• Mr_Dr_Oink@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    66
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    Bit of a leap, my dude.

    Of course we should have laws.

    But for things that are actually harmful.

    For everything else we should have regulation.

    • Ech@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      52
      ·
      1 year ago

      If your single point is “trying to stop people only makes them do it more”, than no, it’s not a “leap”. That invalidates the very idea of having laws in the first place.

      And fwiw, I’m not arguing in favor of this law, just against the idea you replied with.

      • Orphie Baby@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        We didn’t say this about everything (although it is true that some kinds of people are attracted to anything forbidden). We said it’s true of teenagers and porn. Duh.

        • Ech@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          We said it’s true of teenagers and porn. Duh.

          I don’t see any such qualifiers. Do you?

          • Orphie Baby@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Semi-Hemi-Demigod said:

            It’s not that. It’s that if you tell a horny teenager that there’s pictures of naked people somewhere they’ll move heaven and earth to get to it.

            • Ech@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I wasn’t responding to them, so how does that matter?

      • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        And fwiw, I’m not arguing in favor of this law, just against the idea you replied with.

        Whatever you’re arguing for or against, you’re arguing like a drunk uncle. You’re taking it to an extreme that it’s obvious no one actually intended, and then arguing against that extreme like it was the original point.

        • Ech@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’m not arguing against extremes, I’m arguing against a bad argument. And I’m not drunk, I only wish I were.