I mean, there is certainly no great lack of porn available online, so simply reuploading some chinese or japanese flicks seems a far more sane response than hiding cameras in public restrooms.
This comment seems to hit all the bad rhetoric hot points. You've misrepresented parent's point, attacked a straw man, and also somehow made a slightly racist argument that Koreans are interchangeable with Chinese and Japanese.
The point is that banning pornography might be creating a niche market that bad actors are happy to exploit.
I have no idea if it's true. But the argument isn't saying the behavior is rational and there was no claim made about the deep biological needs for porn.
Please engage with good faith and measured tone.
That's what makes it a bad point in my mind. It really is taking someone's position and turning it into a strawman, in a way that takes about 2 or 3 back and forth responses to resolve. I think it's totally worth hopping past this branch in discourse.
I think what he is saying is that if you ban pornography, the only people who can make it will be criminals---and criminals will commit further crimes as (a) there is no psychological barrier to them doing so and (b) their 'consumers'/'customers' are already consuming illegal material, so can unsurprisingly further fetishize criminal behavior.
It would be better/easier to allow for pornography but strictly regulate it to a degree that incentivizes the moral production of it.
No, I mean that by banning porn creates an illegal market for it. Supply and demand.
> I mean, there is certainly no great lack of porn available online, so simply reuploading some chinese or japanese flicks seems a far more sane response than hiding cameras in public restrooms.
There's a great lack of _korean_ porn. I know the world is very america centric in terms of media, but if you're from another culture, you're more likely to identify with culturally relevant media, including porn. But this is besides the point, the internet in korea is censored and bans, among other things, porn. You need to use a VPN service if you want to access porn websites.
Look I'm not saying these women are wrong. Of course people breaking into other peoples houses/rooms and filming them is not right. But the same happens everywhere. I remember reading a story some years ago about an american man that owned a motel and he setup hidden cameras to watch other people getting it on. America is as fucked up in that sense too. But these are not the cases we're trying to combat, there's nothing much we can do about them since it's a complex scenario. What we're trying to get rid of is the casual creeps that have no idea what a VPN is and want to whack off to something they can identify with. Having them be creeps on their computer/phones in their private space is better than having them look for excitement by abusing other people's privacy.
Not all things in one's culture should be viewed as a market transaction, nor is it appropriate to overfit them as such.
The total ban does mean that only criminals can produce pornography, and criminals by their nature don't have the moral qualms with committing further crimes.
There are two parts here.
First is the tautological nature of your first sentence; if it is banned, then by definition the creation of such makes one a "criminal", where it would seem that you infer a class of person in the first sentence.
Given a potential misreading of the first portion, the second is clearer:
> and criminals by their nature don't have the moral qualms with committing further crimes.
Again, you assign "nature" to a "class" by definition. It may be legal to murder / sentence to death someone over gender, race, selling alcohol or marijuana, or otherwise. Even sitting in a bus in the wrong spot could result in being labeled a criminal.
I am reasonably certain you didn't intend to paint the above examples of criminality as somehow correlating to a lack of morality. "Further crimes" is a slippery slope trope, where no such predicate exists without examining the contexts of the initial crime. Again, think about sitting on a bus in the wrong spot. “Serial offenders” here might be celebrated later.
Hence the caution against using the term. There are a good number of laws currently that, after some duration of time, may seem anywhere from dated to outright bigoted / horrible. "Criminality" is a social construct, and as such, we should be skeptical and careful about the erroneous connective tissue between criminality and some sort of Humanist trait attachment.