fka ftc said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

You do not have a right to evil, and some things are intrinsically evil. For an off the wall comparison, it's why you can't have sex with your horse even though it is your property.

Porn is intrinsically evil and leads to societal contagion.

---

Excuse me? I have never been told this. Does it apply to all barnyard animals? Asking for a friend...

---

All except ducks. Weird left over loophole.

No joke, I have seen arguments from libertarians that if you can eat an animal it makes no sense than you cannot also have sex with it

Liberals are just bad people.

chickencoupe16 said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

You do not have a right to evil, and some things are intrinsically evil. For an off the wall comparison, it's why you can't have sex with your horse even though it is your property.

Porn is intrinsically evil and leads to societal contagion.

---

Excuse me? I have never been told this. Does it apply to all barnyard animals? Asking for a friend...

---

All except ducks. Weird left over loophole.

---

Username checks out. Chickens bad, ducks okay.

Dies Irae said:

---

No joke, I have seen arguments from libertarians that if you can eat an animal it makes no sense than you cannot also have sex with it

---

By this logic if I can have sex with another human I should be able to eat them too. Dahmer level reasoning.

Dies Irae said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

boboguitar said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

boboguitar said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

boboguitar said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

boboguitar said:

---

RebelE Infantry said:

---

Wanting to restrict access to porn for minors is now "nanny state."

It is so incredibly over for whatever passes for conservatism these days. Very sad.

---

It's already against the law.

Can we restrict guns purchases in the same manner? Age verification with ID that has to be stored n a database. You know, for the children.

---

Show where porn is in the second amendment.

---

First amendment.

---

You find that one in the penumbras? Because obscenity has never been protected speech.

---

And the supreme court has drawn a line between porn and obscenity. It considers the former protected speech.

---

The Supreme Court also wrongly considered abortion to be a protected right based on laughable contortions of the law. Hence my comment about the penumbras.

There is no right to porn. Any argument otherwise is just silly. There is especially no right to anonymous porn.

---

Just because you say that doesn't make it true.

Currently, there is a right to porn and it's protected by the 1st amendment.

---

There is no right to own slaves yet at one time the law pretended to make it so. Discuss

---

Why would there not be a right to porn?

I'm not talking watching on the bus or showing it to kids in school...

---

You do not have a right to evil, and some things are intrinsically evil. For an off the wall comparison, it's why you can't have sex with your horse even though it is your property.

Porn is intrinsically evil and leads to societal contagion.

---

People can't engage in consensual behavior with others?

I guess you don't believe in the US Constitution or freedom and liberty...

As to the horse thing (JFC that's a dumb example), I can't believe that I have to explain that the horse can't give consent. <- THERE is a sentence I'd never thought I'd ever read, let alone type..

Why is consent all that matters? Do you think dueling should be legalized? What about cannibalism?

Ozzy Osbourne said:

---

Why is consent all that matters? Do you think dueling should be legalized? What about cannibalism?

---

So now SEX is compared to killing?

Interesting take.

Sharia sure has some funny rules.

Ag with kids said:

---

Ozzy Osbourne said:

---

Why is consent all that matters? Do you think dueling should be legalized? What about cannibalism?

---

So now SEX is compared to killing?

Interesting take.

Sharia sure has some funny rules.

---

Ok so you admit your goal is sexual license, not really freedom or principles.

Ag with kids said:

---

People can't engage in consensual behavior with others?

I guess you don't believe in the US Constitution or freedom and liberty...

As to the horse thing (JFC that's a dumb example), I can't believe that I have to explain that the horse can't give consent. <- THERE is a sentence I'd never thought I'd ever read, let alone type..

---

Excuse me?

Ozzy Osbourne said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Ozzy Osbourne said:

---

Why is consent all that matters? Do you think dueling should be legalized? What about cannibalism?

---

So now SEX is compared to killing?

Interesting take.

Sharia sure has some funny rules.

---

Ok so you admit your goal is sexual license, not really freedom or principles.

---

You mean...freedom?

Sorry people having sex makes you want to toss them in jail...

Does having sex not in the missionary position draw the death penalty in your utopia?

If people want to **** and other people want to watch, why should that be prohibited?

Ag with kids said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

boboguitar said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

boboguitar said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

boboguitar said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

boboguitar said:

---

RebelE Infantry said:

---

Wanting to restrict access to porn for minors is now "nanny state."

It is so incredibly over for whatever passes for conservatism these days. Very sad.

---

It's already against the law.

Can we restrict guns purchases in the same manner? Age verification with ID that has to be stored n a database. You know, for the children.

---

Show where porn is in the second amendment.

---

First amendment.

---

You find that one in the penumbras? Because obscenity has never been protected speech.

---

And the supreme court has drawn a line between porn and obscenity. It considers the former protected speech.

---

The Supreme Court also wrongly considered abortion to be a protected right based on laughable contortions of the law. Hence my comment about the penumbras.

There is no right to porn. Any argument otherwise is just silly. There is especially no right to anonymous porn.

---

Just because you say that doesn't make it true.

Currently, there is a right to porn and it's protected by the 1st amendment.

---

There is no right to own slaves yet at one time the law pretended to make it so. Discuss

---

Why would there not be a right to porn?

I'm not talking watching on the bus or showing it to kids in school...

---

You do not have a right to evil, and some things are intrinsically evil. For an off the wall comparison, it's why you can't have sex with your horse even though it is your property.

Porn is intrinsically evil and leads to societal contagion.

---

People can't engage in consensual behavior with others?

I guess you don't believe in the US Constitution or freedom and liberty...

As to the horse thing (JFC that's a dumb example), I can't believe that I have to explain that the horse can't give consent. <- THERE is a sentence I'd never thought I'd ever read, let alone type..

---

If a horse or a child can give consent, it would still be wrong to have sex with them. We let parents consent for their children all the time, it would be wrong for a parent to let their child have sex with someone.

Some things are intrinsically wrong. I know that we live in a moral vacuum where it's taboo to claim things like right and wrong still exist, but they still exist.

The people who wrote the constitution and myself have much different ideas of liberty than the modern libertine. There is no such thing as the freedom to do evil, that is vice and that is license. The idea was that man should not be prevented to achieving his efficient cause; which was union with God. To achieve union with God, the creator endowed man with certain rights that enabled him on his path. This is why the founding fathers and others of that time frame had a much harsher view of state enforced morality than I do.

Can a horse consent to be ridden? Or a cow consent to be eaten? How far did you think through the "horses need to consent to sex" argument?

Ag with kids said:

---

Ozzy Osbourne said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Ozzy Osbourne said:

---

Why is consent all that matters? Do you think dueling should be legalized? What about cannibalism?

---

So now SEX is compared to killing?

Interesting take.

Sharia sure has some funny rules.

---

Ok so you admit your goal is sexual license, not really freedom or principles.

---

You mean...freedom?

Sorry people having sex makes you want to toss them in jail...

Does having sex not in the missionary position draw the death penalty in your utopia?

If people want to **** and other people want to watch, why should that be prohibited?

---

There is no freedom to do things that are immoral. Your moral code is "consent", which, as you seem to agree, is an impoverished morality.

If you don't think smut and children accessing it is immoral, then just say so. Stop trying to use freedom as an excuse for your degeneracy.

Dies Irae said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

boboguitar said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

boboguitar said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

boboguitar said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

boboguitar said:

---

RebelE Infantry said:

---

Wanting to restrict access to porn for minors is now "nanny state."

It is so incredibly over for whatever passes for conservatism these days. Very sad.

---

It's already against the law.

Can we restrict guns purchases in the same manner? Age verification with ID that has to be stored n a database. You know, for the children.

---

Show where porn is in the second amendment.

---

First amendment.

---

You find that one in the penumbras? Because obscenity has never been protected speech.

---

And the supreme court has drawn a line between porn and obscenity. It considers the former protected speech.

---

The Supreme Court also wrongly considered abortion to be a protected right based on laughable contortions of the law. Hence my comment about the penumbras.

There is no right to porn. Any argument otherwise is just silly. There is especially no right to anonymous porn.

---

Just because you say that doesn't make it true.

Currently, there is a right to porn and it's protected by the 1st amendment.

---

There is no right to own slaves yet at one time the law pretended to make it so. Discuss

---

Why would there not be a right to porn?

I'm not talking watching on the bus or showing it to kids in school...

---

You do not have a right to evil, and some things are intrinsically evil. For an off the wall comparison, it's why you can't have sex with your horse even though it is your property.

Porn is intrinsically evil and leads to societal contagion.

---

People can't engage in consensual behavior with others?

I guess you don't believe in the US Constitution or freedom and liberty...

As to the horse thing (JFC that's a dumb example), I can't believe that I have to explain that the horse can't give consent. <- THERE is a sentence I'd never thought I'd ever read, let alone type..

---

If a horse or a child can give consent, it would still be wrong to have sex with them. We let parents consent for their children all the time, it would be wrong for a parent to let their child have sex with someone.

Some things are intrinsically wrong. I know that we live in a moral vacuum where it's taboo to claim things like right and wrong still exist, but they still exist.

The people who wrote the constitution and myself have much different ideas of liberty than the modern libertine. There is no such thing as the freedom to do evil, that is vice and that is license. The idea was that man should not be prevented to achieving his efficient cause; which was union with God. To achieve union with God, the creator endowed man with certain rights that enabled him on his path. This is why the founding fathers and others of that time frame had a much harsher view of state enforced morality than I do.

---

WTF is it with you people and horse ****ing???

Again...this is NOT about kids or horses (seriously???). They can't give consent. If someone is showing them porn then that person needs to be stopped and punished.

As to "intrinsically wrong", in the USSR, RELIGION was in that bucket. Want to open THAT Pandora's Box where you get THAT banned because YOU don't get to force your beliefs on others and they get to force theirs on YOU?

I guess you don't believe in liberty and freedom...just the ones you deign to allow others to have.

Ozzy Osbourne said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Ozzy Osbourne said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Ozzy Osbourne said:

---

Why is consent all that matters? Do you think dueling should be legalized? What about cannibalism?

---

So now SEX is compared to killing?

Interesting take.

Sharia sure has some funny rules.

---

Ok so you admit your goal is sexual license, not really freedom or principles.

---

You mean...freedom?

Sorry people having sex makes you want to toss them in jail...

Does having sex not in the missionary position draw the death penalty in your utopia?

If people want to **** and other people want to watch, why should that be prohibited?

---

There is no freedom to do things that are immoral. Your moral code is "consent", which, as you seem to agree, is an impoverished morality.

If you don't think smut and children accessing it is immoral, then just say so. Stop trying to use freedom as an excuse for your degeneracy.

---

I think your posting is immoral.

Therefore you MUST stop.

I only grant the freedom to post to posters that meet MY criteria for morality.

And again...I SPECIFICALLY SAID NOT FOR KIDS. JFC. Totalitarian AND poor reading comprehension...

Ag with kids said:

---

Ozzy Osbourne said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Ozzy Osbourne said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Ozzy Osbourne said:

---

Why is consent all that matters? Do you think dueling should be legalized? What about cannibalism?

---

So now SEX is compared to killing?

Interesting take.

Sharia sure has some funny rules.

---

Ok so you admit your goal is sexual license, not really freedom or principles.

---

You mean...freedom?

Sorry people having sex makes you want to toss them in jail...

Does having sex not in the missionary position draw the death penalty in your utopia?

If people want to **** and other people want to watch, why should that be prohibited?

---

There is no freedom to do things that are immoral. Your moral code is "consent", which, as you seem to agree, is an impoverished morality.

If you don't think smut and children accessing it is immoral, then just say so. Stop trying to use freedom as an excuse for your degeneracy.

---

I think your posting is immoral.

Therefore you MUST stop.

I only grant the freedom to post to posters that meet MY criteria for morality.

And again...I SPECIFICALLY SAID NOT FOR KIDS. JFC. Totalitarian AND poor reading comprehension...

---

Why do kids matter? Is this some sort of antiquated belief system that you're forcing on others? As I've said, parents exercise all sorts of agency over their children.

Ag with kids said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

boboguitar said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

boboguitar said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

boboguitar said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

boboguitar said:

---

RebelE Infantry said:

---

Wanting to restrict access to porn for minors is now "nanny state."

It is so incredibly over for whatever passes for conservatism these days. Very sad.

---

It's already against the law.

Can we restrict guns purchases in the same manner? Age verification with ID that has to be stored n a database. You know, for the children.

---

Show where porn is in the second amendment.

---

First amendment.

---

You find that one in the penumbras? Because obscenity has never been protected speech.

---

And the supreme court has drawn a line between porn and obscenity. It considers the former protected speech.

---

The Supreme Court also wrongly considered abortion to be a protected right based on laughable contortions of the law. Hence my comment about the penumbras.

There is no right to porn. Any argument otherwise is just silly. There is especially no right to anonymous porn.

---

Just because you say that doesn't make it true.

Currently, there is a right to porn and it's protected by the 1st amendment.

---

There is no right to own slaves yet at one time the law pretended to make it so. Discuss

---

Why would there not be a right to porn?

I'm not talking watching on the bus or showing it to kids in school...

---

You do not have a right to evil, and some things are intrinsically evil. For an off the wall comparison, it's why you can't have sex with your horse even though it is your property.

Porn is intrinsically evil and leads to societal contagion.

---

People can't engage in consensual behavior with others?

I guess you don't believe in the US Constitution or freedom and liberty...

As to the horse thing (JFC that's a dumb example), I can't believe that I have to explain that the horse can't give consent. <- THERE is a sentence I'd never thought I'd ever read, let alone type..

---

If a horse or a child can give consent, it would still be wrong to have sex with them. We let parents consent for their children all the time, it would be wrong for a parent to let their child have sex with someone.

Some things are intrinsically wrong. I know that we live in a moral vacuum where it's taboo to claim things like right and wrong still exist, but they still exist.

The people who wrote the constitution and myself have much different ideas of liberty than the modern libertine. There is no such thing as the freedom to do evil, that is vice and that is license. The idea was that man should not be prevented to achieving his efficient cause; which was union with God. To achieve union with God, the creator endowed man with certain rights that enabled him on his path. This is why the founding fathers and others of that time frame had a much harsher view of state enforced morality than I do.

---

WTF is it with you people and horse ****ing???

Again...this is NOT about kids or horses (seriously???). They can't give consent. If someone is showing them porn then that person needs to be stopped and punished.

As to "intrinsically wrong", in the USSR, RELIGION was in that bucket. Want to open THAT Pandora's Box where you get THAT banned because YOU don't get to force your beliefs on others and they get to force theirs on YOU?

I guess you don't believe in liberty and freedom...just the ones you deign to allow others to have.

---

Again. HORSES get ridden without consent constantly. Children are made to do chores and grounded by their parents constantly. Cows get eaten constantly.

Why are you drawing lines when you refuse to admit the concept of lines even exist?

Horses do give consent to be ridden. Ever tried to ride an unbroken horse?

Teslag said:

---

Horses do give consent to be ridden. Ever tried to ride an unbroken horse?

---

That's a pretty big stretch

Teslag said:

---

Horses do give consent to be ridden. Ever tried to ride an unbroken horse?

---

This may be the dumbest comment I've ever read. By that logic, slaves agreed to slavery because they completed the labor instead of being punished.

The fact that you're elevating horses to a level that is required for rational consent to exist says a lot about how serious your views of consent are.

Teslag said:

---

Horses do give consent to be ridden. Ever tried to ride an unbroken horse?

---

You call breaking a horse consent?

Ag with kids said:

---

Steampunk-Kangaroo said:

---

AGC said:

---

exp said:

---

This thread proves that people on the right want thy state to protect them as much as people on the left.

Power corrupts and once people have it they want to use it.

Screw all you nanny state loving wimps. I'll make sure my kids are safe. Don't need a politician sorting that out for me.

---

Statistically your kid's seen it by 8-9. If your child is a boy there's a 90% chance they'll be addicted by high school unless you just keep them from having a smart phone and keep them out of all schools that allow phones (and mixed in with likeminded parents who don't permit it).

But most of the 'I'll parent my own kids' crowd on here isn't smart enough or capable enough of doing it, nor will they put in that effort. Becuase it's about peers and because porn is addictive on the level of heroin. All the 'but muh freedoms' and 'liberty' crown really have no idea what porn actually does to the brain in terms of addiction and rewiring it. Kids have ED because their body knows the dopamine comes from a little black box with images (not real women - that's what the research says). Too bad y'all can't outsmart your biology, otherwise you might actually have a real argument instead of some abstract intellectual idea of a real thing.

---

I am a real woman who watches porn ~4-7 times a week. Nice try.

Yes, real men would be better but until then... (ps that's not an invitation, 99% of y'all are old enough to be my grandfathers and I don't like the way you approach relationships anyway)

---

Go on...

---

It's usually closer to 4 times, and I only like those "solo men" ones that are technically usually designed for gay guys but I don't care. (I might be bi but I don't like women in my porn, and no I don't know why beyond "porn women act really weird and make way too much noise and it turns me off")

Steampunk-Kangaroo said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Steampunk-Kangaroo said:

---

AGC said:

---

exp said:

---

This thread proves that people on the right want thy state to protect them as much as people on the left.

Power corrupts and once people have it they want to use it.

Screw all you nanny state loving wimps. I'll make sure my kids are safe. Don't need a politician sorting that out for me.

---

Statistically your kid's seen it by 8-9. If your child is a boy there's a 90% chance they'll be addicted by high school unless you just keep them from having a smart phone and keep them out of all schools that allow phones (and mixed in with likeminded parents who don't permit it).

But most of the 'I'll parent my own kids' crowd on here isn't smart enough or capable enough of doing it, nor will they put in that effort. Becuase it's about peers and because porn is addictive on the level of heroin. All the 'but muh freedoms' and 'liberty' crown really have no idea what porn actually does to the brain in terms of addiction and rewiring it. Kids have ED because their body knows the dopamine comes from a little black box with images (not real women - that's what the research says). Too bad y'all can't outsmart your biology, otherwise you might actually have a real argument instead of some abstract intellectual idea of a real thing.

---

I am a real woman who watches porn ~4-7 times a week. Nice try.

Yes, real men would be better but until then... (ps that's not an invitation, 99% of y'all are old enough to be my grandfathers and I don't like the way you approach relationships anyway)

---

Go on...

---

It's usually closer to 4 times, and I only like those "solo men" ones that are technically usually designed for gay guys but I don't care. (I might be bi but I don't like women in my porn, and no I don't know why beyond "porn women act really weird and make way too much noise and it turns me off")

---

Since you are sharing so openly, how is your relationship with your father?

Dies Irae said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Horses do give consent to be ridden. Ever tried to ride an unbroken horse?

---

You call breaking a horse consent?

---

Yep. Horses aren't people

Steampunk-Kangaroo said:

---

AGC said:

---

exp said:

---

This thread proves that people on the right want thy state to protect them as much as people on the left.

Power corrupts and once people have it they want to use it.

Screw all you nanny state loving wimps. I'll make sure my kids are safe. Don't need a politician sorting that out for me.

---

Statistically your kid's seen it by 8-9. If your child is a boy there's a 90% chance they'll be addicted by high school unless you just keep them from having a smart phone and keep them out of all schools that allow phones (and mixed in with likeminded parents who don't permit it).

But most of the 'I'll parent my own kids' crowd on here isn't smart enough or capable enough of doing it, nor will they put in that effort. Becuase it's about peers and because porn is addictive on the level of heroin. All the 'but muh freedoms' and 'liberty' crown really have no idea what porn actually does to the brain in terms of addiction and rewiring it. Kids have ED because their body knows the dopamine comes from a little black box with images (not real women - that's what the research says). Too bad y'all can't outsmart your biology, otherwise you might actually have a real argument instead of some abstract intellectual idea of a real thing.

---

I am a real woman who watches porn ~4-7 times a week. Nice try.

Yes, real men would be better but until then... (ps that's not an invitation, 99% of y'all are old enough to be my grandfathers and I don't like the way you approach relationships anyway)

---

Amazing. My entire point on porn watching was that teenage boys can't get it up for women because their brain thinks dopamine comes from a phone, thus no erection without a phone. They think they're attracted to women but their brain and body are attracted to a smartphone. Hence their biology has been hacked and they're dysfunctional. That speaks far more to how porn changes the brain than any, "I watch it 4-7 times a week and I'm totally normal" comments. The reality is that you're not normal. Watching other people have sex for entertainment is pretty demented even if they consent.

Teslag said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Horses do give consent to be ridden. Ever tried to ride an unbroken horse?

---

You call breaking a horse consent?

---

Yep. Horses aren't people

---

Correct, that's why it's illegal to have sex with them, but not to ride them.

Ag with kids said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

boboguitar said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

boboguitar said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

boboguitar said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

boboguitar said:

---

RebelE Infantry said:

---

Wanting to restrict access to porn for minors is now "nanny state."

It is so incredibly over for whatever passes for conservatism these days. Very sad.

---

It's already against the law.

Can we restrict guns purchases in the same manner? Age verification with ID that has to be stored n a database. You know, for the children.

---

Show where porn is in the second amendment.

---

First amendment.

---

You find that one in the penumbras? Because obscenity has never been protected speech.

---

And the supreme court has drawn a line between porn and obscenity. It considers the former protected speech.

---

The Supreme Court also wrongly considered abortion to be a protected right based on laughable contortions of the law. Hence my comment about the penumbras.

There is no right to porn. Any argument otherwise is just silly. There is especially no right to anonymous porn.

---

Just because you say that doesn't make it true.

Currently, there is a right to porn and it's protected by the 1st amendment.

---

There is no right to own slaves yet at one time the law pretended to make it so. Discuss

---

Why would there not be a right to porn?

I'm not talking watching on the bus or showing it to kids in school...

---

You do not have a right to evil, and some things are intrinsically evil. For an off the wall comparison, it's why you can't have sex with your horse even though it is your property.

Porn is intrinsically evil and leads to societal contagion.

---

People can't engage in consensual behavior with others?

I guess you don't believe in the US Constitution or freedom and liberty...

As to the horse thing (JFC that's a dumb example), I can't believe that I have to explain that the horse can't give consent. <- THERE is a sentence I'd never thought I'd ever read, let alone type..

---

Yet we can own them, whip them, ride them, use them in experiments, and race them for money and entertainment until their legs break and we have to shoot 'em in the head. All against their will.

Consent isn't a valid reason. It's outlawed because it is disgusting, degenerate, unnatural and vile beyond comprehension.

Please STFU about horses. You guys are killing this thread with an stupid argument that is now on an endless loop.

Anyone else find it mildly amusing that one of the posters preaching morality has chosen the handle Ozzy Osbourne?



Curious how some of you would like to legislates access to romance novels. If y'all think regular porn is wild do I have some news for you!

No discussion of the equine sexuality is complete without understanding what sort of gender affirming care these horses are receiving.

fka ftc said:

---

No discussion of the equine sexuality is complete without understanding what sort of gender affirming care these horses are receiving.

---

A gelding is a castrated horse.

Tanya 93 said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

No discussion of the equine sexuality is complete without understanding what sort of gender affirming care these horses are receiving.

---

A gelding is a castrated horse.

---

But is it female or male?

Kind of puts a damper on being hung like a horse…

On topic though, requiring registration to access free pron sites is dumb and an overreach. Any underage folk will already have a 1001 ways around this and the teenagers will be teaching the dads how to access.

Would rather they continue to target child molesters and sex traffickers, starting at 1600 Pennsylvania.

Bout my luck. If they curtail the porn business, I don't know what I will do. I did not save much for retirement and was planning to make some money starring in some porn vids. Talk about a kick in where I used to have teeth.