Search results for query: *

Did you have a stroke? I said "that depends on what you mean by solution", not "what you mean by problem". It's like you were so eager to respond to what you thought I was going to say, you didn't even pay attention to what I actually said. If you feel you can't grant me appropriate attention...

Well that depends on what you mean by solution.

Not a meaningful one, no (thank you for the goalpost shift there, but I think we're doing fine with what I actually said). Most porn, a ridiculous amount, is downloaded, then exchanged via sites, not just accessed via sites like a youtube video.

Thats a very childish idea. So, in other words, you're interested in doing essentially nothing to reduce porn consumption. That would be the "Unenforceable" part of my "Unenforceable or tyranny" statement.

"Creating a government regulatory body capable of meaningfully enforcing a law against what amounts to the transfer of information physically or electronically isnt an invitation to tyranny" A porn ban would be broadly unenforceable or require the largest and most powerful government agency ever...

EDIT: consolidating double post Social stigma is a good thing in the correct amount. There is a steady, regular amount of bullying necessary for a society to sustain itself. And I'd like to put everyone who enjoys Evangelion in a gulag but I'm forced to accept that in doing so I would have to...

Porn is bad, however a certain degree of bad things must be allowed to exist (with a certain level of pressure against them) for a stable society to continue. Being fat is bad, but we can't summarily execute the obese without knockon effects of that tyranny tearing the civilization to pieces.