Utah can't into filters on porn searches

[Pergamos]

As far as moral integrity goes work is filthy.  Work as a clerk at a retail store?  You are the endpoint, connection to consumer of a process that is extremely environmentally destructive and involves child labor and brutal exploitation of the impoverished in Asia.  I can't condemn you for that, the system is set up so that to survive we have to participate in the destruction of people and ecosystems.  A few people are innocent in their labor, and it is less than you think, but they can't avoid it in their consumption.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I'm not going to argue this any further.  I have stated my case.

[POFP]

I'm not sure we disagree as much as you think. I think the confusion may be due to my lack of clarification, or a difference in definition of "Defense of moral integrity."

This should probably be addressed in explicit terms, because while I see where you're coming from with the rest of your post, I don't see how it's okay to judge them for what may be different abilities and coping skills and thought processes.

I hold all people to a standard that some may call The Human Bean™. This standard accounts for difference in ability, coping skills, and processes, in the same way a standardized school test accounts for difference in intelligence and the like. It ignores them completely, because in the eyes of a standard, none of those things matter. If you can relate to your fellow man, and treat them the way you want to be treated, and assume everyone else is doing the same, then you are a Human Bean™. If you do not, or cannot, then you are not. I am ok with us disagreeing on this point, as I do not see either one of us hurting anyone because of this difference in ideology. I understand and respect what you've said.

As far as moral integrity goes work is filthy.  Work as a clerk at a retail store?  You are the endpoint, connection to consumer of a process that is extremely environmentally destructive and involves child labor and brutal exploitation of the impoverished in Asia.  I can't condemn you for that, the system is set up so that to survive we have to participate in the destruction of people and ecosystems.  A few people are innocent in their labor, and it is less than you think, but they can't avoid it in their consumption.

You are fighting a Straw Man.

Why would morality reach beyond a system that is out of your control? Morality is based on choice, so why would something beyond choice be relevant to morality? You are not exploiting children in Asia. Buying the shirts they made is not an equivalent to exploiting those children in Asia or the environment.

[Freeky]

I'm not sure we disagree as much as you think. I think the confusion may be due to my lack of clarification, or a difference in definition of "Defense of moral integrity."

This should probably be addressed in explicit terms, because while I see where you're coming from with the rest of your post, I don't see how it's okay to judge them for what may be different abilities and coping skills and thought processes.

I hold all people to a standard that some may call The Human Bean™. This standard accounts for difference in ability, coping skills, and processes, in the same way a standardized school test accounts for difference in intelligence and the like. It ignores them completely, because in the eyes of a standard, none of those things matter. If you can relate to your fellow man, and treat them the way you want to be treated, and assume everyone else is doing the same, then you are a Human Bean™. If you do not, or cannot, then you are not. I am ok with us disagreeing on this point, as I do not see either one of us hurting anyone because of this difference in ideology. I understand and respect what you've said.

I appreciate you further explaining what you meant.  Thank you.

[CBXTN]

Restrictions on porn is kink shaming. I'm being oppressed.

This is "generally" true!

Example: In 2005 after a guy died from being fucked by a horse, his friends were put on trial. Since there was no law against sex with horses and since there was no evidence of physical abuse, the group was only charged with trespassing. However, across the U.S. new legislation was passed criminalizing sex with animals. According to legislators, it was one of the quickest laws to pass because absolutely no one brought up counter arguments against the law. Instantly, sucking donkey dick can land you in prison.

With this in mind, it makes me curious about other types of "sexual deviancy" which can be quickly criminalized. Anything considered "weird" (outside the standard state-sanctioned sexual conduct) could be used as leverage against people.

[CBXTN]

As an addendum to the previous comment, I found this fun tidbit on Wikipedia!

"Wisconsin U.S.A. (2007) - Bryan James Hathaway was convicted for having sex with a dead deer. The court case raised some interesting legal issues because the statute prohibits sex with animals, but not with carcasses. The defense raised the issue that if a dead animal was an animal, at what point would it cease to be an animal?"

[Prelate Diogenes Shandor]

Laws like that disgust me. They're no better than the ones that were formerly used to harass and oppress homosexuals

[Pergamos]

The difference, at least as far as a live animal is concerned, is that an animal can't legally consent.  I know the law in WA used to be against sex with a resisting animal.  I think that was changed after the fellow died of an overdose of horse dick.

[Salty]

 

Laws like that disgust me. They're no better than the ones that were formerly used to harass and oppress homosexuals

Telling you "No. No, that's idiotic" every time you need to be told that would be a full-time job.

[Prelate Diogenes Shandor]

The difference, at least as far as a live animal is concerned, is that an animal can't legally consent.

But by that logic it should also be prohibited for an animal to have sex with another animal.

[Pergamos]

The difference, at least as far as a live animal is concerned, is that an animal can't legally consent.

But by that logic it should also be prohibited for an animal to have sex with another animal.

You want to prohibit predation too?  Rape is bad but murder is worse...

[CBXTN]

With this in mind, it makes me curious about other types of "sexual deviancy" which can be quickly criminalized. Anything considered "weird" (outside the standard state-sanctioned sexual conduct) could be used as leverage against people.

The difference, at least as far as a live animal is concerned, is that an animal can't legally consent.  I know the law in WA used to be against sex with a resisting animal.  I think that was changed after the fellow died of an overdose of horse dick.

You are right, animals cannot grant or withhold consent (I wrote briefly on the double standard of Zoophilia and Industrial meat in another thread, please check it out if you can).

But the general point I was making for this topic is that it is too easy to target a paraphilia and outlaw it - even if consent is involved. Doesn't Great Britain have a law which bans all types of necrophilic pornography, including fantasy necrophilia (like ridiculous films of people mating with sexy bodies covered in fake blood)?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

The difference, at least as far as a live animal is concerned, is that an animal can't legally consent.

But by that logic it should also be prohibited for an animal to have sex with another animal.

So, to you, humans are just animals, and nothing else.

That's pretty bleak.

[Prelate Diogenes Shandor]

With this in mind, it makes me curious about other types of "sexual deviancy" which can be quickly criminalized. Anything considered "weird" (outside the standard state-sanctioned sexual conduct) could be used as leverage against people.

The difference, at least as far as a live animal is concerned, is that an animal can't legally consent.  I know the law in WA used to be against sex with a resisting animal.  I think that was changed after the fellow died of an overdose of horse dick.

You are right, animals cannot grant or withhold consent (I wrote briefly on the double standard of Zoophilia and Industrial meat in another thread, please check it out if you can).

But the general point I was making for this topic is that it is too easy to target a paraphilia and outlaw it - even if consent is involved. Doesn't Great Britain have a law which bans all types of necrophilic pornography, including fantasy necrophilia (like ridiculous films of people mating with sexy bodies covered in fake blood)?

That's why I like America. At least we still have a modicum of free speech, in contrast to many other places, even in the so-called "free world" (England and Austrailia come to mind)

[Prelate Diogenes Shandor]

The difference, at least as far as a live animal is concerned, is that an animal can't legally consent.

But by that logic it should also be prohibited for an animal to have sex with another animal.

So, to you, humans are just animals, and nothing else.

That's pretty bleak.

I'm a cosmicist