you cant just unilaterally decide what is and isnt beneficial to society

So this libertarian idea of every man being an island is shit

you just said the people decide what is a benefit and what is harmful

yeah.. the "people" I.e. multiple people on both sides. Society.

I lubs pr0n. So it should exist.

Bad argument

What about the other sides?

well, you said we should act based on if something is beneficial

if a group of people think porn is beneficial

they get their porn

case closed?

And the groups that say otherwise?

they don't get porn?

Not feasible. Porn effects them just by existing

wat

close your eyes

lol

The sweet sweet smell of victory. And prolapsed porn actress anus.

you're saying the people should decide what to allow based on what they think is beneficial

so if people decide they think porn is beneficial

they still can't have it

because reasons?

need to get the public to understand the weaponization of pornagraphy first. just like it'd be good to get the public to observe the incredible jewish make-up of the shoddy impeachment effort

it depends. How many "people" have to think it is beneficial?

10%? 20%? 50%? 51%?

so, direct democracy?

Asking you

what is your criteria for society allowing it?

personally I'm ok with dumb people getting repercussions for their actions so I'm not in favor of a nanny state

See, that is not the people deciding

If a government decides that it wants to ban porn with an iron fist that's not "people".

Roskomandzor is the Federal Service for Supervision of Communications, Information Technology and Mass Media in Russia

and that is them telling pornhub that their demography is not a commodity to be exploited

Thts just it, you cant just let dumb people do dumb shit and it NOT affect society

The random house shooting is an exaple

sure they might "face the reprecussions" but your family is dead. so who cares?

the random house shooting is already banned/illegal

Those goddamn authoritarians telling me i cant practice shooting at random houses

fucking Nazis

that has nothing to do with my arguments or your arguments

BASED

Sure it does. The whole point from the start isn't the benefits or detriments of pr0ns. I honestly dont care which way that ends up. my point is WHY do we pick and choose what the government decides what is detrimental to society.

you're telling me that on one hand, people should decide what is allowed based on what they think is a benefit, yet on the other hand even if they think its a benefit it still shouldn't be allowed

You still refuse to define "people"

well, you used the term first

you seem unhappy with individuals deciding for themselves

Are you talking about small groups of individuals or society as a large chunk?

Only insofar as that decisions can affect other people.

No decision is truly individual. We are just led to THINK that

so we can avoid blame for our actions

ok, if 51% of the population decided to buy gold tomorrow, the price of gold would go up, having an effect on the other 49% so that's not allowed?/

Ah! In many countries, what you just said, IS BANNED

Try that in India

buying gold?

yes

once again, not saying its right or wrong, but that gets determined at a gov level

Consider yourself lucky you are allowed to in the west. most of it anyway

sure but that's not the people

well, not ALL people. Some. The question is, does the Gov represent the people? When does it represent them and not?

I mean you started using the term people when you said people should decide what is a benefit

to me people means individual humans

OK, lets define the term so we can quit being nebulous about it.

To me "people" is the will of the largest homogeneous block

or at least A homogeneous block.

Individuals are honestly quite useless on their own.

I don't really have an image in my head of what the largest homogenous block looks like exactly

In any "nation" really.

do you mean like, a block of people with the same opinion?

or same ethnicity?

I mean block of people with the same culture/heritage. So yeah, more than likely ethnicity

^ There's the people deciding

Bingo

the 'individual"

what if they don't have the same will?

who bears no loyalty to "the people"

how do you determine the will of this "people"

They can have a differing will. Thats normal. Then they will democratically decide

preferably.

so if we take the US for example

The US can NEVER have democracy.

white people will make a vote

and that vote will be the will of the people

?

I just want to hug the guy running that account @Str3tch

no homo

>Democracy

degenerate

For white people yes. That is why Democracy is horribly broken in the US

because wypipo vote on laws all the time

and other groups ignore them

because they dont see the BENEFIT to them

so, hypothetically, if a white ethnostate had a vote and decided to allow porn, that would be the will of the people and it would be allowed?

Yes

But go back to @Stalgondo s post.

Notice who decides its 'beneficial' to have the porn

BTW, up until the 50's porn WAS illegal in the US

It was only made legal by the supreme court

before the group who DOESNT care bout the will of the people got involved