The Great Porn Debate - The Coomites vs Anti-Faparians

[ITK]

if you think we should ban porn, you should also believe we should ban sugar.

Why? Why are those two equivalents? The alleged ill effects of sugar here are not of the same nature as the ill effect of porn. Porn is inherently degrading to human dignity, irrespective of the quantity in which it is consumed or the consequences it has on the consumer. The proper comparison to make here is with cocain or some other hard drug. I brought up hard drugs, not to say that they and porn are analogical to eachother but simply to make the point that there are things which government should rightfully restrict. What you really should say is "if you think we should ban certain drugs, you should also believe we should ban sugar". Now, I don't know if you think we should decriminalize cocaine or not, but if you do, you'll have to solve that equation on your own, because we're not discussing drugs ITT. Again, the only reason I brough them up is to say that certain things are rightfully restricted by government. The reason porn is wrong, however, is not just because it is addictive.

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

Why do you care? We already state that it should only be accessible to 18+, already have sex trafficking laws on the books and punish those who commit such acts to under 18s or show pornographic acts to them. Why this we can go further mentality?

I'd just fucking shoot you tbh.

Them too. Fuck off and leave me alone, it's not that hard. Your culture war is fake and gay bullshit drummed up for advertiser money. You really wanna make a change then go after the heads of JP Morgan Chase, Visa and Mastercard instead of fucking with me.

 

[Spud]

I'm a draconian cockslut

You're just mad cause it's not your boot on the neck.

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

You're just mad cause it's not your boot on the neck.

Some necks need boots.

 

[LurkTrawl]

Why? Why are those two equivalents? The alleged ill effects of sugar here are not of the same nature as the ill effect of porn. Porn is inherently degrading to human dignity, irrespective of the quantity in which it is consumed or the consequences it has on the consumer.

Are addictions not inherently degrading to human dignity? Is obesity, ill health, and the societal effect of having that extra burden on the healthcare system not as society-affecting as pornography? Or do you think a 300lb twelve year old walks around feeling dignified?

Further, as I somewhat glibly stated, do you not think a consequence of having so much sugar available for consumption, and put in so many products, also contributing to the usage of pornography? It's not like having a nation where half of the adult population is obese isn't affecting the rates of people finding successful relationships and thus not desiring sexual gratification elsewhere.

Further a lot of this argumentation is around whether or not the average person is capable of consuming it responsibly. Do you think sugar and it's effects on the American populace shows that most people can deal with it responsibly?

The proper comparison to make here is with cocain or some other hard drug. I brought up hard drugs, not to say that they and porn are analogical to eachother but simply to make the point that there are things which government should rightfully restrict.

So do you think the addictiveness of pornography isn't an issue, or comparable to other drugs? If that's not the case then why argue that it has a social effect at all?

I find it disingenuous at best to try and decouple the argument that it is addictive from the argument that it has societal harm. If the former wasn't an issue the later wouldn't be either.

What you really should say is "if you think we should ban certain drugs, you should also believe we should ban sugar". Now, I don't know if you think we should decriminalize cocaine or not, but if you do, you'll have to solve that equation on your own, because we're not discussing drugs ITT. Again, the only reason I brough them up is to say that certain things are rightfully restricted by government. The reason porn is wrong, however, is not just because it is addictive.

I'm bringing up sugar because it logically follows that it being so widely both used and available in products has had a noticeably negative affect on American society. Or are you going to seriously say that it hasn't?

Also morally too, one could argue, that it has warped culture to have so many people in both adulthood and childhood suffer from obesity. You see such shit as HAES being pushed, the exaltation of ugliness and gluttony, and a celebration of hedonistic lifestyles including sexual degeneracy all over the place. To argue that having a high obesity rate from sugar being so ubiquitous in the food we consume - often added for it's addictive properties like caffeine to products that otherwise wouldn't require it - isn't comparable to pornography I find absurd.

Now, I've already stated in a previous post that I personally wouldn't give the government control over what I can and cannot buy to eat. However if you're going to be logically consistent you'd also want sugar to at the very least be reduced to foods that already contain it naturally such as fruits and certain vegetables, and outlawed elsewhere for the same reason - that it has a noticeable deleterious effect on society's physical, and cultural, health.

Pornography as well, frankly, is directly comparable to a drug, unless for some reason you think the endorphins and dopamine released during orgasm somehow "don't count".

 

[Spud]

Some necks need boots.

I'm glad you volunteered to dig the ditch comrade, I'll stand to the side here with the gun to keep you safe while you dig.

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

I'm glad you volunteered to dig the ditch comrade, I'll stand to the side here with the gun to keep you safe while you dig.

I can't dig a mass grave for Democrats all on my own.

 

[Spud]

I can't dig a mass grave for Democrats all on my own.

Not with that attitude.

 

[ITK]

Further a lot of this argumentation is around whether or not the average person is capable of consuming it responsibly. Do you think sugar and it's effects on the American populace shows that most people can deal with it responsibly?

Pornography cannot be consumed responsibly even in theory. Any consumption at all is instrinsically evil. If you would, notice that when I mentioned why the consumption of hard drugs was evil and subsequently prohibited by society, I cited their inherently self-mutilating and reason-depriving nature, not their addictiveness. This would make them wrong even in moderation. But, sure, their addictiveness greatly contributes to this and I suppose on could argue the addictiveness itself is reason-depriving as well. Listen, I'm not opposed to some sort of massing of the social body for the purpose of combatting physical degeneration, but I don't really see the specific relevance here.

Let me ask you this: are you in favour of the current laws against hard drugs remaining, and if so, how do you square that with your opinion that the state shouldn't regulate what fooditems you put into your body?

 

[LurkTrawl]

Pornography cannot be consumed responsibly even in theory. Any consumption at all is instrinsically evil. If you would, notice that when I mentioned why the consumption of hard drugs was evil and subsequently prohibited by society, I cited their inherently self-mutilating and reason-depriving nature, not their addictiveness. This would make them wrong even in moderation.

I would argue that the results of having added sugar to everything, and widely available as well as cheap confectionery, has passed the same test for whether or not it's "intrinsically evil". If it hadn't, it wouldn't have had such an overt affect on the American landscape of both health and culture.

Or do you think sugar hasn't had more of an ill-effect on society than hard drugs and pornography? I don't know where you're at, but I see vastly more people who are obese than I do meth-heads or coomers when I go about my business.

But, sure, their addictiveness greatly contributes to this and I suppose on could argue the addictiveness itself is reason-depriving as well. Listen, I'm not opposed to some sort of massing of the social body for the purpose of combatting physical degeneration, but I don't really see the specific relevance here.

The specific relevance is to logical consistency. If we're going to be talking purely in the realm of philosophical, theoretical, and moral, then the least I expect is honest consistency in the application of the logical premises being discussed. If you profess to believe that certain practices and substances be it pornography, or drugs, should be restricted by a top-down apparatus then I want to talk about something that has had a fucking enormous effect on the American public far more and very easily arguably than pornography, and why it is that such an issue is looked over or even rationalized as compared to the topic directly at hand.

What set me off on this was the talk of ice cream earlier and how apparently, that's okay because the public generally can handle it. It's not the first time I've seen this carving out of an exception and I more or less want to see where and inquire as to why this logic doesn't apply to something like sugar, or even added salt or fats to food.

If this is a discussion about pornography, it's deleterious effects and the reasoning why the government should be leveraged to corral the populace's access to it, I see no reason why exploration of the foundational logic behind it shouldn't be considered relevant. And I can't say this enough, especially given that having so many fatasses is likely a cause of it's ubiquitous use.

Let me ask you this: are you in favour of the current laws against hard drugs remaining, and if so, how do you square that with your opinion that the state shouldn't regulate what fooditems you put into your body?

My take on it is that the states in the U.S., and the federal government, should at the minimum have their amount of power "flipped", in that states should be capable of representing their constituencies without the federal government being able to slap them down.

So to answer your question, if I lived in New Hampshire, and porn/sugar wasn't banned there, and Vermont banned both, I'd be okay with that but continue to live in NH. I see it as a natural extension of the freedom of association to at the minimum be capable of having an outsized say in what affects you and your local region.

I don't want the fucking federal government telling people in Georgia who don't want blacks in their businesses that they are forced to accommodate them any more than I want the federal government telling people in California that they can't accommodate blacks in their restaurants.

I'm for strong, small, representative local government, so people aren't living in or under conditions that they find unpalatable.

 

[Balalaika Z Bree]

You're just mad cause it's not your boot on the neck.

Injustice and cruelty, the grim business of force used to keep the laws we live by, that's the alternative to complete anarchy, a taste of which we saw in the "summer of love" with it's "firey but mostly peaceful protests".

The boot, like poverty, will always be with us in this life, and it is inevitable those who do not wear it resent feeling it's toe or sole from the outside.

Some necks need boots.

Some heads need heels.

 

[Otis Mallebrok]

I actually think the comparison with sugar is an apt one. We evolved in the pleistocene where we needed to hunt and plough to satisfy our hunger, and we needed to make huts and tools and clothes to protect our selves and our families. Satisfaction of our most immediate needs, was a step in our struggle to become better and fuller cavemen and women, by requiring commitment to family, tribe, children, spouse and so on. Nowadays consumption for its own sake has become the norm, and man can coom without family and eat as much as he can without any effort or struggle, and we have a rampant obesity epidemic of fat coombrained basement dwellers, whose only social commitment is to anime avatars online. It's a sad thing.

 

[ITK]

I would argue that the results of having added sugar to everything, and widely available as well as cheap confectionery, has passed the same test for whether or not it's "intrinsically evil". If it hadn't, it wouldn't have had such an overt affect on the American landscape of both health and culture.

Or do you think sugar hasn't had more of an ill-effect on society than hard drugs and pornography? I don't know where you're at, but I see vastly more people who are obese than I do meth-heads or coomers when I go about my business.

Well it's not. Sugar might be against the greater good, but you can still theoretically (and practically) consume it in moderation. Maybe if you are a consequentialist who believes the moral rightness of an action is solely determined by the state it causes to come into being, but in that case your analysis of rights fluid and open to change, and the whole Libertarian thing sort of falls apart. You could argue that the state allowing itself the power to stop bad speech for instance, would be bad in the long term due to the inevitable consequences of government overreach, but you reject the notion of "inalienable rights" and you would have a really hard time arguing for the sort non-agression principle you seem to be operating on. If consequentialism is true then we probably should ban sugar.

What set me off on this was the talk of ice cream earlier and how apparently, that's okay because the public generally can handle it. It's not the first time I've seen this carving out of an exception and I more or less want to see where and inquire as to why this logic doesn't apply to something like sugar, or even added salt or fats to food.

This is a thread about pornography, which is wrong for reasons different than why many drugs are, but I am opposed to certain drugs, it's true. If you were to prove to me that sugar is on the level of cocaine, then sure, I wouldn't be opposed to a ban.
Consider this though: it is wrong to ban something for the few for the sake of the many. Just because most people cannot handle sugar, doesn't mean it should be restricted for those that can. Again, this doesn't apply to something like hard drugs or pornography, which cannot be morally consumed even in moderation.

My take on it is that the states in the U.S., and the federal government, should at the minimum have their amount of power "flipped", in that states should be capable of representing their constituencies without the federal government being able to slap them down.

So to answer your question, I'd rather if I lived in New Hampshire, and porn/sugar wasn't banned there, and Vermont banned both, I'd be okay with that but continue to live in NH. I see it as a natural extension of the freedom of association to at the minimum be capable of having an outsized say in what affects you and your local region.

I don't want the fucking federal government telling people in Georgia who don't want blacks in their businesses to be forced to accommodate them any more than I want the federal government telling people in California that they can't accommodate blacks in their restaurants.

I'm for strong, small, representative local government, so people aren't living in or under conditions that they find unpalatable.

I think every county should have total self-governance. When it comes to democracy, it can only exist in a pure state in one person. As soon as you add one more to the electorate, you experience the tyranny of the mob, and the more you add, the worse it gets. The idea of being able to self-segregate politically also sounds like a very good idea. I don't disagree with you there. However, I noticed you didn't answer my question on whether you want to see hard drugs be decriminalized. Would you like to live in New Hampshire, which decided to allow fentanyl to be sold in all supermarkets to anyone over 18, or would you rather live in Virginia, which kept those things illegal?

 

[AgendaPoster]

Hello hello how are you today on this great weekend? I hope great!
Did you guys know that it is easy to purchase a gun, so you should not worry about homicides?
Did you guys know that it's easy to purchase fentanyl, so you should not worry about ODs and opiate destruction of your city?
So why worry about the random couple that is using their iPhone to film themselves during sex and then upload it to the web? Obviously you cannot stop it.
(wait are you trying to make rules to stop them from doing that?!? HOW DARE YOU, YOU AUTHORITARIAN! Don't you know conservatism is about Personal Freedom, more specifically the Cherished Personal Freedom to be a degenerate cumsoomer in every possible way?!?)

 

[VeteranOfTheRetardWars]

@ITK
For some reason the reply button isn't working, but here's my deal. I can look at what I think is the ideal way shit goes, and then the actuality of the problem. For drugs, I would prefer that people simply don't do them. That's never going to happen, but looking at the massive prison industrial complex that arose in no small part to the War On Drugs, what America has been doing is clearly not the right answer either. The nuances about legalization are good conversation topics, but back to porn.
Porn is a very bad thing both for an individual and society as a whole, Internet porn has changed the game and created this nuclear abomination of coom and depravity. The biggest roadblock is one, the extremely high demand, and two, the ease of access and production. I have no clue how meth is made, but porn is just filming things. Much like drugs, I don't believe that total decriminalization of porn would even work to get rid of it, and that action taken by the government would make things a lot worse for everyone. If I remember right, South Korea banned porn and it's still a major consumer of it.
The issue becomes about how we should deal with this. I don't expect the government to do anything helpful aside from actually enforcing laws against porn sites like Pornhub and it's CP, but the fact that they haven't done that leads me to believe that the government is untrustworthy here. So what do we do? I'd say raising your kids right is always a good first step, as well as personally refusing to engage in anything related to the porn industry. There's definitely people who could make better solutions that don't involve granting government even more authority, but I'm not that guy. My view is that you, as a person, should act in a way that is good for it's own sake regardless.
As for the right to self destruction, it's more like if someone wants to they will find a way. People who are addicts will always find a way to get their fix, drugs or porn or booze or anything like that. In my view, the best solution is abstinence being practiced before you fuck yourself up, but in reality people do these things all the time. In terms of the government's role in this, a look at our prison and justice system would show that they ain't on the ball either. Your parallel to the swamp and the farmland is true, but in this case it isn't the men in the village draining a swamp. It's more like if the king decreed that all swamps are his domain now, and he'll get around to draining it eventually maybe if he feels like it, and if you touch his swamp you go to jail. The swamp, ie porn, is still there and nothing is being done about it, but when you say "hey this swamp stinks and has gators in it, we need to get this shit out of here" you get called a Karen and reactionary and all that.
Basically, I think we agree on the outcome we'd like to see and why we dislike porn, but we disagree on the methods of getting there and how much government should be involved in achieving that goal.

 

[ITK]

For some reason the reply button isn't working, but here's my deal. I can look at what I think is the ideal way shit goes, and then the actuality of the problem. For drugs, I would prefer that people simply don't do them. That's never going to happen, but looking at the massive prison industrial complex that arose in no small part to the War On Drugs, what America has been doing is clearly not the right answer either. The nuances about legalization are good conversation topics, but back to porn.

Happens when a post is too long. If you highlight a bit of text, a little window will appear below it allowing you to either quote or reply. Now I understand your point, but I simply don't buy this shtick people pull where they tell you criminalizing something doesn't decrease its presence. Of course it does. If you ban abortion, rates of it will decrease. You can mismanage the enforcement of a criminalization, but if it's enforced whatsoever, you're reducing the thing. Now the War On Drugs has been mismanaged, but I don't believe full-on decriminalization would be better at all. Singapore also has very strict anti-drug laws, executing anyone found peddling drugs into the country, and they seem to be doing fine.

Porn is a very bad thing both for an individual and society as a whole, Internet porn has changed the game and created this nuclear abomination of coom and depravity. The biggest roadblock is one, the extremely high demand, and two, the ease of access and production. I have no clue how meth is made, but porn is just filming things. Much like drugs, I don't believe that total decriminalization of porn would even work to get rid of it, and that action taken by the government would make things a lot worse for everyone. If I remember right, South Korea banned porn and it's still a major consumer of it.

Well most Western country operate by democracy, so discussing a ban by the government in opposition to will of the people is fantastical and superfluous. It would be career suicide, would be quickly reversed, and would very licked not even be enforced. Any potential ban will only occur if there is a popular movement against porn and this movement achieves a majority of the country. We know from Prohibition, that where there was a supermajority who were already dry, the law worked quite well, but in areas where the matter was more contentious, the substantial and remaining demand for alcohol only allowed for criminal organization to flourish. Had Prohibition been allowed to operate on a state-level, rather than being hoisted on all through a Federal decree, it might very well have fared better. The take-away in any case is that a supermajority who are opposed to the thing you want to ban, and who do not themselves consume it, is necessary to have proper enforcement of a law. Whether or not this will ever happen I don't know, let's be honest it's a pipe-dream, but on a local level, at least, I believe it could be done.

Your point in the ease of porn production is very true, but a ban would still be hugely beneficial, because it would porn something primarily produced by private individuals, instead of huge corporations than can use their profits to lobby for their cause. It could very likely remove most of the problems of the porn industry, as it would essentially ban the porn industry. It would remove the concept of the porn-star and of the onlyfans mega-earner. Self-produced pornography, done for free, is still massively corrosive to the human spirit, but it would be a huge improvement on the current situation.

As for the right to self destruction, it's more like if someone wants to they will find a way. People who are addicts will always find a way to get their fix, drugs or porn or booze or anything like that. In my view, the best solution is abstinence being practiced before you fuck yourself up, but in reality people do these things all the time. In terms of the government's role in this, a look at our prison and justice system would show that they ain't on the ball either.

The point isn't to help those who are addicted by means of some legal bandaid, the point is to have an already abstinent community, and when the foreigner comes to corrupt your morals and your customs, to create a demand where there previously was none, you kill him. Even you can even prevent one child from falling into pornography, even if you're otherwise completely impotent in your prohibition, that is still a success. Even if you punish only one pornographers, and all the others flee to live in luxury in Costa Rica, you have done justice to the world, and that justifies the entier endeavour.

Basically, I think we agree on the outcome we'd like to see and why we dislike porn, but we disagree on the methods of getting there and how much government should be involved in achieving that goal.

All love bby. This is just a polite disagreement between frens. You've got your head straight. Always a pleasure to see your posts in the weightlifting thread as well.

 

[Mothra1988]

Key term there, legal content. I don't want to have authority over what legal content you're allowed to watch, but I wouldn't mind deciding what constitutes "legal content".

OnionFarms_Ness thinks he's going to be the king of America, everyone. He's totally not crazy. I've decided you should see a shrink. What are you going to do now?

When did I say I was going to do anything about it? I just know it is inadequate as-is in current year, and I'm right, and as usual, you are wrong.

>you're right I"m not going to do anything but sit here and complain
>but I'm right and you're wrong

You just said I was right about you? Are you okay, OnionFarms_Ness? lol

You're saying I'm exhibiting lolcow behavior, so I'm inviting you to get a headstart.

Well, you started posting in the Onion Farms thread about how KF is evil. Great headstart right there. LOL.

Why do LGBT always accuse straights of being secretly gay? I'm genuinely curious, is a recruitment effort or something? Does it ever actually work?

I think it's more of a /pol/ fag/nazi thing. I think you claimed to not be one before or something, but you clearly are influenced by their ideas. The biggest hobby of male /pol/ fags is to obsess over other men's dicks and masturbation habits. It's barely even a secret at this point. lol But you sounded lik you had experience in this sector, so I want to hear about your personal experiences of how porn tried to make you like dicks. I just need some laughs, OnionFarms.

Well of course, if you are Libertarian to the degree that you believe we should decriminalize heroin and cocaine and let that be sold by big business from vendors on every street

Notice how they always have to slide into strawman arguments about drugs, CP, whatever the fuck else. It's because they know adult porn is relatively harmless on their own and they sound stupid talking about it in those terms, so better change the subject and then pretend like that weak-ass logic covers the non-strawman position.

prostitution, birth control and abortion is destroying both western and eastern civilisation.

Prostitution has always existed in civilization. How can you type something like this seriously? And lol at being against birth control. I love how the male scizo incels always reveal themselves as never having had sex before in these retarded threads. Holy shit. Like form a support group for each other already about not getting laid. This is getting sad.

 

[Otis Mallebrok]

Prostitution has always existed in civilization.

Yes. And it has always been illegal and/or extremely stigmatized. Only now now are people claiming that "Sex work is work". Which it is not.

And birth control, while it has had some positives, lead directly to a massive rise in prostitution, the normalisation of pornography, collapsing birth rates, breakdown of the nuclear family etc. In fact, when the pill was introduced, it lead to a steep rise in the number of unwanted pregnancies, simply because people had so much more casual sex, so abortion was legalised to fix all the unwanted pregnancies.

All this has caused some very profoundly negative unwanted side-effect on human relations. In some ways the pill is just a precursor form of pornography, in the way that it allows people to get off, without commitment to another human being. Like prostitution and porn, it allows people to use other people as a masturbation tool, without any requirements of social investment. Pornorgraphy, the industiral scale production of which was enabled by the pill, is just more of the same. Now people can get off without even meeting another human.

And in the not so distant future, people will be able to bang AI-generated models in VR with sex-robots, and then they can finally stop even thinking about other humans. They will be couch-installed coombrained versions of Larry Nivens wireheads. This is seriously bad, for men, women and society. Its a disaster.

I love how the male scizo incels always reveal themselves as never having had sex before in these retarded threads. Holy shit. Like form a support group for each other already about not getting laid. This is getting sad.

You know nothing about me you arrogant moron.

 

[Begemot]

I think it's more of a /pol/ fag/nazi thing. I think you claimed to not be one before or something, but you clearly are influenced by their ideas. The biggest hobby of male /pol/ fags is to obsess over other men's dicks and masturbation habits. It's barely even a secret at this point. lol But you sounded lik you had experience in this sector, so I want to hear about your personal experiences of how porn tried to make you like dicks. I just need some laughs, OnionFarms.

You're just another amoral coomer, huh? Trick, when my crew makes you worship our black dicks, all these facile perverse meanderings will fade away like dew in the morning, hope you have a good gag reflex, LOL.

 

[Mothra1988]

You know nothing about me you arrogant moron.

I'm pretty sure some angry neckbeard, probably schizo, on an internet forum that's mad about birth control being legal being a virgin is not much of a stretch. How about not going full retard and power leveling about how you've never been in a real sexual relationship with a woman? lol

And it has always been illegal and/or extremely stigmatized.

Stigmatized? Depends on the context. Illegal? Nope. If you want to rant about how you're an epic trad-alt-right lolcow in the mold of gay icon Nick Fuentes at least open a few books and read first. I know you people are usually dumb as dirt, but you could at least try to sound smart for appearances.

You're just another amoral coomer, huh? Trick, when my crew makes you worship our black dicks, all these facile perverse meanderings will fade away like dew in the morning, hope you have a good gag reflex, LOL.

This thread really is lolcow bait isn't it? lol