Fuck these prudes. It's time to stop accepting the demonization of sex by religious extremists. If we don't fight for our rights we forfeit them.
[deleted]
[dead]
Anti-porn bills could force device makers to censor sexual material
131–140 of 153 posts
Re: Anti-porn bills could force device makers to censor sexual material
#132Well, censoring porn is one of the things I would happy to be censoring. Although this leads down a steep road easily to censor other content also, yet for a long time I have wondered why is it so easy to find porn, and why is nobody doing anything about it ? Porn is probably one of the major addictive behavioural and thought changing things in this world currently. It takes under 3 seconds to find porn if you want i…
By this logic, we could decide to censor violence, religion, social media, subcultures, sugar, the study of chemistry, and perhaps coffeine. I don't think it's a blind spot. It's a deliberate decision not to be overprotective. Should it be the government's responsibility to censor anything that people easily get into with bad consequences?
>By this logic, we could decide to censor violence, religion, social media, subcultures, sugar, the study of chemistry, and perhaps coffeine.
I totally agree: "coffeine" should definitely be banned or restricted. Caffeine from tea, however, is fine.
Re: Anti-porn bills could force device makers to censor sexual material
#133Well, censoring porn is one of the things I would happy to be censoring. Although this leads down a steep road easily to censor other content also, yet for a long time I have wondered why is it so easy to find porn, and why is nobody doing anything about it ? Porn is probably one of the major addictive behavioural and thought changing things in this world currently. It takes under 3 seconds to find porn if you want i…
Going to the bathroom is nasty, poop is icky, smells are highly unpleasant and there's often crap in the streets (it can also be used for revenge or abuse) Let's discourage defecation by banning toilet paper.
I don't see a problem with this actually. Toilet paper is nasty and should be eliminated. If toilets all had washlets, you wouldn't need TP, except for drying yourself, but that could be done with a blow-drier added to the washlet.
In civilized countries, washlets on toilets are normal and standard, even in most public restrooms.
Re: Anti-porn bills could force device makers to censor sexual material
#134Re: Anti-porn bills could force device makers to censor sexual material
#135Earlier quoted context omitted.
Porn has its fair share of issues with human trafficking, exploitation etc. But to label all porn as not good is not correct either in my opinion. If, as an example, you find a porn account of a consentual couple who uploads videos on their own terms - why would that be bad?
Also who defines 'porn'. Is porn any photo that shows nudity, or where do you draw the line on vanilla videos vs more extreme. You might end up with devices blocking all photos of a woman topless, or naked men, even art. Does Michelangelo's David statue get his privates covered or blocked? Or like in China where they increasing block things like picture/videos of women eating bananas as that is taken as sexual (and t…
A principal in Florida was recently fired for showing students a picture of David. So there's that.
Re: Anti-porn bills could force device makers to censor sexual material
#136The USA is so f*cking retarded. Sure, take all the drugs and pills you want. Sure, but guns. Sure, watch all the death and violence you want. But don’t you dare look at a nipple!
[flagged]
> Porn has gotten more and more degenerate and debased and it's absolutely evil. Ban it.
What kind do you watch that this is your takeaway?
Porn is kind of a choose your own adventure these days in my experience.
Re: Anti-porn bills could force device makers to censor sexual material
#137Earlier quoted context omitted.
They have different beliefs, but it's all the same God. You can't know enough in this lifetime to judge them to be objective or subjective lies. Just getting through the magisterium is more reading than one lifetime, let alone the other old judeo-christian 'usual suspects' faiths. Replacing your category of God and religion with 'its all a lie' is very dangerous and distasteful to read.
Reading someone defending religion is distasteful to read, yet here we are. Edit: I shouldn't have posted this as I was not adding to the conversation, just defending the GP's position. I'll leave it anyway though.
No, you're right. I was glib and mildly judgey. I made a mistake too.
Re: Anti-porn bills could force device makers to censor sexual material
#138Earlier quoted context omitted.
Reading someone defending religion is distasteful to read, yet here we are. Edit: I shouldn't have posted this as I was not adding to the conversation, just defending the GP's position. I'll leave it anyway though.
No, you're right. I was glib and mildly judgey. I made a mistake too.
It's certainly true that there are people today with deeply held spiritual beliefs with tens of thousands of years of continuity that don't revolve about a singular interventionalist monotheist God - which rather dents the claim that "but it's all the same God".
Re: Anti-porn bills could force device makers to censor sexual material
#139Earlier quoted context omitted.
They have different beliefs, but it's all the same God. You can't know enough in this lifetime to judge them to be objective or subjective lies. Just getting through the magisterium is more reading than one lifetime, let alone the other old judeo-christian 'usual suspects' faiths. Replacing your category of God and religion with 'its all a lie' is very dangerous and distasteful to read.
The inside and outside perspective. (1) If you're religious and inside then it's so important to you, it makes no sense to casually dismiss the ideas that are ingrained in your life about the ideas of God and religion. (2) If you're like me, on the outside and not religious, can you understand that I can shrug those off and call them a lie very easily, because they don't matter to me at all? From the outside it is li…
Engaging in blunt conversation on here is valuable to me aswell. It can be difficult to summarize a topic like religion (so much to say) that I know exists, but isn't directly my faith. Protection from offense is not something I need in my faith, though I understand sensitivity to offense is common in American-focused websites.
You are free to say whatever you want and I love that freedom. I want it too.
I believe saying that God and religion is a lie, is something you can do as an atheist and be fine.
But if taken as a statement of truth about God and a foundational axiom, you can end up in nihilism and a 'bad place', speaking loosely, quickly.
In discussing porn and the way we all have to live together in society, I'm not willing to casually throw away the moral implications of porn and the moral logic of the conversation about porn.
Making porn a matter of faith, religion, atheism or belief is a policy mistake to begin with. If it has measurably damaging outcomes to our youth, the case should be much clearer about the boundary between freedom and delayed gratification.
My blunt(-ish) $0.02.
Re: Anti-porn bills could force device makers to censor sexual material
#140Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, you're right. I was glib and mildly judgey. I made a mistake too.
It's certainly true that there are people today with deeply held spiritual beliefs with tens of thousands of years of continuity that don't revolve about a singular interventionalist monotheist God - which rather dents the claim that "but it's all the same God".
Yeah that theological argument is surmountable, from my eyes. I'm happy to have both ideas on as options, the monotheism one was left off the map.
The Indian and Japanese beliefs are particularly fascinating in the departure from monotheism. The Shinto practices and Hindu beliefs are something I have left inadequately studied so far.