Pornography

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

HexHammer
 
Reply Fri 12 Feb, 2010 09:44 am
@awoelt,
awoelt;110552 wrote:
I am against porn. I know the argument against it. But i do not really understand the argument for it. Could anybody help me?:poke-eye:

4 the record i mean i think it is illogical to veiw porn. like red tube and playboy. that kind of ting
It's a stimuli for senses, without stimuli people go mad. Put people in isolation and they eventually go mad, save those with strong meditation technique and such, but that's besides the point.

Creatures has strong basic instincts, without them extinction would have occured long ago.

The practial kind of porn is letting out steam. At the release of porn in Denmark the rape count fell drasticly.

Be glad for porn.
 
groundedspirit
 
Reply Fri 12 Feb, 2010 02:39 pm
@Eudaimon,
Eudaimon;126186 wrote:

Now what happens when we lift taboo? What prevents an individual (if it is an animal) from becoming rapist? The only thing that remains is the fear of punishment.


I can only assume that thinking like this is the result of living in a repressive culture/society ? Please keep that in mind.
We all have the capability to establish and live according to our own ethical values. It is not a 'requirement' that we be threatened by some power with punishment in order to live an ethical life.


GS

---------- Post added 02-12-2010 at 03:49 PM ----------

Eudaimon;126125 wrote:
religion when understood as thou obviously understandest that is nothing but hallowed way of living which contributes to the surviving of community.


Oh dear !!
Eudaimon, you need to understand and accept that "religion" is FAR more than any hallowed way of living ! A 'hallowed way of living' requires no central structure.
Religion is a man made power and control structure. It is in effect a political control structure. Power is exerted over the many by the few and power corrupts all humans. It is the nature of power and the weakness of being human. There are endless examples where rules & dogmas have been instilled by those in power for either their own benifit - or the benifit of those closest to the power structure.
To ignore this fact is to ignore history.
Sexual repression is only one of the many obvious examples.

GS
 
de budding
 
Reply Sun 14 Feb, 2010 02:29 am
@awoelt,
Quote:
First you instill in the head of children from all your culture how good is it to have sex in abundance, that it is the necessary component of what they call love.
- Eudaimon

Grossly inaccurate and misrepresentative of the intent of western child education and parenting.

I also feel that your arguments are burning red with moral preconceptions of sex; that it is wrong to have sex 'known about', or to have it for that matter, bar under religious/marital permission.

Perhaps some of the west's issues relating to sex (e.g. increases in teenage pregnancies and STD/STI) are to do with a drift away form religion, but this can only be an intellectually healthy thing and these problems are very much being acted upon; these things take time and there is no easy way to change the mind sets of young people. Also bear in mind that cultural and social change is drastic here with every generation, and a generation (or generations) of atheists are trying to find morals in a world with no God. Good intellectual exercise to say the least and the right and righteous path of humanity.
But, by and large there is no apparent agreement amongst children (ages 6-16) that it is 'good to have sex in abundance', in fact it's quite the opposite in many friend groups. I don't know how many GCSE drama performances I have watched this term already which are about friend groups alienating a member because one of them starts smoking and having promiscuous sex.
I think, to be honest, you know nothing of western childhood, particularly British, and should reserve your damning and cruel generalisations until you've had some experience working with them. They are generally delightful and caring individuals who I enjoy working with very much. Opinions like yours are what damage childhood.
Dan.
 
Insty
 
Reply Sun 14 Feb, 2010 02:53 am
@awoelt,
I'm unclear as to why it should be necessary to offer arguments in favor of pornography. My suspicion is that most people who make or consume porn don't see any need to justify their behavior.

Or is the question simply what arguments could be made in favor of the production and consumption of pornography (regardless of whether such arguments are necessary)?
 
Krumple
 
Reply Sun 14 Feb, 2010 03:41 am
@Eudaimon,
Eudaimon;126186 wrote:
I cannot see why I am wrong.


I'll try to point it out again.

Eudaimon;126186 wrote:

Now what happens when we lift taboo? What prevents an individual (if it is an animal) from becoming rapist? The only thing that remains is the fear of punishment. In this case, if one knows that he won't be punished, he will easily go and take what he wants, which cannot be accepted by society, therefore it will keep on upholding that taboo.


People do not operate like this, you are being dishonest. How do I know? Because let's put it in another context.

Drinking alcohol is legal. I could drink alcohol any time I wanted but I don't. Why? Are you implying there is a taboo that prevents me from drinking and that is why I don't? No. I care nothing for what people think about drinking. I have drank, I don't any more, but it is not because of a taboo. But you are saying that if something was allowed then in my case I should be out drinking, but I'm not?

If you made murder legal tomorrow, I would not go out killing people. You might, but I don't NOT do stuff because they are illegal or legal. I do NOT do stuff because of taboos or lack of taboos. I care nothing for those things.

Eudaimon;126186 wrote:

But its nature remains and manifests itself sometimes in rape or in hiring prostitutes, or in watching pornography. It remains egoistic. Violence is the manifestation of egoism. I think the link here is quite obvious.


No, it might be egotistical but it's definitely NOT violence. This is you being dishonest again. You are taking two aspects and putting them together but they have absolutely no reason to be placed together. I also would not say that violence is always a manifestation of egoism. That is you projecting and I can see that you justify everything based off egoism or the lack of it, to state your position, but you are not being honest to what the definitions mean. Pornography might be egoistic but it's definitely not violent.

Eudaimon;126186 wrote:

I don't know what prevents thee from becoming a rapist. Maybe another taboo, the taboo of the rights of others, or the taboo of mutual agreement for sex...
See, this weapon "taboo" may easily turn against those who use it...


You want to know what prevents me from being a rapist? It's because it's taboo. Can you laugh, because I am? Wait let me go ask the animal in me to see what it would have to say. I'll get back to you later.
 
Eudaimon
 
Reply Sun 14 Feb, 2010 04:35 am
@de budding,
ArthBH;127020 wrote:
I think you really need to sort your ego out. I am also a realist. I realise, that everything anyone ever does is for their own benefit, just like killing an animal for it's meat. But at the same time, I do have respect for women. Perhaps this is something you do not have, and that is why you need it so reinforced. Life is not to be lived by caring about what people like you think, life is ultimately about being happy, and if pornography makes people happy, then what of it?

Pornography does not make people happy.
Yes, we do everything for our own benefit. But it happens that we can only be happy, "gain benefit", when we have compassion to others, when we value others as HUMANS, not as things, this is what I am trying to convey. Only when one feels the infinite value of others, not as means of pleasure, not as means of getting money, there one may be happy.
When one is watching pornography with desire to "relieve himself", he stops seeing crippled souls of those men and women, he just spits upon them.

groundedspirit;127589 wrote:
I can only assume that thinking like this is the result of living in a repressive culture/society ? Please keep that in mind.
We all have the capability to establish and live according to our own ethical values. It is not a 'requirement' that we be threatened by some power with punishment in order to live an ethical life.

Agree. But my words should be understood in the context. "Taboo" here was first used by Krumple in opposition to a certain natural behaviour. What was that natural behaviour according to him, I have no idea. Therefore I assumed that this is animal state with all its consequences. I think that in this case, every ethical behaviour should be considered as a result of a certain set of taboos.

de_budding;128137 wrote:
- Eudaimon

Grossly inaccurate and misrepresentative of the intent of western child education and parenting.

I also feel that your arguments are burning red with moral preconceptions of sex; that it is wrong to have sex 'known about', or to have it for that matter, bar under religious/marital permission.

Perhaps some of the west’s issues relating to sex (e.g. increases in teenage pregnancies and STD/STI) are to do with a drift away form religion, but this can only be an intellectually healthy thing and these problems are very much being acted upon; these things take time and there is no easy way to change the mind sets of young people. Also bear in mind that cultural and social change is drastic here with every generation, and a generation (or generations) of atheists are trying to find morals in a world with no God. Good intellectual exercise to say the least and the right and righteous path of humanity.
But, by and large there is no apparent agreement amongst children (ages 6-16) that it is ‘good to have sex in abundance’, in fact it’s quite the opposite in many friend groups. I don’t know how many GCSE drama performances I have watched this term already which are about friend groups alienating a member because one of them starts smoking and having promiscuous sex.
I think, to be honest, you know nothing of western childhood, particularly British, and should reserve your damning and cruel generalisations until you’ve had some experience working with them. They are generally delightful and caring individuals who I enjoy working with very much. Opinions like yours are what damage childhood.
Dan.

Thanks for this, but this is again not what I was basically saying. I was not speaking about intentional education, but rather of the atmosphere in general. Let us look at those "youth comedies" with constant sexual implication? There is an obsession with sex in western culture (Russia included), but in some people it remains on the level of vulgar jokes, watching pornography and so on. They are somehow stopped.
But some people with greater susceptibility learn that this is the most important side of life, perhaps the only important. I personally know some girls who think so. And this is tragedy, because they think that the only possible relationships which can be between man and woman are sexual. Many of them start smoking, drinking, taking drugs... They have know faith in good, love anymore, they actually agree that they are things and want to get as much material benefit from it as possible. And the most terrifying thing is that WE when watch pornography and do all the rest I described, not only support such a view in them, but with every year create more and more new victims.

---------- Post added 02-14-2010 at 01:52 PM ----------

Krumple;128152 wrote:

People do not operate like this, you are being dishonest. How do I know? Because let's put it in another context.

Drinking alcohol is legal. I could drink alcohol any time I wanted but I don't. Why? Are you implying there is a taboo that prevents me from drinking and that is why I don't? No. I care nothing for what people think about drinking. I have drank, I don't any more, but it is not because of a taboo. But you are saying that if something was allowed then in my case I should be out drinking, but I'm not?

If you made murder legal tomorrow, I would not go out killing people. You might, but I don't NOT do stuff because they are illegal or legal. I do NOT do stuff because of taboos or lack of taboos. I care nothing for those things.

Taboo is not what is illegal. Taboo is much more delicate. Why don't people walk nude in the streets when it is hot?
As to alcohol, I think we should examine it carefully, I'd like to ask thee why thou dost not drink anymore.

Krumple;128152 wrote:
No, it might be egotistical but it's definitely NOT violence. This is you being dishonest again. You are taking two aspects and putting them together but they have absolutely no reason to be placed together. I also would not say that violence is always a manifestation of egoism. That is you projecting and I can see that you justify everything based off egoism or the lack of it, to state your position, but you are not being honest to what the definitions mean. Pornography might be egoistic but it's definitely not violent.

But can we at least agree that watching pornography an violence spring from the same source, i.e. egoism? So if one is watching it, he may be called egoist that is one having the source of violence, of struggle, in himself?
 
Krumple
 
Reply Sun 14 Feb, 2010 04:57 am
@Eudaimon,
Eudaimon;128161 wrote:
Pornography does not make people happy.
Yes, we do everything for our own benefit. But it happens that we can only be happy, "gain benefit", when we have compassion to others, when we value others as HUMANS, not as things, this is what I am trying to convey. Only when one feels the infinite value of others, not as means of pleasure, not as means of getting money, there one may be happy.
When one is watching pornography with desire to "relieve himself", he stops seeing crippled souls of those men and women, he just spits upon them.


See this is where you have gotten it all wrong. Pornography is about fantasy and not because it has to be real. Just like watching a movie or reading a book, it can be used to reach a different part of the imagination. The only difference is one is utilizing sexual pleasure while the other is using mental or emotional stimulation. You are calling one bad while the other good, yet they are exactly the same thing. This points out how you are being dishonest.

Eudaimon;128161 wrote:

Agree. But my words should be understood in the context. "Taboo" here was first used by Krumple in opposition to a certain natural behaviour. What was that natural behaviour according to him, I have no idea. Therefore I assumed that this is animal state with all its consequences. I think that in this case, every ethical behaviour should be considered as a result of a certain set of taboos.


No what you want to do is dictate what you believe is right and expect everyone to adopt your definitions. I am saying you are being dishonest towards what you are stating. You know that you are yet you want to ignore it still because you simply do not like it. That is fine, you don't have to like it, but you do have to accept that others will not agree with your conclusion. You can't expect them to follow your conclusion either. Trying to say it is unethical or immoral is dishonest.

You like to say it portrays the people involved in a negative connotation. The people in pornography a majority of the time WANT to be there. They are not forced into it as you want to imply that they are some how victims against their will. That is dishonesty.

Eudaimon;128161 wrote:

Thanks for this, but this is again not what I was basically saying. I was not speaking about intentional education, but rather of the atmosphere in general. Let us look at those "youth comedies" with constant sexual implication? There is an obsession with sex in western culture (Russia included), but in some people it remains on the level of vulgar jokes, watching pornography and so on. They are somehow stopped.
But some people with greater susceptibility learn that this is the most important side of life, perhaps the only important. I personally know some girls who think so. And this is tragedy, because they think that the only possible relationships which can be between man and woman are sexual. Many of them start smoking, drinking, taking drugs... They have know faith in good, love anymore, they actually agree that they are things and want to get as much material benefit from it as possible. And the most terrifying thing is that WE when watch pornography and do all the rest I described, not only support such a view in them, but with every year create more and more new victims.


Your definition of these girls is bent and twisted perspective. Yes some of them are moved into realizing that men are focused on sexual gains and they can exploit those desires in men by utilizing their sexual appeal. Not all women do this, not all women can do that, and it is dishonest to claim that that is their over all motivation for taking drugs. You are the only one calling them victims, but I bet if you asked them, they would not claim to be victims.

---------- Post added 02-14-2010 at 03:13 AM ----------

Eudaimon;128161 wrote:
Taboo is not what is illegal.


I am aware of that. You were trying to claim that if the taboo were lifted that somehow everyone would become rapists. I was trying to point out to you that people don't NOT do something because they are illegal but instead they probably have their own personal reasoning why they don't do something. If murder was legal, I wouldn't go around killing people because it is now legal to do. I wouldn't become a rapist if the sexual taboo were gone.

Eudaimon;128161 wrote:

Taboo is much more delicate. Why don't people walk nude in the streets when it is hot?


Some places they do. However; probably don't in all places because the people who want sex to be taboo cry and complain and force the police to tell them to put clothes on, so they don't have a choice if they want to enjoy the day outside of a jail cell.

Eudaimon;128161 wrote:

As to alcohol, I think we should examine it carefully, I'd like to ask thee why thou dost not drink anymore.


I used it to help me unwind but I found out that I don't need it, I just didn't know the way I do now. Sometimes I didn't like the after effects waking up the next day hung over trying to have a normal day. Although that is easily solved I just thought not drinking was an easier solution. It's cheaper not to drink. I have fewer amount of liabilities when I am sober. I have absolutely no problem with drinking alcohol. In fact I don't even care if people drink and drive. If they hurt someone from it, then I do, but if they manage to get home without hurting anyone, no foul and that is how it should be.

Eudaimon;128161 wrote:

But can we at least agree that watching pornography an violence spring from the same source, i.e. egoism?


Yeah but so is everything else. Work, play, religion, hobby, art, sleeping, breathing, everything.

Eudaimon;128161 wrote:

So if one is watching it, he may be called egoist that is one having the source of violence, of struggle, in himself?


Nothing lasts for ever and emotions change. If there was a lasting emotion that you could permanently feel that was liked then you would see people doing it once and never doing it again.

Why don't you only eat once?
Why aren't you permanently happy? Every single day, never sad, never annoyed, never upset, never frustrated? Always happy, never anything else?
Why don't you go to a job one day and ever work again?
Why don't you go see one sunset and never do it again?
How about you sleep once and never sleep again?
How about pick one movie and ever watch anything else but that one movie when ever you want to watch a movie, you can only watch that one?
How about pick one food and never eat anything else?
 
de budding
 
Reply Tue 16 Feb, 2010 03:36 am
@Insty,
[QUOTE=Insty;128144]I'm unclear as to why it should be necessary to offer arguments in favor of pornography [...] most people who make or consume porn don't see any need to justify their behavior. [/QUOTE]

I think it's more what-it-says-on-the-tin: A moral discussion about porn in a philosophy forum. IMO arguments for God are unnecessary... but I still enjoy entertaining them. I don't think anyone is necesserily justifying their behaviour.

[QUOTE=Eudaimon]Thanks for this, but this is again not what I was basically saying. I was not speaking about intentional education, but rather of the atmosphere in general. Let us look at those "youth comedies" with constant sexual implication? There is an obsession with sex in western culture (Russia included), but in some people it remains on the level of vulgar jokes, watching pornography and so on. They are somehow stopped.[/QUOTE]
Eudaimon wrote:

But some people with greater susceptibility learn that this is the most important side of life, perhaps the only important. I personally know some girls who think so. And this is tragedy, because they think that the only possible relationships which can be between man and woman are sexual. Many of them start smoking, drinking, taking drugs... They have know faith in good, love anymore, they actually agree that they are things and want to get as much material benefit from it as possible. And the most terrifying thing is that WE when watch pornography and do all the rest I described, not only support such a view in them, but with every year create more and more new victims.


I think that is quite a jump in logic though: from describing some of the issues of youth culture and linking this to consumption of porn and a general atmosphere of sex which may or may not relate to the issue described.

However, I think we could agree that the university age band (18-21+), especially the boys, are susceptible to not realising that porn presents unrealistic standards and approuch teh argument this way: That said boys will watch woman do anything and everything on the internet and presume that this carries through to the real world. Then, young woman looking for self gratification may feel pressured to live up to the standards of such young men, thus degrading themselves and perpetuating the unrealistic and animilistic standards. I think, as well, popularity plays a part here. That is, the girls who live up these standards are more popular with the majority of 18-21+ year old males at university.

But, that said, is the virile and sexually charged atmosphere of that age band anything new? That is not to say it isn't wrong or worth worrying about, but that we shouldn't argue that this is a contemporary issue thus making contemporary pornographic media (i.e. the internet) somehow responsible.

Regardless, I am interested in the 'atmosphere' which I do think your right about and which seems to shroud university campuses in sex, and furthermore, how combating this could be realised, as I think it has a negative effect on student's studies and culture. Sadly, the only real and workable answer seems to be censorship on a mass scale, which is the case in some eastern countries, which is no good thing. Also there could be some kind of disciplinary actions issued via the university. I do know for a fact that at the University of Cambridge, specifically Homerton College, there has been issued warnings and threatened expulsion to students for being excessively drunk and disorderly in front of television cameras. But that was only because it was recorded on TV and the University had to act or look like they were promoting said behaviour. But, maybe this sort of attitude could be extended to combat the atmosphere of 'party time' and, perhaps then, sexual frivolity.

Dan.
 
Eudaimon
 
Reply Tue 16 Feb, 2010 05:19 am
@de budding,
Krumple;128164 wrote:

You like to say it portrays the people involved in a negative connotation. The people in pornography a majority of the time WANT to be there. They are not forced into it as you want to imply that they are some how victims against their will. That is dishonesty.
Your definition of these girls is bent and twisted perspective. Yes some of them are moved into realizing that men are focused on sexual gains and they can exploit those desires in men by utilizing their sexual appeal. Not all women do this, not all women can do that, and it is dishonest to claim that that is their over all motivation for taking drugs. You are the only one calling them victims, but I bet if you asked them, they would not claim to be victims.

Thy position is based upon a superstition of free will which is the main superstition of Western thought system. People are free to do what they want to! "If one has commited a crime being conscious thereof, he must be punished!" Ha-ha-ha. The choice, my friend, is always conditioned. Therefore, one may blindly follow a certain idea of happiness which is absolutely inconsistent with reality. Therefore, whether they call themselves victims or think they are is absolutely not important for me because I can see beyond these superstitions. I can see what happiness really is and what I am doing is making people see what it is as well.
The superstition of free will has always been the best justification for human cruelty.


Krumple;128164 wrote:
I am aware of that. You were trying to claim that if the taboo were lifted that somehow everyone would become rapists. I was trying to point out to you that people don't NOT do something because they are illegal but instead they probably have their own personal reasoning why they don't do something. If murder was legal, I wouldn't go around killing people because it is now legal to do. I wouldn't become a rapist if the sexual taboo were gone.

Again the same thing. Thou considerest the decisions of some people as caused by taboos, and of others (and thine own, of course) as being the result of free reasoning. Isn't that ridiculous?

Krumple;128164 wrote:
Some places they do. However; probably don't in all places because the people who want sex to be taboo cry and complain and force the police to tell them to put clothes on, so they don't have a choice if they want to enjoy the day outside of a jail cell.

Don't try to make it so simple. People dress even if there is no one who wants to call a policeman. That's a fact.

Krumple;128164 wrote:
Yeah but so is everything else. Work, play, religion, hobby, art, sleeping, breathing, everything.

I think we have to agree what we mean by egoism. Egoism in my usage is the disposition of mind which stresses the importance of desires of a certain individual regardless of others. This is the beginning of all conflicts, of all disorder we have today. In the case of pornography that centre ignores the suffering of others which IS present, it stops seing others as humans.
The same may refer to all the things thou hast listed if done from that centre which is ego. But if the ego drops these things are neither good nor bad, so long as they don't harm the SOULS of others.

Sorry, but I can't understand the point of thy questions and what connexion they have with my post.

de_budding;128916 wrote:

Regardless, I am interested in the 'atmosphere' which I do think your right about and which seems to shroud university campuses in sex, and furthermore, how combating this could be realised, as I think it has a negative effect on student's studies and culture. Sadly, the only real and workable answer seems to be censorship on a mass scale, which is the case in some eastern countries, which is no good thing. Also there could be some kind of disciplinary actions issued via the university. I do know for a fact that at the University of Cambridge, specifically Homerton College, there has been issued warnings and threatened expulsion to students for being excessively drunk and disorderly in front of television cameras. But that was only because it was recorded on TV and the University had to act or look like they were promoting said behaviour. But, maybe this sort of attitude could be extended to combat the atmosphere of 'party time' and, perhaps then, sexual frivolity.

Repressive measures will not help. I have already described how it was in the S.U. and I don't think it will be different nowadays. The only thing we CAN do is to be pure ourselves. We should not take part in all that confusion which is present nowadays. I want people to have the light in themselves not being forced to have that, which is impossible, which will only make them hypocrites.
After all, I am speaking not about the solution of a certain social problem like prostitution or pornography or violence. I am concerned with making man happy, and this will automatically solve all social problems. I should like to remember Herzen's words: "If only people, instead of trying to save the world, started saving themselves, and, instead of liberating mankind, started liberating themselves, how much would they do for the salvation of the world and the liberation of mankind".
 
RDanneskjld
 
Reply Tue 16 Feb, 2010 07:54 am
@groundedspirit,
groundedspirit;126172 wrote:
cannot really proceed in any depth without first even defining the term "pornography". Because lacking a common agreed upon definition we can't even address the topic - but only people's reaction to the topic.

You raise a very valid point. Though with Pornography it is hard to come up with a definition that both sides of the debate can agree on and we are often left with Justice Potter Stewarts attitude 'I know it when I see it'. (Facobellis v. Ohio, 1964, p.197) I have seen definitions produced by those who are anti-pornography, which I would never be able to agree on as a starting point due to the clear anti pornography bias these definitions contain.

Personally I like Andrew Altman's definition in his essay The Right to Get Turned On: Pornography, Autonomy, Equality. Where he defends Pornography on the grounds of the right individuals have to sexual autonomy. He defines Pornography as 'My suggestion for such a starting point is this: pornography is sexually explicit material, in words or images which is intended by its creators to excite sexually those who are willing viewers of the material. By a 'willing viewer', I mean a person who volntarily pays something- in time, effort, or money- to view the material and who is willing to pay because he expects to become sexually arosed by viewing it'
 
Krumple
 
Reply Tue 16 Feb, 2010 10:04 am
@Eudaimon,
Eudaimon;128932 wrote:
Thy position is based upon a superstition of free will which is the main superstition of Western thought system. People are free to do what they want to! "If one has commited a crime being conscious thereof, he must be punished!" Ha-ha-ha.


The crime is purely subjective, or if a particular group decides that something is a crime and is agreed upon. However pornography is not a crime nor is viewing it, so I fail to see the relevance of your claim here. Unless you are trying to imply that there is no requirement for a crime to exist, that all crimes are somehow universal truths and completely independent of human interpretation or input. If you are trying to state that I'll just laugh because it is completely silly.

Eudaimon;128932 wrote:

The choice, my friend, is always conditioned. Therefore, one may blindly follow a certain idea of happiness which is absolutely inconsistent with reality. Therefore, whether they call themselves victims or think they are is absolutely not important for me because I can see beyond these superstitions.


It is true that people chase after happiness where ever they think they might find it, so what? There are some short term happiness in things in which you disagree with. But for most people, short term happiness is better than long term disappointments or promises of happiness that never come.

Eudaimon;128932 wrote:

I can see what happiness really is and what I am doing is making people see what it is as well.


Okay, what is happiness and what is done to obtain it then?

Eudaimon;128932 wrote:

The superstition of free will has always been the best justification for human cruelty.


Not to mention calling someone a criminal who hasn't actually done anything wrong is also cruel.

Eudaimon;128932 wrote:

Again the same thing. Thou considerest the decisions of some people as caused by taboos, and of others (and thine own, of course) as being the result of free reasoning. Isn't that ridiculous?


What about people who try to use old world English styling for their wording? Is this a reflection of someone who believes they are superior and must utilize old phrasing as a means of displaying that superiority?

Eudaimon;128932 wrote:

Don't try to make it so simple. People dress even if there is no one who wants to call a policeman. That's a fact.


I laughed for about ten minutes after reading this. Why would I disagree with it? The funny part is, you are still refusing to acknowledge that the inverse is also true, despite trying to use it as an untruth.

Eudaimon;128932 wrote:

I think we have to agree what we mean by egoism. Egoism in my usage is the disposition of mind which stresses the importance of desires of a certain individual regardless of others. This is the beginning of all conflicts, of all disorder we have today.


Well you should never get a job or have a career then. Because if you are accepted for a position, then by all means someone else might have lost an opportunity for the position you have taken. Oh wait I guess that has nothing to do with egoism, it's just selflessness to accept a job that someone else might have wanted as well.

Everything you do contains egoism.

Eudaimon;128932 wrote:

In the case of pornography that centre ignores the suffering of others which IS present, it stops seing others as humans.


This is absolutely false. Once again, it is your opinion that these people are suffering. It however does not demean anyone, because it is a fantasy. No guy who views porn actually believes that women are really like how they are portrayed in porn. Even if these guys did believe that women were like that, they would quickly find out that they are not.

Eudaimon;128932 wrote:

The same may refer to all the things thou hast listed if done from that centre which is ego. But if the ego drops these things are neither good nor bad, so long as they don't harm the SOULS of others.


There is no soul. Funny how you talk about the "superstition of free will" but then mention the soul. I think you are a comedian.

Eudaimon;128932 wrote:
After all, I am speaking not about the solution of a certain social problem like prostitution or pornography or violence. I am concerned with making man happy, and this will automatically solve all social problems. I should like to remember Herzen's words: "If only people, instead of trying to save the world, started saving themselves, and, instead of liberating mankind, started liberating themselves, how much would they do for the salvation of the world and the liberation of mankind".


The problem is, you believe your way of thinking will work for everyone. It won't because not everyone wants to live the way you live or be the way you are. Not everyone believes what you believe. So what you are proposing is only logical for yourself and not the entire world. Your position ignores the reality of the human condition. What you are promising you can't deliver on, so how can you expect people to utilize what you have to say?
 
Eudaimon
 
Reply Wed 17 Feb, 2010 08:44 am
@Krumple,
Krumple, I think this discussion is losing its sense. Let us try to be mutually polite and ask for truth without any any preconception concerning each other. From thy post I have an impression that hast a certain unfriendliness against me personally. I don't we can proceed any further if that will continue. I am serious about the issue and calling me a comedian is surely not an offence for me but it reveals that thou dost not want to understand what I am saying. Therefore, before reading further ask thyself whether thou art interested in this. Otherwise I cannot see any sense here, because for this is not an entertainment or competition in words.
--------------------------------------

So if thou decidedest to proceed I should like to offer thee to read this exerpt from Dostoyevsky's Crime and Punishment, Chapter IV:

Fyodor Dostoevsky wrote:

He looked round hurriedly, he was searching for some-thing. He wanted to sit down and was looking for a seat; he was walking along the K-Boulevard. There was a seat about a hundred paces in front of him. He walked towards it as fast as he could; but on the way he met with a little adventure which absorbed all his attention. Looking for the seat, he had noticed a woman walking some twenty paces in front of him, but at first he took no more notice of her than of other objects that crossed his path. It had happened to him many times going home not to notice the road by which he was going, and he was accustomed to walk like that. But there was at first sight something so strange about the woman in front of him, that gradually his attention was riveted upon her, at first reluctantly and, as it were, resentfully, and then more and more intently. He felt a sudden desire to find out what it was that was so strange about the woman. In the first place, she appeared to be a girl quite young, and she was walking in the great heat bareheaded and with no parasol or gloves, waving her arms about in an absurd way. She had on a dress of some light silky material, but put on strangely awry, not properly hooked up, and torn open at the top of the skirt, close to the waist: a great piece was rent and hanging loose. A little kerchief was flung about her bare throat, but lay slanting on one side. The girl was walking unsteadily, too, stumbling and staggering from side to side. She drew Raskolnikov's whole attention at last. He overtook the girl at the seat, but, on reaching it, she dropped down on it, in the corner; she let her head sink on the back of the seat and closed her eyes, apparently in extreme exhaustion. Looking at her closely, he saw at once that she was completely drunk. It was a strange and shocking sight. He could hardly believe that he was not mistaken. He saw before him the face of a quite young, fairhaired girl-sixteen, perhaps not more than fifteen, years old, a pretty little face, but flushed and heavy looking and, as it were, swollen. The girl seemed hardly to know what she was doing; she crossed one leg over the other, lifting it indecorously, and showed every sign of being unconscious that she was in the street.
Raskolnikov did not sit down, but he felt unwilling to leave her, and stood facing her in perplexity. This boulevard was never much frequented; and now, at two o'clock, in the stifling heat, it was quite deserted. And yet on the further side of the boulevard, about fifteen paces away, a gentleman was standing on the edge of the pavement, he, too, would apparently have liked to approach the girl with some object of his own. He, too, had probably seen her in the distance and had followed her, but found Raskolnikov in his way. He looked angrily at him, though he tried to escape his notice, and stood impatiently biding his time, till the unwelcome man in rags should have moved away. His intentions were unmistakable. The gentleman was a plump, thickly-set man, about thirty, fashionably dressed, with a high colour, red lips and moustaches. Raskolnikov felt furious; he had a sudden longing to insult this fat dandy in some way. He left the girl for a moment and walked towards the gentleman.

"What do you mean?" the gentleman asked sternly, scowling in haughty astonishment.
"Get away, that's what I mean."
"How dare you, you low fellow!"
He raised his cane. Raskolnikov rushed at him with his fists, without reflecting that the stout gentleman was a match for two men like himself. But at that instant some one seized him from behind, and a police constable stood between them.
"That's enough, gentlemen, no fighting, please, in a public place. What do you want? Who are you?" he asked Raskolnikov sternly, noticing his rags.
Raskolnikov looked at him intently. He had a straight-forward, sensible, soldierly face, with grey moustaches and whiskers.

And taking the policeman by the hand he drew him towards the seat.

The policeman saw it all in a flash. The stout gentleman was easy to understand, he turned to consider the girl. The policeman bent over to examine her more closely, and his face worked with genuine compassion.
"Ah, what a pity!" he said, shaking his head-"why, she is quite a child! She has been deceived, you can see that at once. Listen, lady," he began addressing her, "where do you live?" The girl opened her weary and sleepy-looking eyes, gazed blankly at the speaker and waved her hand.
"Here," said Raskolnikov feeling in his pocket and finding twenty copecks, "here, call a cab and tell him to drive her to her address. The only thing is to find out her address!"
"Missy, missy!" the policeman began again, taking the money. "I'll fetch you a cab and take you home myself. Where shall I take you, eh? Where do you live?"
"Go away! They won't let me alone," the girl muttered, and once more waved her hand.
"Ach, ach, how shocking! It's shameful, missy, it's a shame!" He shook his head again, shocked, sympathetic and indignant.
"It's a difficult job," the policeman said to Raskolnikov, and as he did so, he looked him up and down in a rapid glance. He, too, must have seemed a strange figure to him: dressed in rags and handing him money!
"Did you meet her far from here?" he asked him.
"I tell you she was walking in front of me, staggering, just here, in the boulevard. She only just reached the seat and sank down on it."


"The chief thing is," Raskolnikov persisted, "to keep her out of this scoundrel's hands! Why should he outrage her! It's as clear as day what he is after; ah, the brute, he is not moving off!"
Raskolnikov spoke aloud and pointed to him. The gentleman heard him, and seemed about to fly into a rage again, but thought better of it, and confined himself to a contemptuous look. He then walked slowly another ten paces away and again halted.

She opened her eyes fully all of a sudden, looked at him intently, as though realising something, got up from the seat and walked away in the direction from which she had come. "Oh shameful wretches, they won't let me alone!" she said, waving her hand again. She walked quickly, though staggering as before. The dandy followed her, but along another avenue, keeping his eye on her.
"Don't be anxious, I won't let him have her," the policeman said resolutely, and he set off after them.
"Ah, the vice one sees nowadays!" he repeated aloud, sighing.
At that moment something seemed to sting Raskolnikov; in an instant a complete revulsion of feeling came over him.
"Hey, here!" he shouted after the policeman.
The latter turned around.
"Let them be! What is it to do with you? Let her go! Let him amuse himself." He pointed at the dandy, "What is it to do with you?"
The policeman was bewildered, and stared at him open-eyed. Raskolnikov laughed.
"Well!" ejaculated the policeman, with a gesture of contempt, and he walked after the dandy and the girl, probably taking Raskolnikov for a madman or something even worse.
"He has carried off my twenty copecks," Raskolnikov murmured angrily when he was left alone. "Well, let him take as much from the other fellow to allow him to have the girl and so let it end. And why did I want to interfere? Is it for me to help? Have I any right to help? Let them devour each other alive-what is it to me? How did I dare to give him twenty copecks? Were they mine?"




So where art thou here? If it is done by that imaginary free choice, it is normal, so I can freely amuse myself? It's all normal...
When a resonable being sees an insane who is hurting himself he feels compassion to him, thou art saying that this is alright, if no one makes him do that.
I really don't care whether those who masturbate before screen think that the things which excite them are fantasies. When I see a person who does harm for his/her soul I feel compassion, thou art feeling sexual arousal... Because "there is no soul"... Soul is not what survives after death, soul is that part of which always strives for happiness, love, beauty and compassion; thou hast obsiously read my posts without desire to understand.
There is no "short term happiness" and the understanding of this is the key to liberation, to the freedom from egoism. Happiness comes when the futility of pleasures is understood in its fullness. And to become happy one cannot do anything, because no one can give another one this understanding.
 
awoelt
 
Reply Fri 12 Mar, 2010 03:58 pm
@sometime sun,
sometime sun;110825 wrote:
Why especially women or homosexual men?
Because straight men give it away for free?

I guess it would be unussual for a straight man to be a prostitute. We do what we like and get money for it. LOL
 
HexHammer
 
Reply Thu 25 Mar, 2010 02:36 am
@awoelt,
awoelt;139140 wrote:
I guess it would be unussual for a straight man to be a prostitute. We do what we like and get money for it. LOL
There are giggelos, they'r rare as the customers are very picky. The women usually wants more than just the sex act, they also wants feelings, attention and security, not just some unsensetive sexmachine.
 
classicchinadoll
 
Reply Sun 11 Apr, 2010 04:22 am
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;110743 wrote:
How much of the anti-pornography feeling is related to misogyny? Do some feminists consider it taboo for a woman to enjoy the passive position? Is the anti-porn feeling related also to homophobia?

If I remember correctly, for the Romans what was taboo for men was to be the passive partner. The taboo was not on homosexuality so much as passivity in sexual relations. I suppose you might call it the slave-role in a master slave relationship. Are we dealing with something like that here?

In a democratic age of increasing freedom in regards to lifestyle, is the one taboo a choice away from freedom? Zizek examines this is The Ticklish Subject. Food for thought.


I think the desire to be subservient is unhealthy in both men and women. people should not be exploiting a damaged person by taking on the master role that a sub wants, they should be encouraged to make their own healthy decisions and take control of their life.
 
platorepublic
 
Reply Sun 11 Apr, 2010 04:43 am
@awoelt,
Why would you be against something that is clearly so pleasurable and healthy? Surely, you are checking out the wrong porn. And I know this seems kind of lame, but I have a feeling this might be a generation kind of thing.

How old are you? Razz
 
HexHammer
 
Reply Mon 12 Apr, 2010 10:35 am
@platorepublic,
platorepublic;150506 wrote:
Why would you be against something that is clearly so pleasurable and healthy? Surely, you are checking out the wrong porn. And I know this seems kind of lame, but I have a feeling this might be a generation kind of thing.

How old are you? Razz
Porn can by itself be harmful, it will inspire to sexual engagements that some of the individuals does not desire, such as group sex, anal sex ..etc. Foreplay is another hugely desired feature in women, but does not have a place in the porn industry, well it's very very rarely seen.

Porn are usually only appealing for selfish fantasies, and not involving much love or feelings.

However, for many people it can be a sexual stimulant for couples, or helping feature for lonely people.
Most importaint, it has greatly defused the rape count in Denmark when porn was released.

Overall I think porn is good, but we should be informed more about it in school, who are very scared of touching the subject, which is foolish.
 
Eudaimon
 
Reply Tue 13 Apr, 2010 01:46 pm
@HexHammer,
HexHammer;150890 wrote:

Overall I think porn is good, but we should be informed more about it in school, who are very scared of touching the subject, which is foolish.

Good for whom? For those who watch that or to those who act in pornography?
Perhaps for the benefit of society, or putting it better: for the survival of society, it would be better to carry out experiments on people, to sacrifice some of them for the health of majority. Perhaps that would decrease the level of deaths as we knew which medicine is harmful. Does that make it "good"? What is thy criterion for "good"?
 
HexHammer
 
Reply Tue 13 Apr, 2010 01:57 pm
@awoelt,
Good for whom? I already answerd that in my former post, which you have quoted.

or to those who act in pornography? It's a double edged sword, it can make many people ritch, deliver many from provery, as it can also ruin weak people who seek fortune in the porn industry.

Perhaps for the benefit of society, or putting it better: for the survival of society, it would be better to carry out experiments on people, to sacrifice some of them for the health of majority. Perhaps that would decrease the level of deaths as we knew which medicine is harmful. Does that make it "good"? What is thy criterion for "good"?

In Denmark we already have direct prove, it has lowerd our statistic on rapes, as men could relive themselfs with porn.
 
Eudaimon
 
Reply Thu 22 Apr, 2010 12:44 am
@HexHammer,
HexHammer;151454 wrote:
Good for whom? I already answerd that in my former post, which you have quoted.

Is this thy answer?
HexHammer wrote:
However, for many people it can be a sexual stimulant for couples, or helping feature for lonely people.

In this case I should ask (if I understand thee right) whether something being sexual stimulant should be called good. Dost thou call pornography good because it arouses sexual lust?

HexHammer;151454 wrote:
or to those who act in pornography? It's a double edged sword, it can make many people ritch, deliver many from provery, as it can also ruin weak people who seek fortune in the porn industry.

Perhaps for the benefit of society, or putting it better: for the survival of society, it would be better to carry out experiments on people, to sacrifice some of them for the health of majority. Perhaps that would decrease the level of deaths as we knew which medicine is harmful. Does that make it "good"? What is thy criterion for "good"?

In Denmark we already have direct prove, it has lowerd our statistic on rapes, as men could relive themselfs with porn.

So what? I am not speaking of possible social benefits of pornography, I am speaking of the moral side of the matter, how it influence the minds of the people. Perhaps, as I have said in my previous post, experiments on humans would be beneficial for society, but again does that make this thing good?
What you have is nearly the following: "We have some sexually obsessed people (especially men) and women (girls) who are ready to satisfy their lust to a certain degree providing that they are paid for this. So let us sacrifice those women (they are already fallen, so let it be) and preserve those women who don't want to do this. The wolves are sated and sheeps intact". Is it not the same Dostoyevsky depicted in that exerpt from Crime and Punishment I quoted above?
 
 

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/28/2020 at 12:30:00