Alcohol and gambling are commonly restricted if not outright banned in various localities though, and most people would consider those and fast food to be harmful. So you seem to be agreeing with GP that while you may not think it should be banned, you find it comparable to things that are widely recognized as "generally not good for people".

▲

fc417fc802 7 days ago | parent | next [-]

Porn is also typically restricted. Just as many jurisdictions permit neither public consumption nor intoxication, everywhere I've lived had laws against publicly displaying "obscene" content.

The issue with GGP is that in context it appears to be an argument in favor of increasing restrictions (ie in favor of the events that the article is talking about) despite disclaiming that "You don't have to agree that it should be banned". That's analogous to a loaded question. Expressing agreement with the literal wording of GGP seems to also carry an implication of agreement with some rather different things as well.

	▲	ndriscoll 7 days ago \| parent [-]
		My read was that they were merely saying that it's not helpful to characterize desire for such restrictions as fundamentally coming from some religious angle. There are entirely secular reasons to consider restrictions even if you e.g. weigh personal autonomy as more important than those reasons and therefore believe there should not be restrictions. It's perfectly fine to say "I think porn is generally unhealthy and would suggest people not partake, but I think they ought to be able if they'd like". It's also reasonable to say "I think things like porn, alcohol, cigarettes, violence, and/or gambling should be accessible to adults, but they should not be able to advertise in spaces where children are likely to visit (like an online video game store), and stores should check ID to purchase those things, and 'paying via advertising' should not act as a loophole for those ID checks." There's a wide range of reasonable positions to debate that are entirely shut down by basically implying that people are unreasonable to disagree.

▲

johnnyanmac 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

>So you seem to be agreeing with GP that while you may not think it should be banned, you find it comparable to things that are widely recognized as "generally not good for people".

That's up for debate on what's "good for people". But I don't mind proper, formal laws from lawmakers restricting access of that's the will of that region. I will note that trying to restrict porn in the US has traditionally been difficult die to the first amendment.

My main point was: credit card is not a lawmaker. It should be as dumb a pipe as my ISP.