22·
3 months agoDid you understand that I defend legalization, I just don’t defend it being controlled by big companies?
Call Me Mañana
🇧🇷 Latino-Americano. Estudante de Física. Marxista.
A propósito, eu uso Arch.
🇻🇦 Latinus-Americanus. Discipulus Physicae. Marxista.
Ipse Arch utor per viam.
- 0 Posts
- 23 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
Cake day: August 29th, 2023
You are not logged in. If you use a Fediverse account that is able to follow users, you can follow this user.
much like the failing war on drugs
It’s insightful of you to associate these two problems, in fact, in that they are similar. In both cases, there is also no point in legalizing so that large companies control activities, creating, in the case of drugs, big tobacco 2.0.
I linked an article that talks about the problem in general, two studies that talk about specific subjects and cases and an article that talks specifically about the content of porn films (I corrected the link, I was linking another text, not the one where the information originates ). There is exception for everything. Despite your individual experience, most pornography consumed does not involve direct compensation from viewers to actors to begin with. I do not aim to talk about prostitution and pornography in its entirety, but in general.
But anyway:
I was probably going to jerk off anyway
Yet, you only streamed because you needed to pay rent, or didn’t you?
Also, I did not propose immediately anything that would threaten the activity in the way you practiced it,on the contrary, banning pornographic networks would possibly encourage this type of pornography. If we got to a state where most porn was like this, we would have made a huge progress.
Obviously, no censorship measure can reach all cases, especially when it comes to pornography, you can find it in every corner of the internet. But it can cover most cases if it targets the most popular sites. For example, there is a lot of child pornography on the surface web, despite it being banned in most countries, but the ban makes access difficult and guarantees punishment in any case that the law takes notice of. It is not a definitive strategy, as it aims at the effect and not the cause, but it is something.
To be clear, I’m reading your response as against porn in all forms and for all audiences based on your wording, is that what you mean?
Yes.
How can you be against porn?
I am against porn because I am against prostitution, and porn is a type of prostitution, with the same problems of prostitution plus some more. The central problem is sexism.
It’s neither good or bad, it exists and I basically don’t watch it, but I recognize that others do, why is that a problem that needs solving?
Good and bad are Manichaean categories, as a materialist, I avoid using them. My problem with pornography is the reality of it as well as the reality of prostitution in general. The porn industry is the home of abuse, in every sense. First in the rawest sense, the physical and mental abuse that actresses go through; second in the reproduction and propagation of the culture of abuse, considering that it is the most recurrent theme in porn films; third in the economic sense, pornography, like prostitution in general, is the sale of consent: the actress or prostitute receives money to have sex with someone she would not have sex with under other circumstances, in short: paid rape.
I do not, however, advocate banning either prostitution or pornography, mainly because it would not solve the problem and could even worsen the vulnerability of women in these professions. I however think that pimping should be criminally punished, just like porn networks, which are just a socially accepted form of pimping. Several social problems produce prostitution and pornography, mainly economic inequality, but also the misogyny embedded in the culture of our society, and only a different form of sociability could put an end to these practices. As long as we are not living in this new system, governments can take palliative measures to alleviate the various problems of these practices, but this is not the case at all with this measure by the Spanish government.
EDIT: I have corrected the third link to the article where the information comes from.
I am against porn, but this don’t solve anything.
Easy, they can set guidelines and block in the country sites that do not follow these guidelines.
Dude nobody is praising North Koreans and Chinese for their war of aggression and mass murder.
I wasn’t talking about North Korea and Chinese actions, I was talking about US’s actions. This astronomical quantity of bombs were deployed by USA’s air force. And you are praising this war when you say it was “nice”.
Also please stop your implied racism against South Koreans by undervaluing their freedom.
Here you are just being absurd. Who’s being racist? Who values the self-determination of a people? Who condemns the direct interference of a foreign nation in a civil war or who approves it? China only sent soldiers to the war when the “UN army” had already occupied almost the entire peninsula. And yes, I value life over freedom: while there is life, there is hope of achieving freedom, without life, there is no possibility of being free.
Not true at all with the rest.
Yes it’s true, at every one of this wars the media and government talked endlessly about how each of these countries was ruled by a terrible dictator and it was almost the America’s divine duty to intervene. The Iraq war in particular was full of videos of Bush talking about how inhuman Saddam was and how the “weapons of mass destruction” (which were not real) in his hands would cause a terrible tragedy. In the end, the only tragedies were the proxy war between Iraq and Iran, led by the United States when they were friends with Saddam, and the Iraq war.
There is a measurable scale for how good a democracy is. Starting with the obvious “Is there freedom of the press?” and going to stuff like: Is every vote weighed the same? Is it easy to vote?
This scale is ridiculous and does not reflect the real meaning of democracy.
Not democracy because votes are grouped by states?
Not because the votes are grouped by state, but because:
- the division of delegates is not strictly proportional to the population of the states.
- the delegates can vote regardless of the wishes of their voters.
- therefore, it is perfectly possible, as has happened a few times, that the winner of the election is not the candidate who received the most votes from the population, but rather the one who managed to gather the most delegates.
In addition, since it is impossible to elect (to the presidency) someone who does not belong to one of the two parties, one would expect, at the very least, that the primaries would be democratic. They are not. Superdelegates are not elected.
How idiotic can you get?
Here you are, being rude again, for no reason at all. Even Jesus Christ lost his temper, and I am a far inferior person to him. I have no intention of continuing to argue with someone so uncivilized.
No. That that is almost never the US justification for war.
This has been used as at least a minor motive in Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, Korea, Vietnam and Iraq, to name a few. The consequences are there to be seen.
But yes, saving South Korea from being ruled by the North Korean dictator was a great thing.
At least 3 million of people died in that war, mostly civilians, mostly targeted by USA’s bombs (six times more bombs than during the entire Pacific War in a much, much smaller area). No matter what your opinion of the North Korean regime, to praise this war is to praise mass murder.
So that is the same as “fascism”.
Not “same” as fascism, but not democracy at all.
Because you are not comparing it with the absence of democracy, You are comparing it with a perfect democracy. The absence of a perfect democracy is not a “joke”, it is the difference between fascism and non-fascism.
What is democracy? It is the political system where the people govern, directly or indirectly. There is no such thing as “incomplete democracy”: either the people govern, or the people do not govern. Absence of democracy means no democracy at all. And for me “no democracy” it is as bad as fascism.
Liberal is a term for a real ideology, Tankie is not.
Nice loaded question.
Let’s “unload” then. If organizing fascist militias in your own country makes you fascist (I agree with that, by the way), why doing the same in other countries don’t? (if you think it’s are still loaded, you may not answer)
I would just like to remind you that you have been running away from the central points of my arguments since the beginning of this discussion, it was you who distorted my speech as if I had said that I did not consider January 6th a fascist movement and an attempt to overthrow the government, and it was you who inserted my country when it had absolutely nothing to do with the subject.
Here’s the thing, I don’t defend the current political system of my country at all. And when my country was not being interfered by yours, it was interfering at the behest of yours. And not even in the darkest hour was it funding fascist militias in other countries.
Let’s agree with you that the Republican Party did it. But back to my starting point:
So you are only fascist when you organize (and fund) fascist militias in your own country? Are other countries fair game?
Lol, so you’re saying lying in order to stop the will of the people is not considered overthrowing the government?
Lying is totally a right by the First Amendment, no matter what your goal is with it.
Trying to stop the certification of an elected official, raiding the capital, building a gallow to hang the VP, not to mention trying to activate the national guard to stop the certification process. Not fascist at all, according to you.
I didn’t say in any moment that I don’t acknowledge the Republican Party as fascist or the January 6th as a fascist movement. What I implied by
people that call themselves Republicans
is that you can’t say that the “Republican Party did this” when “who did this” were a bunch of civilians who weren’t being run directly by the Republican Party. Nor did I say that I don’t consider January 6th an attempt to overthrow the government. My parenthesis
(Criticizing the government does not count as trying to overthrow it, even if you’re lying to do so. Advancing an impeachment process or taking violent action against the government counts.)
talks about considering evidence of “trying to overthrow the government” other actions after January 6th.
American values of democracy and freedom
The same values that are used as justification by the two parties to invade/intervene in any country that has something that interests the US?
And seriously, what democracy? In which you “elect” the president in an indirect system that does not necessarily elect the most voted by the people? In which it is practically impossible for a candidate other than one of the two parties to contest?* I call this a joke of a democracy.
*: That is, who wants to run must pass in the “anything but democratic” primaries.
The USA’s government? You can say that people that call themselves Republicans tried that in January 6 Attack on the U.S. Capitol, not that they’re still trying that. (Criticizing the government does not count as trying to overthrow it, even if you’re lying to do so. Advancing an impeachment process or taking violent action against the government counts.)
But talking about other countries governments, you know, that ones that you should not intervene, since they aren’t in your country, both parties have a history in overthrowing. For the rest of the world, both parties are fascists in this metric.
being honest about being evil ≠ have more integrity.
different levels of hate ≠ being okay with the one you hate less
And I am very curious on which metric you use to say that Republicans are fascists and Democrats aren’t.
Any serious country should banish Windows completely, and mandate everyone to only use Linux. (kinda but not actually sarcasm)
Yes, and I also didn’t suggest banning pornography or anything like that. If you think that my statement alone that I am against pornography threatens pornography as a whole, you are greatly overestimating my influence.
It is a convention, at least as I understand it, that when we are talking colloquially about a phenomenon, we are talking about how that phenomenon generally happens, even if we don’t use the word “generally” or something equivalent, since it is common sense that for everything there is at least one exception. If you feel like your case doesn’t fit into any of the issues I’ve outlined, with all honesty in my heart: good for you. However, most cases are not that lucky. Exception, instead of contradicting the rule, proves it, otherwise, it would not be an exception, it would be the rule itself.