nai06 said:1. While it's true the could focus on other things at the same time it doesn't mean they are addressing other issuesthe most cool guy said:AggieArchitect04 said:the most cool guy said:AggieArchitect04 said:
If I'm autistic, you're straight up ******ed.
What have they done to protect our border from drug traffickers? Has anyone fixed our crippling grid that wiped out the entire state 2 years ago? What's the plan for all these dams and bridges that have seen zero maintenance over the last 50 years?
You must be the liberalist of dbags if you need a bunch of white-haired men all up in your daily business. Big government is a problem and this is a prime example.
Appreciate your interest in my sex life. Don't worry about me getting laid. I promise you any woman would drop their panties for me long before being caught dead with a simp like you.
Of course by your logic we should legislate that as well. These idiots aren't doing jack **** and people like you just slurp them up.
Just to recap:
1. Legislating porn (if they're even doing that, which I doubt) does not preclude them from also promulgating legislation for other things at the same time. I see you have no response to that.
2. Nowhere did I say or even imply that I want or need white haired men "all up in my daily business." Nor did I say anything that could be construed as even remotely liberal.
3. I expressed no interest at all in your sex life, or lack thereof.
4. Nothing I said could possibly lead to the logical conclusion that I think women having sex with other men (or whatever you were getting at; I couldn't really tell) should be legislated. I didn't even say that porn should be legislated. I said don't worry, they're not legislating it.
So, instead of responding to anything I said, you just concocted a bunch of make believe dog **** and responded to that instead. Better luck next time.
On June 2, 2023, Texas lawmakers passed House Bill 1181.
So yes, dumbass, they are legislating it. Sounds like you just don't know what the hell you're talking about. Your defense of this shows that you want (or sadly need) to freely give up your rights to big government. I don't.
For me, this has little to do with porn and more to do with the government's interference in and monitoring of the life of its citizens. Collecting data digitally under the pretense that your keeping that 16 year old off Pornhub is dumb hot take that I'm sure you just shrug your shoulders and go along with. Some of us don't like that.
Time to eat your **** sandwich, my cool guy. I'll go ahead and claim victory on this debate.
Now you're moving the goalposts. You originally said that you were angered that the legislature might be addressing porn because it should be focusing on other things, like the border or the power grid. I just pointed out that the legislature could deal with porn and also focus on other things at the same time, which is objectively true. You had no response to my point, so you just called me a ******, a liberal, and bizarrely claimed I was interested in your sex life.
You also expressed anger that Ken Paxton or any other politician might try to keep you or other adults from watching porn and jerking off. I said I doubted that was being legislated, and I don't think it is.
But now you point to House Bill 1181, which was to try and restrict minors from having unfettered access to porn. That's a completely different issue. If you're really so outraged that minors won't be able to watch porn and jerk off at will, and that's the hill you're willing to die on, then you're most likely a pedophile, and you should seek help. Restricting minors' access to porn is a good thing. Here is what the American College of Pediatricians says about the impact of porn on minors. None of it is good, and it includes a very specific statement that "sexual predators purposefully expose young children to pornography for the purpose of grooming the children for sexual exploitation."
https://acpeds.org/position-statements/the-impact-of-pornography-on-children
So again, if you're that up in arms about it, you're probably a pedophile. I am not, so we likely don't have much else to talk about, but I do hope you get the help you need.
2.HB 1181 attempts to keep porn from minors but does so by unconstitutionally limiting the free speech of adults and limiting the ability for adults to access constitutionally protected material. SCOTUS ruled on that when they struck down the 2004 Child Online Protection Act because it violated the 1st Amendment
3. HB 1181 places a significant financial burden on business who now must verify and retain personal information of it's users.
4. HB 1181 does little to deter minors from accessing pornography. Rather it redirects them to non compliant sites or those based in a foreign country who are unlikely to have antitrafficking or CP prevention policies.
5. Finally, I don't really trust the American College of Pediatricians on anything. They want you to think they are the better known and legitimate American Academy of Pediatrics. In reality they are a very small group mainly against gay marriage, gay adoption, gay parenting, the HPV vaccine, and in general any rights for LGTBQ individuals. They also are big proponents of Abstinence Only sex education and conversion therapy for children.
1. The idea that the entire legislative majority is focusing only on a porn bill and nothing else is absurd. There is no evidence to suggest it is happening, because it is not happening.
2. Wrong. It's not unconstitutional according to the Fifth Circuit. If the Supreme Court reverses, then I will agree with you that this particular bill is unconstitutional. Restricting minor access to porn, however, is a worthy endeavor and should continue to be pursued.
3. We regularly place significant burdens on business that sell or promote vices and adult products. This alleged "burden" is far less burdensome than anything the alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, gambling, or firearms industries have to deal with.
4. The fact that some sites don't comply with laws or find ways to bypass them is not a justification for eliminating the law. Again, keeping porn away from impressionable children is a worthy endeavor.
5. The American Academy of Pediatrics endorses the fantasy that boys can turn into girls and vice versa, and it promotes chemical and physical castration of still-developing children who are not of age. The idea that it is more legitimate or more scientifically sound than the ACOP is wrong, and downright laughable.
