Previous
1
2
3
...
5
6
7
...
10
11
12
Next

Read Discussion
Reply to All

7

Porn - degrading to women? or"the all you can eat salad bar"

NSFW Forums: Philosophy, Porn, Pornography
Email this Topic • Print this Page

dlowan wrote:

"For or against faeces"!

That phrase delineates, with what appears to be deliberately satirical intent, the ridiculousness of David Henry's position on this, as nothing else could have!

You're pulling our collective legses, DH, aren't ya now??? C'mon, fess up!

So in your mind, I'm a morally upstanding citizen when I announce that I have no opinion on murder?

Serious question....would you allow me to A2M you?...if not, why not?

Being open minded doesn't include acts of obvious deviancy.

0 Replies

ehBeth wrote:

I should?

No problems....I now realize you're probably a bored housewife fantasizing that she has a clue.
Back to the chit-chat forums dear Razz

Razz

0 Replies

You might have made a couple of strategic errors there, DH.

0 Replies

David,

Please don't try to mask debating inadequacy with ad hominems. In a crowd like this it's altogether too transparent of a ploy.

0 Replies

David Henry wrote:

Serious question....would you allow me to A2M you?...if not, why not?

Despite it being to your perception a "serious" question it is also a thouroughly idiotic one.

The reason for its idiocy is a premise you are having a hard time wrapping your mind around, that one must not personally condone an act for themself to think proscription of the act for others is warranted.

David, it's so simple a concept that I have faith that you can understand it given enough attempts. Let me know if you need any more edification in that regard.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

David,

Please don't try to mask debating inadequacy with ad hominems. In a crowd like this it's altogether too transparent of a ploy.

Where's the debate?
I've asked whether it's a morally proper position to have no opinion on murder....what's your view?

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

[
Despite it being to your perception a "serious" question it is also a thouroughly idiotic one.

The reason for its idiocy is a premise you are having a hard time wrapping your mind around, that one must not personally condone an act for themself to think proscription of the act for others is warranted.

I'm not talking about our favourite fruits, I'm talking about whether it's rational to "not" have an opinion on murder...or other deviant behaviour.

Just as rational people are typically against murder and act accordingly, presumably we can extend this to dysfunctional acts which don't cause any physical harm, but arouse disgust amongst those who actually like people and want to understand the origin of their dysfunctional mentalities and attempt to eliminate the problem.

How convenient to neutrally position yourself to avoid confronting deviant behaviour.

0 Replies

It's wholly irrelevant to the debate David. Allow me to assist you in understanding why:

One must not personally condone an act for themself to think proscription of the act for others is warranted

Now you seem to have gotten quite riled up about what other consenting adults are doing with their bodies, and you seem to wish to consider anyone who doesn't share your voyeristic outrage about it as somehow suffering from a demential of your own creation.

Now we understand that some sexual practices move you and cause great emotional distress but at the same time we do not have to desire the act itself to understand that your empty calls to morality are based on nothing more than how much those acts by others bother you.

Morality is a many splendored thing, and each can and often will have different criterias. Yours is a common criteria that has existed since the dawn of primitive man: what you find deplorable is equated to immoral.

My criteria is not the same, and I think the "morality based on ick" is one of the most idiotic concepts man has come up with. Different strokes David.

My criteria is one of unecessary harm to others. With consenting adults doing what is unhealthy (i.e. harmful) to themselves I see no moral issue unless they are unnecessarily harming others (e.g. a mother who is promiscuous enough to contract AIDS is endangering her children).

So your repeated use of binary "for or against" logic is unwarranted. There's no need for us to "take a stand" for A2M just because we think your "ick factor" is simply not a useful criteria for morality.

Incidentally, an example of why this criteria is rejected is that I'd consider fish to be highly immoral given the use of this foolish criteria.

0 Replies

Craven.

Please don't assume to know my emotional status, nor to have any understanding of what constitutes an acceptable emotional response.

You seem to think that you can reject my "ick" factor as subjective, and thereby presume the existence of an objective criteria with ever having to explain how you've objectively decided anything.

I'm impressed Exclamation

Exclamation

What is your opinion on murder?
Is it, I don't have an opinion..?

0 Replies

David Henry wrote:

I'm not talking about our favourite fruits, I'm talking about whether it's rational to "not" have an opinion on murder...or other deviant behaviour.

No, what you are doing is trying to frame your distaste for certain sexual acts as immoral based merely upon the degree to which they disgust you.

And you proceed to try to frame it as a "for or against" situation in which anyone who does not share your revulsion at the "sick" acts is also "sick". This is just sophomoric question-begging. You assume its inherent "sickness" only to respond to any rejection fo your moral decree as being originated by a "sick" person.

It's a childish form of argument that is common in quotidian debate. Here's an example of it stripped to it's obviously fallacious nature:

Person a: X is wrong.
Person b: Upon what basis do you declare it to be wrong?
Person a: It disgusts me.
Person b: So I suggest you stop doing it, but that's not a reason for others to.
Person a: Do you support X? You are either with X or against X!
Person b: I don't personally care for X. But I also reject your moral decree based merely on your "ick factor".
Person a: X is sick, and unless you think X is sick you are sick.

And that last idiotic proclamation is what it boils down to here.

Quote:

Just as rational people are typically against murder and act accordingly, presumably we can extend this to dysfunctional acts which don't cause any physical harm, but arouse disgust amongst those who actually like people and want to understand the origin of their dysfunctional mentalities and attempt to eliminate the problem.

Allow me to point out where your logic folds here.

Murder infringes on the right of others to exist. A2M merely infringes on your vivid imagination and sexual sensitivities.

You make a silly emperor's new clothes argument in trying to equate you personal moral decree to a "rational" rejection of an act that actually does infringe on the coexistence of others.

It's not a difficult concept but allow me to walk you through it.

Murder actually infringes on non-consenting parties and their right to peacefully coexist.

A2M does not. It merely offends you significantly. This is, of course, your ptoblem and you'll simply have to come to grips with the fact that some people can and will do things that will disgust you.

My personal recommendation is that you avoid fixating on the sexual practices of others at all costs. The mere thought of these acts obviously bother you a great deal, and to obsess about the sex life of others is sure to bring you great distress.

Quote:

How convenient to neutrally position yourself to avoid confronting deviant behaviour.

Who said I'm "neutrally positioning" myself? This is an invention of yours.

My position is that I find A2M disgusting but not immoral, as my disgust does not in any way translate into a moral decree for others to be disgusted about. If that were so I'd also be calling fish immoral (I dislike sea food tremendously).

Again, it's not a difficult concept and should you be willing I can help walk yo0u through it.

0 Replies

David Henry wrote:

Craven.

Please don't assume to know my emotional status, nor to have any understanding of what constitutes an acceptable emotional response.

I've assumed nothing about your emotional "status". And quite frankly your emotional state is only of superficial interest to me and only if it becomes amusing.

Quote:

You seem to think that you can reject my "ick" factor as subjective, and thereby presume the existence of an objective criteria with ever having to explain how you've objectively decided anything.

False. I have stated that I do not agree with the use of personal distaste as a criteria for what others should do.

For example, I find it distasteful to vote for party X. But that is a personal preference that I can't project onto others.

See, morality in primitive societies has, in fact, been what you think it is. And many do, in fact, try to continue to make it so.

To these people morality is an issue of others behaving as they would. What they object to they also wish to declare a moral absolute.

It's tantamount to calling the ingestion of fish immoral merely because one is repulsed by the taste.

A relatively old evolution of morality is the acknowledgement that individual tastes differ, and that when a society doesn't uniformly share a distaste for a practice individual distaste as a criteria for a moral absolute shows its weaknesses.

Quote:

I'm impressed

It doesn't take much does it?

Quote:

What is your opinion on murder?
Is it, I don't have an opinion..?

My opinion on muder is that it's a wholly irrelevant red herring to this discussion. I'd be happy to explain, once again, why it's a red herring fallacy in this debate for you.

But to settle your doubts without following your red herring to its irrelevant end, no, I do in fact take a very unfavorable position on murder.

Now here's a query for you:

Do you possess the wherewithal to understand that one neither has to favor an act nor remain neutral about it to reject your projections of your own sensibilities? Would it trouble you significantly to understand that one can object merely to you passing off your personal distate as a moral absolute while at the same time sharing the personal distaste?

0 Replies

You still don't get it do you Craven.

If my "ick" factor is subjective, what is the objective criteria and who decides it?

If I reject oral sex and say it's disgusting, you could ask me what I found disgusting about it...and as the discussion unfolded it would become apparent that I wouldn't have an objective leg to stand on{eating/licking feces is disgusting as it's a waste product and has all the attributes of a waste product, but what is the objective criteria for rejecting oral sex?}

I haven't said, ohhh I don't like the look of a vagina, I've said that consuming waste products is absurd and a sign of a dysfunctional mentality for which decent people should object to.

0 Replies

David Henry wrote:

You still don't get it do you Craven.

If my "ick" factor is subjective, what is the objective criteria and who decides it?

David, I get it quite well. And it's not the subjectivity of your personal "ick factor" that makes me reject it. What makes me reject it is that I do not think everyone's actions should be governed by your ick factor without other compelling reasons for it to be so.

Can you give a good reason why your personal ick factor should serve as a moral compass for all?

Quote:

If I reject oral sex and say it's disgusting, you could ask me what I found disgusting about it...and as the discussion unfolded it would become apparent that I wouldn't have an objective leg to stand on{eating/licking feces is disgusting as it's a waste product and has all the attributes of a waste product, but what is the objective criteria for rejecting oral sex?}

David, remember that your personall feelings about sexual acts that you are not involved in is something I consider nothing more than a vidi imaginationa nd a willingness to project your desires onto others.

In short, were you to try to declare oral sex as immoral based again on your projection of your own taste as a moral absolute I'd reject that as well.

Remember David, I do not share your criteria. I do not equate morality with "what would David do".

My criteria is the avoidance of unnecessary suffering and harm for others.

Unnecessary harm to one's self is something I consider stupid, not immoral.

The bottom line is that I reject your personal feelings being the standard through which morality is measured. We use different criteria. Mine revolves around causing harm to others (others is defined as those who do not consent) unecessarily and my morality does not revolve around: "what would David think about it".

Quote:

I haven't said, ohhh I don't like the look of a vagina, I've said that consuming waste products is absurd and a sign of a dysfunctional mentality for which decent people should object to.

First of all, David, A2M for the most part does not involve consumption of waste products.

But that being said I do, in fact, agree that it's absurd. But I also think your strident objection to others doing this is based merely on the degree to which it bothers you and I think that declaring it as a moral absolute is just as absurd.

And like I recommended earlier, I don't think you should let the sex life of others get you so worked up. That just means adopting all the downside of being a voyeur and none of the benefits.

For your won well-being I would suggest that you avoid letting the sex life of others disturb you through imagination of the odd ways in which they might decided to satisfy themselves.

0 Replies

Quote:

False. I have stated that I do not agree with the use of personal distaste as a criteria for what others should do.

But if my distaste is always subjective, what is the objective criteria one applies to this specific issue?

Your problem is that you think you can stand neutral in terms of action, and be in a morally defensible position.

Is Charles Manson the arbiter of right and wrong?..NO, thus rational people determine an objective criteria...IOW, you cannot dismiss my disgust as subjective if it conforms to an objective criteria....it's merely the objective assertion of a particular individual.

You've acknowledged that people other than me dislike this behaviour, but are too frightened to take the next logical step of it's total rejection from all rational countries.
The result of your confusion is in effect moral relavistism with a practical outcome of the commercial availability of this wholly degrading behaviour.

So you've admitted that you don't like the act, but you don't seem to want to reproach people for this behaviour and drop it from commercial sale.

Now when you learn to think productively, you can continue with your petty snipes boy.

0 Replies

I bet Charles Manson thinks he's rational though too. But how can you call yourself rational when you can provide no rational, objective reason for your opinions? I'm sure that everyone that shares your opinions is disgusted by the same things you are, but that doesn't follow that they are "rational" and the rest of us are not.

0 Replies

David Henry wrote:

Quote:
False. I have stated that I do not agree with the use of personal distaste as a criteria for what others should do.

But if my distaste is always subjective, what is the objective criteria one applies to this specific issue?

Again, david, you are getting caught up in this binary logic of yours.

That your projection of your taste as a moral absolute is flawed is not rectified by the fact that other criteria also involves subjective elements.

Quote:

Your problem is that you think you can stand neutral in terms of action, and be in a morally defensible position.

David, as long as we are pointing out problems allow me to highlight reading incomprehension as yours.

I never took up a "neutral" position. It's a common, if transparent, ploy in debate to try to equate rejection of your own position as no position at all. Really silly stuff.

Quote:

Is Charles Manson the arbiter of right and wrong?..NO, thus rational people determine an objective criteria...IOW, you cannot dismiss my disgust as subjective if it conforms to an objective criteria....it's merely the objective assertion of a particular individual.

There's the reading incomprehension again.

I did not reject your proposed moral absolutes because it was based on subjectivity. I rejected them because they have as their sole criteria your ick factor. I do not accept your ick factor as a moral compass, if individual ick factors were moral absolutes consuming fish would be immoral.

Quote:

You've acknowledged that people other than me dislike this behaviour, but are too frightened to take the next logical step of it's total rejection from all rational countries.

Too "frightened"? David it is to laugh. Laughing

Laughing

Nah, some people simply do not obsess about other people's sex lives.

Quote:

The result of your confusion is in effect moral relavistism with a practical outcome of the commercial availability of this wholly degrading behaviour.

I'm not confused at all David. ;-)

And while I share your feelings as to the repulsiveness of certain acts I simply do not share your desire to impose that as a moral absolute on others.

Quote:

So you've admitted that you don't like the act, but you don't seem to want to reproach people for this behaviour and drop it from commercial sale.

I have no problem with "reproaching" people for it. Just as I have no problem "reproaching" you for trying to impose your ick factor as a universal moral compass.

Now I don't think it should be illegal to do, but I'd have no problem with it being illegal for commercial purposes. But not because I accept your ick factor as everyone's moral compass but simply because I have different views on free speech than does the average American.

Many Americans would consider it an issue of free speech, which is fine. But I think that free speech doesn't mean it also comes with the right to be commercialized.

Disallowing commercialization of certain things would not bother me, people would still be free to do it and even film it but they would do so based on their desire to do so and with commercialization curbed it would remove the financial motivation.

But again, this is largely irrelevent to your odd moral mechanisms. I'd not care too much if that act in pornography were proscribed altogether.

But that doesn't make your projection of moral absolutes justified.

Quote:

Now when you learn to think productively, you can continue with your petty snipes boy.

<smiles>

David, that was a pretty weak "petty snipe". Laughing

Laughing

But hey, at least there was some funny irony in it.

0 Replies

rufio wrote:

I bet Charles Manson thinks he's rational though too. But how can you call yourself rational when you can provide no rational, objective reason for your opinions? I'm sure that everyone that shares your opinions is disgusted by the same things you are, but that doesn't follow that they are "rational" and the rest of us are not.

My objective reasons for being against A2M is that it's a disgusting waste product that's not meant to be eaten or tasted..EVER.

If you don't think that my rejection of A2M is based on an objective criteria, please inform us of the views you hold which enable you to claim objectivity?

My views aren't prejudiced, they're actually intersubjective, ie, most of you agree with it....what you don't agree with is the idea that I have the moral right to demand proscription....but this is based on your confusion and laziness, ie, just as there's no confusion over murder, there's also no delay in implementing the appropriate moral response.

0 Replies

David Henry wrote:

My objective reasons for being against A2M is that it's a disgusting waste product that's not meant to be eaten or tasted..EVER.

In this case, A2M that is preceeded by an enema (which some do) should be morally acceptable to you.

0 Replies

A2M? Sorry, I haven't read the whole thread, and that's not part of my slang vocabulary. But whatever deviant sexual act you're talking about, who are you to say it wasn't "meant" to be? If it weren't, than it wouldn't be pleasureable, and people wouldn't do it. Do you think there's a god up there who decides what we're "meant" to do and what we're not? We weren't "meant" to evolve the way we did, even. Most of it was happy accidents. Just look are out knees. Any rational God would never in his right mind give a species knees like ours. Or necks. It's a miracle we can stand upright. And even then, there's arthritis and corns and hip and knee replacements that eventually happen to a fair number of people. Were those meant to be? Of course sex wasn't meant to happen. Our whole bodies weren't meant to happen. Nothing was meant to happen. But it did, and who are you to say it shouldn't? Speaking is a waste of lung capacity, wearing clothing is a waste of space and weight, growing hair is a waste of time, effort, and commercially fabricated shampoos. Were we anymore meant to be bald, naked, and silent than we were meant to be as we are now? I don't think so.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

[]

In this case, A2M that is preceeded by an enema (which some do) should be morally acceptable to you.

WOW, aren't you so well informed Rolling Eyes

Rolling Eyes

I continue to tell you the truth, even if you can't understand it...here it is again.

You've effectively attempted to demonize my ick factor even though it's based on an objective criteria{people don't eat or suck on **** smeared objects and allow animals to cum in their mouths}.

My disgust, and yours is based upon that objective knowledge, therefore we as rational people{unless Charlie's opinion is as good as yours} determine that this behaviour is immoral and we ACT against it...just as we do with murder.

Focus on my objective criteria rather than the fact that I've had the audacity to speak the truth.

0 Replies

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho

Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave

The Void and the Absolute Oneness of the Universe - Discussion by Relinquish

can we reconcile darkness in man with madness(lunacy) ? - Question by studentnorway

Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas

Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus

Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus

In the GRAND scheme of things, what matters? - Question by komr98

Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King

How can something come from nothing? - Question by ripple

Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz

Forums
» Porn - degrading to women? or"the all you can eat salad bar"
» Page 6

Previous
1
2
3
...
5
6
7
...
10
11
12
Next

Read Discussion
Reply to All

Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 02/05/2025 at 05:03:43

▲ ▼