Sarcastic wrote:I use the word 'we' and I will continue to use the word 'we', unless maybe you're physically broken and are no longer interested in the opposite sex.
Don't gays like porn?

Sarcastic wrote:I use the word 'we' and I will continue to use the word 'we', unless maybe you're physically broken and are no longer interested in the opposite sex.
Oh, you got me there.Factorial wrote:Sarcastic wrote:I use the word 'we' and I will continue to use the word 'we', unless maybe you're physically broken and are no longer interested in the opposite sex.
Don't gays like porn?
Mmmm, women.count2infinity wrote:women as pieces of meat
There are different kinds of categories and some are disgusting, even violent (unfortunately, that's where the industry has been pulling in recent years), yet there are websites and companies that put out high quality 'women-oriented' films where it is sensual and loving and many even feature real-life couples showing people how to, you know, have a nice, close, time together. It's really not as cut and dry as you put it.count2infinity wrote:I'm simply saying to compare the "need" for sex to the need for food is ridiculous, and this "need" for sex has nothing... absolutely nothing to do with porn. I have nothing against porn except for its tendency to make males look at women as pieces of meat. I think it's clear in your posting record that you enjoy that sort of thing. Good for you. But don't try to say it's a necessity for life.
Being beneficial is not the same thing as being necessary. I feel it's important to draw a line here because defining something as a necessity can be a bit of a slippery slope towards justifying some pretty rank actions and/or attitudes.Sarcastic wrote:btw, all you need to do is google something like 'health importance of sex' and spend the next couple hours reading how much benefit it brings, health-wise. This is off medical websites. So, yes, I would say, we need it. Dirty movie or not, that's for somebody to decide themselves, but it overall is an integral part of being human.
I really respect your reasoning at least on most things, Factorial, but this is 100% wrong and disappointing. I feel like I've been talking to a wall on this subject, and is why I've turned snarky on it.Factorial wrote:Based on his comments, I would think Eismann would be all for making alcohol illegal again. Oh wait, he uses alcohol so that would be problematic.
No, I'm not. That goes back to alcohol vs. pot and it isn't what I'm interested in. Moot, anyway.shmenguin wrote:Yeah. Come on. It's not that he's saying that alcohol should be legal cause he likes it. He's saying it should be legal because its prohibition, incidentally, ended first. That's much more sound.
No, still not close. Moot, anyway.shmenguin wrote:No, I think I got it. Bad things are bad and shouldn't be allowed. Certain legal bad things are too pervasive to remove. They may be worse than bad things that aren't currently legal, but oh well, what can you do. Doesn't mean we should let more badness into society.
That sums it up. And in that regard, yes. You think alcohol should be legal because its prohibition was lifted before pot's and before you had the ability to protest.
Yeah. I'd say you have to add 'drug policy' to the list of stuff not to discuss at cocktail parties if you want to remain somewhat civil.viva la ben wrote:This is like that creationism debate a couple days ago.
Heeeeeeey....count2infinity wrote:it's cool to talk about it as long as you're not hypocritical about it like bible thumpers....
Spoiler: