You mean pornography has been legalised because, for some (indeed many), there is nothing necessarily special about it - an act that has no actual meaning, value or associated morality. It's all about the pleasure. You have, therefore, already made that assumption - thus enabling it to be described as mere speech or mere expression. It's in the framing - sex is effectively the equivalent of just speaking. We saw an example of that a while back:
No, this isn't what I mean. This is you putting other people's words in my mouth and pretending they're mine.
My meaning is more along the lines of sex is special, and speech is also special, and this creates a potential conflict in public policy, that must be more carefully and honestly navigated, than you have been doing so far.
That is where society (Western at least) is at today. So your argument above is a reflection of that modern-day Western culture; essentially, you are agreeing with it. I think you are actually mindful that sex is a fundamental pillar of stable, child-rearing families - the bedrock of a thriving society and that society is broken in that respect (you spoken of absent fathers). Yet you cannot see the clear reasons why.
No. I think it is
you that are mindful that sex is important in the ways you describe. Which is to say, I think this is something you believe. I think this is actually the foundational axiom for your entire thesis about regulating sex acts and sex speech.
I think you should just say so, and make your argument from this foundation, and let people make up their own minds about whether they agree with you. I think you should stop this nonsense of trying to force other people's words into the framework of your argument. It's dishonest and distracting. You'll never change my mind by distorting my arguments and then telling me those distortions prove you right.
I
responded to your POV analogy but you haven't come back.
Not an analogy, an example. My argument, about the value of free speech not being undermined by examples of bad speech, stands just as strong without it as with it.
And I gave up on that particular exchange the moment you decided to pretend to be retarded about the meaning of "POV" in that context.
I gave you a detailed, thoughtful reply, about my views pornography and the right to free speech. Instead of engaging in good faith, you decided to play rude little ◊◊◊◊-◊◊◊◊ games. Now you're whining that your rude little ◊◊◊◊-◊◊◊◊ games didn't get any respect. Poem, I showed you respect. I've shown you respect repeatedly in this thread. You've repeatedly paid me back with disrespect. So don't come crying now, when it turns out my unearned respect only extends so far, when someone decides to be a dick about it.
Porn should be banned - and we should start with virtual child (ie computer generated) and simulated (roleplay) porn...material which some countries have already made illegal. Again, it has been made illegal because it obviously facilitates the slippery-slope rabbit hole to CSAM.
Thank you for finally just making your argument in your own words.
