that show nudity can be considered art, while modern porn isn't. The intent is different, the purpose is different, and the effects are different. The ancient sculptures are beautiful, convey virtues, a pursuit of perfection and betterment of man, something worth defending. Porn is the antithesis of that.

For the purpose of this discussion on this platform, it could be argued that all nudity could be banned, as a safety measure. Beautiful art that shows nudity can be seen elsewhere, so it doesn't necessarily have to be allowed here. However, as others have pointed out, degeneracy and ugliness can be conveyed even when there is no nudity. A pedophile could just as easily post a picture of a lone fully clothed child, and it would be just as degenerate and wrong. The intent, purpose, and effects matter. One could question the difficulty in ascertaining such things. However, it's usually quite easy to see and determine once properly educated and experienced on the differences.

Point 5 (porn as a means of control):

How is porn used in modern society? Who pushes porn? Globalists use porn as a controlling device. It weakens men, and thus weakens society as a whole. It gives a worthless (destructive) outlet for men to "pursue" images of women, rather than pursuing women themselves through logical, natural, productive endeavors. It lets men give into lust, abandoning wisdom.

As a prime example, look at when Israel took control of Palestinian television. The Israeli government immediately began blasting porn on the channels they controlled, aimed directly at the Palestinians. Whatever your views on the politics of Israel and Palestine, ask yourself: why would they do this? It's to control men, to weaken them, to make them less likely to fight back. Is this not the reason why globalists use porn in the West? Bread and circuses, all of it. Everything the globalists do is meant to empower themselves, or to weaken and control us, in every avenue they control, in every media outlet, in every school, in every curriculum, in every social media platform, with everything censored and curated, in every website, in sports, in TV, in ads, in movies, in comics, in "art", in architecture, in government, in large corporations, in our diet, everything under their control they use to weaken and control us, including porn.

It's their intent, their purpose, and their effects. It makes globalists, and their machinations, incredibly easy to spot.

Conclusion

Porn should not be allowed. It's not speech, it doesn't convey useful information, it doesn't teach, it doesn't help men, women, or children, it doesn't help us improve, it destroys the institution and purpose of marriage, the very foundation of civilization and the species itself, it distracts men, it inhibits us from good and productive pursuits, it robs men of their labors since they get nothing in return, it reduces the number of children, it reduces the number of marriages, leading more women into the arms of government and globalism, it makes men more apathetic and less likely to fight back against tyranny and evil, it's not art, it doesn't convey beauty, virtues, morals, lessons, or betterment, it demoralizes and weakens men and society itself, and it's used as a control mechanism by globalists and evil people. In every conceivable way, porn is destructive and wrong.

I really don't get some of these comments. Many of y'all express that porn is bad, but that it should be allowed because "free speech" or some other excuse.

I've made long form comments here detailing why porn isn't speech, isn't art, and why there are legitimate exceptions to total free speech.

I'd like a legitimate, rational explanation for why porn is speech, and why it should be allowed. I've never heard a compelling argument for either. It's only ever logical fallacies and gaslighting, same as done by media, run by the same people in the porn industry.

Everyone should know by now that porn is a control mechanism for men, institited by evil people. If I see people that should know better, but still defend the instruments of their own enslavement, I can only conclude it's because they're addicted. Cut that poison out of your life. You all deserve better.

The few instances I've seen where people have voted on it, they overwhelmingly voted to stop immigration, but their votes were either ignored by the politicians or thrown out by activist judges.

There's pictures of Tarantino sniffing underage women's feet. He's one of those types of people. 4chan discussed this several years ago.

Most animals make sounds, to warn others of danger, to attract a mate, and as intimidation displays. Big animals don't make cute noises to achieve those things. Intimidation displays are meant to be loud and terrifying.

Lefties think themselves experts on every subject that comes up. They think themselves superior in every regard. Not once, have I seen or interacted with a lefty that didnt claim to know more. Hearing a lefty say "I don't know" is like spotting a unicorn. It's just that they're brainwashed idiots spouting falsehoods, fallacies, and lies. If they haven't been indoctrinated on a subject, they'll delay just long enough to research what the "authorities" say, and then castigate anyone saying anything contrary to what they just read.

Makes me want the villain to win. He sounds awesome. Hopefully he's also misogynist, racist, and antisemitic.

get the frell out of there

Nice, a fellow Farscape fan. I just started rewatching it again yesterday. I forgot how good that show is.

It should also be noted that the blood enemies of the national socialists were the communists, and the people behind the communists held power in Soviet Russia, people who had tried multiple communist revolutions in Weimar Germany before the NSDAP took power. The Germans probably knew they'd have no peace in their lifetime so long as Soviet Russia remained. I also wonder if the Germans knew what the Soviets were doing to the ethnically White Russians, like in the Holodomor.