I'm just so surprised by how bad politics has become in the USA. It's like they want to have charia law... or Christian law as it were.
There are a lot of Americans who think the country's going to shit because of a lack of religion and morals and think they can MAGA by going hard that direction.
It's insanity.
Sure there are aspects that needed to progress for a better change, no doubt about it.
But without a moral framework, many are either reluctant or ignorant of the extra work involved in making moral choices for oneself, and aiming not to succumb to a fad ideology (this goes for both sides), a false god as it were.
The sad thing is that any sane branch of Christianity should absolutely distance themselves from these lunatics, a bad apple.. yet they don’t.
This is only unusual in the sense that generally Western countries are in favour of porn. I think you could make a good argument against the universal availably of porn given its negative effects on the individuals that engage in it and on society as a whole – similar to arguments against drug use or prostitution.
I'm not saying I'm in favour of banning porn or anything, just that where we draw the line on what's permissible behaviour between consenting adults seems largely arbitrary and mostly down to cultural factors rather than a fundamental analysis of harm.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/all-about-sex/201601...
The USA are diverse and laws greatly vary from state to state. Talking about "US politics" when a single state does something is absurd.
Furthermore, many European countries like France are about do the same thing with online porn, no later than this year, are you also going to accuse France of wanting to have "charia law"? That's preposterous. France couldn't be further from a very religious country.
I'm not saying these kind of laws are efficient at stopping minors from watching online porn, I'm just saying that your characterization of USA as a country is wrong.
The majority voted for him.
Just to be precise, the popular vote was 62,984,828 to 65,853,514 in favor of Clinton, with roughly 60% turnout. The majority did not vote for Trump.
But that doesn't matter in US presidental elections.
No, we did not. The US president is not elected by majority vote and does not represent the will of the majority.
Also, overturning Roe v Wade is hugely unpopular with the majority https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2022/07/06/majority-of-... which is already starting to show at the voting booths.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/live-update/elections-2020-upda...
Wouldn't deciding these things on a local level be more representative to the than a federal law?
Also o/t but France might not be the best example to use of healthy politics that represent the will of the people right now…
Where's the line between religious motivation and morality?
Just because you don't like the law, you accuse the proponents of the law of being religiously motivated.
When you like the law, it will be because of blah blah blah morality of course.
So it's not so much a division between religion and morality, but just an observed pattern of religions that happens to be applicable here.
> Where's the line between religious motivation and morality?
Religions are subcommunity groups, morality is interally driven.
I think looking the world through the American conservative vs liberal goggles is just ignorance.
It does that to men too, but aside from that the majority of women in porn are there consensually, many make a ton more money than they could elsewhere. That is empowering to women! As long as there's no coercion, the woman wants to do it. What happened to my body my choice?
The book "renegade history of the United States" is a great read I recommend. It really goes into aspects of our history that is never covered in school and avoided in polite company. It is both enlightening and fascinating
Are you implying that this is a hypocritical stance for feminists to have? Why do American feminists speak for all feminists in the world?
Even if these were American feminists, you could make the argument that there is manipulation and coercion happening so the "my choice" part might be less than safe to assume. So a ban may be against human trafficking and coercion first and foremost.
No, I'm asking a question in an attempt to understand.
> Even if these were American feminists, you could make the argument that there is manipulation and coercion happening so the "my choice" part might be less than safe to assume.
Unless you're arguing that any and all decisions are due to manipulation and coercion, then this doesn't get us anywhere and is a strawman version of the 'pro choice' argument. Of course there is manipulation and/or coercion in some cases (from what I've heard, it's a sickly large number at that). That is (IMHO) terrible and unethical and should not be legal. I doubt that anyone (or to avoid absolutes, very, very few people) arguing "pro choice" would take the position that there's no problem with that.
But what about situations where it's voluntary? Do you argue that there is no such situation? If there is any money involved at all, you could say that is "manipulation," but is it any less manipulation than any other job where the person wouldn't be doing it if there weren't some incentive? and does that make all jobs unethical and should be illegal?
1. Prostitution is liberating and empowering
2. Women should be able to choose what they do with their own bodies, even if it means prostituting them
For those truly arguing item 1, I couldn't say. That conclusion is certainly not self-evident to me and the chain of logic seems to include at some point something that is supposed to self-evident.
However some of the feminists that appear to argue item 1 are actually arguing item 2 but they're jumping to the conclusion.
This specific Utah porn ban is part of a broader legislative trend, e.g., https://news.yahoo.com/anti-porn-bills-8-states-231013009.ht...