4 ms·

This is a great start. Anything that limits access to pornography, which abuses both the "actors" and "consumers", is always good. Some, especially on a site su

This is a great start. Anything that limits access to pornography, which abuses both the "actors" and "consumers", is always good. Some, especially on a site such as this, bring up that it can be easily bypassed or that someone can switch to different sites. This is true to an extent, but it also undeniably adds one more barrier, one more annoyance, in consumption of destructive "adult" films. Furthermore, if enacted properly, this will discourage access by young children who don't have much knowledge about computers yet.

lilboiluvr69 4y ago
What about furry porn? Does that abuse anyone? Do you find fuzzy animals having sex to be dangerous to children too?
- eldritch_4ier 4y ago
  Why can't children just enter strip clubs or watch their parents have sex? Is there no harm there? Why is there age verification to buy porn magazines? Why does it being digital make it different?
  - nmz 4y ago
    Does that mean that you get to watch your parents have sex when you reach adulthood?
    - eldritch_4ier 4y ago
      Maybe a more apt analogy: why can't children watch 2 consenting adult strangers have sex? Why can't they enter a strip club? Why does a digital screen between them and the action make it acceptable?
- TheFreim 4y ago
  Yes, it does abuse people. I do not think any reasonable person thinks it's good for children to be watching sexualized, humanoid, animals engaging in various sexual acts as being okay. I don't think it's good for adults either as it blurs the line and promotes depravity, encouraging attraction to animals or animalistic things.
vorpalhex 4y ago
In the age of Onlyfans and most stars starting to directly represent themselves, this seems a difficult stance to defend without a paternalistic world view. Should we also ban sports cars, alcohol and trashy romance novels?
- TheFreim 4y ago
  I believe that the state should act prudently to promote and defend the common good. I'm not sure if that would be described as paternalistic under your definition, though I'm wary of arguing about words. > Should we also ban sports cars, alcohol and trashy romance novels? Vehicles are heavily regulated. Various safety standards are put in place, seat belts are required, and you have to provide identification in order to drive. A license is required to use a vehicle that you own, you often have to pay for insurance. This is all to use something that you own, pornography typically isn't even purchased and owned, I see no reason to avoid regulating it. Alcohol is also regulated heavily, you need to be 21 in the United States and provide identification, consumption is then restricted in various ways (public consumption, driving, etc). Is that paternalistic? I don't think so, I think there are reasonable regulations of such things, I think we should apply this to other harmful elements.
  - vorpalhex 4y ago
    I struggle to see how consumption or avoidance of pornography is "common good". It may be individually good - we can recognize there are individuals who struggle with porn addiction. This seems very much personal good though, not to the common good of citizens. Drunk driving, where a driver can kill a random person, is a common good sort of problem and thus we might see the state regulate elements of that. I don't see how we can justify cracking down on porn as common good though.
    - TheFreim 4y ago
      The personal cannot be separated from the common, the community is itself a collection of individuals. The common good is not only pertaining to happenings in public spaces. People who mistreat themselves and others privately still pertains to the common good, eating unsafe food in private will still degrade society and healthy foods should be encouraged (this has not been done in the United States, I've heard it's better elsewhere but I can't be certain). We could say drug addiction is a "personal" evil, it should still be combatted (I oppose [most] drug advertising for this reason). I've known people who harmed their bodies, irreparably in some cases, without harming anyone else. But that's not the whole story. Their family relations are degraded, they cost public resources, they have worse relations, and not to be forgotten is that they are people who deserve love, help, and support. I apply this to other evils other than drugs, such as pornography. Pornography is sold, provided, promoted to the general populace. It has an affect on real people and is typically spread socially. Discouraging and disrupting this helps individuals and groups by helping discourage immoral and unhealthy actions from spreading. Pornography affects an individuals outlook on not only themselves, changing their own view of their sexuality, but also changes how they view others, this is especially important in children who are developing in so many different ways.
kataklasm 4y ago
Come on man... When has prohibition ever worked for this kind of thing? Whenever you take something away from a person with the reason being "that's bad for you!", that will always increase that person's urge to circumvent your ban. Talk about forbidden fruit. edit: looking at your blog.. everything makes sense now, coming from the most backwards environment imaginable.
- TheFreim 4y ago
  > Come on man... When has prohibition ever worked for this kind of thing? Yes, "prohibition" of actions and items does work. There are numerous activities and purchases locked behind age barriers as well as items which are completely illegal. There is a false idea that prohibiting or limiting something means you expect it to be completely, 100%, wiped out but that's not the case. There will always be people violating rules and regulations, that is a given for anything, the goal is to limit and discourage access. > edit: looking at your blog.. everything makes sense now, coming from the most backwards environment imaginable This is not an argument nor is it appropriate. First, my beliefs and arguments elsewhere are irrelevant. If I argued that the sky was blue it wouldn't make the sky red because you don't appreciate my other beliefs. Second, you haven't substantiated the claim that I come from "the most backwards environment imaginable" which is a pretty serious claim, which seems to be a major exaggeration since I'm sure you could conceive of a potentially worse background from your point of view.

lilboiluvr69 4y ago

What about furry porn? Does that abuse anyone? Do you find fuzzy animals having sex to be dangerous to children too?

eldritch_4ier 4y ago
Why can't children just enter strip clubs or watch their parents have sex? Is there no harm there? Why is there age verification to buy porn magazines? Why does it being digital make it different?
- nmz 4y ago
  Does that mean that you get to watch your parents have sex when you reach adulthood?
  - eldritch_4ier 4y ago
    Maybe a more apt analogy: why can't children watch 2 consenting adult strangers have sex? Why can't they enter a strip club? Why does a digital screen between them and the action make it acceptable?
TheFreim 4y ago
Yes, it does abuse people. I do not think any reasonable person thinks it's good for children to be watching sexualized, humanoid, animals engaging in various sexual acts as being okay. I don't think it's good for adults either as it blurs the line and promotes depravity, encouraging attraction to animals or animalistic things.

vorpalhex 4y ago

In the age of Onlyfans and most stars starting to directly represent themselves, this seems a difficult stance to defend without a paternalistic world view. Should we also ban sports cars, alcohol and trashy romance novels?

TheFreim 4y ago
I believe that the state should act prudently to promote and defend the common good. I'm not sure if that would be described as paternalistic under your definition, though I'm wary of arguing about words. > Should we also ban sports cars, alcohol and trashy romance novels? Vehicles are heavily regulated. Various safety standards are put in place, seat belts are required, and you have to provide identification in order to drive. A license is required to use a vehicle that you own, you often have to pay for insurance. This is all to use something that you own, pornography typically isn't even purchased and owned, I see no reason to avoid regulating it. Alcohol is also regulated heavily, you need to be 21 in the United States and provide identification, consumption is then restricted in various ways (public consumption, driving, etc). Is that paternalistic? I don't think so, I think there are reasonable regulations of such things, I think we should apply this to other harmful elements.
- vorpalhex 4y ago
  I struggle to see how consumption or avoidance of pornography is "common good". It may be individually good - we can recognize there are individuals who struggle with porn addiction. This seems very much personal good though, not to the common good of citizens. Drunk driving, where a driver can kill a random person, is a common good sort of problem and thus we might see the state regulate elements of that. I don't see how we can justify cracking down on porn as common good though.
  - TheFreim 4y ago
    The personal cannot be separated from the common, the community is itself a collection of individuals. The common good is not only pertaining to happenings in public spaces. People who mistreat themselves and others privately still pertains to the common good, eating unsafe food in private will still degrade society and healthy foods should be encouraged (this has not been done in the United States, I've heard it's better elsewhere but I can't be certain). We could say drug addiction is a "personal" evil, it should still be combatted (I oppose [most] drug advertising for this reason). I've known people who harmed their bodies, irreparably in some cases, without harming anyone else. But that's not the whole story. Their family relations are degraded, they cost public resources, they have worse relations, and not to be forgotten is that they are people who deserve love, help, and support. I apply this to other evils other than drugs, such as pornography. Pornography is sold, provided, promoted to the general populace. It has an affect on real people and is typically spread socially. Discouraging and disrupting this helps individuals and groups by helping discourage immoral and unhealthy actions from spreading. Pornography affects an individuals outlook on not only themselves, changing their own view of their sexuality, but also changes how they view others, this is especially important in children who are developing in so many different ways.

kataklasm 4y ago

Come on man... When has prohibition ever worked for this kind of thing? Whenever you take something away from a person with the reason being "that's bad for you!", that will always increase that person's urge to circumvent your ban. Talk about forbidden fruit. edit: looking at your blog.. everything makes sense now, coming from the most backwards environment imaginable.

TheFreim 4y ago
> Come on man... When has prohibition ever worked for this kind of thing? Yes, "prohibition" of actions and items does work. There are numerous activities and purchases locked behind age barriers as well as items which are completely illegal. There is a false idea that prohibiting or limiting something means you expect it to be completely, 100%, wiped out but that's not the case. There will always be people violating rules and regulations, that is a given for anything, the goal is to limit and discourage access. > edit: looking at your blog.. everything makes sense now, coming from the most backwards environment imaginable This is not an argument nor is it appropriate. First, my beliefs and arguments elsewhere are irrelevant. If I argued that the sky was blue it wouldn't make the sky red because you don't appreciate my other beliefs. Second, you haven't substantiated the claim that I come from "the most backwards environment imaginable" which is a pretty serious claim, which seems to be a major exaggeration since I'm sure you could conceive of a potentially worse background from your point of view.