The party was lenient under bush than the post Obama years was hijacked by evangelicals and southern baptists. Party of SMALL government

crane said:

---

The party was lenient under bush than the post Obama years was hijacked by evangelicals and southern baptists. Party of SMALL government

---

And before Bush the party was hijacked by the ex-Trotskyite neocons and libertarians during Reagan's second term. They ousted the "paleo conservatives" a la Pat Buchanan and Paul Gottfried.

Now those ideals are returning to fashion after the abject, utter, and complete FAILURE of neocon and libertarian "muh small goberment" pablum.

The Right Wing is ascendant, deal with it.

crane said:

---

The party was lenient under bush than the post Obama years was hijacked by evangelicals and southern baptists. Party of SMALL government

---

You're mistaking conservatives with people who vote Republican. Small government is only a good thing so long as it is effective, I do not worship small government as a means unto itself.

A federal ban of abortion is not liberal, and legalized drug use is not conservative. You have libertarian brain and need to seek help.

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...

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.

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.

Dies Irae said:

---

Ag with kids 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!"

---

I haven't really looked. How is the "age verification" being done to meet the requirement?

I know the last gun site I visited had a verification window pop up - I clicked "Yes. I am 21 or over" and I was in. Now THAT is as useless as lifeguards during Olympic swimming.

---

You have to input a government ID

---

Ok. Now that could be useful. All the other "age verifications" I've seen were incredibly stupid and useless.

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

Dies Irae said:

---

crane said:

---

Time and time again I have said that since trump took over the right wing has been moving more and more to less conservatism and more totalitarianism. The conservatives are no longer actual conservatives but liberals with right wing beliefs; this thread solidified that

---

You have no clue what liberal means. You're actually using the name backwards. Liberals believe you should be able to do what you want to unfettered of ideas such as morals or the notion of right and wrong.

In your bizarro world, Conservatives are pro-gay marriage, drug use, prostitution and porn, and it is no wonder you find yourself confused

---

Conservatives are for small government.

Liberals are for big government.

Your totalitarian control wishes require big government.

You do the math...

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.

---

So, freedom/liberty for you means allowing government control of what you can or cannot do based on one group's views? As long as that one group is the one you agree with?

Ag with kids said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

crane said:

---

Time and time again I have said that since trump took over the right wing has been moving more and more to less conservatism and more totalitarianism. The conservatives are no longer actual conservatives but liberals with right wing beliefs; this thread solidified that

---

You have no clue what liberal means. You're actually using the name backwards. Liberals believe you should be able to do what you want to unfettered of ideas such as morals or the notion of right and wrong.

In your bizarro world, Conservatives are pro-gay marriage, drug use, prostitution and porn, and it is no wonder you find yourself confused

---

Conservatives are for small government.

Liberals are for big government.

Your totalitarian control wishes require big government.

You do the math...

---

Conservatives are not for small government. Where did you hear this? Small government is a benefit of conservative society not a cause of it. Liberals are for small government, they place freedom as the highest end of society, regardless of what the freedom is used for, hint that's why liberal and freedom have the same root word.

Hippies are not conservatives, and your grandparents who were burning smut were not liberals.

Imagine how foolish you look saying Clarence Thomas is a liberal and The legalize it crowd are true conservatives

Ag with kids 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.

---

So, freedom/liberty for you means allowing government control of what you can or cannot do based on one group's views? As long as that one group is the one you agree with?

---

I will ask again, why can't you have sex with a horse although you can ride one? Because the one group who says "that's wrong" is right.

someone established ratings for movies or in the '90's which magazines were behind the plastic partition at 7-11

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...

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"

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!"

---

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.

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"

Dies Irae said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

crane said:

---

Time and time again I have said that since trump took over the right wing has been moving more and more to less conservatism and more totalitarianism. The conservatives are no longer actual conservatives but liberals with right wing beliefs; this thread solidified that

---

You have no clue what liberal means. You're actually using the name backwards. Liberals believe you should be able to do what you want to unfettered of ideas such as morals or the notion of right and wrong.

In your bizarro world, Conservatives are pro-gay marriage, drug use, prostitution and porn, and it is no wonder you find yourself confused

---

Conservatives are for small government.

Liberals are for big government.

Your totalitarian control wishes require big government.

You do the math...

---

Conservatives are not for small government. Where did you hear this? Small government is a benefit of conservative society not a cause of it. Liberals are for small government, they place freedom as the highest end of society, regardless of what the freedom is used for, hint that's why liberal and freedom have the same root word.

Hippies are not conservatives, and your grandparents who were burning smut were not liberals.

Imagine how foolish you look saying Clarence Thomas is a liberal and The legalize it crowd are true conservatives

---

Oh goody.

Now you get to make up your own terms. Is this like pronouns?

We're not talking the old "classical" terminology that you're trying to now blather on about BTW...

Dies Irae said:

---

Ag with kids 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.

---

So, freedom/liberty for you means allowing government control of what you can or cannot do based on one group's views? As long as that one group is the one you agree with?

---

I will ask again, why can't you have sex with a horse although you can ride one? Because the one group who says "that's wrong" is right.

---

Why are you so fixated on ****ing horses?

It's starting to get REAL weird in here...

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!!!!!!!!!!"

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.

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"

---

Are we banging horses or have we now moved on to include donkeys?

Ag with kids said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

Conservatives are not for small government. Where did you hear this? Small government is a benefit of conservative society not a cause of it. Liberals are for small government, they place freedom as the highest end of society, regardless of what the freedom is used for, hint that's why liberal and freedom have the same root word.

Hippies are not conservatives, and your grandparents who were burning smut were not liberals.

Imagine how foolish you look saying Clarence Thomas is a liberal and The legalize it crowd are true conservatives

---

Oh goody.

Now you get to make up your own terms. Is this like pronouns?

We're not talking the old "classical" terminology that you're trying to now blather on about BTW...

---

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.

Ag with kids 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.

---

So, freedom/liberty for you means allowing government control of what you can or cannot do based on one group's views? As long as that one group is the one you agree with?

---

No. Liberty means "the freedom to pursue the good." You'll note that this is drastically different than the "freedom to do whatever I want as long as it isn't directly harming someone." It's drastically different because the latter is actually the definition of license.

Now you will ask what is the definition of "pursue the good." Fair enough. For this we must turn our attention to first principles and foundational moral questions. Questions that our founding fathers made a fatal flaw in presupposing. But in short the American nation is a New World expression of the European Christian civilization, primarily Anglo-Saxon in nature. So it follows that the definition of "the good" confirms with that of Christian teaching, which is the ability for man to pursue his highest end, union with God.

From this flows a plethora of social teaching handed down through the centuries which for some reason we discarded very recently in favor of a very thinly veiled Luciferian philosophy of "do as thou wilt." I and others here argue that we must return to this explicitly Christian foundation lest we be destroyed.

AGC 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!"

---

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.

---

It is not clear. What major organizations define porn use as an addiction? Or are they all liberal (oh sorry, "conservative" according to DI if I'm using his newly defined pronouns correctly)...

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.

---

I agree with Teslag. You and I butt heads a lot on here but you completely right on this one and ARE killing it.

fka ftc 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"

---

Are we banging horses or have we now moved on to include donkeys?

---

Are we bringing the Donkey Show into this thread now??

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.

RebelE Infantry said:

---

Ag with kids 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.

---

So, freedom/liberty for you means allowing government control of what you can or cannot do based on one group's views? As long as that one group is the one you agree with?

---

No. Liberty means "the freedom to pursue the good." You'll note that this is drastically different than the "freedom to do whatever I want as long as it isn't directly harming someone." It's drastically different because the latter is actually the definition of license.

Now you will ask what is the definition of "pursue the good." Fair enough. For this we must turn our attention to first principles and foundational moral questions. Questions that our founding fathers made a fatal flaw in presupposing. But in short the American nation is a New World expression of the European Christian civilization, primarily Anglo-Saxon in nature. So it follows that the definition of "the good" confirms with that of Christian teaching, which is the ability for man to pursue his highest end, union with God.

From this flows a plethora of social teaching handed down through the centuries which for some reason we discarded very recently in favor of a very thinly veiled Luciferian philosophy of "do as thou wilt." I and others here argue that we must return to this explicitly Christian foundation lest we be destroyed.

---

No it doesn't...

JFC you guys are as bad as the blue haired nose ring people with your desire to redefine the English dictionary...

Quote:

---

Liberty is the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views.

---

hth

fka ftc said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

Conservatives are not for small government. Where did you hear this? Small government is a benefit of conservative society not a cause of it. Liberals are for small government, they place freedom as the highest end of society, regardless of what the freedom is used for, hint that's why liberal and freedom have the same root word.

Hippies are not conservatives, and your grandparents who were burning smut were not liberals.

Imagine how foolish you look saying Clarence Thomas is a liberal and The legalize it crowd are true conservatives

---

Oh goody.

Now you get to make up your own terms. Is this like pronouns?

We're not talking the old "classical" terminology that you're trying to now blather on about BTW...

---

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

fka ftc said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

Conservatives are not for small government. Where did you hear this? Small government is a benefit of conservative society not a cause of it. Liberals are for small government, they place freedom as the highest end of society, regardless of what the freedom is used for, hint that's why liberal and freedom have the same root word.

Hippies are not conservatives, and your grandparents who were burning smut were not liberals.

Imagine how foolish you look saying Clarence Thomas is a liberal and The legalize it crowd are true conservatives

---

Oh goody.

Now you get to make up your own terms. Is this like pronouns?

We're not talking the old "classical" terminology that you're trying to now blather on about BTW...

---

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.

---

Thats a very clever way to arbitrarily declare victory without having to do any work; but unfortunately that's now how things work.

To make my example; it is not the lack of curfew that makes a child good, but a child that is good is able to benefit from a lack of curfew. If freedom was a panacea we wouldn't need to jail criminals, the mere fact that we were giving them freedom would make them good.

This is your idea of society. That a society no matter how base, no matter how evil can handle small amounts of oversight because the lack of oversight will make them behave. That is not the case; people respond to carrots and sticks.

If small government is failing to address a problem, the conservative approach is to fix it, not to say "give them a copy of Atlas Shrugged and see what happens"