Bow Chicka Bow Wow Bill (Debating)

[Hatman 🍁]

By the way Fritz, as a gay person, you of all people should understand the importance of keeping the state out of the affairs of the bedroom and about liberalizing sex laws.

Society is too prudish when it comes to sex. It forces it underground, especially with teenagers.
"They're not supposed to be looking at porn." Well let's face it, teenagers going through puberty need porn the most. Their hormones are going wild. They need an outlet. It's better they buy porn than rape little Suzie down the street and ruin not only poor Suzie's life but his life as well. I firmly believe that pornography actually helps to hinder sexual assuaut, as it acts as an outlet for would-be assaultists. Especially those whose hormones are going wild.

Let's think for a moment. When are we the least horny? Right after orgasm. If we make it easier for teenagers to orgasm in a safe way, then that's one less girl getting raped.

And I think we can all agree that addiction to pornography is better than sex addiction. And let's face it, it's the same types of people that fall in either group.

[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.

[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.

[Ebowed]

Pretty much every 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.

Yeah, that's a pretty good argument in favor of legalizing it...

[Marokai Backbeat]

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

[Lief 🗽]

I think the central question is in this debate is, do we want laws on the books that are unenforceable and broken hundreds and thousands of times every day? Whether or not you buy the argument that pornography damages a teenager's sexual and psychological development (which I don't, because if it did, most of the men in this country would be sex offenders), the fact is that whether or not this law exists, teenagers will continue to "illegally" look at porn. I believe that laws that cannot be enforced and are not enforced should not be on the books, as they ultimately illegitimate the power of the government to enforce the laws that actually need to be enforced, to keep people safe. This bill would, I believe, really have no effect on anybody's life, if passed. All it would do is get rid of a stupid and useless law that accomplishes nothing but prove to teenagers that they can get away with breaking the law and no one will care.

[Hatman 🍁]

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.

My argument is not bullsh**t. Please read my reasoning. It makes perfect sense. Sexual assault is caused by sexual frustration. That is not caused by pornography, but the lack of it.

[Hatman 🍁]

Anyways, this argument is going to be cyclical anyways, as studies on the issue have been inconclusive, according to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_effects_of_pornography)

I still hold to my theory anyways, and you may to yours. But without any conclusive evidence to support your side, I don't see what the issue is. You have to prove pornography is a bad thing to make it illegal, but it doesn't need to be a benefit to be legal.

[Sbane]

Badger only gave us the opinion of some psychologists on the effects of pornography on juveniles. What do the majority of psychologists and other relevant professionals think? I don't think conclusive studies have been done on the effects of pornography. There is also the issue of pornography being more available to today's youth due to the internet than in years past. Have the incidences of juvenile rape and other sexual misconduct gone up correspondingly? I would think not.

[Vepres]

Porn affects everybody differently. Yes, some will become addicted or even motivated to commit sexual assault, on the other hand, Earl does make a good case.

Either way, the law isn't enforceable, so you might as well remove the age limit all together.

[Alexander Hamilton]

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? 

Yes it does.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, it's not. This is prudery BS at it's worst.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why are we to waste precious resources on it then?

I for one admit to looking at porn when I was a teenager, and I don't want the Senate telling me what I did was illegal. There was nothing wrong with what I did. I don't understand this mentality of hypocrisy and the denial of it afterwards. Hypocrisy is doing one thing and saying another. You admitted to looking at porn as a teenager, and now you say it's wrong. It's soooo easy to say that now. I wonder how 14 year old Fritz would think?

Shame on anyone who opposes this bill! Shame!

Because we all do wrong things. Perv

[Badger]

Badger only gave us the opinion of some psychologists on the effects of pornography on juveniles. What do the majority of psychologists and other relevant professionals think? I don't think conclusive studies have been done on the effects of pornography. There is also the issue of pornography being more available to today's youth due to the internet than in years past. Have the incidences of juvenile rape and other sexual misconduct gone up correspondingly? I would think not.

To be fully accurate, I gave a summary of the testimony and reports of multiple psychologists regarding what the bulk of scientific research in their field shows regarding the effect of pornography on juveniles. None said that glimpsing a single Playboy centerfold as a teenager would transform a kid into Ted Bundy. The same way that a single cigarette, or even a single pack, will likely give a kid lung cancer. But the demonstrative bulk of professional literature reported negative effects of prolonged pornography exposure to juveniles.

[Badger]

Anyways, this argument is going to be cyclical anyways, as studies on the issue have been inconclusive, according to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_effects_of_pornography)

I still hold to my theory anyways, and you may to yours. But without any conclusive evidence to support your side, I don't see what the issue is. You have to prove pornography is a bad thing to make it illegal, but it doesn't need to be a benefit to be legal.

As much as I generally dislike quoting from Wiki, the "inconclusive" evidence referred to in the article did not involve research with juveniles. Of the research that mentioned it in this brief article:

According to the study, "Pornography Use as a Risk Marker for an Aggressive Pattern of Behavior Among Sexually Reactive Children and Adolescents", Sexually reactive children and adolescents (SRCAs), also referred to as juvenile sexual offenders, "may be more vulnerable and likely to experience damaging effects from pornography use." According to the study,the SRCAs who used pornography were "more likely" to display aggressive behaviors than their nonusing counterparts.[

The issue isn't whether isuch a law will remove every dirty website or magazine from the hands of kids, but whether it will make it less likely juveniles can obtain such materials, particularly those with the strongest, and arguably most unhealthy appetites for such materials.

[Sbane]

Badger only gave us the opinion of some psychologists on the effects of pornography on juveniles. What do the majority of psychologists and other relevant professionals think? I don't think conclusive studies have been done on the effects of pornography. There is also the issue of pornography being more available to today's youth due to the internet than in years past. Have the incidences of juvenile rape and other sexual misconduct gone up correspondingly? I would think not.

To be fully accurate, I gave a summary of the testimony and reports of multiple psychologists regarding what the bulk of scientific research in their field shows regarding the effect of pornography on juveniles. None said that glimpsing a single Playboy centerfold as a teenager would transform a kid into Ted Bundy. The same way that a single cigarette, or even a single pack, will likely give a kid lung cancer. But the demonstrative bulk of professional literature reported negative effects of prolonged pornography exposure to juveniles.

Currently juveniles have access to pornography with the click of a button, and they are free to view it as many times as they want.  This was not true even 20 years ago. Have problems with sexual misconduct or other problems with sexuality gone up among today's youth?

[Bacon King]

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?

[MaxQue]

But the SRCAs already access to porn anyways. They will access to porn anyways. So, if other persons know than they do, does that helps autorities to identify them?

[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?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

None said that glimpsing a single Playboy centerfold as a teenager would transform a kid into Ted Bundy.

I however shall make this argument and claim that it's a result of the capitalist exploitation and of capitalistic degeneration of culture.

[Badger]

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?

If someone opposes a change in a law one has personally broken, there's a difference between admitting to having done something illegal versus having done something illegal and believing it was perfectly fine, but still opposes changes in the law. The latter may be hypocrisy, but the former is merely acknowledging succumbing to temptation in violating the law and does not necessitate believing the law should be changed because of our own moral lapses. FWIW, the former is what I'm hearing from posters here, saying they drank, smoked, etc. underage and don't support lowering the legal age for that activity. I.E. "Yes, I did that underage. It was wrong then and should be wrong now".

How many readers here have driven above the speed limit in the last 24 hours? Does that mean those people must support raising the speed limit for everyone to accommodate their own temporary lapses in judgement? Of course not. It means that if any of those people were validly caught speeding they could just pay their ticket for personally violating the law and with complete consistency still support the current speed limit.

[opebo]

None said that glimpsing a single Playboy centerfold as a teenager would transform a kid into Ted Bundy.

I however shall make this argument and claim that it's a result of the capitalist exploitation and of capitalistic degeneration of culture.

Which is?  Playboy or Al Bundy?

[Sewer]

None said that glimpsing a single Playboy centerfold as a teenager would transform a kid into Ted Bundy.

I however shall make this argument and claim that it's a result of the capitalist exploitation and of capitalistic degeneration of culture.

Which is?  Playboy or Al Bundy?

Both.

[Hatman 🍁]

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?

I certainly haven't. I make appoint of not being a hypocrite. I mean, why would you? There's something hugely wrong with breaking laws you agree with. It is utterly retarded.

[Fritz]

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

[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

[Fritz]

Nay