Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by defrost 1080 days ago
I'm pretty sure Jim Jones wasn't reading Playboy and suicide bombers aren't shouting Praise Hefner.

There's some empirical evidence for you re: harmful effects of religion.

Per capita what's the comparison with porn in terms of number and severity of extreme responses?

1 comments

And stalin was atheist so atheism should be banned because it isn't protected asa religion right? And islam should be banned right.

You changed to this strawman argument so let's have it.

People are responsible for their own actions. You can't blame information people consume because sane people have the ability to accept or reject information as correct or incorrect and killing people is one the most basic wrongs a sane person can discern. In effect your childish argument is that if a person uses some text as their reason for murdering then it is no longer that person who is responsible but the text that is bypassing their ability to tell apart from right and wrong and therefor that text should be banned?

Tell me, what belief system or lack of it do you accept where people who share that belief never harm anyone ever?

> Per capita what's the comparison with porn in terms of number and severity of extreme responses?

Again, strawmam! You yourself made the claim that porn is harmful to society, not I. But your asking me to defend your assertion lol.

While we are at, let's compare how many conservatives vs democrats are school shooters and pedophiles and I'm sure conservatives are more so let's ban the republican party and conservatism right?

If uninformed childish people like you had their way I am sure you would end up genociding everyone that looks thinks or believes in any way different than you.

You mistake the fact that your belief is popular and tolerated to mean you have the right to persecute others or use persecution as an argument or threat to fend off any disagreement.

Please try to argue in good faith and using sound arguments.

My argument is simple: porn is addicting, sex workers that make porn are not always in good conditions and porn overuse has a harmful effect to the user. So, much like drugs and prostitution people should be allowed to access it but in a way that is regulated and where rehabilitation and help is readily available.

You still get your porn, but your argument is that others shouldn't do it safely or be informed because... you hate bibles? Come on!

Maybe you could have said to me that bibles should have similar warnings and all that to which I would say unlike porn, religion is protected from such things but even if it wasn't, freedom of speech and religion exists and you are able to warn/discourse against the bible or any religion freely. So, unless the platforms that make the bible available to Christians (e.g.: the internet) don't allow your disagreeing belief to be made available (never mind the fact that schools teach things that disagree with thr bible but can't teach the bible!) then all you're doing is displaying your hate in bad faith here.

Not a compelling response. I'm going to have to award the point to the "if you ban porn you should ban Bibles" argument.
Ok, but porn banning was never the topic, you people don't have an actual argument so you pick senseationalist extreme bullshit you can win instead.

I am well aware of the popuarity of your view as i noted in my first sentence of the original comment.

Regulated like drugs is a lot like "porn banning" since I currently cannot legally buy drugs for myself, so you're only fooling yourself if you think it wasn't the topic. I'm not interested in having morals of the religious imposed upon me, and I'm going to need to see some data for the harm of porn before I'd agree it's harmful. In any case, I know Utah and Virginia aren't passing these laws because they looked at the data and the data told them it was dangerous for societry, they are passing it to impose religious beliefs on others, and I can't help by think anyone who supports these laws thinks that's okay.
Indeed:l the argument was they should both be kept away from minors, not banned. It seems to be you who is cherry picking while lacking an argument, frankly.