# Republicans want to ban Porn.



## Banhammer (Aug 29, 2012)

GOP Anti-Porn Plank Added To Draft Platform By Republican Committee


> The GOP platform committee has included a plank in this year's draft document calling for "vigorous" enforcement of anti-pornography laws.
> 
> In a press release Monday from Morality in Media, a faith-based non-profit, President Patrick Trueman, a former anti-porn prosecutor, calls the current distribution of pornography "a violation of current federal law" and lauds Republicans for approving stricter new wording:
> 
> ...


----------



## hammer (Aug 29, 2012)

>claims to hate communism like china

>bans porn like china


----------



## impersonal (Aug 29, 2012)

I'm actually fine with that. Porn hardly constitutes "speech".


----------



## Coteaz (Aug 29, 2012)

impersonal said:


> I'm actually fine with that. Porn hardly constitutes "speech".


Let's ban public interaction between men and women while we're at it. Can't be too careful.


----------



## SoleAccord (Aug 29, 2012)

I think they got the religious vote now.


----------



## corsair (Aug 29, 2012)

> "10 to 12 years looking at porn on the Internet and masturbating to it, so when they are getting married, they are dysfunctional sexually because their brain maps are changed. They enjoy what they've been doing for 10 to 12 years. Normal sex is not something that gets them excited."



I don't even know in which strange world they live in were everybody gets married between 22 and 25 years and never had sex before the wedding. Oh and only guys watch porn and masturbate, sure.


----------



## Mintaka (Aug 29, 2012)

: oldestryoma


----------



## Roman (Aug 29, 2012)

This is stupid. As much as I or anyone else would hate to admit it, porn is a big part of the entertainment industry and a lot of people will end up losing their jobs if such a bill came to pass. It's funny because they believe their faith demands it when biblical figures like Solomon held countless concubines. Their reasoning behind it is also very stupid. People's sex lives become dysfunctional as a result of masturbation? 

First off, I doubt any of the GOP members is so innocent and secondly, the only point they would have is if they said it can lead to men/women having unrealistic expectations of their partners but that's not a guarantee like they're making it out to be either. Sure, I don't agree with pornography from a moral standpoint but their reasoning behind it is terribly flawed and would have economic repercussions.



drache said:


> no worries a circumcision thread should be coming around soon and if not well I give the GOP 12 hours before they say something stupid again



Took a lot less than 12 hours in the end


----------



## beasty (Aug 29, 2012)

Honestly I would like to see them try/ I dont think the republicans understand how much porn is on the internet. Getting porn off tumblr,facebook and twitter alone would be a sight to see. Even  if they do get porn of the major sites, another will just pop like they do everyday.


----------



## Disquiet (Aug 29, 2012)

> In an interview with The Huffington Post's Jen Bendery, Trueman said youth access to pornography amounted to "a major, major problem," and even caused males in their twenties to develop "porn-induced sexual dysfunction."
> 
> "It's the Viagra problem for guys in their 20s," Trueman said. Young males are now spending "10 to 12 years looking at porn on the Internet and masturbating to it, so when they are getting married, they are dysfunctional sexually because their brain maps are changed. They enjoy what they've been doing for 10 to 12 years. Normal sex is not something that gets them excited."


This effect is nowhere near universal enough to justify a ban, though. Perhaps you should teach your "youths" to enjoy in moderation instead, as you do with everything else that causes problems in excess?



> "I wanna make sure that every new computer sold in this country after I'm president has installed on it a filter to block all pornography and that parents can click that filter to make sure their kids don't see that kinda stuff coming in on their computer," Romney said at a campaign stop in Iowa in 2007.


This Romney quote, meanwhile, is just saying that computers should be legally required to have (implicitly optional) filters installed, rather than that porn should be banned outright. It's still kind of dubious, but it's far more reasonable.


----------



## impersonal (Aug 29, 2012)

Coteaz said:


> Let's ban public interaction between men and women while we're at it. Can't be too careful.



That's not a good argument.

My point is that porn serves very little purpose, and has mostly drawbacks. It causes addiction and distraction, promotes bizarre gender roles and insecurities. Restricting it to some degree is a good thing, as it would allow people to have more control over their lives.

Ideally, I believe that porn should be banned from being directly accessible without first being allowed to make a *rational* choice as to whether or not you want to be exposed to it. For example, when you buy internet access, make porn an option: "Include adult pornographic content". Or the opposite: enforce an obligation to offer a free of charge "disallow adult pornographic content".

Note that I don't hold this position exclusively for porn. I believe the same holds for all drugs, gambling, and junk food. Advertisement for these things typically appeals to people's instincts/obsessions and not to their rational mind. One should be free to say _"I don't want people putting pictures of naked women in front of me"_. Someone struggling with his weight should be free to avoid pictures of junk food. Someone struggling with his heroin addiction should be free to avoid large banners claiming that WalMart has all the heroin and syringes he needs. Someone who bankrupted his family through gambling should be free to avoid ads saying _"Win your life back -- Gamble here"_.

Free speech is abused to manipulate people using their instincts rather than their reason, and the effects are disastrous. Some legal limits would be welcome in my opinion.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Aug 29, 2012)

Where will us single people get our jollies from?   

Its pretty funny. Ban born, legalize guns everywhere, that's not a nonsensical platform at all


----------



## Kahvehane (Aug 29, 2012)

There's no way they would be able to get legislation like that through. These guys have some seriously unrealistic expectations.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Aug 29, 2012)

impersonal said:


> That's not a good argument.
> 
> My point is that porn serves very little purpose, and has mostly drawbacks. It causes addiction and distraction, promotes bizarre gender roles and insecurities. Restricting it to some degree is a good thing, as it would allow people to have more control over their lives.
> 
> ...



Your solutions rarely have any grip on reality. That's a fast track to content-control across the internet period, and deciding what is good for people rather than putting that choice in their hands. If a person falls into an addiction to gambling, drinking, porn, unfortunate but it's not your place nor should it be anyone's to deny them that venue. 

This is all so very stupid considering that video games and the internet too have been known to have become addictive and distracting to a number of individuals at the expense of their personal lives. Yet neither should be banned. Porn does fall under "free speech", so long as it involves consenting adult parties, as it is an extension of the individual's freedom of expression. 

Banning something for (what you think) serves "little purpose" is absolutely idiotic.


----------



## Wilykat (Aug 29, 2012)

I know they will lose the next election very easily if they tried to push to ban porn.


----------



## EvilMoogle (Aug 29, 2012)

Remember, the Republican's are the party of personal responsibility.

Can't afford health insurance?  Work harder, get a better job, or just don't get sick!

Get pregnant with a child you can't afford to carry let alone raise?  Cat food is nutritious and cheap.  Keep you legs crossed next time!

Kids watching porn on the Internet?  *THE GOVERNMENT MUST BAN IT!*


----------



## hammer (Aug 29, 2012)

you cant ban shit on the web anyways


----------



## Kira Yamato (Aug 29, 2012)

They'd have greater success passing legislation if they went after and banned something a little less ingrained into society.....like oxygen.


----------



## ZERO PHOENIX (Aug 29, 2012)

Lost my vote.


----------



## hehey (Aug 29, 2012)

Stupid.... this is the era of Flashdrives and optical disks...... it would be more impossible than banning Alcohol was back in prohibition.

I wonder how long itd take until the Al Capone of porn will be born.


----------



## ShadowReij (Aug 29, 2012)

Prohibition involving porn. Oh the insanity.


----------



## Cyphon (Aug 29, 2012)

As someone who has been through lots of porn......I probably wouldn't like this happening but at the same time I can see the good in it were they able to get any real results. The problem is, you aren't going to get results with something so large as this and there is really no point in even wasting your time thinking about it. 

There are other bigger issues to spend time on.


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Aug 29, 2012)

Welcome to the People's Republic of America, where the Christian Taliban will instruct you on permissible ways to view the internet


Praise Jebus, infidels


----------



## creative (Aug 29, 2012)

.

I need my fix of big hip cumdumsters though. :sad


----------



## santanico (Aug 29, 2012)

Like they don't view any sort of porno-graphical material   /eyeroll


----------



## Saufsoldat (Aug 29, 2012)

starr said:


> Like they don't view any sort of porno-graphical material   /eyeroll



Hell no, Republicans can afford to have the rent boys sent straight to their room


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Aug 29, 2012)

"Bizarre gender roles" wtf is that supposed to mean anyways?


----------



## makeoutparadise (Aug 29, 2012)

Is porn stealing jobs from American sex workers?

Are they trying to make me go back into the spiral of depression that was my life before porn!!!? Cause that was a dark place I don't want to go back there again!!!


----------



## hammer (Aug 29, 2012)

god what was life like before I found internet porn, I cant remember


----------



## Utopia Realm (Aug 29, 2012)

hammer said:


> god what was life like before I found internet porn, I cant remember



In agreement here. Nor can I imagine life before video games.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Aug 29, 2012)

A lot of states have porn restriction laws, I know this from working at a TV company and having a customer move to some state and have to tell them it's illegal for them to get Juicy in their area. I mean this isn't too far fetched but at the same time with the internet it's also impossible.


----------



## Chuck (Aug 29, 2012)

SOPA wasn't so successful....


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Aug 29, 2012)

The Flying Chuck said:


> SOPA wasn't so successful....


Yes but SOPA had no support from a lot of people on both sides of the fence, there are a lot of Americans who don't want porn. I had a woman cancel her whole account the other day because she realized there was porn channels in there that she hadn't been able to see. 

When I explained that all pay tv providers offer pornography she told me then they just wouldn't have pay tv, and hung up.

In parts of the Bible Belt and the south, porn is ranked pretty high up there. I know a lot of people who's parents are like the above lady. And I have more than one friend that thinks porn is evil.


----------



## creative (Aug 29, 2012)

The Flying Chuck said:


> SOPA wasn't so successful....



SOPA lives in the spirit of many other ball-busting, privacy invading rights.


----------



## Bioness (Aug 29, 2012)

95% of people masturbate, the rest are lying.

As for the people who think up such crazy laws, they are likely are too old to do anything but shoot dust now.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Aug 29, 2012)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Yes but SOPA had no support from a lot of people on both sides of the fence, there are a lot of Americans who don't want porn. I had a woman cancel her whole account the other day because she realized there was porn channels in there that she hadn't been able to see.
> 
> When I explained that all pay tv providers offer pornography she told me then they just wouldn't have pay tv, and hung up.
> 
> In parts of the Bible Belt and the south, porn is ranked pretty high up there. I know a lot of people who's parents are like the above lady. And I have more than one friend that thinks porn is evil.



Those people are repressed. Do you know what's the most watched genre of porn down here? And by which demographic? It may shock you.


----------



## The Great Oneddd (Aug 29, 2012)

Porn is as American as apple pie. Getting rid of it would be impossible.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Aug 29, 2012)

Good luck with that .


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Aug 29, 2012)

Bioness said:


> 95% of people masturbate, the rest are lying.
> 
> As for the people who think up such crazy laws, they are likely are too old to do anything but shoot dust now.



Not all people masturbate to porn. If you NEED porn to masturbate you might actually have a problem. While porn shouldn't be illegal I also don't think it being a huge part of your life is healthy .



Seto Kaiba said:


> Those people are repressed. Do you know what's the most watched genre of porn down here? And by which demographic? It may shock you.



People watch porn there I am sure, but the thing I am saying they could officially ban it.


----------



## creative (Aug 29, 2012)

remember that time alcohol was illegal and america?

fuck, crazy times bro.


----------



## Mithos (Aug 29, 2012)

Oh hell naw 

Stay away from my porn!


----------



## neko-sennin (Aug 29, 2012)

ThePromise said:


> I think they got the religious vote now.



...And not much of anyone else's, if they keep blaring that. 



a creative color said:


> remember that time alcohol was illegal and america?
> 
> fuck, crazy times bro.



lol, remember that time when drugs were illegal in America? 

They made gang bosses who made Al Capone look like a small-timer by comparison, bro. 

I'm glad that's over, and America's Religious Right learned _so much_ from their grandparents' mistakes.


----------



## neodragzero (Aug 29, 2012)

impersonal said:


> My point is that porn serves very little purpose, and has mostly drawbacks.



Most of entertainment serves very little purpose if that's really the argument you're going with.

Also, what would you say if the rates of sexual assault and such have decreased while the prevalence of internet porn has increase? 


> Note that I don't hold this position exclusively for porn. I believe the same holds for all drugs, gambling, and junk food. Advertisement for these things typically appeals to people's instincts/obsessions and not to their rational mind. One should be free to say "I don't want people putting pictures of naked women in front of me". Someone struggling with his weight should be free to avoid pictures of junk food. Someone struggling with his heroin addiction should be free to avoid large banners claiming that WalMart has all the heroin and syringes he needs. Someone who bankrupted his family through gambling should be free to avoid ads saying "Win your life back -- Gamble here".



And someone who doesn't want to see any posters supporting racial equality should also be protected from that.

Seriously, you're going into freedom of expression territory with absurd hypothetical. It's a serious misuse of the reasonable argument that the number of options available to a person, such as drink size, influences what they do.

Banning porn is pointless and very unlikely to make sense at all in practice. If someone never wants to deal with it on the net, there's easy access to parent control software to block such sites.


----------



## Doge (Aug 29, 2012)

Why don't we just tax it to death?


----------



## Ennoea (Aug 29, 2012)

The Pron industry is very lucrative though, this would do more harm than good.

Banning porn would be an interesting move though, it would cause chaos and teen pregnancies. I'd love for it to blow up in the GOP's face.


----------



## Ruby Tuesday (Aug 29, 2012)

Let's be honest here, there are two types of people in the world: those who masturbate and those who lie about whether or not they masturbate. Banning porn would do nothing but lose the GOP the election. What I am trying to say is I support this move.


----------



## Revolution (Aug 29, 2012)

Good, god!  What a bogus article.  I'm starting to wonder if Huffington Post is as honest as the Onion.

If you want to know what Republicans want, watch the Republican National Convention, not bogus slam articles.  Republicans reproduce faster then Democrats if that tells you who is hornier of the two parties.


----------



## ShiggyDiggyDoo (Aug 29, 2012)

What the fuck? The porn industry is actually helpful to the economy. Why ban it? And secondly, this'll just end up like the prohibition did. 

I'm calling it now: Every single republican in America needs to be VICIOUSLY checked to see if their mental capacity is enough to be able to go into politics, because right now, I seriously know a shit load of fellow students at my school who could run this country better than them.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Aug 29, 2012)

Sarahmint said:


> Good, god!  What a bogus article.  I'm starting to wonder if Huffington Post is as honest as the Onion.
> 
> If you want to know what Republicans want, watch the Republican National Convention, not bogus slam articles.  Republicans reproduce faster then Democrats if that tells you who is hornier of the two parties.


----------



## Stalin (Aug 29, 2012)

I swear if the christian right continues to have their way, we'll have obscenity laws again.


----------



## Palpatine (Aug 29, 2012)

Republican 1: "Hmm, there are some very serious things going on in the world right now. What should we address first?"

Republican 2: "Der let's ban porn! It's yucky!"

Republican 1: "Okay!"


----------



## Toby (Aug 29, 2012)

Jenna Jameson supports this guy? wtf



> "I wanna make sure that every new computer sold in this country after I'm president has installed on it a filter to block all pornography and that parents can click that filter to make sure their kids don't see that kinda stuff coming in on their computer," Romney said at a campaign stop in Iowa in 2007.



what about imports

oh wait


----------



## hadou (Aug 29, 2012)

impersonal said:


> That's not a good argument.
> 
> My point is that porn serves very little purpose, and has mostly drawbacks. It causes addiction and distraction, promotes bizarre gender roles and insecurities. Restricting it to some degree is a good thing, as it would allow people to have more control over their lives.
> 
> ...



Could someone please ban this guy just on general principle


----------



## ShiggyDiggyDoo (Aug 29, 2012)

hadou said:


> Could someone please ban this guy just on general principle



Just ignore him. Anybody that's not an asexual are gonna disagree with his views regardless.


----------



## Lindsay (Aug 29, 2012)

Banning porn will not cease the production of porn nor will it end consumer demand for pornography. Such porn laws will only harm the citizens as a whole by either imprisoning them or robbing them. In either circumstance that is a disgrace.


----------



## Gino (Aug 29, 2012)

Go ahead and try


----------



## DemonDragonJ (Aug 29, 2012)

I find this news to be most disturbing, but also ridiculous. Pornography is a form of personal expression, and it is protected by the first amendment, the most important amendment to the Constitution. If some politicians are not fond of pornography, they are welcome to have their opinion, but they should not force that opinion onto other people.

As with other aspects of life, such as alcohol, recreational drugs (marijuana, cocaine, heroin, etc.), foods with high sugar content, or operating a motorized vehicle, viewing of pornographic material is an activity that a person should be allowed to pursue after making an informed and rational decision, knowing the consequences of their action and choosing to accept them, and not have another person make that decision for them.

Also, as with the prohibition of alcohol in the 1920's, pornography is so very popular that any attempt to ban it would be opposed very vehemently, so it would be very unwise for any politician to support any legislation that would ban it, and I therefore believe that such laws will never become a reality.


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Aug 29, 2012)

So much for Republican's claiming to want to respect and protect the Constitution...


God why can't this party just implode and go the way of the dinosaur?


----------



## Grape (Aug 29, 2012)

I have no problem with the idea of removing pornographic material from the surface of the Earth. 

It infringes on freedoms, but overall the act would be beneficial.



DemonDragonJ said:


> Pornography is a form of personal  expression, and it is protected by the first amendment, the most  important amendment to the Constitution.




Sorry, but this is total bullshit. Pornography _can_ be used for  the purpose of expressing one's self, but is it currently or has it ever  really been used for this purpose? No.

Let's be honest here. People make porn for the same reason people cook  methamphetamine; because there is a demand and someone must be the  supply. There are millions of dollars out there and all one needs to  grab a piece of the pie is a video camera, room and lights.


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Aug 29, 2012)

Please tell me you're joking. There is no way a 21st century person can agree with something like that.


----------



## Grape (Aug 29, 2012)

No, I'm not. I have no problem with erotic literature, but porn is pretty vile. I'm not saying I don't view it, but I could definitely get behind the notion of eradicating it completely. It's a pointless proposal, as it would be more than impossible to rid the world of pornographic material. However, speaking on a moral and philosophical level, I think it would benefit humanity. 

Tell me how pornography benefits anyone other than those involved in it's production and distribution?


----------



## drache (Aug 29, 2012)

is the GOP just trying to piss off everyone? or do they just have a death wish? next week there's going to be a story about a GOP offical shoving an old woman off a bus or something



Grape Krush said:


> I have no problem with the idea of removing pornographic material from the surface of the Earth.
> 
> It infringes on freedoms, but overall the act would be beneficial.
> 
> ...


 
the supreme court disagrees with you, next time know your law or history before you make sweeping claims


----------



## Inuhanyou (Aug 29, 2012)

Won't somebody think of the children!?


----------



## Grape (Aug 29, 2012)

Exactly how is pornography being used to express one's self? I'm familiar with the laws and history, but I'm looking at it in a different way and not one man bending truths to continue publishing his magazine. I'm also thinking in terms of more recent things like how unlimited access to the material affects people's minds.


----------



## Banhammer (Aug 29, 2012)

All banning porn would achieve is that from now on all porn actors cover their heads, and regulations like the frequent as hell testing for STD's and mandatory use of condom would go off the window


----------



## MinatoRider (Aug 29, 2012)

a creative color said:


> remember that time alcohol was illegal and america?
> 
> fuck, crazy times bro.




All thanks to the women's' rights movement, no joke just look it up.

And they say they wanted equal right lol?


----------



## drache (Aug 29, 2012)

Grape Krush said:


> Exactly how is pornography being used to express one's self? I'm familiar with the laws and history, but I'm looking at it in a different way and not one man bending truths to continue publishing his magazine. I'm also thinking in terms of more recent things like how unlimited access to the material affects people's minds.


 
I don't give a damn if you look at it though rose colored glasses you got out of a cracker jack, it is a fact that the surpreme court disagrees with you and that this is largely considered settled law.

You can consider that whatever you want but it's how it is


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Aug 29, 2012)

Grape Krush said:


> No, I'm not. I have no problem with erotic literature, but porn is pretty vile. I'm not saying I don't view it, but I could definitely get behind the notion of eradicating it completely. It's a pointless proposal, as it would be more than impossible to rid the world of pornographic material. However, speaking on a moral and philosophical level, I think it would benefit humanity.
> 
> Tell me how pornography benefits anyone other than those involved in it's production and distribution?


It wouldn't. You want to repress humanity back. Pornography is nothing but showing sex, which people really shouldn't be so squeamish with.

And you'd be taking away thousands of workers jobs, what do you expect porn actors and actresses to do? 

You're living in the Victorian Era mindset, which is what the Republicans want to bring back despite being hypocrites.


----------



## Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki (Aug 29, 2012)

Grape Krush said:


> Exactly how is pornography being used to express one's self? I'm familiar with the laws and history, but I'm looking at it in a different way and not one man bending truths to continue publishing his magazine. I'm also thinking in terms of more recent things like how unlimited access to the material affects people's minds.



Violence doesn't benefit anyone so we can ban that too.


----------



## Banhammer (Aug 29, 2012)

So movies like Saw are okay, but fucking, that's where you cross a line?


----------



## Grape (Aug 29, 2012)

Yes and your argument is that every decision the Supreme Court makes is infallible and can not be changed? 

Sorry but that's complete ignorance. Times change and with them law should also evolve. 

Thirty years ago no one would have guessed that the internet would turn into what it is today. They certainly wouldn't have even brought the internet up in the discussion and final ruling. If they had known that teenagers could dig up unlimited porn simply by pressing a few keys on a computer - things would be *vastly* different.


----------



## drache (Aug 29, 2012)

Grape Krush said:


> Yes and your argument is that every decision the Supreme Court makes is infallible and can not be changed?
> 
> Sorry but that's complete ignorance. Times change and with them law should also evolve.
> 
> Thirty years ago no one would have guessed that the internet would turn into what it is today. They certainly wouldn't have even brought the internet up in the discussion and final ruling. If they had known that teenagers could dig up unlimited porn simply by pressing a few keys on a computer - things would be *vastly* different.


 
My argumemnet is freedom of speech includes freedom of expression which includes porn and that the surpreme court agreed went it overturned obscenity laws and your argument is what exactly? OMG this is gross I don't like it so let's ban it?

How sad and lol @ your internet argument because there are far worse things on the internet then porn


----------



## Grape (Aug 29, 2012)

First, let me say that my argument is based on two ideas. The first is that pornography can cause reactions similar to those related to substance addiction and the second is that it can cause a person to cast subconscious projections onto others. Both ideas in theory are harmful and destructive.





SuperSaiyaMan12 said:


> Pornography is nothing but showing sex, which people really shouldn't be so squeamish with.
> 
> And you'd be taking away thousands of workers jobs, what do you expect porn actors and actresses to do?



Pornography is more than just displaying intercourse. If it were that simple then all that would be needed is one camera and a couple of people. It fuels people in different ways. I'll try to refrain from giving absolutes, but let's be real for a second.

You're being sold a fantasy, which is in fine in it's own right. Let's think about it though.

Do you watch only one porn film or scene for the entirety of your life? 

No, you don't. You watch one scene, you may even watch the same scene a few times, but eventually you _will_ find new material. Why? Simply because viewing the same thing over and over is boring. You need new stimuli. This is where elements of addiction comes in.

After viewing generic sex "continuously" over time most people will lose the "rush" they once felt while viewing it. It just becomes "the norm". 

So what is one supposed to do to regain that "high"? They begin finding new sources of stimulation. 

They start looking into different genre's of porn. Maybe Asians or redheads or something else. They explore and eventually end up down the rabbit's hole.

It can seriously affect people on a subconscious level as well in terms of how they view other people in their day-to-day lives. It's bad enough that people project their sexual desires onto people they meet and know, but add onto that the specific fetishes and such.

It's fine to be in a relationship and to decide as a couple to experiment with their sexuality. That's completely normal and quite healthy.

On the other hand, it's complete nonsense to project your fantasies onto someone you just met and expect a healthy relationship to develop. 



Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki said:


> Violence doesn't benefit anyone so we can ban that too.



Violence really doesn't benefit anyone. Viewing a boxing match is just feeding a primal lust for violence. Obviously it has it's place in other things such as film or literature, where it can be used as a plot device. 

I've both won and lost fights and not once did I feel I had won anything. Everyone loses in a fight.



Banhammer said:


> So movies like Saw are okay, but fucking, that's where you cross a line?



Films are different and Saw is a great example. In the movie, violence is used specifically to move the plot. 

It's sad to say, but even something as horrible as Saw has more plot than 99.9% of pornographic material. 


I don't know if I will continue this debate, as I really hate repeating the same things over and over with no change. Internet arguments typically end up like Theist vs Atheist arguments, and yeah, I just don't like the idea of arguing for absolutely nothing. I do like getting my opinion out there though, but I don't need to repeat it constantly.


----------



## drache (Aug 29, 2012)

^

people get addicted to the internet should we ban that too?


----------



## Grape (Aug 29, 2012)

And I dislike debating with people who are incapable of presenting an intelligent counterargument.


Such as "people get addicted to the internet should we ban that too?".


----------



## Pilaf (Aug 29, 2012)

And your arguments are intelligent?

What they really boil down to is "I find this distasteful so I want to rob everyone else of the legal right to enjoy it."


----------



## LesExit (Aug 29, 2012)

Grape Krush said:


> And I dislike debating with people who are incapable of presenting an intelligent counterargument.
> 
> 
> Such as "people get addicted to the internet should we ban that too?".


Really? I thought it was a good counterargument....  Since if you want to say porn should be destroyed simply because people get addicted to it, why not the internet too? It's sex, whether it's meaningful sex or has a great story plot or not doesn't matter. It's for entertainment and enjoyment, not to give people some wonderful insight into the meaning of life. I despise scary movies they sicken me and I have no idea how anyone could enjoy watching people getting brutally kileld. Though do I want them to be banned o.o? No. Who am I to say that people can not make them just because it makes me uncomfortable? If I want nothing to do with them, I simply don't watch it. It seems like you're just saying it make YOU uncomfortable. That's fine...don't watch it. Don't make that decision for others though


----------



## neko-sennin (Aug 29, 2012)

> "I wanna make sure that *every new computer sold in this country after I'm president has installed on it a filter to block all pornography* and that parents can click that filter to make sure their kids don't see that kinda stuff coming in on their computer," Romney said at a campaign stop in Iowa in 2007.



What my mind is left chasing its tail trying to figure out is whether this is the full extent of Romney's understanding of computers, or just more pandering to the portion of his base for whom even this is probably pushing the limits of their comprehension of technology?


----------



## .44 (Aug 29, 2012)

I think they should ban certain types of porn, like BBW and trannies. And scat.

Also there should be a MAXIMUM age for porn actresses.

Maybe we should have an agency created to make sure the pornstars are attractive enough.


----------



## Grape (Aug 29, 2012)

Pilaf said:


> And your arguments are intelligent?
> 
> What they really boil down to is "I find this distasteful so I want to rob everyone else of the legal right to enjoy it."





LesExit said:


> Really? I thought it was a good counterargument....  Since if you want to say porn should be destroyed simply because people get addicted to it, why not the internet too? It's sex, whether it's meaningful sex or has a great story plot or not doesn't matter. It's for entertainment and enjoyment, not to give people some wonderful insight into the meaning of life. I despise scary movies they sicken me and I have no idea how anyone could enjoy watching people getting brutally kileld. Though do I want them to be banned o.o? No. Who am I to say that people can not make them just because it makes me uncomfortable? If I want nothing to do with them, I simply don't watch it. It seems like you're just saying it make YOU uncomfortable. That's fine...don't watch it. Don't make that decision for others though




Nowhere did I state that porn disgusts me. I watch it.

My arguments are more in reference to younger people. They do apply to older people as well, which is fine, but I'm saying pornography can have a devastating effect on younger people and specifically how they view themselves as well as potential partners.


----------



## Derezzed (Aug 29, 2012)

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FopyRHHlt3M[/YOUTUBE]

They lost the election right here fellas.


----------



## drache (Aug 29, 2012)

Grape Krush said:


> And I dislike debating with people who are incapable of presenting an intelligent counterargument.
> 
> 
> Such as "people get addicted to the internet should we ban that too?".


 
when you have an actual intelligent arguement that doesn't ignore the law let me know till then deal with it


----------



## Grape (Aug 29, 2012)

Law can and should always be changed to suit the times. 

"I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and   constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once   known, we accommodate ourselves to them and find practical means of correcting their ill   effects. But I know also that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress   of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries   are made, new truths disclosed and manners and opinions change with the change of   circumstances, institutions must advance also and keep pace with the times." - Thomas Jefferson


----------



## drache (Aug 29, 2012)

that's a nice facist argument now on what grounds should we change the law? your personal discomfort? and why should we limit it to porn? is it because you think that's the only one you can get? and remember that the surpreme court (the highest court) has already ruled against you so you're talking about a consitutional amendment to tell people what to do

tell me I thought the point was for government to not tell people what to do?


----------



## Grape (Aug 29, 2012)

Do you really believe that to be an accurate assessment of our current government? 

I can't grow hemp to make rope in this country. Why is that?


----------



## drache (Aug 29, 2012)

your response makes utterly no sense in the context of this discussion if you mean the consitutional amendment then you need a better grasp of basic law and I don't feel like giving lessons, precedent look it up


----------



## Zhen Chan (Aug 29, 2012)

Lol ban porn?

Thats a large number of male voters gone with the wind


----------



## Bungee Gum (Aug 29, 2012)

And a lot of female voters too.


----------



## Meoky59 (Aug 29, 2012)

Personally, I'm kind of iffy on this. Not because I like porn at all, because I don't think making it illegal would do much. It would just become black market. 
If it could actually stop porn from coming out, I would actually agree with it. This is because porn sometimes contains girls who were kidnapped and forced into the sex trade. It also helps create a market for human trafficking.


----------



## Grape (Aug 29, 2012)

We're arguing two different points, I view my argument as being fundamentally above yours. 

You're saying my idea is basically facist, which _would be correct_, if I weren't saying psychology should come into play regarding this specific issue.


----------



## drache (Aug 29, 2012)

Grape Krush said:


> We're arguing two different points, I view my argument as being fundamentally above yours.
> 
> You're saying my idea is basically facist, which _would be correct_, if I weren't saying psychology should come into play regarding this specific issue.


 
that's wonderful, when you pop your ego go read the consitution and then reread it a couple more times. When it has finally soaked in then go examine why the argument of 'why porn and not the internet' completely undermines your argument and shows exactly how subjectively dumb and moralistic it is.


----------



## LesExit (Aug 29, 2012)

Grape Krush said:


> Nowhere did I state that porn disgusts me. I watch it.
> 
> My arguments are more in reference to younger people. They do apply to older people as well, which is fine, but I'm saying pornography can have a devastating effect on younger people and specifically how they view themselves as well as potential partners.



Doesn't everything in the media today have the ability to do that in some form or another today? What makes porn more special? Should we go ahead and ban all reality tv shows too? I've seen plenty things that could have a devastating effect on younger people or ANY people for that matter....


----------



## Grape (Aug 29, 2012)

You do realize I'm speaking in terms of "why?" and not "how?" - right?

I think you lost that somewhere along the line.


----------



## drache (Aug 29, 2012)

Grape Krush said:


> You do realize I'm speaking in terms of "why?" and not "how?" - right?
> 
> I think you lost that somewhere along the line.


 
oh I get it I don't think you get that I answered you, like I said when you pop your ego let me know



DemonDragonJ said:


> Yes, in that case, I misspoke earlier; perhaps pornography is not "personal expression," but it is a form of entertainment that is protected by the first amendment, so if any person does not wish to view it, they are free to not do so, but it is morally wrong (in my mind) for them to prevent other people from viewing such material.


 
techinically it's not 'personal expression' but 'freedom of expression' either way you're right it's protected under the first amendment


----------



## Grape (Aug 29, 2012)

Honestly, I'm just bored and it seemed like an interesting topic to try a counterargument against the overwhelmingly majority opinion of the forum users. My argument is extremely farfetched and based on a lecture a psychologist/sociologist gave, that I watched a few months back, but cannot find at the moment.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Aug 29, 2012)

Why are you guys bothering with this guy? This just seems like what happens when Superstars posts. You already know he isn't going to pay attention to any facts, so what is the point?


----------



## drache (Aug 29, 2012)

wait that's superstars? did he change his name then?


----------



## Kitsune (Aug 29, 2012)

Another self-own from the party, I'm thankful.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Aug 29, 2012)

drache said:


> wait that's superstars? did he change his name then?



No, Seto is just saying that the discussion is turning out like the ones Superstars used to be in, that his opinion will never change and you'll just run around in circles.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Aug 29, 2012)

drache said:


> wait that's superstars? did he change his name then?



No, just noting similarities.


----------



## Grape (Aug 30, 2012)

Inuhanyou said:


> No, Seto is just saying that the discussion is turning out like the ones Superstars used to be in, that his opinion will never change and you'll just run around in circles.




Overall not really. I thought an interesting conversation/debate could be made from the topic at hand. There are a thousand threads in this subforum that are basically filled with people unanimous in their opinions. I figured this was a decent topic to start a real discussion :S


----------



## Frostman (Aug 30, 2012)

Do it, then watch your city burn.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Aug 30, 2012)

DemonDragonJ said:


> I find this news to be most disturbing, but also ridiculous. Pornography is a form of personal expression, and it is protected by the first amendment, the most important amendment to the Constitution. If some politicians are not fond of pornography, they are welcome to have their opinion, but they should not force that opinion onto other people.
> 
> As with other aspects of life, such as alcohol, recreational drugs (marijuana, cocaine, heroin, etc.), foods with high sugar content, or operating a motorized vehicle, viewing of pornographic material is an activity that a person should be allowed to pursue after making an informed and rational decision, knowing the consequences of their action and choosing to accept them, and not have another person make that decision for them.
> 
> Also, as with the prohibition of alcohol in the 1920's, pornography is so very popular that any attempt to ban it would be opposed very vehemently, so it would be very unwise for any politician to support any legislation that would ban it, and I therefore believe that such laws will never become a reality.



I don't think it should be banned but this self expression bullshit is putting real art to shame. Just because you want to jack off it's not fucking self expression. Let's stop kidding ourselves. It's no more self expression than scratching an itch.

And comparing it to driving a car? What the fuck? You try getting to work with fucking porn, what is this stupid shit?


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Aug 30, 2012)

Grape Krush said:


> *And I dislike debating with people who are incapable of presenting an intelligent counterargument.*
> 
> 
> Such as "people get addicted to the internet should we ban that too?".



What most people are wondering about your argument is, where does it stop? And why not other forms of entertainment besides porn? You've argued that removing porn benefits people by removing an addiction. 

So where does it stop? Candy benefits absolutely no one, at least in the US where healthy carbs and proteins are abundant. It just causes obesity and tooth decay. Should candy be banned? Fast food? Alcohol? Cartoons? Video games? 

Basically you are making a subjective judgment about how people should be allowed to spend their free time based on an inconsistent cost-benefit criteria. 

Porn is a form of entertainment. Most forms of entertainment are not healthy and many are unhealthy. Your opinion is flat out alarming, mainly because you can easily choose what forms of entertainment you want. But instead of choosing something other than porn and going about your business, you've decided that your choice perhaps should be enforced on others by law. People instinctively don't want their rights taken away merely to satisfy someone else's preference. That's probably the reason you've been shot down by everyone else on this forum; most value their freedom to choose. The reaction would be the same if you tried to take away their other forms of entertainment. I suppose there may be some people who enjoy making sex tapes and posting them online, to them this is a form of expression. The majority of the porn industry are just entertainers providing a product.



Grape Krush said:


> Overall not really. I thought an interesting conversation/debate could be made from the topic at hand. There are a thousand threads in this subforum that are basically filled with people unanimous in their opinions. I figured this was a decent topic to start a real discussion :S



No one wants a discussion about which forms of entertainment they should be allowed to watch, and which should be taken away by the whims of a minority. The general view is that legal porn is made by consenting adults, and anyone who chooses to watch hasn't been forced. Therefore it doesn't infringe on anyone's rights, and that's why you have a backlash against your suggestions.


----------



## Grape (Aug 30, 2012)

To late bro, if you had posted while I was still trying to argue the side I chose I would counter. Alas, I tried to present a (somewhat out-there) argument and already conceited defeat to dreche.


Though, I still stand by this statement. 



			
				Grape Nuts said:
			
		

> I have no problem with the idea of removing pornographic material from the surface of the Earth.
> 
> It infringes on freedoms, but overall the act would be beneficial.


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Aug 30, 2012)

I wasn't looking for a counter or a debate from you, just getting my point across that the argument of artistic freedom of expression is less relevant to the porn industry from a practical standpoint than recognizing it as a form of entertainment.


----------



## Grape (Aug 30, 2012)

Cock fighting, smoking crack and performing lobotomies can all be defined as entertainment and yet are all illegal.

So what exactly is this "point" you so valiantly wish to get across?


----------



## drache (Aug 30, 2012)

lobotomies? _seriously?_ shinigami just ignore him no one could be that stupid


----------



## AuxunauxiaNoname (Aug 30, 2012)

Define "pornography"... 

Apparently "erotica" doesn't count as "pornography" according to Wikipedia, which is like the ultimate source of information for all lazy lawyers, lawmakers and bureaucrats everywhere... 

Thus, future labels of porn would all have to become "erotica", and then it would be all okay. ^_^

Oh yeah... and I'm not even sure what hentai is considered... 

... and do Republicans realize that most Romance novels contain graphic verbal descriptions of sex?

Oh yeah, and don't forget the Kama Sutra. 

I think it's probably impossible to ban all forms of "pornography" if you only define it as explicit depiction of sex in media.

God forbid anyone ever pick up a documentary on animal mating from National Geographic. That oughta teach the kids... >_< Quite honestly, my first experience watching any 'action' was watching lions humping... It was very educational.


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Aug 30, 2012)

I was pretty sure he was trolling. Then he compared a dangerous, unsound and often involuntary medical procedure to porn. That makes it too obvious.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Aug 30, 2012)

Shit I'd watch a lobotomy. I might even jack off.


----------



## EndlessStrategy (Aug 30, 2012)

I personally don't like porn. If I could wave my hand and banish it all from the earth I would. But I can't do that. Facilitating an effective porn removal in our country would involve the policing of millions of computers, and billions of files on the internet. The cost would surely be in the hundreds of millions at least. I think there are far better things to spend money to fix than this porn issue. Not to mention, if this ban goes through, we're talking prohibition. People won't stop, they'll take things underground. That's what I have to say on the subject.


----------



## Jello Biafra (Aug 30, 2012)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Shit I'd watch a lobotomy. I might even jack off.


----------



## Grape (Aug 30, 2012)

So some forms of entertainment such as candy, porn and cartoons are okay because others tell you they are, while other forms of entertainment such as sadism, drug use and animal cruelty are not okay, because the same group of individuals tell you they aren't?


----------



## drache (Aug 30, 2012)

so CTK you should make a new catogery of porn then, 'lobotomy porn' good luck getting partcipants though


----------



## Grape (Aug 30, 2012)

Masochists may surprise you with what they're willing to endure, drache.


----------



## Beatrice The Endless Witch (Aug 30, 2012)

No,no not the porn! What will I do when my girlfriend says no or kicks me out again!? But on a side note, I think the whole thing is stupid, I don't care much for porn, I mean I can deal without it, I mean I kinda relate to EndlessStrategyGames' post. I also don't think this law has a chance of getting through, it is just wasting time on things that don't need to be addressed. How about Health care or Job or Economy or almost anything besides freakin' porn. Was porn really on people's minds so much? But I must say, discussions on the Naruto forums get deep.


----------



## OmniOmega (Aug 30, 2012)

Grape Krush said:


> Masochists may surprise you with what they're willing to endure, drache.



Please stop it

Why the fuck out of all the choices did you pick a lobotomy. Fuck man


----------



## Roman (Aug 30, 2012)

Hey, let's ban all forms of fiction while we're at it. It's not like it serves any particular purpose and it creates a distorted view of reality! We can't allow people to create a personalized, inaccurate view of the world, now, can we? 



Seto Kaiba said:


> "Bizarre gender roles" wtf is that supposed to mean anyways?



Men work out and bring money home. Women stay in the damned kitchen make the men sammiches.

That's what their traditional gender roles are to them. It's bizarre that a woman would be on top of a man during the act and be a breadwinner alongside the man 

For those who like to put words in my mouth, understand that this is a joke and I don't mean any of the above is right.



Lindsay said:


> Banning porn will not cease the production of porn nor will it end consumer demand for pornography. Such porn laws will only harm the citizens as a whole by either imprisoning them or robbing them. In either circumstance that is a disgrace.



Reminds me of the alcohol prohibition era in the US. They banned alcohol, and the alcohol made more profits than ever because of the black market. Porn won't be stopped by the law in the same way it couldn't stop alcohol.



Grape Krush said:


> No, I'm not. I have no problem with erotic literature, but porn is pretty vile. I'm not saying I don't view it, but I could definitely get behind the notion of eradicating it completely. It's a pointless proposal, as it would be more than impossible to rid the world of pornographic material. However, speaking on a moral and philosophical level, I think it would benefit humanity.
> 
> Tell me how pornography benefits anyone other than those involved in it's production and distribution?



As AuxunauxiaNoname clarified, erotica =! porn, but for the sake of argument, let's assume that it is.

Porn is not something I can agree with on a personal level. Some people here might be aware that I don't find it morally excusable to sleep with multiple people. But I still don't favor this law because there's more to it at stake than the personal feelings of the people who commit to the act of sex.

A move like this, if successful, would eliminate thousands of jobs in the entertainment industry because let's face it, porn is an integral part of it with a HUGE audience, and an equally large audience spectrum. This is a benefit to the industry, as you say, but it in turn is a benefit to the people working for said industry. Just like you and me, they are also individuals with a job and need to make some kind of living.

Realize also that some of those people who work for the industry, actors in particular, haven't had the greatest fortune in life where they can find any other job that doesn't require them to have sex day in and day out with another person. If they don't have that, what would they be left with? It will only add more people to the poor, more people who would have to ask for benefits because they can't find jobs in an economy already laden with unemployment.

How does it benefit people who are not a part of the industry? Same way any other kind of fiction benefits us. We frequently watch movies where all kinds of shit blows up. But who is actually going to blow shit up? Not that very many, I would think, unless you're a terrorist but you'd be too busy supplying yourself with weapons to be watching Mission Impossible 3. We frequently watch movies where people are able to create thunderstorms or summon giant magical creatures. Who actually does that in real life? Nobody. 

So how is it a benefit? It's an escape from the boring and mundane reality of life. That's what fiction has always been, and porn is just as much a part of entertainment as anything else. Hence, if you want to get rid of porn, you might as well get rid of all other kinds of entertainment while you're at it.


----------



## neodragzero (Aug 30, 2012)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> I don't think it should be banned but this self expression bullshit is putting real art to shame. Just because you want to jack off it's not fucking self expression. Let's stop kidding ourselves. It's no more self expression than scratching an itch.



Alan Moore's "Lost Girls" and Jess Fink's "Chester5000XYV" say hello to your lazy generalization on the matter of porn.


----------



## Roman (Aug 30, 2012)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> I don't think it should be banned but this self expression bullshit is putting real art to shame. Just because you want to jack off it's not fucking self expression. Let's stop kidding ourselves. It's no more self expression than scratching an itch.





neodragzero said:


> Alan Moore's "Lost Girls" and Jess Fink's "Chester5000XYV" say hello to your lazy generalization on the matter of porn.



This and the question of how currently produced "real art" can be considered genuinely expressive when 4 fifths of it makes absolutely no sense at all.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Aug 30, 2012)

I've forgotten how fun it is to watch people bend over backwards and jump through hoops to defend porn like it's their life blood.


----------



## Fruits Basket Fan (Aug 30, 2012)

I think politicians tried to do this decades ago only for the US Supreme Court to rule it unconstitutional because it stomps on freedom of speech and expression.

And considering that the current US Supreme Court turned down a California state ban on the selling of graphic, violent video games in most stores on similar grounds.....I say that it may follow suit if the GOP even tried to do it.


----------



## Pilaf (Aug 30, 2012)




----------



## Hatifnatten (Aug 30, 2012)

I want to ban republicans.


----------



## hammer (Aug 30, 2012)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> I've forgotten how fun it is to watch people bend over backwards and jump through hoops to defend porn like it's their life blood.



porn is nothing special, they defend porn just as much as other things that have been or might be banned.


----------



## Banhammer (Aug 30, 2012)

Grape Krush said:


> Films are different and Saw is a great example. In the movie, violence is used specifically to move the plot.
> 
> It's sad to say, but even something as horrible as Saw has more plot than 99.9% of pornographic material.



But the tree of life has zero plot, while Avatar has the same plot as other movies
Are those bannable?
How about non sexualized nudity, like greek statues and anatomy books?
Trust me, I get your point, and I do seriously think you have a good one, it's just for someone like who has grown so jaded to porn that there is little difference to that, and whatching some obscure sporting event at the Olympics, hearing about people making a fuss over it is just silly.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Aug 30, 2012)

As if Vegetarians aren't always telling people not to eat meat. 



hammer said:


> porn is nothing special, they defend porn just as much as other things that have been or might be banned.



No they don't really, look at the number of views and posts this thread has in comparison to others. People on here freak out when anything bad about porn is said, when it was posted that porn addiction was a very real, serious issue they all railed against that too.


----------



## hammer (Aug 30, 2012)

the same people rally for pot it is not special


----------



## Wolfarus (Aug 30, 2012)

Damn.. wish i could find a clip of that robot chicken bit where pres. bush says "its not funny, man. Give us back our porn!" 

But yeh.. i wonder how many votes they are going to loose vs how many they gain if they seriously press this as part of their agenda..


----------



## Ippy (Aug 30, 2012)

It's all over.

gg repubs


----------



## impersonal (Aug 30, 2012)

I agree with most of what Grape Krush has been saying so far. I have one remark for him. You claim that banning all porn is impossible, and thus that the law is not good. (You are just arguing that you can agree with it on a personal level.) I can agree with that.

That is why I think it is sufficient to ban *excessively easy* access to porn. Let people decide whether their ISP blocks porn. Ban excessive erotica on advertisement or on anything non-solicited. 

I'm fine with being offered phones and shoes in ads, but I dislike getting pop-ups of naked/semi-naked women, because the later is much more invasive. The latter resonates with primal instincts and thus affects you in ways you cannot control fully; you need to make a personal effort to counter this effect. To some extent, the same goes for an ad for a big mac. Now, with the Internet, access to porn is always about 3 seconds away.

The law should take this into account. What I suggested above -- enforcing a free offer from ISPs to filter out porn -- is, I believe, a good solution.



Freedan said:


> Hey, let's ban all forms of fiction while we're at it. It's not like it serves any particular purpose and it creates a distorted view of reality! We can't allow people to create a personalized, inaccurate view of the world, now, can we?


Slippery slope arguments are to be rejected when it comes to gay marriage, but they're immediately acceptable when it comes to porn... ? Fiction serves other purposes than escapism. Fiction is also not comparable to porn in terms of its addictive power. Besides, porn serves very little purpose that cannot be achieved through other means; if we didn't have access videos of gang bangs, we'd all just masturbate to the weather girl or to victoria's secret catalogs.


Freedan said:


> Reminds me of the alcohol prohibition era in the US. They banned alcohol, and the alcohol made more profits than ever because of the black market. Porn won't be stopped by the law in the same way it couldn't stop alcohol.


Agreed. Hence why, instead of banning porn, make sure that it is not used to overpower people's own power of decision. Same for fast-food, drugs and gambling. If you're a former alcoholic, you should have a right to not be offered alcohol at every street corner by that whiskey brand that found out about your past.



Freedan said:


> A move like this, if successful, would eliminate thousands of jobs in the entertainment industry because let's face it, porn is an integral part of it with a HUGE audience, and an equally large audience spectrum. This is a benefit to the industry, as you say, but it in turn is a benefit to the people working for said industry. Just like you and me, they are also individuals with a job and need to make some kind of living.
> 
> Realize also that some of those people who work for the industry, actors in particular, haven't had the greatest fortune in life where they can find any other job that doesn't require them to have sex day in and day out with another person. If they don't have that, what would they be left with? It will only add more people to the poor, more people who would have to ask for benefits because they can't find jobs in an economy already laden with unemployment.


That's not a good way to think about economical issues. I could argue that internet scams must be maintained because doing otherwise would eliminate thousands of jobs among Nigerian scammers... That wouldn't be a very good reasoning, would it? Rather than look at how much money an industry gathers, one should look at how much an industry contributes back to society. Money that is not spent on porn or on Nigerian scammers is not necessarily lost for the rest of society; perhaps people would just spend it in some other way, e.g. going to a night-club, buying DVDs of Charlies' Angels or ordering victoria's secret catalogs. Porn actors and actresses could be employed in the huge victoria's secret catalog industry.



Freedan said:


> So how is it a benefit? It's an escape from the boring and mundane reality of life. That's what fiction has always been, and porn is just as much a part of entertainment as anything else. Hence, if you want to get rid of porn, you might as well get rid of all other kinds of entertainment while you're at it.


Let's be real. Porn is not _"an escape from the boring and mundane reality of life"_, it's a desirable way to empty your testicles. This is a very real distinction. Try not reading a book for 10 days and then resist an opportunity to read a book that stands open right before your eyes. Okay? Now try not having an orgasm for 10 days, then resist an opportunity to watch porn that's right in front of you. Tell me which is easier!

Same goes for junk food, to some extent. Try not drinking any soda or junk food for a while, after you're used to drinking it regularly. It's going to be pretty difficult, especially if people sell it at every street corner and advertise it everywhere, non-stop.

My point is that all of these things have a strong impact on people's emotions/bodily needs, and they can easily overcome people's _*rational decisions*_. So it makes sense to introduce some basic legal protections against them. It would not be a restriction of freedom; rather, it would empower every individual to make their own life choices. It would be a major step forward for personal freedom.


----------



## Raiden (Aug 30, 2012)

There are far more serious issues right now than what I'm about to watch.


----------



## baconbits (Aug 30, 2012)

The OP and the arguments that support it are quite dishonest.

First, Romney said he supports a porn filter on every computer to keep kids from accessing porn.  There's nothing controversial about helping parents keep porn from their kids.

Second, many people are claiming "there are more important issues out there" meanwhile you've taken a small segment of the entire platform and chose to debate that rather than the entirety of the platform.  Party platforms discuss all sorts of issues, both large and small.  You can focus on the small issues if you wish but don't pretend that your focus somehow means that none of the larger issues are addressed.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Aug 30, 2012)

@Raiden  - This   and Its just morality dogs trying to regulate what they feel is 'obscene material', them conservatives don't have a case in hell for this. 

Considering how many conservatives have gotten caught doing these sorts of things IRL while preaching 'social values' in public, they're just big ol hypocrites.

Basically though, even if someone was ridiculous enough to try it, the porn industry is a multibillion dollar industry, so for me, it would introduce an interesting tug of war : does the social conservatism side win or the pro business lobby win?


----------



## neodragzero (Aug 30, 2012)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> I've forgotten how fun it is to watch people bend over backwards and jump through hoops to defend porn like it's their life blood.



And I've forgotten how weak ad hominems can be.



impersonal said:


> That is why I think it is sufficient to ban *excessively easy* access to porn. Let people decide whether their ISP blocks porn. Ban excessive erotica on advertisement or on anything non-solicited.



No. It's your problem to be easily solved with ad blocking and adult page block. 


impersonal said:


> but I dislike getting pop-ups of naked/semi-naked women, because the later is much more invasive.


Stop going to porn sites then. Because that kind of thing doesn't happen from simply visiting a simple site with absolutely no porn involved.


> Fiction is also not comparable to porn in terms of its addictive power. Besides, porn serves very little purpose that cannot be achieved through other means; if we didn't have access videos of gang bangs, we'd all just masturbate to the weather girl or to victoria's secret catalogs.



Once again:



neodragzero said:


> Alan Moore's "Lost Girls" and Jess Fink's "Chester5000XYV" say hello to your lazy generalization on the matter of porn.





> That's not a good way to think about economical issues. I could argue that internet scams must be maintained because doing otherwise would eliminate thousands of jobs among Nigerian scammers... That wouldn't be a very good reasoning, would it? Rather than look at how much money an industry gathers, one should look at how much an industry contributes back to society. Money that is not spent on porn or on Nigerian scammers is not necessarily lost for the rest of society; perhaps people would just spend it in some other way, e.g. going to a night-club, buying DVDs of Charlies' Angels or ordering victoria's secret catalogs. Porn actors and actresses could be employed in the huge victoria's secret catalog industry.



The porn industry is a taxable one where people can actually know how much is being made while it's based around an actual product. Nigerian scams are not. One thing is usually an expected human activity as some point. The same can't be said for the fraud crime of scamming.

In terms of contribution to society, how about less sexual assault crimes as the ease of access to porn has increased? That sounds like a nice correlation in something Nigerian scams don't do.



impersonal said:


> My point is that all of these things have a strong impact on people's emotions/bodily needs, and they can easily overcome people's _*rational decisions*_. So it makes sense to introduce some basic legal protections against them. It would not be a restriction of freedom; rather, it would empower every individual to make their own life choices. It would be a major step forward for personal freedom.



Or it just makes more sense to use the stuff that's easily accessible to block what you don't want to see on the net.

I can easily bring up the issue of people being compulsive buyers because of the net's prevalence for ads that make them buy things. It doesn't mean ads should be banned, it means that person needs to use a bloody ad blocker.


baconbits said:


> First, Romney said he supports a porn filter on every computer to keep kids from accessing porn.  There's nothing controversial about helping parents keep porn from their kids.



And once again, filters aren't hard to come by.


> Second, many people are claiming "there are more important issues out there" meanwhile you've taken a small segment of the entire platform and chose to debate that rather than the entirety of the platform.



The OP article is about one particular part of the platform. It's well within proper discourse to discuss individual sections of a platform. People can actually talk about individual issues rather than just talk an entire document that encompass a variety of issues.


> Party platforms discuss all sorts of issues, both large and small.  You can focus on the small issues if you wish but don't pretend that your focus somehow means that none of the larger issues are addressed.


I think the criticism is more that the party platform is loaded with stuff like anti-porn and anti-gay marriage that's strangely focused upon even though Republican politicians claim the election should be focused on discussing the economy. Then again, Ann Romney and such didn't seem to get the memo either on that.


----------



## Velocity (Aug 30, 2012)

But if they ban porn, what will people use the internet for?


----------



## Revolution (Aug 30, 2012)

DO NOT FEAR PEOPLE, WE WILL NEVER TAKE AWAY YOUR PORN - Republicans


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Aug 30, 2012)

Sarahmint said:


> DO NOT FEAR PEOPLE, WE WILL NEVER TAKE AWAY YOUR PORN - Republicans



Except they will.


----------



## Kathutet (Aug 30, 2012)

They're trying to ban something you can never get rid of. Ever. Once they put all four of their braincells together, they'll realize this.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Aug 30, 2012)

hammer said:


> the same people rally for pot it is not special


Pot has medicinal purposes. Porn doesn't, see you're comparing porn to a lot of things that actually have a place in society other than "stuff you jack off to". Before we have a frank discussion about whether or not porn is right or wrong people need to agree that in the great scheme of things porn isn't that fucking important. 

Granted a lot of the internet's development can be attributed to porn, but that's more pathetic than anything.


----------



## Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki (Aug 30, 2012)

If people dislike porn so much they should move to the middle east.


----------



## Kaitou (Aug 30, 2012)

They can't get rid of something that makes 50% of the Internet. >.>


----------



## Bishop (Aug 30, 2012)

Article said:
			
		

> Republicans want to ban porn


----------



## Utopia Realm (Aug 30, 2012)

I wonder how far will they push this agenda in the coming months or will hey simply forget about itand g bac to bashing somethign else entirely...


----------



## drache (Aug 30, 2012)

Hatifnatten said:


> I want to ban republicans.


 
I still have that cannon.....



impersonal said:


> I agree with most of what Grape Krush has been saying so far. I have one remark for him. You claim that banning all porn is impossible, and thus that the law is not good. (You are just arguing that you can agree with it on a personal level.) I can agree with that.
> 
> That is why I think it is sufficient to ban *excessively easy* access to porn. Let people decide whether their ISP blocks porn. Ban excessive erotica on advertisement or on anything non-solicited.
> 
> ...


 
wow talk about a slippery slope, so you propose we become like china? You know I thought libertarians were all about personal freedom, or are you just one of those paul 'libertarians'?


----------



## hammer (Aug 30, 2012)

darche trust me china has alot of fucking porn for a cuntry that banned it.... alot.


----------



## drache (Aug 30, 2012)

^

i meant more regulation of the internet, who can see what and who can't see what etc etc, I thought porn was included in that (for china) but was pointing out the broader issue


----------



## Guadalupe455 (Aug 30, 2012)

Where will us single people get our jollies from?   

Its pretty funny. Ban born, legalize guns everywhere, that's not a nonsensical platform at all


----------



## hammer (Aug 30, 2012)

drache said:


> ^
> 
> i meant more regulation of the internet, who can see what and who can't see what etc etc, I thought porn was included in that (for china) but was pointing out the broader issue



it is included but you dont even need a proxy to find porn on the internet they even sell porn on the street next to the james bound and kamen rider movies nobody cares, you can watch porn errday.


----------



## SunnyMoonstone (Aug 30, 2012)

*What?!* 

If there is one thing in this world that should never be tried by a person with working brain cells, it's getting between the common American and their goddamn porn! This is so doomed to fail it's almost not funny.


----------



## Sanity Check (Aug 30, 2012)

They should have tried to ban vibrators & dildos.

That would have been much more entertaining AND newsworthy.


----------



## neko-sennin (Aug 30, 2012)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Pot has medicinal purposes. Porn doesn't, see you're comparing porn to a lot of things that actually have a place in society other than "stuff you jack off to".



Please don't underestimate the importance of jacking off. 

I would ask for you to stop for a moment and think about what this world would be like if the only way people could find sexual release was with another person. If everyone on Earth was forced to be as sexually repressed and frustrated as the Religious Right? 

...Yeah, I don't want to live on that Earth, either.


----------



## drache (Aug 30, 2012)

1mmortal 1tachi said:


> They should have tried to ban vibrators & dildos.
> 
> That would have been much more entertaining AND newsworthy.


 
remember kids the vibrator was originally developed and used a medical device to 'cure' hysteria


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Aug 30, 2012)

neko-sennin said:


> Please don't underestimate the importance of jacking off.
> 
> I would ask for you to stop for a moment and think about what this world would be like if the only way people could find sexual release was with another person. If everyone on Earth was forced to be as sexually repressed and frustrated as the Religious Right?
> 
> ...Yeah, I don't want to live on that Earth, either.



I think people would have less problem with not getting their way, which is a huge issue I have with most Americans right now. I think that people might be more patient and they might view women less like sex objects and more like human beings. For some it's easy to see a girl in a porn as also a person, but for others they transfer their desire to use someone onto other women. 

In the minds of some women have gone from "things to make babies" to "things I can derive pleasure from". 

Also I think if people were forced to use their imagination to beat off we'd be in a better place, there's not nearly enough imagination out there and it's because no one has to imagine anything anymore. Special Effects are nearly perfect, porn is seconds away at all times, the idea of reading something or playing a game where you don't have the ability to see everything you need to in perfect HD graphics is so foreign to people that they don't want to take time to have an imagination...


----------



## neodragzero (Aug 30, 2012)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> I think people would have less problem with not getting their way, which is a huge issue I have with most Americans right now. I think that people might be more patient and they might view women less like sex objects and more like human beings. For some it's easy to see a girl in a porn as also a person, but for others they transfer their desire to use someone onto other women.



If it was that simple, sexual assault and such would increase as porn becomes more prevalent. Statistics say otherwise. It also seems that there's really only an issue with a relatively small sample of people who have a particular interest in pretty brutal stuff rather than the average porn viewer.


> Also I think if people were forced to use their imagination to beat off we'd be in a better place, there's not nearly enough imagination out there and it's because no one has to imagine anything anymore.


Might as well suggest that people don't bother to read books or watch tv anymore for the sake of imagining their own stuff. Holy generalities.


> the idea of reading something or playing a game where you don't have the ability to see everything you need to in perfect HD graphics is so foreign to people that they don't want to take time to have an imagination...



A lazy, barely intelligent generality that would make an ignorant old man proud.


----------



## soulnova (Aug 30, 2012)

> "porn-induced sexual dysfunction."



PFFT-GFAGAAHAHAHAHAHADHFHAHDAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

xD




> "I wanna make sure that every new computer sold in this country after I'm president has installed on it a filter to block all pornography and that parents can click that filter to make sure their kids don't see that kinda stuff coming in on their computer,"



Kids will disable that shit in 5 minutes. Called it.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Aug 30, 2012)

neodragzero said:


> If it was that simple, sexual assault and such would increase as porn becomes more prevalent. Statistics say otherwise. It also seems that there's really only an issue with a relatively small sample of people who have a particular interest in pretty brutal stuff rather than the average porn viewer.



If it was that simple, you'd have a fucking argument. The truth of the matter is that someone seeing women as sex objects doesn't make them a criminal or deranged or make them want to actually physically harm women the same way me hating someone doesn't mean I want to kill them or see them dead or harmed. 



> Might as well suggest that people don't bother to read books or watch tv anymore for the sake of imagining their own stuff. Holy generalities.



First off, you have to imagine something for books to work normally. Non-fiction books are a way to pass along ideas or stories. Same with TV at times. The truth of the matter is you can't think of a defense for why porn is so important except that we like it. Before anyone takes people defending porn seriously you'll have to admit that it's not that fucking big of a deal. 




> A lazy, barely intelligent generality that would make an ignorant old man proud.


Actually it's the truth, people deem the imagination as something that's not necessary when that's all that distinguishes us from the rest of the fucking apes. A fucking monkey can jack off.


----------



## neodragzero (Aug 30, 2012)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> If it was that simple, you'd have a fucking argument. The truth of the matter is that someone seeing women as sex objects doesn't make them a criminal or deranged or make them want to actually physically harm women the same way me hating someone doesn't mean I want to kill them or see them dead or harmed.



I'm pretty sure I commented on the average porn viewer in that post rather than just talk about criminals. The fact remains that arguments about making people more positive on how they view people on the basis of banning what's still covered under freedom of expression and most definitely not the biggest factor influencing gender relations are still quite below that of any real intellectual thought. It also doesn't hurt there's a positive correlation with a decrease of how many women end up in the black market sex trade. No matter how one feels about porn, I would guess that an increase in a regulated sex industry beats a black market one where women are more likely to be abused and exposed to STDs.


> First off, you have to imagine something for books to work normally. Non-fiction books are a way to pass along ideas or stories. Same with TV at times. The truth of the matter is you can't think of a defense for why porn is so important except that we like it. Before anyone takes people defending porn seriously you'll have to admit that it's not that fucking big of a deal.


Once again, you made a very general statement about people needing less of entertainment to use their imagination more. You have failed to respond to my two quite artistic but still porn examples unless you're really suggesting that Alan Moore's "Girls" and Jess Fink's Chester 5000 XY are utterly undeserving of any defense beyond just liking it. I would consider it a big deal if stuff like those two things were banned. Ditto on numerous films that are pretty hardcore like "Short Bus." These things would be endangered by a very general Republican platform stance of banning "hardcore porn."


> Actually it's the truth, people deem the imagination as something that's not necessary when that's all that distinguishes us from the rest of the fucking apes. A fucking monkey can jack off.



And once again, no, it's not a real truth. You want to know how? How about the fact that simply making lazy generalities of "people" is quite disingenuous. You would have to specify what people? By what extent? Statistics on the matter? Etc. Your complaint quite simply sounds like a week nostalgia one where somehow "people" are limited to your talk of HD gaming and... reading with a tone of "those were the days." Porn is pretty much a non-factor on whether or not there's an issue with intellectualism in this country or any other. There's no real correlation, so, attempting to connect it at all is just weird. If you really feel there's an issue where people don't bother to pursue higher minded interest, the topics of education, economic stability, etc. are what should be connected with that.


----------



## Grape (Aug 31, 2012)

neodragzero said:


> I'm pretty sure I commented on the average porn viewer in that post rather than just talk about criminals. The fact remains that arguments about making people more positive on how they view people on the basis of banning what's still covered under freedom of expression and *most definitely not the biggest factor influencing gender relations are still quite below that of any real intellectual thought.* It also doesn't hurt there's a positive correlation with a decrease of how many women end up in the black market sex trade. No matter how one feels about porn, I would guess that an increase in a regulated sex industry beats a black market one where women are more likely to be abused and exposed to STDs.



What are these other factors which influence gender relations and why is the discussion of pornography in reference to gender relations "still quite below that of any real intellectual thought"?

And really, you're bringing up the black market sex trade in relation to masturbation? 

Here's a quick example of why that doesn't work; It is believed that for every 100 people alive at any given time there is 1 psychopath amongst them. This is a common belief amongst top psychological profilers. Note: This doesn't mean 1 in every 100 people have ever or will ever murder another human. Psychologists have yet to pinpoint what exactly makes some of these "bombs" go off, while the majority misfire.  

Anyways, based on your argument, I could reasonably assume that if books, television, movies and video games containing murder, were to somehow completely vanish from the face of the Earth, the number of psychopaths would skyrocket? Thus increasing the number of actual murderers?





neodragzero said:


> Once again, you made a very general statement about people needing less of entertainment to use their imagination more. You have failed to respond to my two quite artistic but still porn examples unless you're really suggesting that Alan Moore's "Girls" and Jess Fink's Chester 5000 XY are utterly undeserving of any defense beyond just liking it. I would consider it a big deal if stuff like those two things were banned. Ditto on numerous films that are pretty hardcore like "Short Bus." These things would be endangered by a very general Republican platform stance of banning "hardcore porn."



Alan Moore's "Lost Girls" is a work of fiction that steals any artistic merit it may have, from other people's work. The *graphic novel* is written around the sex lives of Dorothy from "Wizard of Oz", Alice from "Alice in Wonderland" and Wendy from "Peter Pan". The stories are basically "glorified" (if you could even call it that) fan fictions, which include themes of pedophilia, rape and i*c*st. I won't even bother researching your other examples, since your first was so awe inspiring 

P.S. While using the black market sex trade as an example of why one thing is bad (banning of pornography) your next argument probably shouldn't involve something that glorifies rape and pedophilia. You know, because most black market sex trades that are taken down are largely based on *RAPE AND PEDOPHILIA* 




You'll notice a somewhat excessive use of  in this post and that is simply due to


----------



## neodragzero (Aug 31, 2012)

Grape Krush said:


> What are these other factors which influence gender relations and why is the discussion of pornography in reference to gender relations "still quite below that of any real intellectual thought"?



Gender relations are more influenced by pay inequality, issues in proper education on the matter of reproductive health, poverty that unfortunately affects women and children more than men in a country like the U.S., the more prevalent show of gender roles in mass media that's well beyond the confines of influencing society's concept of gender than porn ever could, legislation that threatens a woman's right to choose, abuse of women in the black market sex trade, anti-LGBT groups and activities, etc.

All that means more to affecting states and the entire nation on gender issues than the matter of whether or not porn should be banned.


> And really, you're bringing up the black market sex trade in relation to masturbation?


I'm bringing up the fact that a regulated sex industry is better than a black market where one is more likely than the other to have the abuse of women and a greater occurrence of STD transmission. Continue to drone on about masturbation with yourself alone.


> Anyways, based on your argument, I could reasonably assume that if books, television, movies and video games containing murder, were to somehow completely vanish from the face of the Earth, the number of psychopaths would skyrocket? Thus increasing the number of actual murderers?


As strawman fallacies go, that's a pretty weak one. Do you know what correlation means? Please do point out where I claim that a decrease was CAUSED by porn and that without porn there would be a increase?


> Alan Moore's "Lost Girls" is a work of fiction that steals any artistic merit it may have, from other people's work. The *graphic novel* is written around the sex lives of Dorothy from "Wizard of Oz", Alice from "Alice in Wonderland" and Wendy from "Peter Pan". The story's are basically "glorified" (if you could even call it that) fan fictions, which include themes of pedophilia, rape and i*c*st. I won't even bother researching your other examples, since your first was so awe inspiring



In other words, you don't like homages. I don't care about whether or not you like the work. It remains that it's more than just fapping material. It's still covered as meaningful art.


> P.S. While using the black market sex trade as an example of why one thing is bad (banning of pornography) your next argument probably shouldn't involve something that *glorifies rape and pedophilia.*


It can be argued there are films that don't even reach NC-17 level that have focused on rape and pedophilia that no matter what people will see as having a message about an issue while others will simply see it as glorifying said thing. Also, another problem with your faulty comparison where one thing is fiction while the other is a problem in our reality. It's like arguing that a story with violence is without merit because even though it's an example of something that isn't simply an action film, the existence of real life violence somehow is automatically connected with said film.


----------



## neodragzero (Aug 31, 2012)

Grape Krush said:


> If you can't comprehend what I wrote, I won't take fault nor will I attempt to break it down into plainer English.
> 
> G'night kiddo.



I can comprehend fallacies quite easily enough.

Goodbye.


----------



## PikaCheeka (Aug 31, 2012)

impersonal said:


> That's not a good argument.
> 
> My point is that porn serves very little purpose, and has mostly drawbacks. It causes addiction and distraction, promotes bizarre gender roles and insecurities. Restricting it to some degree is a good thing, as it would allow people to have more control over their lives.
> 
> ...



I see your point, and more or less agree with all of this, but the bolded confuses me.

I don't seek out porn, and I don't generally get naked women plastered on my screen either. Sure sometimes you get unlucky, but in my experience, if you don't look for porn, you don't get it. I get tacky advertisements for dating websites where girls with fake tits wear bikinis, but that's about it. 

I can count on one hand the amount of time nudes and/or porn have just shown up on my screen, and every time, it was due to hacking/trolling; those aren't things that can be regulated, anyway.

Face it. Sex is more likely to be shoved in our faces on the TV than it is on the internet. 

Porn is idiotic, but trying to regulate it is going to go nowhere. It's just going to lead to it going underground, and people who are desperate for it will watch whatever they can get their hands on. If anything, it could do more harm than good, because if people have to work to find it, they're more likely than normal to stumble upon some really sick shit.


----------



## ZeroWolf123 (Aug 31, 2012)

They just lost a lot of votes


----------



## impersonal (Aug 31, 2012)

PikaCheeka said:


> I see your point, and more or less agree with all of this, but the bolded confuses me.
> 
> I don't seek out porn, and I don't generally get naked women plastered on my screen either. Sure sometimes you get unlucky, but in my experience, if you don't look for porn, you don't get it. I get tacky advertisements for dating websites where girls with fake tits wear bikinis, but that's about it.
> 
> ...


Well, I count dating ads that use semi-naked women _as part of the same problem_, as well as any ad that try to sell you something by appealing to your sex drive. Though I agree my posts were a bit confusing.

But yes, the main issue on the internet,_ more than unrequited advertising_, is the mere _immediate availability_ of porn. Given the level to which people in general, and men in particular, are naturally interested in sexual imagery, this is, I believe, unhealthy. There is an illusion that people have a choice -- however, memes all over the internet show how compulsive porn watching can get. Which 80s or 90s kid has not, at one point in their life, started 10 downloads and opened 20 windows, only to cancel everything a few minutes later when their sex drive goes down? This is not rational behavior; it's testicle-driven behavior.

Imagine if tea was very intensely pleasurable and addictive (as addictive and pleasurable as heroin, but not more harmful to your health than tea). What would happen? People would distribute it for free, in packages covered with ads. They would make a lot of money out of this, while exploiting the users' craving. Sure, it would not be very bad for their health, except in a few extreme cases. But many of these users might have better things to do. And despite their rational decisions, they just would not be able to resist the easily accessible, free, next-door tea/heroin stand. Some of these users would even start struggling with their lives, going to the stand 5 or 10 times a day for sessions of binge tea drinking. This is the current situation with porn. A lot of the consumers are not consuming so much from choice, as due to their addiction.

The solution I'm proposing is simple: enforce limitations in just how easily available these things are. Allow people who really decide to make it immediately available, to get it immediately. But _*by default*_, impose some sort of filter that would give people the time to make a rational decision, instead of a compulsive one.

On the internet, that's feasible.


			
				neodragzero said:
			
		

> Banning won't do anything beyond simply leaving it to a potential black market.


Please, pay attention. I haven't been talking about banning any of these things -- fast food, drugs, gambling, porn. I'm even in favor of legalizing most drugs. However, I believe this should come together with regulations that diminish the risk of unwilling addiction. Such regulations are possible. As it is now, the porn business operates mostly by appealing to people's craving rather than to rational decisions. That doesn't mean that one cannot rationally decide to watch porn; it just means that it is more difficult to make a rational choice.



			
				neodragzero said:
			
		

> Positive correlation. Not a causation but it's more than simply saying that a regulated sex industry is somehow without any positive within society.


Alright, there is a positive correlation. However, the causation remains open for debate (internet access also correlates with economic progress, education level, ... and a bunch of other things that could be reasonably expected to correlate with lower rape incidence). 

Meanwhile, porn also has documented negative effects; the following paper only mentions a few extreme cases:


Other papers mention links between porn and impotence and whatnot. These effects, again, are marginal; relatively few are affected; but I believe that rape prevention is also a marginal effect of porn.  

On the other hand, almost all of us are affected, to some degree, by the occasional compulsive porn browsing, and while it's not a major problem in our lives, it is still something that deserves to be addressed.


----------



## abcd (Aug 31, 2012)

impersonal said:


> That's not a good argument.
> 
> My point is that porn serves very little purpose, and has mostly drawbacks. It causes addiction and distraction, promotes bizarre gender roles and insecurities. Restricting it to some degree is a good thing, as it would allow people to have more control over their lives.
> 
> ...



Oh my, You think nudity is distracting. The argument you make is very similar to those of Burqa supporters. It is not a false analogy.

One should be mature enough to control his instincts. That is part of survival in this world.

I understand shielding kids from this but adults are a totally different issue.


----------



## impersonal (Aug 31, 2012)

abcd said:


> Oh my, You think nudity is distracting. The argument you make is very similar to those of Burqa supporters. It is not a false analogy.


There's a fairly big difference between my stance and that of burqa supporters. 

I'm talking (roughly) about preventing the use of nudity and sexual craving by businesses to manipulate people against their will. Burqa supporters are talking (roughly) about preventing women from showing their faces in public, because it is "immodest" and because the Qur'an says so.

The actions are very different, the consequences are very different, and the motives are very different. This is like comparing group sex and submarines. I'm not sure what makes you think the analogy is valid.



abcd said:


> One should be mature enough to control his instincts. That is part of survival in this world.
> 
> I understand shielding kids from this but adults are a totally different issue.


Yeah, and fighting to death to save our property from groups of bandits also used to be part of _"survival in this world"_. That didn't stop us from banning groups of bandits, and in doing so, making _"survival in this world"_ that much simpler.

New technologies bring new hazards and problems, and we have a fairly simple way to solve them that comes without any significant downsides (imho). But according to you, we should just ignore these hazards and problems, even though they are becoming more prominent, because they belong to a category of problems that is _"part of survival in this world"_, and thus should never, ever be addressed.

Sure, one should control his instincts. Right. But one does not. Nobody does. Nobody ever masters his instincts completely. If it was easy, and just a matter of maturity, most of us would have no trouble at all waking up to go to work, performing all our assignments on time, staying thin and fit, being nice to our parents, eating healthy, spending wisely, drinking in moderation, choosing the right person as a partner, overcoming our bad habits of every kind (including smoking, alcohol), etc. And that's why a pragmatic approach has some merit: when there is a simple solution with negligible drawbacks in response to a widespread problem, just adopt it.


----------



## GaaraoftheDesert1 (Aug 31, 2012)

Porn is a business which keeps a big part of the population active.
There are a lot of outcasts who found a meaning in their lives and the family they never had in the porn business.
Porn is good.


----------



## EvilMoogle (Aug 31, 2012)

soulnova said:


> Kids will disable that shit in 5 minutes. Called it.


The simpler idea is it just won't work.

The idea is to mimic the "V-Chip" in TVs.  Of course the V-Chip can work because all TVs get their programming from one of a few similar sources (cable/digital/antenna/etc).  And the government can regulate those sources (cable companies, broadcast stations, etc) to say "your programming must include a rating that the V-Chip can then monitor."

The company then delegates this task to the people they buy content from (the various TV shows/movies/etc that they deliver to the customer).

Now lets compare this to the Internet.  While it's true that every computer on the Internet has some Internet Service Provider, the Internet Service Provider has no specific connection to the content that they deliver.  

They can't go to bigboobedasianblonds.com and say "hey make sure that your site properly identifies itself as a XXX site so that computers can filter this!"  And they certainly can't manually filter all content real-time that all of their customer's request.

About all they could do is make some sort of content certificate similar to security certificates now, and have the "V-Chip" able to filter content from any site that doesn't have one of these.

Of course this would be very hostile to small businesses that now have the added expense of buying these certificates.

And of course you'd need to make a new government department to oversee the distribution of these certificates and to enforce that they are being applied correctly.

Bigger-government + hostile to business, sounds Republican to me....


----------



## neodragzero (Aug 31, 2012)

impersonal said:


> Please, pay attention. I haven't been talking about banning any of these things -- fast food, drugs, gambling, porn. I'm even in favor of legalizing most drugs. However, I believe this should come together with regulations that diminish the risk of unwilling addiction. Such regulations are possible. As it is now, the porn business operates mostly by appealing to people's craving rather than to rational decisions. That doesn't mean that one cannot rationally decide to watch porn; it just means that it is more difficult to make a rational choice.



I'm afraid that's quite simply not feasible. You would have to specify what regulation. Anything that even suggests a forced attempt to reduce advertising and the existence of a product on the net that still only comes up by going to sites that obviously will have that won't work. If someone is that addicted to online porn, they will find it no even if it was banned. You'll have to do better than ambiguity here.


> Alright, there is a positive correlation. However, the causation remains open for debate *(internet access also correlates with economic progress, education level, ... and a bunch of other things that could be reasonably expected to correlate with lower rape incidence).*


There's a study or report about that correlation? For something as general as the overall decrease of crime in the U.S. is influenced by a lot of factors bigger than porn. Factors that the Republicans should focus upon rather than bothering about porn.



> Meanwhile, porn also has documented negative effects; the following paper only mentions a few extreme cases:


Could you please quote from that? Documented negative effects for Italians in terms of individuals that are addicted to something isn't special to porn.


> Other papers mention links between porn and impotence and whatnot. These effects, again, are marginal; relatively few are affected;* but I believe that rape prevention is also a marginal effect of porn.  *


Believe or not, still have the correlation while it's better for society to have a regulated sex trade rather than just increase the scale of a black market.


> On the other hand, almost all of us are affected, to some degree, by the occasional compulsive porn browsing, and while it's not a major problem in our lives, it is still something that deserves to be addressed.



Compared to pay inequality, issues in proper education on the matter of reproductive health, poverty that unfortunately affects women and children more than men in a country like the U.S., the more prevalent show of gender roles in mass media that's well beyond the confines of influencing society's concept of gender than porn ever could, legislation that threatens a woman's right to choose, abuse of women in the black market sex trade, anti-LGBT groups and activities, etc, no, not really.


----------



## Megaharrison (Aug 31, 2012)

Porn is a lucrative large industry in the U.S. with too much popular use (aka 100%). Ideological gak like this is used in election season to mobilize their constituency but democratically elected leaders always moderate themselves when they deal with the realities of politics. 

So are the Republicans fucking stupid for bringing this up? You betcha. Will porn be banned if Romney is elected? No fucking way.

TL;DR: Porn ban not gonna happen. The only stupid bans I can see Republicans actually achieving is a constitutional ban on gay marriage (at the state level anyway) and downloading free shit on the internet, the latter of which isn't even really a partisan issue and drags into the realm of actual legality.


----------



## Enclave (Aug 31, 2012)

impersonal said:


> That's not a good argument.
> 
> My point is that porn serves very little purpose, and has mostly drawbacks. It causes addiction and distraction, promotes bizarre gender roles and insecurities. Restricting it to some degree is a good thing, as it would allow people to have more control over their lives.



Interactions between non-married men and women result in rape and sexual assault though.


----------



## Grape (Aug 31, 2012)

neodragzero said:


> *I'm bringing up the fact that a regulated sex industry is better than a black market where one is more likely than the other to have the abuse of women and a greater occurrence of STD transmission.* Continue to drone on about masturbation with yourself alone.
> 
> As strawman fallacies go, that's a pretty weak one. Do you know what correlation means? *Please do point out where I claim that a decrease was CAUSED by porn and that without porn there would be a increase?
> *



You're implying that it's either one scenario or the other. If you aren't, then why even bring sex trades into the conversation? 



			
				neodragzero said:
			
		

> In other words, you don't like homages. I don't care about whether or not you like the work. It remains that it's more than just fapping material. It's still covered as meaningful art.
> 
> It can be argued there are films that don't even reach NC-17 level that have focused on rape and pedophilia that no matter what people will see as having a message about an issue while others will simply see it as glorifying said thing. Also, another problem with your faulty comparison where one thing is fiction while the other is a problem in our reality. It's like arguing that a story with violence is without merit because even though it's an example of something that isn't simply an action film, the existence of real life violence somehow is automatically connected with said film.



The difference between those films and Moore's "Lost Girls" is that the author and illustrator of the latter have said it is pornography in clear, plain English. It's no different than any fan fiction hentai that can be found. The simple fact that the creators of the book say it's pornography, means that it was created with the intention of people masturbating to it's content. Thus the acts within the book such as rape, i*c*st and pedophilia are therefor being glorified. People aren't supposed to be jerking-off to the films you are using as an example in your counterargument.


----------



## neodragzero (Aug 31, 2012)

Grape Krush said:


> You're implying that it's either one scenario or the other. If you aren't, then why even bring sex trades into the conversation?



I'm implying a positive correlation while it's a given that regulated industry is less abusive and dangerous for women than the black market one. It's quite simply the reality.


> The difference between those films and Moore's "Lost Girls" is that the author and illustrator of the latter have said it is pornography in clear, plain English.


A meaningless difference where a graphic three way between men is still to be considered pornography. If you want to play the game of words, Alan Moore doesn't refer to his book as hardcore porn specifically but the definition of such is ambiguous as far as any ban suggested by the Republican platform goes.


> It's no different than any fan fiction hentai that can be found.


Personal opinion and taste rather than analytic fact. Once again, I don't care whether or not you find the art suspect. It's still covered as something meaningful beyond just being there for fap.


> The simple fact that the creators of the book say it's pornography, means that it was created with the intention of people masturbating to it's content.



Really, let's see what Alan Moore has to say on the matter:



> Speaking of pushing the medium forward with familiar things: Lost Girls may be one of the few mainstream graphic novels to address the issue of pornography so explicitly.
> 
> Moore: It's funny, we seem to have a marvelous tradition of erotic art, and a not so quite marvelous tradition of people getting upset about it. It's an ongoing dialogue, I suppose, that cultures have with themselves. Certainly it seemed to us [Moore and Gebbie] that sex, as a genre, was woefully under-represented in literature. Every other field of human experience—even rarefied ones like detective, spaceman or cowboy—have got whole genres dedicated to them. Whereas the only genre in which sex can be discussed is a disreputable, seamy, under-the-counter genre with absolutely no standards: [the pornography industry]—which is a kind of Bollywood for hip, sleazy ugliness.





> Did you steep yourself in Victorian-era pornography and such when researching the book?
> 
> Moore: Yeah, the amount of research I had to do on this project—it was really a strain. I really don't like most modern pornography, and most modern pornography is photographic. I find that I gravitate more toward illustrations or literature. I did read a number largely from the Victorian and Edwardian period. I read a sampling of Victorian and Edwardian pornography which I thought was surprisingly good. It was very human, very pleasure-centered. And often you'd get quite startling chapters where, in the middle of an orgy, most of the characters suddenly break off to have a discussion about sexual morals, sexual etiquette. Discussions of how women should not be forgotten—views that actually sound very advanced for the Victorian period.





> You touch on a lot of taboos in Lost Girls, and most of us have the ability to get aroused by quite a bit of it.
> 
> Moore: The thing is, unless we can talk about that mechanism of arousal, freely, then terrible things can happen. One of the things that—when we were still doing Lost Girls—I was aware of was the fact that certain countries in Europe, Holland, Denmark, Spain, have very liberal laws regarding pornography. Hardcore pornography is available in every family news agency. What they don't have is the appalling amount of sex crimes, particularly the number of crimes against children.
> 
> ...




Yeah, nothing but the intent of making people masturbate.


> Thus the acts within the book such as rape, i*c*st and pedophilia are therefor being glorified.


From the looks of the above, no.


----------



## Grape (Aug 31, 2012)

You can dress a wolf in sheep's clothing, but it is still a wolf. At the end of the day he still refers to the book as pornography. He could have written erotic literature while including the same details and themes, but he didn't. He authored "Western Hentai".


----------



## Nick Soapdish (Aug 31, 2012)

Banhammer said:


> GOP Anti-Porn Plank Added To Draft Platform By Republican Committee



I keep on reading the thread title as "Republicans want to buy Porn". Which frankly makes more sense. Utah is the top user of online porn and Republican visitors spend about 3x as much at strip clubs (which might just mean that Democrats are cheap).


----------



## Dragon (Aug 31, 2012)

That shit's pathetic. If you dont want to watch porn , don't fucking watch it. If you don't want your 'child's mind to be corrupted', then move under a rock.


----------



## neodragzero (Aug 31, 2012)

Grape Krush said:


> You can dress a wolf in sheep's clothing, but it is still a wolf.


And once again, no, proper analysis isn't interested in your lazy critique bias.


> At the end of the day he still refers to the book as pornography. He could have written erotic literature while including the same details and themes, but he didn't. He authored "Western Hentai".



Still meaningless against the counter-argument to the suggestion that it being porn means that it's simply there for fapping and most definitely isn't there to simply glorify sexual assault. You have no real argument here.


----------



## Saishin (Aug 31, 2012)

After that no doubts Obama will win the elections


----------



## Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki (Aug 31, 2012)

Grape Krush said:


> You can dress a wolf in sheep's clothing, but it is still a wolf. At the end of the day he still refers to the book as pornography. He could have written erotic literature while including the same details and themes, but he didn't. He authored "Western Hentai".



I'm not sure I'm following you here.

*Porn has no value because it has no plot
*Lost Girls is porn
*Therefore Lost Girls has no plot

??


----------



## Grape (Aug 31, 2012)

You're correct in that you are not following me.

Porn does have value and can have a plot, but that doesn't mean that "Lost Girls" is literature. It's a graphic novel. It's inherently different than reading a story where a person must use their imagination to create images of the characters and their settings.

If the book didn't supply it's own visual stimuli, this would be a very different discussion.


----------



## neodragzero (Aug 31, 2012)

Grape Krush said:


> Porn does have value and can have a plot, *but that doesn't mean that "Lost Girls" is literature*. It's a graphic novel. *It's inherently different than reading a story where a person must use their imagination to create images of the characters and their settings.*
> 
> If the book didn't supply it's own visual stimuli, this would be a very different discussion.



Meaningless to discussion on whether or not something has artistic merit. Complaints about something not being classical literature is irrelevant to the topic at hand. It's a weak red herring when the original stipulation being argued against is the idea that said book is simply limited to the constraints of generalization of genre.

On another note, reading something that is fiction, pictures or not, still requires enough imagination to actually at the same time believe and not believe something is real. There's still a connection there for a reader that's more than just a matter of what's below the belt. Your argument is still void.


----------



## Terra Branford (Aug 31, 2012)

Ban Porn.


----------



## DeK3iDE (Sep 3, 2012)

Dragon said:


> That shit's pathetic. If you dont want to watch porn , don't fucking watch it. If you don't want your 'child's mind to be corrupted', then move under a rock.


for real. That's why it's called adult entertainment. I bet some of those same ppl are closet freaks  Leave it to Reps to pull some bullshit out of their hat to get elected. And folks never stop eating it up. Shame really


----------



## Samehada (Sep 4, 2012)

This is just a political stunt. No one should take it seriously. The Republicans are just quietly adding this in their platform just for something to point at if they begin to lose some red voters. It will just force Obama to say, "Porn is good," and snicker as idiotic Americans lose their shit thinking Obama is encouraging porn in general.


----------



## Terra Branford (Sep 4, 2012)

The porn lovers, even if they were serious, would never let it fly anyways.


----------



## Golden Circle (Sep 4, 2012)

My, that's going to be very successful.

Not.


----------



## Sōsuke Aizen (Sep 4, 2012)

Just how the hell is this piece of shit proposal beneficial to all but the asexuals?


----------



## Ae (Sep 4, 2012)

I only fap to hentai because I can't do that irl


----------



## Terra Branford (Sep 4, 2012)

Why isn't this getting any attention, exactly?


----------



## Doge (Sep 4, 2012)

Terra Branford said:


> Why isn't this getting any attention, exactly?



Judging by the nature of the news, this will make headlines in the appropriate order:

Personal discovery>Reddit (where I found it)>9gag (reposting bastards)>>yahoo news>>>>>>and 5 days after it's signed into law the mainstream media.


It's just not SOPA level outrage these days I guess.


----------

