Leftist Child Grooming

[Abhorsen]

Porn sites 100% have a creepy agenda. I dunno if it's about grooming kids, but it's certainly about making degeneracy seem more appealing or normalized.

It's about making money. That's the extent of the agenda.

So how come they ran an incest campaign despite nobody asking for it?

... Hate to break it to you, but people asked for it.

 

[Scottty]

It's about making money. That's the extent of the agenda.

Who is paying them that money, if the people viewing the porn aren't?

 

[Abhorsen]

Who is paying them that money, if the people viewing the porn aren't?

Advertisements is mostly how Pornhub makes money. Some places make full length videos people buy. Others turn it into a subscription service (Only Fans, for example, though some sites and Pornhub also do it this way).

It's the same way youtube makes money.

 

[mrttao]

Now one thing you said could be dangerous. You said porn is not speech. Then could you define what is speech? Do you think the only things that should be protected are spoken words? Do you not think art should be? And while people have made arguments that porn is not art they aren’t good arguments “I’ll know it when I see it.” Makes it subjective and a different judge could make a different decision.

You are assuming there are no definitions for speech, but there are.
otherwise people would say that anything is speech.
After all, shooting people is just an interpretive dance, therefore art, therefore speech.

The notion that anything is speech is ridiculous.
You are also trying to twist things into me having an "I know it when I see it" approach which is not true.
I do have clearly defined ideas here.

Furthermore, you are asserting the idea that porn is not speech is dangerous because it will set a precedent... That is something someone who has been living under a rock would say.
There are already a metric fuckton of precedents of limited speech. Actual speech mind you.

 

[King Arts]

You are assuming there are no definitions for speech, but there are.
otherwise people would say that anything is speech.
After all, shooting people is just an interpretive dance, therefore art, therefore speech.

The notion that anything is speech is ridiculous.
You are also trying to twist things into me having an "I know it when I see it" approach which is not true.
I do have clearly defined ideas here.

Furthermore, you are asserting the idea that porn is not speech is dangerous because it will set a precedent... That is something someone who has been living under a rock would say.
There are already a metric fuckton of precedents of limited speech. Actual speech mind you.

You can ban certain acts like the shooting someone. Because those are easy to explain.

But can you define what porn is? And what limits you would set on speech?

 

[mrttao]

compelled speech

I had some thoughts on it that I realized I forgot to mention before. but...

1. corporations are not people. despite what corrupt govt says. (only when it is convenient for them that is)

2. no human is compelled to speak. rather robots are compelled to print out a warning label that someone else in the govt spoke (and attribute it to that other person)

3. literally every single item you find in the store has a so called "compelled speech" tags on it.
Ingredients list, nutrition information, the occasional surgeon general warning, made in country-name, material composition, safety warnings, and so on and so forth.

 

[mrttao]

You can ban certain acts like the shooting someone. Because those are easy to explain.

But can you define what porn is?

Porn is very easy to both explain and define. and it is an act just like shooting a gun at someone is an act.
Porn: "Explicit picture, movie, or text depicting sexual intercourse, or exposed genitals. The exception being medical literature depictions of genitals"
There you go, a clear definition.

And what limits you would set on speech?

I literally just told you I do not define porn as speech, as such limitations on porn are NOT limitations on speech.

The only limit I would place on speech is actively threatening someone. "I am going to murder you if you do not do X"

 

[mrttao]

Then homeschool, or go private, in which case no covid crazy (which means you left your kid to be supervised by them before covid anyway), 2 problems solved.
No, imagine internet will be something safe to leave a 9 year old with unsupervised if only you turn porn sites into a pain in the ass and privacy risk to access. Are you trying to fool yourself or everyone else?

I think there were plenty enough of criminal cases showing that about the absolutely worst internet threats to children like to hang out around very child appropriate and popular stuff like Minecraft or Roblox related sites and related chat groups of any platform.

I would like to point out that it was YOUR IDEA to get the school teachers to supervise your child's access to the internet.
And you are the one who claimed that if any child gets access to internet porn it is the parent's fault entirely because they did not supervise him properly.

You also argued that such supervision is easy and reasonable.
But now we are up to "homeschool your child or send to private school".
And this in explicit response to me saying that a pair of wage slaves (or god forbid a single mom wage-slave) does not have the means to do either of those things.
You are basically going in circles.

 

[Abhorsen]

1. corporations are not people. despite what corrupt govt says. (only when it is convenient for them that is)

Corporations are 'legal persons', meaning that they can be sued and can sue, have debt, go bankrupt, etc. The reason is that they are an organization of actual people who all decided to do something together.

Say Amanda from marketing for Company X (not talking about Elon's X) came up with an advertisement campaign that the government wanted to censor for whatever reason (be it porn, being pro-gun, pro-Christian or pro-LGBT, whatever). The company wants to show the campaign, so sues for her free speech rights on her behalf. To keep things simple, it's talked about as if it's the companies' speech.

Basically, it's a useful tool to make legal process easier. That's all legal personhood is as far as free speech is concerned. There's also the legal liability, which could be controversial, but that's a separate conversation.

3. literally every single item you find in the store has a so called "compelled speech" tags on it.
Ingredients list, nutrition information, the occasional surgeon general warning, made in country-name, material composition, safety warnings, and so on and so forth.

Correct. In the US, this is economic speech, which for some reason has less first amendment protections. IMO this is BS.

Porn is very easy to both explain and define. and it is an act just like shooting a gun at someone is an act.
Porn: "Explicit picture, movie, or text depicting sexual intercourse, or exposed genitals. The exception being medical literature depictions of genitals"
There you go, a clear definition.

You therefore think a picture of the Michaelangelo's David & the Vitruvian Man in a book about the Italian Renaissance is porn. Congrats, you failed.

Also, the Bible's Song of Songs? Basically softcore porn.

Porn can be speech. If it's expressing a political point, if it's trying to convey an actual story, etc.

The only things that should be banned are those that aggress on others. Your attempt to ban porn will result in hate speech being banned instead if successful. And hate speech will be defined so as to attack you.

 

[Cherico]

Mexican parents burn textbooks infected with 'virus of communism' in fiery protest against gender ideology

Mexican parents burn textbooks infected with ‘virus of communism’ in fiery protest against gender ideology

Parents in Mexico from Christian organizations have taken to the streets in the thousands to oppose new textbooks from the Ministry of Public Education.

nypost.com

𝑽𝒊𝒗𝒂 𝑪𝒓𝒊𝒔𝒕𝒐 𝑹𝒆𝒚!

the wrong side won the Cristero War.

 

[King Arts]

Porn is very easy to both explain and define. and it is an act just like shooting a gun at someone is an act.
Porn: "Explicit picture, movie, or text depicting sexual intercourse, or exposed genitals. The exception being medical literature depictions of genitals"
There you go, a clear definition.

I literally just told you I do not define porn as speech, as such limitations on porn are NOT limitations on speech.

The only limit I would place on speech is actively threatening someone. "I am going to murder you if you do not do X"

So michaelangelos David is porn?
Or if I wrote “Yesterday I put my penis inside my wife.” That counts as written porn for you?

Again it’s not easy to define what it is. Art has been considered protected under the 1st amendment as speech and determination of the difference between art and porn can be hard. Now if you want to say art is not protected speech and the 1st amendment would only cover the spoken word you could get around that maybe but you would greatly limit that right. But when I think about it even that wouldn’t give you what you want. Because if you can ban text as porn, but allow any speech except threats. What’s to stop someone from memorizing the works of marquis de Sade and reciting them on the street corner?

Corporations are 'legal persons', meaning that they can be sued and can sue, have debt, go bankrupt, etc. The reason is that they are an organization of actual people who all decided to do something together.

Say Amanda from marketing for Company X (not talking about Elon's X) came up with an advertisement campaign that the government wanted to censor for whatever reason (be it porn, being pro-gun, pro-Christian or pro-LGBT, whatever). The company wants to show the campaign, so sues for her free speech rights on her behalf. To keep things simple, it's talked about as if it's the companies' speech.

Basically, it's a useful tool to make legal process easier. That's all legal personhood is as far as free speech is concerned. There's also the legal liability, which could be controversial, but that's a separate conversation.


Correct. In the US, this is economic speech, which for some reason has less first amendment protections. IMO this is BS.



You therefore think a picture of the Michaelangelo's David & the Vitruvian Man in a book about the Italian Renaissance is porn. Congrats, you failed.

Also, the Bible's Song of Songs? Basically softcore porn.

Porn can be speech. If it's expressing a political point, if it's trying to convey an actual story, etc.

The only things that should be banned are those that aggress on others. Your attempt to ban porn will result in hate speech being banned instead if successful. And hate speech will be defined so as to attack you.

Ninjadld though I disagree with your take on corporate speech and personhood.

 

[Morphic Tide]

Correct. In the US, this is economic speech, which for some reason has less first amendment protections. IMO this is BS.

It's inseparable from coersion due to material and monetary incentives in ways that mere language is not. Sometimes you have to send people to take out the kneecaps of jackasses using their money to undercut and drown out the news their product is harmful.

 

[DarthOne]

the wrong side won the Cristero War.

Sadly yes.

I swear, if I had access to a Time Machine…well, think Turtledove’s guns of the South, except it wouldn’t be the CSA I’d be helping. That and I’d be bringing Sten guns (they’re easy to make more of and repair, plus they use 9mm which already existed), as well as AK’s and a few walkie talkies.

 

[mrttao]

You therefore think a picture of the Michaelangelo's David & the Vitruvian Man in a book about the Italian Renaissance is porn. Congrats, you failed.

Also, the Bible's Song of Songs? Basically softcore porn.

Yes, they are.

Porn can be speech. If it's expressing a political point, if it's trying to convey an actual story, etc.

Which political point? penis goes in vagina?

 

[mrttao]

So michaelangelos David is porn?

1. That is a statue, statues are not pictures, movies, nor test.
2. I did forget to account for antiques. good catch there.
3. edge cases exist for literally any law in existence.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

Yes, they are.

Dude for the sake of your mental health get therapy and stay off the Internet you are going to drive yourself into insanity if you haven't already. Lay off the black pills, seriously.

 

[mrttao]

Correct. In the US, this is economic speech, which for some reason has less first amendment protections. IMO this is BS.

You might disagree with it, but it is clearly showing that it is perfectly legal to "compel" a corporation to properly label their products

Tell you what, if you convince people to ban all warning labels, nutrition facts, and ingredient lists as "compelled speech", I would be ok with also applying the same standard to porn.

Yes, they are.

Derp. I just noticed the vitruvian man.
I would like to point you back at the definition I wrote

The exception being medical literature depictions of genitals"

Vitruvian man can be considered a medical literature and as such is explicitly exempt.

 

[mrttao]

Alright, lets update the definition.

Hardcore Porn: Explicit depiction of sexual intercourse via pictures, movies, or text.
Softcore Porn: Explicit depiction of nudity via picture or video, except antiques or scientific/medical/educational literature.

Song of songs is text depicting nudity, but text can only be hardcore porn or not porn at all as per above definition
Vitruvian man is scientific literature AND an antique
David is a statue AND an atique

A picture of david... is a depiction of an antique and would require a judge to intentionally be trying to misinterpret the law to count as softcore porn.

Aside from that, softcore porn is not the end of the world.
As there is no need to regulate softcore porn since it is literally just nudity. (unless it is softcore porn of children which should be banned)

There you go, there is your "impossible to define" definition. All it took was one person, 5 minutes of effort, and a 3 people trying to poke holes in the definition so it can get refined (in the same 5 minute period)

Actual legal definitions exist btw. and they specify intentions. Using terms like "vulgar" and "intent to arouse", but honestly don't need it.
Although its fine even if you do use the legal definition too.

Because unless you are intentionally trying to misinterpret the law, then any sane human being is able to figure out what intent to arouse is.
And if you are a judge intentionally misreading the law, then making the law written clearer won't matter at all. you will still twist it around

 

[Marduk]

I would like to point out that it was YOUR IDEA to get the school teachers to supervise your child's access to the internet.

They do it in school, lol. At least are supposed to, because surely no one else will.
And, yes, there are tools for it, even some corporations during covidiocy used them on computers of adult employees with fairly responsible jobs so that they would not slack off.
Obviously leaving primary school age children completely unsupervised is a worse issue than that.

And you are the one who claimed that if any child gets access to internet porn it is the parent's fault entirely because they did not supervise him properly.

That in fact i claimed and continue to claim.

You also argued that such supervision is easy and reasonable.

To the reasonable degree of supervision, yes.

But now we are up to "homeschool your child or send to private school".

So sending the kid to be supervised by groomers as you call them half a day is ok, including school computer software and school library contents, but letting them supervise the kid's internet access is not?

And this in explicit response to me saying that a pair of wage slaves (or god forbid a single mom wage-slave) does not have the means to do either of those things.
You are basically going in circles.

So you are creating Schrodinger's groomer schools that are full of groomers who can't be trusted with a kid's internet supervision during covidiocy measures, but at the same time are fine to send the kid to for half a day to be supervised directly and in all regards when outside of covidiocy measures.

You might disagree with it, but it is clearly showing that it is perfectly legal to "compel" a corporation to properly label their products

Tell you what, if you convince people to ban all warning labels, nutrition facts, and ingredient lists as "compelled speech", I would be ok with also applying the same standard to porn.

As the judgements in this and related cases show, there is a very strict and weighted argument on what constitutes proper label, and outside of technologically measurable factual specifications of the product this gets into very muddy waters, while the Texas requirement was far on the wrong side of that line.
It would be the equivalent of certain very influential and woke people demanding that all meat based foods have a label saying that buying this product helps destroy the planet with climate catastrophe, kill endangered species and give you cancer, which you damn well know Greta, WEF, Soros and company would very much like to propagandize the whole population about, yet somehow even the establishment so far is unable to make that happen.
Ditto for cars, fossil fuels, and everything else the green cultists hate with a passion.
Let's not even get into guns too.

 

[mrttao]

So sending the kid to be supervised by groomers as you call them half a day is ok, including school computer software and school library contents, but letting them supervise the kid's internet access is not?

Nice twice there. but I did not say that it is "not ok" to supervise your child.
I said it is not realistic to expect the sheer level of supervision requires to prevent your child from being exposed to online pornography.

As for sending your child to public groomer system, this is very bad thing. But vast majority of people do not have a choice. Even if they had a choice, most are not even aware of the dire situation of said system. After all, corporate media tells them it is a conspiracy theory.