I think I can underbid whoever won that contract.

Wow, WOTC vying for Disney's spot at the pinnacle of self-destruction through killing their own cash cows.

Circumcision achieves nothing that abstinence, condoms and regularly washing your genitalia with soap does not.

Comparing people who oppose mutilating the genitals of defenseless infants to a pedophile like John Money is not just irresponsible: it is ludicrous and fundamentally dishonest. You are not arguing in good faith.

So is removing non functional sex organs, there’s far more data showing positive long term health outcomes from removing the foreskin than keeping it.

Ah yes, Men are too stupid to know what soap and condoms are, so the only solution is to cut off the perfectly healthy body parts of infants. You sound like a feminist.

Meissner’s corpuscles, the exact same type in your fingertips.

You say that like it changes something.

Anesthesia on Neonatals cause far more harm long term than short term pain that heals extremely quickly, in fact faster than any other point in a persons life, which is why they do it then

There is not a single good reason to do it at all, and so mutilating the genitals of defenseless infants who don't have a choice in order to make it easier on them later on is about as logical as dropping a nuke on a city full of people so they don't have to die of old age.

The “pain trauma” line is again sad copium done by John Money the pedophile.

Since we're throwing around pedophile comparisons with such irresponsible abandon, why is it so important to you that we continue to sanction the cosmetic genital mutilation of little babies?

Removing tonsils or an appendix serves a medical purpose if they become inflamed. Circumcision is cosmetic, and even if it were true that the foreskin is "non-functional," that would still be true.

An intact foreskin has 20000 nerve endings, which is four times as many as there are in the glans of your penis. First of all, it is absolute bullshit cope when doctors tell you that removing a body part that sensitive from an infant without anesthetic doesn't hurt them. Secondly, if you have been permanently disfigured in this way, you will never enjoy sex as much as a man who has not. It is genital mutilation, period.

I just want to point out to anyone who wasn't aware that the woman who accused Trevor Bauer of assaulting her had actually spent a long period of time stalking and harassing him, to the point where he tried to get a restraining order against her, and only then made these accusations.

Or just use the ascii code. For a lower-case i with an umlaut, hold down alt and type 139

kidnapped, raped and tortured

I think you mean "culturally enriched."

I can't wait for Senator Markle to introduce a bill calling for regime change in the UK and the removal of the racist tyrants in the Royal Family.

Who even uses Twitter?

While we're at it, who really killed Sam Giancana?

Or who killed Jeffrey Epstein

Aloha snackbar?

Imp is right in the same way Trump is right. Not necessarily in terms of specifics, but most people understand the gist of what he's trying to say.

I'm pretty sure a 3-year-old account with 33000 comment points is not an Imp alt. Perhaps more people agree with him than some users on here would like to think.

They could have been. I wonder what happened to make them so lonely, desperate and antisocial?

I never liked Gambon as Dumbledore, but that's not necessarily a hit against him as an actor. He was a very high-energy guy for his whole life, even into old age, and he always brought the same frenetic, slightly manic edge to the characters he portrayed. And he was great at it: his screen presence and his ability to project barely-contained madness added a lot to pretty much everything he was in.

As a blanket statement against everyone, yes. But it's observed reality.

Your observations. Not reality.

A bad thing is bad if its done to an adult or a child

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

How easy it is for you to hate someone for taking away a tool of control being used against your fellow man.

Bans are a tool of control being used against my fellow man, you moron.

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.

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.

The left falling over themselves trying to decide how to defend this while condemning it has been the most entertaining thing I've seen this year.

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 does that have to do with banning or not banning porn?

You are still desperately clinging to all of your original strawmen, because you are clearly incapable of arguing your position without them.

I see only a few people in this thread arguing against banning porn on free speech grounds, and I am not one of them, so asking me to defend that position is either ignorant or dishonest. Most people in this thread seem to oppose the idea of banning porn for purely practical reasons (blanket bans of ubiquitously available artefacts don't work and have never worked) or out of a general distrust of government and power structures, or a belief that individuals are ultimately responsible for their own moral upkeep.

As for your assertion that only porn consumers oppose banning porn, I don't consume porn and still oppose banning it. For the reasons stated above, and because I think people should be free to earn a living from pornography if they want to, as well as free to consume it if they want to, in the same way alcohol and cigarettes are destructive to our health, but should still be legal.

And even though I am not making and have never made the argument that porn is speech and falls under free speech protection, you certainly appear to believe both, because you have just made the argument, in the context of supporting a prohibition on porn, that there are or should be exceptions to total free speech. And the only people who believe that are Communist scum.

You can debate u/ApexVeritas, but only if you do so within the confines of the terms here set forth:

I've made long form comments here detailing why porn isn't speech

But he's not going to link to any of them, or summarize them here: it's your responsibility to go and find them.

there are legitimate exceptions to total free speech.

Wherein the commenter reveals he is a dirty pinko commie.

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

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

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.

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

It's only ever logical fallacies and gaslighting.

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.

Our current state of degeneracy is not solely due to government legalizing things that are immoral, but also due to them criminalizing or censoring the moral forces that stand in opposition to immorality. That's the opposite of what libertarians advocate for: it's the product of a government with a moral agenda. If we had a government that understood that its role is not to act as a moral arbiter, then the degenerate cultural forces would be suppressed by moral cultural forces that were free to act without constraint.

Adults should be allowed to debase and humiliate themselves for money if they want to.