Italy bans 48 porn sites “for your safety”. The state as your digital parent.

JohnnyDoe said:

This is an interpretation of a piece of a 7th century manuscript compiled by various authors that doesn’t describe images, film, or even consent. Let's call it an iron age prohibition generalized centuries later to fit modern mental problems and to justify suppression.
Everyone is free to follow the teachings of any book they choose, provided it doesn’t restrict the freedom of others.

If you mention the Bible I agree but Quran it's not.
Everyone is free to interpret it, I respect everyone's belief.

CEO said:

I don't care who watch porn, my main concern who created it and why.
In my religion. He did, other religion maybe not.

My question. Why do I have to watch porn if I can do ethically legally healthy Sexual relationship with my future wife for love and to have kids? If it's necessary

The concern here is not porn itself, but the way the state restricts individual freedoms, using various disguised mechanisms to control the population and gather data that could be turned against them at any unforeseen moment.

People will always find ways to do freely what has been restricted. Anything that is prohibited or suppressed tends to persist, and often resurfaces in a more extreme form.

JohnnyDoe said:

You are kind, but you don't follow the Quran, which is very clear about how you should treat the dis or mis believers:

Surah At-Tawbah (9:5)
"kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush"

Surah Al-Anfal (8:12)
“I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieved, so strike [them] upon the necks and strike from them every fingertip.”

Surah Muhammad (47:4)
“So when you meet those who disbelieve, strike their necks until, when you have inflicted slaughter upon them, then secure their bonds”

Honestly I can say NO COMMENT.

we don't understand Quran that way, I am a true Muslim believer and respect other believers that follow other religions follow the holy book and I can tell you that we have a method to understand what God mean and when, why, where.

So my last answer to this is :

al-mumtahanah 8
Allah does not forbid you from dealing kindly and fairly with those who have neither fought nor driven you out of your homes. Surely Allah loves those who are fair.

al-maidah 82
You will surely find the most bitter towards the believers to be the Jews and polytheists and the most gracious to be those who call themselves Christian. That is because there are priests and monks among them and because they are not arrogant.

JohnnyDoe said:

It leaves no room to interpretation: you gotta kill the disbeliever.
If you don't do that, fine, but you are not following the Quran. You’re following what someone claimed is the “correct” interpretation of something that couldn’t have been written more clearly.
Same goes for the vague teachings that some people interpret as being against porn.

If you don't like porn, don't watch it. Don't force other people to do the same and don't ask the state to educate the disbeliever.

I don't care who watch or doesn't watch, can do whatever he/she wants with his/her life.
I follow my belief and have the right to share my opinion.

freedom is either absolute or none, no exceptions, no doubts

I'm with @JohnnyDoe and @void on this matter.
You can't give those even a millimeter. If you give them an inch, you're feeding the beast that will sooner or later destroy you.

i was just said there was a leak in one of major ID providers in italy and the data of 5 millions citizens got leaked...
Cut the state out of these things, they cannot even handle basic stuff and you give them authority over your private life?
also these kind of authorities in italy and other eu countries are useless and are just places to hire family and friends...
they literally should not exist.

BTW have you seen the official list from the authority has search tags and session ids in the links lol
they were literally searching "gay daddy porn" and they copy pasted the whole search query to the official document 🤣:ROFLMAO: 🤣
that sums it up, they're a bunch of perverts and you pay these perverts to rule over your life cause you don't want to grow up and fight your demons...

I am fully aware of all the negative shit porn can do to a young brain, especially for young men. I am Catholic.
Still. The state should not get involved. Imagine the other side comes to power and uses the same law to ban all internet traffic related to the Quran. They could find many (probably also justifiable) reasons.

Given this logic, @CEO should also support CBDCs. Their main selling point is also protection from bad things.

God has given us free will. It's up to us what we do with it. It should not be up to some politician.

If something should be banned, that’s religion. It fucks up your brain and your actions.
Karl Marx said it better than anyone else: “Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people”.
If that hurts your feelings, sorry, but your brain is at the same developmental stage of a kid when he discovers that Santa Claus is not real.

Marty McFly said:

If something should be banned, that’s religion.

if "should" whose preference is it?
if "banned" by whom? who will enforce it?

it's good to realize that believe in state is religion, same is the believe in democracy, same in collectivism, same in consensual society and uniformism, same is social solidarity and same is the importance of humankind

whenever your brains wants you to use "it should" or "I want" it's time for sanity check - the universe doesn't care - if you want something then buy it, fight for it, beg for it... but don't make others live for your own sake

it's perfectly fine to hate religions (or whatever else)... the right way to go is to exploit it, prosper and let the believers perish

void said:

freedom is either absolute or none, no exceptions, no doubts

I fully agree with the concept of freedom.
Every state, by definition, imposes some limits on people. So, this should mean that a ‘free state’ cannot really exist…

void said:

if "should" whose preference is it?
if "banned" by whom? who will enforce it?

it's good to realize that believe in state is religion, same is the believe in democracy, same in collectivism, same in consensual society and uniformism, same is social solidarity and same is the importance of humankind

whenever your brains wants you to use "it should" or "I want" it's time for sanity check - the universe doesn't care - if you want something then buy it, fight for it, beg for it... but don't make others live for your own sake

it's perfectly fine to hate religions (or whatever else)... the right way to go is to exploit it, prosper and let the believers perish

If we view religion as a system of rules, beliefs, and rituals centered around God, it can in many ways place significant limits on a person’s freedom and lead people to make choices they might not have made otherwise. It’s also important to distinguish between God and religion, as they are fundamentally different concepts.

Justit said:

it can in many ways place significant limits on a person’s freedom and lead people to make choices they might not have made otherwise.

if it comes from individual preference then nothing wrong about it - there is ZERO objectivity and no way how to judge voluntary acts of others without committing a "crime" of violence

Justit said:

I fully agree with the concept of freedom.
Every state, by definition, imposes some limits on people. So, this should mean that a ‘free state’ cannot really exist…

what people tend to miss it the difference between law/regulation (backed by coercion) and voluntarily accepted rules/standardization (backed by individual preference)

ostracization and discrimination coming from individual level as a way to express preference is something essential to build sustainable and healthy society bottom->up

JohnnyDoe said:

This reasoning confuses society with the state.

Society is the realm of voluntary cooperation, creativity, and production; the state is the apparatus of coercion that lives by expropriating those who create. "Every state imposes limits” is exactly why a truly free state is an impossibility.

Freedom belongs to society, not to the state. A “free state” is as logical as a “benevolent parasite”. The most good it can do is shrink to the point where society does the real living, while the state survives as an ethereal entity rather than a nasty master.

Following this reasoning, wouldn’t the logical outcome be a stateless society, ie people cooperating freely without coercive institutions? If that’s the ideal, what explains the persistence of states throughout history? Why has no large-scale society managed to sustain itself without a state?