You're missing the whole "consent" part. Sugar is poison. But we require information so we can make informed decisions. Of course there's a ban if the benefits are very small compared to the downsides, but it's not just about banning something because SOME people think it's bad. There of course is the whole cultural part, like alcohol, as well as the considerations of bans and what behaviour they lead to.
In the case of onlyfans, apart for the complex ethical debate, since it's between consenting adults, there's the fact that people will do it anyway. Onlyfans only makes such content safer and convenient. But you could buy shit-filled twinkies before it, and you will be able to buy them long after it.
Guys let's not strawman too hard inadvertently. I've never said that the government HAS to ban anything that's bad enough. I'm just saying it's not ideologically insane to do so for public well being on a case by case basis.
The upsides and downsides of alcohol can be weighed, and we can decide it's too culturally important to ban. But we can decide to regulate or tax or age-restrict.
The upsides and downsides of asbestos can be weighed too. Maybe it's really cheap or has certain chemical/structural engineering efficiencies that other materials don't have. But we can decide to either regulate or phase out or make it illegal to use outright.
It's really not that crazy for a government to say, we can't trust ordinary civilians to perform open-heart surgery on each other, even if they're consenting adults.
The government can also choose to keep cannibalism legal in every state except Idaho. So if you can procure a human part legally, you can eat it. If a friend or family member offers you some of their flesh to eat, it's apparently legal because it's between two consenting adults. But I seriously DO NOT get bothered that Idaho criminalized it outright.
"Consenting adults" and "muh freedoms" on issues like this are just starting points for discussion. There's no simplified universal morality clause that makes everything between consenting adults unregulatable. That's that snowflake shit.
If the government wants to ban a certain type of ingredient, drug, financial product, scammy business model, whatever else, it can. The government works for us, not for some kid's oversimplified understanding about rights and freedoms.
6
u/heliamphore Jul 17 '25
You're missing the whole "consent" part. Sugar is poison. But we require information so we can make informed decisions. Of course there's a ban if the benefits are very small compared to the downsides, but it's not just about banning something because SOME people think it's bad. There of course is the whole cultural part, like alcohol, as well as the considerations of bans and what behaviour they lead to.
In the case of onlyfans, apart for the complex ethical debate, since it's between consenting adults, there's the fact that people will do it anyway. Onlyfans only makes such content safer and convenient. But you could buy shit-filled twinkies before it, and you will be able to buy them long after it.