Register

Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Supreme Court rules in favor of anti-porn law

Thread starter zippy2006
Start date Saturday at 11:51 AM
Tags

age verification paxton porn pornography scotus supreme court

Jump to latest Follow Reply

Sort by date Sort by votes

B

BCP1928

Well-Known Member

Yesterday at 4:01 PM

Yesterday at 4:01 PM

zippy2006 said:
@ThatRobGuy if you're not just throwing things at the wall and hoping something sticks, then finally explain to us why you are not against speed limits.

Why should he object to speed limits? He could oppose a particular speed limit law without objecting to speed limits generally. If we object to a stupid pornography law which won't address the stated problem, are we then obliged to oppose all laws? Can you then accuse us of wanting to provide pornography to children? That seems to be what you are trying to do.

•••

Upvote 0

zippy2006

Dragonsworn

Yesterday at 4:14 PM

Yesterday at 4:14 PM

BCP1928 said:
Why should he object to speed limits?

Because he literally compared the law he opposes to a speed limit law. Did you even read the post linked?

•••

Upvote 0

B

BCP1928

Well-Known Member

Yesterday at 4:23 PM

Yesterday at 4:23 PM

zippy2006 said:
Because he literally compared the law he opposes to a speed limit law. Did you even read the post linked?

It doesn't make any difference. If you think that because he opposes a particular law he must oppose all laws there is really nothing more I can say to you.

Reactions: zippy2006

•••

Upvote 0

J

Jamdoc

Watching and Praying Always

Yesterday at 4:23 PM

Yesterday at 4:23 PM

Tropical Wilds said:
View attachment 367052

Which brings me back to my original point:

Guns kill people and viewing porn does not, yet somehow limiting access to porn to “keep kids safe” is applauded, but limiting access to guns to keep kids safe is an unreasonable and offensive thing to ask.

The morality police’s double standards are fun.

I said guns are harder to buy than browsing porn even under these laws, requiring not only ID's and background checks, and you go on to say ammo can be bought online without background checks.

That is moving goalposts, going from guns to ammo.

•••

Upvote 0

HBP

Active Member

Yesterday at 5:30 PM

Yesterday at 5:30 PM

Don't ask me how I know this, but you can view the pornographic videos from virtually any XXX site through Bing videos without having any direct contact whatsoever with the site. Turn off the Safe Search feature, plug in your XXX search of choice, and 400 videos will be right there on Bing, filled with ghastly looking, heavily tattooed people doing unspeakable things. Is Bing going to verify everyone's age? It all just seems like window dressing, a Band Aid on a shotgun wound, an exercise in futility. Porn is a fact of life - indeed, the biggest and most popular fact of life on the internet - and that isn't going to change. Protecting children??? 12-year-olds today know and have seen (and in some cases done) more than I knew when I'd been married five years. They also know how to circumvent things like age verification better than I ever will. I don't have an answer, but my guess is that age verification would make no difference at all. I would almost bet that being forced to watch ten hours of these ghastly looking, heavily tattooed people would be a more effective deterrent. Take away the mystery and forbidden fruit aspect and kids would probably get bored rather quickly.

•••

Upvote 0

Tropical Wilds

Little Lebowski Urban Achiever

Yesterday at 5:48 PM

Yesterday at 5:48 PM

Jamdoc said:
I said guns are harder to buy than browsing porn even under these laws, requiring not only ID's and background checks, and you go on to say ammo can be bought online without background checks.

Despite the fact that one is in theory not supposed to be able to do so as a minor because they’re supposed to furnish ID…

Jamdoc said:
That is moving goalposts, going from guns to ammo.

Are we really going to need me to explain to you how guns and ammo are connected to each other…? Because most people understand how ammo falls under gun regulation without requiring an explanation. If you do not, that’s fine… Unique, but fine… But that isn’t moving a goal post.

•••

Upvote 0

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd

Site Supporter

Yesterday at 6:21 PM

Yesterday at 6:21 PM

zippy2006 said:
@ThatRobGuy if you're not just throwing things at the wall and hoping something sticks, then finally explain to us why you are not against speed limits.

Why I'm not against them?...is because they're relatively non-intrusive and don't involve any of my personal info potentially getting leaked, it's merely a sign on the side of the road that people largely ignore, and for the 0.08% of speeding incidents that get pulled over, it's a $65 slap on the wrist.

Case in point, I just drove 350 miles today in preparation for the holiday weekend (a good portion of that way, doing above the speed limit)

If speed limits were enforced via a mandatory tracking chip in my car that was susceptible to leaks & hacks, then I'd have a big problem with it.

You can be "not against something" while still acknowledging that something is rather ineffective.

•••

Upvote 0

zippy2006

Dragonsworn

Yesterday at 6:32 PM

Yesterday at 6:32 PM

ThatRobGuy said:
You can be "not against something" while still acknowledging that something is rather ineffective.

So you think they are pointless, just like the Texas law. You are not against them because they don't require a so-called "mandatory tracking chip."

So you think speed limits are pointless, and that is precisely why you compared the Texas law to speed limits, no?

•••

Upvote 0

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd

Site Supporter

Yesterday at 6:43 PM

Yesterday at 6:43 PM

zippy2006 said:
So you think they are pointless, just like the Texas law. You are not against them because they don't require a so-called "mandatory tracking chip."

So you think speed limits are pointless, and that is precisely why you compared the Texas law to speed limits, no?

Yes, they're both pointless in terms of efficacy.

The reason why I oppose one and not the other is because when someone speeds (like I did today) there's no data being collected that's going to be used to potentially blackmail them or use it against them for ulterior motives later.

And BTW, this is going to hurt republicans more than democrats. Democrats are less hung up on matters relating to sexual proclivities or looking at porn. As where, when it comes out one day (due to a hack/leak, that "hacktivists" are most certainly going to embark on) that Republican Candidate Joe Shmoe was watching transgender orgy videos, his career is ruined.

•••

Upvote 0

zippy2006

Dragonsworn

Yesterday at 6:58 PM

Yesterday at 6:58 PM

ThatRobGuy said:
Yes, they're both pointless in terms of efficacy.

Right, this is your argument:

1. An anti-porn law is like a speed limit law
2. A speed limit law is pointless
3. Therefore, an anti-porn law is pointless

And here's the truth:

1. An anti-porn law is like a speed limit law
4. A speed limit law is not pointless
5. Therefore, an anti-porn law is not pointless

I think everyone can see that (2) is false and (4) is true. You've been dishing out gish gallop, and in this case your argument not only failed: it backfired. The anti-porn law is not pointless for many of the same reasons a speed limit law is not pointless, and all of the dumb objections that so many here have been giving against the anti-porn law are just as dumb as the parallel objections to the speed limit law.

•••

Upvote 0

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd

Site Supporter

Yesterday at 8:07 PM

Yesterday at 8:07 PM

zippy2006 said:
this is your argument

1. An anti-porn law is like a speed limit law
2. A speed limit law is pointless
3. Therefore, an anti-porn law is pointless

And here's the truth:

1. An anti-porn law is like a speed limit law
4. A speed limit law is not pointless
5. Therefore, an anti-porn law is not pointless

No, my argument is that much like those speed limit signs didn't stop me from setting the cruise at 80+ on I-76 in PA earlier (and then slowing down when Waze and Google maps reported there were cops ahead), an anti-porn law isn't going to stop anyone from looking at porn when there are a plethora of mechanisms to get around it, and a plethora of sites that aren't under the obligation to obey the rules of any particular US jurisdiction.

The key difference being, the proposal for the anti-porn law involves putting the personal data of less-tech savvy older people at risk, while the speed limit laws don't.

This isn't rocket science, I'm not sure why this is so tough to grasp unless you're being deliberately disingenuous.

Let's skip ahead to the last chapter here (in terms of how this will actually play out in the real world -- not this fantasy world where all European porn producers will comply with a Texas law voluntarily and the FBI will develop magic powers to effectively crack down on anonymity-based providers next month, despite being stunningly bad at it for the last 20 years)

All of the younger people are well versed in circumnavigating these proposed blocks, or already have the European sites that provide the same kinds of content committed to memory.

It will be the older people (who are legally allowed to look at it, and not the target demographic of the restriction) who will unwittingly upload their personal information to porn sites and subject themselves to risk.

•••

Upvote 0

zippy2006

Dragonsworn

Yesterday at 10:22 PM

Yesterday at 10:22 PM

Well let's see if we can get at least one valid argument into your mouth amidst all of this gish gallop you are pushing out. I said:

zippy2006 said:
Right, this is your argument:

1. An anti-porn law is like a speed limit law
2. A speed limit law is pointless
3. Therefore, an anti-porn law is pointless

You replied:

ThatRobGuy said:
No, my argument is that much like those speed limit signs didn't stop me from setting the cruise at 80+ on I-76 in PA earlier (and then slowing down when Waze and Google maps reported there were cops ahead), an anti-porn law isn't going to stop anyone from looking at porn when there are a plethora of mechanisms to get around it, and a plethora of sites that aren't under the obligation to obey the rules of any particular US jurisdiction.

I said that you are claiming that speed limit signs are pointless. You said, "No, I am saying that they didn't stop me from speeding." So they're not pointless, but they didn't stop you from speeding? So what is your argument supposed to be? I'll help you with the outline:

1. Those speed limit signs didn't stop me from speeding
2. ...
n. Therefore, this is a bad law

Let's see if you can manage a real, valid argument.

•••

Upvote 0

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd

Site Supporter

Today at 8:45 AM

Today at 8:45 AM

zippy2006 said:
Well let's see if we can get at least one valid argument into your mouth amidst all of this gish gallop you are pushing out. I said:

You replied:

I said that you are claiming that speed limit signs are pointless. You said, "No, I am saying that they didn't stop me from speeding." So they're not pointless, but they didn't stop you from speeding? So what is your argument supposed to be? I'll help you with the outline:

1. Those speed limit signs didn't stop me from speeding
2. ...
n. Therefore, this is a bad law

Let's see if you can manage a real, valid argument.

You're intentionally mixing different facets of the conversation together or misunderstanding my argument.

I did say the signs are pointless... But what I was elaborating on was that the "pointlessness" of a law isn't determining factor in whether or not I have strong opposition to it. The risks associated with enforcement mechanism are the main point of contention.

So lets try the reader's digest version here:

1) Speed limit signs are pretty pointless (180 million instances of speeding happen every day, only 0.08% are apprehended)
2) Laws trying to get people to stop looking at porn are pointless (everyone's going to find a way to do it)

The reason why I have an objection to #2, but a "meh" attitude towards #1, is because with #2, people of your political ilk will try to use the "possibility/looming threat of a digital paper trail" to hang over peoples' heads to try to intimidate people out of doing things they don't like.

If the mechanism for enforcing speed limits was a tracking chip in my car that that created the potential risk of someone finding out what kinds of stores and establishments I'm going to, then I would have a problem with that too.

•••

Upvote 0

durangodawood

re Member

Today at 9:04 AM

Today at 9:04 AM

ThatRobGuy said:
1) Speed limit signs are pretty pointless (180 million instances of speeding happen every day, only 0.08% are apprehended)

This is not a very thoughtful way to declare speed limit signs "pointless".

ThatRobGuy said:
If the mechanism for enforcing speed limits was a tracking chip in my car that that created the potential risk of someone finding out what kinds of stores and establishments I'm going to, then I would have a problem with that too.

What if recording was only engaged when speeding hit a certain threshold?

•••

Upvote 0

Pommer

CoPacEtiC SkEpTic

Today at 9:17 AM

Today at 9:17 AM

ThatRobGuy said:
1) Speed limit signs are pretty pointless (180 million instances of speeding happen every day, only 0.08% are apprehended)

In my Commonwealth, (Pennsylvania), only State Troopers are allowed to use radar, and must allow 10%. So on highways posted @70mph, 77mph is “okay”.
Local cops are limited to VASCAR (and the like) and must allow 10mph over the posted “speed limit”; 45mph in a posted 35mph. (@46mph, you’re liable for the full 11mph over the limit.)
The exceptions for both is if a LEO clocks your car with a (recently) calibrated speedometer then 1mph over posted is ticketable.

•••

Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

I learned to "count" to 666 !!

Site Supporter

Today at 9:17 AM

Today at 9:17 AM

durangodawood said:
This is not a very thoughtful way to declare speed limit signs "pointless".

What if recording was only engaged when speeding hit a certain threshold?

What amazes me is how these sorts of discussions always revolve around the "the users" and their apparent volitional access of questionable products. Little analysis is expended in deciding how to best contend with, and remove, the producers and their distributors.

My little ethically educated pea-brain has always wondered why this is the case. (....no, I'm not really wondering why. I know why, but apparently we're not supposed to talk about it...so the real discussion remains where it's been designated to remain: in the shadows of commerce, safely hidden behind regulations and other economic banter and non-biblically designated values.)

•••

Upvote 0

durangodawood

re Member

Today at 9:24 AM

Today at 9:24 AM

2PhiloVoid said:
What amazes me is how these sorts of discussions always revolve around the "the users" and their apparent volitional access of questionable products. Little analysis is expended in deciding how to best contend with, and remove, the producers and their distributors.

We tried removing the producers during prohibition. The results were so "great" that we gave up and decided it was best to let adults choose their own relationship with certain "vices". And distribution would be regulated to protect minors.

2PhiloVoid said:
My little ethically educated pea-brain has always wondered why this is the case. (....no, I'm not really wondering why. I know why, but apparently we're not supposed to talk about it...so the real discussion remains where it's been designated to remain: in the shadows of commerce.)

So.... why?

•••

Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

I learned to "count" to 666 !!

Site Supporter

Today at 9:33 AM

Today at 9:33 AM

durangodawood said:
We tried removing the producers during prohibition. The results were so "great" that we gave up and decided it was best to let adults choose their own relationship with certain "vices". And distribution would be regulated to protect minors.

Do you see why prohibition isn't a good analog to the interior issues involved in human sexual psychology?

But adults should be protected too. That's not happening because the legal definitions assume that adults are somehow reasonable where human sexuality is concerned, especially when it comes in combination with money and power/privilege.

durangodawood said:
So.... why?

Because money makes the world go round, the world go round, the world go round....

•••

Upvote 0

durangodawood

re Member

Today at 9:41 AM

Today at 9:41 AM

2PhiloVoid said:
Do you see why prohibition isn't a good analog to the interior issues involved in human sexual psychology?

I dont. I mean, of course they arent exactly the same. But close enough to use for comparing govt policies. Dont forget just how addictive alcohol can be.

2PhiloVoid said:
But adults should be protected too. That's not happening because the legal definitions assume that adults are somehow reasonable where human sexuality is concerned, especially when it comes in combination with money and power/privilege.

Do we assume adults are reasonable? I dont. But we've determined they are entitled to a certain amount of liberty, which includes making their own mistakes to an extent.

2PhiloVoid said:
Because money makes the world go round, the world go round, the world go round....

Definitely part of it. But I think principled liberty is also a factor.

•••

Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

I learned to "count" to 666 !!

Site Supporter

Today at 9:44 AM

Today at 9:44 AM

durangodawood said:
I dont. I mean, of course they arent exactly the same. But close enough to use for comparing govt policies. Dont forget just how addictive alcohol can be.

When was the last time you've heard about large numbers of children becoming addicted to alcohol?

durangodawood said:
Do we assume adults are reasonable? I dont. But we've determined they are entitled to a certain amount of liberty, which includes making their own mistakes to an extent.

Yes, and it's in our philosophies of "liberty" that the denotations (and their unspoken, personalized connotations) are legally defined and arbitrated.

durangodawood said:
Definitely part of it. But I think principled liberty is also a factor.

"Liberty" is a protean meme and becomes whatever the ruling factions say it is.

•••

Upvote 0

Show hidden low quality content

Similar threads

Supreme Court Protects Minors From Gender Ideology

Replies: 1

Views: 117

OBOB General Politics Forum Jun 19, 2025

RileyG

Supreme Court Protects Minors From Gender Ideology

Replies: 1

Views: 123

One Bread, One Body - Catholic Jun 19, 2025

RileyG

Parents vs. Porn: Supreme Court Hears Challenge to Texas Age-Verification Law

Replies: 3

Views: 454

General Politics Jan 18, 2025

RileyG

T

Supreme Court rules against immigrants in temporary status seeking green cards

Replies: 11

Views: 509

News & Current Events (Articles Required) Dec 16, 2024

Diamond72

Supreme Court turns down porn group’s plea to block Texas age-verification law

Replies: 10

Views: 566

One Bread, One Body - Catholic May 1, 2024

Michie

Share:

Reddit Pinterest Tumblr WhatsApp Email Link

Top Bottom

Jump to latest Follow Reply

Jump to latest Follow Reply