Freodin
Devout believer in a theologically different God
Solid or not... they are arguments that would need to be addressed.
Indeed, you have not. Not that I asked you repeatedly to do so.
Which might perhaps be better if you tried to find out what my position really is instead of going after strawmen and just evading any kind of argument.
That isn't an argument against inappropriate content.
I looked for an online definition, and found this one that I would have presented myself.
"printed or visual material containing the explicit description or display of sexual organs or activity, intended to stimulate sexual excitement."
So, "inappropriate content" isn't only material filmed with paid actors by "the inappropriate content industry".
inappropriate content is the cell-phone video that a couple made during sex and put online because they wanted to. inappropriate content is the webcam sessions that someone does from the safety of their own bedroom. inappropriate content is the stories written by amateurs and posted on online forums. inappropriate content is the pictures that someone drew of Marge and Homer Simpson having a go at it.
Have you ever heard of "Rule 34"? "If it exists, there is inappropriate content about it."
Heck, there is inappropriate content for "My little Pony"... and I dare say not many will argue that Twilight Sparkle was exploited.
Like exploitation. Again, exploitation is a part of many other fields and industries. For examples, there is the issue of "sweatshops" where workers, even young children, are subjected to horrible conditions with meager if any pay to manufacture things like shoes.
That is a problem. That is something I would call "immoral".
But somehow this does not mean that "shoes" are now immoral.
There's just a limit to my masochistic tendancies that I try not to exceed.
Upvote
0
