Comments by "No Fate But What We Make" (@SonoftheAllfather) on "Banning Porn: Opportunist Utopian Garbage" video.

Nice anecdote, but your logic is faulty. The utility of having laws outweighs any concern we might have over people using them to backstab someone. Shall we make theft legal just because a person with knowledge that a person is a thief might report them to the authorities?
7
@cerealport2726 "Banning something is often just another tool used to punish ones enemies..." "I just observed that laws can be used in different ways." How is this not a cautionary tale designed to show people that a prospective ban on porn could be weaponized by someone with a grievance toward some coomer?
7
@cerealport2726 I don't doubt your story is true, but you're now lying about the meaning of your comment because I called out your flawed reasoning. You can pretend like you meant something else, but it wont work. Your meaning was not ambiguous at all given the context. It was a cautionary tale.
6
@vileluca Nice can-do attitude. "eNerGy iS fiNite" : just an excuse to do nothing.
5
What you call "fixing" others call persuading by way of deterrence. Imagine thinking changing people's morality is impossible. Do you think that your moral framework was just uploaded into your brain all at once? No, it was shaped by the people in your life just as much as it was shaped by your own individuality.
5
@cerealport2726 I read every word of what you wrote. There was no misinterpretation. Your anecdote is meant as a cautionary tale designed to dissuade people from banning porn because "banning something is often just another tool used to punish ones enemies." But the logic doesn't hold because of the reason I mentioned in my last comment.
5
@gmikes5184 I don't believe in banning it, but all the copes here are just pathetic.
4
@yekkub9425 Don't try to reason with these free speech absolutists. They would turn out society into a completely degenerate hell project because "muh free speech." Oh wait, they already did.
3
@vileluca Son? Hahaha I'm probably older than you, kiddo. Anyways, Ghislaine Maxwell’s “Secret Client List” has never been a secret at all. Previously, it was known as Jeffrey Epstein’s "Little Black Book" It's a 97-page contact directory Maxwell and Epstein each had copies of, that was stolen by a former butler who was later arrested by an undercover FBI agent when he tried to sell it. The directory contains nearly 2,000 names, many of whom are powerful elites, but it also contains contact information for family members and businesses and services they used regularly, like car services, chefs, restaurants, and hotels. So it's impossible to truly know which people on the list were just associates and who was actually involved in the crimes. So maybe it's you who needs to keep up, kiddo. Trying to find the proverbial "smoking gun" to bust the elites is just as difficult as passing legislation restricting internet porn. Maybe even more difficult. Oh, and stop liking your own comments, you cringelord. It's obvious.
2
@harleymitchelly5542 What a pathetic retort. "tHeY diDn'T kNoW wHaT fiLm iS." Irrelevant. The point is that they would be disgusted by what society allows today. You know this, so you're trying to pretend that because film didn't exist in the late 18th century, that somehow changes this fact. Moreover, to compare the David statue to "Blacked" is some next-level mental gymnastics. In other words, it's deceitful AF. You should be ashamed on that comment, but shame requires morality.
2
Why can't you do both, coomer?
1
@vileluca Which fight do you deem possible to win?
1
@Keirnoth Expecting people in society to adhere to a set of basic and largely agreed upon moral standards is not authoritarianism nor is it self-righteousness you pathetic lolbert, it's the only thing that prevents a society from falling apart at the seams and spiraling into anarchy. You and Tarl are insufferably DUMB as you've both deluded yourselves into thinking fiscal conservatism is at all possible in combination with extreme social liberalism. It's not, and it doesn't take a genius to understand that, just a person who is honest enough to see the flaws in their own dogma.
1
@snowcloudshinobi Was that too well-worded and concise for your addled mind?
1
@snowcloudshinobi Wrong. It seems you're either uneducated or deceptive. Coercion is persuasion based on threats or force. Persuasion based on deterrence is just warning people of the potential negative consequences of their actions. Perhaps you're the kind of person who is averse to being told something is wrong or bad for you. The trademark of a degenerate trying to cling onto bad habits he knows he shouldn't do but lacks the willpower and maturity to do what he knows it right.
1
@snowcloudshinobi Wrong. Coercion is persuading someone with force or threats. Persuading by way of deterrence is simply discouraging an action by warning someone of potentially negative consequences.
1
@jjgeoffphhcinkkllee "I'll go 2A on you if you take away muh porn." -coomer
1
@snowcloudshinobi Potentially negative consequences can befall someone because of their own actions. They can also befall someone because of someone else's actions. If I deter someone from walking in a dangerous neighborhood at night by warning them that they could get mugged, and they do it anyway and get mugged, I'm not the one who is inflicting the negative consequences on them, I just tried to deter them from engaging in a behavior that has a high potential for negative consequence. Similarly, if I deter someone from smoking cigarettes by telling them they could get lung cancer from smoking, and then don't listen and smoke cigarettes and get lung cancer, I'm not the one inflicting negative consequences on them. That is their own fault. I'm just trying to deter them by warning them of the potential for negative consequences. This really isn't that hard to understand. You're just trying to characterize me as an authoritarian for dissuading harmful behaviors or actions.
1
@snowcloudshinobi That's all deterrence is. Understanding and being reminded of potential negative consequences. It's the fundamental motivator that governs human behavior. It's not coercion or weasel words to tell a kid that they shouldn't play in the street because they could get hit by a car. It's also not coercion to tell a coomer that pornography will cause lasting negative effects on their sexuality. You just don't understand simple English.
1
@snowcloudshinobi You don't even know the difference between deterrence and coercion. You said I was advocating the latter because you don't understand the former, and now you're accusing me of dishonesty? No, you're just mentally challenged.
1
What makes me sick are these lolbert coomers who do all these mental gymnastics arguing that porn is somehow beneficial for society just because they don't think the government should ban it. In reality, they're just neurotically defending cooming because they can't admit they're doing something that's degenerate and unhealthy. I don't think the government should ban alcohol, but I'm not going to lie and pretend like alcohol use is healthy or beneficial for society, saying it "mELLowS pEoPLe oUt" or some idiotic prolefeed take like that just because I drink alcohol and want to rationalize my habit.
1
@harleymitchelly5542 Snarky? No, you were just being petty and deceitful. Analogizing the statue of David to modern smut is absolutely ludicrous and the kind of thing only a dishonest subversive would do. David is nothing but the human form, and the human form is not lewd in and of itself. A film with a bunch of sexual predators defiling a mentally ill teenage runaway? THAT is lewd. So go ahead and cope some more, coomer. Like I said, it takes some amount of morality to feel shame. Also note that I never once said I support a prospective ban. I'm just not going to sit here and pretend like modern smut is not completely degenerate or comparable to the Statue of David. lol pathetic creep.
1
@harleymitchelly5542 Nice gish gallop you subversive liar. Your analogy is absurd and so are you.
1
@harleymitchelly5542 Halfwits talk much, but say little. And yet a Gish gallop is even worse than simple hollow verbosity. It's defining feature is that it's a laundry list of seemingly plausible (but actually bad faith) arguments made all at once, which makes the opponent's task of refuting those arguments a fool's errand (refuting a moronic, deceptive argument takes far more time than it takes make one). The ludicrous idiocy of your analogy is self-evident. I cannot even describe all the depraved things that are portrayed in modern smut. It'll get censored from this thread. And yet you want to compare all of that to an ancient statue that portrays a naked man? It's apples and oranges. You know that, you're just a subversive liar who is incapable of being honest.
1
@Harley Mitchelly Thanks for another useless wall of text, cringelord. You're so clearly desperate to rationalize your idiotic comparison that you're now just disgracing and embarrassing yourself. No one would make a comparison like that unless they were a degenerate, a cultural subversive, and a completely dishonest scumbag all wrapped up into one. And yes, you compared Michelangelo to modern smut, and Blacked is modern smut.
1
@Harley Mitchelly Comparing the lewdness of the David statue to modern smut is idiotic and insane. Why would I accept it as valid? It's not... like, at all. And if you think David is well endowed, I feel sorry for you kid. Try learning to be honest and accept responsibility when you say something idiotic. We all do it sometimes.
1
@Harley Mitchelly Lol BS. Everyone can literally go back and read what you wrote you deceptive little weasel. You responded to a guy who was rightly stating the Founders didn't create the 1A to protect the rights of coomers to watch smut. That was the context, and you responded by comparing the lewdness of modern smut to that of the David statue, as if the two are even in the same conceptual or moral universe. Then you said the Founders would not have a legal problem with modern smut, which is almost certainly also false, which you also know. There is really know point talking to a person who is so lacking in honor that they deny what they wrote in plain English mere hours ago.
1
@Harley Mitchelly Stfu dude. You're wrong and super cringe.
1
@Harley Mitchelly You're not gonna write another novel desperately trying to rationalize your idiocy, cringelord?
1
@TecknoNinja Ok coomer. Enjoy dying alone.
1
@LT. Keiji Kage Moreover...tradcuck? Lol that's oxymoronic. All that cooming is melting your brain.
1
@TecknoNinja Lol no you're an addict with a tiny brain. You enjoy watching other dudes ram mentally ill drug addict women. You're sick and you're trying to normalize it so you feel better about yourself. Cope.
1
@Niskirin The OP and you are both just playing the hatchling. Embarrassingly for you both, the hatchling is a leftist archetype. "wHaT iS tHe dEfiNiTiOn oF pOrN?" "wHaT iS tHe dEfiNiTiOn oF wOrKs?" "wHaT iS tHe dEfiNiTiOn oF iLLeGaL?" You behave as if you just cracked out of an egg and have no a priori knowledge of anything. It's fake naivety and tactical ignorance.
1
So punish parents because our kids are exposed to mind and body poison by the power complex under which we all must live? Wtf kind of take is that?
1