The Political Problem of Pornography

[Captain X]

It won't.

 

[The Name of Love]

I think it's very plain that his overall objective is to make society work that way again...

Indeed, my goal is to make society more aligned to my ideas.

 

[Captain X]

And how to you propose to do that?

 

[Terthna]

Also, as I recall from that old discussion, he doesn't really oppose medical treatment - that was an over-literalist reading of something he said.

This is a direct quote:

You are not allowed to do anything in order to avert death. If you were to violate your body, God's temple, to stay alive, that would be immoral.

He had plenty of opportunity to clarify his position, and I pressured him to do so, but he didn't; this is his final word on the morality of seeking medical treatment.

The man is an authoritarian nutjob who considers his interpretation of religious doctrine as being of paramount importance, far above the rights of any individual. This sort of thinking must be denounced, if we are to maintain any legitimacy or unity in the stand against the regressive leftists.

 

[ShieldWife]

This is a direct quote:

He had plenty of opportunity to clarify his position, and I pressured him to do so, but he didn't; this is his final word on the morality of seeking medical treatment.

The man is an authoritarian nutjob who considers his interpretation of religious doctrine as being of paramount importance, far above the rights of any individual. This sort of thinking must be denounced, if we are to maintain any legitimacy or unity in the stand against the regressive leftists.

Wait there may be a misunderstanding here. TNoL might be saying that saving your life doesn’t morally justify any act. Not that live saving acts arent allowed. He may believe that you can do some things to save your life, but you can’t do anything to save your life.

This is probably a more reasonable interpretation off his statement, though he could clarify.

I think it’s within the context of opposing transhumanism. Which, personally, as a transhuman cyborg, I can’t agree with.

 

[Terthna]

Wait there may be a misunderstanding here. TNoL might be saying that saving your life doesn’t morally justify any act. Not that live saving acts arent allowed. He may believe that you can do some things to save your life, but you can’t do anything to save your life.

This is probably a more reasonable interpretation off his statement, though he could clarify.

I think it’s within the context of opposing transhumanism. Which, personally, as a transhuman cyborg, I can’t agree with.

Perhaps, but you cannot deny that's a pretty damning statement without further clarification. Although at this point, he has long since blocked me, so it's not like I can make that request anymore.

 

[ShieldWife]

Perhaps, but you cannot deny that's a pretty damning statement without further clarification. Although at this point, he has long since blocked me, so it's not like I can make that request anymore.

We need a transhumanism thread to discuss the topic. I’m not sure if there is a clear delineation from where medical treatment ends and transhumanism begins.

In any case, I don’t want to assume that TNoL opposes medicine until he clarifies it. I think he means that medicine is allowed but becoming an immortal cyborg isn't. His opinions on other topics are a tangent of a tangent though.

 

[The Name of Love]

@ShieldWife, don't bother. Terthna has been correct numerous times about this. I've told him many times that some acts are intrinsically immoral and cannot be used for any end, including the good of saving a life. But he has repeatedly propped the strawman he's widely proclaiming. I've ceased engaging with him since then.

 

[Deleted member]

Perhaps, but you cannot deny that's a pretty damning statement without further clarification. Although at this point, he has long since blocked me, so it's not like I can make that request anymore.

@ShieldWife, don't bother. Terthna has been correct numerous times about this. I've told him many times that some acts are intrinsically immoral and cannot be used for any end, including the good of saving a life. But he has repeatedly propped the strawman he's widely proclaiming. I've ceased engaging with him since then.

He's already made that clarification, though I believe he meant to say "corrected" from context. Please consider the matter closed; he is not promoting some kind of anti-medicalism, that would be against Catholic teaching and doctrine.

 

[prinCZess]

The man is an authoritarian nutjob who considers his interpretation of religious doctrine as being of paramount importance, far above the rights of any individual. This sort of thinking must be denounced, if we are to maintain any legitimacy or unity in the stand against the regressive leftists.

I'd note, despite my own disagreement with his desired actions and somewhat like those 'regressive leftists' who'd condemn pornography by government action in the name of protecting people/society from its influence, that @The Name of Love has a point on its capacity to harm individuals. We can contest the aggregate effects, and there seem to be conflicting studies attempting to do just that, but I don't think anyone can deny that like gambling or alcohol or arguing on the internet ( ) or virtually any other 'vice' activity it's possible for people to indulge too heavily in it and bring consequences on themselves because of it--either because they've outright wasted money on fulfilling that vice or because it's caused issues in their real-world relationships with other people (not necessarily at the 'second-order' level of impacting attitudes on women or such, but displeased a significant other who disapproves of one going outside the relationship in such a way for release).

Anecdotally, men seem to have a larger issue here of corralling that libido and not letting it become a destructive force in their own lives. Absent from directly political issues, they also seem to be the ones who have or are targeted by a lot of the social impetus in 'bro culture' to get to sexing as a proof of manhood--and just as much as an earlier social (or political) stigma there was towards sex as something only to be done within the confines of marriage between two adults in the missionary position with the lights off (to be stereotypical), that kind of focus on sex as a proof of value or worthiness for a man can be destructive (with a mirror-image destructiveness in a political or social order which centralizes too much upon 'women will not sex until marriage' or 'women shall not tempt men by displaying their bodies', etc., etc.).

Which, to actually get to the point I was trying to make, means a better way to argue against @The Name of Love (as I'd say is a better way for him to try and make his case, ironically enough) in the realm of politics or society is to seek solutions or corrections as possible for those downsides which don't necessitate heavy-handed political attempts. Sex and sexuality, however, suffer from elements of personal attachment and shame that even alcoholism or addiction to gambling don't touch upon--and the loneliness driving some degree of porn consumption at least is a tough one to 'solve' because it relies upon such a personal matter.
Which...uh...to actually get to the point I was trying to make: Seek to encourage people to be the best selves they can be? Encourage a (appropriate) degree of risk-taking in approaching someone they're interested in or when they try to go on a diet or start an exercise regime or whatever? Social power is a powerful tool, and to put on my old feminist-firebrand hat here for a moment a good portion of the urge towards consuming pornography or strip-shows or prostitutes is the easy and quick self-validation it provides without the 'work' of physical effort, mental broadening, or personal commitment to another person in a relationship.

So...Uh...I dunnow, be excellent to each other (and party on!)

 

[Terthna]

He's already made that clarification, though I believe he meant to say "corrected" from context. Please consider the matter closed; he is not promoting some kind of anti-medicalism, that would be against Catholic teaching and doctrine.

You call that a clarification? He is literally promoting a form of anti-medicalism, there is no other way to interpret that! I cannot believe you're trying to defend someone like him. Actually I can; I just think you're incredibly misguided in doing so.

 

[The Name of Love]

A majority of Americans view it as morally acceptable and 64% of young people view pornography daily. It's not really up in the air that porn causes damage on an individual level, given how it's like a drug.

The real debate, I believe, concerns what the state should do to address this. Should it adopt a permissive attitude, or should it do something to curb this behavior. @prinCZess, my main problem is that so many people on this server just assume no government can be trust to ever deal with this problem. I've stated many times before that this assumes libertarianism is true, and I don't think libertarianism is true for reasons I've already given. I've also heard that we should rely on some nebulous "social pressure" could end the threat of pornography more effectively than government coercion, but nobody has been able to tell me this.

Then there are the various people that accuse me of being a leftist, an authoritarian, a moral busybody, etc. for disagreeing with them on this issue. Captain-General has advised me to not get into a shouting match with those people, so I've decided to block their posts. Still, I hold out hope that the other, more reasonable and honest people in this conversation will come to understand where I'm coming from.

I'd like to know, @prinCZess, where exactly you stand on this? What, exactly, is your disagreement with me? Do you not think that the problems I outlined are problems? Or do you think that there's a better way to solve them?

 

[Captain X]

Every time someone thinks they have a point that porn is treated like a drug in the brain, I feel really tempted to point out that any number of things are, including social media. Because really what it comes down to is that the brain is putting out chemicals that make you feel pleasure. Comparing porn to drugs is just outright fear-mongering and propaganda aimed at emotionally manipulating people.

 

[ShadowsOfParadox]

given how it's like a drug

you mean like Coffee? Like, if we are going to say "it's like a drug and therefore bad" surely the single most consumed neurological drug counts. For that matter so does Tea and Chocolate... Perhaps we should take this a step further and ban capsaicin in food, it has MASSIVE potential for ill effects including contributing to ulcer formation. (By the way, Capsaicin is the scientific name for the chemical responsible for the taste of "spicy")

being a leftist, an authoritarian, a moral busybody

...by definition you are the third, you are being a busybody over morals, the second is, I suppose, technically arguable depending on how you actually want to ban porn... but this thread is about doing it with Government and making the Government do more is, broadly, authoritarian, the first is a misunderstanding/representation on your part, they are pointing out ways you are LIKE the parts of the left people ran here to get away from.

no government can be trust to ever deal with this problem

I'd trust a government in charge of maybe ~200k people who were largely in agreement to do this... anything much past that and I think government is the clumsiest, least responsive, worst possible option, for anything that isn't modern war.

 

[The Name of Love]

you mean like Coffee? Like, if we are going to say "it's like a drug and therefore bad" surely the single most consumed neurological drug counts. For that matter so does Tea and Chocolate... Perhaps we should take this a step further and ban capsaicin in food, it has MASSIVE potential for ill effects including contributing to ulcer formation. (By the way, Capsaicin is the scientific name for the chemical responsible for the taste of "spicy")

Like a drug in that it is addictive and destroys your brain. I linked to evidence of this in the first post.

...by definition you are the third, you are being a busybody over morals, the second is, I suppose, technically arguable depending on how you actually want to ban porn... but this thread is about doing it with Government and making the Government do more is, broadly, authoritarian, the first is a misunderstanding/representation on your part, they are pointing out ways you are LIKE the parts of the left people ran here to get away from.

If you think censorship of pornography is totalitarian, then pretty much every society up until twenty minutes ago is authoritarian. I'm tempted to say that "authoritarian" is just a magic word used to describe government policies that liberals don't like and doesn't have any real definition outside of that.

"Moral busybody" is actually somewhat of a mystery, since I'm against the existence of the police state in general. Are you implying that unless I want a libertine society, I want to control everyone's lives to the utmost degree?

Yes, Leftists and Traditionalist Catholics think the government should do things. That doesn't mean they are the same. Scottty was particularly egregious about this, claiming I made the state a deity, which is false.

I'd trust a government in charge of maybe ~200k people who were largely in agreement to do this... anything much past that and I think government is the clumsiest, least responsive, worst possible option, for anything that isn't modern war.

Please tell me how we can solve the political problem of pornography then.

 

[ShieldWife]

Just because someone wants to ban pornography doesn’t necessarily mean that they are an authoritarian or that they want a police state. Then again, it’s a step in that direction. It depends on how it would be banned and what else the person wants banned.

Speaking of which, Name of Love, I know that you have also advocated for homosexuality to be outlawed along with “transgenderism” and I believe various non-procreative sexual acts between heterosexuals. I assume this includes sexual toys too. You would also outlaw contraceptives and divorce and maintain or step up the war on drugs? Would erotic literature be included in the pornography ban?

Now we’re starting to get more into the realm of authoritarian police state. From your previous comments I can assume that you would want to outlaw transhumanism, how ever that might be defined could include a great variety of things or almost nothing.

Would you, in your ideal state, want blasphemy to be illegal? What about things like pagan religious rituals?

This may seem like a tangent, but my line of questions is going somewhere.

 

[The Name of Love]

Just because someone wants to ban pornography doesn’t necessarily mean that they are an authoritarian or that they want a police state. Then again, it’s a step in that direction. It depends on how it would be banned and what else the person wants banned.

Is everything the government does "a step in the direction of a police state"? It just seems like confused thinking.

Speaking of which, Name of Love, I know that you have also advocated for homosexuality to be outlawed along with “transgenderism” and I believe various non-procreative sexual acts between heterosexuals. I assume this includes sexual toys too. You would also outlaw contraceptives and divorce and maintain or step up the war on drugs? Would erotic literature be included in the pornography ban?

Ideally, homosexuality, transgender surgery, cross-dressing, contraceptives, divorce, and hard drugs would all be prohibited at the local and state level. I believe the federal government ought not concern itself with such things, however. And yes, I would consider certain erotic literature to be in the pornography ban.

Now we’re starting to get more into the realm of authoritarian police state.

Is there an actual definition of "authoritarian police state" or is it just a magical word used to describe government policies you don't like.

 

[ShieldWife]

Is everything the government does "a step in the direction of a police state"? It just seems like confused thinking.

Well, anything that a government does is at the point of a gun. Including providing services which it gains through taxation. That doesn’t mean that there should be no government at all, but that we should be a bit reluctant to use government power to achieve our ends. When I think of a law and whether or not it should be passed, I consider whether or not a need justifies the use of violence.

Ideally, homosexuality, transgender surgery, cross-dressing, contraceptives, divorce, and hard drugs would all be prohibited at the local and state level. I believe the federal government ought not concern itself with such things, however. And yes, I would consider certain erotic literature to be in the pornography ban.

So this what happens when one wants to legislate morality. It isn’t just pornography that gets banned, the bans start to add up and these are bans that would have an impact in the lives of most Americans. These are laws that would see this very forum get shut down and many of its members imprisoned.

Is there an actual definition of "authoritarian police state" or is it just a magical word used to describe government policies you don't like.

Well, I’m sure that we could look up what authoritarian means and what police state means and see if they apply. I’m inclined to say that if a typical person going about their everyday activities is in danger of being arrested, then it’s probably a police state. Heavy involvement of the government in people’s private lives seems to be that as well. It’s all a matter of degrees though, with each encroachments on rights another mark in the authoritarian police state column.

I asked this before and you may have missed it, but should blasphemy also be outlawed?

 

[prinCZess]

Should it adopt a permissive attitude, or should it do something to curb this behavior. @prinCZess, my main problem is that so many people on this server just assume no government can be trust to ever deal with this problem. I've stated many times before that this assumes libertarianism is true

Not necessarily. It presumes that good intentions or even usages by an authority in the present do not save a policy from being put into practice in the future by flawed and imperfect men--or actively exploited by bad actors to serve their own desires and ends. One need not be a Gadsden flag waving libertarian to recognize the power and capacity government--and specifically nefarious or simply sinful actors within that government--has to harm the people underneath it because it possesses the bureaucratic strictures and license to do so.

Frankly, no government can be trusted on this topic because no man has yet to be shown who can be trusted on it. No man is without sin--and to perpetually enforce such a law would require an everlasting resistance to the temptation of using the law against personal enemies, or against something less obscene but that is still seen as 'pornography' by a yet-unknown subjective definition of whoever is enforcing it at the time and that proscription creeping into more and more plebian forms of art or expression (as in some hardline Christian denominations bars on dance or decoration). From my perspective it's fundamentally unsound to seek to correct a moral failing across a wide number of people by entrusting a small group of people with an authority and power which depends upon them not suffering moral failings of their own for its successful and righteous enforcement.

I'd like to know, @prinCZess, where exactly you stand on this? What, exactly, is your disagreement with me? Do you not think that the problems I outlined are problems? Or do you think that there's a better way to solve them?

Got into it a bit above I suppose, but while I can grant your ends as virtuous or, at least, motivated by such--I'd personally see what can be labeled 'pornography' as something expressive in humanity and its creation an artistic act that can merely be (and may commonly be, because the 'industry' of it is a sewer) subverted for base money-making and exploitation to serve that end. The means you're looking for to reach those ends present some of the same problems as the end-state where it's around--even absent argument over what qualifies as porn and will be gone after and what doesn't.

As I believe I alluded to, I think some of your points highlight some legitimate problems consumption of pornography can lead to or inspire in people (though I might quibble with how rhetorically far you go in presenting them as I would with others' tendency towards downplaying them a bit too much as I see it). That said...I'm also a hippy-dippy flower-child liberal that is totally on-board with egalitarianism, the idea of divorce, and a number of the things you've set yourself up in opposition to because of its conflict with your traditional values (I'd argue traditional values that aren't all that traditional for someone in the US--but that might be another conversation entirely ).

The better way of solving these issues is the encouragement of moral virtue in individuals or social circles--something mandates create a veneer of at best (presuming no corruption of the enforcers or an underground market of the very things banned which just creates gilding over this). If people don't desire a solution, instituting it won't do anything but inflame the problem as everyone and their brother violates it on a daily basis because doing so is 'normal'. Libertines 'won' this social conversation via nigh-on a century or more of pushing against it by appeals to how much happier and better-off they were in their personal lives until/unless thrown in prison by a government unfriendly to them (and the gay rights push as a modern iteration of the same phenomenon), being happy with 'living well' according to this particular moral framework instead of 'in sin' would be the most convincing thing to the la-la land liberals like myself that religious morality had something to be said for it. Mormons, for their issues, tend to stereotypically present a positive 'face' for their religion and its values--ditto even for Jehovah's Witnesses as annoying as their missionaries can be...Hardline Christians who want governmental bars on [x], [y], and [z], in contrast, do not present that kind of positive face and there is, to put it softly, a history of them being hypocritical or nefarious (Jim Bakker as an easy example).

All that said...Porn like other drugs (to run with your presentation in that respect fully) is something that has to be overcome personally. Support from a social network can help (or hinder) one's search for moderation/virtue, but only an individual can positively overcome their own demons and desires. Shuffling not just that responsibility but that immense personal power and insight into one's own nature off onto another group leaves one fundamentally incomplete in my reckoning--personal demons that aren't confronted because someone else protected you from them haven't been overcome, they've merely been delayed--and such inability to put into practice a virtue leaves one much more vulnerable to other demons which might be more nefarious or subtle in their approach.

 

[Edgeplay_cgo]

The Name of Love said:
given how it's like a drug

you mean like Coffee.

Or religion.