And the play goes on.... Arguably, the porn industry, from Robin Byrd and Larry Flynt, to pornhub and now webfans, have done more for our 1A rights than any other industry. And Its hard to say the porn industry seems any less ethical than current Big Media

Can we have some rule #1 on the OF teachers please? Less arguing about who is a better Christian or who is a better conservative.

OldArmyBrent said:

---

Can we have some rule #1 on the OF teachers please? Less arguing about who is a better Christian or who is a better conservative.

---

"Big word make head tired. Show bewb"

"Hey, can someone post pixels of a woman's boobs? That'd be really awesome, now let me tuck into this jack in the box taco special while i smoke a joint and show the left how badly I'm owning them"

RebelE Infantry said:

---

Joe Boudain said:

---

I see no ill effects from divorcing the procreative and unitive nature of sex from it's physical expression. It's not like society is careening into a pansexual horror film or anything.

Any decent society would outlaw porn and consider pornographers for the depraved minions of satan that they are; but hell; if it pays the bills it can't be bad can it?

---

Well said.

Free and widely available porn is a psychological weapon to keep you docile and enslaved to your passions, change my mind (impossible). The regime loves that you are addicted to it, because then you are not dangerous. You were not made for sitting at home and jerking it to pixels on a screen. You were made for greatness. Act like it and quit now. There are tons of resources to help.

---

You could become the greatest message board warrior this world has ever seen but for the prurient passion for porn and the deviltry of masturbation. A renowned Rebel destined for greatness by virtue of divinely mandated abstinence.

You don't want to be part of the depraved minions of Satan do you? Do you??

This thread delivers

Jason C. said:

---

Joe Boudain and Rebel

Porn is bad for men psychologically and physically; it's bad for women for all the obvious exploitative reasons. "We can't eradicate it completely therefore we shouldn't even try to" is the same non-sequitur used by libs who want abortion, drugs, or any other type of evil.

And you porn-addicts/enablers' appeals to libertarian principles are sort of reasonable superficially ("it's not hurting anyone", or "what I miserably and compulsively do in the confines of my *everywhere* is none of your business"). But then those arguments fall apart because, again, (1) evidence and real life shows it's bad for men because it changes them for the worse and (2) bad for women. Not to mention all the underage kids looking at it, who are able to do so because efforts to block porn and fought off by perverts and pimps (investors/producers).

What's harmful for individuals on a massive scale has structural consequences for society. That harm warrants a societal, coordinated response to stop or minimize that harm. A healthy society would recognize this.

---

So we are now in favor of government banning anything that we perceive to be bad for people? So you are in favor of banning swimming pools, bicycles, family dogs, cars that are capable of going over 35 mph, refined sugar, tobacco, and alcohol? All of those things kill or injure a ton of people every year, so why should they be allowed to exist? How about hammers and clubs...lots of people get killed by them every year too. What about swimming at the beach? That is dangerous too, dozens of deaths or serious injuries every year. I won't even get into snow skiing, sky diving, bungie jumping, skateboarding, etc. So where do you anti-porn and anti-libertarian folks draw the line on how much government should dictate what people can and can't do? What is your red line that makes you say "whoa" to the full on nanny state declaring everything but work, eating, and sleeping to be illegal? At what point do people have the right to make their own decisions about things that could harm themselves?

Zoomin Toobin is happy now.....

RebelE Infantry said:

---

Themselves. What sort of man debases himself like that with his bride? Disgusting.

---

A "swinger" couple I know. She is mid-40s, kids are out of the house, got the requisite boob job, is in great shape, she has "skills", they are free spirits, and the hubby works in corporate America and his face is never shown.

I would never pay for this crap but she promotes her Only Fans on her Twitter page (no lie!!)

Consenting adults doing what they want in this case.

She is very friendly and a great host at parties and fundraisers for the various causes that they support (Animal shelters, support for spousal abuse, etc.) as they are very well off.

Her Mississippi accent is quite charming.

Met through friend of friend and most of their friends are "vanilla", they just are into kink.

txags92 said:

---

Jason C. said:

---

Joe Boudain and Rebel

Porn is bad for men psychologically and physically; it's bad for women for all the obvious exploitative reasons. "We can't eradicate it completely therefore we shouldn't even try to" is the same non-sequitur used by libs who want abortion, drugs, or any other type of evil.

And you porn-addicts/enablers' appeals to libertarian principles are sort of reasonable superficially ("it's not hurting anyone", or "what I miserably and compulsively do in the confines of my *everywhere* is none of your business"). But then those arguments fall apart because, again, (1) evidence and real life shows it's bad for men because it changes them for the worse and (2) bad for women. Not to mention all the underage kids looking at it, who are able to do so because efforts to block porn and fought off by perverts and pimps (investors/producers).

What's harmful for individuals on a massive scale has structural consequences for society. That harm warrants a societal, coordinated response to stop or minimize that harm. A healthy society would recognize this.

---

So we are now in favor of government banning anything that we perceive to be bad for people? So you are in favor of banning swimming pools, bicycles, family dogs, cars that are capable of going over 35 mph, refined sugar, tobacco, and alcohol? All of those things kill or injure a ton of people every year, so why should they be allowed to exist? How about hammers and clubs...lots of people get killed by them every year too. What about swimming at the beach? That is dangerous too, dozens of deaths or serious injuries every year. I won't even get into snow skiing, sky diving, bungie jumping, skateboarding, etc. So where do you anti-porn and anti-libertarian folks draw the line on how much government should dictate what people can and can't do? What is your red line that makes you say "whoa" to the full on nanny state declaring everything but work, eating, and sleeping to be illegal? At what point do people have the right to make their own decisions about things that could harm themselves?

---

When did we lose the capacity for reason and the ability to differentiate between different flavors of evil and act accordingly.

Swimming pools can be used properly, as can fast food, tobacco and most things. Pornography cannot, there is no good end possible with pornography. It has massively evil fruits that lead to societal ills.

As always, the red line is what makes sense. It's the same reason 18 is old enough to vote and not 17.5, or 45 is the speed limit and not 46. The fact that something is cumbersome or imperfect doesn't mean it isn't needed.

Spurswin5 said:

---

RebelE Infantry said:

---

Themselves. What sort of man debases himself like that with his bride? Disgusting.

---

A "swinger" couple I know. She is mid-40s, kids are out of the house, got the requisite boob job, is in great shape, she has "skills", they are free spirits, and the hubby works in corporate America and his face is never shown.

I would never pay for this crap but she promotes her Only Fans on her Twitter page (no lie!!)

Consenting adults doing what they want in this case.

She is very friendly and a great host at parties and fundraisers for the various causes that they support (Animal shelters, support for spousal abuse, etc.) as they are very well off.

Her Mississippi accent is quite charming.

Met through friend of friend and most of their friends are "vanilla", they just are into kink.

---

BallerStaf2003 said:

---

Agreed. The guy I know (keep in mind this is LA where people are pretty attractive) is top .1%. He's definitely the very rare exception.

And yes, a steep price to pay. I know he got fired from Facebook.

---

80K a month is 80K a month. I mean, I guess I sort of feel bad for him, in a world's smallest violin sort of way?

Joe Boudain said:

---

txags92 said:

---

Jason C. said:

---

Joe Boudain and Rebel

Porn is bad for men psychologically and physically; it's bad for women for all the obvious exploitative reasons. "We can't eradicate it completely therefore we shouldn't even try to" is the same non-sequitur used by libs who want abortion, drugs, or any other type of evil.

And you porn-addicts/enablers' appeals to libertarian principles are sort of reasonable superficially ("it's not hurting anyone", or "what I miserably and compulsively do in the confines of my *everywhere* is none of your business"). But then those arguments fall apart because, again, (1) evidence and real life shows it's bad for men because it changes them for the worse and (2) bad for women. Not to mention all the underage kids looking at it, who are able to do so because efforts to block porn and fought off by perverts and pimps (investors/producers).

What's harmful for individuals on a massive scale has structural consequences for society. That harm warrants a societal, coordinated response to stop or minimize that harm. A healthy society would recognize this.

---

So we are now in favor of government banning anything that we perceive to be bad for people? So you are in favor of banning swimming pools, bicycles, family dogs, cars that are capable of going over 35 mph, refined sugar, tobacco, and alcohol? All of those things kill or injure a ton of people every year, so why should they be allowed to exist? How about hammers and clubs...lots of people get killed by them every year too. What about swimming at the beach? That is dangerous too, dozens of deaths or serious injuries every year. I won't even get into snow skiing, sky diving, bungie jumping, skateboarding, etc. So where do you anti-porn and anti-libertarian folks draw the line on how much government should dictate what people can and can't do? What is your red line that makes you say "whoa" to the full on nanny state declaring everything but work, eating, and sleeping to be illegal? At what point do people have the right to make their own decisions about things that could harm themselves?

---

When did we lose the capacity for reason and the ability to differentiate between different flavors of evil and act accordingly.

Swimming pools can be used properly, as can fast food, tobacco and most things. Pornography cannot, there is no good end possible with pornography. It has massively evil fruits that lead to societal ills.

As always, the red line is what makes sense. It's the same reason 18 is old enough to vote and not 17.5, or 45 is the speed limit and not 46. The fact that something is cumbersome or imperfect doesn't mean it isn't needed.

---

Have you seen the Venus de Milo? What about Renaissance art?

Joe Boudain said:

---

txags92 said:

---

Jason C. said:

---

Joe Boudain and Rebel

Porn is bad for men psychologically and physically; it's bad for women for all the obvious exploitative reasons. "We can't eradicate it completely therefore we shouldn't even try to" is the same non-sequitur used by libs who want abortion, drugs, or any other type of evil.

And you porn-addicts/enablers' appeals to libertarian principles are sort of reasonable superficially ("it's not hurting anyone", or "what I miserably and compulsively do in the confines of my *everywhere* is none of your business"). But then those arguments fall apart because, again, (1) evidence and real life shows it's bad for men because it changes them for the worse and (2) bad for women. Not to mention all the underage kids looking at it, who are able to do so because efforts to block porn and fought off by perverts and pimps (investors/producers).

What's harmful for individuals on a massive scale has structural consequences for society. That harm warrants a societal, coordinated response to stop or minimize that harm. A healthy society would recognize this.

---

So we are now in favor of government banning anything that we perceive to be bad for people? So you are in favor of banning swimming pools, bicycles, family dogs, cars that are capable of going over 35 mph, refined sugar, tobacco, and alcohol? All of those things kill or injure a ton of people every year, so why should they be allowed to exist? How about hammers and clubs...lots of people get killed by them every year too. What about swimming at the beach? That is dangerous too, dozens of deaths or serious injuries every year. I won't even get into snow skiing, sky diving, bungie jumping, skateboarding, etc. So where do you anti-porn and anti-libertarian folks draw the line on how much government should dictate what people can and can't do? What is your red line that makes you say "whoa" to the full on nanny state declaring everything but work, eating, and sleeping to be illegal? At what point do people have the right to make their own decisions about things that could harm themselves?

---

When did we lose the capacity for reason and the ability to differentiate between different flavors of evil and act accordingly.

Swimming pools can be used properly, as can fast food, tobacco and most things. Pornography cannot, there is no good end possible with pornography. It has massively evil fruits that lead to societal ills.

As always, the red line is what makes sense. It's the same reason 18 is old enough to vote and not 17.5, or 45 is the speed limit and not 46. The fact that something is cumbersome or imperfect doesn't mean it isn't needed.

---

So if a consenting adult agrees to strip naked and take pictures, and a consenting adult agrees to pay for those pictures, to you that is an evil that will cause irreparable harm to all of society that is worse than a kid drowning in a swimming pool or a toddler being killed by their family's dog? You and I are just going to have to agree to disagree on that one. There are certainly aspects of porn that can be harmful, but to pretend that it is any business of government to stamp out all porn is stupid and you should be laughed at for thinking so. People are sentient beings with freewill, and the constitution defines very tightly the powers of government. I don't see anything in there that gives government the power to ban what a small group of puritans considers to be "evil" in the name of protecting the rest of us from ourselves.

Spurswin5 said:

---

RebelE Infantry said:

---

Themselves. What sort of man debases himself like that with his bride? Disgusting.

---

A "swinger" couple I know. She is mid-40s, kids are out of the house, got the requisite boob job, is in great shape, she has "skills", they are free spirits, and the hubby works in corporate America and his face is never shown.

I would never pay for this crap but she promotes her Only Fans on her Twitter page (no lie!!)

Consenting adults doing what they want in this case.

She is very friendly and a great host at parties and fundraisers for the various causes that they support (Animal shelters, support for spousal abuse, etc.) as they are very well off.

Her Mississippi accent is quite charming.

Met through friend of friend and most of their friends are "vanilla", they just are into kink.

---

95% of swinger couples end in divorce. This is playing with fire. I wouldn't take the opinions of any couple involved with that lifestyle as someone who was well-adjusted or normal.

BAP Enthusiast said:

---

Spurswin5 said:

---

RebelE Infantry said:

---

Themselves. What sort of man debases himself like that with his bride? Disgusting.

---

A "swinger" couple I know. She is mid-40s, kids are out of the house, got the requisite boob job, is in great shape, she has "skills", they are free spirits, and the hubby works in corporate America and his face is never shown.

I would never pay for this crap but she promotes her Only Fans on her Twitter page (no lie!!)

Consenting adults doing what they want in this case.

She is very friendly and a great host at parties and fundraisers for the various causes that they support (Animal shelters, support for spousal abuse, etc.) as they are very well off.

Her Mississippi accent is quite charming.

Met through friend of friend and most of their friends are "vanilla", they just are into kink.

---

95% of swinger couples end in divorce. This is playing with fire. I wouldn't take the opinions of any couple involved with that lifestyle as someone who was well-adjusted or normal.

---

I don't like the idea of sharing my tools, let alone my wife. Hard pass.

well, that's great news!

tremble said:

---

BallerStaf2003 said:

---

Agreed. The guy I know (keep in mind this is LA where people are pretty attractive) is top .1%. He's definitely the very rare exception.

And yes, a steep price to pay. I know he got fired from Facebook.

---

80K a month is 80K a month. I mean, I guess I sort of feel bad for him, in a world's smallest violin sort of way?

---

Looks fade. But your reputation remains.

Who TF is Walter Bloomberg?

80k a month to diddle your ******* what a country

Quote:

---

Looks fade. But your reputation remains.

---

If you're lucky you get to bang DJT at the back-end of your career, but for most the spigot just dries up.

Salute The Marines said:

---

Porn is great for America

---

Ok, Coomer

RebelE Infantry said:

---

OldArmyBrent said:

---

Can we have some rule #1 on the OF teachers please? Less arguing about who is a better Christian or who is a better conservative.

---

"Big word make head tired. Show bewb"

---

Classic Reb! Keep keepin on there, champ!

FratboyLegend said:

---

Joe Boudain said:

---

txags92 said:

---

Jason C. said:

---

Joe Boudain and Rebel

Porn is bad for men psychologically and physically; it's bad for women for all the obvious exploitative reasons. "We can't eradicate it completely therefore we shouldn't even try to" is the same non-sequitur used by libs who want abortion, drugs, or any other type of evil.

And you porn-addicts/enablers' appeals to libertarian principles are sort of reasonable superficially ("it's not hurting anyone", or "what I miserably and compulsively do in the confines of my *everywhere* is none of your business"). But then those arguments fall apart because, again, (1) evidence and real life shows it's bad for men because it changes them for the worse and (2) bad for women. Not to mention all the underage kids looking at it, who are able to do so because efforts to block porn and fought off by perverts and pimps (investors/producers).

What's harmful for individuals on a massive scale has structural consequences for society. That harm warrants a societal, coordinated response to stop or minimize that harm. A healthy society would recognize this.

---

So we are now in favor of government banning anything that we perceive to be bad for people? So you are in favor of banning swimming pools, bicycles, family dogs, cars that are capable of going over 35 mph, refined sugar, tobacco, and alcohol? All of those things kill or injure a ton of people every year, so why should they be allowed to exist? How about hammers and clubs...lots of people get killed by them every year too. What about swimming at the beach? That is dangerous too, dozens of deaths or serious injuries every year. I won't even get into snow skiing, sky diving, bungie jumping, skateboarding, etc. So where do you anti-porn and anti-libertarian folks draw the line on how much government should dictate what people can and can't do? What is your red line that makes you say "whoa" to the full on nanny state declaring everything but work, eating, and sleeping to be illegal? At what point do people have the right to make their own decisions about things that could harm themselves?

---

When did we lose the capacity for reason and the ability to differentiate between different flavors of evil and act accordingly.

Swimming pools can be used properly, as can fast food, tobacco and most things. Pornography cannot, there is no good end possible with pornography. It has massively evil fruits that lead to societal ills.

As always, the red line is what makes sense. It's the same reason 18 is old enough to vote and not 17.5, or 45 is the speed limit and not 46. The fact that something is cumbersome or imperfect doesn't mean it isn't needed.

---

Have you seen the Venus de Milo? What about Renaissance art?

---

Yes, I've seen the Venus de Milo and renaissance art, there is a difference between nudity and pornography. The human body is not disgusting, the purpose of most renaissance art and the Venus De Milo is to draw attention to the beauty of creation and not inspire lust.

As a society it seems we have lost the ability to differentiate between subjects in the same genre. If I'm against pornography I must be against all literature. If I'm against prostitution I must be against physical therapy.

txags92 said:

---

Joe Boudain said:

---

txags92 said:

---

Jason C. said:

---

Joe Boudain and Rebel

Porn is bad for men psychologically and physically; it's bad for women for all the obvious exploitative reasons. "We can't eradicate it completely therefore we shouldn't even try to" is the same non-sequitur used by libs who want abortion, drugs, or any other type of evil.

And you porn-addicts/enablers' appeals to libertarian principles are sort of reasonable superficially ("it's not hurting anyone", or "what I miserably and compulsively do in the confines of my *everywhere* is none of your business"). But then those arguments fall apart because, again, (1) evidence and real life shows it's bad for men because it changes them for the worse and (2) bad for women. Not to mention all the underage kids looking at it, who are able to do so because efforts to block porn and fought off by perverts and pimps (investors/producers).

What's harmful for individuals on a massive scale has structural consequences for society. That harm warrants a societal, coordinated response to stop or minimize that harm. A healthy society would recognize this.

---

So we are now in favor of government banning anything that we perceive to be bad for people? So you are in favor of banning swimming pools, bicycles, family dogs, cars that are capable of going over 35 mph, refined sugar, tobacco, and alcohol? All of those things kill or injure a ton of people every year, so why should they be allowed to exist? How about hammers and clubs...lots of people get killed by them every year too. What about swimming at the beach? That is dangerous too, dozens of deaths or serious injuries every year. I won't even get into snow skiing, sky diving, bungie jumping, skateboarding, etc. So where do you anti-porn and anti-libertarian folks draw the line on how much government should dictate what people can and can't do? What is your red line that makes you say "whoa" to the full on nanny state declaring everything but work, eating, and sleeping to be illegal? At what point do people have the right to make their own decisions about things that could harm themselves?

---

When did we lose the capacity for reason and the ability to differentiate between different flavors of evil and act accordingly.

Swimming pools can be used properly, as can fast food, tobacco and most things. Pornography cannot, there is no good end possible with pornography. It has massively evil fruits that lead to societal ills.

As always, the red line is what makes sense. It's the same reason 18 is old enough to vote and not 17.5, or 45 is the speed limit and not 46. The fact that something is cumbersome or imperfect doesn't mean it isn't needed.

---

So if a consenting adult agrees to strip naked and take pictures, and a consenting adult agrees to pay for those pictures, to you that is an evil that will cause irreparable harm to all of society that is worse than a kid drowning in a swimming pool or a toddler being killed by their family's dog? You and I are just going to have to agree to disagree on that one. There are certainly aspects of porn that can be harmful, but to pretend that it is any business of government to stamp out all porn is stupid and you should be laughed at for thinking so. People are sentient beings with freewill, and the constitution defines very tightly the powers of government. I don't see anything in there that gives government the power to ban what a small group of puritans considers to be "evil" in the name of protecting the rest of us from ourselves.

---

Yes, everyone knows it is bad to drown children in pools or to create the situation where it's likely a child will drown in a pool. Your post is evidence that there is a huge school of people that think it's okay to do a bad thing a good way as long as both people consent.

Your non-aggression has gotten us to porn on demand at the click of a button, the hypersexualization of children, massively increased divorce rates, and fertility rates under replacement level. Japan has such an issue with porn they can't find kids to have sex or even want to get married, because it's so much easier just to watch porn.

I also don't really give a **** about the Constitution, as it sits now it's only used as a weapon against the actual right and rarely ever used for what it's meant to be used for.

The country was founded by a bunch of puritans who figured they didn't need to put a bunch of **** in because there's no way possible society would ever degenerate to the level it has now, but we've proved them wrong.

Under the current constitution if 100,000,000 ChiCom nationals managed to sneak onto US soil and pop a child out in the next 10 years, those children would be citizens just as you and I. That's stupid. The Constitution is a document, its hurting us, stop worshipping it.

BQ78 said:

---

This smells like new Coke and Classic Coke.

I never heard of this site until this happened.

---

Joe Boudain said:

---

txags92 said:

---

Joe Boudain said:

---

txags92 said:

---

Jason C. said:

---

Joe Boudain and Rebel

Porn is bad for men psychologically and physically; it's bad for women for all the obvious exploitative reasons. "We can't eradicate it completely therefore we shouldn't even try to" is the same non-sequitur used by libs who want abortion, drugs, or any other type of evil.

And you porn-addicts/enablers' appeals to libertarian principles are sort of reasonable superficially ("it's not hurting anyone", or "what I miserably and compulsively do in the confines of my *everywhere* is none of your business"). But then those arguments fall apart because, again, (1) evidence and real life shows it's bad for men because it changes them for the worse and (2) bad for women. Not to mention all the underage kids looking at it, who are able to do so because efforts to block porn and fought off by perverts and pimps (investors/producers).

What's harmful for individuals on a massive scale has structural consequences for society. That harm warrants a societal, coordinated response to stop or minimize that harm. A healthy society would recognize this.

---

So we are now in favor of government banning anything that we perceive to be bad for people? So you are in favor of banning swimming pools, bicycles, family dogs, cars that are capable of going over 35 mph, refined sugar, tobacco, and alcohol? All of those things kill or injure a ton of people every year, so why should they be allowed to exist? How about hammers and clubs...lots of people get killed by them every year too. What about swimming at the beach? That is dangerous too, dozens of deaths or serious injuries every year. I won't even get into snow skiing, sky diving, bungie jumping, skateboarding, etc. So where do you anti-porn and anti-libertarian folks draw the line on how much government should dictate what people can and can't do? What is your red line that makes you say "whoa" to the full on nanny state declaring everything but work, eating, and sleeping to be illegal? At what point do people have the right to make their own decisions about things that could harm themselves?

---

When did we lose the capacity for reason and the ability to differentiate between different flavors of evil and act accordingly.

Swimming pools can be used properly, as can fast food, tobacco and most things. Pornography cannot, there is no good end possible with pornography. It has massively evil fruits that lead to societal ills.

As always, the red line is what makes sense. It's the same reason 18 is old enough to vote and not 17.5, or 45 is the speed limit and not 46. The fact that something is cumbersome or imperfect doesn't mean it isn't needed.

---

So if a consenting adult agrees to strip naked and take pictures, and a consenting adult agrees to pay for those pictures, to you that is an evil that will cause irreparable harm to all of society that is worse than a kid drowning in a swimming pool or a toddler being killed by their family's dog? You and I are just going to have to agree to disagree on that one. There are certainly aspects of porn that can be harmful, but to pretend that it is any business of government to stamp out all porn is stupid and you should be laughed at for thinking so. People are sentient beings with freewill, and the constitution defines very tightly the powers of government. I don't see anything in there that gives government the power to ban what a small group of puritans considers to be "evil" in the name of protecting the rest of us from ourselves.

---

I also don't really give a **** about the Constitution, as it sits now it's only used as a weapon against the actual right and rarely ever used for what it's meant to be used for.

The country was founded by a bunch of puritans who figured they didn't need to put a bunch of **** in because there's no way possible society would ever degenerate to the level it has now, but we've proved them wrong.

---

Yeah, I think we are done here with anything words can fix. Probably about time for you to go start a little porn free totalitarian enclave of your own somewhere with the rest of the puritans, because I happen to care alot about the constitution and will defend it with arms against your type.

Porn on demand is a problem? Says who?

backintexas2013 said:

---

Porn on demand is a problem? Says who?

---

Prudes and people that watch the 700 club

Ha, if that is the real world, I'll live in my fantasy bubble.

txags92 said:

---

Joe Boudain said:

---

txags92 said:

---

Joe Boudain said:

---

txags92 said:

---

Jason C. said:

---

Joe Boudain and Rebel

Porn is bad for men psychologically and physically; it's bad for women for all the obvious exploitative reasons. "We can't eradicate it completely therefore we shouldn't even try to" is the same non-sequitur used by libs who want abortion, drugs, or any other type of evil.

And you porn-addicts/enablers' appeals to libertarian principles are sort of reasonable superficially ("it's not hurting anyone", or "what I miserably and compulsively do in the confines of my *everywhere* is none of your business"). But then those arguments fall apart because, again, (1) evidence and real life shows it's bad for men because it changes them for the worse and (2) bad for women. Not to mention all the underage kids looking at it, who are able to do so because efforts to block porn and fought off by perverts and pimps (investors/producers).

What's harmful for individuals on a massive scale has structural consequences for society. That harm warrants a societal, coordinated response to stop or minimize that harm. A healthy society would recognize this.

---

So we are now in favor of government banning anything that we perceive to be bad for people? So you are in favor of banning swimming pools, bicycles, family dogs, cars that are capable of going over 35 mph, refined sugar, tobacco, and alcohol? All of those things kill or injure a ton of people every year, so why should they be allowed to exist? How about hammers and clubs...lots of people get killed by them every year too. What about swimming at the beach? That is dangerous too, dozens of deaths or serious injuries every year. I won't even get into snow skiing, sky diving, bungie jumping, skateboarding, etc. So where do you anti-porn and anti-libertarian folks draw the line on how much government should dictate what people can and can't do? What is your red line that makes you say "whoa" to the full on nanny state declaring everything but work, eating, and sleeping to be illegal? At what point do people have the right to make their own decisions about things that could harm themselves?

---

When did we lose the capacity for reason and the ability to differentiate between different flavors of evil and act accordingly.

Swimming pools can be used properly, as can fast food, tobacco and most things. Pornography cannot, there is no good end possible with pornography. It has massively evil fruits that lead to societal ills.

As always, the red line is what makes sense. It's the same reason 18 is old enough to vote and not 17.5, or 45 is the speed limit and not 46. The fact that something is cumbersome or imperfect doesn't mean it isn't needed.

---

So if a consenting adult agrees to strip naked and take pictures, and a consenting adult agrees to pay for those pictures, to you that is an evil that will cause irreparable harm to all of society that is worse than a kid drowning in a swimming pool or a toddler being killed by their family's dog? You and I are just going to have to agree to disagree on that one. There are certainly aspects of porn that can be harmful, but to pretend that it is any business of government to stamp out all porn is stupid and you should be laughed at for thinking so. People are sentient beings with freewill, and the constitution defines very tightly the powers of government. I don't see anything in there that gives government the power to ban what a small group of puritans considers to be "evil" in the name of protecting the rest of us from ourselves.

---

I also don't really give a **** about the Constitution, as it sits now it's only used as a weapon against the actual right and rarely ever used for what it's meant to be used for.

The country was founded by a bunch of puritans who figured they didn't need to put a bunch of **** in because there's no way possible society would ever degenerate to the level it has now, but we've proved them wrong.

---

Yeah, I think we are done here with anything words can fix. Probably about time for you to go start a little porn free totalitarian enclave of your own somewhere with the rest of the puritans, because I happen to care alot about the constitution and will defend it with arms against your type.

---

Wish you'd defend it with arms against the people turning our country into a 3rd world bordello, but I guess you have to pick and choose your battles.

backintexas2013 said:

---

Porn on demand is a problem? Says who?

---

have you read the thread? Several people in here. Me for one.

Joe Boudain said:

---

txags92 said:

---

Joe Boudain said:

---

txags92 said:

---

Joe Boudain said:

---

txags92 said:

---

Jason C. said:

---

Joe Boudain and Rebel

Porn is bad for men psychologically and physically; it's bad for women for all the obvious exploitative reasons. "We can't eradicate it completely therefore we shouldn't even try to" is the same non-sequitur used by libs who want abortion, drugs, or any other type of evil.

And you porn-addicts/enablers' appeals to libertarian principles are sort of reasonable superficially ("it's not hurting anyone", or "what I miserably and compulsively do in the confines of my *everywhere* is none of your business"). But then those arguments fall apart because, again, (1) evidence and real life shows it's bad for men because it changes them for the worse and (2) bad for women. Not to mention all the underage kids looking at it, who are able to do so because efforts to block porn and fought off by perverts and pimps (investors/producers).

What's harmful for individuals on a massive scale has structural consequences for society. That harm warrants a societal, coordinated response to stop or minimize that harm. A healthy society would recognize this.

---

So we are now in favor of government banning anything that we perceive to be bad for people? So you are in favor of banning swimming pools, bicycles, family dogs, cars that are capable of going over 35 mph, refined sugar, tobacco, and alcohol? All of those things kill or injure a ton of people every year, so why should they be allowed to exist? How about hammers and clubs...lots of people get killed by them every year too. What about swimming at the beach? That is dangerous too, dozens of deaths or serious injuries every year. I won't even get into snow skiing, sky diving, bungie jumping, skateboarding, etc. So where do you anti-porn and anti-libertarian folks draw the line on how much government should dictate what people can and can't do? What is your red line that makes you say "whoa" to the full on nanny state declaring everything but work, eating, and sleeping to be illegal? At what point do people have the right to make their own decisions about things that could harm themselves?

---

When did we lose the capacity for reason and the ability to differentiate between different flavors of evil and act accordingly.

Swimming pools can be used properly, as can fast food, tobacco and most things. Pornography cannot, there is no good end possible with pornography. It has massively evil fruits that lead to societal ills.

As always, the red line is what makes sense. It's the same reason 18 is old enough to vote and not 17.5, or 45 is the speed limit and not 46. The fact that something is cumbersome or imperfect doesn't mean it isn't needed.

---

So if a consenting adult agrees to strip naked and take pictures, and a consenting adult agrees to pay for those pictures, to you that is an evil that will cause irreparable harm to all of society that is worse than a kid drowning in a swimming pool or a toddler being killed by their family's dog? You and I are just going to have to agree to disagree on that one. There are certainly aspects of porn that can be harmful, but to pretend that it is any business of government to stamp out all porn is stupid and you should be laughed at for thinking so. People are sentient beings with freewill, and the constitution defines very tightly the powers of government. I don't see anything in there that gives government the power to ban what a small group of puritans considers to be "evil" in the name of protecting the rest of us from ourselves.

---

I also don't really give a **** about the Constitution, as it sits now it's only used as a weapon against the actual right and rarely ever used for what it's meant to be used for.

The country was founded by a bunch of puritans who figured they didn't need to put a bunch of **** in because there's no way possible society would ever degenerate to the level it has now, but we've proved them wrong.

---

Yeah, I think we are done here with anything words can fix. Probably about time for you to go start a little porn free totalitarian enclave of your own somewhere with the rest of the puritans, because I happen to care alot about the constitution and will defend it with arms against your type.

---

Wish you'd defend it with arms against the people turning our country into a 3rd world bordello, but I guess you have to pick and choose your battles.

---

If everybody is legal age and consenting, it is absolutely none of my business what they do, who they show it to, or what they charge to see it. America would be a much better place if we stuck to that attitude about most things.

But you aren't important. You just are a prude

txags92 said:

---

Joe Boudain said:

---

txags92 said:

---

Joe Boudain said:

---

txags92 said:

---

Joe Boudain said:

---

txags92 said:

---

Jason C. said:

---

Joe Boudain and Rebel

Porn is bad for men psychologically and physically; it's bad for women for all the obvious exploitative reasons. "We can't eradicate it completely therefore we shouldn't even try to" is the same non-sequitur used by libs who want abortion, drugs, or any other type of evil.

And you porn-addicts/enablers' appeals to libertarian principles are sort of reasonable superficially ("it's not hurting anyone", or "what I miserably and compulsively do in the confines of my *everywhere* is none of your business"). But then those arguments fall apart because, again, (1) evidence and real life shows it's bad for men because it changes them for the worse and (2) bad for women. Not to mention all the underage kids looking at it, who are able to do so because efforts to block porn and fought off by perverts and pimps (investors/producers).

What's harmful for individuals on a massive scale has structural consequences for society. That harm warrants a societal, coordinated response to stop or minimize that harm. A healthy society would recognize this.

---

So we are now in favor of government banning anything that we perceive to be bad for people? So you are in favor of banning swimming pools, bicycles, family dogs, cars that are capable of going over 35 mph, refined sugar, tobacco, and alcohol? All of those things kill or injure a ton of people every year, so why should they be allowed to exist? How about hammers and clubs...lots of people get killed by them every year too. What about swimming at the beach? That is dangerous too, dozens of deaths or serious injuries every year. I won't even get into snow skiing, sky diving, bungie jumping, skateboarding, etc. So where do you anti-porn and anti-libertarian folks draw the line on how much government should dictate what people can and can't do? What is your red line that makes you say "whoa" to the full on nanny state declaring everything but work, eating, and sleeping to be illegal? At what point do people have the right to make their own decisions about things that could harm themselves?

---

When did we lose the capacity for reason and the ability to differentiate between different flavors of evil and act accordingly.

Swimming pools can be used properly, as can fast food, tobacco and most things. Pornography cannot, there is no good end possible with pornography. It has massively evil fruits that lead to societal ills.

As always, the red line is what makes sense. It's the same reason 18 is old enough to vote and not 17.5, or 45 is the speed limit and not 46. The fact that something is cumbersome or imperfect doesn't mean it isn't needed.

---

So if a consenting adult agrees to strip naked and take pictures, and a consenting adult agrees to pay for those pictures, to you that is an evil that will cause irreparable harm to all of society that is worse than a kid drowning in a swimming pool or a toddler being killed by their family's dog? You and I are just going to have to agree to disagree on that one. There are certainly aspects of porn that can be harmful, but to pretend that it is any business of government to stamp out all porn is stupid and you should be laughed at for thinking so. People are sentient beings with freewill, and the constitution defines very tightly the powers of government. I don't see anything in there that gives government the power to ban what a small group of puritans considers to be "evil" in the name of protecting the rest of us from ourselves.

---

I also don't really give a **** about the Constitution, as it sits now it's only used as a weapon against the actual right and rarely ever used for what it's meant to be used for.

The country was founded by a bunch of puritans who figured they didn't need to put a bunch of **** in because there's no way possible society would ever degenerate to the level it has now, but we've proved them wrong.

---

Yeah, I think we are done here with anything words can fix. Probably about time for you to go start a little porn free totalitarian enclave of your own somewhere with the rest of the puritans, because I happen to care alot about the constitution and will defend it with arms against your type.

---

Wish you'd defend it with arms against the people turning our country into a 3rd world bordello, but I guess you have to pick and choose your battles.

---

If everybody is legal age and consenting, it is absolutely none of my business what they do, who they show it to, or what they charge to see it. America would be a much better place if we stuck to that attitude about most things.

---

Why do you give a **** about the legal age? What if they change the legal age to 3? They're legally killing unborn children now, so there's nothing beyond the pale. Why is it any of your business if they're not legal age and they don't consent?

None of you non-aggression types make any sense. You say that there shouldn't be laws, and it's no business what other people do, then define what should be law and when it is your business to intervene.

I also don't understand the "I'll pick up arms to make sure that birthright citizen is the law of the land" hostility. What is it about having chicoms squat out citizens that gets you so ready to attack conservative tax paying religious fathers?