- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: GOP Senator drops bill to federally outlaw all porn
Posted on 5/13/25 at 1:36 pm to the808bass
Posted on 5/13/25 at 1:36 pm to the808bass
quote:
If we don’t raise our birth rate, our debt becomes an insolvable issue. Thanks for stopping by. Grab some parting gifts on your way out.
Agreed. Every married couple should get a 100k tax deduction per child.
1
Posted on 5/13/25 at 1:37 pm to JohnnyKilroy
The young uns are not getting married. So, that does nothing.
Posted on 5/13/25 at 1:39 pm to JohnnyKilroy
quote:
With all the shite we have going on could you imagine spending time on banning porn?
We are 36T in debt. You can ban porn when that number hits 0.
Without downplaying the debt...
Internet porn and social media have marked, obvious, pervasive impacts on our culture that have developed in a span of a decade. I just don't think the idea that trade imbalances and the debt are existential issues but social issues are frivolous holds up against reality.
Posted on 5/13/25 at 1:39 pm to SDVTiger
quote:
We used to have to sneak out the porn mag and make sure to return it in perfect order of the stack or you were fricked
Posted on 5/13/25 at 1:39 pm to the808bass
You wouldn’t make sure to get married if it came with a 100k tax deduction per child?
Posted on 5/13/25 at 1:40 pm to Pettifogger
quote:
span of a decade.
Getting close to two.
2008 to today.
Posted on 5/13/25 at 1:42 pm to JohnnyKilroy
quote:
You wouldn’t make sure to get married if it came with a 100k tax deduction per child?
When 1/3 of males under 30 aren’t having sex, giving away tax deductions doesn’t make them find a mate.
We’ve fundamentally changed how whole swaths of society build and maintain relationships (they don’t). Dangling money isn’t going to be a marked factor in changing that. (But you have progressed to agreeing social issues are important while introducing an idea that will lower tax revenue.)
This post was edited on 5/13/25 at 1:43 pm
Posted on 5/13/25 at 1:42 pm to Pettifogger
quote:
I just don't think the idea that trade imbalances and the debt are existential issues but social issues are frivolous holds up against reality.
Really? I would assume most of this board would tell you our country won’t exist much longer if we don’t get our debt under control asap. That’s been a bedrock theme of this board for over a decade.
Posted on 5/13/25 at 1:43 pm to the808bass
quote:
Dangling money isn’t going to be a marked factor in changing that.
Lol.
Lmao even.
Posted on 5/13/25 at 1:45 pm to JohnnyKilroy
lol indeed.
Thanks for your incredible insight, Epictetus Junior.
Thanks for your incredible insight, Epictetus Junior.
Posted on 5/13/25 at 1:45 pm to Pettifogger
quote:
Internet porn and social media have marked, obvious, pervasive impacts on our culture that have developed in a span of a decade. I just don't think the idea that trade imbalances and the debt are existential issues but social issues are frivolous holds up against reality.
Just think how interested young men would be into women if they were not distracted by porn, social media and trying to achieve Federal Reserve economic metrics.
Posted on 5/13/25 at 1:46 pm to JohnnyKilroy
The tax deduction and marriage debate is a GREAT way to highlight the divide on the right IMO...
We need bodies because we need growth, we shouldn't make marriage a prerequisite because it may harm the effectiveness of the policy and the priority is getting the population to GDP replacement/growth level, not promoting marriage.
vs.
We need married families with children so we need to premise the tax benefit on marriage because it is objectively good for society to grow through nuclear families, and this policy will also promote the population growth needed for economic viability.
We need bodies because we need growth, we shouldn't make marriage a prerequisite because it may harm the effectiveness of the policy and the priority is getting the population to GDP replacement/growth level, not promoting marriage.
vs.
We need married families with children so we need to premise the tax benefit on marriage because it is objectively good for society to grow through nuclear families, and this policy will also promote the population growth needed for economic viability.
Posted on 5/13/25 at 1:47 pm to TutHillTiger
Not reading this whole threat but hilarious it's almost 10 pages already
Posted on 5/13/25 at 1:47 pm to the808bass
quote:
Getting close to two.
2008 to today.
I think 2008 is what Haidt uses, but I do think it's fair to say the "on the street" evidence has probably accelerated in the last decade.
Posted on 5/13/25 at 1:49 pm to Pettifogger
It has to go deeper than a tax break for kids in nuclear families. But that would take admitting that some societal structures are inherently advantageous to others. And we’re not far enough down the rabbit hole/sewer drain to admit it.
Posted on 5/13/25 at 1:50 pm to the808bass
I don't know what you're talking about but I probably support normalizing the open discussion of whatever it is
Posted on 5/13/25 at 1:50 pm to Pettifogger
quote:
We need married families with children so we need to premise the tax benefit on marriage because it is objectively good for society to grow through nuclear families, and this policy will also promote the population growth needed for economic viability.
No federal income taxes for the first 150k single or 350k married would be a good tax policy I could get behind.
Posted on 5/13/25 at 1:52 pm to Flats
quote:
an 11th grader
Aaaaand another *minor* reference.
Seeing a pattern.
This post was edited on 5/13/25 at 1:53 pm
Posted on 5/13/25 at 1:52 pm to Pettifogger
Married man and woman is an inherently advantageous family structure. In fact, it’s the Platonic form of the family.
Posted on 5/13/25 at 2:03 pm to Rip Torn
quote:Clearly my argument is that porn shouldn’t be legal. The comparison is not remotely silly if you think about it for more than a second. Are you saying drugs should be legal because people are still going to get their hands on it?
Most drugs are illegal so comparing legal porn to heroin is a silly comparison
Page 9 of 11
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News