Please do share your reasoning for why porn should be banned — I love Chom-choms

Even accepting the premise of sexual tension needing to be "released", masturbating wouldn't need porn with it

Ironically, those masturbating very often with porn report low sexual satisfaction. Dopamine, and here the dopamine intended for sexual pursuits, is supposed to be a well earned reward. Porn can be accessed easily, just a click, and internet use is practically a given, so basically no cost at all. So, instead of earning it, it can be granted immediately. The whole system is skewed, and with more and more desensitization, more stimulus will be required. This is most obvious when the watchers can't stop; they're addicted

For the second half, "normal" is clearly not an objective concept, but you're missing the implication. By "normal" and "not normal" it is meant that which is, and is not acquainted to the ways in which society operates. This should be in its best interests, but this is not always the case. To not be pedantic, child porn produces a negative effect on society, and is also out of line with how society operates, so calling it "not normal" is well justified. The Loli types are rightfully shunned, their behavior produces a bad effect on society, why shouldn't they be?

Porn produces a negative effect on society, why shouldn't it be banned?

Porn as a whole should be banned, regardless of the specification

Simulated universe would still require an explanation for the "real world" it comes from. Unless the logical workings of that world were completely disconnected to ours, which we wouldn't be able to grasp

Imperfection seems to come inherently with existence

That's what I was trying to express with "aiming"

Subjectivity and objectivity refer to the subject and the object. The subject is us, and object is what is observed. Subjectivity is when the primary input in thought is the self, its feelings and biases. Objectivity is when the primary input is the object, with detachment of the self

We would have to subjectively determine

The opposite, rather aiming for pure objectivity with as little subjectiveness as possible. Then being able to recognize patterns, predict, and so on

"g"

A definition I would give is "how well one is able to process information"

To assess familiarity, comfortability with (discussing, reading, hearing) the subject is the most telling sign

It is pretty common there that the relationships or success depend on how you look like — javi2541997

This is a bit more than just race

Let's draw the line in the sand, "systemic racism" is mentioned nearly solely in the context of the west, and specifically the US. To specify even more, it implies the conspiracy of whites in higher positions to hurt other ethnic groups. In the modern US, no such proof of this can be found. It is boogeymanned to an unattackable point of broadness where it can be mentioned conveniently to relieve any misfortune(actual or not) of these other races. Racism unquestionably exists, but it doesn't stem from a system, and this wouldn't be the place to "beat it".

Yeah

Of course not, if it existed there would be no need to generalize it to this extent

I think you know where this question leads

Created Consciousnesses do not count for the purposes of this Inquiry, because of the infinite regression of Creators' Creators Absurdity.... — Michael Sol

What's more reasonable? "Sea creature to larger sea creature to... to ape then to man"?

Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy et all (serial killers) were all sentenced to death and they were all evil. — Agent Smith

They were sentenced to immortality prior to being sentenced to death

Except it does; people's pursuit of social vainglory leads them to be vehemently against these 'issues'. So anything that may be seen as supporting them is publicly shunned. We've seen this time and time again, anything deviating from the status quo is termed some sort of ism or phobia

Social media definitely makes the shunning much easier, like an acceleration of social dynamics

God's intermediary between him and man as he does not reveal himself directly.

It's just subversion of rationality by the obstruction of one of the most basic concept of life

Of course it's not possible, it's about "accepting" it

Beauty is definitely a preset ideal we hold, as we search and strive for it in almost all things. Uglyness evokes such a reaction because we understand that it is an obstruction, a degeneration of a form

Intention only matters as so far as it manifests itself through effect. This example had a positive outcome, but it's likely the next anvil-victim will not be a thief. And the outcome will be bad. This action should still be punished because we know this person is a threat to society, and we're yet to even pose the question if stealing justifies execution(but that can be put aside)

More exactly, could he cease his own omnipotence?

Omnipotence is a fixed state, so no

In the literal sense, no

Evading the term "Jewish' in a discussion about Israel is akin to avoiding the mention of grain in a discussion about bread

It's almost as if a nation cares for its own aspirations over some global justice

I wonder what it could be

Don't kid yourself, why do you care? To improve society as to better facilitate your needs? This would be a quite ineffective method

But why do you care to donate? To seem moral? Doesn't sound very moral at all

Because of an innate sense of what is and what is not beneficial for the tribe. Society couldn't survive with incorrect behavior not because it is "evil" but because it is degenerative. And for that it is considered "bad" while behavior with the most collective benefit is "good"

"Evil" and "good" are just how recklessly one achieves their own self-benefit

Souls

It's far too arbitrary to make into doctrine

But it doesn't remove consciousness

Controlled newspapers and TV with a narrative to push

Modern(and semi-modern) democracy likes to pride itself as a successor to Greek democracy but this couldn't be more false. Greek democracy was an aristocracy of a few educated, intelligent men who would personally meet their candidates and get a first account of what they were voting for. While in modern democracy everyone, without any barriers, is allowed to vote. With this extended voting pool, most don't understand the issues at hand, let alone each candidate's views and proposed policies on them. Most votes would be casted based off emotion or appealing to friends/family/co-workers. If they did, they still wouldn't have anything close to interaction with their candidates, the closest would be a scripted debate or the sort. They're voting for a perceived, media-based image of a candidate.

So modern democracy is very spoon fed and halters the facilitation of ideas. The internet undermines this by allowing unlimited sources for information, going much further than the mainstream media. In this system of immediate, relatively unmonitored communication many false ideas/information will be spread too, but it's illogical to say this started with the internet. One thing that has clearly scared the mainstream media since its very advent has been the internet. They're not scared of people having "wrong" views however, they're scared of new, different views. And, even worse, these people with alternate views can organize through the internet, and could spread their ideology further.

Even in the past, partakers in this democratic system have been hardly "informed". Their views are merely regurgitated and socially influenced. With the internet, people with so many sources of knowledge at their disposal from every source of information can strive for a genuine understanding of the world rather than accepting whatever is said around them as fact.

It would be equally out of your control

The use of senses is clearly mediated somatically. But it's also obvious that despite these same senses in animals, man has something distinct ie he is sentient and able to think further than those immediate senses. This is the basic reasoning behind a soul/spiritual consciousness