Or goodness is its own reward?

More like present day appreciator of dat ass.

Or hear the kid out: dat ass. 😎

Free trip to Sudan, here we come!

still not citing a single law to prove porn is illegal

Im not engaging with you

Good thinking bailing now: looks like someone knows when they’re beat. It would be incredibly easy to prove me wrong if your claim were true, yet you don’t. Not hard to figure out why.

I know facts don’t support my argument, so I’ll evade by calling them a propagandist & hope no one notices

You basically: just because facts are inconvenient to your argument doesn’t mean it’s valid to ignore them, pretend they’re “propaganda”, or evade with irrelevant claims.

So, cool fallacies & evasion, bro. You’re 🤡ing yourself right here.

Next time, try logic.

So if it’s prohibited by a law

Again, it’s not. Again, cite a law.

My state literally made pornhub illegal today

They did not. Words mean things. Answered here. Cite the law: you can’t.

please stop doing apologia and/or propaganda

Right back at you: twisting the word illegal. I disapprove of the dumb online ID regulations, too: still not illegal. US isn’t throwing pornographers & erotica writers in jail.

China has always banned porn

You said it. Not banned in USA.

You’re welcome to sleepwalk into authoritarianism

Chinese government is already there.

US still has a long way to “catch up”. They’re not

• sending Ughyers to reeducation camps or forced sterilizations
• organ harvesting the Falun Gong
• suppressing discussion of the times they’ve sent tanks against civilians.

The Chinese government doesn’t care about individual rights & never has: it’s baked into the formula. They always put tankie ideology first, the individual later, sometimes far later.

That’s not illegalizing it & it’s not throwing erotica writers in jail. Don’t believe me? Cite the laws. It’s legal.

just like in half the US

It isn’t.

Trump Hit by Bombshell

😲

Threat From Hackers Who Stole His Aides’ Emails

😞

If you killed Ted Cruz on the floor of the Senate, and the trial was in the Senate, nobody would convict you.

―Lindsey Graham

Winning a public debate

Never claimed “winning” (in that sense) mattered, only that we can show facts don’t support a fool’s conclusion (ie, “show they’re a fool”). Whether others care to recognize that or let themselves get misled by invalid rhetoric is up to them: some have better discernment than others. Upholding facts (or logic & truth) so others can accept them when they’re ready (not to indulge their biases) is “winning” enough to me. Humans still gonna human.

Changing someone’s mind in a public debate isn’t necessary to show everyone they’re a fool. That’s usually enough.

Whether they ever get sick of being a fool is entirely up to them. If they’re wise & mature, they will & maybe even admit it. Some people never do & it’s mostly their problem at that point. Humans gonna human.

They should also be the most progressive

The tankie government that denies Tiananmen Square doesn’t have much regard for individual rights?

Fundamental principles that define & operate a government aren’t supposed to change frequently or easily. Neither are fundamental restrictions on the authority of government (ie, fundamental rights).

It makes sense to me that those fundamental freedoms are written somewhere & that judicial decisions would frequently cite them & related case law especially in claims that legislation violates them.

It also makes sense to me that changing those fundamental rights requires something more substantial (to indicate overwhelming consent of the people) than merely legislating them away. Otherwise, a congress with a simple majority of Trumpy republicans could simply legislate away essential freedoms as they pleased.

While the US has problems, merely having a constitution (1) the courts meaningfully refer to (2) that demands special effort to amend isn’t clearly a problem. Do you have a better solution for ensuring some freedoms aren’t recklessly written away?

As I was suggesting with

If you think it’s so easy, then go ahead, try it, and tell us how that went.

the barriers to change it (process, legal requirements) aren’t something to easily dismiss (are you aware of the process & requirements?) especially with today’s political obstructionism. It requires approval by supermajorities (²⁄₃) of both houses & ratification by ³⁄₄ of the states.

Is that so?

How does that respond to anything I wrote?

Did someone use AI to generate you?

From article

Do you remember when a police officer in Massachusetts arrested Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates as he was trying to get into his own home? That got huge national attention. And then President Obama called a “beer summit” and brought them both to the White House to talk.

That was diplomacy in a sense, but it was also democracy policy.

Wasn’t that mostly superficial, performative, photo-op theater? Shouldn’t democracy policy be more substantive?

I think an effective democracy policy needs to revitalize community & public service programs to promote social engagement, understanding, & support.

refuse to update

It has 27 amendments so far. If you think it’s so easy, then go ahead, try it, and tell us how that went.