5 ms·

To be clear, I'm not speaking for @xtian here. The constitution is constantly and dramatically overridden and overextended. Even the sense of porn being protec

To be clear, I'm not speaking for @xtian here. The constitution is constantly and dramatically overridden and overextended. Even the sense of porn being protected speech at all is one such case of its being stretched well beyond its intended limits. On the other hand, "hate speech" is exactly the kind of activity that it was intended to support. And organizations like the ACLU vehemently defend child porn, but equivocate on hate speech, an alternating undying adherence to the constitution when expedient even in the most contrived scenarios, and pretending that the constitution is passé or unclear when it comes to straightforward instances of its application. This is just political reality. So while I do have respect for the constitution as a cultural relic, I'm not overly concerned with strict constitutionality as such. > a loud minority of religious people If we put it to a plebiscite, the people would choose to prevent children from being exposed to porn. This isn't some fringe, Christian, right-wing perspective. It's the normal, working-class, common-sense opinion. Even among democrats, only a slim majority of 53%, consider porn to be morally acceptable for adult consumption. It's certainly a very fringe opinion that porn is good for children.

seattle_spring 3y ago
No one is saying porn is good for children. What an incredible strawman.
- GloomyBoots 3y ago
  You’re intentionally acting obtuse and missing the point to accuse me of a strawman. That point wasn’t the sum nor the thrust of what I said, nor did I claim that the person I was responding to was personally putting that forward. Your reply, however, is both categorically untrue and an actual strawman. In such debates it constantly comes up that porn is “a good, healthy way for children to explore sexuality” and that parents who want to restrict access are actively harming their children. It’s highly doubtful that you’ve missed this if you’ve been paying any attention at all to the conversations around this. That, plus your intentional disregarding of the actual thrust of my argument, indicates that you aren’t acting in good faith. Edit: and a soft-pedaled version of the same argument for children to be able to watch porn comes up in this very article
  - seattle_spring 3y ago
    > a good, healthy way for children to explore sexuality” and that parents who want to restrict access are actively harming their children Again, no one is saying this. This is a completely made up scenario. It's not even related to the OP, which is about legal adults being blocked as a side-effect of poorly implemented age restriction verification. Are you referring to this line, and somehow changing "not really harmful" to "totally awesome", and "older teenagers" to "all children"? And then saying that this one little offhand line is what the plaintiff actually is bringing this lawsuit for? > But I’ll also say this: Is it really a problem if 16- or 17-year-olds watch some porn? Because, you know... Literal definition of a strawman: > an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument
Brybry 3y ago
> Even among democrats, only a slim majority of 53%, consider porn to be morally acceptable for adult consumption Is that from this[1]? Because this is a meaningless question. How many people think alcohol is bad for you? Compare this with how many people still drink alcohol anyway. And with how well prohibition worked (and alcohol objectively is bad for you). ~69% of US adult men age 30 to 49 watched porn from 2021 to 2022. Only 12% of them claimed they have never watched porn. [2] And that's assuming some of the 12% are not lying. [3] The answer to porn issues for minors in households is good parenting, not a clumsy state law-mandated technical solution. [1] https://news.gallup.com/poll/235280/americans-say-pornography-morally-acceptable.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/235280/americans-say-pornograph... [2] https://www.americansurveycenter.org/research/march-2022-aps/ https://www.americansurveycenter.org/research/march-2022-aps... [3] https://ifstudies.org/blog/the-truth-hurts-less-pornography-use-disclosure-vs-deception https://ifstudies.org/blog/the-truth-hurts-less-pornography-...
- GloomyBoots 3y ago
  It is from there. It’s not a meaningless question at all, but a somewhat useful proxy for gauging opinion on porn generally in the absence of polling on this specific issue. Your alcohol comparison is apt, and despite total prohibition being a failure (although dry counties exist today without descending into mayhem), most people don’t want their kid to be able to go buy vodka on a whim with no safeguards, and legislation reflects that. When children grow up in an unhealthy environment, it has negative consequences. You can blame parents all you want, but parents shouldn’t need to be tyrannical to enforce basic social mores that they and their neighbors agree upon. If I don’t want my kid seeing 4K meticulously produced videos of surgically altered women getting violently choked out and treated like sex toys by random men, what is my reasonable responsibility as a parent? I have to know how to set up some sort of blocker on all devices, monitor their computer usage at all times, not get them a smartphone, not allow them to go to school with all of the other kids with smartphones, not allow them to have any friends over with smartphones, not allow them to go to friends’ houses where the same measures aren’t taken. What is my reasonable responsibility as a parent who doesn’t want my kids to drink vodka? Don’t leave it around, don’t buy it for them, don’t let them go to friends houses where the parents do either of the former. There’s a chance someone could sneak it onto a school bus, but it’s not always there just a tap away. But your other numbers have no bearing on this at all. One can have vices, recognize them as such, and not want children to have those same vices. I smoke. I’d quit, but I do actually enjoy it. I try to do it away from people. I feel guilty when some kid comes up to me and asks about it. I tell them that it’s stupid and disgusting. I’m happy for measures to be taken to prevent them from taking it up. I’m fine with paying the extra taxes that are intended to discourage such an unhealthy behavior.
seattle_spring 3y ago
> organizations like the ACLU vehemently defend child porn What exactly are you referencing here?

seattle_spring 3y ago

No one is saying porn is good for children. What an incredible strawman.

GloomyBoots 3y ago
You’re intentionally acting obtuse and missing the point to accuse me of a strawman. That point wasn’t the sum nor the thrust of what I said, nor did I claim that the person I was responding to was personally putting that forward. Your reply, however, is both categorically untrue and an actual strawman. In such debates it constantly comes up that porn is “a good, healthy way for children to explore sexuality” and that parents who want to restrict access are actively harming their children. It’s highly doubtful that you’ve missed this if you’ve been paying any attention at all to the conversations around this. That, plus your intentional disregarding of the actual thrust of my argument, indicates that you aren’t acting in good faith. Edit: and a soft-pedaled version of the same argument for children to be able to watch porn comes up in this very article
- seattle_spring 3y ago
  > a good, healthy way for children to explore sexuality” and that parents who want to restrict access are actively harming their children Again, no one is saying this. This is a completely made up scenario. It's not even related to the OP, which is about legal adults being blocked as a side-effect of poorly implemented age restriction verification. Are you referring to this line, and somehow changing "not really harmful" to "totally awesome", and "older teenagers" to "all children"? And then saying that this one little offhand line is what the plaintiff actually is bringing this lawsuit for? > But I’ll also say this: Is it really a problem if 16- or 17-year-olds watch some porn? Because, you know... Literal definition of a strawman: > an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument

Brybry 3y ago

> Even among democrats, only a slim majority of 53%, consider porn to be morally acceptable for adult consumption Is that from this[1]? Because this is a meaningless question. How many people think alcohol is bad for you? Compare this with how many people still drink alcohol anyway. And with how well prohibition worked (and alcohol objectively is bad for you). ~69% of US adult men age 30 to 49 watched porn from 2021 to 2022. Only 12% of them claimed they have never watched porn. [2] And that's assuming some of the 12% are not lying. [3] The answer to porn issues for minors in households is good parenting, not a clumsy state law-mandated technical solution. [1] https://news.gallup.com/poll/235280/americans-say-pornography-morally-acceptable.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/235280/americans-say-pornograph... [2] https://www.americansurveycenter.org/research/march-2022-aps/ https://www.americansurveycenter.org/research/march-2022-aps... [3] https://ifstudies.org/blog/the-truth-hurts-less-pornography-use-disclosure-vs-deception https://ifstudies.org/blog/the-truth-hurts-less-pornography-...

GloomyBoots 3y ago
It is from there. It’s not a meaningless question at all, but a somewhat useful proxy for gauging opinion on porn generally in the absence of polling on this specific issue. Your alcohol comparison is apt, and despite total prohibition being a failure (although dry counties exist today without descending into mayhem), most people don’t want their kid to be able to go buy vodka on a whim with no safeguards, and legislation reflects that. When children grow up in an unhealthy environment, it has negative consequences. You can blame parents all you want, but parents shouldn’t need to be tyrannical to enforce basic social mores that they and their neighbors agree upon. If I don’t want my kid seeing 4K meticulously produced videos of surgically altered women getting violently choked out and treated like sex toys by random men, what is my reasonable responsibility as a parent? I have to know how to set up some sort of blocker on all devices, monitor their computer usage at all times, not get them a smartphone, not allow them to go to school with all of the other kids with smartphones, not allow them to have any friends over with smartphones, not allow them to go to friends’ houses where the same measures aren’t taken. What is my reasonable responsibility as a parent who doesn’t want my kids to drink vodka? Don’t leave it around, don’t buy it for them, don’t let them go to friends houses where the parents do either of the former. There’s a chance someone could sneak it onto a school bus, but it’s not always there just a tap away. But your other numbers have no bearing on this at all. One can have vices, recognize them as such, and not want children to have those same vices. I smoke. I’d quit, but I do actually enjoy it. I try to do it away from people. I feel guilty when some kid comes up to me and asks about it. I tell them that it’s stupid and disgusting. I’m happy for measures to be taken to prevent them from taking it up. I’m fine with paying the extra taxes that are intended to discourage such an unhealthy behavior.

seattle_spring 3y ago

> organizations like the ACLU vehemently defend child porn What exactly are you referencing here?