Should all porn be banned?

Author: Best.Korea

Posts

Total: 95
#61
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@<<<oromagi>>>
Look, if you are going to deny that it is harmful for children to watch porn, fine.
  • Nobody made any such denial.   
But remember, there are only two positions you can have:

1) Porn results in nothing good, but it harms children
2) Porn results in nothing good, but it doesnt harm children
  • Both these statements are obvious false.  Arguments like this demonstrate more unacceptably superifical thinking.
"Porn results in nothing good" is a truism. There is no useful role that porn plays in society.

  • James Joyce's Ulysses is considered the most significant work of 20th century literature.  Ulysses is also undeniably pornographic.   Miller's Tropic of Cancer, Ginsberg's Howl, Morrison's Bluest Eye are all very dirty and essentials of American literature.  Currently, images of Michelangelo's David are banned pornography in some Florida schools.  A short term ban on the Bible in some Utah schools was just lifted, although the Bible is undeniably pornographic.  The definition of porn is highly subjective and constantly shifting, inconsistent with any truism. We should note that BK is making no distinction between legal consensual depcitions of sex and obviously exploitative  or sensationalized works.  BK seems completely uninformed regarding research into the utility of porn in societies, most importantly as a canary in the coal mine of free expression-  when the totalitarians start banning porn,  citizens should read that as an alert that essentail civil rights are coming  under threat.

Topic's author
#62
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,641
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@oromagi
Most people dont need a definition to know what porn is.

I mean, how can you not know what porn is in 2023?

Like, I am concerned about people these days. They literally play clueless just to cause harm to others.

If you cannot define porn, then you cannot define child porn either.

Is your argument that child porn should be legal, because you cant define child porn?

Begin with excuses.
#63
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
.-->
@<<<oromagi>>>
Most people dont need a definition to know what porn is.

I mean, how can you not know what porn is in 2023?

  • No good debater is ever afraid to define terms.  As Voltaire put it: "Définissez les termes, vous dis-je, ou jamais nous ne nous entendrons."



Topic's author
#64
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,641
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@oromagi
As Voltaire put it: "Définissez les termes, vous dis-je, ou jamais nous ne nous entendrons."
Sorry, I dont speak whatever that is.


No good debater is ever afraid to define terms.
Well, then go ahead, dont be afraid. Define "child porn".
#65
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,074
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Best.Korea
Porn in which certain participants are deemed by a society to be below a certain age whereby they are not able to be self determining.


So BK, how would you define the big mental difference between someone who is aged 15 years and 364 days and  the same person the next day? 
Topic's author
#66
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,641
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@zedvictor4
Porn in which certain participants are deemed by a society to be below a certain age whereby they are not able to be self determining
Now define porn.

Topic's author
#67
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,641
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@zedvictor4
So BK, how would you define the big mental difference between someone who is aged 15 years and 364 days and  the same person the next day?
Small difference, really.

#68
IlDiavolo
IlDiavolo's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,514
3
2
5
IlDiavolo's avatar
IlDiavolo
3
2
5
-->
@Best.Korea
Plus, back then kids could buy porn. The older kid buys porn and brings it to younger kids. No one cared. Now kids can find porn in 5 seconds and still no one cares lmao
I've just said it's the responsability of parents to watch out what their kids do or not. Today it's possible to safely give a smartphone to a child using parental controls. It's not that difficult.

Ban the whole porn industry is absurd because it would affect everyone and everything.

What it's going on here, though, is that you're with all the fvcking Christian vibe (which looks pretty fake to me because you're a troll) so you're trying to convince us that porn is evil and we should get rid of it. 😆
#69
ponikshiy
ponikshiy's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 604
3
3
6
ponikshiy's avatar
ponikshiy
3
3
6
Porn is definitely bad. So many pimps forcing girls to do porn and taking their money, and they pretend this is just like hiring regular actress. 

You can jerk off and feel good and pretend the women are being treated fairly. It hurts them.

It also hurts man. Porn means they are less interested in real sex and normal sex. It deflates the intensity of sex in person, making men less likely to pursue women to give their earnings and love to. They will end up lonely with no seed. 

We are not attracted to these men who have election problems because of too many porn. I like man who can stay hard
#70
ponikshiy
ponikshiy's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 604
3
3
6
ponikshiy's avatar
ponikshiy
3
3
6
-->
@IlDiavolo
Today it's possible to safely give a smartphone to a child using parental controls. It's not that difficult.
Those apps ate not so good. Easy for hackers to use them and spy on children. 
#71
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@Best.Korea
06.23.2023 04:18PM
-->
@<<<oromagi>>>
As Voltaire put it: "Définissez les termes, vous dis-je, ou jamais nous ne nous entendrons."
Sorry, I dont speak whatever that is.
  • So not just dumb but also dull- incurious, lazy....sad.
No good debater is ever afraid to define terms.
Well, then go ahead, dont be afraid. Define "child porn".
  • Of course, no good debater would ever pass up the opportunity to  define the terms first, either.
    •   But, as we have established beyond doubt, you are not a good debater.
  • Let's recall POST#6 when you demonstrated your incomprehension of analogy. 
    • You demanded that we stick to the topic of pornography but now you are trying to shift the argument to child porn, which is a radically different, specifically criminal abuse compared to pornography generally. 
      • Readers will take note that BK is a fucking hypocrite.
      • Child pornography as a criminal act is a concept developed by Western Feminists and brought to legal reality  in the US through a series of bills written by Senator Walter Mondale and supported by fellow Democrats in the late 70's and early '80's.  
    • PORNOGRAPHY, on the other hand,   is a concept that dates back before human civilization.
  • Essentially, PORNOGRAPHY is just an ancient Greek word that means "writing about fornication" and that sums it up pretty well.  Wiktionary says, "The explicit literary or visual depiction of sexual subject matter."
    • So, when Lot gets raped by his daughters in Genesis, that's a fairly old example of porn.
  • Personally, I am more engaged by Stephen Dedalus' interpretaton of Aquinas in Joyce's Portrait...  Proper art is static in relationship to the subject and the viewer.  Good art is disinterested in its own reception or value- the subject just shines through its instrument, its media without regard for impact.  Improper art, (which Dedalus calls PORNOGRAPHY) begins with impact and works its way back to subject. The point of pornography is to ellicit an evisioned response.   All advertising, all propaganda, all political art is therefore pornographic but Michaelangelo's David or Genesis or Kobabe's Gender Queer are not pornographic because the artist did not intend to arouse.   That some sick fuckers are aroused nevertheless (or, as Savant calls them "the Republican Party") ought not reflect  upon the artist or the work.
  • Contrary to BK's ingnorant presumption, the US Federal Govt. has no legal definition of pornography precisely because pornography is such a subjective notion that no civil body could ever come to a just agreement about what is PORNOGRAPHY.  
    • If BK really wanted a federal ban on all PORNOGRAPHY, his first, impossible to complete task would be to convince the Federal government to define the word.  For this reason alone, I think banning pornography in a Democracy or free nation is just not a realistic ask.



#72
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,074
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Best.Korea
#66

Porn. Sexually explicit entertainment.


#67

That's what I thought.
Topic's author
#73
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,641
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@zedvictor4
Porn. Sexually explicit entertainment.
There. It is defined.


Topic's author
#74
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,641
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@oromagi
The point was:

If you cannot define porn, you cannot define child porn either. If you can define child porn, then you can define porn.
#75
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,074
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Best.Korea
OK.
#76
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,352
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@oromagi
I tried reading James Joyce's Ulysses,
I was not willing to finish it.

I 'did read Waiting for Godot by Samuel Beckett,
In the past and today,
I don't remember liking it in the past,
And I didn't enjoy it today.

I suppose they could be seen as puzzlebooks,
But for me they mostly just come off as nonsense,
'Even if they are referencing this or that,
Or one can see hidden meanings,
To me, they irritate, some one trying to make subtle points or something, but in such a way I don't expect myself to see their point.
They 'could say it less subtle, and still be subtle,
But no they want to be 'absurdly offtrack, nonexplanatory.

People say ooh, what a genius the author is,
To me, neither are books I would own.
. . .

Then again,
I liked heart of darkness by Joseph Conrad and some of Franz Kafka's stories,
Still,
I don't remember them being so absurd and lacking in explanation, description,
That one was unable to tell what the story was about.
Least 'those books were interesting (For me).
#77
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@Lemming
-->
@<<<oromagi>>>
I tried reading James Joyce's Ulysses,... Waiting for Godot by Samuel Beckett,  But for me they mostly just come off as nonsense,
  • When I was in college I worked at the college book store.  Ulysses was one of those books like Statistics  or Infinite Jest that you sold a bunch of in September but by October, so many copies had been returned that it hardly seemed worth the effort to stock.
Even if they are referencing this or that, Or one can see hidden meanings, To me, they irritate, some one trying to make subtle points or something, but in such a way I don't expect myself to see their point.
  • You were not Joyce's audience.  Joyce's audience was the incredibly wealthy, well-read, well-educated literati of post-Victorian English speaking peoples.  This was before the age of radio or TV and the academic class typically read hundreds of books per year.  WIthin this set, everybody had read all of the Bible and Homer in Greek and could quote at length.  Everybody had read all of Shakespeare and Dickens and Gibbons and Darwan and Freud.  Everybody read French and German and Latin and probably had a few other languages at the ready.  Joyce did not have to explain to his audience  that he was compressing a happy day in the life of an ordinary Dubliner into the epic poetry format of the Oddyessey because it was so obvious- each of the 24 chapters of the Oddessey represented one hour of Bloom's day and everything he saw and experienced within that hour celebrated the epic achievement of the every day, the chapters starting and ending with riffs on Homer, every famous line of Homer getting some suprising, comical treatment.
    • Imagine sitting down to a screening of Avengers:Endgame with somebody from one hundred years ago.  Think of trying to explain all of that back story of all those characters all those easter eggs and inside jokes and celebrity walk-ons  all the weirdness and conventions of comic book culture.  To prepare a man from 1920 to watch that movie with good comprehension you would need to write a 300 page reference work for all of the unexplained elements - what the fuck is a superhero?  why are they dressed like that?  what's a tesseract? Why is that racoon flying the ship?  etc.
    • It's the same way with Ulysses- if you aren't deeply familiar with all those of back stories and histories, you really have no hope of catching all the easter eggs and inside jokes (in many ways, this is the  very novel that invents those post-modern elements like Easter eggs.  You can't really fault the Russo brothers for not explaining all that background- the story would be ruined without assuming a familiarity of all these crazy complex cultural hits.
  • I read Ulysses the same way I read Homer and the Bible, as a 400 level English Literature class.  On top of that massive novel, we probably read 10 other books of collected criticism, explanatory reference works, biography and autobiography, etc.  That's really the only way a modern reader is going to appreciate the depth and complexity and wit and epiphany of that book.





#78
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,352
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@oromagi
Fair points.
#79
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,171
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@zedvictor4
Porn. Sexually explicit entertainment.
Entertainment is the in the eye of the beholder, so too is the state of pornyness by this definition.
#80
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,074
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
One could say the same about a hundred and one things.


My eyes do not behold televised sport as entertainment.


Nonetheless, my definition of porn was accurate.

Individual perception is a separate issue.
#81
rbelivb
rbelivb's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 210
1
2
5
rbelivb's avatar
rbelivb
1
2
5
-->
@Best.Korea
P1) If the only way to reduce the exposure of children to porn to the minimum is to ban all porn, then all porn should be banned.
P2) The only way to reduce the exposure of children to porn to the minimum is to ban all porn
C) All porn should be banned
The modern high speed internet, with streaming video, 3d graphics, and so on, may not exist without pornography and video games. Society benefits as much by its vices as by its virtues, so there is more to consider when formulating prescriptions than merely harm reduction.
#82
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,074
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@rbelivb
Ban the use of the internet for People under the age of sixteen.

Thereby children unharmed, and porn industry and it's adult customers not tyrannised.

Same would apply to other potentially harmful aspects of the internet.....Violent aggressive sports spring to mind.

Can't see how porn is any more harmful than MMA for example.


If you're worried about harming children, perhaps it might be wise to ban guns also. (Reputedly the biggest killer of children in the U.S.)

And then there is violence and aggression themed gaming......That will surely have to stop.



Actually if protecting children is so important, perhaps they should be made to sit in a padded room all day watching videos of pretty flowers and puppy dogs.
#83
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,064
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
Banning porn would be almost impossible and probably not legal in the United States but it absolutely needs to be restricted so that children have a harder time accessing it. Kids get exposed to pornography at like age 12 now and it does impact their sexuality in a negative way. Porn addiction is very real and nobody is less equipped to deal with it than a kid just going through puberty. 

To the people saying “you can’t ban porn!” it’s true that you wouldn’t be able to totally extinguish it, but consider the case of child porn. Sure someone who really really wants it will be able to get it (at risk to themselves) but nobody is going to just stumble upon it. It would be easy to make age verification a requirement to access websites where porn is hosted. Most people aren’t going to risk the hammer of the federal government coming down on them so that children can watch their porn site 
Topic's author
#84
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,641
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@rbelivb
The modern high speed internet, with streaming video, 3d graphics, and so on, may not exist without pornography
Hurting children so that you can have faster internet is a good argument, but irrelevant given that removing porn will not remove faster internet lmao
Topic's author
#85
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,641
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@thett3
The study I quoted shows that 10% of children see porn before age 11.

Thats 1 in 10 children.

So if its worthy to harm 1 in 10 children over this, then we might be more corrupt than we previously thought we were.

However, about 50% of them sees porn before 13.

I agree that children have sexual desires. However, if we make an argument that porn solves those desires, then we are making an argument that children should be allowed and encouraged even to watch porn.

As long as society holds position that porn is harmful for children, society cannot justify giving children porn. Making porn easily available to children means giving children porn. Society cannot justify making porn easily available.

I agree that there are some benefits in orgasms, but the downsides are worse. Sure, orgasms might make you smart. But they also make you more depressed and suicidal. Western society, filled with porn and perversions, is the most suicidal society as a group.
Topic's author
#86
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,641
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@thett3
My porn addiction started somewhere at age 10.

I saw porn at 7, but I wasnt really addicted to it until about 10.

The main problem with modern society is that they dont understand that addictions at a young age are very hard to solve. You cant compare someone who got addicted at 18 with someone who got addicted at 10. Someone who gets addicted at 10 has it much worse, as increase in porn use means decrease in social skills. 10 year old cannot really afford to decrease his social skills. 10 year old cannot afford to watch porn, for his own good. If person has bad social skills, that means more likely to be suicidal, depressed. Porn at age 10 means more likely to be suicidal, depressed.
#87
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,171
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@rbelivb
The modern high speed internet, with streaming video, 3d graphics, and so on, may not exist without pornography and video games. Society benefits as much by its vices as by its virtues, so there is more to consider when formulating prescriptions than merely harm reduction.
That's probably one of the most untrue and worst defenses I could imagine.


Topic's author
#88
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,641
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
People dont understand what they are saying until they put it in premise-conclusion form.

For example, his first premise would be:

"P1. If harming children allows high speed internet, then children should be harmed".
#89
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,171
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Best.Korea
You're missing multiple layers of indirection and non-boolean factors in that premise and in your original argument. You never dealt with oromagi's ad absurdum.

It was a terrible defense because
A) It's false that porn was a significant driver in computer graphics, he added in video games which were but digital porn has always only trailed existing technology
B) He still called it a vice, but it wouldn't be a vice if the net result was positive
#90
rbelivb
rbelivb's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 210
1
2
5
rbelivb's avatar
rbelivb
1
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
A) It's false that porn was a significant driver in computer graphics, he added in video games which were but digital porn has always only trailed existing technology
It ties into your claim that something that is a vice cannot have a positive net result. That is what I was basically disagreeing with, and both porn and video games tie into that point. A large bulk of the innovation does not come from e.g. directed research but largely from non-productive uses of the technology.

And I do not believe that you can determine the causality only went from existing innovations to the pornography industry. I believe that much of the bulk of usage for things like streaming video has been demand driven by pornography. See also online payment systems, live video and chat, and others. This extends into the current cutting-edge such as VR and robotics. Pornographic uses comprise such a bulk of the usage cases for these that it is likely that a ban would stifle their adoption.