You said:

An erotic fictional novel about interspecies intercourse you have said is speech.

In reference to my statement:

If someone were writing books about how we should be able to violently love animals, that would be speech and should be protected.

I'm going to just leave this here to show how radically different the two are.

Your entire argument rests on that misreading. I am sorry to inform you of this, but your argument just died.

I summarized your statement in the title, and turn it around on you:

Or do you feel it's your right to tell everybody else how to live?

You're telling me I have to live around animal porn in a society that demands it be normal. Who gives you that right?

See: you're stupid.

That word "marginalize", I don't think it means what you think it means.

I realize you're probably just typing in a meme by reflex action, but here's the definition:

to relegate to an unimportant or powerless position within a society or group

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marginalize

Now let's look at the rest of what you typed:

The core question is whose rights are being violated by the existence of animal porn, that supposedly gives you the right to initiate force against those who view animal porn. Your rights do not get violated by the mere existence of the stuff, and to claim as such is an extraordinary stretch - how are your rights violated - are you unable to go out in public because there are posters of animal porn everywhere?

The point is that many of us don't want to live in a society where deviancy is the accepted norm. Legalizing animal porn takes that away from us.

Prohibition and proscription DO NOT WORK. Each person, and children *are* people, must develop in themselves informed reasons as to why certain behaviors are not healthy for them.

You've confused prohibition and a lack of honest answers.

I suggest honest answers, and a strong signal that certain behaviors are seen as bad for a reason.

Letting kids "make up their own minds" before they're ready results in the kind of situation you found yourself in.

When I had questions about sex, I did what any good nerd would do... I hit the encyclopedia and then, some of the more detailed sources in the library. It wasn't difficult to find and had no prurient content, thus didn't mislead me as you misled yourself.

Don't blame prohibition for where you wandered off track, and definitely don't do the same to your kids by enforcing no standards in some kind of tantrum against the authority you blame for your own mistakes.

The form of ad hominem:

"My opponent is an x, so his argument cannot be valid."

Here's your statement:

After all, controlling what is and is not allowed to be discussed is what allowed totalitarian ideologies to wield sufficient power to perform their atrocities, and the justifications to establish such censorship in the first place are similar to those used by those who want to censor pornography.

Totalitarian ideologies also prohibit murder; should we legalize murder then to avoid being totalitarian?

Your argument presupposes that the source of totalitarianism is censorship, when in fact the source of totalitarianism is total state control.

Similarity in argument doesn't make a valid comparison.

Then you reveal for the second time you don't recognize the ad hominem format. This is the statement you claimed was an ad hominem attack:

In addition, if you're over 13, it's a pointless and recognizably played out tactic.

Doesn't fit the form. An ad hominem of the same would be:

"This guy is 13, so his argument can't be valid."

Use the traditional test: is it only for prurient interest (titillation) or does it offer some other content?

Restricting others from doing things you don't approve of, actively anti-freedom.

Allowing others to do things you don't want to do yourself, do not accept as moral/proper/right, is being a passive advocate for freedom.

Do you really think the world is this simple?

Allow everything then; now you've got maximal freedom and all our problems go away.

Right?

Oh -- that's not so. How could that be? It turns out that societies are defined by their values, not by allowing everyone to do everything (having no values).

The current dogma approved by your government, media and social group is that allowing any behavior is good, and restricting any behavior is bad.

But life isn't that simple, unless you're talking about a loyalty test to an authoritarian regime.

I've never quite understood how you can say "Allowing (x) to happen imposes your viewpoint on me".

It's a good day to extend that thinking.

Allowing (x) to happen does several things:

1. Signals social approval of (x)
2. Increases the frequency of (x) as a result
3. Creates social consequences of (x)
4. Disallows a society where (x) is not present

Let's look at these one by one.

First, your society is signaling to its own member that (x) is not just accepted behavior, but thus is recommended behavior. If we legalize eating raw octopus, we have said nothing is wrong with it; that puts it, in the binary of behaviors described by government, in the "approved" category by not being in the "disapproved category."

Second, that means more people are going to do it

Third, this means that all of us are going to experience the social consequences of it. We are all subsidizing it, in effect, even if we disagree with it.

Fourth, you have eliminated my ability to have the society I want, which doesn't include it.

Let's look at marijuana.

1. We legalize dope. You now have no reason to tell your kids not to do it, since gov't thinks it's OK..
2. People smoke more of it.
3. Whatever social consequences of pot-smoking occur and we all pay for them instead of putting that money toward other things, like space exploration or ocean renewal.
4. I lose the ability to live in a society where pot-smoking is not normal. I may want this for moral reasons, ethical reasons, or even scientific reasons. But either way, I'm deprived.

You've fallen into a fallacy:

How is "You may do this, or may not, depending on your choice," more imposing than "You may not do this"? How in the world is freedom more imposing than restriction?

You're looking at a change in state of the law, not a change in state of society.

Either way, permission or denial, a change has been effected and that changes the overall experience of the society.

Calling it "freedom" (etc) is just a linguistic and political trope in this case, as it doesn't relate to the effect of what you're describing.

Permissiveness is not victimless. It is simply a change in status, much like denial. Thus, any condition is an imposition in effect.

Currently, our society has a bias in favor of permissiveness, using the "it's not a change to you" argument that you outlined above. However, this is fading, since people are seeing that all these permissive changes have long-term social consequences starting with the perception of approval.

Hope that cleared it up for you.

S/he was pointing out that if you asked 10 different people what behaviour is unhealthy and should be banned, you would get 10 different answers. Who are you to decide that X should be banned, but Y should be allowed? Moreover, who are you to judge people who are considered by society's standards to be overweight?

What a trivial and obvious "point," which defaults to an argument that health standards are arbitrary.

I contend they are not, especially in the case of obesity.

Even rudimentary data collection, doctors' experience, and so on, show us that obesity leads to health problems.

It's not an arbitrary choice.

The same is true of many other factors.

Claiming that reality is subjective is the oldest fallacy in human experience!

fat people

I don't think obesity is normal or should be encouraged.

The rest of your ad hominem attacks were ignored, since we're adults here.

And here we have a perfect example of someone willing to impose their viewpoints on others while bristling at the thought of others exposing him to things he thinks are "bad".

Isn't that what you're doing to me?

"Accept animal sex, or you're a fascist!"

You're joking, right? or are you 13?

well the problem is what happens if you decide to make a semipolitical comic blog featuring a family of Vulpine Anthromorphs??

This is a drawn comic, right? Like in the Mike Diana case?

I think the point is that filmed pornography and written/drawn content are quite different and merit different rules.

I always wondered about the sanity of the jurists who convicted Mike Diana, since his comics were obviously very fringe and not purely for prurient gratification. Same way with the court cases for Ulysses and Naked Lunch

Those however had something of literary importance to contribute. Porn contributes nothing. It's another product.

What fascist organization do you represent?

When you can't win on the merits of your argument, call your opponents fascists, Nazis, racists, elitists, rich, privileged, etc.

That's the classic ad hominem attack:

"You shouldn't listen to this guy because he's a fascist!"

In addition, if you're over 13, it's a pointless and recognizably played out tactic.

People who argue like that are the people who slow down society and ruin workplaces by consistently opposing any notion of quality control.

Having undefined "violent" pornography one could easily find consensual BDSM, rough sex, rape play, homosexuality and other sexual acts which are very normal.

Do you have some science for that?

It seems like you've made a political decision here, which is that every behavior should be accepted.

Not everyone agrees.

Some of us want our kids to grow up in a world where only healthy behaviors exist.

We want people to go experiment elsewhere, and face the consequences of their experiments without dragging us down with them.

You could call us "the control group."

Fighting for free speech is always hard, because it's offensive speech you always have to defend.

I agree in that.

However, pornography isn't speech. It's an entertainment product.

If someone were writing books about how we should be able to violently love animals, that would be speech and should be protected.

That's different from a bunch of people wanting their deviant porn, approval of which would suggest approval of deviancy and thus marginalize those of non-deviant lifestyles.