28 ms·

> No, I mean that by banning porn creates an illegal market for it. Supply and demand. Not all things in one's culture should be viewed as a market transaction

> No, I mean that by banning porn creates an illegal market for it. Supply and demand. Not all things in one's culture should be viewed as a market transaction, nor is it appropriate to overfit them as such.

true_religion 8y ago
It's not as if it created an illegal market for it either. Unless everything in the world is permitted, there will aways be an illegal market for something even if only because people want to dodge regulations. The total ban does mean that only criminals can produce pornography, and criminals by their nature don't have the moral qualms with committing further crimes.
- foolrush 8y ago
  Careful leaning on criminality; it isn't a thing. Remember that sitting in certain areas of a bus, voting as a woman or a person of colour, etc. was encoded into law and legislation. Violating those laws becomes criminality.
  - true_religion 8y ago
    I understand the basic premise, but I wish your examples were more pertinent to the situation we are discussing so I could better see how this relates.
    - foolrush 8y ago
      > The total ban does mean that only criminals can produce pornography, and criminals by their nature don't have the moral qualms with committing further crimes. There are two parts here. First is the tautological nature of your first sentence; if it is banned, then by definition the creation of such makes one a "criminal", where it would seem that you infer a class of person in the first sentence. Given a potential misreading of the first portion, the second is clearer: > and criminals by their nature don't have the moral qualms with committing further crimes. Again, you assign "nature" to a "class" by definition. It may be legal to murder / sentence to death someone over gender, race, selling alcohol or marijuana, or otherwise. Even sitting in a bus in the wrong spot could result in being labeled a criminal. I am reasonably certain you didn't intend to paint the above examples of criminality as somehow correlating to a lack of morality. "Further crimes" is a slippery slope trope, where no such predicate exists without examining the contexts of the initial crime. Again, think about sitting on a bus in the wrong spot. “Serial offenders” here might be celebrated later. Hence the caution against using the term. There are a good number of laws currently that, after some duration of time, may seem anywhere from dated to outright bigoted / horrible. "Criminality" is a social construct, and as such, we should be skeptical and careful about the erroneous connective tissue between criminality and some sort of Humanist trait attachment.

true_religion 8y ago

It's not as if it created an illegal market for it either. Unless everything in the world is permitted, there will aways be an illegal market for something even if only because people want to dodge regulations. The total ban does mean that only criminals can produce pornography, and criminals by their nature don't have the moral qualms with committing further crimes.

foolrush 8y ago
Careful leaning on criminality; it isn't a thing. Remember that sitting in certain areas of a bus, voting as a woman or a person of colour, etc. was encoded into law and legislation. Violating those laws becomes criminality.
- true_religion 8y ago
  I understand the basic premise, but I wish your examples were more pertinent to the situation we are discussing so I could better see how this relates.
  - foolrush 8y ago
    > The total ban does mean that only criminals can produce pornography, and criminals by their nature don't have the moral qualms with committing further crimes. There are two parts here. First is the tautological nature of your first sentence; if it is banned, then by definition the creation of such makes one a "criminal", where it would seem that you infer a class of person in the first sentence. Given a potential misreading of the first portion, the second is clearer: > and criminals by their nature don't have the moral qualms with committing further crimes. Again, you assign "nature" to a "class" by definition. It may be legal to murder / sentence to death someone over gender, race, selling alcohol or marijuana, or otherwise. Even sitting in a bus in the wrong spot could result in being labeled a criminal. I am reasonably certain you didn't intend to paint the above examples of criminality as somehow correlating to a lack of morality. "Further crimes" is a slippery slope trope, where no such predicate exists without examining the contexts of the initial crime. Again, think about sitting on a bus in the wrong spot. “Serial offenders” here might be celebrated later. Hence the caution against using the term. There are a good number of laws currently that, after some duration of time, may seem anywhere from dated to outright bigoted / horrible. "Criminality" is a social construct, and as such, we should be skeptical and careful about the erroneous connective tissue between criminality and some sort of Humanist trait attachment.