Total posts: 12,563
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Translation: I'm wrong about something.
The point of a debate for me is to find out where I am wrong.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
I have multiple opinions that sometimes contradict each other.
In this case,
I am against loli if regular porn is banned.
I am for loli if regular porn is allowed.
Given that regular porn already has many perversions, I dont see how adding loli porn into the equation makes any difference.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
I am just exploring the topic to see where it goes.
But yes, if regular porn is going to be legal, then it makes no sense to ban loli porn.
Even in regular porn, some adult actresses look rather young.
Loli porn is just an animation. It involves no real people.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
4 is completely legal but if one is going around TAKING images of children against their will and the parent's will as a creepy stranger just to ogle them later, that's messed up.
Parents these days willingly post their kids images and videos on social media.
1 and 2 are strong lines drawn.
Well, yes. Although I have seen people arguing for 2 to be legal more than I have seen people arguing for 1 to be legal.
3 is very iffy, it depends if it decreases or increases their urge to act on it.
Sexual desires exist irrelevant if you watch porn or not. Its just that porn satisfies those desires, where lack of porn leaves them unsatisfied. Now, fake child porn is already legal in many countries. Lolicon is so widely spread that you can even find it on YouTube when searching for music.
The world has been surely too closeminded to that for any large sample sizes to have reliable data on if watching it increases odds of acting on it vs pedos who don't watch.
I would say that not having porn does not prevent a pedophile from offending. Its an absurd premise. Sexual desires dont disappear just because person has no porn lmao
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@swordburial17
Ah, an option 3) appeared.
"3) They heard about it, but they suspect the accuracy of the hadith regarding Aisha's age, so not a problem"
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
The ones with the attraction to minors that resist acting on it, yes.
Well, acting on it has many meanings.
It can mean:
1) person doing something to a child
2) Person watching child porn
3) Person watching fake child porn
4) Person watching non-sexual images of children
I am pretty sure there is more to it.
Like, in Japan, they have legal child porn. They just call it lolicon.
I wonder where the line is drawn.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
This world needs to be nuked if pedophilia comes before bestiality or necrophilia.
Eh, bestiality?
Necrophilia?
I guess they will probably add those to the LGBT too. I dont see why they wouldnt.
Created:
LGBT said at the start:
"It is about consensual adults"
Which changed to
"We should indoctrinate kids about LGBT"
Which changed to
"You are an abuser if you dont let us indoctrinate your kid into LGBT ideology"
Which changed to
"Kids can get hormone injections which could castrate them"
Which changed to
"Kids can have sex change surgery and castrate themselves if they want"
In Europe, a 12 year old had a sex change surgery.
So at this point, its obvious that its not about consensual adults anymore.
In short, LGBT lied. They said "its about adults". You believed them.
These days, LGBT is saying "We will never accept pedophiles".
Will you believe LGBT?
You believed them before. It turned out they were lying. Will you believe them again?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Looks like you were right. No revolution after all.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
That is, Jesus threw out the Old Testament, the Ten Comamandments
Wait, what? What? I mean, actually, what?
Jesus literally listed 10 commandments in the New Testament. Jesus said you have to follow 10 commandments to enter heaven.
Christ commanded you to never mind those silly old books and focus on being more kind to the people around you.
Look, Jesus commanded me to tolerate and not to seek revenge. However, me saying that "homosexuality is wrong" doesnt count as any kind of violence towards homosexuals, since I have duty, by the Bible, to tell people to stop doing that which God hates. I am not going to attack homosexuals. I just tell them that what they are doing is wrong.
Homosexuality and pedophilia are not the same to any ratiional mind, any more than dancing and rape are the same. The difference is consent which is a rather obvious point only the most complusive bigots miss.
The difference is consent? Well, there you have it. You have entered dialectics, where your entire position on pedophilia depends on the argument of consent. The moment someone proves that children can consent is the moment you will have to approve pedophilia to uphold your position.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
This is why Muhammad marrying a child (even if the practice was common at the time) is considered a problem for orthodox Muslim views.
No. The only ones finding a problem with it are non-muslims.
For muslims, it is one of these options:
1) They dont know about it, so not a problem
2) They know about it, but they approve, so not a problem
3) They heard about it, but they suspect the accuracy of the hadith regarding Aisha's age, so not a problem
All muslims fall into one of these 3. In all 3 cases, not a problem.
There is no muslim that will find problem with anything that prophet did. The islam is built around prophet.
Only non-muslims actually have problem with it.
It almost never causes people to leave islam. Rather, it causes people to justify prophet instead of finding problem with what he did.
Created:
Posted in:
Well, yes, messing with nuclear power is generally not a good idea.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
If you are familiar with Marxist dialectics, you know that life is a struggle between two opposing sides.
Therefore, the side that accepted religion won in the past.
Atheism has only begun winning recently.
For the most part, religion was an advantage and the opposition of religion societies with non-religious resulted in almost total victory for religious societies throughout history.
Therefore, either it was an accident that successful societies accepted religion, either accepting religion made those societies successful over non-religious societies.
This remains true irrelevant of if God exists or not.
Created:
Posted in:
Well, the muslims basically only have 2 choices:
1) Condemn child marriages and with that reject Muhammad as the best role model.
2) Accept child marriages as good in order to uphold that Muhammad was a perfect role model.
To the not so great surprise, many muslims choose 2).
Created:
-->
@Intelligence_06
I choose death. One bullet is much better than artificial radiation and global warfare.
Well, is it better to die or to eat earthworms and grasshoppers for the rest of life?
Many would prefer to die.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Eh, given the scale of internet propaganda against Russia, it is not impossible that there is 0.1% of population who actually wants to overthrow Putin. Sadly, sometimes 0.1% is enough to cause lots of trouble.
Created:
Oromagi is going to enjoy this tho. His dream of revolution in Russia is coming true.
Created:
What could possibly go wrong if we invade Russia?
Well, many things, but its not like Americans are famous for being bad at predicting the consequences of wars.
Created:
Posted in:
My bad. There are 2 billion muslims in the world and its rising.
So 2 billion people are praising a man who had sex with a 9 year old?
And the numbers of people praising him are increasing?
Yeah, imagine trying to judge child marriages while at the same time praising a man who marrired a 9yo and thinking he is the best role model on how to behave.
Awkward.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
holiest man in Islam raped a 9 year old wife
Are you saying that 1 billion people are praising a rapist?
Rapist is the role model for 1 billion people on how to behave?
Quran has 6666 verses.
Number of the beast is 666.
Still, Aisha said he was hot.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
You told me to think. Okay, I will think. Just for you.
If homosexuality and pedophilia are the same and if acting on first is same as acting on second, then homosexuals will have to argue for legalization of pedophilia and legalization of acting on pedophilia to stay logically consistent and defend their position on homosexuality and acting on homosexuality, no?
So all a person has to do is to make homosexuality and pedophilia look the same (which is what right wing is trying to do) to force homosexuals to argue in favor of pedophilia?
Isnt thinking fun?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I dont know.
There are theories, such as false Bible being the mark of the beast...
666 doesnt tell us much, to be honest.
Created:
Posted in:
The main problem with Americans condemning Mohammad is that Americans do much worse things to children.
Besides, child marriages will become legal in about 20 years, so most people will not condemn Mohammad as most people will approve of child marriages.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
The point was:
If you cannot define porn, you cannot define child porn either. If you can define child porn, then you can define porn.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Porn. Sexually explicit entertainment.
There. It is defined.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
So BK, how would you define the big mental difference between someone who is aged 15 years and 364 days and the same person the next day?
Small difference, really.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Porn in which certain participants are deemed by a society to be below a certain age whereby they are not able to be self determining
Now define porn.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
As Voltaire put it: "Définissez les termes, vous dis-je, ou jamais nous ne nous entendrons."
Sorry, I dont speak whatever that is.
No good debater is ever afraid to define terms.
Well, then go ahead, dont be afraid. Define "child porn".
Created:
-->
@FLRW
I mean, food in fridge would last for a week at best. And buying more food isnt exactly an option in nuclear war.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Most people dont need a definition to know what porn is.
I mean, how can you not know what porn is in 2023?
Like, I am concerned about people these days. They literally play clueless just to cause harm to others.
If you cannot define porn, then you cannot define child porn either.
Is your argument that child porn should be legal, because you cant define child porn?
Begin with excuses.
Created:
Given that there will be no actual food, you could eat insects and wild edibles if thats your only option. The other choice would be starvation or fight for remaining actual food.
Also, would all water become radioactive? Yeah, that might force you to collect rainwater.
Of course, eating insects and wild edibles will make you skinny like Eugenia, but at least you wont be hungry and starve.
Also, you wont be a threat to anyone, so increased chances of survival.
Created:
-->
@Bella3sp
Being transgender does not mean you have gender dysphoria.
True. I sometimes wish I was a girl, but I dont hate my current gender or feel bad about it.
Created:
Posted in:
Romans 1:26–27
"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."
Created:
Posted in:
Christians are increasingly saying: "We shouldnt tell homosexuals that they will burn in hell! Its rude.".
If that wasnt bad enough, then comparing transgender shooter to Jesus Christ is where one thing became obvious.
Christians are changing.
They are literally re-interpreting the Bible and claiming that it means something it never meant before.
Therefore, all people for thousands of years interpreted Bible incorrectly? What?
These people today are false Christians.
Sorry but homosexuality is wrong. I have every right to say that homosexuality is wrong by the Bible.
Bible does tell us to love and tolerate, but it also tells us to say whats wrong and whats right.
Thats why I say: homosexuality is wrong.
I believe its obvious that homosexuals are not God's favorite people.
If any homosexual does pervert stuff and thinks he's gonna be rewarded for that by the God who specifically pointed out that he hates perverts and homosexuals, well, I dont know what to tell him.
Delusions are strong today.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
Or just not allow kids access to the internet
Thats difficult. At best, you can keep them away from internet until they are 8-9.
With all their friends on internet, not allowing a kid on internet might cause social exclusion.
But yes, if people disagree that porn should be banned, they should at least agree to make it harder to find.
But again, the problem is: Older kids find porn and show it to younger kids. Older kids figure out how to find it.
Created:
Posted in:
So the only way to negate this is to say that children arent harmed by porn.
In that case, why does it say "+18"?
Because if children arent harmed by porn, why are people not allowed to directly show porn to children?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
Let me explain it in a different way.
Should adult have right to show porn to children?
If not, then why are adults allowed to show porn to children by placing it on the internet where children will obviously see it?
It logically follows that adults shouldnt expose children to porn by placing it on the internet.
If it is wrong to expose children to porn, then it logically follows that adults shouldnt expose children to porn by placing it on the internet.
It is wrong to expose children to porn.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
If one removes it 'completely, would people not be harmed,By the removal of their freedom?
If their freedom harms others, then do we still care about such freedom? If such freedom destroys freedom and life of others? Because putting porn on internet results in children seeing porn. There is no way around that statement.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
but I started to see porn at 9yo
I started at 7 or 8. Cant even remember exactly. Plus, back then kids could buy porn. The older kid buys porn and brings it to younger kids. No one cared. Now kids can find porn in 5 seconds and still no one cares lmao
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Slainte
Look, you are obviously not interested in honest debate, given that you intentionally play clueless about what I am saying. So we part ways.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Slainte
Someone watching porn is not trying to, or in actuality directly harming another.
That does not negate responsibility.
Your freedom to have porn on internet harms children.
Your freedom causes harm to children.
Therefore, either people should have freedom to do that which harms children, either they shouldnt.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Slainte
So what is the process you can use that justifies a ban on one item, and not a ban on the others. How do you reconcile that?
There is nothing to reconcile, given that the only purpose of porn is to cause sexual pleasure which results in harm.
If you want to stay consistent with "you have freedom until you start hurting others", then its irrelevant how many examples of allowed harm you point out.
Its not the inconsistency in my logic, rather it is inconsistency in Oromagi's logic.
If you say "You have freedom until you start hurting others", and then proceed to do bunch of things that hurt others, it is you who is inconsistent with your logic. Me pointing out that you are inconsistent, and then you bringing more examples of your inconsistency, does not make you any more consistent.
Its really simple.
Either you agree or disagree with the following:
"People should never have freedom to hurt others only for pleasure".
If you agree, then you cannot possibly approve of porn. If you disagree, then you dont have a moral system at all.
Created:
Posted in:
Humans are the worst species that ever existed. By all standards.
Created:
Posted in:
Also, notice:
BDSM porn is literally available on YouTube. It is available in public too during gay parades.
If men showing their naked asses in public and whipping each other's asses in public is good for children to see, then we might be having a bit of a problem with our mentality as society.
Created:
Posted in:
"Most of the teens in our survey (73%) reported that they have seen online pornography. Of those who said they have seen it, 54% reported that they saw it by age 13, including the 15% surveyed who saw pornography for the first time before they turned 11."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Society was better before porn. Porn serves no role in society other than making people feel worse and less motivated. Maybe it helps some people who are lonely, but most people end up worse than without porn. So the harm outweights the benefit.
The only way you can argue that its freedom would be to argue that it doesnt cause harm to others that others didnt consent to.
Now, it obviously causes harm to women in porn, but they consent to harm.
It causes harm to addicts, but lets say they consent to harm.
However, if we agree that it causes harm to children by:
1) Children being exposed to porn,
2) Adults who watch porn are more likely to molest kids due to porn creating perversions,
3) Children exposed to porn are more likely to later end up molesting a child.
Therefore, if the only point of porn is your pleasure, and if it results in harming children, it follows that you are harming children for your pleasure.
The only way you can negate this is by saying:
1) Porn doesnt harm children
2) Children, just like adults, consent to harm
Now, obviously, both of these are absurd positions to hold. All statistics point that 1) is not true. And children obviously cant consent to harm when they dont even know that porn is harmful for them, so 2) doesnt work.
Simply, you cannot hold a position that "hurting others is freedom". Everyone who studied freedom morality argues that you cannot use your freedom to cause harm to others, given that others didnt consent to be harmed in such way.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Porn is a fantastic thing for single people who aren't getting laid to use to aid their orgasms
Science disagrees. In fact, porn addicts end up with less freedom, less happiness, less will to live, depression... and a bunch of sexual perversions that they learned about thanks to porn.
Literally society became worse with porn being available. It doesnt help those who cant get laid. It merely teases them lmao
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Look, if you are going to deny that it is harmful for children to watch porn, fine.
But remember, there are only two positions you can have:
1) Porn results in nothing good, but it harms children
2) Porn results in nothing good, but it doesnt harm children
"Porn results in nothing good" is a truism. There is no useful role that porn plays in society.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
knowingly risk harms to humans, including children, in exchange for any of our liberties
Ok, so you agree that its okay to harm children for your pleasure lmao
Created: