11 ms·
Pornography as a whole should just be banned, no reason to have it in a civilized society. Imagine all of the problems that Facebook has trying to keep illegal
by HNresetPass 4y ago
Pornography as a whole should just be banned, no reason to have it in a civilized society. Imagine all of the problems that Facebook has trying to keep illegal pornography off of it's website. Multiply those problems by 1000 for a website that has non-negligible portion of it's userbase that actively wants it posted.
- dr-detroit 4y ago
- doliveira 4y agoYeah, we should follow on the footsteps of the highly successful war on drugs
- marcinzm 4y agoAnd prohibition before that.
- golemotron 4y agoAnd soon, guns.
- trasz 4y agoExcept that for guns it actually works, as evidenced by entire civilised world except one country.
- Karsteski 4y agoWho are the non-civilized world? And why are they uncivilized?
- DuskStar 4y agoYour definition of "civilized" seems to be "places gun control worked", and excludes most of Central and South America.
- zthrowaway 4y agoYeah well those gun controls don’t work too well in Chicago. Keyword: civilized. Which America is not. We have a mental health problem.
- mbg721 4y agoWe have a lack of a common culture in the US, and places like the South Side of Chicago are the fruits of the allegedly well-intentioned effort to destroy what little was left. Families with both parents are important.
- myvoiceismypass 4y agoDoes Chicago actually have very strict gun control? https://chicago.suntimes.com/2022/6/3/23152516/fact-check-texas-gov-abbott-chicago-strict-gun-laws-robb-elementary-uvalde-control-second-amendment https://chicago.suntimes.com/2022/6/3/23152516/fact-check-te... The Chicago handgun ban was struck down over a decade ago. Concealed carry has been allowed there for quite some time too. And its super easy to bring in guns from neighboring states with very lax laws.
- blitz_skull 4y agoWell "it works" is up for debate. Care to elaborate by what measure you determine it's "working"?
- seanw444 4y agoAt this point there's no reasoning with people on gun control. It's an emotional thing. I want no more infringement period. Handguns at 21 was over the line. From here on out, I hope to see more Wacos until people understand that the 2A is not to be tested.
- trasz 4y agoHow about the number of school shootings per year?
- ChrisLomont 4y agoThe US homicide rate not using guns is also higher than many other country entire homicide rates. Maybe the violence in the US is not simply guns? We also jail our citizens vastly more than other countries, we have different social safety nets, we are a different age (more akin to all the Americas), and many other factors that show your view is missing relevant evidence. In fact, gun ownership rates across civilized countries negatively correlates with overall homicide rates. Can you explain that also by your belief that guns are the main driver of violence? The same happens across US states, which have varying gun laws. And when analyzing violence before and after gun law changes across all countries, not simply poster child Australia, the picture is again much cloudier than you imply. For example, the CDC study [1] done under Obama concluded that guns are used more often to deter crimes than are used for crimes. If this is true, it's entirely possible there is enough violence here regardless of guns that naive bans could cause more harm than not. You should read the study, not simply the parts you believe, to get a much better view on state of the art research on guns and violence in the US. [1] https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/18319/chapter/3 https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/18319/chapter/3
- trasz 4y agoOf course its not _simply_ guns, gun availability is just one of the factors. >gun ownership rates across civilized countries negatively correlates with overall homicide rates [citation needed] >The same happens across US states, which have varying gun laws. Well, no - they might have slightly different laws, but generally speaking firearms are wildly available everywhere. >concluded that guns are used more often to deter crimes than are used for crimes Can you show me where it says that?
- ChrisLomont 4y ago>[citation needed] Easy to check yourself - find list of gun ownership by country, or by OECD, or by state. Find homicide rates for each, also easy. Put in excel or Google sheets, run a correlation. >Well, no - they might have slightly different laws, but generally speaking firearms are wildly available everywhere. Such a simplistic argument would then imply crimes, homicides with guns, etc., should be the same rate across states, and they are not. By your argument, no per state laws would have any effect, in which case they're useless. But this seems far from true. So, if laws do have any effect, it should be detectable. Since the correlation for gun owner vs overall homicide rates point to the opposite direction, and it seems like that there are far more defensive gun uses, perhaps people are deterring some crime. >Can you show me where it says that? Page 15: "Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010)." Also, somewhat related, p16, "Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was “used” by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies".
- xbar 4y agoNo, it's a trade-off. Just like free speech. Banning free speech would "work" exactly as well for "fixing" exploitation. I think flatly making both of those trades against freedom is a mistake, just the same as doing nothing to address exploitation and gun violence are mistakes.
- taneq 4y agoMy golly you're right, why do we bother with laws at all?
- TheFreim 4y agoI can't speak for GP, but I do think there's some difference between different categories. I don't think the comparison to the war on drugs when anyone argues that X should be banned is warranted. If pornography was banned I don't think it would be the same, especially now that pornography is mostly online. Authorities would be more inclined to target producers and distributors/hosts rather than individuals. Also, just because someone thinks something should be banned doesn't mean they think there needs to be perfect enforcement. The fact that something is illegal itself can be a societal deterrent even if the enforcement isn't strong (see internet "piracy", most people don't do it because those invested enough have to go to the "fringes" of the internet to do it).
- have_faith 4y agoWhat definition of pornography are you operating on out of interest?
- zeroonetwothree 4y agoThey know it when they see it.
- HNresetPass 4y agopor·nog·ra·phy /pôrˈnäɡrəfē/ Learn to pronounce noun printed or visual material containing the explicit description or display of sexual organs or activity, intended to stimulate erotic rather than aesthetic or emotional feelings.
- TheFreim 4y agoOne way anti-pornography advocates define pornography is by taking child pornography definitions and removing the child specific parts. I don't have formal legal definitions right now but one someone might offer, based on the definition of child pornography found on wikipedia [0], would be "any visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct ~involving a minor~" (involving a minor struck out). I think this is a good way of defining it since it helps use court rulings to deal with the inherent ambiguity when on the edge of what is considered pornography vs not pornography. What do you think of that from a definition standpoint? 0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_pornography_laws_in_the_United_States#Definition_of_child_pornography_under_federal_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_pornography_laws_in_the_...
- notadev 4y agoI guess “sex acts to be broadcast for someone else’s viewing”?
- Bigpet 4y agoNo reason to have alcohol in a "civilized society" either. People aren't logic automata and trying to make rules that treat a population as such will always end up in the way that prohibition did. You should punish/sanction very harmful expression of base-instincts of humans, but criminalizing all of those that appear even somewhat undesirable will just make the prison problem even worse.
- HNresetPass 4y agoSaudi Arabia
- standardUser 4y agoA cautionary tale.
- nerdjon 4y agoTotally a great example of a Country with great ideals that the rest of the world should try to emulate... If that is seriously your argument I... tells me everything I need to know about you.
- notadev 4y agoAll the Saudis just drive over the bridge to party and drink in Bahrain.
- numpad0 4y agoDo animals have concept of pornography? If they don't, isn't it a ...
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- nerdjon 4y agoThe last thing we need as a "civilized society" is to vilify sex positivity. There is nothing dirty (which your comment is implying) about porn. Are there some shady actors in the industry? Sure, but you can say that about any industry. What we need is to stop being ashamed of the human body. I would call Germany very civilized and they don't have as much shame about their body because (like alcohol for European countries) it is normal from a younger age. It isn't uncommon to see bondage and other very sexual things just normally about. Which is a good thing!
- HNresetPass 4y agoPeople are openly admitting that they prefer to see people exposed to sexuality at younger ages, and to have more vile things normalized like bondage. Society is collapsing and rapture is coming. There is something extremely dirty about turning youth into dopamine slaves and robbing them of their innocence. The bible clearly states in Matthew 18:6 causing a little one to stumble is grounds for drowning
- pajamanaut 4y ago> Vile things such as bondage
- nerdjon 4y agoPlease don't quote Bible quotes at me, all of those were written by racist sexist men a couple hundred years ago as a form of control. I am an Atheist, your bible verses mean nothing to me. Here is the thing, in America we have so much shame about sex. Yet we have an insanely high amount of childhood pregnancies. With schools preaching abstinence, that their desires are wrong, etc. It is no wonder that they have sex. It has been proven time and time again that trying to say something is bad encourages people to use it. We have seen it with sex, drugs, alcohol, etc etc etc. Bondage is not vile! It is just another act of sex/love (either or, depending on the situation) between consenting adult. Youth have sexual desires! It is natural, for fuck sake we go through puberty in our youth. Instead we lie about where babies come from (because apparently "mom and daddy loved each other and you were inside your mom" is too much?).
- 4y ago
- sam0x17 4y agoThis would actually just increase the amount of truly bad porn. If all of it is banned, no point in carefully making sure your actors are 18+. It all just goes underground. This is why places like Russia have _more_ CP, not less. It is well known that flat-out bans on porn are a huge boon for human trafficking wherever they occur.
- notadev 4y agoYears ago I would disagree with this, but seeing how easy it is for anyone of any age to access these sites, I think it would just be better for society to ban it as well. Young kids, pre-teens, are getting their first introductions to sexuality from the most extreme and depraved pornography ever made available - often before parents even have “the talk”. Even if you’re on top of it as a parent, it only takes one of their friends with a phone to show them. How are we OK with this? Everyone of these sites is full of videos of step-siblings, step-parents, etc., engaged in sex. “Water sports” is apparently mainstream now. None of this beneficial to society. It’s also strange that in the era of MeToo, where even seemingly routine situations of consensual adult sex can be retroactively classified as acts of sexual violence, that we are accepting of these extreme and violent depictions of sex being normalized and widely available. The whole “sex work is work” push isn’t helping, as it’s only encouraging young people to embrace and participate in this type of content. How many young girls are waiting until they hit 18 so they can finally open an OnlyFans? We would all be ashamed at how low our society has fallen if we still had the capacity to feel shame.
- GekkePrutser 4y agoWhy? Lots of people enjoy it and it doesn't harm anyone. Except in situations (underage, revenge porn etc) that are illegal already anyway. Most people enjoy viewing and/or making it. I don't think there's anything inherently bad about porn at all. Most arguments against it are religious in nature and as an atheist I'm not bound by religious rules.
- notadev 4y ago> Lots of people enjoy it and it doesn't harm anyone. - Researchers have found that repeated porn use "wears out" the dopamine reward system in the brain. - A German study shows that some porn users become dependent on new, surprising, or more extreme porn to get aroused. - Some men report that their level of concentration and emotional well-being have been negatively affected by porn use. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/hero/201603/is-porn-good-us-or-bad-us https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/hero/201603/is-porn-...
- GekkePrutser 4y agoWouldn't those things be the same for people that have very frequent sex? What's distant on the physiological side between porn and sex? I'm sure you don't want to outlaw the latter? > - Researchers have found that repeated porn use "wears out" the dopamine reward system in the brain. For example some couples also lose interest in sex after several years and this is a cause for partners to start looking for affairs. It's the same effect. > - A German study shows that some porn users become dependent on new, surprising, or more extreme porn to get aroused. So? As long as it's not illegal, perhaps they will discover something that they get satisfaction from in real life too (e.g. S&M) > - Some men report that their level of concentration and emotional well-being have been negatively affected by porn use. Possible but not something the state should get caught up in. We don't live in a nanny state. Also, none of these effects are serious enough on a societal level to justify banning it IMO.
- notadev 4y ago> Wouldn't those things be the same for people that have very frequent sex? I don’t know, do you have a source to answer that or just trying to muddy the waters? Absolutely no one will ever be able to have as much frequent sex as there are sources of increasingly extreme pornography. > Also, none of these effects are serious enough on a societal level to want to ban it. If users become dependent on more extreme porn to get aroused, how long until they need the more extreme porn in existence. How is the presence of that porn, and the victims it requires, not serious enough on a societal level? If some men report their concentration and well-being are negatively impacted by porn, and about 98% of men view pornography[1]…how can you not see how that will be bad for society? [1] https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/experimentations/201802/when-is-porn-use-problem https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/experimentations/201...
- DonHopkins 4y agoMisspelling "its" like "it's" should be banned, no reason to do that in a civilized society.
- npteljes 4y ago>should just be banned, no reason to have it in a civilized society. The main problem with this line of thinking is that banning, and not having it are two very separate things. Seeing the effect of banning widespread things in societies, the only thing that such a ban ensures is a thriving black market. More suffering for the people involved, loss of power for the government, and the banned thing being practiced in harmful ways.