mrttao
Well-known member
So... when are they going to remove the warning labels from cigarettes?
Leftist Child Grooming
- Thread starter Captain X
- Start date
At this point I think the tobacco companys would still put them on because if they were removed some idiot would get cancer and sue.
And claim that there should have been a warning
The only reason they aren't throwing lawyers at it is, as an article i've linked before shows, they don't seem to do much anyway.
They did however sue about upgrading to Europe style graphic image warnings on them, and that case is still ongoing.
And that's with the massive amount of research in favor of said warnings being right, plus it being a chemical substance sale of which is regulated by the FDA, as opposed to media/speech.
mrttao
Well-known member
We actually have massive amounts of research showing porn is harmful too.
And it isn't speech. you keep repeating that it is, but it isn't.
And like I keep reminding you, this attitude is why you're a petty little tyrant.
Massive amount of very questionable research, while tobacco being bad for health in meaningful ways is something universally agreed upon by medical professionals of all sorts of... ideological bents and cultures. It's not like conservative governments say tobacco is harmful for these reasons, leftist ones say it is also harmful but for completely different reasons, while a bunch of liberal ones say it's not meaningfully harmful.
Sorry, but the courts don't care about your amateur attempts at lawyering any more than they do about mine, though they seem to agree with mine.
Last edited:
mrttao
Well-known member
An appeal to authority fallacy. And a silly one at that.
The research on pornography showing it is harmful is very well done.
And for decades the vast majority of research showed smoking is perfectly healthy. because it was bought an paid for.
This really showcases how you are arguing dishonestly.
We are arguing on multiple tracks, that of legality and that of morality.
The courts think that porn is speech.
Well the courts also think that it is perfectly legal to "compel speech" of warning labels for literally every single product you find at the store.
All you are doing is flipping between the tracks of legality and morality to try and get a gotcha moment.
You seem to be a master of deflection
Which is different from your own, how exactly?
You really shouldn't talk considering how you've misrepresented things I have said more than once in this thread.
Apparently not. Isn't that why you're butthurt is over this court ruling?
mrttao
Well-known member
This is the most pathetic trolling attempt I have seen in a while.
You have no arguments.
Many posts, many days, and zero arguments.
All you have done is namecalling.
But you are too much of an ignoramus to even vary it up or come up with good namecalling. Instead you just repeat the exact same phrase over and over and over again.
Everyone else on the side of your argument at least tries their hand at crafting an argument. To varying degrees of competence.
Not you, here you sit with pride just bleating your slogan
"baaah, petty little tyrant"
"baaah, petty little tyrant"
"baaah, petty little tyrant"
"baaah, petty little tyrant"
"baaah, petty little tyrant"
I do, you just ignore them when you aren't misrepresenting them.
You also appealed to authority of your favorite research before.
I disagree, the research showing it is not harmful is in my opinion done better.
And when that was the case, the restrictions and warnings were lesser accordingly.
See the logic?
We have to argue on legality, because i don't think we are even close to sharing the same underlying assumptions of moral opinions, through differing in religious and related views.
For example, Muslims think drinking beer and eating a pork cutlet is extremely immoral. Some vegans think the former is not immoral but the latter definitely is. I don't, and i do both regularly, for i am neither a Muslim nor a vegan, and without converting to one of relevant beliefs in its basis, there is no reason for me to hold such moral opinions at all.
Not any speech, just objective and relevant information about the product. For example, how much horsepower and weight a car has. Very objective information useful to the buyer. And that you shouldn't tinker with it while it is moving, for obvious reasons. However, the same courts say government can't compel a warning that cars are ruining the planet, even though a lot of very important people would like it and even have shitty research to prove it, despite said shitty research being somewhat favored by the establishment.
You lose on legality and your chances of convincing me to seeing things according to your morality, i think we can agree that they are not meaningful.
mrttao
Well-known member
Do I actually lose on legality?
You hold this opinion that I "lose on legality"
You base it on having one single mid level judge strike down a law that was passed, and was written by many lawyers.
Where said judge's arguments outright ignores precedent.
Where you then dismiss said precedent with claims that that...
1. the precedent of "compelled speech" just doesn't apply here because there is actual good reason for labeling literally every single product in every single store. But there is no good reason to do the same with porn.
2. That research is either king or should be dismissed based on whether it agrees or disagrees with your opinions. Rather than its actual quality.
Well, have fun holding that opinion.
Time will tell whether the higher courts overturn or uphold this decision.
... although, in retrospect, with how corrupt and political courts are nowadays... their ruling cannot even be considered "legality" anymore.
And what do you have against that?
According to...
Source: you.
More of your crappy amateur lawayering.
The article explains what labels are there and why. The labels you want don't qualify on those grounds.
My point exactly. Who is there to judge the qualify of research? THE SCIENCE! Well according to some, especially Dr.Fauci, it's Dr. Fauci, who has declared that he is THE SCIENCE! I for one do not trust his judgement, and yours, even less than that. And i say the research you have is shite. Convince me otherwise if you can.
Well if courts don't, then it's down to good ol' "might makes right".
mrttao
Well-known member
It is frankly hilarious how self contradictory you are.
The last few posts have basically been:
> You lose on legality! A judge said so
> If the higher courts say overturn this decision then they are tyrants using "might makes right" and not a case of legality
> TRUST THE SCIENCE! You should abrogate all legal and moral arguments to "studies"
> Don't be one of those "TRUST THE SCIENCE" folks. it is all corrupted and dishonest.
> Yes both. I decide on a case by case basis. This is based entirely on the results and whether I like them or not.
> You are a crappy amateur lawyer
> Now please listen as I give my own crappy amateur lawyer take
No, that was a response to your whining that corrupt courts probably won't overturn this despite your oh so trustworthy amateur internet forum lawyering claiming they should.
Funny how you don't even attempt to show me the supposed great studies nor convince me of how iron solid their methodology is and how completely objective the people doing them are, just randomly accuse me of being self contradictory. Opinion duly filed in the "worth zero consideration" box.
LMAO
A crude depiction of a soldier fucking another soldier in the ass was how the westboro baptist church protested gays in the military.
It could be used to protest circumcision or FGM.
It could be a crude sign used to mock a political point like the dildo Isis flag, or Obama's O symbol turned into Goatse.
But moreover, a piece of porn could be part of a larger work, where it becomes part of the art. For a crude example, many of the crude jokes in south park. For a less crude example, the 'porn' might be a part of the love story between two story leads.
I could go on, but the idiocy of this point has been well shown by now.
Congrats then. You've banned the bible. I suddenly see why the progressives will be on your side here.
Watch me poke holes in it again: see above for examples.
Also, judges will intentionally define softcore porn in a way that benefits them. That's why you give brightline rules, so they don't get the leeway.
And it still completely fails, btw. Girls gone wild? Not porn, as it's technically clothed. The book teaching how kids can give oral sex? That'll be fine, as clearly it's educational literature. But a neoclassical sculpture? PORN! ALL THE PORN!!!
Quite bluntly, you don't have a leg to stand on here. And as your definition gets more complex, the bigger problem will occur: no law will be enacted as you envision it, nor interpreted that way, and the more complicated the law, the further the two diverge. So even if you design a perfect law that manages to only describe what you consider porn, and not what others consider porn, what will be enacted will be something that limits free expression drastically. This won't be an accident, this will be purposeful. There's nothing the government hates more than free expression, so they'll take any excuse, any loophole, and try to completely destroy any protections to speech at all.
They'll look at the complicated porn ban, it'll become a ban on anything with genitals in law, enforced by an agency that will use this law to regulate 'hate speech', which will then be interpreted as covering speech criticizing the government.
mrttao
Well-known member
They can make the exact same argument without explicit pornography
"could". if it could be used that way someone would have.
yet in all the years of people protesting genital mutilation we have yet to see political porn protesting it.
dildo flag is not porn.
goatse is horror.
Also, arguing that "some political speech could be deemed as pornographic. Therefore all the 99.99999% of hardcore pornography that contains no message at all is also speech" is as silly as arguing that "target shooting is murder because both target shooting and murder involve a bullet being fired from a gun".
mrttao
Well-known member
I have expressed myself in an unclear manner. So let me rewrite it in a clearer manner.
One can choose to embed a political message in literally anything.
You could literally grab a knife and use it to scar yourself with the words "I love god" or "don't tread on me" or "my body my choice" and so on and so forth.
That does not mean that every single act of stabbing a knife into a person is now speech and thus protected by the 1st amendment.
There are thus two types of porn
99.99999% of it which is utterly devoid of any speech. It is simply sex for the purpose of sex.
And then there is the ultra rare political message that is presented via porn.
To say type 1 is speech because type 2 exists is as absurd as it is to say that stabbing people with knives is speech. Type 1 should have no such legal protections.
Type 2 contains speech, but it is arguable on whether it should count.
I argue it should not count because you can say the exact same thing without the porn.
If a man walks up to you in the street, strips naked, and then shouts political slogans at you... and insists that anyone arresting him for flashing is restricting his free speech... clearly not, it is not his speech that is restricted. he was allowed to say those exact same words, and it is not his words that are the problem, it is the fact he is exposing himself in public
One can choose to embed a political message in literally anything.
You could literally grab a knife and use it to scar yourself with the words "I love god" or "don't tread on me" or "my body my choice" and so on and so forth.
That does not mean that every single act of stabbing a knife into a person is now speech and thus protected by the 1st amendment.
There are thus two types of porn
99.99999% of it which is utterly devoid of any speech. It is simply sex for the purpose of sex.
And then there is the ultra rare political message that is presented via porn.
To say type 1 is speech because type 2 exists is as absurd as it is to say that stabbing people with knives is speech. Type 1 should have no such legal protections.
Type 2 contains speech, but it is arguable on whether it should count.
I argue it should not count because you can say the exact same thing without the porn.
If a man walks up to you in the street, strips naked, and then shouts political slogans at you... and insists that anyone arresting him for flashing is restricting his free speech... clearly not, it is not his speech that is restricted. he was allowed to say those exact same words, and it is not his words that are the problem, it is the fact he is exposing himself in public
Now you want judges deciding if parts of a protest are necessary. This definitely won't lead to bad places.
By your definition it is porn.
Also, funny how you ignored the point about the book telling kids how to suck dick wouldn't be porn under your definition. Also how you didn't respond to the point about how any attempt will be intentionally used as a Trojan horse by the government to attack the American public.
Also, your example of the knife stabbing fails. It fails for a whole host of reasons. But the real reason it fails is because you are trying to play two derivative rights of the NAP against each other in your example, when they are not against each other in the porn example.
Basically, you have a right to free speech because of the NAP: it doesn't aggress on people, so the government should never interfere (any harm is consented to by continuing to read/listen and not leave). You have a right not to be stabbed by another because of the NAP.
These are simply reduced versions of the NAP, and get in harmony when viewed in light of the NAP.
And by the NAPs logic, porn is okay.
Finally, and here's the real killer argument, every argument you've made is one that can be made just as easily for 'hate speech isn't free speech', with a few words changed. Just a spoiler here: that's what I'm going to do to every argument you make from here on out: switch it from anti porn speech to anti hate speech, and visa versa. It'll save me time, and expose how stupid this argument is.
Actually... the regulations surrounding tobacco are a bit more complicated than that and the FDA doesn't have complete jurisdiction. There is another Government Agency that gets a say in things, a government agency that is known to be dicks about their jurisdiction with other government agencies, as well as being corrupt as fuck and evil to boot.
The ATF.
The "T" in "ATF", that stands for "Tobacco". There's a REASON one of the big jokes about them is that they should be a rural country store and not a government agency, but they are, and they also get a say in how Tobacco is regulated...
So yeah...
Poor tobacco.