September 1st: Texans, Fire Up Your VPNs, or Present Your Government-Issued ID to View Porn Online

[atomheartbevo 89505]

9 minutes ago, Homercles said:

Oh look another ‘new’ poster wading into highly contentious, political, conservative-driven threads!  And they have all the answers!

Haven’t seen that before

I have no doubt that Iconclast believes we should all look out for his kids and help him raise them.

[Deej 76643]

12 hours ago, KYHorn said:

the vast number of parents who legitimately don't have the time, energy, or knowledge shouldn't have had children. 

 

[Smax 3800]

1 hour ago, Boss Hogg said:

Holy shit. Some of y’all take this shit very seriously.\

 

 

 

Says the guy who ether has a main account here and is too chicken shit to make this takes under his name

or

Has been banned previously and came back, made an account again to stir up shit

[Boss Hogg 808]

46 minutes ago, Captainant said:

That's because banks and card processors have done the legwork to protect their data and harden against unauthorized data access. Are they bulletproof? Fuck no, nobody is. But I'd bet it's a fair sight better than anything the state of Texas puts out. 

Shit, for paying off my loans to the Texas Higher Ed Coordinating Board, they would email my fucking password resets IN THE CLEAR IN PLAINTEXT. The state is not in the same solar system as the entities that manage the data associated with AML/KYC laws, at least with respect to sensitive data protection and general security posture. 

But don't let that get in the way of you and lubehorn going HAW HAW HAW YAWL JUST WANNA WATCH PORN and completely missing the point

Buy a VPN. If you really care about cybersecurity that much, you should probably do that anyway. 

[Pig Bellmont 8697]

3 minutes ago, Boss Hogg said:

Buy a VPN. If you really care about cybersecurity that much, you should probably do that anyway. 

“If you’re doing nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about”

[Foosters 17769]

16 minutes ago, Boss Hogg said:

Buy a VPN. If you really care about cybersecurity that much, you should probably do that anyway.

Good thing it's impossible for kids under 18 to buy/use a VPN.

[tokamak 6353]

6 hours ago, KYHorn said:

I agree with this and generally think parents need to do better and be more responsible for their kids' moral, social, and emotional development. But, here we are where porn is only getting increasingly graphic, realistic (consider that a MS student can now make porn featuring his latest crush), and accessible. Parents, especially those with limited resources, cannot keep up and don't know what they don't know. They just know Johnny wants a phone and that's good for me because I can keep track of and communicate with him while I'm at work. 

My oldest is 6. We use the Amazon Fire tablets you mentioned. They still get into stuff we don't really like and, from what I can tell, we can't easily control it, but it generally works.

I don't really know what we'll do as they get older. My wife and I both work but we have the luxury of knowing the concerns and knowing where to go to attempt to address them. We have ongoing and developmentally appropriate talks about bodies, privacy, and choice that will continue into more difficult discussions. However, we can't control what they are exposed to at school or, to an extent, at friends' houses. That's a bit worrisome, but we'll have to rely on open communication, general family cohesion, and intentional conversations around these topics to allow us to guide them as best as we know how.

But that's not even my main concern- it's the vast majority of parents who are just unaware, unconcerned, overwhelmed, or uncomfortable with this topic and that doesn't seem to be getting better. So, just like we restrict access for children in all kinds of ways, we should do the same with porn. We of course won't stop it all, but to at least tone down the ubiquity of it, help parents who are trying but have limited means, and knowledge, etc. Maybe that means every company has to offer affordable, child versions of their devices that can't connect to porn websites and can't download full versions of social media apps. I don't know. Again, they're always going to be able to access it, but putting more barriers in the way when there's currently none, would help and would likely raise the age of first exposure, reduce unintentional exposure, and lower the heat in terms of the amount, intensity, and accessibility of this content. With all the technology we have, I'm sure there are other ways that would help create a floor for parents.

Clearly you've given this a lot of thought and you make points worth discussing. I'll say this, though: any parent of teenagers should be way, WAY more concerned about content on TikTok, Snapchat, Instagram, Twitter, YouTube etc than they should be about PornHub. Porn sites are low hanging fruit. Any parent that gives one half of one shit can figure out how to block that stuff in about 3 minutes of Googling. Those social media sites on the other hand are where teens congregate and they have lifetimes of objectionable content - much of it more insidious and damaging than watching people fuck, IMO.

Preteens are another matter entirely. Giving them unsupervised access to devices, the internet, and social media is preposterous. I realize I'm probably in the minority on that.

[Pam Cummings 9603]

1 hour ago, Boss Hogg said:

Holy shit. Some of y’all take this shit very seriously. I think the next step is to organize and march on the Capitol. It’s a good story. You’d get on the news. May I suggest a slogan? You’ve Gotta Fight for Your Right to Porn

 

I actually agree that there’s cybersecurity issues, but I’d don’t see a ton of people out there fighting KYC/AML laws that lead to honeypots that criminal exploit. People that really want to, can disregard those laws too. 
 

 

"Some of yall take this shit very seriously" is pretty fuckin rich coming from a guy who authors every 4th post in this thread.

[RPM 26268]

Who decides what is pornography? The rule is I know it when I see it. How in the hell am I going to know unless I can thoroughly study and make an informed, well thought decision?

[Patricio Swayze 17058]

Republican logic flow:

Criminals will just break the law ——>
thoughts and prayers ——>
will anyone think of the children? ——>
we need new laws to protect our children (as long as they aren’t about guns)! ——>
Criminals will just break the law

[Pam Cummings 9603]

Just now, Patricio Swayze said:

Republican logic flow:

Criminals will just break the law ——>
thoughts and prayers ——>
will anyone think of the children? ——>
we need new laws to protect our children (as long as they aren’t about guns)! ——>
thoughts and prayers ——>
Criminals will just break the law

Stop pointing out things that are true! That's politics and it isn't allowed!

[Blotto 23464]

So I haven't been following this issue, but apparently there's a change incoming on 9/1? How the fuck are they going to implement this? Will it be as effective as the millions of sites that stream TV shows/movies/sports in direct opposition of US copyright laws, and dont give a fuck  because they exist offshore and can spin up a new domain in an afternoon? If these morons are expecting that the porn industry will uniformly challenge users for IDs etc..., that aint gonna fly, at least not on the sites that I visit my friends visit. There's more porn sites out there than there are republican dipshits to keep track of them all (not that they wont try).

[kevwun 15700]

@blacklab

The troll is back.

[Boss Hogg 808]

2 minutes ago, kevwun said:

@blacklab

The troll is back.

What tf are you talking about?
 

14 minutes ago, Pam Cummings said:

"Some of yall take this shit very seriously" is pretty fuckin rich coming from a guy who authors every 4th post in this thread.

good point. This is my 16th post on this topic. Wake me up when y’all fly a banner or march on the Capitol.  Good day. 

[kevwun 15700]

See you in a few weeks.

[Pam Cummings 9603]

Going back and counting your posts, definitely not insecure about it.

[atomheartbevo 89505]

16 minutes ago, Blotto said:

So I haven't been following this issue, but apparently there's a change incoming on 9/1? How the fuck are they going to implement this? Will it be as effective as the millions of sites that stream TV shows/movies/sports in direct opposition of US copyright laws, and dont give a fuck  because they exist offshore and can spin up a new domain in an afternoon? If these morons are expecting that the porn industry will uniformly challenge users for IDs etc..., that aint gonna fly, at least not on the sites that I visit my friends visit. 

It works like this - @BearSchlong's phone IP shows up as a Louisiana IP, or close enough given his proximity, and Louisiana has the same law already in place since last January.

On 8/24/2023 at 5:49 PM, BearSchlong said:

Im 30 miles from the Louisiana border, and when I turn off my home Wi-Fi here is the message.

Any sites that are reported to the State of Texas as not complying, the state will try to prosecute/fine/whatever.

For any sites complying, you either have to link up with the State of Texas's digital ID system and provide your ID which validates you to the porn site (so the state knows you are looking at porn), or you use a third-party verification service where you provide something like mortgage payment or paystub information or whatever, and some of it could be done through you showing info on a webcam (because we all want photos of ourselves verifying our identity so we can look at porn).

Or you can get a VPN.

[atomheartbevo 89505]

Legislature is not back in session until 2025, but if this survives the legal challenges, I expect they will go after VPNs next, since many of them didn't realize what VPNs can do (even though in theory they are using VPNs when they are away from the Capitol but still doing state business).

[Blotto 23464]

10 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

It works like this - @BearSchlong's phone IP shows up as a Louisiana IP, or close enough given his proximity, and Louisiana has the same law already in place since last January.

Any sites that are reported to the State of Texas as not complying, the state will try to prosecute/fine/whatever.

For any sites complying, you either have to link up with the State of Texas's digital ID system and provide your ID which validates you to the porn site (so the state knows you are looking at porn), or you use a third-party verification service where you provide something like mortgage payment or paystub information or whatever, and some of it could be done through you showing info on a webcam (because we all want photos of ourselves verifying our identity so we can look at porn).

Or you can get a VPN.

And my argument is that very few porn sites try to run a legitimate business like Pornhub, and therefore have no motivation to comply with a law that will do nothing but add expense and complexity to their operation. I guess we'll see, but my guess is that 95% of porn sites will not do  a fucking thing, just like the dozens of stream sites dont give a fuck about US laws. 

Edit - i guess they could try and get the ISPs to enforce the laws by inspecting the traffic on their network or blocking access to specific URLs, but that seems unlikely and difficult as domain names change change weekly. This is all a bunch of idiocy by people that dont really understand how shit works. 

Edited August 29, 2023 by Blotto

[KYHorn 16901]

3 hours ago, Captainant said:

You sound like the kind of person who would be going after Dee Snider for bad words in music hurting children, or cheer on Jack Thompson railing against how videogames are too violent and hurting children. We should not be governing society by the whims of the lowest common pearl clutching denominator. 

As covered previously, this law ain't about protecting children. You're being a useful idiot to cling so tightly to your dogma and allow yourself to be manipulated by a fascist argument. If we gave a fuck about helping struggling parents with young kids, we sure as hell aren't showing it in the one star state. Rather than fund education or pay teachers more than poverty wages, the state burns oxygen on stupid fucking culture war bullshit like this. 

I invite you to read the research on the effects of pornography and social media on children and teens or talk to a counselor who has worked with these issues. 

I never said I supported the law, I'm not clinging to "dogma", and I'm not being manipulated by a fascist argument. You're projecting those things onto me. Indeed, I said the law has problems and have agreed with others who voiced concerns about it. I've essentially said that there is an issue that needs to be addressed, and that's it. 

2 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

It’s been fully graphic since the 90s and we were getting it off of BBSes.  Or for those of us who were older and looking at magazines, if we were lucky enough to have parents who traveled to Germany,

I'd argue that porn is qualitatively different today than what was around in the 90s. It's not as stark as the comparison between 2D still images and today, but it's close. In terms of accessibility, content, technology, and variety, it's not really even the same thing.

2 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

The schools are filtered and the teachers/admins can look and see what your kid is doing.

Students quickly find ways around the school filters, and this doesn't apply to phones, which is what most kids use for this. Sidenote: there's also a huge problem with students airdropping porn and sexts to all available phones. I'm not suggesting a blanket ban as best practice- I only think there should be much more work to attempt to lower the accessibility and pervasiveness of porn (and social media use).

2 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

That’s their responsibility and they could spend a few minutes setting up a device if they chose.  Most parents here in 2023 have been using the internet for years and know that adult stuff is out there.  If they don’t want to be a parent monitoring their kids, they should not let their kids have devices.

2 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

There are already barriers - don’t give your kid a smartphone or tablet or access to a computer without it being monitored. 

If a parent can’t spend 5 minutes figuring out how to lock down a device, that’s on that parent.  Apple and Google and Amazon make it easy.

Again, I agree that it's primarily parents' responsibility. Just like it's primarily their responsibility to socialize children into society in every other way. However, many parents can't (or won't or don't know to) find the time to lock down a device, and the technology is constantly changing. I attend professional conferences throughout the year where the latest recommendations and parental tools are discussed, but I think there's a significant barrier that your own family members are demonstrating. What would they do if they didn't have you to ask? Because most people don't have a resource like you. There's also intense social pressure to get a phone early and get the apps that all of your social group is using to communicate (they don't primarily use texts anymore, so if you don't have whatever the latest app is, you are excluded from significant portions of your social life). 

Regardless, when there is a widespread failure of parents in some regard, it is in society's best interest, and even its duty to an extent, to assist parents in raising well-adjusted, healthy, and productive members of society. We have: early childhood education programs to ensure equitable access to quality social, emotional, physical, and cognitive education, school breakfast and lunch programs for children whose parents don't or can't provide nutritious food for their children, access to mental health services and a huge emphasis on social-emotional learning classes that all teachers are providing (rather than their subject matter) to aid children of parents who have not been sufficiently teaching children skills in this regard. There are endless examples of ways society steps in to assist in socializing children, many of which fall upon schools and teachers to bear the brunt of the responsibility. I think this is an area where the govt and businesses can assist.

 

EDIT:  

1 hour ago, Deej said:

 

Agreed

55 minutes ago, tokamak said:

Clearly you've given this a lot of thought and you make points worth discussing. I'll say this, though: any parent of teenagers should be way, WAY more concerned about content on TikTok, Snapchat, Instagram, Twitter, YouTube etc than they should be about PornHub. Porn sites are low hanging fruit. Any parent that gives one half of one shit can figure out how to block that stuff in about 3 minutes of Googling. Those social media sites on the other hand are where teens congregate and they have lifetimes of objectionable content - much of it more insidious and damaging than watching people fuck, IMO.

Preteens are another matter entirely. Giving them unsupervised access to devices, the internet, and social media is preposterous. I realize I'm probably in the minority on that.

I read this after posting above, but I generally agree, though both are similar issues that conceivably could be addressed together. The mean age of exposure to porn is about 12 for boys and 13 for girls. I believe this is a problem worth confronting.

Edited August 29, 2023 by KYHorn

[Stilicho 1397]

36 minutes ago, Patricio Swayze said:

Republican logic flow:

Criminals will just break the law ——>
thoughts and prayers ——>
will anyone think of the children? ——>
we need new laws to protect our children (as long as they aren’t about guns)! ——>
Criminals will just break the law

Easy now. We on the left are being accused of ruining national discourse because we won't grant ground to... *checks note* more guns in school and *flips page* more government restriction on Internet porn. Both sides, y'know.

Edited to add: the third page of my notes mentions something about government taking a hand in helping parents with access to Internet porn being good, but funding public schools or enacting gun laws to protect kids against gun violence and starvation is bad.

Priorities are coming in hot from the faux-centrists.

Edited August 29, 2023 by Stilicho

[ztejas 43383]

6 minutes ago, KYHorn said:

Sidenote: there's also a huge problem with students airdropping porn and sexts to all available phones.

Oh no. Next you'll tell me they're smoking reefer and having unprotected sex. 

7 minutes ago, KYHorn said:

I invite you to read the research on the effects of pornography and social media on children and teens or talk to a counselor who has worked with these issues. 

So you think that this law will cut under 18 porn consumption by, how much? 5%? 3%? At the expense of every adult in the state of Texas being stripped of a very basic civil liberty, and insecurely storing huge swaths of sensitive personal data.

You think porn is bad. You've made that very clear. What I'm wondering is what exactly does that sentiment have to do with putting a ridiculous law on the books like this one? 

I think in most instances alcohol is bad. That doesn't mean I'm going to advocate for raising the drinking age or prohibition or putting blue laws back on the books. 

[Brisketexan 104793]

8 minutes ago, KYHorn said:

and I'm not being manipulated by a fascist argument.

But see, the thing is...you ARE.

The groups pushing these measures are not objective "children's health" organizations or anything like that.  They are Christofascist wedge-issue advocacy groups, who have an openly stated goal of banning porn.  They're the same people who -- in the name of "protecting children from pedophiles" -- have orchestrated bans on drag shows.....but haven't lifted a finger to address the massive amount of pedophile sexual assaults that happen in churches and youth sports.  Which tells us, quite plainly, that it is not about children's safety, and never has been.

10 minutes ago, KYHorn said:

Regardless, when there is a widespread failure of parents in some regard, it is in society's best interest, and even its duty to an extent, to assist parents in raising well-adjusted, healthy, and productive members of society. We have: early childhood education programs to ensure equitable access to quality social, emotional, physical, and cognitive education, school breakfast and lunch programs for children whose parents don't or can't provide nutritious food for their children, access to mental health services and a huge emphasis on social-emotional learning classes that all teachers are providing (rather than their subject matter) to aid children of parents who have not been sufficiently teaching children skills in this regard. There are endless examples of ways society steps in to assist in socializing children, many of which fall upon schools and teachers to bear the brunt of the responsibility.

Re-read what you just posted.  Now, look at the groups and interests advocating for these new porn rules/bans.  Those exact same people are fighting AGAINST most every measure you just listed.  "One of these things is not like the others" -- that's the puritanical control laws regarding sex.  On THAT point, well, the government can and must step in and be the parent, and exercise control.  But on ALL of those other measures, keep the government's hands off our kids!  Don't steal my money to fund ANY of those programs!  That's just government control and interference in parental rights!

Pay attention to who is lobbying for these things.  It tells you a whole lot.

I mean, if there was a group lobbying for making Zyklon B readily available to anyone.....I'd damn sure check to see whether it was (for example) 1) an agricultural advocacy group, because Zyklon is an effective pesticide for ag purposes, or 2) a neo-Nazi group.  That shit is pretty goddamned telling.

[Pig Bellmont 8697]

Surprised we aren’t hearing a call to just enforce the laws on the books. “We don’t need new laws against access to guns child porn, we just need stricter enforcement”

[KYHorn 16901]

2 minutes ago, ztejas said:

Oh no. Next you'll tell me they're smoking reefer and having unprotected sex. 

So you think that this law will cut under 18 porn consumption by, how much? 5%? 3%? At the expense of every adult in the state of Texas being stripped of a very basic civil liberty, and insecurely storing huge swaths of sensitive personal data.

You think porn is bad. You've made that very clear. What I'm wondering is what exactly does that sentiment have to do with putting a ridiculous law on the books like this one? 

I think in most instances alcohol is bad. That doesn't mean I'm going to advocate for raising the drinking age or prohibition or putting blue laws back on the books. 

I think porn is harmful to young children and widespread childhood and adolescent exposure to it is an issue incumbent upon society to address.

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

But see, the thing is...you ARE.

The groups pushing these measures are not objective "children's health" organizations or anything like that.  They are Christofascist wedge-issue advocacy groups, who have an openly stated goal of banning porn.  They're the same people who -- in the name of "protecting children from pedophiles" -- have orchestrated bans on drag shows.....but haven't lifted a finger to address the massive amount of pedophile sexual assaults that happen in churches and youth sports.  Which tells us, quite plainly, that it is not about children's safety, and never has been.

Re-read what you just posted.  Now, look at the groups and interests advocating for these new porn rules/bans.  Those exact same people are fighting AGAINST most every measure you just listed.  "One of these things is not like the others" -- that's the puritanical control laws regarding sex.  On THAT point, well, the government can and must step in and be the parent, and exercise control.  But on ALL of those other measures, keep the government's hands off our kids!  Don't steal my money to fund ANY of those programs!  That's just government control and interference in parental rights!

Pay attention to who is lobbying for these things.  It tells you a whole lot.

I mean, if there was a group lobbying for making Zyklon B readily available to anyone.....I'd damn sure check to see whether it was (for example) 1) an agricultural advocacy group, because Zyklon is an effective pesticide for ag purposes, or 2) a neo-Nazi group.  That shit is pretty goddamned telling.

I meant to add this disclaimer to the end of my previous post: I get that y'all are upset about this law. You're assuming I'm posting in support of it, but I haven't said that. I probably wouldn't be in favor of this particular law if it were in my state, though I think it'll be interesting to see how these and similar laws play out in practice and are hopefully adjusted. I think this addresses most of the points made above. 

[kevwun 15700]

Your username offends me because it reminds me of personal lubricant.  I demand you change it.  Think of the children.

Edited August 29, 2023 by kevwun

[Pescado_Rojo 19346]

13 hours ago, Patricio Swayze said:

I’m glad I shifted 90% of porn consumption to reddit.

[Samson's Wig 3182]

51 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Legislature is not back in session until 2025, but if this survives the legal challenges, I expect they will go after VPNs next, since many of them didn't realize what VPNs can do (even though in theory they are using VPNs when they are away from the Capitol but still doing state business).

That, I hope, will be a much tougher hill to climb.  VPNs serve many functions beyond accessing porn in theocracized states.

[Brisketexan 104793]

15 minutes ago, KYHorn said:

I think porn is harmful to young children and widespread childhood and adolescent exposure to it is an issue incumbent upon society to address.

How about this: I don't disagree.

But I know, with 100% certainty, the people, movement, and legislation behind this are not involved in a good-faith effort to address the issues you raised.  And I also know that it is an awful, no-good, terrible idea to engage in a good-faith conversation with people who are acting in BAD FAITH.  Don't do it.  At all.  Do not pass GO, do not collect $200 -- don't even start.

These people are fucking Christofascist book-banners and book-burners who are motivated SOLELY by their goals of power and control.  Do not give it to them.  Even if the reason they give makes perfect sense, and you agree with it.  Never, ever, ever, ever put a fascist behind the wheel of control, over anything.  In terms of what is good/harmful for society, steering clear of fascism in all respects is 1000X more important than the warped view of sex that some adolescents are developing.  Fascism: not even once.

[wildcat09 29307]

7 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

How about this: I don't disagree.

But I know, with 100% certainty, the people, movement, and legislation behind this are not involved in a good-faith effort to address the issues you raised.  And I also know that it is an awful, no-good, terrible idea to engage in a good-faith conversation with people who are acting in BAD FAITH.  Don't do it.  At all.  Do not pass GO, do not collect $200 -- don't even start.

These people are fucking Christofascist book-banners and book-burners who are motivated SOLELY by their goals of power and control.  Do not give it to them.  Even if the reason they give makes perfect sense, and you agree with it.  Never, ever, ever, ever put a fascist behind the wheel of control, over anything.  In terms of what is good/harmful for society, steering clear of fascism in all respects is 1000X more important than the warped view of sex that some adolescents are developing.  Fascism: not even once.

Yeah, we know what happens when too many people start to think that the fascists are maybe alright.

Whatever weird ideas porn is giving teenagers, how likely are they to actually stumble across their stepsister stuck in a dryer? 

[Pig Bellmont 8697]

26 minutes ago, KYHorn said:

I think porn is harmful to young children and widespread childhood and adolescent exposure to it is an issue incumbent upon society to address.

Isn’t porn illegal for children under 18 already? Look. We agree- it’s harmful to kids and there’s a law against it.
 

This new law won’t achieve your stated policy goal, so I’m baffled why you’re defending it. 

[RPM 26268]

Keep voting in the idiots that sponsor and support this shit and you'll get more of this shit. No CR, could be any party doing this. You elect Karens, you get Karens.

[wildcat09 29307]

2 minutes ago, RPM said:

Keep voting in the idiots that sponsor and support this shit and you'll get more of this shit. No CR, could be any party doing this. You elect Karens, you get Karens.

If anyone wants to see some truly sick, deranged shit online, just take a look at any of the online mom groups and the insane shit they start speculating about that might threaten them and their kids.

[Deej 76643]

9 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

If anyone wants to see some truly sick, deranged shit online, just take a look at any of the online mom groups and the insane shit they start speculating about that might threaten them and their kids.

Like a person of color happening to be in their neighborhood?

[Surly Bevo 24871]

It’s obviously the digital nature of all of this that is the problem.

I am sure none of you have an issue showing Roger the bouncer or Buddy the gas station attendant your ID to get in a club and booze it up or buy a sixer. But you also know Roger and Buddy are not storing and cataloguing that interaction.

If this was really done in good faith there would have been stringent privacy regulations written into the law. Fines for data breaches would be severe, prohibitions against federal state and local officials having access to individual’s data would have been enumerated and penalties for that outlined. Instead to best of my knowledge we got fines for websites non compliance and that was it.

That makes the bad faith intent pretty transparent.

[Brisketexan 104793]

4 minutes ago, Surly Bevo said:

If this was really done in good faith there would have been stringent privacy regulations written into the law. Fines for data breaches would be severe, prohibitions against federal state and local officials having access to individual’s data would have been enumerated and penalties for that outlined. Instead to best of my knowledge we got fines for websites non compliance and that was it.

That makes the bad faith intent pretty transparent.

Ding ding ding, Surly Bevo wins the prize.

The real purpose here isn't about children or their safety.  That's a trojan horse (seriously, the Simpson's "won't someone think of the children" trope).  It's about power and control.  Period.  That's it, full stop.

Edited August 29, 2023 by Brisketexan

[crash_davis 23090]

KY shut the fuck up. Boys have been wacking off since the dawn of time. Sears and Montgomery Wards catalogs, imagination, your dad's collection of Playboys, your mom's panties, you name it, boys have used it. Porn isn't going to be the downfall of humanity.

People have always been sexual. The oldest found dildo is 28,000 years old. By your bitching, humanity is lucky to still be alive.

This law if fucking bullshit. Any attempts to rationalize or both sides this shit is fucking stupid.

[Samson's Wig 3182]

Just now, crash_davis said:

KY shut the fuck up. Boys have been wacking off since the dawn of time. Sears and Montgomery Wards catalogs, imagination, your dad's collection of Playboys, your mom's panties, you name it, boys have used it. Porn isn't going to be the downfall of humanity.

People have always been sexual. The oldest found dildo is 28,000 years old. By your bitching, humanity is lucky to still be alive.

This law if fucking bullshit. Any attempts to rationalize or both sides this shit is fucking stupid.

I completely agree with your point, but . . . "your mom's panties"?  Dude.  Maybe it wouldn't hurt for you and KY to sit down and at least talk.

[crash_davis 23090]

 

[Brisketexan 104793]

2 minutes ago, crash_davis said:

The oldest found dildo is 28,000 years old.

[Armybrat, with a still sore butthole]  That date checks out.  [/Armybrat, with a still sore butthole]

[crash_davis 23090]

1 minute ago, Samson's Wig said:

I completely agree with your point, but . . . "your mom's panties"?  Dude.  Maybe it wouldn't hurt for you and KY to sit down and at least talk.

Don't shame my kink, bro. Is this is or is this not a Shame Free zone?

[Samson's Wig 3182]

3 minutes ago, crash_davis said:

Don't shame my kink, bro. Is this is or is this not a Shame Free zone?

You know, you're absolutely right. My bad.

[Brisketexan 104793]

15 minutes ago, Samson's Wig said:

I completely agree with your point, but . . . "your mom's panties"?  Dude.  Maybe it wouldn't hurt for you and KY to sit down and at least talk.

I believe the term y'all are looking for is

[hayden_horn 11362]

1 hour ago, Pig Bellmont said:

Isn’t porn illegal for children under 18 already? Look. We agree- it’s harmful to kids and there’s a law against it.
 

This new law won’t achieve your stated policy goal, so I’m baffled why you’re defending it. 

yeah, and i know you know this, but that's because this law isn't about his stated policy goal at all, he's just engaging the talking points about it.

when someone asks you to think of the children, you should be immediately suspect of that motherfucker.

it's not about the kids. fuck them kids.

it's about control.

it's always about control.

[Dahobbs 17498]

If we are trying to protect kids, we should require IDs for anyone to attend church and have that information stored in a nationwide database. It serves the dual purpose of preventing early indoctrination and protects kids from/identifies potential pedos. I think the overall harm there has been several orders of magnitudes larger than porn. Maybe @KYHorn disagrees. 

[Blotto 23464]

33 minutes ago, Samson's Wig said:

You know, you're absolutely right. My bad.

besides, based on context, I'm pretty sure Crash was merely relaying how legions of young men have been cranking one out using KYHorn's moms panties. 

[ztejas 43383]

2 minutes ago, Blotto said:

besides, based on context, I'm pretty sure Crash was merely relaying how legions of young men have been cranking one out using KYHorn's moms panties. 

This wouldn't be an issue if we just carded women at checkout when they tried to buy panties. 

[hobbes2702 12986]

2 hours ago, KYHorn said:

I think porn is harmful to young children and widespread childhood and adolescent exposure to it is an issue incumbent upon society to address.

I meant to add this disclaimer to the end of my previous post: I get that y'all are upset about this law. You're assuming I'm posting in support of it, but I haven't said that. I probably wouldn't be in favor of this particular law if it were in my state, though I think it'll be interesting to see how these and similar laws play out in practice and are hopefully adjusted. I think this addresses most of the points made above. 

This law does nothing to address the thing you think is a problem. That’s his point.

[Brian Fantana 6672]

4 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

I have no doubt that Iconclast believes we should all look out for his kids and help him raise them.

Has he taught his kids how to suck dick for meth, yet?

[hobbes2702 12986]

2 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

Has he taught his kids how to suck dick for meth, yet?

I believe they grew up to be very specialized tailors with a focus on sports jerseys