Does 'rape culture' accurately describe (many) societies?

[Lithrael]

I note you agree that porn is having pernicious effects and isn't necessary.

I do not support banning things on the grounds that they can be harmful and aren't necessary. On those grounds we should ban most sports, horseback riding, etc etc. They seriously injure minors on the regular.

What I'd be in favor of is well thought out regulation that's enforcable without unnecesarily impinging privacy or freedom of expression.

Maybe, here's a crazy thought, maybe we could create spaces for kids and then actually monitor those spaces and keep kids safe there, instead of trying to make the whole world including spaces adults want to hang out in, kid-friendly (or should I say, major credit card processor-friendly).

Seriously, how am I supposed to trust any of this political posturing if we haven't even figured out how to make sure ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ ROBLOX is safe for kids?

 

[Poem]

Parents. It's parents who have a legal duty to protect children. Why do you think parents fail at this. Alarmingly consistently, according to your literature.

I'll quote the UNCRC again:
Children should be able to access information they can understand on TV, radio, in books and newspapers and on the internet. Governments should make sure children are protected from things that could harm them.
Children and young people should be protected from media that would be harmful to them. This includes:
- pornography,

 

[Skeptical Greg]

You can read.
Excellent.

 

[Poem]

I do not support banning things on the grounds that they can be harmful and aren't necessary. On those grounds we should ban most sports, horseback riding, etc etc. They seriously injure minors on the regular.

Nobody is suggesting sex should be banned.

 

[Poem]

Seriously, how am I supposed to trust any of this political posturing if we haven't even figured out how to make sure ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ ROBLOX is safe for kids?

We have failed children - right?

 

[3point14]

I'll quote the UNCRC again:
Children should be able to access information they can understand on TV, radio, in books and newspapers and on the internet. Governments should make sure children are protected from things that could harm them.
Children and young people should be protected from media that would be harmful to them. This includes:
- pornography,

I'm really not sure what your point is. Do you think that it is not the duty of a parent to protect their children from that which they view as harmful? That seems pretty dangerous to me.

You also must realise that it is possible to disagree with an 'expert'. I understand the point of the UNCRC quote, but their goals are not my goals. I disagree with them. I have stated why. They have a singular goal and want to pressure governments into action, presumably in the absence of action by parents (parents who are clearly failing in their responsibilities).

Just because someone with an impressive title says something, it does not make it true. Indeed, people in niche areas like this will frequently have biased views of circumstances because they spend their days steeped in information that leads them to believe that:

i) The thing they deal with is the most important thing in the world (Otherwise, why would they be seeing it all around them)

and

ii) The thing they deal with is everywhere, all the time (because it is for them, why would it not be so for everyone else)


Please understand, opinion, no matter how 'expert', is not fact.

 

[Lithrael]

Nobody is suggesting sex should be banned.

Did anyone suggest that anyone suggested sex should be banned? If not why did you say this?

It was a straightforward exchange. "porn is having pernicious effects and isn't necessary." "ok, sports can also cause harm and aren't necessary." "nobody said we should ban sex." What? Did this last reply make sense to you? Sex itself is certainly necessary, so it doesn't fit into a discussion of the idea that things should be banned for being unneccesary and sometimes harmful.

 

[Lithrael]

We have failed children - right?

As far as making sure they are safe playing the online children's game ROBLOX? Absolutley.

I do not think a porn ban is an appropriate or even an effective way to keep kids safe. Even when it's true that 'something must be done!' you don't just do the first thing you think of because it's 'something.'

Porn is already banned on ROBLOX, soliciting minors is already banned pretty much everywhere we are talking about, yet ROBLOX has a serious child predation problem. I really don't imagine this problem would not exist if porn didn't exist. The something that needs to be done is probably actually serious moderation including suspensions/kicks for trying to take convos with minors off-platform. There should be no expectation of privacy on ROBLOX. It is FOR minors.

 

[Poem]

I'm really not sure what your point is. Do you think that it is not the duty of a parent to protect their children from that which they view as harmful? That seems pretty dangerous to me.

You also must realise that it is possible to disagree with an 'expert'. I understand the point of the UNCRC quote, but their goals are not my goals. I disagree with them. I have stated why. They have a singular goal and want to pressure governments into action, presumably in the absence of action by parents (parents who are clearly failing in their responsibilities).

Just because someone with an impressive title says something, it does not make it true. Indeed, people in niche areas like this will frequently have biased views of circumstances because they spend their days steeped in information that leads them to believe that:

i) The thing they deal with is the most important thing in the world (Otherwise, why would they be seeing it all around them)

and

ii) The thing they deal with is everywhere, all the time (because it is for them, why would it not be so for everyone else)


Please understand, opinion, no matter how 'expert', is not fact.

CMIIW - but the UN IS the countries that are it's members. The UNCRC has been ratified and signed by EVERY country - i.e. 195 countries (the UN recognises that many in the world). The ONLY exception is the US which has not ratified it.

Your characterisation is not correct.

 

[theprestige]

There is an awful lot here to unpack here (which is fine).

Could you clarify: But unlike slavery, it does not necessitate harm to others without consent?

Sure. The key word here is "necessitates". It is not necessary to harm someone, in order to create pornography. Slavery, on the other hand, is harmful to others by definition. So already the analogy begins to fall apart.

Stating that porn is expression and therefore a human right isn't really saying much other than acknowledging that governments have decided to use the Miller Test (or other such criteria) to determine that porn (i.e. the kind of legal stuff you find on Pornhub etc) is legal.

This is incorrect. If I didn't want to say much other than "acknowledging that governments have decided to use the Miller Test..." Then I would have made that acknowledgement and proceeded from there. As it happens, I don't much like the Miller test, or the whole concept of obscenity as a special form of expression that needs to be especially regulated.

But in fact I did want to say much other than that. I wanted to say that I believe it is a human right to create pornography, full stop. This is a much more important idea, giving serious cause for concern when we consider calls for government interference.

If we want to talk about human rights then we shouldn't leave out referencing the UNCRC, which states:
Children should be able to access information they can understand on TV, radio, in books and newspapers and on the internet. Governments should make sure children are protected from things that could harm them.

Children and young people should be protected from media that would be harmful to them. This includes:
- pornography,

In fact I don't put much stock in the UNCRC, either. However, out of respect for those who do:

Two rights can be in conflict with each other. In my view, most legitimate limitations on the exercise of a human right deal with cases where one right bumps into another. Obliterating one right, in whole or in part, to make room for another, is usually not a good approach to such dilemmas.

Like I said, I think some infringements on the right to free expression are necessary. I think such infringements as we commonly apply tend to satisfy the criteria of strict scrutiny. I think a blanket ban on all pornography, broadly defined, does not meet the standard I have set.

<AI slop snipped>

Aside from everything else, I think it is anti-social to introduce AI output into a conversation between humans. You may not think this very important, as you don't seem to think the human right to free expression is very important, but it's very important to me.

UNICEF:
The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) is an important, legally binding agreement signed by 196 countries (as of 12 July 2022) which outlines the fundamental rights of every child, regardless of their race, religion or abilities.

Wikipedia:
The United States has signed the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC); however, it remains the only United Nations member state to have not ratified it after Somalia ratified it in 2015.

The US aside, governments have a legal duty to protect children in the way described. They have not done so.

I think they have. I think that where there are gaps or shortfalls, least-intrusive adjustments to the current restriction schemes are the proper approach. Not a blanket ban on all pornography, broadly defined.

I note you agree that porn is having pernicious effects and isn't necessary.

I note that this is as far as you seem to have gotten, in understanding and addressing my rebuttal. Which is to say, not far at all.

Please take some time to unpack my argument from strict scrutiny, and my full rejection of your argument by analogy to slavery. These constitute the meat of my rebuttal, to both your proposal of a blanket ban on porn, and your slavery analogy. If you can't unpack and address that part of my rebuttal, then you haven't really addressed my rebuttal at all.

---

*I disagree about "unpacking". I've already opened the suitcase, taken everything out, and laid it all in a tidy arrangement on the bed for you to inspect. You don't need to dig deeper, trying to bring to the surface whatever it is I'm really saying. It's all right there. All you have to do is read it, and address each point as you come to it, as best you can.

 

[theprestige]

I'll quote the UNCRC again:
Children should be able to access information they can understand on TV, radio, in books and newspapers and on the internet.

And in many places where the UNCRC is in force, children are indeed able to do this.

Governments should make sure children are protected from things that could harm them.
Children and young people should be protected from media that would be harmful to them. This includes:
- pornography,

"Should make sure" goes too far, in my opinion. Surety is an impossible standard, and I disrespect any government that ratified such nonsense. I also doubt any of the governments that have ratified the UNCRC are in any way serious about making sure of this. I'm also pretty sure that most signatories to the UNCRC have horrible human rights records across the board. You're basically making an appeal to popularity. In this case, that means an appeal to a population that includes entities that wipe their ass with the concept of human rights as we understand it. The countries that do the best at controlling what their citizens can see on the Internet are the countries that do the best at oppressing their citizens and denying their human rights. If you hold up China as a paragon of porn censorship, you're holding up China as a paragon.

So your appeal to the UNCRC and its signatories is another dead letter, as far as I'm concerned.

 

[theprestige]

Nobody is suggesting sex should be banned.

You have suggested that porn should be banned.

 

[Poem]

You have suggested that porn should be banned.

That is correct.

 

[theprestige]

CMIIW - but the UN IS the countries that are it's members. The UNCRC has been ratified and signed by EVERY country - i.e. 195 countries (the UN recognises that many in the world). The ONLY exception is the US which has not ratified it.

I wouldn't say you're wrong, but I do disagree with your definition of the UN. I'd say the UN is a diplomatic forum for nations to air grievances, work towards consensus, and engage in all the other diplomatic activities that support peaceful conflict resolution and international cooperation. It's not a lawmaking body. It's not an enforcement body. It's not a judiciary body. It's a diplomatic body. Its main virtue is that it gives scumbag regimes a platform to make their voices heard, without resorting to violence. And that is a wonderful thing. I'm glad the UN exists. It pisses me off that so many people have got such a wrong idea of what it is and isn't supposed to be.

Your characterisation is not correct.

I think 3point14's characterization is pretty accurate.

 

[theprestige]

That is correct.

And I disagree, for the reasons I laid out for you, and that you declined to "unpack".

 

[3point14]

CMIIW - but the UN IS the countries that are it's members. The UNCRC has been ratified and signed by EVERY country - i.e. 195 countries (the UN recognises that many in the world). The ONLY exception is the US which has not ratified it.

Your characterisation is not correct.

What you say makes no sense at all. It literally does not follow from what I wrote. I cannot, in any way, twist what you say to be a response to what I said. I just can't work it out.

The fact that the country I am in has ratified a thing that you agree with does not mean I agree with them or with you. I have absolutely no idea how you can think that that is the case.

I will repeat:

Please understand, opinion, no matter how 'expert', is not fact.

Unless and until you can understand that, you will not be able to conduct a debate in any resonable sense.

Unless and until you stop providing quotes like they're a trump card (they are not, see above), you will not be able to conduct a debate in any reasoble sense. You just can't do it.

I will ask again, just to see if this gets anywhere...

Do you think that it is not the duty of a parent to protect their children from that which they view as harmful?

 

[theprestige]

What you say makes no sense at all. It literally does not follow from what I wrote. I cannot, in any way, twist what you say to be a response to what I said. I just can't work it out.

The fact that the country I am in has ratified a thing that you agree with does not mean I agree with them or with you. I have absolutely no idea how you can think that that is the case.

He's trying to circumvent rational debate by appealing to authority (the UN) and to popularity (the signatory nations). Of course it doesn't follow, because the last thing Poem wants to do is actually follow your argument with a rational response.

I will repeat:

Please understand, opinion, no matter how 'expert', is not fact.

Unless and until you can understand that, you will not be able to conduct a debate in any resonable sense.

Unless and until you stop providing quotes like they're a trump card (they are not, see above), you will not be able to conduct a debate in any reasoble sense. You just can't do it.

I will ask again, just to see if this gets anywhere...

Do you think that it is not the duty of a parent to protect their children from that which they view as harmful?

To a statist, parents are an obstacle to good governance, that should be removed as much as possible from the process of turning their children into Good Citizens thinking Correct Thought.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

...

Do you think that it is not the duty of a parent to protect their children from that which they view as harmful?

You just made me think of Jehovah's Witnesses and the Church of Christ, Scientist, but that's a whole 'nother topic for sure.

 

[arthwollipot]

Parents. It's parents who have a legal duty to protect children. Why do you think parents fail at this. Alarmingly consistently, according to your literature.

Ooh, ohh, I know! I know! Pick me!

 

[Poem]

Parents. It's parents who have a legal duty to protect children. Why do you think parents fail at this. Alarmingly consistently, according to your literature.

Ooh, ohh, I know! I know! Pick me!

How on earth does an 11 year old have unrestricted, unsupervised access to this stuf???

A fellow 11 year old with a phone and less involved parents is my assumption.