What was the last thing you did for your country?


Al Qaeda has been using porn as a means of exchanging messages quietly, mostly by hiding files and other things on the DVDs. Bin Laden didn’t have it simply to watch it, but that isn’t to say he didn’t partake.


1 No, I do see your point; but I think you’re mistaken about what is worse. If you give up standing up for principle when it’s pragmatic not to, it’s easier to give up more and more principles when practical considerations work against you. A cascade failure of principles is far worse than a cascade failure of government laws.

2 Define the “social cost.”

3 I outlined the “full picture” above; if a society doesn’t have principles, it won’t have laws worth having.

4 They are, however, in opposition to each other. There used to be a lot fewer victims of pornography in the decades in which it was illegal. Yes, I know, the internet. But yet again, it doesn’t excuse not trying.

5 Hogwash. Perhaps in a legal sense it’s deemed so, but in an absolute moral sense, consent DOES NOT EQUAL lack of victimization. Yeah, we’re talking about law; but if again, if it isn’t law based on moral principle, it isn’t worth dirt.
6 However unpragmatic it is, there’s nothing ham-fisted in standing up for what’s right. Including in law.
7 No, not as “some central planner” saw it; as THE Central Planner (God) sees it; freedom without a moral foundation is license, and is just as unviable as law without foundation. And law with it is worth having.
8 Not to the point of allowing perverts to manipulate girls fresh out of high school. And porn IS a tool for tyrants.

1 It sure didn’t when I was a kid.
2 Because many thousands (probably tens of thousands) of young women are being HURT by this.
3 I’m not prescribing it; God did. I have some understanding of the reasons why.

No, I can’t dictate what people believe. But given the chance and ability, you better believe I’ll fight what some perverts do. I refer to item 2. for the reason why.

4 And they usually don’t know how much that money is going to cost them in other ways.
5 And there’s nothing healthy about it; they’re hurting themselves whether they know it or not, and they’re feeding someone else’s porn addiction.
6 Yes, it can be in other fields, and it’s dispicable there, too. But in the case of porn, the effect is particularly profound. As to coercing, it’s hard to prove much of the time. And you bet that the perverts would cover themselves to make it almost all of the time if the law forced them to. It’s much easier to prove that pornography happened.

7 There’s nothing arbitrary or unfair about citing real and tangible harms of porn.
8 To a point; but not nearly as strong a one (particularly in regard to guns and cars; the latter are, to a significant degree, more or less of a daily necessity in the modern world, and the former in the hands of large numbers of private citizens prevent purges; no realistic redeeming value can be assigned to porn).
9 They could say it, but I think I can confidently say that existing studies would make a hash of that argument; but not of mine.

10 As I noted in response to AS above, consent doesn’t equal victimless. And what with the various ills of porn and the fact that there are a lot of dirty manipulative perverts, porn well worth fighting; in both social and legal venues.

11 No; God defined good and evil; I’m basing my beliefs on what He taught.

12 Hardly. I want to PROTECT women from exploitation; fundamentalist Muslims consider women to be objects of exploitation.
13 Off the top of my head, prostitution and socialism.


Your policy erodes the rule of law. That is worse than anything you can throw at the pornography industry.

You don’t have the capability to enforce this and laws have to answer to efficacy. That is why Prohibition failed.
With all the societal damage drinking causes, all the violence, all the domestic strain, it still isn’t worse than the atmosphere you create when you try to ban it.

Pornography is no different.

Government does not have absolute power in this aspect of human behavior. It’s only choice is to regulate.

Who said giving up? Regulate it, that is the best answer to your concerns.

You woud realize that, if asked yourself what actually decreases exploitation.

Legal porn industries behave better than illegal ones, fact. There’s less exploitation in legal industries, fact, and you can set controls so people don’t contract or spread around STDs, fact.

We can control the problem, we just don’t need to make it illegal. Making it illegal, just makes the problems of this behavior worse and unmanageable.

Now you’re saying that you can read people’s thoughts.

A neutral viewing of the industry, would tell you most of these people get into it voluntarily. No one is coercing them, they’re doing it of their own volition.

You’re taking a theoretical issue, and applying it to everyone, without first trying to see if it’s the norm, or the exception.

And from what I’ve seen it’s the exception. One which we can mitigate with regulation far better than by making it illegal.

Yes there is; again, Prohibition. There is not an automatic path from harms being caused, and making that “something” illegal.

That’s what the Progressives assumed, and they were wrong. Terribly, terribly wrong. They still get it wrong today, as they do with guns and trans-fats.

Zealotry will simply lead you to causing collateral harms, which you will ignore.

God hates drunkenness; yet getting drunk is still legal. So no, this doesn’t mean we should ban something.

It may mean we mitigate it in ours laws, try to control the harm, but it doesn’t mean we must make it illegal.


Sorry, but I think YOU are the one who’s wrong here, AS. Prohibition was NOT the “scourge” that you and other pseudo-historians portray it to have been. Yes, there was a criminal faction that took advantage of it. Joe Kennedy, the patriarch of the Kennedy clan, was one such. The family STILL owns a lot of Seagram’s stock and MOST of their wealth stems from the bootlegging age. Still, MOST Americans did NOT disobey the anti-alcohol laws. Some did–as everybody knows–but the majority did NOT. Neither did non-drinkers, in the main, suddenly decide to BECOME drinkers in defiance of Prohibition.


So your motivation is compassion for others. You want restrict others to protect them from hellfire? Because you think you know better what would be the best for them than they know it for themselves.

As I said before: This is just what you believe. Probably some will experience it as unpleasant but aren’t other jobs unpleasant too?
Some act in porn voluntary because they do not want to work hard in another job.

Why do you know better what is hurting them, than they know if for themselves? How do you know acting in porn is hurtful at all? You never acted in porn – or did you?

“Being hurt without knowing it” isn’t this impossible?

Would you forbid every substance or behaviour that can lead to addiction or problems: violent TV-series, sweets, alcohol, computer games, cigarettes,… )?
Couldn’t non-sexauls jobs be humiliating too? Would you forbid them too (e.g. running around in a Ronald-McDonald costume)?

But you define which sacred writings should be accepted as the truth. I want to live in a Jewish/Christian- society too, but I do not tell people that they HAVE TO believe in Christianity and live along Christian rules. I accept agnostics or moderate Christs too. Aren’t you?


Murder rates skyrocketed, organized crime skyrocketed, deaths from alcohol skyrocketed. Corruption among officials and police skyrocketed.

People started drinking alcohol at a younger age.

Yeah, you can’t look at those collateral effects, and say anything but “failure”. The death toll especially is what people used the most to rail against the drys and their agenda.


I agree. In fact, I believe more people started drinking after prohibition was repealed, because now it was “respectable.” Before prohibition, not many people considered it respectable.


I would submit that MANY more people died as a result of the REPEAL of Prohibition that ever did DURING it, so “deaths” is a loser for your point of view.


Evidence says no:

After gradually increasing in the 20’s, the 1930s saw a long, steep decline in homicides.

Government has no more ability to control alcohol effects than it does gun violence. To support either means that you’re a Progressive, who believes in a “Transformative” power of Government. That Government makes the society, not the other way around.


1 Wrong. Enabling attitudes by not slamming the legal door on it is worse than not being able to 100% enforce laws against it (remember that porn used to be illegal; and FAR more scarce). No law can be completely enforced (elsewise, they wouldn’t be broken, and we wouldn’t need courts), but it can’t be reasonably denied that bad behavior gets worse when you legalize it (regulation of the behavior not withstanding). Your use of “rule of law” do not constitute magic words to me. By the way, computer viruses are legion, and many are not stopped in a timely manner; nor does the problem go away. Yet AV software still serves a very useful purpose. As do laws against porn, when law enforcement and the judiciary apply them.
2 Except that others have argued that prohibition did NOT fail (yes, I’ve seen your counter arguments; Mom was a lot closer to the time, and I’ll take her word for it).
3 I’ve already made the argument that it IS different.
4 Government doesn’t have absolute power to prevent murder (obviously). But in a like vein, that’s no excuse not to try. And no, it ISN’T its only choice.

5 I’ve already made my argument as to why that’s not so.
6 I did. Obviously, I didn’t come to the same conclusion.
7 A little, maybe. And unlike illegal ones, they’re legion. And I dare say that the legalization of porn has expanded illegal operations by making it possible for them to use legal ones as a front.
8 Already addressed.

9 I neither said nor implied nor gave any basis to creatively misinterpret me as saying such. If one voluntarily takes a shortcut through a minefield and gets their leg blown off, they’re no less a victim, their poor decision not withstanding. I haven’t looked at actual documentation, but the psychological and sociological harm of porn is well known and pretty predictable.
10 I already addressed the fact that it’s largely impressionable young women being manipulated and hornswaggled into it by evil men who slick-talk them into thinking it’s not that bad. And I doubt that you truly have a handle on what the incidence of coercion is.
11 There’s nothing “theoretical” about the fact that this harm is real and universal. And the manipulation and scorn that the girls receive is the norm.
12 I suspect you’re not looking very hard. In any event, I’ll argue tooth and claw that the worst of it is pervasive enough to justify opposing the whole mess (legally as well as in social and political venues). There’s nothing redeeming about the industry, and MUCH serious harm that comes out of it.

13 I never said “automatic.” I DID say there’s no excuse not to try.
14 Their choice of causes is what’s wrong. Trans fats and guns are boogyman issues. Porn is a genuine universal harm.
15 It isn’t about zealotry; it’s about fighting evil regardless of the odds. And speaking of collateral harms, you seem to dismiss those of porn.

16 There are laws against the negative effects of drunkenness, and as has been mentioned, there was a law against drinking. Porn victims have none of these. And many of the effects of porn are, again, universal to those involved (participating or viewing).
17 Already made my argument as to porn being quite worse than drinking or many other social ills (although I’ll be amplifying it below).

1 I believe what God says in the Bible. As a Catholic, do you not? And yes, the issue is compassion.

2 No, it isn’t just what I believe. Porn is socialogically and psychologically harmful. It’s a violation of one’s self in an intimate manner (not just physically intimate). That’s a lot more than just an "unpleasant job."
3 As I noted to AS, “consent” doesn’t equal “victimless.”

4 Because I’ve been around the block a few more times than the young impressionable girls that pornographers seek out. I don’t have experience with being in porn (although I’m sorry to say that I used it quite a bit for a time), but I do have experience with intimate violation (sexually abused by my father; and no, the fact that it was forced and I was a juvenile weren’t the only harmful aspects).
5 No. Video gamers do it all the time, and some die of blood clots from remaining seated for hours at a time. People self-inflict or exacerbate physical and psychological conditions all the time without realizing it. They also do it and rationalize the harm away.

6 Every one? No. But porn is especially and deeply damaging.
7 Not so deeply personally, or so universally as porn. And in porn much of the humiliation is deliberately applied to keep the girl “in line” and in the trade.

8 Actually, Jesus pretty much defined which writings are sacred and are thus the truth. I believe Him. I don’t tell people they “have to believe.” I don’t even tell them not to do certain things like smoke or get tattoos, but as I indicated, the harm of porn is far more serious and intimate. I accept people, but I don’t accept porn any more than I accept prostitution, rape, or murder.

The Lord tells me to love all people. He doesn’t tell me to love- or enable- everything they do. He didn’t; that’s why He horsewhipped the moneychangers in the temple. I don’t think it is unreasonable to draw that to the analogy of our bodies as temples to God.


I notice your “chart” doesn’t include deaths from drunk drivers, AS. Why did you leave THOSE out?


Sorry, you’re still wrong:

Traffic deaths dipped in 1933, then didn’t rise again until ~1940.


Eroding rule of law is worse: You’re enabling corruption, you’re enabling a conduit for people to breaking other laws that are poorly enforced, you’re enabling worse practices which won’t be controlled by regulation.

You’re trying to prevent one bad thing, and in doing so, you set off multiple others. Not worth it.

You can’t hold pornography up in isolation; the total effect of this enforcement must be accounted for. And we know for one thing, you’d have to violate internet privacy rules just to attempt it.

Drinking got better. We drink far less today than we did in the 1930s.

Murder rate spiked, corruption increased dramatically, drinking, after initially falling, was increasing year after year.

I don’t say this anecdotally, I have the actual figures that were used by people living in the era to end Prohibition.

There’s also the fact that Prohibition was a progressive policy, predicated on progressive understanding of human nature.

When exactly has that ever been accurate?

Apples to oranges: murder can be enforced because there’s a consensus in the population that murder should be stopped.

There is no consensus on pornography. People will ignore it, and enable it, because they wil perceive the men & women involved in it as not being victims.

And if there is no consensus, you’re not going to manufacture one by passing a law. This is why gun laws trying to replicate European gun violence rates here are impossible.

Sorry, but this is where efficacy of law ends. This is a limitation of the reality we live in.

If you’re saying each measure of porn created is universally exploitation, then yes.

You are saying that you are reading the women’s thoughts, even veterans who have been involved in the industry for decades.

That is the only way you’d know they were victims, and not willful collaborators.

Keep in mind, they’re not children, and do have the capability to make up their own minds on this matter.

Nope; not in today’s world. Sorry.

You haven’t looked at all. I did.

Yeah, zealotry; you ignore broader conditions, hold it up in isolation to everything else, and don’t care about the defects or collateral damage you set off.

You ignore the fact that people can consent to this, and pretend to read their minds to assume “all” are victims.

You pretend that law can “fix” moral quandaries in society. Even if there’s no consensus for it to do so.

But not drunkenness itself, that’s the point.

You can use laws to set limits on where pornography is done, not that it’s done.


I am baptized and I grew up in a Chatholic family. But I do not believe that everything written in the Bible is the truth and that the Bible is the only writing that contains supernatural truth. My belief was stronger when I was younger. Today I disassociate myself more and more from Christianity because its values are too left-liberal for me. And the current pope is a socialist and a welcome-refugee-liberal so I do not want to be assiciated with this.

To summarise your position
You claim that porn is evil at least at two dimensions:

  1. The production of porn hurts porn-actors
  2. Watching porn is causes problems
    (broken families, addiction and the cheapening of sex as commodities)

Therefore it should be forbidden and perceived as evil.

There are three problems in your argumentation
A) You do not point out any proof for the proposed consequential damages
B) You do not admit that you do not have any proof
C) consequential damages are not more dramatic than consequences of other things

A) You do not point out any proof for the proposed consequential damages
There can be hundreds of variables which could lead to broken families and you do not have any proof that pornography is the decisive cause. If you want to cite relevant studies, think about if they even can prove the causality in question.

You also insist that porn production will hurt porn actors. When I counter: This is just what you believe! You deny that you position is just your personal belief, but you do not point out any proof. You mentioned that you were abused by your father – I’m sorry that you had that experience, I am familiar with abuse too – and you mentioned that you have been around impressionable girls that pornographers seek out. But:
(1) sexual abuse is not identical with porn production, so you can’t make valid inferences
(2) even if porn production were hurtful for some people, it doesn’t mean that it have to be hurtful for everyone.

B) You do not admit, that you do not have any proof
You say: “No, it isn’t just what I believe. Porn is socialogically and psychologically harmful. It’s a violation of one’s self”
O.K. Fine. – This is what you claim. Where is the proof?
I believe that porn isn’t hurting everyone. But at least I do admit that my position is just what I believe. By contrast you believe and claim things, but you not admit that these things are just your personal convictions. Instead you claim that these are incontrovertible facts.
You are just claiming that you are not just claiming.

C) Consequential damages are not more dramatic than consequences of other things
You repeatedly mentioned porn production were harmful and would hurt people. And that porn is especially and deeply damaging. But this “hurt” is very vague. What is the damage?
Also the (unproven) “broken families” and “the cheapening of sex as commodities” aren’t consequences, worse than the consequences of alcohol or other things.

  • Cigarettes are causing lung cancer and death
  • Alcohol can lead to broken families
  • Sweets and fastfood can evoke heart attack
  • Computergames and violent TV can increase violent behavior

Even if porn would lead to more broken families (and I see no proof here): At least this consequence is not fully out of your control – but lung cancer or heart attacks are. And I would prefer to experience the “cheapening of sex as commodities” that lung cancer. So why do you focus just on porn and not on things that are more problematic?


LOL. You’ll notice the severe dip during WW II and then the death rate went UP again until around 1970, when the government started paying attention to the holocaust that was highway deaths and started DOING something about it. It’s been going down ever since. I’m proud that I had a tiny part in starting this trend as I was President of the Texas Traffic Safety Association during that period.



Sure… fact remains, traffic deaths fell after 1933, and didn’t increase again until the end of the decade.

Your theory doesn’t have any evidence backing it Dave. Deaths decreased, just like anyone who wasn’t a “dry” said it would.

Usage did go up, but only for a few years— it then receded below, far below, what it had been either during or before prohibition. You also saw the age people started drinking at increase.



touch the heart again, will remove the like - worked in my PC and phone



Apparently there’s a time limit on these things, much like the time limit on editing a post. If you exceed that limit, then you are locked out . . . of withrawing a “Thanks” in this case.

That post, for which I mistakenly gave a “Thanks”, was made on September 7ᵗʰ. I have no idea when I gave that Thanks, but I first noticed the error yesterday. So, I was about 6 days late in trying to correct the error.

I’m speculating that there’s a time limit BECAUSE I just now 'sperimented by giving a Thanks and then was immediately able to remove it by tapping the heart again. So, your solution does work, but ONLY if applied within the time limit (whatever it is).