Lily philips and the disgrace of pornography

[ohio jones]

The question was whether or not people who are unvaccinated could be allowed to have a job.

The subject of the thread is p0rnography, not vaccinations or zoning or slavery.

Don't try to define the content of someone else's thread with statements like "what we are talking about is..."

[the-real-steve]

Pornography should be illegal, with severe punishments. Some pornography is, so the question is why so much of it is allowed.

For the same reason alcohol is legal. Too much money to be made. But that's a topic for another day...

As far as p0rn, I know of a few men in/from conservative circles that got really wrapped in it. It doesn't just impact the person watching it, it impacts the entire family. The wife basically has to share his affection with what he sees on the web, plus he demands she do things in the bedroom she is not comfortable with.

The teenage son ends up being a creeper, can't relate to girls in a normal manner. Meanwhile, the teenage daughter is almost afraid on men. Dad gets sent away to a "program" for nine months but the damage at home continues to manifest itself.

Sadly, dad comes home from said "program" to be more messed up than when he left.

And yes, I've watched this happen.

[JohnH]

I’m not arguing that porn is proper or socially beneficial. I’m saying your personal revulsion—or disapproval of the kind of sex other people are having—isn’t a sound reason to criminalize it.

Legality doesn’t depend on moral approval. People can hold strong convictions without needing the law to impose those convictions on everyone else.

Of course it's not about me or my own personal opinions. Who said it was?

[Grace]

On the other hand, my 10 Commandments makes no mention whatsoever of tobacco or porn. So why the desire to legislate morality when it comes to porn but not guns?

Maybe not tobacco, but the 10 commandments make a statement about sexual sin in the 7th commandment. I view porn as sexual sin.

[Szdfan]

I’m not arguing that porn is proper or socially beneficial. I’m saying your personal revulsion—or disapproval of the kind of sex other people are having—isn’t a sound reason to criminalize it.

Legality doesn’t depend on moral approval. People can hold strong convictions without needing the law to impose those convictions on everyone else.

Of course it's not about me or my own personal opinions. Who said it was?

If your argument for criminalization is built on what you find immoral or obscene, then it is about your personal views, whether you admit it or not.

Disgust isn’t a legal standard. And turning personal revulsion into law isn’t justice—it’s control.

[JohnH]

If your argument for criminalization is built on what you find immoral or obscene, then it is about your personal views, whether you admit it or not.

Disgust isn’t a legal standard. And turning personal revulsion into law isn’t justice—it’s control.

Well, that wasn't my argument. I believe in absolute standards.

Pornography is immoral (including the production of it and what it does to the people involved in creating it).

It is obscene.

It should be illegal.

None of these are "my opinions". These are objective, absolute facts.

But let's talk about democracy, and what the people voted for.

They voted to outlaw pornography. Then they were overruled by the Supreme Court. That's not "my opinion". That was the opinion of the public.

Thankfully, some states like Texas have found ways to outlaw obscene material again by requiring age verification - actually enforcing laws against exposing children to this kind of filth. Anyone who opposes these laws should be revealed for what they are: someone who wants to push obscene filth on kids. As a reminder:

The only reason we're into pornography is because we think Christ is garbage. Christianity is garbage. Pornography thus becomes a way of desecrating Christian culture, and as it penetrates the very heart of the American mainstream, its subversive nature becomes more intense.

People with such views have no role in society and should be exiled from it.

[Szdfan]

If your argument for criminalization is built on what you find immoral or obscene, then it is about your personal views, whether you admit it or not.

Disgust isn’t a legal standard. And turning personal revulsion into law isn’t justice—it’s control.

Well, that wasn't my argument. I believe in absolute standards.

Pornography is immoral (including the production of it and what it does to the people involved in creating it).

It is obscene.

It should be illegal.

None of these are "my opinions". These are objective, absolute facts.

And that’s the heart of it — you believe your moral views are objective truth, and therefore everyone else should be subject to them under law.

But the moment we allow one person — or one worldview —to define what is “absolute,” we’re no longer living under shared law. We’re living under imposed belief. That’s not justice. That’s the end of disagreement.

[JohnH]

And that’s the heart of it — you believe your moral views are objective truth, and therefore everyone else should be subject to them under law.

But the moment we allow one person — or one worldview —to define what is “absolute,” we’re no longer living under shared law. We’re living under imposed belief. That’s not justice. That’s the end of disagreement.

It was the absolute view of the majority of the voting public that pornography should be illegal until the Supreme Court overruled that.

And, don't worry, Szdfan - nobody has elected me as supreme dictator. If you have a wish to have a flood of disgusting pornography available to young children, it looks like you will continue to get that.

[mike]

And, don't worry, Szdfan - nobody has elected me as supreme dictator. If you have a wish to have a flood of disgusting pornography available to young children, it looks like you will continue to get that.

Please be aware of the forum guidelines.

[*] Do not use extreme sarcasm to minimize another's comments or opinions.
[*]Do not take another's statement and distort it to an extreme.

[JohnH]

OK, I will rephrase.

With the current judicial precedents overriding laws against obscenity and pornography, that were passed through a democratic process, and overridden through a very un-democratic process...

We have a flood of pornography that harms everyone involved in it that in turn is easily accessible to children.

As I am not a supreme dictator, my opinions on how unlawful, immoral, and harmful this is will not be changing judicial precedents anytime soon. (The laws on the books are already in agreement with me.) I am not Master Judge, nor Head of the Very Supreme Court.

What I am shocked by is anyone who would defend this status quo. It seems like a very, very bad status quo, and it is not just me, as one man's opinion, that thinks this is bad.