Philosophical-Social Discussion over Pornographic Materials

[Deleted member]

@ShieldWife I am a bit torn. He started that thread primarily for the political aspects rather than the social aspects.

 

[Terthna]

@ShieldWife I am a bit torn. He started that thread primarily for the political aspects rather than the social aspects.

It is more in the ballpark than this thread though, isn't it?

 

[Deleted member]

It is more in the ballpark than this thread though, isn't it?

Isn't whether or not the First Amendment protects obscene material a fundamentally relevant subject? I admit, we have gotten off track from that thesis, though.

 

[Terthna]

Isn't whether or not the First Amendment protects obscene material a fundamentally relevant subject? I admit, we have gotten off track from that thesis, though.

I'd say we've gotten off track quite a bit, yes. It's your call.

 

[Bacle]

Maybe people should just accept porn has always existed in form, always will, and that trying to make a political or social argument against it is a fruitless waste of time that no serious political party in the Western world will entertain.

 

[FriedCFour]

Maybe people should just accept porn has always existed in form, always will, and that trying to make a political or social argument against it is a fruitless waste of time that no serious political party in the Western world will entertain.

That's always been a shitty argument. And making a social argument isn't a waste of time. Promoting it as a good thing shouldn't happen for example, and the coomer meme is fucking real. There are people who are heavily damaged by porn addiction and it does disrupt relationships in a way you can't just say "oh that's because it has stigmas attached to it."

 

[Terthna]

That's always been a shitty argument. And making a social argument isn't a waste of time. Promoting it as a good thing shouldn't happen for example, and the coomer meme is fucking real. There are people who are heavily damaged by porn addiction and it does disrupt relationships in a way you can't just say "oh that's because it has stigmas attached to it."

There are people who have been heavily damaged by any number of things; that doesn't mean it is those things fault that those things happened. Also, I can say "oh that's because it has stigmas attached to it" in regards to pornography disrupting relationships; because for the most part, it's the truth. Pornography is a good thing (the science backs this up), and the "coomer meme" is a grossly exaggerated parody of people with a lack of impulse control; it has little basis in reality, and has even less to do with pornography itself.

 

[FriedCFour]

There are people who have been heavily damaged by any number of things; that doesn't mean it is those things fault that those things happened. Also, I can say "oh that's because it has stigmas attached to it" in regards to pornography disrupting relationships; because for the most part, it's the truth. Pornography is a good thing (the science backs this up), and the "coomer meme" is a grossly exaggerated parody of people with a lack of impulse control; it has little basis in reality, and has even less to do with pornography itself.

If someone divorces you over pornography its not their hangups and their stigma at fault. I think it's pretty fucking stupid to argue that. I mean would you argue that a divorce over cheating has nothing to do with cheating being wrong but over stigma of non-monogamous marriages and its Dans fault he was upset his wife cindy was getting railed by three dudes at once in their wedding bed? And pornography is partially at fault otherwise you can say it isn't that heroin dealers fault that 10 year old OD'ed, its his own fault for buying it in the first place.

 

[Deleted member]

There are people who have been heavily damaged by any number of things; that doesn't mean it is those things fault that those things happened. Also, I can say "oh that's because it has stigmas attached to it" in regards to pornography disrupting relationships; because for the most part, it's the truth. Pornography is a good thing (the science backs this up), and the "coomer meme" is a grossly exaggerated parody of people with a lack of impulse control; it has little basis in reality, and has even less to do with pornography itself.

As the counterpoint to this, here is a very large database of studies including many showing demonstrated negative effects of pornography.

 

[FriedCFour]

As the counterpoint to this, here is a very large database of studies including many showing demonstrated negative effects of pornography.

I'll also add to it that these also don't necessarily have to be mutually exclusive or force you to pick one or the other. A hell of a lot of drugs have positives. nicotine has the positives of increasing alertness and calming someone. Opiods are highly effective pain killers. Meth lets you do this insane shit. You can maybe pull out positives within almost anything, but that doesn't mean it's automatically overall positive. You also don't have to ignore everything that doesn't conform to your own biases either.

 

[Terthna]

If someone divorces you over pornography its not their hangups and their stigma at fault. I think it's pretty fucking stupid to argue that. I mean would you argue that a divorce over cheating has nothing to do with cheating being wrong but over stigma of non-monogamous marriages and its Dans fault he was upset his wife cindy was getting railed by three dudes at once in their wedding bed? And pornography is partially at fault otherwise you can say it isn't that heroin dealers fault that 10 year old OD'ed, its his own fault for buying it in the first place.

So in other words, it's not the person's fault that they're obese, it's the food's fault? Sounds like you're just trying to shift the blame away from the individual, and make them not responsible for their own choices.

As the counterpoint to this, here is a very large database of studies including many showing demonstrated negative effects of pornography.

I feel it's necessary to point out that many of those studies assume the negative effects of pornography, or otherwise make correlations without proper evidence; mostly in the "bad people indulge in pornography, therefor pornography made them bad people" vein. In addition, there are also many others in that database which produced findings that reject your overall hypothesis, that pornography has negative effects.

Again, here are three studies I've found that show that, in multiple countries across the world, sex crimes have fallen inversely with the legalization of pornography; the first two of which can actually be found in the database you linked to.

Pacific Center for Sex and Society - Pornography and Sex Crimes in the Czech Republic

Europe PMC

Europe PMC is an archive of life sciences journal literature.

europepmc.org

https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1999-10442-001

 

[FriedCFour]

So in other words, it's not the person's fault that they're obese, it's the food's fault? Sounds like you're just trying to shift the blame away from the individual, and make them not responsible for their own choices.

It can be both, to varying degrees by a situational basis, depending on the food and the person and the manufacturer. Is the heroin dealer at least a little to blame for a kid he sold drugs to dying?

I feel it's necessary to point out that many of those studies assume the negative effects of pornography, or otherwise make correlations without proper evidence; mostly in the "bad people indulge in pornography, therefor pornography made them bad people" vein.

Really? Can you show that in these studies? How do you know this?

 

[Deleted member]

I will split the thread..

 

[The Name of Love]

What I’ve learned my other thread is that, if I’m for censorship of pornography, I am:

• Authoritarian
• Leftist
• A theocrat
• A moral crusader
• A hypocrite
• Responsible for making people leave the right wing
• Violating people’s rights
• And treacherous to the Constitution

Meanwhile, most of the legitimate arguments against my proposal come down to practical implementation. No other good arguments are given. None of my premises are challenged.

And people wonder why I believe in Thomism.

 

[Deleted member]

I admit, it seemed like even just twenty-five years ago when I was a child, everyone in both political parties wanted to outlaw pornographic material, and it was a small set of civil libertarians, standing on the firm rock of constitutional interpretation, who prevented it from happening. But now it's fascism? I think we're all being rather unreasonable to @The Name of Love .

 

[The Name of Love]

I admit, it seemed like even just twenty-five years ago when I was a child, everyone in both political parties wanted to outlaw pornographic material, and it was a small set of civil libertarians, standing on the firm rock of constitutional interpretation, who prevented it from happening. But now it's fascism? I think we're all being rather unreasonable to @The Name of Love .

It’s kind of annoying, but also kind of hilarious. They call me all sorts of names, yet when I say some rather mild things about them, they get uppity. Oh well, it was a useful exercise, really.

 

[Deleted member]

It’s kind of annoying, but also kind of hilarious. They call me all sorts of names, yet when I say some rather mild things about them, they get uppity. Oh well, it was a useful exercise, really.

Just take a breath about it. We have some very committed civil libertarians here and they need to remember that the intended virtue of this website does indeed include civil discussions of whether or not pornography should be banned. But please also remember that I don't think biting back ever really works.

 

[The Name of Love]

Just take a breath about it. We have some very committed civil libertarians here and they need to remember that the intended virtue of this website does indeed include civil discussions of whether or not pornography should be banned. But please also remember that I don't think biting back ever really works.

I’ll take your advice.

 

[Bacle]

I admit, it seemed like even just twenty-five years ago when I was a child, everyone in both political parties wanted to outlaw pornographic material, and it was a small set of civil libertarians, standing on the firm rock of constitutional interpretation, who prevented it from happening. But now it's fascism? I think we're all being rather unreasonable to @The Name of Love .

No, we are pushing back against what we see as the same moralistic authoritarianism we expect from the Left. Not when it is based on philosophical navel gazing and self-assured feelings of their own righteousness, not anything practical and seems to be based on ignoring things outside a specific philosophical mindset.

And I do not remember both sides trying to ban porn 25 years ago. I remember a few fringes pursuing it, but not either party establishment.

It is people like The Name of Love who make centrists and moderates skeptical that the Right aren't just another set of authoritarians who want to use the Bible instead of Marx to justify oppression in the name of a 'Greater Good'.

We are lucky people like him are a shrinking minority, because the future they offer is no better than what the Far-Left want for the world and the US.

 

[The Name of Love]

@Bacle I would hold my same social conservative positions even if you convinced me that the Bible was purely a lie. So you’re wrong.