Poem
Illuminator
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2021
- Messages
- 3,793
Okay, you do not know if a porn user can be assured yet grabbing porn is reasonable.How would I know? I haven't watched the stuff in decades
Last edited:
Okay, you do not know if a porn user can be assured yet grabbing porn is reasonable.How would I know? I haven't watched the stuff in decades
What kind of assurances do you have in mind? The same kind of assurances I get when I legally buy legal stuff in a legal shop? Which is implied in the fact that it is legal? The same thing should be true for legal pornOkay, you do not know if a porn user can be assured yet grabbing porn is resonable.
What kind of assurances do you have in mind? The same kind of assurances I get when I legally buy legal stuff in a legal shop? Which is implied in the fact that it is legal? The same thing should be true for legal porn
Law enforcement at work. Exactly as they should. Is there some problem with that?![]()
FTC Takes Action Against Operators of Pornhub and other Pornographic Sites for Deceiving Users About Efforts to Crack Down on Child Sexual Abuse Material and Nonconsensual Sexual Content
The Federal Trade Commission and the state of Utah are taking action against the operators of Pornhub and other pornography-streaming sites over charges they deceived users by doing little to blockwww.ftc.gov
Or the FTC unable to punish Aylo as they rightly deserve to be?Law enforcement at work. Exactly as they should. Is there some problem with that?
Nobody is taking responsibility for teaching healthy sexual relationships to children.
Instead you're falling all over yourself, trying to make excuses for a porn industry that's spamming undifferentiated kinks to children without restraint.
If the law and/or its enforcement are not as they should be, the people have means to change them, through their representatives. It's called democracy. And if the majority thinks they are fine as they are then that's the way it stays. Terms like "morally bankrupt" all sound fine and upstanding, but have no legal meaning.Or the FTC unable to punish Aylo as they rightly deserve to be?
Even if Aylo remains financially solvent today, the facts are now clear: it is morally bankrupt.
Aylo remains in business today, mostly unburdened by the crippling financial liabilities that it rightly owes its victims, because Congress has not yet acted to restore Section 13(b) to its full strength. Those interested in curbing the abusive and destructive practices of this company—and, indeed, this industry—are invited to provide the Commission with the tools needed to do justice.
Nobody is taking responsibility for teaching healthy sexual relationships to children.
Instead you're falling all over yourself, trying to make excuses for a porn industry that's spamming undifferentiated kinks to children without restraint.
?????Not the point.
Well it was.Also, I think it can be safely assumed that if porn were banned, it would still be available, although illegal. People being what they are.
A rather ridiculous strawman.Yes, we are agreeing to an obvious truth. In the case of slavery though, perhaps not many would argue that therefore it shouldn't be banned.
Porn users have a vested interest in believing their performers are participating without some form of pressure.
Are you implying the majority of porn performers are under pressure?Yes, we are agreeing to an obvious truth. In the case of slavery though, perhaps not many would argue that therefore it shouldn't be banned.
Porn users have a vested interest in believing their performers are participating without some form of pressure.
?You may have messed up the quote a bit.
It is a quote and would be directed at whomever it was directed at - presumably those who are pro-porn.And I have not been talking about children anyway. Assuming this was directed at me at all, which is a guess
?????
Are you implying the majority of porn performers are under pressure?
What is CP?A rather ridiculous strawman.
Argumentum ad populum.If the law and/or its enforcement are not as they should be, the people have means to change them, through their representatives. It's called democracy. And if the majority thinks they are fine as they are then that's the way it stays. Terms like "morally bankrupt" all sound fine and upstanding, but have no legal meaning.
There is no source where you quoted it from, so I thought something had gone wrong
Ideally, the law is what the (majority of) the people want it to be. So yes "ad populum". And rightfully soArgumentum ad populum.
As you wish but an argumentum ad populum remains a logical fallacy.Ideally, the law is what the (majority of) the people want it to be. So yes "ad populum". And rightfully so