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