Lily philips and the disgrace of pornography

[JoyE]

The primary difference is that you apparently approve of the one, but not the other.

Firearms and cigarettes aren't the same thing at all, and no, I don't approve of people misusing firearms or shooting each other with them.

However, I do think lawful self defense is lawful, regardless of my own personal feelings on the issue. I don't see a problem with people who lawfully bear arms and don't misuse them.

Do you?

You have been couching this discussion of pornography in terms of good and evil. And not "lawful" vs. "unlawful" Since ordinary pornography is clearly lawful and pornographers have the law on their side. Producing, selling, and consuming porn is perfectly lawful, more so than killing someone in self defense in fact.

As for killing? Killing is evil. It is right there in the 10 Commandments. And my version of the 10 Commandments has no self defense "loophole". Does yours? I specifically mentioned handguns and assault weapons like the AR-15 which designed for one purpose only. To kill people. One could argue that just like porn, they have no redeeming value. As opposed to shotguns or hunting rifles designed for hunting which one could argue are just "tools" for putting food on the table.

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?

You don't think the purpose of porn is to make men and boys covet the women/girls/boys they are watching??

[the-real-steve]

We need to keep in mind that when I was a teenager, such material was difficult for a young man to acquire: Either you went to an adult video store to rent it, or you bought a magazine at the corner gas station.

Today, any unlocked/unfiltered device can search for it.

[JohnH]

Can you refrain from telling me what I want or don’t want, please? I have never stated I wanted the law to enforce my beliefs on everyone else.

Maybe you could practice that yourself?

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.

“If”

If you don’t wish that, well, that would be good. I hope you don’t.

I have never stated I wanted the law to enforce my beliefs on everyone else. Pornography is bad, harmful, and was democratically decided it should be illegal. Those are all facts. That’s not authoritarianism.

Genuinely curious how these two ideas fit together -- on the one hand, you’ve said you don’t want the law to enforce your beliefs on others. On the other hand, you support laws banning pornography, which you describe as harmful and morally wrong. Isn’t that a case of the law enforcing a moral belief? I’m trying to understand where the line is.

I think murder is harmful and should be illegal.

I am not in charge of either making laws or enforcing them.

I support laws making murder illegal, and prosecuting murderers.

Is that “forcing my beliefs on others”?

[JohnH]

We need to keep in mind that when I was a teenager, such material was difficult for a young man to acquire: Either you went to an adult video store to rent it, or you bought a magazine at the corner gas station.

Today, any unlocked/unfiltered device can search for it.

Or a filtered device… in the hands of a young child.

[Szdfan]

It's possible to believe these two things at the same time --

Yes, porn is immoral. No, I don't think the government should criminalize it.

It's possible to believe that:

• Porn is spiritually harmful.
• Damages families and individuals
• Has no place in a healthy life

And still believe that criminalizing it does more harm than good, especially when it comes to civil liberties and legal overreach.

[Szdfan]

Can you refrain from telling me what I want or don’t want, please? I have never stated I wanted the law to enforce my beliefs on everyone else.

Maybe you could practice that yourself?

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.

“If”

If you don’t wish that, well, that would be good. I hope you don’t.

I have never stated I wanted the law to enforce my beliefs on everyone else. Pornography is bad, harmful, and was democratically decided it should be illegal. Those are all facts. That’s not authoritarianism.

Genuinely curious how these two ideas fit together -- on the one hand, you’ve said you don’t want the law to enforce your beliefs on others. On the other hand, you support laws banning pornography, which you describe as harmful and morally wrong. Isn’t that a case of the law enforcing a moral belief? I’m trying to understand where the line is.

I think murder is harmful and should be illegal.

I am not in charge of either making laws or enforcing them.

I support laws making murder illegal, and prosecuting murderers.

Is that “forcing my beliefs on others”?

That’s the difference, John. Murder is illegal not just because it’s immoral, but because it violates the most basic legal and human right -- the right to life. It’s a crime of direct harm against another person.

Watching or producing pornography — however morally objectionable you may find it — doesn’t automatically violate another person’s rights. That’s why it falls into a different category: private, consensual behavior.

Not everything that’s immoral should be illegal. That’s not moral relativism — it’s the foundation of any pluralistic legal system.

[Ken]

We need to keep in mind that when I was a teenager, such material was difficult for a young man to acquire: Either you went to an adult video store to rent it, or you bought a magazine at the corner gas station.

Today, any unlocked/unfiltered device can search for it.

On the other hand back when I was a teen boys stared at the girls in school, put up posters of Farrah Fawcett on their walls, and thought about the opposite sex about 90% of their waking hours. I’m not sure all that much has changed.

When I catch boys in class on their phones today it is 99% watching sports clips, TikTok, YouTube, or social media posts by friends. Never porn. Kids are absolutely distracted by their phones. But it isn’t porn addiction for the most part. They are distracted by the girls in their classes and vice versa. So that hasn’t changed.

[R7ehr]

Maybe you could practice that yourself?

“If”

If you don’t wish that, well, that would be good. I hope you don’t.

Genuinely curious how these two ideas fit together -- on the one hand, you’ve said you don’t want the law to enforce your beliefs on others. On the other hand, you support laws banning pornography, which you describe as harmful and morally wrong. Isn’t that a case of the law enforcing a moral belief? I’m trying to understand where the line is.

I think murder is harmful and should be illegal.

I am not in charge of either making laws or enforcing them.

I support laws making murder illegal, and prosecuting murderers.

Is that “forcing my beliefs on others”?

That’s the difference, John. Murder is illegal not just because it’s immoral, but because it violates the most basic legal and human right -- the right to life. It’s a crime of direct harm against another person.

Watching or producing pornography — however morally objectionable you may find it — doesn’t automatically violate another person’s rights. That’s why it falls into a different category: private, consensual behavior.

Not everything that’s immoral should be illegal. That’s not moral relativism — it’s the foundation of any pluralistic legal system.

Why do you oppose criminalizing pornography, but support criminalizing child pornography? This seems a clear cut case of allowing society to shape your morals.

[Szdfan]

“If”

If you don’t wish that, well, that would be good. I hope you don’t.



I think murder is harmful and should be illegal.

I am not in charge of either making laws or enforcing them.

I support laws making murder illegal, and prosecuting murderers.

Is that “forcing my beliefs on others”?

That’s the difference, John. Murder is illegal not just because it’s immoral, but because it violates the most basic legal and human right -- the right to life. It’s a crime of direct harm against another person.

Watching or producing pornography — however morally objectionable you may find it — doesn’t automatically violate another person’s rights. That’s why it falls into a different category: private, consensual behavior.

Not everything that’s immoral should be illegal. That’s not moral relativism — it’s the foundation of any pluralistic legal system.

Why do you oppose criminalizing pornography, but support criminalizing child pornography? This seems a clear cut case of allowing society to shape your morals.

Child pornography is illegal because it involves the direct exploitation and abuse of a minor — a person who cannot legally consent. That’s not about moral discomfort. It’s about violated rights and bodily autonomy.

You can believe that pornography is morally wrong and still understand that, legally, adults are allowed to consent to things you may find immoral. That’s the difference between a moral framework and a legal system based on individual rights.

[JohnH]

Yes, and the tobacco industry argued for a long time that people had an “individual right” to choose to smoke (and become addicted to cigarettes).