• 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

Jump to latest Follow Reply

Thoughts?

  • Total voters
    17
  • This poll will close: .
Sort by date Sort by votes
zippy2006

zippy2006

Dragonsworn
Nov 9, 2013
7,637
3,844
✟289,713.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
ThatRobGuy said:
what is it exactly that you're looking for me to answer or say here?
Click to expand...
I'm looking for you to admit that your whole introduction of speed limits into this thread was based on your premise that speed limit laws are pointless or otiose, like trying to get the contents back into Pandora's Box.

If you don't hold to that view, then your argument from speed limits makes no sense at all.

ThatRobGuy said:
Okay, fine, forget all the speed limit stuff, pretend it never happened...
Click to expand...
This is more sophistry. You can't just delete a whole part of the conversation and abdicate your responsibility for it. "Pretend I didn't say that," is not a valid move in a debate. In a debate you must either admit you were wrong or else defend your point. You can't squeak away and hope your gish gallop went unnoticed. When something you said creates problems for your position, you are not allowed to say, "(I won't admit I was wrong, but) Pretend I didn't say that."
 
Upvote 0
ThatRobGuy

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Site Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
27,877
16,868
Here
✟1,448,534.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
zippy2006 said:
I'm looking for you to admit that your whole introduction of speed limits into this thread was based on your premise that speed limit laws are pointless or otiose, like trying to get the contents back into Pandora's Box.

If you don't hold to that view, then your argument from speed limits makes no sense at all.


This is more sophistry. You can't just delete a whole part of the conversation and abdicate your responsibility for it. "Pretend I didn't say that," is not a valid move in a debate. In a debate you must either admit you were wrong or else defend your point. You can't squeak away and hope your gish gallop went unnoticed. When something you said creates problems for your position, you are not allowed to say, "(I won't admit I was wrong, but) Pretend I didn't say that."
Click to expand...
It's because you keep snipping little pieces parts and delving into the minutia of the comparison.

I do still hold the view that both are pointless and largely unenforceable due to society creating the conditions that make it that way.

I was simply trying to make a comparison to another law that gets almost universally ignored and that's almost impossible to enforce with any sort of noteworthy efficacy. (Just like the Texas porn law will be) That's all.


Let me guess, here comes a "So now you do want to compare them again? gish gollop gish gollop, yada yada yada!"

The reason why I wanted to eliminate that part of the conversation is because you're not having a good faith debate here. Latching onto the minutia of a side-comparison, and not wanting to let it go because you seem to think doing so equates to some sort of "debate win"


Let me guess, it's because you fancy yourself as doing the "Socratic debate method" like Andrew Breitbart used to do?
 
Upvote 0
ThatRobGuy

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Site Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
27,877
16,868
Here
✟1,448,534.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Okay...just for fun

I was wrong to compare it to speed limit laws, it was a bad comparison (I should've used a gun analogy). You win on that point, I concede


Now back to the actual topic, tell me how this porn law will be both effectively enforceable (in an international context) and in a way that guarantees that nobody's porn proclivities will be exposed to 3rd parties and used against them.
 
Upvote 0
zippy2006

zippy2006

Dragonsworn
Nov 9, 2013
7,637
3,844
✟289,713.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
ThatRobGuy said:
It's because you keep snipping little pieces parts and delving into the minutia of the comparison.
Click to expand...
That's called argument. When you dump gish gallop out of your five-gallon bucket we have to look at the actual arguments you are making. That you are averse to examining your arguments is evidence that it really is just gish gallop.

ThatRobGuy said:
I was simply trying to make a comparison to another law that gets almost universally ignored and that's almost impossible to enforce with any sort of noteworthy efficacy. (Just like the Texas porn law will be) That's all.
Click to expand...
But everyone disagrees with you. Do you care about that?

ThatRobGuy said:
I was wrong to compare it to speed limit laws, it was a bad comparison (I should've used a gun analogy). You win on that point, I concede
Click to expand...
Good. Now let's talk about why speed limit laws are not pointless or otiose. Once we remedy your extreme libertarianism, there will presumably be little motive left to oppose the Texas law. Further, the fact that you have so much trouble with the simple matter of speed limits indicates that the much more complex issue of the Texas law will be too difficult. Let's start with the easy case and work our way up.

Something is pointless or otiose if it is serving no practical purpose. Therefore if a speed limit law is not pointless or otiose then it must be serving some practical purpose. durangodawood says:

durangodawood said:
Speed limits and signs give people a sense of the de facto acceptable window for speed,. Theres places all over here with 45 mph limits where people keep it to around 50 - but loads would be doing 60+ if it was entirely up to their own judgement. Its a heck of lot better than no signs, no limits.
Click to expand...
So why do people drive slower in a 45 than in a 55? There must be a reason, and if speed limit signs were otiose then they would not drive slower in a 45.

ThatRobGuy said:
We've intentionally designed and marketed cars to go well over 75mph... even the base level "soccer mom van" will do 80mph+ if you put the pedal down.
Click to expand...
How is this point at all relevant? If cars could not surpass 55 mph, then there would be no need for a 55 mph speed limit. The only reason we have speed limits is because cars can go fast. Your idea that, "Speed limits are pointless because cars can go fast," is completely absurd and backwards. This is part and parcel of your deep misunderstanding of law itself. Laws only exist where there is a capacity and even a propensity for breaking them. "We can break laws therefore laws are otiose," is perhaps one of the worst arguments ever.
 
Upvote 0
L

loveofourlord

Newbie
Feb 15, 2014
9,086
5,054
✟321,829.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
bèlla said:
Who would vote against legislation to protect children on a christian website? Pornography is addicting and the court is right to do so. They wouldn’t have access if parents would use the resources available to block access. Which includes network monitoring and special phones.

~bella
Click to expand...

easy, giving an easy catalogue of who all is using porn, especially with gay/trans and other things being a hot button issue that could easily be used by the goverment? And as others have mentioned these are often hacked and the sites use stuff for their own use, this isn't about protecting children and more about trying to make it so most people don't use it.

Of course whats funny is the people railing against porn and think of the children use it more then the rest of us.
 
Upvote 0
L

loveofourlord

Newbie
Feb 15, 2014
9,086
5,054
✟321,829.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
BCP1928 said:
No, the issue is passing a law that is obviously unable to carry out its intended purpose. One wonders why. Are the legislators clueless about the internet? I think many actually are. Are they merely signalling something?" "See? We stomped out internet porn. Hooray!" Are there possible unintended consequences we have to look out for?
Click to expand...
it's been suggested seeing what porn people watch and keeping track of it, is agood way to have a list of people if later it's decided to use against, oh look that person is into gay porn, or trans
 
Upvote 0
ThatRobGuy

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Site Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
27,877
16,868
Here
✟1,448,534.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
BCP1928 said:
No, the issue is passing a law that is obviously unable to carry out its intended purpose. One wonders why. Are the legislators clueless about the internet? I think many actually are. Are they merely signalling something?" "See? We stomped out internet porn. Hooray!" Are there possible unintended consequences we have to look out for?
Click to expand...

I would say in this case, the "unintended" consequences are a feature, not a bug.

Artificially attaching new "risk" to an activity they don't approve of, as to dissuade adults from doing it, is part of the thought process on it.


I believe the name they use for it is "Chilling Effect", often used to describe regulations or policies that deter people from exercising legal rights or engaging in legal activities due to fear of exposure, or social stigma.

For example, the pre-1965 laws that used to require people to register with the Post Office in order to receive what they deemed "subversive literature". While the literature itself wasn't illegal, and they couldn't legally tell people "you're not allowed to look at that", the rule stating that you had to show up at the post office and register with your ID to take receipt of it was clearly meant as a deterrence that capitalized on the fear people had of ending up on a stigmatized list and the trepidation about "what if the wrong people got their hands on that list". (hence the reason the Supreme court shot it down in '65)

I would suggest the same is occurring with this situation.
 
Upvote 0
zippy2006

zippy2006

Dragonsworn
Nov 9, 2013
7,637
3,844
✟289,713.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
In general a lot of people confuse nature with artifacts. They think the way the internet is is the only way it could ever be. They think it is nature. They think that any attempt to change the internet would be like an attempt to change the tides. This is all quite mistaken and shortsighted.
 
Upvote 0
RileyG

RileyG

Veteran
Christian Forums Staff
Moderator Trainee
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Feb 10, 2013
34,857
20,229
29
Nebraska
✟727,242.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Celibate
Politics
US-Republican
Laeomis said:
Pornography should be outlawed at the production level. It is practically prostitution, which is illegal. Most pornography comes from a few states. The head of the serpent has to be cut off.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree at all, but I think it's almost impossible to ban it. People will find a way to view it. Much like alcohol prohibition etc
 
Upvote 0

Similar threads

Michie
Supreme Court Protects Minors From Gender Ideology
Replies
1
Views
138
OBOB General Politics Forum
RileyG
RileyG
Michie
Supreme Court Protects Minors From Gender Ideology
Replies
1
Views
133
One Bread, One Body - Catholic
RileyG
RileyG
Michie
Parents vs. Porn: Supreme Court Hears Challenge to Texas Age-Verification Law
Replies
3
Views
458
General Politics
RileyG
RileyG
T
Supreme Court rules against immigrants in temporary status seeking green cards
Replies
11
Views
518
News & Current Events (Articles Required)
Diamond72
Diamond72
Michie
Supreme Court turns down porn group’s plea to block Texas age-verification law
Replies
10
Views
568
One Bread, One Body - Catholic
Michie
Michie
Top Bottom
Jump to latest Follow Reply
Jump to latest Follow Reply