It’s your forum. However, putting your head in the sand and eliminating posts that actually point out the factual origins of the problem is not a good look. Denial is not a river in Egypt.

Imagine discussing a topic without mentioning the root causes behind it. Just a thought.

 

Last edited: Mar 16, 2024

Here’s a refutal to your arguments, moral man!

Never, ever let the state legislate of things that are responsibility of the parents. Parents are the ones responsible for the safety of their children. Plenty of tools available that take care of the problem. The kid wants to play h4ck3r? Take the smartphone, computer off them. Lock that shit down. Get professional help.

Also parents are responsible for the sexual education of their children so they can teach them how to express themselves sexually in a healthy manner.

Of course the current political and religious climate in the US won’t allow that. It’s all about Christian conservatives and their obsession with controlling our bodies, what we see, read, and hear.

Yeah @No Avenger bring that banhammer back. Let’s bury our heads in the sand like ostriches rather than discuss the reasons behind this and other problems. Or ban me. At this point, I don’t care. Your loss, not mine. I won’t take it personally. Promise.

 

Last edited: Mar 16, 2024

Remember this: Parents are the ones responsible for the safety of their children

expectation


fact


practical consequence



admission



And don't forget: be careful with simple prohibitions without change of focus/contextualization

 

Last edited: Mar 16, 2024

A fact is an information minus emotion. An opinion is an information plus experience.
Ignorance is an opinion lacking information. And, stupidity is an opinion that ignores a fact.

 

I wonder how strictly you and others hold that sexual education is the domain of parents. For example, should there be any sexual education in the classroom? Should children be taught how to use a condom by an educator who isn't their parents? Should books on how to perform sexual acts be available in the school library? You keep mentioning one religion, but how about if a pious Muslim family doesn't believe in same sex relations (for example) - should the state intervene in terms of the (moral) education of their children or do you still believe that it is absolutely the domain of the parents?

 

Last edited: Mar 16, 2024

Once you start asking these sorts of questions, many of the same people who call for zero state-intervention on morality issues will immediately invoke a moral framework and demand that the state intervene when it suits their beliefs.

 

I'm a secular guy living in a secular state, so keep your religions at home and church where they should stay. Also, if you don't want your kids to be educated in the public system, plenty of private schools and home-schooling options are available.

Your "how about the children?" and "I'm just asking questions" riffs stink of Christian conservatism, my guy. I'm sure you're a hit when you and the fellas listen to Rogan owning them beta libs.

Your points are moot. Try again. You're free to practice your religion and morality. Just don't even attempt to impose that on a secular environment. Much less to non-believers.

 

Last edited: Mar 16, 2024

Very generally speaking, I agree with this.

But I think you've missed the point of my question, which was a broader observation on the fact that most people are not absolutely libertarian when it comes to the state on moral issues. They say 'leave it up to the parents' and then protest things like 'parents rights' when it comes to rejecting certain aspects of sexual education. Similar to moral conservatives, progressives want the state to intervene when it suits their beliefs (which, just like religious conservatives, they hold to be 'true' and without falsehood). Isn't that interesting?

 

@kingchubby

I will pose another ethical-philosophical question:

Earlier, I also made the case that you appear to be neglecting all and any criticism of PornHub and putting all the onus on the state. Well, a large corporation like that is formally and functionally very similar to a state (what is a state but an incorporation of individuals with an agenda, organized hierarchically with an executive at the top). And just like a state, it provides certain goods and services in exchange for something (taxes, ad revenue, etc). I would suspect that people defend something like PornHub so easily because it appears to provide its goods and services without requiring any exchange from its constituents. I also mentioned PornHub's horrible track record when it comes to human rights and how it has directly and knowingly profited from human cruelty. So with all that, I would then ask: what does it require from us in exchange for its goods and services? Do we give them anything in return? Ad revenue? Okay, anything else?

 

Dude, I'm not even close to a libertarian. I won't touch them with a 30-foot pole. Libertarians are conservatives in hipster clothing. Ugh.

I'll say this: state intervention *might* be a good thing if it expands citizens' rights, gives consumers real choices (deregulation gave rise to oligopolies and the current economic/political chaos), increases public and private sector accountability, and improves quality of life.

State intervention is never good in questions of morality, religion, and matters solely in the realm of parental upbringing. I think we've had centuries of factual evidence regarding that.

 

I never negated any criticism towards PornHub or the porn industry, for that matter. Where do I say that? Please show correct attribution. Assumptions are the mother of all fuck-ups, and you, sir, are fucking up badly. Try again.

The issue is morally bankrupt states (are you trying to justify, say Texas' actions of late? Really?) trying to impose a Christian fundamentalist point of view on their citizens.

The People Vs. Larry Flynt, dude. It's all in there.

 

Last edited: Mar 16, 2024

I am arguing that the issue also includes morally bankrupt corporations.

In this entire discussion, including your mod-deleted posts, your entire focus was on the state despite PornHub being the ones to rescind their services. You said that the state imposing age verification onto this corporation was "fascist". I absolutely stand by my above comment that you neglected all any criticism of PornHub and instead have focused on the state - it is literally true. You posted a quote about facts earlier, well I am simply stating one now.

 

Weren't you just offering to send people pictures of your tits for eight quid?

 

No one has to bend the knee to a state's arbitrary requirements. PornHub exercised their options, just like any other corporation does.
Once again, you assume things *without an iota of factual evidence that I neglect criticism of PornHub*. I'm done wasting my time with you. Good luck with your moral crusade!

 

Last edited: Mar 16, 2024

Then feel free to direct me to any unedited post in this thread where you've criticized it.

Everything has been about the 'state' with you and I was trying to make the case that PornHub formally and functionally resembles a state itself and its wrongdoings as such an entity should not be overlooked. Every time I've mentioned PornHub you've responded with 'but... but... its the Christians!'

 

Last edited: Mar 16, 2024

Begone peasant! Go protect the public from the eeeeeeevilllll pooooorn, bless your heart! LOL!