This is an insidious implicit assertion that because the current mayor is a “good” secular Turk and the “bad” Islamists are protesting, I even note you did not describe these people as turks… this is a typical contrast for Turkey, a division of white and black turks, going back to the time when Turkey was more oppressive towards religious practice for the sake of “secularism”…
This style of bowing down to some altar of laic secularism and appealing to a western audience is quite overdone and out of touch with the modern day west, which mostly accepts freedom to practice religion especially in Anglophone countries.
Luckily with globalization and the internet, more and more these woven narratives are being exposed for their baselessness. It’s clear that Turkey as a whole has continued its choice to vote for its leader Erdogan of the AKP. This is a signal of the fact that most Turks still support this alternate approach to the country, compared to the changes going back to Ataturk which was imposed on the native population.
That is to say, I am always finding curious this group of white Turks and secularists who assume themselves to be above the others and irreverent to their beliefs. Perhaps this arrogance is what continues to be their downfall as they cannot accept sharing power with the other, more religiously oriented Turkey.
Please don't take HN threads further into flamewar, regardless of how provocative another comment is or you feel it is.
It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for, and we've had to warn you about this more than once before.
Edit: it looks like your account is still using HN primarily for ideological battle. In fact, it looks like you've been using HN exclusively for ideological battle. That's seriously not ok. Since you've ignored our previous request to stop doing this, I've banned the account. We don't care what your ideology is, but we do care about not letting accounts abuse HN in this way—whatever they happen to be battling for or against.
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
That’s clearly not the case it’s not about ideological battle, the comments are very clearly not only about ideological battle. I’m very disappointed to hear that you came to this conclusion.
You've been posting argumentatively in flamewar threads about race, sex, religion, drugs, crime, nationalism, etc., and basically nothing else. That's an abuse of this site, and we already asked you twice to stop. Not cool.
You are reading too much into it, there is nothing Islamic about an old fez hat factory. There is no such thing as hat factory values. You are just repeating the overused “ white Turks” idiom which no longer has any credibility since if fell off grace after 20 years of absolute Islamist rule - there is no longer a white Turk establishment. Besides, I’m not Turkish born, I’m an immigrant I cannot be a white Turk.
It’s true that Erdogan won in Turkey again, but we are talking about Istanbul here and in Istanbul he is no longer the most popular one.
As for the Fez, it certainly is symbolic of ottoman times, and was famously outlawed by Ataturk in favor of brim caps, in what is called the Hat Revolution [1]. This was part of an assault on older values and also had anti religious elements.
Next, your characterization of Erdogan’s government as 20 years of absolute Islamist rule is a very loose definition. I do not think you can liken all of his rule as absolute and after all Turkey is still a democracy yet. Also he is not “Islamist” except in a loose terminology, as he did not change Turkey’s government system and overturn in favor of Sharia.
You also likened the protesters to an “old api” that interferes with new development… how is one to interpret that except you see the protesters and their values as an old impediment to progress, one which needs to be removed or “updated”? It’s not so long ago there were protests for Taksim square for Gezi park.
I like how you make up stuff on the fly but the protest itself wasn't about "disrespecting the fez" but about holding an art exception there. As I said, the place was used as a food market and has nothing to do with fez production anymore. Apparently there were sculptures of goats and the islamists decided that those are knights and got offended. The less unhinged ones said that this is unacceptable because the place is close the the old town, the more unhinged ones acted as the old factory was a religious site and the invaders desacralised it through putting knight sculptures in it. No one brought up any claims about fez being sacred or religions or anything like that, simply there are bunch of Islamist in Turkey who act as if any writing in Arabic or any artefact from the Ottoman era is sacred. A few yers back they attacked an exhibition in an old mansion. The mansion in question has nothing to do with Islam, it's simply a large house that used to belong to a guy from the royalty but at the end of the list for the throne who himself was into music and painting and has artworks on exhibition in other museums.
No one is obligated to please islamist, if they don't like the exhibition they should simply skip it.
There is a why and reasons we find and insights we glean. The denial of a why is itself an anthropocentric take on biology, influenced by Darwinian thought. But any biological system we study we need a why, otherwise the corollary of your statement essentially leads to no learning or understanding, because everything becomes “arbitrary” and explained away by randomness.
Ironic to say it’s not optimal, really we don’t have the full knowledge. Often when we learn more we learn how little we really know about biology.
It’s a bit anthropocentric to talk about not making sense from an engineering point of view. One example is the recurrent laryngeal nerve which always appears to take unnecessary detours to people because of what is thought to be historical evolution. But there is deep wisdom and insight we have gleaned in this, but I think it’s not for us to say well we could engineer this better, we don’t have the total knowledge of tools yet & it is dismissive and say disrespectful of the wondrous biological systems that have been made to sustain life.
Hubris and attempts to alter inherent nature are often tied up ironically. But we can benefit a lot more from biological humility, realizing there are many unknown unknowns.
Really? How would European business culture approach this? I feel like talking about debating religion when it’s not relevant to a potential employee is extremely short sighted or some type of backhanded mind game; it just doesn’t seem normal to say that at a job interview. After a working relationship has been established if it comes up, that is different, but if the VP just says that based on seeing a potential employee’s work with a church, it’s quite suspect.
I'd happily talk religion, trans rights, racism etc with anyone at work.
But then I'm not paranoid , and Ive never worked anyplace in 20 years where I feel people are being dishonest or disingenuous or playing any sort of games. especially not mind games, that's fucking absurd to me that you would even think that at all.
What sort of people are you working for, that sounds like hell.
I've always been in offices, and worked for managers I've gone and got drunk with and talked about all sorts of shit. it's never been an issue.
If US office culture Is as you describe it, it sounds fucking awful.
All those topics sound like minefields I would be cautious discussion even with good friends, and then only if we have similar views. If I knew there would be a significant disagreement I would drop the topic probably, avoids more trouble.
I think it’s about minimizing liability. I wouldn’t want a work dynamic to turn toxic due to a coworker’s prejudice or some disagreement we had debating over the water cooler. At work you focus on work, sure you can have some chit chat but generally these topics are breached after being acquainted with someone.
Prohibition does work provided the culture around drinking changes. Look at countries where alcohol is prohibited much lower rates of cirrhosis and alcohol related diseases. US prohibition didn’t work because most of US culture was not ready to give up alcohol and it was only implemented for about less than a decade. But if alcohol was banned for a larger time period, more education and cultural shift efforts, and more uniform enforcement, we would see much better outcomes and cultural attitudes change.
Yes, we just need to try harder. Maybe institute a special anti-alcohol secret police, or put people in prison for 25-life if they drink. The Rockerfeller laws were super great, we need more of that.
We could also provide incentives for people to stay inside and play around with their phones, that will encourage less drinking. Also, it seems like, when people get together, they often drink, so maybe we could make assembling in large groups illegal.
Finally, I've read that breathing exercises like left nostril breathing can induce altered states similar to drunkenness, and also that taking OTC pills like sleeping pills can cause inebriation. We should ban all psychoactive OTC pills and keep a close eye on people doing yoga.
You make fun and light of efforts to limit the effects on toxins on society, but I’m sure if you saw people dying as a result of alcoholic cirrhosis or the many diseases and incidents occurring from alcohol abuse you would change your mind if you are a reasonable person, about the current drinking culture.
But as people die these terrible deaths, you continue to make fun of the situation. Consider.
Dude, I have an uncle killing himself with booze living 100 feet away from me. These things have costs. But trying to make decisions for people doesn't work out, and taking away one of the few things that helps people connect in person is also a dumb idea.
Reducing availability of access certainly does work at taking away poisonous substance exposure. Plus people can connect in person in so many better ways, on dignified and beneficial grounds rather than the ultimate harm that comes from drinking culture.
It’s common in our culture to parrot about letting people make their own decisions… where does that take us when it comes to things like covid? When a culture promotes a harmful practice we should call it out. Just like we call out injustice, certainly it is unjust to support a drinking culture that results in so much harm.
Both my grandparents on one side died of lung cancer. I still smoked until I switched to vaping (which may yet have consequences). Your assumptions are less universal than you seem to think.
I'm curious on the data for the places with heavier alcohol prohibition. In particular, my understanding to date has been that the US is one of the more shaming of alcohol around. What places are there where alcohol is prohibited, that you are looking at?
Please see this paper and the sections on alcoholic cirrhosis
> In north Africa and the Middle East, alcohol-related liver disease constituted the lowest proportion of age-standardised prevalence and death rates.19 This finding could be expected, because alcohol is prohibited in many of the countries in this region, which could lead to both decreased use and the possibility of under-reporting.
> Among GBD regions, the highest proportions of cirrhosis deaths due to alcohol-related liver disease were in central Europe (44·0%), western Europe (41·7%), and Andean Latin America (38·1%; figure 4; appendix p 41). The proportion of cirrhosis deaths due to alcohol-related liver disease was lowest in north Africa and the Middle East (5·3%) and in Egypt specifically (4·8%), and highest in Belgium (53·5%; appendix p 41).
Thanks for the links. Interesting data all around. Not entirely sure what to make of it, but I suspect most of that is from prejudices I hold on some of these areas.
Alcohol abuse is one of the causes of major health problems in countries where alcohol is widely consumed. Look at a map of cirrhosis rates, there’s a huge lack of cases in places where alcohol is prohibited. By supporting the current drinking culture in the US , you are indirectly supporting the terrible health results like cirrhosis. The best way to stop is to never start.
Prohibition does work, the important part is effecting a cultural shift in attitude towards alcohol, similar to how smoking was marginalized.
We don’t need to live with this crazy culture where drinking is glorified and a big social phenomenon.
Look, I'm all for reducing consumption. I'm on board with trying to improve public health, or just health of everyone in general. But prohibition does not work. Didn't work for alcohol. Didn't work for marijuana. Didn't work for sex education.
So the question to ask is, what does work? And realize that an all or nothing, black and white approach is counterproductive.
Educate, inform, regulate. That's the best we can do, and there's a lot of room in the 'regulate' part to make inroads. Perhaps someday we'll get to synthehol, but we're a long way from that today.
I’ve already outlined why US prohibition didn’t work. Basically it was not long enough and a major cultural shift did not occur in US drinking culture.
A concerted effort and taking advantage of the current rise in sober culture can really help lower rates of alcohol consumption. We saw this so the decline in tobacco usage.
It’s not correct to say any prohibition does not work based on US prohibition in the 1920s. Prohibition for anything can reduce its access and use among people. It’s one of our best tools in preventing problems. This is a false belief in American culture that prohibition of substance does not work, it clearly does work in many countries worldwide in terms of lowering health problems due to alcohol abuses.
In the case of things like marijuana, sex education, these are cultural failures. In both cases, the culture was trending towards engaging in these. Prohibition must also enter the cultural attitudes to be greatly effective, but even a general prohibition over a long scale has an effect.
I'm perfectly happy with a cultural shift. Drinking is too often glorified, alcohol is sold on lifestyle and image and not on the substance of what it is, the whole marketing side of the industry is very off putting. But you'll note, cigarettes aren't illegal. Propaganda works, changing culture works. Prohibition does not.
I agree that prohibition works when you shift society's look towards it. It is well documented that when intoxicating drinks were prohibited in Islam, everyone poured their stashes down the street basically the moment it was prohibited.
There’s already a growing “sober” culture in the US and you can see that production of non alcoholic beer and other substitute goods for a “bad culture” are increasing. As a person in the medical field, the fall of alcohol culture in the US would be very welcome, many cirrhosis and pancreatitis patients I’m sure will have wished to never start drinking.
Wow, good stuff Virginia. While VPNs certainly circumvent the purpose of this law, it will still have the effect of lowering exposure of minors to this content. Pornography companies have long been avoiding the negative externalities they cause. The false age-gates that are overridden with a button click were long overdue for some regulation.
At the same time there should be some education (parental or community) around pornography, healthy ways of coping with sexual feelings, etc given the wide access of internet, it’s not so easy to protect children these days yet.
Free VPNs are easily understood and accessed by minors, except now their browsing history is exposed to spurious, unverified, and foreign companies and actors that aren't held to the privacy standards of internet providers and mobile carriers.
This is "ten foot wall and eleven foot ladder" territory and we should be very wary of who is selling the ladder.
Domestic companies already are privacy disasters. The US can introduce privacy legislation like the EU if this is really an issue. But already porn is illegal for children under 18, so this is just a way to more effectively regulate with minimal externalities. Many people already pay for pornography which usually necessitates identification, so requiring ID for any porn site access is not a huge jump.
>Many people already pay for pornography which usually necessitates identification, so requiring ID for any porn site access is not a huge jump.
The vast majority of people do not pay for porn, therefore for the vast majority of people it is a huge jump; and so this isn't a very compelling point.
And my point was that regulation with easy and free to access loopholes is regulation only by name. Did you know you can still buy drugs, download movies and watch bestiality porn on the Internet? How can this be when these things have been illegal/regulated for so long!?
Ostensibly the purpose of this law is to prevent minors from accessing porn and not to reduce or eliminate porn use by forcing adults to de-anonymize to access it. This comment says the quiet part out loud, I guess.
Yes just like we have ID requirements for alcohol and tobacco purchase, the same can apply to pornography which much of it should not be exposed to minors. What educational or beneficial use is quickly outweighed by the many negatives of allowing unfettered access to porn to minors. Regulations on who can access pornography make complete sense and we already have them in the form of over 18 buttons, but these by and far are not effective. Hence since our society already agreed minors should not be exposed to porn, we can take more effective steps like have ID requirements.
No, no it won't. Christ, I'm 33 and I knew how to waltz around these protections as a 13 year-old and there was a lot less everything on the internet back then.
Clicking a button compared to ID checks are two different classes of barriers. ID checks will substantially restrict porn access to minors, and help keep pornography companies accountable.
No. No, it won't, because for every porn site that complies, sixty thousand won't.
To be clear, I'm not some big porn proponent, especially for young people with developing brains. But, as always, proper parenting and framing is more useful than NetNanny - Now With State-Enforcement!
Hi, how do you suggest proper parenting and framing without also society-level interventions? It seems this is putting a lot of burden on parents, teachers, etc, when also regulation on this can be helpful. For example, smoking is prohibited for those below a certain age from purchasing. Or the intervention the government did with Juul to stop the spread of vaping among teens.
You say not every porn sure will comply, but if even the biggest players comply, don’t you agree this will significantly reduce minors being exposed to porn? And I’m sure with threat of legal action, just like is taken against other entities, can also be of help, even if it becomes a cat-and-mouse game,
I’m saying don’t let perfect be the enemy of good. Education from parents to kids is a great effort but that will require a lot more work and dedication.
Wew, I don't know what to tell you. Your kid is going to google "boobies" and find them. Now, in six months, in six years, regardless of regulations because they're never going to be enforced anywhere near wide enough to keep a curious kid away. Not even for 3 whole minutes. So, what do you do? .... be a freaking parent.
Regulation of physical goods is leaky too. If you rely on the law keeping booze and cigarettes away from your kids, you're going to have a really, really rough time through their teen years.
>It seems this is putting a lot of burden on parents, teachers, etc, when also regulation on this can be helpful.
No, regulation can make lazy/bad parents feel better and feel like they can just ignore their actual responsibility which is teaching and guiding their rchildren.
> don’t you agree this will significantly reduce minors being exposed to porn?
No, lol, I'm sorry, it would be rude but I would laugh in your face openly if you tried to tell me that. Pick a state that has implemented this, and I'll record you a YouTube video of me finding porn in less than 30 seconds.
And honestly, mentioning Juul? Man, do you live in this same world as the rest of us? There are 6 dozen different disposable vapes that are easily accessible to kids. The Juul ban did absolutely beyond nothing to stop teenage vaping.
Yes, parents should do the most important part of their job as a parent instead of advocating for the STATE to track every single adult that wants to watch porn. Yes, I am absolutely saying that:
1. This will stop exactly zero kids from accessing porn.
2. The trade-off requires a STATE-RUN REGISTRY OF PORN WATCHERS. I don't even know where to begin on explaining what a horrendous idea this is.
This is clearly 100% just the usual "moral conservatism as law" trope that it always is. People who want to encode their moral beliefs as law because they're too prudish? ignorant? I-dont-know-what? to talk to their kids about sex.
I agree with you but that sentiment is unpopular in tech circles. I would go further and say porn should be decriminalized but regulated like drugs. Adults should be allowed to use it but their use should be only to allowed dispenseries/sites and monitored for "overdose" with addiction/rehab help provided at the dispensery/site and a large warning text about its harm like cigarettes. With the exception of small audience live videos or screenshots (onlyfans and sexting) being unregulated.
Oppressing people over human expression and totally endogenous mental/bodily processes in reaction to those expressions seems a little further down the slippery slope of some dystopic panoptiprison than controlling addictive drugs. If you think porn is on the same order of harm as alcohol, you need to lay off the sauce.
Who is oppressed? Porn sites? Sex stores and brothels id people. Strip clubs is people and they are regulated already to make sure strippers are treated properly and work in a safe place. Why are you saying porn sites are different or special or why is making content different when it is done online?
As far as slipperlyslope, I suggest you look up the slipperyslope fallacy and why arguing some dire future condition possibly existing isn't an argument against a sepecific and scoped proposal.
> If you think porn is on the same order of harm as alcohol, you need to lay off the sauce.
I have no idea. Both ruin relationships or prevent healthy ones. But alcohol makes you fat, harms your organs and can lead to diabetes in the long term so I would say physically harmful things like alcohol are much more harmful than porn but that is bad whataboutism because even though you are right about alcohol that does not make porn any less harmful.
Addictive drugs are also only amplifying existing human brain connections. And you can very easily liken porn to an exogenous substance that distorts how sex actually is and promotes fantasy. Measuring harm really depends on the context also. Porn production is often linked with human trafficking and exploitation of disadvantaged people.
"promotes fantasy". Gasp! Dear folks, if you have an honest, open relationship with your partner, and communicate about the kind of fantasy you enjoy, you can in fact achieve "fantasy" as well.
I'm sorry, this is losing the point a bit, but there really is something so telling about the projection behind "fantasy [bad]" and "you might have fantastical thoughts".
Yup, some of it's a bit wild, and I hope everyone has the joy of a partner to safely explore and experience that with, sans judgement.
Why are we debating the definition of oppression? You have an opinion about porn and you want to to have strict control over other people. That is a textbook definition of oppression.
Cigarettes and alcohol are known to cause harm, opposed to porn where the discourse is almost 100% opinionated. They are also not regulated to the extent you’re advocating for.
In terms of hard drugs, I don’t know what drugs exactly but I’m in favour of legalising drugs. The illegality of drugs causes more societal harm than legal use. Hence the current worldwide shift to legalisation.
If porn does cause harm (debatable), we need education. Regulating and monitoring people who like sex, treating them like criminals, makes no sense as we are, by nature, sexual beings.
What behaviors or socially impacting outcomes do you see from current standards and lack of regulation?
What makes pornography different from corn syrup is that over indulgence in corn syrup leads to fewer suitable recruits for our military and over indulgence in porn leads to fewer rapes.
Jesus, if he saw our culture, would be burning corn fields and flipping tables at fast food restaurants.
> over indulgence in corn syrup leads to fewer suitable recruits for our military
> Jesus, if he saw our culture, would be burning corn fields and flipping tables at fast food restaurants.
What the actual fuck? I know Christianity has long ago precessed and is often used to justify a whole host of horrible things, but this takes the prize in mental gymnastics.
America and southern conservative states and the military all skew more religious. Virginia is the vertex of each of those.
Please consider my statement to be… a framing of my true thoughts which I think would defibrillate the synapses of someone arguing in support of the opposite position.
I am gonna ignore most of what you said since it is strawman argumenting and whataboutism.
But corn syrup is not addictive but porn is.
How about this though: The government should either regulate porn or stop regulating things that are harmful and addictive entirely. I am fine with either outcome but I would prefer if porn was regulated.
And fwiw, I never made the argument that porn should be regulated for moral or social-harm reasons. It harms the individual's mind and affects their lives long term. Also, porn production itself can be harmful to the sex workers.
Look at it differently, brothels are regulated right? Same thing, except I added that the brothels and porn sites also have warnings and help for both sex workers and users.
Of course you people only care about whatever extreme political spectrum you're clinging on to. Nothing I said prevents anyone from accessing legally produced porn. You just get a warning and help if you want it.
If you don't think there is harm or that people want help, look at r/nofap
So typical, sacrifice people at the altar of political conformity.
I don't think you're using "addictive" in a medically-literate way. In the way you're using it, anything can be "addictive", from video games to books.
When used correctly, "addictive" refers to the dependence created by drugs like heroin. Not even caffeine could be classified as "addictive", let alone porn. It's in a different galaxy, conceptually.
And that's important because if you're worried about people getting too into media consumption, you're now collapsing everything down to some common denominator of psychological dysfunction that's absurd to hold society to universally. Few people will be "addicted" to porn when consuming it. Most people will be (actually) addicted to heroin when they consume it.
There is chemical addiction and psycho-reactive addiction. For example, LSD is not chemically addictive but its effects on the person makes it psychologically addictive but even then not for everyone. Porn as you noted is similar to LSD. But addiction means something you do repeatedly and you have trouble stopping yourself from doing that thing even though you put in signifcant effort through will power to do so.
Your argument if I understand correctly is that there needs to be a chemical/physiological dependence for the addiction to be legitimate but that is not correct. Addiction only needs to be something you can't easily quit doing for it to be legitimate.
Caffeine and even sugar (imho for sugar) can be addictive. And regulating sugar use because it causes diabetes when addicted to it is something I support(some places already do this on sugar-high products). Caffeine shouldn't be regulated because the levels of caffeine consumed by an addicted person as far as I am aware is not harmful.
For something to be regulated it must meet either one of two sets of conditions. The first condition is for any single consumer obtainable dose/interaction to be harmful. The second is for it to be addictive and regularly consumed doses of it must lead to eventual harm to the user. Porn meets requirements for thr second condition. Media consumption may arguably be addictive but the only thing harmful about it maybe componets of a social media (like/dislike) not the media itself and those components, saying they on their own cause harm is quite a stretch but they do affect different people differently.
> Few people will be "addicted" to porn when consuming it. Most people will be (actually) addicted to heroin when they consume it.
No, most porn users are addicted. Few porn users actually want to stop. "I can quit any time" said every addict ever. If you can stop consuming porn for a month then you are not addicted. But it is so hard, there is a yearly challenge most people fail called "no nut november" and out of those who succeed, almost all fall back to porn despite not wanting to after seeing improvement in their lives.
As far as harm goes, the amount of people that speak of the improvement in life quality after quitting and the amount of harm they endured prior speaks for itself.
Now, I can see you arguing heroin is deadly but porn isn't and hands down I would agree with you. But a substance does not need to deadly for it to be harmful.
A better to explain my suggestion would be to consider how people who actively try to quit porn and fail and consider its effect on their lives significantly damaging might feel about the regulation I suggested. Givem the scale of porn consumption and widespread reports of addiction and harm, shouldn't this be regulated (not censored) at least to where mass consumption places (like brothels are for IRL sex) get regulated for content creation conditions and audited to make sure only allowed individuals have access (not minors or people in sexual offender db) and warnings/help made readily available?
Since I spent so much time replying, can you elaborate what part of that suggestion prevents you from accessing the porn you want or how any of that infringes on your rights? After all, having products display warnings/hell isn't new and neither is having rules that make sure working conditions and counsumer id'ing are in place at businesses like pharmacies, hospitals, bars, car rentals/sales,etc...
So why is porn so special if I may ask and given how regular porn consumers looking for legitimately/safely produced porn are unaffected, why would you or anyone in this thread have a problem with it? People are helped and harm is reduced and you are not affected. Only porn sites have reasonable but increased cost.
Medical definitions separate physician dependence from psychological dependence and generally a psych disorder is anything that causes social dysfunction including an addiction. So heroin has biologically addictive properties like it leads to withdrawal and tolerance, but also one can have a psychological dependence on heroin for example they associated it with a certain location they always use heroin In.
So the terms of addiction in the medical world are really more about where society draws the lines.
Here’s a u/militaryporn link talking about the same thing every Iraq veteran talks about, everyone’s favorite Burger King, how they call it a royale with cheese, and dumpster diving for burgers after hours: https://www.reddit.com/r/MilitaryPorn/comments/vwjoax/us_sol...
What right do you have to decide what I look at? I reject your desire to control the content intake of others. Choose what you want to view, and leave other people alone.
What right does the government have to control what people smoke, drink or inject into themselves? If porn is harmless then I am with you there but it is addictive and harmful.
> If porn is harmless then I am with you there but it is addictive and harmful.
You keep spouting this nonsense to the point you’re confusing opinion and fact. There is little evidence to suggest porn is harmful to teenagers, let alone adults. The majority of discourse around porn is opinionated.
Porn has NOT been widely proved (as in, not just studies funded by groups with agendas) to be addictive and harmful in adults. Check yourself.
Are you saying bibles are addictive or holding a belief of some sort in itself is harmful? There is emprical proof of the addicticveness and harm for porn, I didn't call for regulating morality.
And stalin was atheist so atheism should be banned because it isn't protected asa religion right? And islam should be banned right.
You changed to this strawman argument so let's have it.
People are responsible for their own actions. You can't blame information people consume because sane people have the ability to accept or reject information as correct or incorrect and killing people is one the most basic wrongs a sane person can discern. In effect your childish argument is that if a person uses some text as their reason for murdering then it is no longer that person who is responsible but the text that is bypassing their ability to tell apart from right and wrong and therefor that text should be banned?
Tell me, what belief system or lack of it do you accept where people who share that belief never harm anyone ever?
> Per capita what's the comparison with porn in terms of number and severity of extreme responses?
Again, strawmam! You yourself made the claim that porn is harmful to society, not I. But your asking me to defend your assertion lol.
While we are at, let's compare how many conservatives vs democrats are school shooters and pedophiles and I'm sure conservatives are more so let's ban the republican party and conservatism right?
If uninformed childish people like you had their way I am sure you would end up genociding everyone that looks thinks or believes in any way different than you.
You mistake the fact that your belief is popular and tolerated to mean you have the right to persecute others or use persecution as an argument or threat to fend off any disagreement.
Please try to argue in good faith and using sound arguments.
My argument is simple: porn is addicting, sex workers that make porn are not always in good conditions and porn overuse has a harmful effect to the user. So, much like drugs and prostitution people should be allowed to access it but in a way that is regulated and where rehabilitation and help is readily available.
You still get your porn, but your argument is that others shouldn't do it safely or be informed because... you hate bibles? Come on!
Maybe you could have said to me that bibles should have similar warnings and all that to which I would say unlike porn, religion is protected from such things but even if it wasn't, freedom of speech and religion exists and you are able to warn/discourse against the bible or any religion freely. So, unless the platforms that make the bible available to Christians (e.g.: the internet) don't allow your disagreeing belief to be made available (never mind the fact that schools teach things that disagree with thr bible but can't teach the bible!) then all you're doing is displaying your hate in bad faith here.
Regulated like drugs is a lot like "porn banning" since I currently cannot legally buy drugs for myself, so you're only fooling yourself if you think it wasn't the topic. I'm not interested in having morals of the religious imposed upon me, and I'm going to need to see some data for the harm of porn before I'd agree it's harmful. In any case, I know Utah and Virginia aren't passing these laws because they looked at the data and the data told them it was dangerous for societry, they are passing it to impose religious beliefs on others, and I can't help by think anyone who supports these laws thinks that's okay.
Indeed:l the argument was they should both be kept away from minors, not banned. It seems to be you who is cherry picking while lacking an argument, frankly.
Curious where would social media sites that are used sometimes for pornographic purposes fall under this? Obviously something like PHub only serves to distribute porn. But things like Twitter, Reddit, etc. are well known for their “secondary” purposes.
For example there are many chat apps aimed towards teenagers that are prolifically used for exchanging videos and pictures between adults and minors (at least de facto, even if de jure it is against terms). Of course there’s a big difference between a porn production company versus an individual, but often social platforms are conduits for more “black hat” behavior.
That's what I was addressing with the "small audience" or one-to-one messaging. So long as the sender is sending to a small number of specific individuals (i.e.: small subreddit or DMing small number of people) it should be unregulated.
The consensus is that humans just can't maintain meaningful relationships with more than 150 people so that should be the "small" threshold. The moment the number of viewers/receivers is more than that, it becomes a felony if they fail to follow regulations and notices to users. So if a private group chat grows to have 151 users then everyone sending nudes in that chat is criminally liable unless the group chat has the neccesary warnings and links to where people can get help and moderation to make sure shared content is consensual and legal as well as making sure participants are of legal age.
For "children", the solution is enabling parents to regulate what content kids consume (not just porn but anything really).
The best approach to these sorts of crimes is to prevent people from beginning down these paths and rehabilitation and removal from general society for those who are actively committing the crimes and harming society. governments can do a lot to help provide for prostitutes to bring them out of that dark lifestyle. In my opinion, if someone engages in prostitution, they’re already engaging in antisocial behavior akin to violence, and there must be no tolerance for it. Slogans like sex work is work only serve to hide the true degrading nature of selling one’s body for sex.
