Ag with kids said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

RebelE Infantry said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

AGC said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

Still not making the connection to HB 1181. I did not read it as promoting porn to children nor causing them to look at it. Maybe you read it differently.

Seems to me like parenting is the mechanism to encourage children not to send and lead them to a path of righteousness. Not allowing for suits to be brought against companies providing legal content to adults, content quite clearly covered under the 1st amendment.

---

You're thinking about the world as it was 30 years ago as is every, 'be a good parent' person. Porn is not a playboy under your dad's bed anymore. Magazines aren't adductive and easy to carry around like what exists now, nor did porn have nearly the same effect on the brain as instant video and unlimited ease of access.

Age verification with ID is the first step on the only reasonable path. If someone's worried about being anonymous while watching strangers have sex they should ask themselves why. The companies already know who you are, they don't need to dox you nor do they care. If you're afraid of your family, work, or friend finding out that's usually an indication that you shouldn't be doing it.

---

I have a 13yo son. Appreciate the lecture on how porn works in the modern era.

Age verification is absolutely the lamest, weakest, absolutely ineffective way to limit the access.

Lots of things on the web have age verification and none of it is "effective".

Addiction to porn is VASTLY over dramatized. It's a convenient excuse for young folk and hard up husbands who get caught by the wife looking at dirty picks and choking their chicken. "It's not my fault honey, it's much purn addiction!"

---

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2023/08/30/report-louisianas-age-verification-law-cuts-website-pornhubs-traffic-80/

It's cut traffic by 80% to the most popular porn sites, in Louisiana. That's fairly effective

---

And...dark web porn has seen an 80% increase in traffic, in Lousiana.

---

Surely you have proof of this claim.

---

It's a JOKE. Look at the icon occasionally...

JFC people...

---

You only joke and feign outrage to get around the fact that you have no counter argument. You have been fed and bought in to a line of platitudes that you accept as tautology with no means to defend them other than "I can't even"

---

And your tautology is "the Bible SAYS!!!!!!!!!!"

---

What's weird is that's the tautology for the entirety of Western Civilization.

---

But not their governments...

Do you think Christianity demands that it be FORCED on others? Kinda like Islam demands that the unbelievers convert or die?

---

Yes, which is why we had to go back to the Supreme Court to stop mother's from killing their children, because otherwise they wouldn't have done it.

fka ftc said:

---

RebelE Infantry said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

To borrow from Trump court cases, one loses all standing in an argument when they say conservatives are not for small government. It does not magically result from a conservative movement, small government is a principle, a pillar of conservative approach to governance.

---

Please demonstrate this with historical examples.

I would also like to hear what you think you are conserving besides some nebulous "small government" principle when you argue against things like regulation of access to pornography.

---

Did you skip American history? Our Country was founded on the idea of limited government at all levels, with further limits as you moved to state then federal levels. I am sure you can find some History Channel series to watch today if you no longer remember these things.

---

Our country was founded on the idea that you might only need aristocrats to keep the population in check provided they were homogenous enough and you kept citizenship restricted to a very very small part of society. So long as society more or less governed itself, you didn't need a lot of oversight.

This is when we were the virtuous kid who didn't need a curfew. Now, people like you have mistaken the lack of curfew for the virtue and wonder why society has gone down hill.

Dies Irae said:

---

You again cannot help but not answer the question. Why are some things wrong and other's aren't. I can answer your question easily; starting a fire to my house is destruction of my private property; starting a fire in your grill is cooking.

I'm asking why it is to eat a cow and not to have sex with it. I want you to answer that questions; someone answered "consent" like it was a rational argument, they were stupid; but at least they tried.

---

There are cultures where it is way, way more acceptable to have bovine relations than it is to have steak for dinner. Take it you have not traveled much?

Why is it that way? Well, there are different morals across cultures and certainly across religions. In the US, we have certain protections around religious freedoms. But we draw some lines around societal standards regarding the ETHICAL treatment of animals. Consuming a cow for food is accepted though we have standards and in come cases laws around how those animals may be slaughtered.

Having sex with the bovine creature is not something viewed as ethical as it is seen as being cruel and abusive to the animal - not because having cow sex doesn't jive with WWJD.

Dies Irae said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Burdizzo said:

---

This thread is going down an one of the weirdest in F16 history.

---

Yeah...

Never thought I'd have to say I didn't support "horse ****ing".

But, it DID shine the light on the fake conservative totalitarians, though...

---

You still haven't made the bridge between "horses can't consent" and "we don't make horses consent to anything"

---

And I'm not going to.

It's an incredibly stupid and inane argument to even bring up having sex with horses in a discussion on porn. Feel free to **** that strawman to death though...

---

It is not. I am trying to get you to see that you too hold some semblance of right and wrong that tells you that it is not appropriate to have sex with a horse where it is to ride a horse.

If some things are just wrong, why aren't others? I'm just asking you to have a coherent belief structure

---

Yes it is. It's BEYOND stupid to suggest that being against banning porn somehow translates into support for horse ****ing in any way.

But, keep ****ing that strawman...

And "if some things are just wrong, why aren't others?" is also just as asinine.

It is WRONG for me to set fire to your house.

It is NOT WRONG for me to set fire to the charcoal in my grill.

Hey look!!! Two examples of me setting things on fire.

If the first one was wrong, why wasn't the second one wrong? HINT: I want you to explain to me why setting fire to the charcoal in my grill is wrong so I can understand your "coherent belief structure"

---

You again cannot help but not answer the question. Why are some things wrong and other's aren't. I can answer your question easily; starting a fire to my house is destruction of my private property; starting a fire in your grill is cooking.

I'm asking why it is to eat a cow and not to have sex with it. I want you to answer that questions; someone answered "consent" like it was a rational argument, they were stupid; but at least they tried.

---

In both cases, I was setting fire to something. So, your beliefs are NOT coherent. Now you're saying some things ARE wrong AND some things AREN'T wrong. Make up your mind.

And OH. MY. GOD! Now you've moved on to COW ****ing?????

fka ftc said:

---

AGC said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

Age verification is absolutely the lamest, weakest, absolutely ineffective way to limit the access.

Lots of things on the web have age verification and none of it is "effective".

Addiction to porn is VASTLY over dramatized. It's a convenient excuse for young folk and hard up husbands who get caught by the wife looking at dirty picks and choking their chicken. "It's not my fault honey, it's much purn addiction!"

---

Age verification is operating in an outdated paradigm: we all agree on that. Hence the bill that you're actively against since it's reasonable (government required ID) without being intrusive (all the porn sites know who you are anyways as do their marketers). So why is it such a big deal? Sure, kids can use their parents but that's no different than stealing a credit card or using a fake ID like 30 years ago. The law isn't to prevent any and all access. At least present a reasonable argument aside from, 'any regulation is bad.' Might as well pretend that modern day fentanyl is the same as marijuana when you were in high school.

The research is pretty clear. Porn use is like drug use in how it affects your brain. Impedes long term decision making and increases risk taking as it rewires it. It'd be nice if you pro-porn people would just be honest and say you want easy ubiquitous access. That's all the group fighting it is really working for. There's no credit card involved here since you're the product for these sites anyways.

---

Age verification operating in an outdated paradigm seems like a bizarre take and I don't agree its outdated, its simply ineffective and any attempts to make it more effective result in a huge intrusion on privacy.

If I care to, in about 30 seconds I can turn my internet browsing into pretty complete anonymity. Not hard to add in a few more clicks and be completely anonymous. So no the porn providers and "their marketers" are not tracking me unless I let them.

Comparing fentanyl v marijuana to Hustler v XNXX porn is about 6 iterations away from sane, rational thought. If you want to discuss fentanyl, start a new thread and I will be happy to spend the better part of the day actually educating you on marijuana v fentanyl. Fentanyl could be compared to a loaded gun with a hair trigger but is more aptly compared to juggling a hand grenade with the pin pulled.

Porn is not like drug use. Porn does hit some of the same pleasure centers. Same centers and chemical reactions some people get from loving on puppies and kittens and the same some folks get some singing hymnals on Sunday mornings.

Regarding porn and increasing risk taking and rewriting it, that is patently absurd. If you can find a citation, provide it as I am confident I can shred it to pieces in about 5 minutes time.

Stay out of my porn and I will stay out of your bible studies.

---

no

RebelE Infantry said:

---

DannyDuberstein said:

---

Like many things, porn is destructive but should be legal.

And these age verification requirements sound like an identity thief's dream

---

I have yet to see a good reason why this should be so. All I ever see is appeals to some vague notion of "freedom" or "liberty" based on woefully incorrect definitions of the same.

---

Because the vast majority can handle it just fine. And yes, we do live in a free society where folks should be and are able to do things in private that you may find distasteful while at the same time being none of your business

fka ftc said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

And your tautology is "the Bible SAYS!!!!!!!!!!"

---

What's weird is that's the tautology for the entirety of Western Civilization.

---

Only because they Catholics and then the Church of England set about spreading the "Good Word" to lands they conquered, raped and pillaged and destroyed any local traditions, teaching, knowledge and history all in the name of "God".

Hell, I had a guide comment whilst touring Glastonbury Abbey that his theory was that the Catholics setup the abbeys and monasteries in an effort to find a place to hide away the homosexual men that presented such a problem for the church's teachings. Have to admit, seems plausible.

---

Man that's amazing, what were his the Glastonbury Abbey's opinions on nuclear war and federalism?

DannyDuberstein said:

---

RebelE Infantry said:

---

DannyDuberstein said:

---

Like many things, porn is destructive but should be legal.

And these age verification requirements sound like an identity thief's dream

---

I have yet to see a good reason why this should be so. All I ever see is appeals to some vague notion of "freedom" or "liberty" based on woefully incorrect definitions of the same.

---

Because the vast majority can handle it just fine. And yes, we do live in a free society where folks should be and are able to do things in private that you may find distasteful while at the same time being none of your business

---

Do you wanna take a crack at the "horse sex" question, or will that illustrate the limits of your "freedom"

Dies Irae said:

---

Our country was founded on the idea that you might only need aristocrats to keep the population in check provided they were homogenous enough and you kept citizenship restricted to a very very small part of society. So long as society more or less governed itself, you didn't need a lot of oversight.

This is when we were the virtuous kid who didn't need a curfew. Now, people like you have mistaken the lack of curfew for the virtue and wonder why society has gone down hill.

---

Pretty sure you are no longer being serious, and it you are, then you are way, way out of touch with what this Country is about, what people want it to be, and what it needs to be.

And you still fail to see the fatal flaw in your position. Who gets to decide when curfew is and who it applies to? Cause if its you, I am taking my family to go live in North Korea where individual freedoms are more pervasive than the Ideal States of Dies Irae.

Dies Irae said:

---

DannyDuberstein said:

---

RebelE Infantry said:

---

DannyDuberstein said:

---

Like many things, porn is destructive but should be legal.

And these age verification requirements sound like an identity thief's dream

---

I have yet to see a good reason why this should be so. All I ever see is appeals to some vague notion of "freedom" or "liberty" based on woefully incorrect definitions of the same.

---

Because the vast majority can handle it just fine. And yes, we do live in a free society where folks should be and are able to do things in private that you may find distasteful while at the same time being none of your business

---

Do you wanna take a crack at the "horse sex" question, or will that illustrate the limits of your "freedom"

---

The horse stuff has run its course, so to speak. Move on. No one, including you, understands the point you are making with this odd obsession.

fka ftc said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

You again cannot help but not answer the question. Why are some things wrong and other's aren't. I can answer your question easily; starting a fire to my house is destruction of my private property; starting a fire in your grill is cooking.

I'm asking why it is to eat a cow and not to have sex with it. I want you to answer that questions; someone answered "consent" like it was a rational argument, they were stupid; but at least they tried.

---

There are cultures where it is way, way more acceptable to have bovine relations than it is to have steak for dinner. Take it you have not traveled much?

Why is it that way? Well, there are different morals across cultures and certainly across religions. In the US, we have certain protections around religious freedoms. But we draw some lines around societal standards regarding the ETHICAL treatment of animals. Consuming a cow for food is accepted though we have standards and in come cases laws around how those animals may be slaughtered.

Having sex with the bovine creature is not something viewed as ethical as it is seen as being cruel and abusive to the animal - not because having cow sex doesn't jive with WWJD.

---

Why isn't it viewed as ethical? Where does this ethical view for our country come from? You're saying that its okay to have societal standards for some things that are "self-evident" but not for others, why?

Dies Irae said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

Hell, I had a guide comment whilst touring Glastonbury Abbey that his theory was that the Catholics setup the abbeys and monasteries in an effort to find a place to hide away the homosexual men that presented such a problem for the church's teachings. Have to admit, seems plausible.

---

Man that's amazing, what were his the Glastonbury Abbey's opinions on nuclear war and federalism?

---

We did not discuss that, but I have his information if you would like to ask.

Even though he is an admitted atheist, I imagine like most atheists he knows more about the bible than many Christians you know (and likely more than you yourself know).

fka ftc said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

DannyDuberstein said:

---

RebelE Infantry said:

---

DannyDuberstein said:

---

Like many things, porn is destructive but should be legal.

And these age verification requirements sound like an identity thief's dream

---

I have yet to see a good reason why this should be so. All I ever see is appeals to some vague notion of "freedom" or "liberty" based on woefully incorrect definitions of the same.

---

Because the vast majority can handle it just fine. And yes, we do live in a free society where folks should be and are able to do things in private that you may find distasteful while at the same time being none of your business

---

Do you wanna take a crack at the "horse sex" question, or will that illustrate the limits of your "freedom"

---

The horse stuff has run its course, so to speak. Move on. No one, including you, understands the point you are making with this odd obsession.

---

I have zero doubt that the porn-brains on this thread are having trouble understanding the point; but I perfectly understand what I'm saying.

SOME THINGS ARE INTRINSICALLY WRONG OUTSIDE OF IDEAS OF CONSENT OR VOLUNTARISM

everyone knows this as evidenced by the fact that we do not give a whim about the consent of animals yet it is still abhorrent to have sex with them, even if they're your property; even if no one knows about it.

The same is true with porn, it is definitionally evil; and a societal cancer whether or not it is being voluntarily taken advantage of.

Dies Irae said:

---

Why isn't it viewed as ethical? Where does this ethical view for our country come from? You're saying that its okay to have societal standards for some things that are "self-evident" but not for others, why?

---

Lord, give me strength and patience.

If you do not understand how societal norms are formed (and evolve over time), then you are not going to be able to understand the discussion taking place in this thread.

fka ftc said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

Hell, I had a guide comment whilst touring Glastonbury Abbey that his theory was that the Catholics setup the abbeys and monasteries in an effort to find a place to hide away the homosexual men that presented such a problem for the church's teachings. Have to admit, seems plausible.

---

Man that's amazing, what were his the Glastonbury Abbey's opinions on nuclear war and federalism?

---

We did not discuss that, but I have his information if you would like to ask.

Even though he is an admitted atheist, I imagine like most atheists he knows more about the bible than many Christians you know (and likely more than you yourself know).

---

Maybe so man maybe so, you're welcome to come to R&P any time and question me.

fka ftc said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

Why isn't it viewed as ethical? Where does this ethical view for our country come from? You're saying that its okay to have societal standards for some things that are "self-evident" but not for others, why?

---

Lord, give me strength and patience.

If you do not understand how societal norms are formed (and evolve over time), then you are not going to be able to understand the discussion taking place in this thread.

---

The same societal norms say, that called pornography obscenity? The ones that we're apparently not supposed to use for anything but beastiality?

Your fixation with beastiality really should be a separate thread,

Some religious sects in Islam teach that a man may deal with his unquenchable lust by fornicating with goat. Other muslim leaders will tell you the Quran expressly prohibits this. Other religions around the world are either silent on it or simply look the other way. Certainly animal sacrifice is a core tenet for many, many religions including Christianity. Do we want to debate which is worse, slitting the throat of a lamb to prevent the angel of death from taking your first born or being friendly with a goat because your arranged marriage failed. Not sure I have all the answers.

But since you want to not only discuss having relations with a horse but to also beat the horse once it has passed on from this earthly life, here is some light reading on beastiality laws in the US.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9219431/

Quote:

---

Laws punishing individuals who have sex with nonhuman animals have existed since the earliest written legal codes. In the United States, bestiality has long been prohibited. The rationale for criminalizing sex acts with animals has changed over time and has included moral condemnation, considerations of animal rights and animal welfare, and most recently, a concern about the relationship between animal cruelty and interpersonal violence, colloquially known as the Link. This article reviews the history and current state of bestiality law in the United States. It notes important differences in language, specificity, and potential punishments for offenders depending on the jurisdiction. It also reviews the research basis of the Link between bestiality and interpersonal violence and some risks associated with a reliance on the Link to promote legislative reform.

---

fka ftc said:

---

Your fixation with beastiality really should be a separate thread,

Some religious sects in Islam teach that a man may deal with his unquenchable lust by fornicating with goat. Other muslim leaders will tell you the Quran expressly prohibits this. Other religions around the world are either silent on it or simply look the other way. Certainly animal sacrifice is a core tenet for many, many religions including Christianity. Do we want to debate which is worse, slitting the throat of a lamb to prevent the angel of death from taking your first born or being friendly with a goat because your arranged marriage failed. Not sure I have all the answers.

But since you want to not only discuss having relations with a horse but to also beat the horse once it has passed on from this earthly life, here is some light reading on beastiality laws in the US.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9219431/

Quote:

---

Laws punishing individuals who have sex with nonhuman animals have existed since the earliest written legal codes. In the United States, bestiality has long been prohibited. The rationale for criminalizing sex acts with animals has changed over time and has included moral condemnation, considerations of animal rights and animal welfare, and most recently, a concern about the relationship between animal cruelty and interpersonal violence, colloquially known as the Link. This article reviews the history and current state of bestiality law in the United States. It notes important differences in language, specificity, and potential punishments for offenders depending on the jurisdiction. It also reviews the research basis of the Link between bestiality and interpersonal violence and some risks associated with a reliance on the Link to promote legislative reform.

---

---

We're not an Islamic country; our values enable us to point to those backward cultures and say "hey, that's wrong", and thank God such a concept as right and wrong exist, or we would not be able to.

I don't feel the need to discuss beastiality laws; they were merely a vehicle to get the porn-brained to consider "hey maybe some things are just wrong, even outside of consent". If you'll go back in this thread you'll see a poster saying the only reason why we shouldn't have sex with animals or children is because they can't consent.

When countered with the truth that we do not require consent from animals and that we allow parents agency over children, he laughed and "OMG" posted.

Dies Irae said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

RebelE Infantry said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

AGC said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

Still not making the connection to HB 1181. I did not read it as promoting porn to children nor causing them to look at it. Maybe you read it differently.

Seems to me like parenting is the mechanism to encourage children not to send and lead them to a path of righteousness. Not allowing for suits to be brought against companies providing legal content to adults, content quite clearly covered under the 1st amendment.

---

You're thinking about the world as it was 30 years ago as is every, 'be a good parent' person. Porn is not a playboy under your dad's bed anymore. Magazines aren't adductive and easy to carry around like what exists now, nor did porn have nearly the same effect on the brain as instant video and unlimited ease of access.

Age verification with ID is the first step on the only reasonable path. If someone's worried about being anonymous while watching strangers have sex they should ask themselves why. The companies already know who you are, they don't need to dox you nor do they care. If you're afraid of your family, work, or friend finding out that's usually an indication that you shouldn't be doing it.

---

I have a 13yo son. Appreciate the lecture on how porn works in the modern era.

Age verification is absolutely the lamest, weakest, absolutely ineffective way to limit the access.

Lots of things on the web have age verification and none of it is "effective".

Addiction to porn is VASTLY over dramatized. It's a convenient excuse for young folk and hard up husbands who get caught by the wife looking at dirty picks and choking their chicken. "It's not my fault honey, it's much purn addiction!"

---

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2023/08/30/report-louisianas-age-verification-law-cuts-website-pornhubs-traffic-80/

It's cut traffic by 80% to the most popular porn sites, in Louisiana. That's fairly effective

---

And...dark web porn has seen an 80% increase in traffic, in Lousiana.

---

Surely you have proof of this claim.

---

It's a JOKE. Look at the icon occasionally...

JFC people...

---

You only joke and feign outrage to get around the fact that you have no counter argument. You have been fed and bought in to a line of platitudes that you accept as tautology with no means to defend them other than "I can't even"

---

And your tautology is "the Bible SAYS!!!!!!!!!!"

---

What's weird is that's the tautology for the entirety of Western Civilization.

---

But not their governments...

Do you think Christianity demands that it be FORCED on others? Kinda like Islam demands that the unbelievers convert or die?

---

Yes, which is why we had to go back to the Supreme Court to stop mother's from killing their children, because otherwise they wouldn't have done it.

---

This is to stop killing children. Not forcing Christianity. There are a lot of non-Christians that don't support abortion, fwiw.

DannyDuberstein said:

---

RebelE Infantry said:

---

DannyDuberstein said:

---

Like many things, porn is destructive but should be legal.

And these age verification requirements sound like an identity thief's dream

---

I have yet to see a good reason why this should be so. All I ever see is appeals to some vague notion of "freedom" or "liberty" based on woefully incorrect definitions of the same.

---

Because the vast majority can handle it just fine. And yes, we do live in a free society where folks should be and are able to do things in private that you may find distasteful while at the same time being none of your business

---

When you take a look around at society in 2023, with its rampant sexual debauchery and particular emphasis on children, do you REALLY think the vast majority are hAnDlInG iT jUsT fInE?

Yes, the vast, vast majority are indeed handling it just fine. The kid diddlers have always been there and should be shot. Porn isn't making them do it.

Dies Irae said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

Your fixation with beastiality really should be a separate thread,

Some religious sects in Islam teach that a man may deal with his unquenchable lust by fornicating with goat. Other muslim leaders will tell you the Quran expressly prohibits this. Other religions around the world are either silent on it or simply look the other way. Certainly animal sacrifice is a core tenet for many, many religions including Christianity. Do we want to debate which is worse, slitting the throat of a lamb to prevent the angel of death from taking your first born or being friendly with a goat because your arranged marriage failed. Not sure I have all the answers.

But since you want to not only discuss having relations with a horse but to also beat the horse once it has passed on from this earthly life, here is some light reading on beastiality laws in the US.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9219431/

Quote:

---

Laws punishing individuals who have sex with nonhuman animals have existed since the earliest written legal codes. In the United States, bestiality has long been prohibited. The rationale for criminalizing sex acts with animals has changed over time and has included moral condemnation, considerations of animal rights and animal welfare, and most recently, a concern about the relationship between animal cruelty and interpersonal violence, colloquially known as the Link. This article reviews the history and current state of bestiality law in the United States. It notes important differences in language, specificity, and potential punishments for offenders depending on the jurisdiction. It also reviews the research basis of the Link between bestiality and interpersonal violence and some risks associated with a reliance on the Link to promote legislative reform.

---

---

We're not an Islamic country; our values enable us to point to those backward cultures and say "hey, that's wrong", and thank God such a concept as right and wrong exist, or we would not be able to.

I don't feel the need to discuss beastiality laws; they were merely a vehicle to get the porn-brained to consider "hey maybe some things are just wrong, even outside of consent". If you'll go back in this thread you'll see a poster saying the only reason why we shouldn't have sex with animals or children is because they can't consent.

When countered with the truth that we do not require consent from animals and that we allow parents agency over children, he laughed and "OMG" posted.

---

Some people will go to extraordinary lengths to maintain the delusion that this country was not created by and for a Christian people.

fka ftc said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

You again cannot help but not answer the question. Why are some things wrong and other's aren't. I can answer your question easily; starting a fire to my house is destruction of my private property; starting a fire in your grill is cooking.

I'm asking why it is to eat a cow and not to have sex with it. I want you to answer that questions; someone answered "consent" like it was a rational argument, they were stupid; but at least they tried.

---

There are cultures where it is way, way more acceptable to have bovine relations than it is to have steak for dinner. Take it you have not traveled much?

Why is it that way? Well, there are different morals across cultures and certainly across religions. In the US, we have certain protections around religious freedoms. But we draw some lines around societal standards regarding the ETHICAL treatment of animals. Consuming a cow for food is accepted though we have standards and in come cases laws around how those animals may be slaughtered.

Having sex with the bovine creature is not something viewed as ethical as it is seen as being cruel and abusive to the animal - not because having cow sex doesn't jive with WWJD.

---

True...

In the US, we have freedom OF religion, but also freedom FROM religion, ideally.

Everyone should be allowed to practice their religion unfettered from government interference. And everyone should also be free FROM having to practice a religion unfettered from government interference.

DannyDuberstein said:

---

Yes, the vast, vast majority are indeed handling it just fine. The kid diddlers have always been there and should be shot. Porn isn't making them do it.

---

Are you suggesting that the increase in the public push for the sexualization of children, pornographic books in school libraries, etc is NOT related to the widespread breakdown of traditional sexual ethics and morality to include the propagation of hardcore pornography?

DannyDuberstein said:

---

RebelE Infantry said:

---

DannyDuberstein said:

---

Like many things, porn is destructive but should be legal.

And these age verification requirements sound like an identity thief's dream

---

I have yet to see a good reason why this should be so. All I ever see is appeals to some vague notion of "freedom" or "liberty" based on woefully incorrect definitions of the same.

---

Because the vast majority can handle it just fine. And yes, we do live in a free society where folks should be and are able to do things in private that you may find distasteful while at the same time being none of your business

---

They want government to move out of their wallet and into your bedroom.

RebelE Infantry said:

---

Some people will go to extraordinary lengths to maintain the delusion that this country was not created by and for a Christian people.

---

Boy, you really did skip American history.

Quote:

---

First Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

---

Seems to me they were so focused on creating a theocracy they forgot it by the time they got to the First Amendment.

RebelE Infantry said:

---

DannyDuberstein said:

---

Yes, the vast, vast majority are indeed handling it just fine. The kid diddlers have always been there and should be shot. Porn isn't making them do it.

---

Are you suggesting that the increase in the public push for the sexualization of children, pornographic books in school libraries, etc is NOT related to the widespread breakdown of traditional sexual ethics and morality to include the propagation of hardcore pornography?

---

Maybe you need to do a better job of preaching the gospel to them. Porn isn't the cause of these problems.

Ag with kids said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

RebelE Infantry said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

AGC said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

Still not making the connection to HB 1181. I did not read it as promoting porn to children nor causing them to look at it. Maybe you read it differently.

Seems to me like parenting is the mechanism to encourage children not to send and lead them to a path of righteousness. Not allowing for suits to be brought against companies providing legal content to adults, content quite clearly covered under the 1st amendment.

---

You're thinking about the world as it was 30 years ago as is every, 'be a good parent' person. Porn is not a playboy under your dad's bed anymore. Magazines aren't adductive and easy to carry around like what exists now, nor did porn have nearly the same effect on the brain as instant video and unlimited ease of access.

Age verification with ID is the first step on the only reasonable path. If someone's worried about being anonymous while watching strangers have sex they should ask themselves why. The companies already know who you are, they don't need to dox you nor do they care. If you're afraid of your family, work, or friend finding out that's usually an indication that you shouldn't be doing it.

---

I have a 13yo son. Appreciate the lecture on how porn works in the modern era.

Age verification is absolutely the lamest, weakest, absolutely ineffective way to limit the access.

Lots of things on the web have age verification and none of it is "effective".

Addiction to porn is VASTLY over dramatized. It's a convenient excuse for young folk and hard up husbands who get caught by the wife looking at dirty picks and choking their chicken. "It's not my fault honey, it's much purn addiction!"

---

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2023/08/30/report-louisianas-age-verification-law-cuts-website-pornhubs-traffic-80/

It's cut traffic by 80% to the most popular porn sites, in Louisiana. That's fairly effective

---

And...dark web porn has seen an 80% increase in traffic, in Lousiana.

---

Surely you have proof of this claim.

---

It's a JOKE. Look at the icon occasionally...

JFC people...

---

You only joke and feign outrage to get around the fact that you have no counter argument. You have been fed and bought in to a line of platitudes that you accept as tautology with no means to defend them other than "I can't even"

---

And your tautology is "the Bible SAYS!!!!!!!!!!"

---

What's weird is that's the tautology for the entirety of Western Civilization.

---

But not their governments...

Do you think Christianity demands that it be FORCED on others? Kinda like Islam demands that the unbelievers convert or die?

---

Yes, which is why we had to go back to the Supreme Court to stop mother's from killing their children, because otherwise they wouldn't have done it.

---

This is to stop killing children. Not forcing Christianity. There are a lot of non-Christians that don't support abortion, fwiw.

---

In some cultures, like Judaism, it is okay to kill children up to a certain point.

https://www.npr.org/2022/06/26/1107722531/some-jewish-groups-blast-the-end-of-roe-as-a-violation-of-their-religious-belief

They claimed striking down Roe v Wade was an attack upon their religious belief. What sort of basis do we have to reject them?

RebelE Infantry said:

---

DannyDuberstein said:

---

Yes, the vast, vast majority are indeed handling it just fine. The kid diddlers have always been there and should be shot. Porn isn't making them do it.

---

Are you suggesting that the increase in the public push for the sexualization of children, pornographic books in school libraries, etc is NOT related to the widespread breakdown of traditional sexual ethics and morality to include the propagation of hardcore pornography?

---

The push is by the liberal left along with the weak-kneed republicans and supposed conservatives who fear the left or cling to their cries for decorum and nice tweets.

Porn is not the cause of societal degradation. It may be a symptom, but it is NOT the cause.

fka ftc said:

---

RebelE Infantry said:

---

Some people will go to extraordinary lengths to maintain the delusion that this country was not created by and for a Christian people.

---

Boy, you really did skip American history.

Quote:

---

First Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

---

Seems to me they were so focused on creating a theocracy they forgot it by the time they got to the First Amendment.

---

Are you familiar with noted theocrat John Locke?

Dies Irae said:

---

Are you familiar with noted theocrat John Locke?

---

Go on. lets hear your thoughts on him...

fka ftc said:

---

RebelE Infantry said:

---

DannyDuberstein said:

---

Yes, the vast, vast majority are indeed handling it just fine. The kid diddlers have always been there and should be shot. Porn isn't making them do it.

---

Are you suggesting that the increase in the public push for the sexualization of children, pornographic books in school libraries, etc is NOT related to the widespread breakdown of traditional sexual ethics and morality to include the propagation of hardcore pornography?

---

The push is by the liberal left along with the weak-kneed republicans and supposed conservatives who fear the left or cling to their cries for decorum and nice tweets.

Porn is not the cause of societal degradation. It may be a symptom, but it is NOT the cause.

---

So how do you, a rock-ribbed conservative, plan to counter this push by the liberal left? I am not shy in stating my belief that pushing back against this filth is a legitimate use of State power. A belief backed by centuries of precedent that lasted up until roughly 1970. What's your plan? After all, that's what this whole discussion boils down to- to what ends may government power be legitimately wielded and upon what principles is such argument based.

So the Greeks and Romans who set the standard were now devout evangelicals?

Dies Irae said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

DannyDuberstein said:

---

RebelE Infantry said:

---

DannyDuberstein said:

---

Like many things, porn is destructive but should be legal.

And these age verification requirements sound like an identity thief's dream

---

I have yet to see a good reason why this should be so. All I ever see is appeals to some vague notion of "freedom" or "liberty" based on woefully incorrect definitions of the same.

---

Because the vast majority can handle it just fine. And yes, we do live in a free society where folks should be and are able to do things in private that you may find distasteful while at the same time being none of your business

---

Do you wanna take a crack at the "horse sex" question, or will that illustrate the limits of your "freedom"

---

The horse stuff has run its course, so to speak. Move on. No one, including you, understands the point you are making with this odd obsession.

---

I have zero doubt that the porn-brains on this thread are having trouble understanding the point; but I perfectly understand what I'm saying.

SOME THINGS ARE INTRINSICALLY WRONG OUTSIDE OF IDEAS OF CONSENT OR VOLUNTARISM

everyone knows this as evidenced by the fact that we do not give a whim about the consent of animals yet it is still abhorrent to have sex with them, even if they're your property; even if no one knows about it.

The same is true with porn, it is definitionally evil; and a societal cancer whether or not it is being voluntarily taken advantage of.

---

As long as YOU and YOUR group gets to define WHAT "THINGS ARE INTRINSICALLY WRONG OUTSIDE OF IDEAS OF CONSENT OR VOLUNTARISM".

In the Soviet Union, RELIGION was "INTRINSICALLY WRONG OUTSIDE OF IDEAS OF CONSENT OR VOLUNTARISM".

But, somehow, I doubt you agree with that.

Banning porn won't fix a single societal problem. It will just lead to more wasted time and money. It's like being in 1917 and going "hey guys, i think this prohibition thing is gonna be a cure to our ills"