Perhaps we could focus first on ailenation for I am not sure, there is agreement even on this.

"So that the treatment and the meaning of the laws are changing in order to accomodate the growing decadence."

This statement reminds me that, if the majority are crazy, they will simply redefine crazy.

Pythagorean,you must admit,there is little today which does not seem out of control,

Mr. Fight the Power wrote,

Are you (and who if not you) entitled to make the judgement as to what are "dark pleasures".

I take it then, for you there is no such thing as pornography,if for you there indeed is such a thing as pornography, how would you know this?

Yours is a firm stance for the individual without consideration for society or context,the individual out of context like the word out of context is meaningless------our name is legion.It truely sounds like there are no gray areas here for you.Society then should try to adapt to the individual,ALL of them? This dialogue could really start to get interesting if you two could find some common ground.

You cannot be autonomus and a member of a society.

Without control there is no freedom.No order, no function.

Certainly there is such a thing as pornography, I just don't think that it is bad.

Agreed,it is a subjective evaluation of what confronts us---we disagree as to the nature of its reality.

"The only positive actions of society should be those that protect the individual's liberty."

This is simply absurd,the totality of societies functions are to protect individual liberty while at the same time protecting itself.In order to protect individual liberty it is necessary to gather a concensus,even its own protection seems to be in the concensus of the majority,and that majority forming the social contract.

"I don't believe people want to be completely autonomous; I believe there is a natural desire to conform, to be a part of society."

Being autonomus is like being pregnant,you are or you are not.If you are a self responsiable member of society,you are not autonomus.

I do believe that people want to be free, in that they are subject to their own will. I think that is axiomatic.

boagie wrote,

Yours [Mr. Fight the Power] is a firm stance for the individual without consideration for society or context,the individual out of context like the word out of context is meaningless------our name is legion.It truely sounds like there are no gray areas here for you.Society then should try to adapt to the individual,ALL of them? This dialogue could really start to get interesting if you two could find some common ground.

Agreed,it is a subjective evaluation of what confronts us---we disagree as to the nature of its reality.

This is simply absurd,the totality of societies functions are to protect individual liberty while at the same time protecting itself.In order to protect individual liberty it is necessary to gather a concensus,even its own protection seems to be in the concensus of the majority,and that majority forming the social contract.

Being autonomus is like being pregnant,you are or you are not.If you are a self responsiable member of society,you are not autonomus.

If they wish to be subject to only their own will, then they do not belong and are not entitled to the benifits societies has to offer.If they accept the benifits without compliance,they are thieves.If they direct their will towards being subject to society,then in fact,they are excerciseing their free will.

I don't think that Mr Fight the Power is being genuine when he keeps changing the focus around in order to assert the dark expressions of the will (even though I am not opposing him on moral grounds).

But we are opposing him on practical and dialogic grounds. But because he is caught up in the moral vortex he is thus a partisan. And there is no sense in seeking a cool headed view of things from one who is morally committed as he is.

For example, we have asserted repeatedly that "autonomy and morality are mutually exclusive" and we have asserted it from a Nietzschean perspective (i.e. the perspective of nihilism). But he refuses even to entertain the idea!

His view that we should have the freedom to do what you want "as long as you're not hurting anyone else" is not a moral absolute to us. But it is the same to him as Christ arisen from the cross is to a Christian. He has bought into a mythology! An irrational one at that, so I would argue (if I had anyone reasonable to argue with!).

I am saying that Mr. Fight the Power doesn't even understand the foundations of his own moral mythology! (and that's precisely what makes a mythology) That we should "do whatever we please, as long as it doesn't harm others" is an assertion of power (an assertion that the powerful in government and business are currently exploiting). That is because societies are more than a mere collection of individuals. "What we please" must conform to a set of ethics of which would please the society. If it does not then it is an assertion of power by he who believes in it. There are no standards left open except the standards of power alone!

But this set of implicit power relations will collapse...are in the process of collapsing. The desire to do what one pleases inevitably leads to the harming of others in a societal context. We are left with a crumbling society based on power relations. I see nothing that will prevent the abuse of power by those who are in a position to do so. And if people wern't so addicted to their personal vices they could see the truth of my claims. And because people are addicted to their own vices then this makes government and business leaders free to be commited to their own vices to the detriment of the society as a whole.

Pythagorean,Mr Fight the power,

Advice,well like I stated earlier, if no common ground can be found here between our position,and Mr Fight the power's position,then further dialogue would be unproductive.This is not to say,we have in any way disproved his belief that pornography is good. It does have that feeling of being futile though does it not. Mr Fight the power,how do you feel/think reguarding this situtation? It is not generateing any mutual understanding and I do not think it is going to.

I would like to see this argument of inequity and harm applied to pornography so that Pythagorean's arguments actually made sense."

Actually the ground for pornography must have been well prepared ahead of time,in order to be acepted to the degree it has been,and surely to the degree it is to become,this is as much a concern as pornography itself.So,pornography itself,as you have said, "I am not saying it is good,but I don't think it is bad,in and of itself." Lets try and identify this middle ground between bad, good and perhaps indifference,perhaps mindless indifference.

Pornography is generally acknowledge as such, because there is no storyline,no real relationships involved,the people involved are payed performers,and it is an opportunity for self stimulation,to watch two or more utter strangers or objects perform.I say objects,for that is what they must be,for generaly there is no character development in these things.

Fucking in and of itself,of course is perfectly healthy, but this material mass produced to catch or trigger the will of anyone willingly or unwillingly exposed to it is a violation of the individual.You do wish to protect the individual do you not.Pornography has become a pollution, in your face like it or not.It underminds any sense of modesty,values that would foster this sentiment are made to look foolish in the presence PUBLIC lust,public vulgarity.I have never gotten into moral philosophy in detail,but I would imagine some of its concerns over pornography would the destruction of values for the coming generation,family values,even the mental health of the individual.I have known people addicted to this stuff over a fairly lengthly time period,I swear they were mental midgets, but perhaps they were that before their addiction,it did not raise them to higher level believe me.

"He is conflating a fundamentally economic argument with a completely social situation."

Pythagorean is concern with the values appearently trashed, that would indeed have effects across the whole spectrum of society thus changeing the nature of what society had been,this is not confused, it is comprehensive.

"Also, I didn't say that pornography is good, only that it is valued by the individual, and that any external pressure put upon that valuation cannot possibly be good.

Actually the ground for pornography must have been well prepared ahead of time,in order to be acepted to the degree it has been,and surely to the degree it is to become,this is as much a concern as pornography itself.So,pornography itself,as you have said, "I am not saying it is good,but I don't think it is bad,in and of itself." Lets try and identify this middle ground between bad, good and perhaps indifference,perhaps mindless indifference.

Pornography is generally acknowledge as such, because there is no storyline,no real relationships involved,the people involved are payed performers,and it is an opportunity for self stimulation,to watch two or more utter strangers or objects perform.I say objects,for that is what they must be,for generaly there is no character development in these things.

Fucking in and of itself,of course is perfectly healthy, but this material mass produced to catch or trigger the will of anyone willingly or unwillingly exposed to it is a violation of the individual.You do wish to protect the individual do you not.Pornography has become a pollution, in your face like it or not.It underminds any sense of modesty,values that would foster this sentiment are made to look foolish in the presence PUBLIC lust,public vulgarity.I have never gotten into moral philosophy in detail,but I would imagine some of its concerns over pornography would the destruction of values for the coming generation,family values,even the mental health of the individual.I have known people addicted to this stuff over a fairly lengthly time period,I swear they were mental midgets, but perhaps they were that before their addiction,it did not raise them to higher level believe me.

Pythagorean is concern with the values appearently trashed, that would indeed have effects across the whole spectrum of society thus changeing the nature of what society had been,this is not confused, it is comprehensive.

People are influenced at every turn of the head,what is wrong with this individual that he is so fragile.External pressure, that is the bloody world, environment,context, it is where one gets and lives a life.Are you saying the individual should not be influenced by his environment?

Yes indeed, society has its own integrity to look out for,its own well being.It is by defination a community and in the art of civil structures, it shares some principles with other forms of art.Part to part,part to the whole,and the whole to each of its parts,you tend to speak as if the individuals will should override the will of the community, this obviously cannot be, if there is to be community.We have laws to keep the order,and when the order and the laws have been violated,the community has been violated,and there is a good chance the individual will go to jail.I am not going to labour to much more on this,if you cannot see where the will of the community necessarily trumps the will of an individual I think we are beating a dead horse here.

Mr Fight the power,

"The question must be asked again, by the way, why is pornography bad in-of itself?"

In and of itself it is not bad,considered in isolation,as public display it is bad.

Actually this dialogue has lost its charm,I get the feeling,justified or not,that it is the confrontation the delights you.Where as we all share in a degree of that,it does result or prove a futile effort to come to some understanding.So,apparently neither side is moved by the other,a lot of dialogue to no end.

Mr. Fight the Power wrote,

I think you and him can continue to make these "pragmatic" arguments all day, but eventually it will come down to the two of you finally accepting that you prefer the traditional morality over the progressive morality (in this instance, you may be very progressive in others) before we actually gain traction in this discussion.

Mr. Fight the Power wrote,

As I have said of the social contract, people should be a member of society as an act of their own will, not of society's. "Society's" will ultimately is the will of the individual's who control society, so if it is society's will that bridges the contract, then that creates a situation where one's will is subservient to another, or more importantly, one is made a means to another ends. I don't believe that Kant discovered some objective basis for morality, but from my own view of human dignity (largely derived from my opinion of myself), I believe that everyone should be allowed to be their own end.