Godstud wrote:You are comparing pornography to how a robber works? Please. Be realistic.
No I'm just demonstrating how your definition of "choice" is completely meaningless. As well as your notion that if a person does anything short of direct force, they have no role or responsibility in intending or influencing the behavior.
Scheherazade wrote:No. Most of it does not qualify as pornography. Only the most extreme puritan would see it as such.
No I'm claiming that only the most extreme libertine would see it as anything but such, and that even Lord Byron or Ovid would've rightfully been disgusted with it, as is most of the rest of the world.
The standards have just fallen so low, that it's almost like letting Caligula or Marquis de Sade re-write the definition of "prude", to where the aberrant is perceived as 'normal' simply due to it's ubiquity. Similar to how I'm sure North Koreans likely view themselves as "free people" due to conditioning.
Playboy doesn't have nudity, incidentally. Best get up to date.
As only of recent, likewise not all nudity is pornography or obscenity, and not all pornography must contain nudity. For example in an ideal world, a show like "2 broke girls" would be considered pornography or obscenity and banned, while the nude Venus di Milo would not.
Scheherazade wrote:The legality of porn does make a difference, as "legal" porn, in most countries, means consenting ADULTS. You are comparing a cultural issue that is not related to the topic at hand.
"Adult" in the legal sense is a construct and subject to the whims of society, from a purely biological sense, simply being old enough to procreate qualifies. Much as age of consent varies from culture to culture.
Scheherazade wrote:It does not promote nihilistic views on women and sex.
It does both.
Sex exists regardless of religion and morality.
Sex is governed by the same aesthetics and natural laws of morality as everything else in existence, and of course like the laws of physics, nothing and no one exists 'regardless' of the rest, but part of a collective whole.
[/quote]
Pornography does not promote emotional or physical harm to women.
[/quote]
It does so to a greater degree than female circumcision.
It doesn't promote sexual recklessness(actually, in most pornography they use condoms).
Sexual behavior which violates aesthetic tests and is reductionistic of the human condition, is innately reckless in and of itself, regardless of condom usage or any measurable 'consequences'.
You need to provide some evidence instead of just "saying" something is harmful. There are no indirect economic effects. There are no indirect physical effects.
There are both indeed.
Your argument has more holes in it than a wheel of Swiss cheese.
It's far more tight than yours is.
Scheherazade wrote:Total nonsense.
I'm sorry you think the laws of physics are nonsense, perhaps the flat earth society would be more accommodating of your views?
As everything in the physical world exists as a part of the universal laws of nature, morality logically comes from somewhere. If you believe humans can somehow magically "invent" moral truths out of thin air, rather than them being governed by the natural laws of the universe, then that makes you the "creationist", sorry.
You're trying to make my argument anti-intellectual, when yours is the one that is. You have no facts that support your opinion or morality regarding pornography. No one is arguing that illegal pornography can be harmful, since we have rules in place to prevent exploitation/abuse, but saying it's all bad is an ignorant blanket statement that is not supported by anything.
It's supported by much evidence, as well as properly applied logic.
Likewise your notion that the harmfulness of something is determined by its "legality" is rather silly, by that logic then homosexual acts magically "become harmful" the second a state decides to make them "illegal".
You have no evidence or facts to support this statement.This if you fabricating an opinion with no basis in reality.
Pornography doesn't affect my morality nor mental/physical/spiritual health, therefore your opinion on it is irrelevant.
It does, you just don't have the self-awareness to understand it. But if you don't have any morality to begin with, there likely isn't much to 'effect'.
Individuals aren't always the best judge of what's right or wrong, for them or for others. I for example could choose to be a murderer and claim it has no adverse moral effects on me or others, but I'd be objectively wrong and just in denial of what I'd know to be true if I was intellectually honest.
Or I could claim that smoking doesn't have any ill effects on me, but I think a doctor would know a bit better than me.
I don't even claim to be the one who has all the right answers, just that the right answers do exist independently of what individuals "think" about their own myopic view of the self.
The facts say otherwise, as well.
The facts confirm every statement I've made, and that yours are inherently illogical and grounded in a week and mythical notion of 'morality' being something people can simply "invent out of thin air" by magic, rather than an objective part of the universe.
That some people get addicted to alcohol or gambling, does not make alcohol, or gambling, inherently immoral. The same applies to pornography.
The argument is that it's innately immoral regardless of whether people get addicted to it or not or any measurable physical consequences, because morality is governed by the objective laws of aesthetics which pornography deviates from.
You simply have a very puritan opinion that most people probably don't agree with. That's fine. You can have your own morality, but don't try telling the rest of the world that something is evil simply because you, personally, don't like it.
Godstud wrote: You are comparing pornography to how a robber works? Please. Be realistic.