Let's Ban Porn - Page 6 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Traditional 'common sense' values and duty to the state.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
User avatar
By Godstud
#14921679
Banning things on the internet is nigh impossible. Pirate Bay and other sites exist despite laws and bans.

Porn can be banned as effectively as alcohol was in the US prohibition days, or prostitution has disappeared because someone made it illegal.

Banning pornography is a pipe dream by puritan morons.
By Truth To Power
#14922283
Pants-of-dog wrote:No. The ones who evolved traits that make them able to survive and reproduce are the ones who survive, reproduce, and pass on these evolved traits.

It has nothing to do with purpose.

You are equivocating on the words, "to" and "purpose." "To" in this sense means having as a result, not as a goal, and "purpose" means function, not design or direction.
Please note that all organisms that use sexual reproduction have evolved to survive and reproduce. Using your logic, all of these organisms are sexual objects.

No, that's just more garbage from you. The human female, almost uniquely among all animals, has evolved to engage in much more non-reproductive than reproductive sex. This non-reproductive sexual activity has no purpose but the sexual gratification of the male.
If you want to consider earthworms, marijuana plants, and me as sex objects, go ahead.

Try not to be so obtuse.
User avatar
By Godstud
#14922301
Truth to power wrote:The human female, almost uniquely among all animals, has evolved to engage in much more non-reproductive than reproductive sex. This non-reproductive sexual activity has no purpose but the sexual gratification of the male.
This is your OPINION. Would you care to support this with some facts, or a source, please?

Note: The science seems against such a "uniqueness", and turfs your idea pretty readily.

It is often assumed that animals do not have sex for pleasure, or alternatively that humans, pigs, bonoboes (and perhaps dolphins and one or two more species of primates) are the only species that do. This is sometimes stated as "animals mate only for reproduction". This view is considered a misconception by some scholars.[48][49] Jonathan Balcombe argues that the prevalence of non-reproductive sexual behaviour in certain species suggests that sexual stimulation is pleasurable. He also points to the presence of the clitoris in some female mammals, and evidence for female orgasm in primates.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_sexual_behaviour

Do Animals Have Sex for Fun
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/2014061 ... ex-for-fun
By Pants-of-dog
#14922322
Truth To Power wrote:You are equivocating on the words, "to" and "purpose." "To" in this sense means having as a result, not as a goal, and "purpose" means function, not design or direction.

No, that's just more garbage from you. The human female, almost uniquely among all animals, has evolved to engage in much more non-reproductive than reproductive sex. This non-reproductive sexual activity has no purpose but the sexual gratification of the male.

Try not to be so obtuse.


This sounds like your usual pseudo-science.

It is almost certainly not true.
User avatar
By AFAIK
#14922406
The British gov't wishes to introduce age verification this year. They've delayed it but it would involve providing a credit card, an account with some sort of ID verification or purchasing a code from a newsagent if you don't trust scammers and hackers to keep out.
https://www.wired.co.uk/article/porn-bl ... cation-law
By Truth To Power
#14923552
Godstud wrote:This is your OPINION.

Yes, and I hold that opinion because it is true.
Would you care to support this with some facts, or a source, please?

<yawn> Dear me, "Godstud," do you really doubt that human females engage in much more non-reproductive than reproductive sex? Maybe your nick is less accurate than you think....
Note: The science seems against such a "uniqueness", and turfs your idea pretty readily.

I said, "almost," and the science supports me unreservedly.
It is often assumed that animals do not have sex for pleasure, or alternatively that humans, pigs, bonoboes (and perhaps dolphins and one or two more species of primates) are the only species that do. This is sometimes stated as "animals mate only for reproduction". This view is considered a misconception by some scholars.[48][49]

It is definitely a misconception, and I don't subscribe to it. It has nothing to do with "animals" vs "humans," but the peculiar evolutionary circumstances -- survival and/or reproductive advantages -- that give rise to the behavior, whichever species engage in it.
Jonathan Balcombe argues that the prevalence of non-reproductive sexual behaviour in certain species suggests that sexual stimulation is pleasurable. He also points to the presence of the clitoris in some female mammals, and evidence for female orgasm in primates.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_sexual_behaviourDo Animals Have Sex for Fun
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/2014061 ... ex-for-fun

LOL! Balcombe is evidently Not Clear On The Concept of evolution. Attributing non-reproductive sexual activity to a desire for pleasure provides zero (0) explanatory power: it is pleasurable BECAUSE it provides some other survival/reproductive advantage. We can make some guesses about what those advantages might be for other species; but for human beings, the answer is pretty obvious.
User avatar
By Godstud
#14923569
Truth to power wrote:Yes, and I hold that opinion because it is true.
Truth is very subjective, and often an opinion. Facts are not.

The difference between truth and fact is that fact is something that cannot be combated with reasoning, for it is logic itself. But truth is something which depends on a person's perspective and experience.

That you will not provide sources, shows me that your opinion is not based in facts, but belief. Come back when you have an argument.
User avatar
By blackjack21
#14924500
Godstud wrote:Banning pornography is a pipe dream by puritan morons.

Right. Women aren't equal and pornography isn't degrading. It's just showing nature in its true form.
User avatar
By Godstud
#14924553
blackjack21 wrote:Women aren't equal and pornography isn't degrading.
Do you have something to actually say, or is the usual trolling fuckery you do?
User avatar
By Vyth
#14924894
Pornography should not be banned. It should be permitted - not because it is good for society, but because it is destructive of individuals.

Pornography purifies the population by reducing the fertility rate of the people weak enough to be enslaved by their own sexual desires, and lacking in any nobler desires strong enough to counterbalance their addiction to pornogrpahy.

The more addicted people become to pornography, the lower their rate of reproduction; the more obsessed they are with what other people do with their genitals, the more they tend to isolate themselves from society; at the same time their social isolation, their increasingly warped view of human sexuality, and the adverse psychological effects of the addiction itself, makes porn addicts less desirable to members of the opposite sex, less likely to ascend the social hierarchy, etc. As a result of the widespread availability of pornography, many weak-willed people have made themselves even weaker than they would otherwise have been; let us hope they will eventually stop breeding, so that the human population will become stronger.

The more widely available pornography is, the greater the number of weak people that will get hooked on pornography. Therefore expose everyone to pornography - maximise the number of weaklings that you can remove from the population, by getting as many of them hooked on porn as possible.

But pornography is just one of many evils that should be expanded. It probably only has a slight effect on the overall fertility rate - but it is just one among countless vices, addictions, evils, etc., all of which have an additive effect on the fertility rate of the population.

Even lies can have a beneficial effect on the population, if the lies lead people stupid enough to fall for them not to have children. This is why lies should be widely disseminated. The more people you can fool into destroying themselves on the basis of lies, the fewer fools you will have. Ideally only the people that were strong enough to see through lies should reproduce themselves. Every child needs to be fed lies that result in their own ruin if believed in, so that only those immune to the lies will survive.

If you want to strengthen a population, you make things like drugs and pornography as widely available to the public as possible, no matter how many lives have to be destroyed in the process. Ideally you want 100% of the population to be exposed to pornography, highly addictive drugs, etc. Self-destructive behaviour should be made out to be as rewarding as possible. To convince as many people as possible that what destroys them is actually good for them - this is the greatest act of charity conceivable.

What happens is all the weak-willed people get addicted to heroin, methamphetamine, pornography, video games, etc., etc. They make themselves more and more undesirable to the opposite sex, while squandering their most fertile and productive years enslaved to their addictions or self-destructive behaviours. As a result, their rate of reproduction is diminished (while their death rate tends to increase).

Consequence: after a few generations, the weak of will become less and less numerous. Those stupid enough to fall for our lies will be weeded out of the population. Humanity will thus be strengthened by evil, purified by vice.

Abortion is also good, because those who think it is fine to abort their children will have fewer children; those who don't place the highest priority on their own survival and reproduction will constitute a lower and lower proportion of the population with every generation, while those opposed to abortion, or for whom the desire to populate the planet with more people like themselves overrides the desire to destroy their own flesh and blood, will constitute a larger and larger percentage of the population. This is why abortion should be as widely available as possible.

The same logic applies to pornography and to every other evil. All evil is good, because it results in the destruction of what ought to be destroyed. Evil should be promoted and encouraged for the general population - while we abstrain from such behaviour ourselves.

But never be deluded by what the masses call 'evil'. What they call 'evil' I call 'predatory', i.e. a good. They are too weak to be predatory; they fear the predatory, and it is this fear that they call 'evil', 'diabolical', 'satanic'. The world needs more of that kind of 'evil', far more of it than at present; the populace has become too domesticated. We need to cultivate more of that evil in ourselves - breed more of it into existence. And to strengthen the masses, we need to promote and encourage the other kind of evil - addictions, sins, vices, etc.
User avatar
By Random American
#15045765
Porn doesn't cause the mass hysteria required to put it in the same category as "fire in a crowded theater."

Also, I don't care if moralistic feminists get offended by porn, and it is questionable how effective a ban would be.
Last edited by Random American on 01 Nov 2019 03:14, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By Tainari88
#15045769
blackjack21 wrote:Right. Women aren't equal and pornography isn't degrading. It's just showing nature in its true form.


Well aren't we consistent?

Women are not equal? And pornography isn't degrading?

Porn is a money making enterprise and the vast majority of porn subscribers and consumers are males. I don't think the majority of women run around watching porn all day. Males are visual and they are going to be willing to pay for visuals.

Women are not equal? Like what? In what way?

Don't answer me....I think I can predict what you might say by now.

Ave maria. :lol:
User avatar
By blackjack21
#15045830
Obviously, you missed the sarcasm, and you just pointed out yourself a significant difference between women and men. Why the obsession with equality?
User avatar
By Tainari88
#15046318
blackjack21 wrote:Obviously, you missed the sarcasm, and you just pointed out yourself a significant difference between women and men. Why the obsession with equality?


You were being sarcastic about saying women are not equal when you and I have had debates about equality and you are very strongly a non believer in equality?

Don't be coy with me Senor Blackjack21.

Let me boil it all down to the basics eh ( I got to come up with a name for you in Spanish that is a nickname because you deserve one really.....Hmmmm…..I know just the one 'relampaguito'..... which means--little lightning bolt--because that is how fast you are at the typing keys, you quote bomb thrower you...

Let me start over, Relampaguito, somehow you are mixing up sameness with some form of equality. Or uniformity with equality. Or diversity with equality. No. Equality is about human rights and human dignity and the fundamental process in being human and feeling human, and being able to be true to a life that is true to an individual and also that individual being respected within a human society. That is the equality I talk about.

Women are not the same as men. Especially with sexuality. Not as visual as men and with a different response always. It doesn't mean that the drive for it is not as deeply embedded in the human brain of both sexes, it just means it comes out manifested differently. That is all. It should not affect the equality of what I stated above.

Obsession with equality? What do you think the far left is about all this time Relampaguito? Class conscious discrimination and that the slaves and lower classes should never push for anything different that approaches equal rights? History bends on the left over time. You shall see.

How are you doing today Relampaguito? A relaxed Sunday eh? I am considering driving to the beach and spending all day there.

:)
User avatar
By Hindsite
#15046375
Hong Wu wrote:https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/10/opinion/sunday/lets-ban-porn.html?rref=collection%2Fissuecollection%2Ftodays-new-york-times

It's a good article, I suggest people read it before commenting.

We seem to be moving past extreme freedom of speech in the west. The left wants speech controls more than the right does. At what point, in terms of the social problems it engenders, does porn become classified more akin to "shouting fire in a crowded theatre" than as expression? I've always found the argument that porn is expressive or makes a statement to be facetious anyway.

It all depends on what is defined as porn. Some people even define erotic art as porn. I would not want to ban Playboy Magazine with photos of beautiful naked women done in a very artful and tasteful manner.
User avatar
By SSDR
#15046386
Most forms of pornography should be banned because it makes women look like sex objects. It also promotes men to be more masculine, in terms of genital size, muscularity, and even physical height. A hyper sexualized culture makes society more competitive, thus alienating people socially. That would manipulate people to socially compete against each other. People would value each other according to who they have sex with, and how many sex partners they had.

The only kinds of pornography that should not be banned are - Femdom, and Educational.

Educational pornography would teach those who lack satisfying sexual experience on how to improve their sexual activities.

Femdom is the only kind of pornography that interests me. Femdom helps destroy sexual patriarchy, which psychologically and sub consciously alienates people.
User avatar
By Hindsite
#15046391
SSDR wrote:Most forms of pornography should be banned because it makes women look like sex objects. It also promotes men to be more masculine, in terms of genital size, muscularity, and even physical height. A hyper sexualized culture makes society more competitive, thus alienating people socially. That would manipulate people to socially compete against each other. People would value each other according to who they have sex with, and how many sex partners they had.

The only kinds of pornography that should not be banned are - Femdom, and Educational.

Educational pornography would teach those who lack satisfying sexual experience on how to improve their sexual activities.

Femdom is the only kind of pornography that interests me. Femdom helps destroy sexual patriarchy, which psychologically and sub consciously alienates people.

I enjoy looking at beautiful naked women with sexy bodies, especially those with well formed breasts.
HalleluYah
User avatar
By Godstud
#15046395
Hindsite wrote:I enjoy looking at beautiful naked women with sexy bodies, especially those with well formed breasts.
HalleluYah
:lol: This is one of those few times when I agree with you, and that the HalleluYah is warranted.

Porn isn't damaging unless you are already "damaged". Most people recognize that what you see in porn isn't actually "real". When they don't that means there is already a different problem.
User avatar
By blackjack21
#15046414
Tainari88 wrote:Not as visual as men and with a different response always.

In abstract thought...however, women do see more colors than men and have a much broader vocabulary for color than men.

Tainari88 wrote:History bends on the left over time. You shall see.

Communism has proven to be a pretty persistent failure everywhere it is tried.

Tainari88 wrote:How are you doing today Relampaguito? A relaxed Sunday eh? I am considering driving to the beach and spending all day there.

I had a friend over and watched football most of the day. Relaxed. Back to work tomorrow.
User avatar
By Godstud
#15046424
blackjack21 wrote:Communism has proven to be a pretty persistent failure everywhere it is tried.
Socialism has not, however, and Socialism ≠ Communism, except in the minds of the illiterate and uneducated.

Enjoy Sunday foozball!
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7

SueDeNîmes wrote: But the quantity they have to b[…]

Imagine freely and willingly giving someone somet[…]

I'm not surprised banks are cheerfully doing more […]

What is Fascism

I do not involve myself in Thai politics. I canno[…]