Philosophical-Social Discussion over Pornographic Materials

I just going to flat out say it, I do not see porn as a problem, because I have a broader and wider view of human morality than just the Judeo-Christian perspective on the issue.

If people let porn get in the way of a relationship, that's not porn's fault, it's theirs. If people's lives fall apart because of porn addiction, that's their fault, not porn's.

You can say people under a certain age shouldn't see porn, and I think there is an argument there that kids should go through sex-ed before viewing porn. You can argue is should only be viewed in private residences or places, not in public, and I'd think you'd be able to make a decent case for that.

But pushing the social 'stigma' farther than that, particularly over religious reasons, is not something I comfortable endorsing.

Bacle said:

If people let porn get in the way of a relationship, that's not porn's fault, it's theirs. If people's lives fall apart because of porn addiction, that's their fault, not porn's.

Click to expand...

If people let cheating or seeking after a green card get in the way of a relationship, is that their fault or porns, or perhaps a combination of both dependent on their individual circumstances and not just a binary one or the other?

Bacle said:

But pushing the social 'stigma' farther than that, particularly over religious reasons, is not something I comfortable endorsing.

Click to expand...

Should it exist at all societally? Should anyone stigmatize it even for themselves?

FriedCFour said:

Yeah that's what literally all sin is.

Click to expand...

And if you argue that the porn is good studies are wholly unbiased I got a bridge to sell you.

Click to expand...

You aren't really making an effective argument against the studies you're holding up being unbiased.

I have not argued for enforcement at all. My argument is purely against the SOCIAL STIGMA aspect, and the argument that it should not exist. It necessarily follows then that you want no one to adhere to this core christian value, and therefore want it expunged from society.

Click to expand...

Yes, I understand that you think you can somehow have it both ways, but you can't because there are enough people like myself who see no reason to stigmatize porn. Arguing that this somehow translates into me not wanting there to be Christians makes about as much sense as claiming I don't want there to be Jews because I do not want pork consumption to be stigmatized by society as a whole either.

Bible is pretty clear there too. Food is not inherently unclean, but if you believe a food to be unclean then it is. Basically, I can totally eat pigs just fine while adhering to the bible, so long as I am not going up to a vegetarian and eating a ham sandwich to spite them and their beliefs. because I study it's word, not just look for gatcha questions to say checkmate christians. Same would apply to linens and clothing. Note though that the term there is clean and unclean, not sin, which is different. So please skip the next checkmate of "so porn is fine then because I consider it to be clean". That isn't what is being talked about here, otherwise he would have said "if anything one regards something as sin, then it is sin." Not what is clean.

Click to expand...

I'm not playing gatcha games with you, I'm just pointing out that Christians are selective in what parts of the Bible they actually follow. I would know - I was one of you.

You aren't, because I never said I supported a porn ban.

Click to expand...

Could have fooled me, given that this certainly appears to be an end goal of yours.

That and studies around it and personal experience with it and its destructive effects on sexual wellbeing.

Click to expand...

You literally quoted the Bible to me - don't be trying to go back to "studies" now. Remember, the thing we're arguing about is your assertion that I somehow want there to be no Christians because I don't want you to enforce your social stigmas outside of your religion.

ETA: Incidentally, I'm curious what you think of couples who view porn together. You and so many others seem to be seeing porn consumption as being entirely by men, and you couldn't be more wrong. And that's even without counting "erotic fiction" as porn.

Captain X said:

Click to expand...

You should take note of those last lines.

You aren't really making an effective argument against the studies you're holding up being unbiased.

Click to expand...

You haven't made an argument yours are unbiased either.

Yes, I understand that you think you can somehow have it both ways, but you can't because there are enough people like myself who see no reason to stigmatize porn. Arguing that this somehow translates into me not wanting there to be Christians makes about as much sense as claiming I don't want there to be Jews because I do not want pork consumption to be stigmatized by society as a whole either.

Click to expand...

If you believe no one should stigmatize eating pork and hope no one does, then you would hope no one holds to Jewish Kosher law.

I'm not playing gatcha games with you, I'm just pointing out that Christians are selective in what parts of the Bible they actually follow. I would know - I was one of you.

Click to expand...

And doing a god awful job of it that literally scripture I went over just a few hours ago dismantles. It's honestly funny providence. The arguments you raised were addressed easily by things I just went over with my community group a few short hours ago.

Could have fooled me, given that this certainly appears to be an end goal of yours.

Click to expand...

That's your own anti-christian biases showing and replacing my actual words and arguments in your head. I never advocated that or made anything indicating that this is any kind of end goal.

You literally quoted the Bible to me - don't be trying to go back to "studies" now.

Click to expand...

Purely to point out it was a basic christian tenant. Given this is a very Christian centric argument, that has perfectly legitimate relevance in order to show where this is coming from directly, and doesn't mean I can now no longer ever use a study as if believing in the bible precludes you from ever believing in anything scientific.

Remember, the thing we're arguing about is your assertion that I somehow want there to be no Christians because I don't want you to enforce your social stigmas outside of your religion.

Click to expand...

I asked if it should be present at all. If you are fine with it being present among christians, and you don't ideally hope it to be eradicated, then you are accepting of society having christian values.

Captain X said:

ETA: Incidentally, I'm curious what you think of couples who view porn together. You and so many others seem to be seeing porn consumption as being entirely by men, and you couldn't be more wrong. And that's even without counting "erotic fiction" as porn.

Click to expand...

That it isn't good anymore than couples who have a threesome. And no, I don't see it as that, as I've said husband and wife and spouses. That's once again you not reading what I write and instead inserting your assumptions about my beliefs.

FriedCFour said:

You should take note of those last lines.

Click to expand...

Me rolling my eyes is my reaction to that entire spiel.

You haven't made an argument yours are unbiased either.

Click to expand...

I don't really have to. Others have already illustrated that the studies you are holding up are obviously biased. Nothing takes away from that.

If you believe no one should stigmatize eating pork and hope no one does, then you would hope no one holds to Jewish Kosher law.

Click to expand...

So by your logic, we should all stigmatize eating pork, or we don't want Jews to exist. Or we could just say that it's cool if Jews want to hold to that belief, but none of the rest of us are, and we don't want you giving us crap over it or trying to legislate it (or socially engineer it) either.

And doing a god awful job of it that literally scripture I went over just a few hours ago dismantles.

Click to expand...

Except it didn't. Those parts of the Bible are still there, and the many different groups of Christians all have different parts of the Bible that they decide to follow or not follow. This is part of why there are so many different groups.

That's your own anti-christian biases showing and replacing my actual words and arguments in your head. I never advocated that or made anything indicating that this is any kind of end goal.

Click to expand...

You literally came right out and said it. How do you think you're going to socially stigmatize something without adding a legal aspect to it. Your argument stinks of the way a certain other group likes to try to make end-runs around civil liberties and sees it as perfectly okay because it isn't the government doing it.

Purely to point out it was a basic christian tenant. Given this is a very Christian centric argument, that has perfectly legitimate relevance in order to show where this is coming from directly, and doesn't mean I can now no longer ever use a study as if believing in the bible precludes you from ever believing in anything scientific.

Click to expand...

It just illustrates your bias and makes it a pretty tough sell for a secular country.

I asked if it should be present at all. If you are fine with it being present among christians, and you don't ideally hope it to be eradicated, then you are accepting of society having christian values.

Click to expand...

It means I am accepting of Christians of having Christian values even if I don't agree with all of them. It helps that some of them actually aren't bad, and that the vast majority of you aren't threatening to kill people who don't share in those beliefs.

That it isn't good anymore than couples who have a threesome.

Click to expand...

As long as everyone involved is a consenting adult, what would be wrong with that?

And no, I don't see it as that, as I've said husband and wife and spouses. That's once again you not reading what I write and instead inserting your assumptions about my beliefs.

Click to expand...

You have to admit, it's a pretty common viewpoint. My bad if you don't actually share this viewpoint and I just assumed that.

Captain X said:

Me rolling my eyes is my reaction to that entire spiel.

Click to expand...

You not only disagree with the idea that delayed gratification is vital to civilization, but you roll your eyes at it?

I don't really have to. Others have already illustrated that the studies you are holding up are obviously biased. Nothing takes away from that.

Click to expand...

So if my studies are biased and therefore to be ignored, and your studies are biased and therefore to be ignored, what do we go with?

So by your logic, we should all stigmatize eating pork, or we don't want Jews to exist. Or we could just say that it's cool if Jews want to hold to that belief, but none of the rest of us are, and we don't want you giving us crap over it or trying to legislate it (or socially engineer it) either.

Click to expand...

We shouldn't want eating pork wholly eradicated as a social stigma within every person in society.

Except it didn't. Those parts of the Bible are still there, and the many different groups of Christians all have different parts of the Bible that they decide to follow or not follow. This is part of why there are so many different groups.

Click to expand...

So it doesn't matter that I just quoted a part of the new testament that completely and directly justifies eating pork, I am still a hypocrite because I eat pork? Hell sure, I am selective here. Because the bible literally tells me that in this instance I am allowed to be selective on this specific topic. That doesn't point out any failure on my own part in the slightest or ignoring parts to harp on others.

You literally came right out and said it. How do you think you're going to socially stigmatize something without adding a legal aspect to it. Your argument stinks of the way a certain other group likes to try to make end-runs around civil liberties and sees it as perfectly okay because it isn't the government doing it.

Click to expand...

How can being oppressively smelly be socially stigmatized without making it illegal to not bathe regularly? There is a ridiculous amount of stigmatized things that are not in any way, shape or form illegal.

It just illustrates your bias and makes it a pretty tough sell for a secular country.

Click to expand...

It illustrates my bias that in a discussion centric around a Christian value, I quote said value?

It means I am accepting of Christians of having Christian values even if I don't agree with all of them. It helps that some of them actually aren't bad, and that the vast majority of you aren't threatening to kill people who don't share in those beliefs.

Click to expand...

If you are then we don't have a whole lot to discuss. I am arguing purely for the existence of Christian values being a part of society, in the sense that some people adhere to and believe in them and it is not a bad thing.

As long as everyone involved is a consenting adult, what would be wrong with that?

Click to expand...

I believe that it is unhealthy for relationships, breaks them down and makes them more likely to fail.

FriedCFour said:

All I'm trying to do is focus in on this statement.

Click to expand...

Then why didn't you quote it until now? Also, I find it interesting that you still refuse to acknowledge that I answered your previous question.

FriedCFour said:

To those arguing in favor and saying porn should not just be legalized but remain wholly socially destigmatized, I want to make something clear. That argument is in favor for removing christian values from society as a whole. The bible is abundantly clear on this topic.



@Bacle @Terthna @Captain X
If you truly argue for and want porn to be totally socially destigmatized, you ask for no one to follow and believe in the above verse. You therefore ask for no Christianity in any part of society, or at the least, a neutered Christianity that totally ignores and disregards whatever you want in the bible ala Mayor Pete's except when you want to brow beat people on paying more taxes and having open borders. Is that what you want from society, to kill a pillar of Western Civilization and replace it with a pillar of Hedonism?

Click to expand...

In other words, this isn't about pornography at all, but rather that you think everyone else must share the same christian values as you. I'm sorry, but as an agnostic theist, I refuse. I don't want to get into an argument over the validity of Christian believes, because quite frankly, they're irrelevant, as I live in a country that values the separation between church and state. Evolution is a thing that exists, the Earth was not created by god less than ten thousand years ago, and pornography is not an evil thing in and of itself (neither is dancing, books, music, pen and paper RPGs, video games, or any number of other forms of creative expression that Christians have demonized throughout their history). If your beliefs contradict these facts, then the rest of us are under no obligation to humor you.

Terthna said:

Then why didn't you quote it until now? Also, I find it interesting that you still refuse to acknowledge that I answered your previous question.

Click to expand...

I was consistently talking about social stigma. I didn't need to, because that was the topic I was focused on.

Terthna said:

In other words, this isn't about pornography at all, but rather that you think everyone else must share the same Christian values as you.

Click to expand...

Not in the slightest. I am arguing against this sentiment.

Terthna said:

Personally, I'm not fine with movements like that; because in my opinion, those "dangers" are nonexistent. Either they're entirely in the heads of those who think they do exist, are a direct result of the stigma against pornography itself, or it involves people just being people; i.e. utterly horrible to each other, regardless of the circumstances.

In other words, porn isn't the problem; people are.

Click to expand...

You argue that it is people's fault porn is damaging, therefore people need to change. They are the issue at hand. So what I ask is not that you everyone in the country hold to Christian values, though certainly I would ideally like that but seek to make no law to force you to go to church or force people into Christianity, but do you believe that Christian values should be totally expunged from society?

When you make the argument that people are the issue, that no one should have any issues with pornography, you make the argument that one of Jesus clearest and most direct statements should be 100% ignored by everyone, which would obviously include adherents to the Christian faith. That is what I am getting at here, that you are arguing that no one should have this Christian value. Not that everyone should be forced to, but that my personal beliefs regarding sexual morality and those of the vast majority of Christians that actually care about what the bible has to say should not be expunged.

FriedCFour said:

If people let cheating or seeking after a green card get in the way of a relationship, is that their fault or porns, or perhaps a combination of both dependent on their individual circumstances and not just a binary one or the other?

Click to expand...

I do not condone cheating, but I do not view seeing/looking at porn as cheating if both partners are ok with it. If one side of a relationship isn't ok with the other viewing porn, then they need to make that clear, and also make sure the other side doesn't feel a need to look at porn by making sure their sex lives don't die off or go stagnant. I for one wouldn't be interested in a relationship with a woman who forbade me from watching porn, even as a couple, unless she made it so I didn't need porn to fulfill desires and fantasies.

As for seeking after a green card...are you trying to make light of an event that happened to me and which you damn well know pissed me off and hurt my ability to trust women. Because in that instance I didn't know the woman was not a citizen till after things began and shortly ended , only realizing she was after the greencard when I realized her connection to a group known to harbor illegal immigrants. So seeking a green card didn't get in the way of a relationship then, but it did make things worse for me after it ended. And I didn't initiate any of that, she just showed up at my door one night wanting to 'chill' at my place or hers and things went from there.

FriedCFour said:

Should it exist at all societally? Should anyone stigmatize it even for themselves?

Click to expand...

I think the stigma against porn shouldn't exist with regards to people who have already gone through sex-ed and puberty.

I have never been a big fan of the way Judeo-Christian sects treat nudity, sex, and the human body as a thing to be shameful about.

Bacle said:

I do not condone cheating, but I do not view seeing/looking at porn as cheating if both partners are ok with it. If one side of a relationship isn't ok with the other viewing porn, then they need to make that clear, and also make sure the other side doesn't feel a need to look at porn by making sure their sex lives don't die off or go stagnant. I for one wouldn't be interested in a relationship with a woman who forbade me from watching porn, even as a couple, unless she made it so I didn't need porn to fulfill desires and fantasies.

Click to expand...

Well, you'd be more likely to end up divorced then statistically, especially because you aren't attending religious services.

But is pornography use actually causing the problems, or is it merely a symptom of an already unhappy marriage? Perry believes the data show causation. “We’re pretty confident, based on the statistical analysis that we did,” Perry says. “We are nearing where we can say there’s a directional effect.”

Click to expand...

In addition to gender differences, the study revealed differences in porn use and divorce in different demographic groups. The younger the respondent, the more likely they were to get a divorce after starting to view porn. In contrast, porn and divorce showed a weaker link in people who attended an organized worship service at least once a week and said they were religious. The latter finding surprised the researchers, who initially thought that that adding pornography into more religious marriages would lead to higher rates of divorce.

Click to expand...

And just to cut you off at the pass of "Biased, therefore automatically wrong and dismissed."

Despite the new findings, Perry says he’s not advocating a ban on pornography. “My colleague and I are trying to report what we think are interesting and relevant results, and [we] are not trying to … contribute to a moral crusade against porn use,” he says. “Information is a positive thing, and [we] hope we can contribute in that way.”

Click to expand...

Perry's latest book is taking America back for God, google it. Not a right winger.

As for seeking after a green card...are you trying to make light of an event that happened to me and which you damn well know pissed me off and hurt my ability to trust women. Because in that instance I didn't know the woman was not a citizen till after things began and shortly ended , only realizing she was after the greencard when I realized her connection to a group known to harbor illegal immigrants. So seeking a green card didn't get in the way of a relationship then, but it did make things worse for me after it ended. And I didn't initiate any of that, she just showed up at my door one night wanting to 'chill' at my place or hers and things went from there.

Click to expand...

I'm not trying to make light of anything. I am trying to get across some of the ridiculousness of the argument "It's stigma that is the problem, not the porn." Because knowing the issues you have expressed yourself with how people have treated you in a relationship, you can just dismiss it all saying, "The only problem with what happened to you is with you because you stigmatized those actions." That's not a valid argument against something, to say it's all your fault because of how it affected you and because you care.

I think the stigma against porn shouldn't exist with regards to people who have already gone through sex-ed and puberty.

I have never been a big fan of the way Judeo-Christian sects treat nudity, sex, and the human body as a thing to be shameful about.

Click to expand...

It doesn't really, for the most part, not inherently and that's a vocal minority of protestants and more so the Catholics. You know the Puritans, who are stereotyped as complete sexual prudes, missionary in the dark, etc. actually excommunicated a man because he did not provide sexual pleasures or sex period for two years for his wife. Generally, I adhere to as long as you are married and it's with your wife, barring few extremes it's all fine in my book.

Bacle said:

I do not condone cheating, but I do not view seeing/looking at porn as cheating if both partners are ok with it. If one side of a relationship isn't ok with the other viewing porn, then they need to make that clear, and also make sure the other side doesn't feel a need to look at porn by making sure their sex lives don't die off or go stagnant. I for one wouldn't be interested in a relationship with a woman who forbade me from watching porn, even as a couple, unless she made it so I didn't need porn to fulfill desires

Click to expand...

So all you think about is your lust?

FriedCFour said:

I was consistently talking about social stigma. I didn't need to, because that was the topic I was focused on.

Not in the slightest. I am arguing against this sentiment.


You argue that it is people's fault porn is damaging, therefore people need to change. They are the issue at hand. So what I ask is not that you everyone in the country hold to Christian values, though certainly I would ideally like that but seek to make no law to force you to go to church or force people into Christianity, but do you believe that Christian values should be totally expunged from society?

When you make the argument that people are the issue, that no one should have any issues with pornography, you make the argument that one of Jesus clearest and most direct statements should be 100% ignored by everyone, which would obviously include adherents to the Christian faith. That is what I am getting at here, that you are arguing that no one should have this Christian value. Not that everyone should be forced to, but that my personal beliefs regarding sexual morality and those of the vast majority of Christians that actually care about what the bible has to say should not be expunged.

Click to expand...

If those values are objectively wrong and harmful, as I believe yours in regards to pornography are? I will not hesitate to denounce them. Neither Jesus himself, nor Christianity in general, gets special treatment in the marketplace of ideas. That said, just because I repudiate one Christian value, does not mean I'm saying they should be done away with entirely; there are some good ideas to be found in there, like the importance of loving one's neighbor, even one's enemies, as well as not acting out in vengeance.

This is not an all or nothing situation; we have the ability to pick and choose, much as was done with the Bible itself, and the various texts that were, and were not, chosen to be included within it.

FriedCFour said:

Science | AAAS

www.sciencemag.org

Well, you'd be more likely to end up divorced then statistically, especially because you aren't attending religious services.



And just to cut you off at the pass of "Biased, therefore automatically wrong and dismissed."



Perry's latest book is taking America back for God, google it. Not a right winger.

Click to expand...

I do not have time to read it in depth right now. But I do doubt the study accounts for how the existence of no-fault divorce laws, alimony/child support payments, and the welfare system add financial incentives into the divorce equation.

I generally feel the financial issues that make divorce look appealing are more to blame than most anything else when it comes to modern divorce rates.

FriedCFour said:

I'm not trying to make light of anything. I am trying to get across some of the ridiculousness of the argument "It's stigma that is the problem, not the porn." Because knowing the issues you have expressed yourself with how people have treated you in a relationship, you can just dismiss it all saying, "The only problem with what happened to you is with you because you stigmatized those actions." That's not a valid argument against something, to say it's all your fault because of how it affected you and because you care.

Click to expand...

I think the stigma is overblown for people past puberty, and that most issues people blame on porn have much deeper, more significant underlying causes.

If people have problems and are viewing porn, unless those problems can be solely and directly linked to porn, I do not think the stigma is useful or helpful to anyone. Part of my doubt is due to how a crusade or stigma against porn is all too easy to use to morph into something out to kill the 1st Amendment as a whole.

FriedCFour said:

It doesn't really, for the most part, not inherently and that's a vocal minority of protestants and more so the Catholics. You know the Puritans, who are stereotyped as complete sexual prudes, missionary in the dark, etc. actually excommunicated a man because he did not provide sexual pleasures or sex period for two years for his wife. Generally, I adhere to as long as you are married and it's with your wife, barring few extremes it's all fine in my book.

Click to expand...

That is still a large, vocal, and influential part of Christianity who treat the human body that way.

Fleiur said:

So all you think about is your lust?

Click to expand...

I think if someone isn't getting the sexual gratification they want from a partner, then why should they not look to porn to satisfy those urges?

I do not hold the repressing sexual urges, as long as they are non-criminal (in the US), is a healthy thing. Denying our basic animal instincts and urges is part of my problems with mainline Christianity. Those sort of 'repression of natural animal urges' ideas go hand and hand with holding humans apart from nature, which is where part of our environmental issues stem from. But that's a discussion for a different thread.

Bacle said:

I just going to flat out say it, I do not see porn as a problem, because I have a broader and wider view of human morality than just the Judeo-Christian perspective on the issue.

Click to expand...

Please, enlighten me to this "broader and wider view of human morality." Surely, it's this must be something that's well thought-out, right?

Bacle said:

But pushing the social 'stigma' farther than that, particularly over religious reasons, is not something I comfortable endorsing.

Click to expand...

And I don't feel comfortable being in a society where pornography is going to be widespread (which is what you want). The question, then, is whose position is more in line with the common good and whether or not we can come to some sort of compromise, eh?

The Name of Love said:

Please, enlighten me to this "broader and wider view of human morality." Surely, it's this must be something that's well thought-out, right?

Click to expand...

It is a view informed by my education as a geologist, and knowledge of how hilariously short a time our 'civilization', and even species, has existed. It is a view informed by knowledge that multiple cultures that claim to know the best of the spiritual, and the material world. It is a view informed by experiences with religious people who failed to live up to their creed's and enabled/engaged in abuse of others.

I am spiritual, but I do not think any specific religion has it right. That is why I look to the Constitution more than any other document for guidance.

The Name of Love said:

And I don't feel comfortable being in a society where pornography is going to be widespread (which is what you want). The question, then, is whose position is more in line with the common good and whether or not we can come to some sort of compromise, eh?

Click to expand...

Yes, the comprise is what we have now. No one forces you to look at porn, and you don't try to keep people from looking at porn if they want.

Bacle said:

It is a view informed by my education as a geologist, and knowledge of how hilariously short a time our 'civilization', and even species, has existed. It is a view informed by knowledge that multiple cultures that claim to know the best of the spiritual, and the material world. It is a view informed by experiences with religious people who failed to live up to their creed's and enabled/engaged in abuse of others.

Click to expand...

"Humans are very religious but fail to live up to their own moral standards."

How enlightening. How amazing. Nobody has ever thought of that before.

Now tell me, how do you get from "humans are hypocritical" to "my moral standards are correct"?

Bacle said:

Yes, the comprise is what we have now. No one forces you to look at porn, and you don't try to keep people from looking at porn if they want.

Click to expand...

Sounds like as much of a compromise as the Treaty of Versailles. In fact, that sounds like a surrender because I don't get anything of what I want.

I’m inclined to say that the harm (or benefit?) of pornography is largely subjective. Some people probably are actually hurt by viewing pornography and others are probably helped by it. Others may be influenced in ways that some view as positive and others view as negative. Something similar might be said for any variety of vices.

That is why I believe that I shouldn’t be deciding what is good or bad for others. If somebody says that pornography makes them happy and improves the quality of their life, then who am I to say that they shouldn’t do that?

The only reason for banning it is if it presents some obvious and pressing danger to society and I think that there is far too little evidence to conclude that.

That being said, if you think that pornography is harmful then by all means make your opinion known to as many people as you like. That is the benefit of freedom of speech, it creates a marketplace of ideas and maybe porn use will decline as people explain their reasons for thinking that it is harmful - and maybe that would be a good thing but who am I to say?

The Name of Love said:

"Humans are very religious but fail to live up to their own moral standards."

How enlightening. How amazing. Nobody has ever thought of that before.

Now tell me, how do you get from "humans are hypocritical" to "my moral standards are correct"?

Sounds like as much of a compromise as the Treaty of Versailles. In fact, that sounds like a surrender because I don't get anything of what I want.

Click to expand...

...since you seem unable/unwilling to actually engage the meat of my arguments, and instead seem very willing to keep tossing words in my mouth, I am not going to engage with you further on this topic.

You, The Name of Love, embody a lot of what is wrong with a faction of the Right in the US.

Bacle said:

...since you seem unable/unwilling to actually engage the meat of my arguments, and instead seem very willing to keep tossing words in my mouth, I am not going to engage with you further on this topic.

You, The Name of Love, embody a lot of what is wrong with a faction of the Right in the US.

Click to expand...

I'd love to engage with you on the meat of your argument, but it seems it doesn't have any. In your own words, you look to the Constitution for "guidance." For what? Why? Why should I care about a document that hasn't actually been in effect since FDR? Why should I care about a document that, according to the most preeminent judges in the land, proclaims abortion on demand for any reason and same-sex "marriage" are "rights"?

I honestly think that people like you embody what is wrong with American politics in general - a philosophical liberal that obfuscates rather than clarifies and has no metaphysical leg to stand on, yet assumes their position is the default. To me, your entire position is predicated on nothing by your own personal preferences.

ShieldWife said:

I’m inclined to say that the harm (or benefit?) of pornography is largely subjective. Some people probably are actually hurt by viewing pornography and others are probably helped by it. Others may be influenced in ways that some view as positive and others view as negative. Something similar might be said for any variety of vices.

That is why I believe that I shouldn’t be deciding what is good or bad for others. If somebody says that pornography makes them happy and improves the quality of their life, then who am I to say that they shouldn’t do that?

The only reason for banning it is if it presents some obvious and pressing danger to society and I think that there is far too little evidence to conclude that.

That being said, if you think that pornography is harmful then by all means make your opinion known to as many people as you like. That is the benefit of freedom of speech, it creates a marketplace of ideas and maybe porn use will decline as people explain their reasons for thinking that it is harmful - and maybe that would be a good thing but who am I to say?

Click to expand...

I'm largely wondering what you mean by "subjective harm" rather than "objective harm."

The Name of Love said:

I'm largely wondering what you mean by "subjective harm" rather than "objective harm."

Click to expand...

Well, what one person might consider harmful another may not. Let me give a theoretical example relating to pornography.

Let’s say that there is a guy is isn’t very attractive and has terrible social skills. He can’t get dates and prefers to watch pornography to satisfy his sexual needs instead of trying and failing with girls.

Some might say that watching porn is leading him not to try and he could be missing out on a real loving relationship with marriage, family, kids, etc. If we think of it that way, maybe the porn use is contributing to a great tragedy in this man’s life.

Alternatively, maybe trying to date and failing again and again is driving the man to terrible despair. Maybe pornography is really making him happier and more contented. Perhaps no matter how hard he tries, he will never find a girl to date, marry, make love to.

Is pornography good or bad for this guy? It’s a complicated question and the influence it has in his life could be considered negative by some and positive by others. It is ultimately the feeling of this man that matters most in regards to his choice to view pornography or not.

It is subjective because only that man can judge whether or not those influences the pornography have on his life are positive or negative. Does pornography make him happier and more contented - if so then perhaps it is a net benefit to him.