Respectfully, while I would agree that the law is for sinners, I do not believe that the laws will help in compliance, which is why I said the inside of the cup must be cleaned in the first place. In fact I am pretty sure that sexual assault was already against the law in Nepal before outlawing inappropriate contentography. And scripture even says that the law is the strength of sin.
Again all true but you are emphasizing the difference between the righteous versus the unrighteous. A Christian walking in the spirit, needs no law but Nepal has very few believers and I doubt that will change anytime soon. Thus, I guess for sinners that will never be converted, stronger laws often will increase obedience. I assume the government will censure internet traffic, so even removing 99% will cause inappropriate content viewership to decrease. To an extent this is sort of like Rosseau's idea that government institutions can force a man to be free. Of course they can not, but again, limiting access will help. Still, the question remains whether inappropriate content is associated with sexual assault. Here the research is inconclusive, studies have shown both yes and no on this question. Outlawing inappropriate content would be a step in the right direction, even if it has no association with sexual assault.
Yes I understand what you're meaning to say. If I may, I would only articulate it differently, as in two different types of righteousness. I would also add that there is the law of Christ that we walk in (love others as yourself) that is always present through the empathy of the Holy Spirit. It is through the reasoning of this law that I find the Holy Spirit both compels me to good works and convicts me of sin. So Christ inside us is a different righteousness than obedience to the letter of the law, since it addresses the inside of the cup by living in us.
Obedience to what though? Apart from the differing degrees of what is inappropriate content subjectively speaking, there's a difference to an obedience to not watch inappropriate content and an obedience to not sexually assault. The latter obedience could probably only be enforced by a greater police presence. And as pertains to the question of what is inappropriate content, every man by nature has a weakness for the female anatomy. I wonder at what point God would see hypocrisy since we will be judged according to what measure we use to judge others. Isn't this why Paul said, Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things...?
There's a reason why totalitarianism will never work, because it is a futile hypocritical attempt to instill what cannot be enforced, the empathy of the Holy Spirit. You can't just police people's thoughts. I do not believe Limiting access to inappropriate content will do anything more than make it a little harder to access. I do believe that less exposure to the mind is a good thing for keeping the mind off it, but in the end virtue is more than just a matter of self discipline in my experience.
There's a difference between outlawing inappropriate content and limiting access. If one outlawed inappropriate content, it would probably instantly turn a significant portion of the population into criminals. Might as well enforce burkas. I'm sure both watching inappropriate content and sexual assault are similar in that they both come from lust of the flesh, as does all sin. But I do not think one leads to the other.
"Leftism" isn't even a thing in most western countries. Liberalism, yes, but not leftism. The two terms are different.
Except that the USA has led the way overwhelmingly in the spread of inappropriate contentography. And the very computers we use these days, faster and better screen resolution, were developed to supply a 'need' for the viewing of internet inappropriate content.
