Why don't our governments ban porn?

"People in tights doing yoga videos on Youtube are not a problem, our weak addict minds are a problem"

I dont know why youre so pro soft porn are you still edging?? You think a 14 yr old who never watched porn and sees soft porn on youtube a women in yoga pants doing bad things and the 14 year old gets a boner you tell us parent control? What are you up to dude?

 

Like I said, I'm all for banning porn for children, like the UK is doing with it's Online Safety Act. But what you call "soft porn" is not actually porn. Just because you keep calling it that way doesn't make it so; equating women doing yoga videos on Youtube with actual pornography is utterly ridiculous!

Of course teenagers will be attracted to attractive people, but if anything people find sexually attractive is porn to you then that's crazy. Like I said, governments should restrict access to porn for children, sure, but demanding government to ban people from doing yoga videos is crazy. If you don't want your kids to see that, it's up to you.

Youtube has parental control tools. And parents, if they want to, can have control over their kid's phone/tablet/PC and internet usage. Yes, parents should raise their kids, and not expect government or internet websites like Youtube to do it for them—what a revolutionary concept indeed...

 

You might want to reduce that timeframe, a century ago people did things that some in the 21th century would find crazy or weird like for example their treatment of womens or their human zoos, and as you pointed out it porn is illegal in china just as it is in over 75% of the world population.

 

That doesnt work like that dude you can bypass anything and most parents are not familiar with soft porn. You can still see bypasses soft porn on controlled accounts

 

To quote Woody Allen "They called me mad... But it was I - yes I - who discovered the link between excessive masturbation and entry into politics!"

 

This would've been my argument years ago before I knew anything about Big Porn and the government and just how cozy they are in bed together. Once you learn who owns and controls the industry and what their objectives are, you can't unlearn it and you sure as shit can't convince yourself that their intentions are anything but purely evil. But hey, to each their own. Some people would rather not go down the rabbit hole – they prefer to assume that there is good and evil in everything depending on how it's used. I guess they should've left cocaine and heroin in soft drinks and cough syrup but simply used lesser amounts of each in both. Freud and his ilk would've been all about it!

 

You couldn't pick a worse example, since feminism is probably the #1 worst thing about modernity and that's saying a lot.

Totally insignificant phenomenon, can't even begin to be compared to the influence of something like pr0n. Also kind of hilarious I must say.

I'm not making the case that everything was better in the past. But society and culture overall? No contest.

 

But who is to say exactly and specifically what the youth need to be protected from? Anything you say and nothing you don't specify? Who's going to day what qualifies as soft porn and what doesn't. And I don't get aroused watching women work out, mainly because I don't watch that....online, in person, or any other way. But I wouldn't even if I did because I don't look at women as sex objects who exist solely yo please me sexually. If total government control over every single aspect of your life is what you want, then you should try living in a communist country or under sharia law. Maybe think about trying to change yourself so that mandates, restrictions, and censorship aren't forced on everyone because of your personal belief about porn. I don't think you realize the ridiculous and extreme change you're pushing for here when it would be so much simpler and quicker to just work on yourself to change the way you think and how you see the world. I mean think about it neutrally here: You look at women working out lustfully and get aroused when you do so. Therefore, NO woman anywhere should ever be able to post her workout online, even if other women want to work out with the same routine and improve their health, confidence, appearance, weight loss, etc..... all because you are an addict who doesn't want to change his own addiction habits.

Am I understanding this correctly?

 

There are many many worst thing than that, but most of the thing you blame feminism for are unrelated, i'd reckon it is mostly about women having higher standard when it come to males, yes? or being entitled or some such, in this case you might want to take a look at east asia as you can tell by their extremely low birth rate guys there have it even harder than in the west despite feminism as you know it not being near as prevalent.

yes locking up non-whites like animals so people can see them in their natural state, fun time.

Here are some other example, genocide only being criminalized after ww2, it was not uncommon before that, child labor, very long and harsh working conditions, it is estimated that humans have never worked as hard and as long as their did during the industrial revolution until reform were made due to fear of communism, cheering crowd entertaining themselves with grisly public executions, one drop rule, segregation of justice, racism being so strong that the US would in the 1920 immigration act prevent or heavily restrict all non nordic entry in the US, non-whites just barred and during ww2 whites germans being left to themselves while yellow japs rounded up in concentration camps, etc etc.

 

I believe this gentleman has the finest argument on the subject. This is why I was talking about spiritual evolution. Is it more adequate for me to dig deep inside and change the way I look at the world, or try, by rule of law, to impose on the whole world what I believe is correct? We're far from living on a perfect society, but we can always make ourselves permanent to the society that involves us. I am part of this world, but paradoxically I can also stand as an individual, not needing to partake on whatever trash it offers me.

 

I don't think banning porn is the answer to the problems that porn causes...

Government and parents should focus on properly educating the youth about sex and the harmful effects of porn.

 

I vehemently disagree. There are female creators on YouTube who literally make it a point to go out of their way to make their content sexual. Whether it's "yoga instructors" or guitar players, "gymnasts" or dancers, they know how to grow their channels and they do so succesfully not because hundreds of thousands (or millions) of addicts watch them but because boys will be boys and men will be men. Those girls and women know our nature and so do the various social media apps and websites. They exploit the ways we are hardwired for financial gain as well as control.

 

I agree. I think you said it all, women can be true predators when they want, lol, just like men. Boys are going to permit certain types of cultural feminine behaviour affect them. Men just won't give a f*ck.

 

I don't think women's standards have changed much, except it's now more difficult to find a man who makes three times more money than you if you're a female Korean doctor or something.

No, it's about women being reprogrammed to have different goals in life. Away from family towards career. Motherhood is viewed as a side job to a woman's real purpose which is her occupation. Which is the total inverse of pre-feminist ethics.

Murder has been illegal since Hammurabi.

Oliver Twist and Cosette or trans kids? Even during the most hellish conditions of the past, there was purpose and fire inside the Western people. Now life is easy as fuck but most don't seem eager to actually live it...

Good. Desperately needed today when criminals don't fear punishment and people in general have lost touch with death and mortality.

The only bad thing about it is that it wasn't the 1620 immigration act. The united states would be a multiplanetary country at this point if it hasn't been chained to the heavy burden of diversity.

 

Yes this count as their standards having changed, a century ago women being barely educated, offered little to no employment opportunity, not being allowed to own private property etc, meant they were highly dependent on men and had to choose between taking whatever is available or dying from hunger/exposure.

At the end of the day both men and women are after the same thing : passing down their genes. All that really changed with them being more independent is simply that they have more options and women are pickier than men by nature, just as men are hardwired to choose young/fertile looking female and have low standard when it come to their choice due to the minimal reproductive cost women also are hardwired due to high reproductive cost to seek the best possible male, the healthiest and the ones with the best genes.

So they are not being reprogrammed to do anything, if the choice is being unemployed and choosing a suboptimal partner with possibly many suboptimal offsprings or having a career and more flexibility allowing them to choose the best one available, the choice is clear, it is why why everyone has more female ancestors than male.

apples and oranges

Making a spectacle of death isn’t going to reduce crime, no matter how inventive the cartel’s executions are (and you can find the videos they post very easily even on the public net) that doesn’t impede their rivals recruitment efforts, if anything growing up seeing all that violence merely mean they are used to it; Those executions in the US were happening at the same time they had to deal with some of the most notorious gangsters in American history who had no fear whatsoever shooting it out with lawmen on public.

You’re dreaming, up until 1830 when most of the US growth were from English settlers and immigrants the US had a population 1/4 that of france (about 12 millions), from there till 1920 about 50 millions europeans immigrated to the US, most of them being young, non-english and having a much higher birth rate than natives.

Having such a high population is the main reason only the US was able to keep up with russian military production in ww2 and after that during the cold war, which in turn is the only reason the URSS didn’t annex all of Europe, that the US was able to use those territories to turn from an export economy to an import economy, have such a developed network of alliance, be the world reserve currency, prevent Mexico and Latin America becoming communist, etc etc.

Also diversity is a relatively new concept in American history, the reason most Americans today cannot speak the language of their europeans ancestors is that until 1960 immigrants were put under intense pressure of assimilation, by and large no foreign culture, language or religion were tolerated, those who wanted to become American citizens had to renounce all previous allegiance and identity; Unless you merely meant racial diversity, in which case I ask what is your basis for claiming their are a burden to the US?

 

Wrong. That's what they naturally are, should be, and used to be until the feminism catastrophe which brainwashed them to go have careers instead.

No because there is no such thing as "crime" in the international setting. That's anarchy and survival of the fittest. Nuremberg was a circus trial, would the allies try their own for genocide? Of course not lmao. They won the war and hanged their opponents, that's all, nothing new about it.

So the only sense in which genocide is "criminalized" now is that if the state happens to disagree with the cleanse, it calls it murder and usual rules apply.

Not quite true but the trend is like you describe. The previous, correct, approach is being phased out and instead you're left with growing multiculturalism. The melting pot is not really melting anymore. Which is going to destroy the nation.

You mean besides being constantly at the cusp of racewar? Also certain groups don't contribute economically and instead generate high crime, violence and general dysfunction. Finally, without the racial divide you most likely wouldn't have the destructive religion of wokeness which replaced christianity in the US.

 

Irrelevant since they didn’t commit any genocide, and if it was indeed survival of the fittest you wouldn’t be having so many independent nation states today or such a thing as the ICC.

The nazis killed some 30 millions soviets during ww2, russia not returning the favor once they won was something very new, historically speaking the minimum would have been wiping out a few cities at the very least.

This make no sense, if a state is judged to be committing genocide they are going to face foreign intervention if they are too strong militarily for that at the very least international condemnation, economic sanctions and diplomatic isolation.

But as you said earlier (in some aspects) modern life is easy and people take things for granted, two very simple example are king Leopold killing 1/2 the population of the Congo and being build a state upon his death or the fact that by the time the US decided to join ww2 Japan had been waging a genocidal war in china all the while maintaining good international relations and their war machine being mainly fueled by the US, because as I said it wasn’t that uncommon and people didn’t care.

Do you actually have any figures backing up these claims such as the cost of high crime, violence and “general dysfunction” vs their own financial contributions?

 

It's not irrelevant, it's a hypothetical. If the US tried to exterminate the Japanese, would the Americans be prosecuted? Would Macarthur end up executed?

Some say that Holodomor was a genocide. Others defend against that allegation by claiming the motivation was power and not demographic change. Funny how it becomes okay to kill millions of civilians if you have the right reason.

ICC is a joke, see i.e. the arrest warrant for Putin they put out now. It means absolutely nothing.

The reason why weak countries aren't all just dependent territories of strong countries is that they're actually not that weak. See Palestine, Afghanistan, Taiwan. Conquest can be difficult, it's not the 1800s anymore when you could just take over an entire continent because the locals are several technological revolutions behind you.

Countries maintain a semblance of independence because of their firepower and not because "international law" because no such thing exists.

The allies did commit war crimes and German civilians were persecuted after the war.

Historically it certainly wasn't a rule to take revenge in way you're describing, e.g. Napoleon's wars didn't end like that.

China, Uighurs? Where's the intervention?

I can't find the source for this now - obviously it's hard to find such a thing in the current environment. Somebody calculated the net contribution to public finances (taxes minus welfare), two groups had a highly positive average, the other two groups had a highly negative average.

And to add an obvious remark, violence is not just a money problem.

I will not continue with this debate anymore @SethLCU, forgive me. I don't want to get banned. Also, your views are a mix of rosy eyed liberalism and far-left dogma. Reading that is like looking into a cesspit.