pornography

With Con’s forfeiture in Round 2 means Con must rebut the claims, reasons, and evidence provided by Pro in Round 2 and Round 3. Remember the debate: BOP 50/50. Let me rebut some of the claims made by Con, although claims unsupported with reasons or evidence. In Round 1, Con fails to dismiss pornography categorically. Where do we see this though? In the first paragraph of Round 1 Con [“CLAIMS” but does not provide “EVIDENCE”] that women generally face many problems, among them “consensual abuse.” According to Con, “consensual abuse” means paying a women to perform a job she agrees. First, “consensual abuse” is not abuse. And to remind Con we are not debate illegal behavior. Moreover, this is not an argument against pornography actual; it is an argument about labor and contractual arrangements. This actual might be a good argument that all pornographic actors and actresses should form and join a union. However, it is not an argument against all pornography, just the contract entered into by two parties. Last claim to rebut from Con’s side: “…pornography is a huge pool of STD infected people. Although in most places they are screened monthly, this may not be enough because one infected person could spread a disease to hundreds In the matter of a few days.” First Con concede that the “they are screened monthly,” meaning that measures are in place to prevent the spread of STDs. Then adds “this may not be enough” which is not an argument against pornography but rather an argument for more regulation of the industry to prevent STDs from spreading. This would be an argument for more screening and not an argument against everything considered pornography. Last, Con gives a reasons why STDs potentially pose and external risk to the rest of society, “because one infected person could spread a disease to hundreds in the matter of days.” Could is very different from has. There is not a single instance I have been able to find that suggest this has actually happened, however I am open to new evidence if Con can provide it along with a proper citation. The problem with a “could statement” is that it is only theoretical and only be true hypothetical. For example, I could say we should ban all sharp objects. Then my reasons could be: because a person with a sharp object can kill a hundred people in their sleep. So, this hypothetical “could” actual occur but it has not occurred and therefore should not be a convincing reason to ban all sharp objects. Defense of Pornography from a civil liberties point of view: "Pornography exists everywhere, of course, but when it comes into societies in which it’s difficult for young men and women to get together and do what young men and women often like doing, it satisfies a more general need.... While doing so, it sometimes becomes a kind of standard-bearer for freedom, even civilization."[1] This statement comes from Salman Rushdie. Larry Flynt and owner of pornography industries have made similar comments but I wanted to use an respected international intellectual instead. What I believe is convincing from Rushdie’s perspective as well as that of Flynt and others is that while we [society] may disagree with the content of pornography, if one believe in a free society and free speech not as an idea but in reality, then it must include what might be considered the most reviled speech, otherwise we don't actual believe in free speech and a free democratic society but something else entirely. Final statement supporting pornography from a civil liberties perspective: So the Supreme Court has ruled and many including myself believe the internet should have legal pornography on the internet.[2] Justice Paul Stevens, writing for the Court, declared that "notwithstanding the legitimacy and importance of the congressional goal of protecting children from harmful materials, we agree with the three-judge District Court that the statute abridges the 'freedom of speech' protected by the First Amendment."[3] This statement aligns with the understanding of Pro and a belief that pornography at its essence is a about first speech and the court along with Pro do not believe in restricting free speech. Defense of Pornography by feminists A profusion of defenses in favor of pornography exists, specifically from the male perspective. However, to avoid accusations of male chauvinism let me focus on the two major feminist defenses of pornography. Examining feminist philosophies reveals much more than a novel philosophy but rather accentuates how pornography in fact upholds the values of civil liberties in a free society as well as counters the conventional notion of pornography as a wholly exploitive industry. One major argument comes from a liberal or libertarian perspective of pornography. Distilled to its essence, combines a respect for free speech with the principle “a woman’s body, a woman’s right.”[4] This philosophy translates along the lines of “I don’t approve of it, but everyone has the right to consume or produce words, images, and videos in a free society.” Free speech and self-autonomy this theory as well as pro are only valuable if they protect the marginal and reviled industries and individuals in any society. A second philosophy labeled as “pro-sex” by detractors is a true defense of pornography. By that, I mean it takes the position that women benefit from pornography.[5] While I will note this view has supporters in halls of academia, more importantly, it has supporters among noted porn-stars like Nina Hartley. [1] Baxter, Sarah; Brooks, Richard (8 August 2004). "Porn is vital to freedom, says Rushdie". Times Online (London: Times Newspapers). Retrieved 22 August 2014. [2] Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union 521 U.S. 844 (1997) [3] Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union 521 U.S. 844 (1997) [4] Wendy McElroy, “A Feminist Defense of Pornography,” Free Inquiry Magazine Volume 17, Number 4. [5] Wendy McElroy, “A Feminist Defense of Pornography,” Free Inquiry Magazine Volume 17, Number 4.