Bow Chicka Bow Wow Bill (Debating)

[Fritz]

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 

[Fritz]

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.

I think my main point, which you don't address, is that teenagers are not yet emotionally mature enough to handle this material, and it has the potential to damage their psyche for life- much more so than in adults, because of their immaturity.  The fact that it is already going on is not a valid argument.  I consumed alcohol, cigarettes, and yes pornography, not to mention pot, acid, and cocaine, all before the age of 18, as were many of my peers.  All of these things are already going on- that doesn't mean they should be legal.  I willl buy your argument about porn's addictive nature being similar to video games, but I don't think video games can be as damaging to a tender young mind as pornography- also I believe there are some age restrictions on video games, depending on the content.  These are children who are just becoming aware of their sexuality.  That awareness should be allowed to develop to maturity before exposure to this material.

If you feel so strongly about this, why include the age restriction of those depicted in the material?

The laws we have in place criminalize the sale of this material to minors.  I don't believe we have any law that would punish the minor for "possession".  If we do, I could be okay with relaxing that.

[Fritz]

Before going further, are some persons are really arrested/fined for possessing some pornographical material?

As I stated earlier, I believe the law is primarily focused on the merchant who sells the material.  Persons who are arrested for possessing material are adults possessing material that contains children- not the other way around.

[Fritz]

Obviously I agree with you, Badger- you have eloquently made the point I have been trying to make all along.

[Fritz]

Did you even read Badger's testimony?  Detailed and fact-based reasoning was given why any reasonable person, regardless of avatar color, should oppose this bill.  The fact that I looked at porn as a a teenager doesn't make me a hypocrite, either.  I also smoked and drank at that age, does it make me a hyopcrite not to advocate lowering the smoking and drinking age?  And does the fact that teenagers do these things anyways mean they should be legal?

My points have been:

1.  Porn is in fact potentially harmful to teenagers, as Badger has established.

2.  Yes, it will happen anyways, so what?  Anything in the world that is illegal will happen anyways.

3.  The laws we have in this area are primarily directed against the distributor of the material, not the underaged user.

[Fritz]

I don't even know where to begin with you, Earl.  You're arguing in circles.

Let me get this straight- I am a hypocrite because I smoked and drank when I was 14, but I still don't think it should be legal for 14 year olds to do those things.  Well, call me a hypocrite, then.

If you are going to argue against Badger's statements, how about some fact-based reasoning as he has done?  Dismissing it as prudery BS does nothing to refute it.

Why "waste precious resources" on enforcing any law?

As for your argument that it actually discourages or prevents rape, please read Badger's statement again, a little more carefully:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This would seem to indicate that a teenager looking at porn is more likely to commit rape.  Your assertation that porn "hinders sexual assualt" is total bullsh**t.  It encourages sexual assult.

Marokai:  Pretty much every kid smokes pot 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 pot. They already have it! What would change except now making the material legally sold, de-stigmatizing an element of drugs, and freeing up law enforcement resources? I'm lost here.

[Fritz]

Let me get this straight- I am a hypocrite because I smoked and drank when I was 14, but I still don't think it should be legal for 14 year olds to do those things.  Well, call me a hypocrite, then.

While I have nothing but respect for you, Senator, I don't see how you can construe this as something besides hypocrisy. Believing that an act should be illegal means that you believe it to be an unsuitable behavior that should be discouraged through direct legal disincentives. If you, believing this, still engage in such behavior, you are quite literally saying one thing and doing another. The only alternative is that you find it prudent that laws shouldn't be obeyed, but if so then what's the point of having the law anyway?

Have you never in your entire life, broken a law that you agree with?  Not even speeding?

[Fritz]

This has been debated to death.  I call for a vote.

[Fritz]

Nay

[Fritz]

My vote has nothing whatsoever to do with theocracy, morality, etc.  If you read my posts in this thread you would know that.