tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6587700778834733354.post3997906732490200302..comments2023-11-27T11:16:11.797-05:00Comments on Skeptic but Jewish: Porn Censorship in UKBaruch Spinozahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11879864721961862810noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6587700778834733354.post-26411075758725525762010-12-23T14:51:50.778-05:002010-12-23T14:51:50.778-05:00If we have to limit access to things on the intern...If we have to limit access to things on the internet, I say keep the porn and get rid of comments about economics. Surely you're aware of the epidemic of addiction to lefty economics blogs. It's just common sense that we need to protect ourselves against this.Puzzledhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12866127197554237039noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6587700778834733354.post-7349737419273237092010-12-23T12:29:38.767-05:002010-12-23T12:29:38.767-05:00"I'm all for this approach.":
Of co..."I'm all for this approach.":<br /><br />Of course you are. I could have seen it from a parsec away. You do not care about freedom despite how much you say you do and so I am not surprised when you come out and say your support of this law. <br /><br />"I think you are failing to note the growing epidemic of porn addiction that is destroying relationships.": <br /><br />Addiction? Seriously? Epidemic? Seriously? Those words are used by people who are too weak. Those words are used by people who do not want to assume any personal responsibility. Heroin, that is a real addiction. Nicotine, that is another real addition. Your body physically needs those substances in it. How is food addiction and porn addiction real addictions? Does your body physically need them? No. So stop calling them addictions. Just say that compulsive eaters and porn watchers are weak. <br /><br />I know that you do not care about liberty. So I can still try to persuade you by using a completely different argument. It is standard for people who support a ban on something to immediately assume that this ban will work and prevent what needs to be done. But why do you assume this? You need to give a justification to why you think that this ban will "protect marriages" or whatever it is you want to protect. The government's tract record of legislating morality is abysmal. It did not work for alchohol, it does not work with drugs, it does not work with tobacco, it does not work with prostitution, and the list goes on. What possibly can make you think that this law will be the golden law that will prove to be an exception? <br /><br />I also find what you say extremely funny, "Honey, I know that our marriage is not doing so well, so instead of us fixing it ourselves I suggest to get the government involved in our relationship because that will fix it". <br /><br />"Common sense suggests that society can decide upon standards of decency.": <br /><br />Stop using political euphemisms. All what the word "society" means in that sentence is just a euphemism for "government". The government cannot decide standards of morality when it is the largest violator for morality. Asking the government to be moral and decide what is moral is like asking a group of creationist priests to decide the standards of science.Baruch Spinozahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11879864721961862810noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6587700778834733354.post-63583401364895762822010-12-23T09:02:27.482-05:002010-12-23T09:02:27.482-05:00I'm all for this approach. I hope it comes to...I'm all for this approach. I hope it comes to the United States as well. I think you are failing to note the growing epidemic of porn addiction that is destroying relationships. When Hollywood had its code and porn was hard to come by was the United States a worse place to live in? <br /><br />Your slippery slope arguments have some merit, but they are overwrought (as is typical on this blog). Common sense suggests that society can decide upon standards of decency.Herr Snooblerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05235146307373159873noreply@blogger.com