Not fun fact: it is estimated that 30% of publicly-available porn videos have underage actors, and a large proportion show severe abuse.
(media.greatawakening.win)
🧘Mental/Physical Health 🏋🏼♂️
I don't think arguing with porn addicts that they should stop watching porn because sometimes the people in the videos have not consented or are underage is very effective. A better argument would be to describe how porn affects your brain chemistry and personal relationships. For instance, connect impotence with porn consumption.
It's certainly effective for arguing why we should ban the production and distribution of porn, though.
The people who thought it was a good idea to make porn free and distribute it over the internet deserve to die.
Guess who those people are?
Porn for free and distributed widely was always going to be the way that moved forward, like access to everything else.
The biggest issue is the lack of a crucial age gate on the more "legit" sites, and how they react if you try to make them enforce it.
My views have shifted a lot on this topic from where it used to be, but as ever I don't care what adults do because it isn't something you can stop under the Constitution; I care that children are being given access and encouraged to watch (and worse), which starts their addiction far earlier than kids should ever have innocence taken from them.
I used to be of that "let adults do what they want" mentality, but that has turned out to be a VERY slippery slope on multiple fronts. In regards to the gays it went from "let adults do what they want behind closed doors" to "let them get married" to "were going to groom your kids into fags against your will".
Porn is similar. It goes from "let adults do what they want" to "Porn should be regulation free since it's art" to "all porn should be free and accessible to everyone regardless of age." to "let's literally show porn to kids in class for sexual education."
They've been trying to do the same thing, unsuccessfully mind you, with guns, and successfully with drugs.
I doubt anyone here is going to say we should legalize all hard drugs. But I understand that certain things are just never going to be completely banned, even if it would make society better. So the best we could hope for is extreme regulation. For the gay problem I tend to like the Russian/Polish/Hungarian method, of not making it illegal, but making it illegal to advertise it, propagate it, publicly express it, etc. etc.
I suppose that goes back to "let adults do what they want behind closed doors", but so long as it doesn't go beyond that again, I guess that's the best we could ask for considering the stance most have.
Porn has a similar answer, regulate the ever loving crap out of it. Make it so it's not illegal, but put heft penalties on it's unauthorized distribution, age gate everything, make allowing kids access to it a similar crime to selling a kids drugs, etc etc.
Again, it'll be back to "let adults do what they want behind closed doors", but so long as we remain steadfast and don't let it go further again, things should be infinitely better.
I'd prefer a straight up ban on morally corrupt and illicit topics, but I know that's a tall order. It's not impossible, back in the good old days (1900-1960s), we DID have such laws that made homosexuality illegal, and banned it's propagation and advertisement, banned distribution of pornographic material outside of heavily regulated environments, hefty penalties for distribution and/or open advertisement depending on the topic.
But then everything was overturned in the courts over the last 60 or so years, and now we have our current situation. I hate to say it, but sometimes it's better in the long run to try and limit immoral and inherently corrupting topics, ideologies, material, for the greater good.
Using the drug example, we ban most hard drugs. I doubt there's anyone here that would argue we should legalize all drugs in the name of freedom. So the same logic applies to porn, homosexuality/transsexualism, communism/socialism, etc. etc.
Some stuff is just evil, and has no place in a society that wants the best for it's people.
The problem is that a slippery slope exists everywhere with every single thing.
Allowing women in the workforce was a slippery slope to destruction of the family. But would you, today, strip them of their freedom to chose traditional life versus modern life? If so, you've embarked on a slippery slope to totalitarianism (or Hell via good intentions in the worst case scenario).
Women being put into the work force was nothing more than a ploy to reduce birth rates, decrease wages, and increase taxation. So yeah, I'd reverse it if I could given literally nothing good has come from it.
The sole outcome from women being in the workforce, is the rise of modern feminism. The "strong single woman who don't need no man" archetype that does nothing but complain about a fake glass celling while getting literally every opportunity thrown at them for no reason other than the fact they have a vagina.
So yeah, I'd reverse it if I could. 99% of women in the work force wouldn't even be there if it wasn't for diversity hire quotas. every single one of them would be passed over for a man 9 times out of 10.
And as for the low level jobs, let's be honest. If a woman could choose between being a stay at home wife/mom and working some dead end entry level job that literally anyone is qualified for, which do you think they would choose?
The "freedom" you're speaking of was born out of corruption and necessity. Corruption because the entire movement was born out of a desire to crash birthrates and increase the taxation base. Necessity, because once inflation got bad enough, families could no longer afford to live off of a single income, and nowadays, most individuals can't afford to live off of a single income.
It's not totalitarianism, it's common sense and basic logic. In the absence of outside third party factors, humans gravitate towards their natural roles. Get rid of all the limiting factors and propaganda being pushed down everyone's throats, and this will all happen naturally. Heck, the tradcon movement has been growing every year and is extremely popular among young family age people of both sexes these days.
So yeah, I'd reverse it if I could.
You don't know the constitution apparently
It's all about stopping adults from doing certain things
Because by doing those things they put the people's God-given rights at jeopardy
This is the crux of the matter. Certain behaviors, or economic "goods" or whatever you want to call it, are so addictive that the survival of our society as a whole depends on us protecting ourselves from it.
Imagine we were China when GB was trying to force us to buy opium. Would it not be a matter of national security, the liberty of our people, to prevent Britain from bringing those drugs into our society, and corrupting it?
The constitution is not and never was a suicide pact. It was a document that established a government, a government powerful enough to protect people's rights. And that included things like when we declare war and exterminate a people from the face of the earth.