Bow Chicka Bow Wow Bill (Debating)

[Marokai Backbeat]

I bring forward the following amendment on Franzl's behalf, with my full support of course:


1. All individuals, regardless of age, shall have the right to buy, possess, and view pornography depicting persons of 18 years of age or older.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I'm sorry, but this is victimless. Porn is harmless, and since most teenagers consume it illegally, it makes no sense to keep something like this on the books.

Legalize a victimless crime, and you have freed up law enforcement resources and encouraged the sale of legal material instead of illegal downloads or unlawful copying of material. There's no reason to stigmatize sex, or make it a "forbidden fruit" because this ends up with worse consequences down the road than anything like this could lead to.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Sorry guys, opposed.

There are reasons we have age restrictions on all of the things that are age restricted, including drinking, smoking, and pornography.  The main reason being to protect the children from vices they are not yet mature enough to handle.  Pornography can be harmful to the user.  It encourages the mind to view women, or men if that is your preference, as sexual objects rather than as human beings.  Pornography can also be highly addictive.  If you favor this bill, you must also be in favor of legalising any other potentially harmful, addictive vices for teenagers that are legal for adults.

Guess you hit my conservative side here 

That is ridiculous. Even accepting for the sake of argument (which is a big jump) that you're right in that it does make men view women as sexual objects that is A) A cultural issue that the government couldn't change either way and B) Already going on anyway since kids are getting their hands on illegal material en masse as it is.

Secondly, porn is about as addictive as video games are. That is also not the fault of the government nor is there anything we can do about it.

This is an individual issue that the government should have no say in one way or another. I guess you hit my 'libertarian' side.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I withdraw the amendment, then. Sorry Franzl, my friend, I tried.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Personally, while I look forward to what Badger has to say, I don't particularly see it's relevance at all.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Personally, while I look forward to what Badger has to say, I don't particularly see it's relevance at all.

I would argue he knows more about the subject than you or I and that makes it relevant by itself.

His "testimony" is anecdotal at best. This discussion should be settled between us, objective findings on the subject, and realistic consequences of rolling back the restrictions. Not by listening to Badger's little stories.

[Marokai Backbeat]

That is the dumbest thing you've said in awhile. Anecdotal evidence is called "anecdotal evidence" because it's not representative of the overall situation. Viewing the trees instead of the forest is one of the most misguided and irresponsible things you could ever do.

If you think anecdotal evidence is better than the actual facts here, you shouldn't be a Senator.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Personally, while I look forward to what Badger has to say, I don't particularly see it's relevance at all.

I would argue he knows more about the subject than you or I and that makes it relevant by itself.

His "testimony" is anecdotal at best. This discussion should be settled between us, objective findings on the subject, and realistic consequences of rolling back the restrictions. Not by listening to Badger's little stories.

I wouldn't call the ''testimony'' of someone who is working in the legal domain in that kind of things, irrelevant and a anecdotal evidence, Marokai. Remember the DUI bill for Badger and stop being so afraid than someone can have a decent argument with you, who is not about some ''Religious values, the country will decay and collapse because we will be morally bankrupt'' nonsense.

I remind to everybody than I am on the fence on that bill, so you need to convince me (and perhaps other Senators) to vote on your side on this bill. And to choose, Senators need some substance, not partisanship.

Wow I don't know what the hell you're talking about, Max. I'm not "afraid of someone that could have a decent argument with me," I'm simply unconcerned with someone's outside opinion on the matter. This isn't really a matter of legality as the other situation was, if any opposition to this bill is found it will be psychological or theological. Is Badger a psychologist? If so, then I'll be happy to listen.

You, on the other hand being a "fencesitter," don't have alot to make up your mind about. This is a clear cut, simple issue of fairness. Any cultural issues are not the government's concern, but the concern of parents, individuals, and communities.

You talk about objective findings, yet I failed to see one objective finding on the Senate floor about that bill, except from Fritz.

Can we just stop being ideological and start using facts and not ideology on that bill.

Clearly these:

I'm sorry, but this is victimless. Porn is harmless, and since most teenagers consume it illegally, it makes no sense to keep something like this on the books.

Legalize a victimless crime, and you have freed up law enforcement resources and encouraged the sale of legal material instead of illegal downloads or unlawful copying of material. There's no reason to stigmatize sex, or make it a "forbidden fruit" because this ends up with worse consequences down the road than anything like this could lead to.

Sorry guys, opposed.

There are reasons we have age restrictions on all of the things that are age restricted, including drinking, smoking, and pornography.  The main reason being to protect the children from vices they are not yet mature enough to handle.  Pornography can be harmful to the user.  It encourages the mind to view women, or men if that is your preference, as sexual objects rather than as human beings.  Pornography can also be highly addictive.  If you favor this bill, you must also be in favor of legalising any other potentially harmful, addictive vices for teenagers that are legal for adults.

Guess you hit my conservative side here 

That is ridiculous. Even accepting for the sake of argument (which is a big jump) that you're right in that it does make men view women as sexual objects that is A) A cultural issue that the government couldn't change either way and B) Already going on anyway since kids are getting their hands on illegal material en masse as it is.

Secondly, porn is about as addictive as video games are. That is also not the fault of the government nor is there anything we can do about it.

This is an individual issue that the government should have no say in one way or another. I guess you hit my 'libertarian' side.

Don't matter to you at all as "substantive." Abandon your absurd Catholic sensibilities for a moment and see the reasoning that I've already laid out.

In Quebec, you can drink at 18, and in fact you have drank many times at 18, the age you are now, and before then. Did it screw you up? Does a lower drinking age cause chaos to fill the streets of Quebec and ruin the lives of little puppies and children? No.

Because most people were already drinking anyway. It just made it more socially acceptable, normal, and safe.

Same thing here. Instead of people scurrying around trying to hide the material, treating it as a forbidden fruit, and getting it from illegal sources, it would be more open, more acceptable, less "dirty/forbidden/taboo" and simply relax one element of society that desperately needs it.

These arguments would make sense if people below 18 never consumed porn and we were suddenly making it mandatory. This argument is stupid, and similarly stupid is "fence sitting" on such an obvious issue. Kids 14 and above are already consuming porn anyway.

This is not our place to interfere, this is not going to increase porn consumption, this will legalize a victimless crime and free up law enforcement resources, increase the sale of legal material, and allow us to maturely and serious deal with issues of sex, among other things.

If anyone is being ideological in their opposition it is NOT me. But thank you for the lovely lecture.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Can someone please tell me why a 14 year old needs to look at porn? Don't we have morals left at all?

We can disagree on the morality of it (and we do) but the government has no place in enforcing any such "morality." This is an individual issue pure and simple. Since there is no clear, direct, demonstrated harm, we have no right to prevent such a thing.

Besides, you all act like this will suddenly make 14 year olds watch porn. I think they have that covered.

[Marokai Backbeat]

You say you don't want the government making decisions and you want the parents to be the ones in control, yet you want to keep a policy in place that is essentially the government making the decisions.

You realize that doesn't make any sense at all, yes?

If you think it should be up to the individuals and the families, then you should support such a law as this.

By doing that, wouldn't we be punishing companies for selling porn to minors, even though its legal?

Well, no, because while it would be legal to buy and to (ahem) consume, it wouldn't be legal to sell.

That seems rather silly and unnecessary.

[Marokai Backbeat]

If you think it should be up to the individuals and the families, then you should support such a law as this.

I already stated above the I do support most of this bill. I just think that it should be left to the parents whether or not their kid can watch porn. If the parents don't mind their child watching porn, then they can go buy it for them.

Again, these issues will be solved within the household. Parents can take it away, monitor what their kids buy, control the money supply, whatever. You keep acting like we're telling the parents to go screw themselves and we're not, this is no different than anything else.

Honestly this idea of constant parental supervision, oversight, and notification sets a rather terrifying precedent. What would you do for birth control? Condoms?

[Marokai Backbeat]

Will Badger be addressing this issue at all? I'm still eager to see what he has to say.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I don't really think such a thing is necessary. Besides, it's not like there aren't support groups out there for that type of thing already, why would they need additional funding?

It also implies that this bill will suddenly create a significantly higher proportion of pornography addicts, which is quite frankly, retarded.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I call on Badger to testify

Thank you Senator Hashemite. If it fits the chamber's schedule I hope to testify possibly as early as tomorrow evening, or otherwise by Saturday Sunday.

Corrected for accuracy. Real world took precedence today. Sorry for the delay.

Eagerly awaiting, of course.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I am in full support, although I do suggest that the bill removes federal restrictions on the issue rather than set an age for the whole country

Jumping through additional hoops to appease the regionalists is a waste of time. If it is a good policy, implement it, don't delay it. I couldn't sleep at night otherwise.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Well Afleitch you're assuming the court cares about being consistent at all and that the previous ruling on the Dignity bill wasn't based on personal feelings on homosexuality rather than objective legal opinion.

[Marokai Backbeat]

If you're against this bill, your ACLU membership should be revoked.

I just made a long thread about Sam Spade so I'm a little typed-out and I'll respond later, but this is basically my response for now.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Pretty much every kid looks at porn and has access to it already, so I'm somewhat confused when I hear the argument this will somehow ruin kids lives by giving them access to porn. They already have it! What would change except now making the material legally sold, de-stigmatizing an element of sex, and freeing up law enforcement resources? I'm lost here.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Well I do favor legalizing pot so that may be a bad comparison.

[Marokai Backbeat]

You got it, Fritz. I was going to give this a little extra time, but since there's been no debate for a day and there's no sign of an amendment on the horizon...

I hereby open up a final vote on the bill below, please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Aye

[Marokai Backbeat]

Aye.
Not a "happy aye" either. I still don't feel comfortable with kids being able to legally "do stuff" with porn, but I guess they do it anyways.

You have definitely improved as a Senator.


With 6 Ayes, this bill has enough votes to pass. Senators now have 24 hours to change their votes.

[Marokai Backbeat]

By a vote of 6 Ayes and 3 Nays, this bill has passed. I now present it to the President for his signature.

Good work, Senators.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Hurray for freedom! Those who voted against this bill will not be forgotten on election day.

I hope that isn't a threat to mess with the election results. The Senate still has the oversight power to make your life miserable if you do.

Cool it, NCY. There's heated debate and then there's just threatening people, and this comes close to crossing a line.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Hurray for freedom! Those who voted against this bill will not be forgotten on election day.

I hope that isn't a threat to mess with the election results. The Senate still has the oversight power to make your life miserable if you do.

He was clearly referring to his vote for Senate.

Quite.