7
   

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

 
 
David Henry
 
  1  
Thu 13 May, 2004 12:09 pm
rufio wrote:
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.



I was going to call you irrational rufio, but instead I'll just call you extremely funny, LOL.

9/10 for humour.
2/10 in the truth stakes.
0 Replies
 
Joeblow
 
  1  
Thu 13 May, 2004 12:09 pm
David Henry: Is picking your nose and eating it immoral? I think it's a disgusting act, but I don't think it's immoral.

Picking and eating someone else's nose is vile...to me...but how is it immoral?
0 Replies
 
rufio
 
  1  
Thu 13 May, 2004 12:11 pm
But your "objective" criteria is based on your personal opinion, not on some universal maxim. To be objective, it has to be universal. You can't take something specific that refers to specific actions and decide that it's universally unacceptable. You have to come up with a reason for it, and form a universal moral from that reason. And what's your reason? That it disgusts you. Therefore, your universal truth is that everything that disgusts you is wrong.
0 Replies
 
David Henry
 
  1  
Thu 13 May, 2004 12:14 pm
Joeblow wrote:
David Henry: Is picking your nose and eating it immoral? I think it's a disgusting act, but I don't think it's immoral.
Picking and eating someone else's nose is vile...to me...but how is it immoral?


So you also agree that it's disgusting, presumably by the same "objective" criteria I use, and yet you're not prepared{too scared} to declare it immoral aka wrong....curious, but typical of todays youth.
0 Replies
 
rufio
 
  1  
Thu 13 May, 2004 12:16 pm
I'm glad you enjoyed my post, but do you have anything to refute it with?
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Thu 13 May, 2004 12:18 pm
David Henry wrote:
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


David, "well informed" is actually a good thing. You'll have to find something else for your ad hominems. ;-)

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


Oh I understand it, I just don't accept your ipse dixit as "truth".

Quote:
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}.


Correct, I do not accept your criteria as a moral issue. I accept it as an issue of one's health and of individual taste between consenting adults.

Quote:
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.


Here you make a logical leap of faith. I think terminating someone's existence against their will is immoral. I think a mutually agreed upon health risk is not necessarily so.

In any case, if it is merely the health factors you object to an enema should take care of your concerns.

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


Aww, don't start with the voice-crying-in-the-wilderness "truth" bunk. You have an opinion that you'd like to assert as a universal truth. That doesn't make it so.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Thu 13 May, 2004 12:18 pm
Joeblow wrote:
David Henry: Is picking your nose and eating it immoral? I think it's a disgusting act, but I don't think it's immoral.

Picking and eating someone else's nose is vile...to me...but how is it immoral?


Take a bow Joe. This is a very good example.
0 Replies
 
David Henry
 
  1  
Thu 13 May, 2004 12:21 pm
rufio wrote:
I'm glad you enjoyed my post, but do you have anything to refute it with?


I don't have time this morning, as it was overloaded with absurdities that would take hours to refute{in between laughing}
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Thu 13 May, 2004 12:21 pm
David Henry wrote:

I was going to call you irrational rufio, but instead I'll just call you extremely funny, LOL.

9/10 for humour.
2/10 in the truth stakes.


David, being reduced to ad hominems with no attempt even made to refute her argument reflects badly on your position (though it lends irony to your claims of being "sniped" at, given that in lieu of arguments you've just lashed out at Beth, then myself then rufio).

When you hit that dead end in your arguments think, revise your position or find arguments to support it. Lashing out with the ad homs just advertises the dead end and the inability to trangress it.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Thu 13 May, 2004 12:23 pm
David Henry wrote:

I don't have time this morning, as it was overloaded with absurdities that would take hours to refute{in between laughing}


Given that you claim it was "overloaded" it should be no trouble to point some out and would certainly be preferrable to being reduced to hurling ad hominems in leiu of arguments to support your position no?

Try to point them out, and others can respond to your attempt. The ad hom stuff works better in settings and crowds where it can more readily conceal inadequacies in the arguments.
0 Replies
 
Joeblow
 
  1  
Thu 13 May, 2004 12:26 pm
David Henry wrote:
Quote:
So you also agree that it's disgusting, presumably by the same "objective" criteria I use, and yet you're not prepared{too scared} to declare it immoral aka wrong....curious, but typical of todays youth.


Heheh. Got a kleenex?

David Henry also wrote:
Quote:
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.


For nose pickers?
0 Replies
 
David Henry
 
  1  
Thu 13 May, 2004 12:26 pm
Quote:
Correct, I do not accept your criteria as a moral issue. I accept it as an issue of one's health and of individual taste between consenting adults.


Morality is the subject of acceptable behaviour, you seem to think degrading behaviour is acceptable.
And the whole point of trying to establish an objective criteria is to over-rule the consent between 2 dysfunctional adults, and rule it as immoral and subject to corrective actions{where possible}.


Quote:
Here you make a logical leap of faith. I think terminating someone's existence against their will is immoral. I think a mutually agreed upon health risk is not necessarily so.


See above...but it seems YOU can define morality but I can't.

Quote:
In any case, if it is merely the health factors you object to an enema should take care of your concerns.


Not from what I've unfortunately witnessed...plus the porno is cleaned up before you get to see it, otherwise you wouldn't offer the enema solution.
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Thu 13 May, 2004 12:27 pm
Can we change the name of this thread to the all you can eat salad bar thread?
0 Replies
 
David Henry
 
  1  
Thu 13 May, 2004 12:29 pm
Joeblow wrote:
.


For nose pickers?[/quote]

Nose pickers is YOUR analogy, A2M is my specific actual objection.

Keep it real Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Thu 13 May, 2004 12:30 pm
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
Can we change the name of this thread to the all you can eat salad bar thread?

You mean the salad tossing thread?
0 Replies
 
David Henry
 
  1  
Thu 13 May, 2004 12:31 pm
Craven de Kere wrote:
[
David, being reduced to ad hominems with no attempt even made to refute her argument reflects badly on your position (though it lends irony to your claims of being "sniped" at, given that in lieu of arguments you've just lashed out at Beth, then myself then rufio).

When you hit that dead end in your arguments think, revise your position or find arguments to support it. Lashing out with the ad homs just advertises the dead end and the inability to trangress it.


LOL, that's choice coming from you.
You've probably implied that I'm stupid 10 or more times already, but you're not able to show the weakness of my powerful argument.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Thu 13 May, 2004 12:34 pm
David Henry wrote:

Morality is the subject of acceptable behaviour, you seem to think degrading behaviour is acceptable.


What I consider degrading others don't. This is why sometimes what I personally consider degrading will govern only my own actions and I will not attempt to declare it a moral absolute.

Quote:
And the whole point of trying to establish an objective criteria is to over-rule the consent between 2 dysfunctional adults, and rule it as immoral and subject to corrective actions{where possible}.


I don't think you should be able to determine who is "dysfunctional" and whose rights should be over-ruled.

There are lesser things that I'd not trust to your arbitrary ipse dixits.


Quote:
Quote:
Here you make a logical leap of faith. I think terminating someone's existence against their will is immoral. I think a mutually agreed upon health risk is not necessarily so.


See above...but it seems YOU can define morality but I can't.


David, you are free to forward your ideas on morality just as am I. I disagree with yours because your criteria is merely what you find distasteful.

Quote:
Quote:
In any case, if it is merely the health factors you object to an enema should take care of your concerns.


Not from what I've unfortunately witnessed...plus the porno is cleaned up before you get to see it, otherwise you wouldn't offer the enema solution.


David, if this kind of thing bothers you so much you should probably avoid witnessing it. Just my two cents.

In any case, if health is the basis for your concerns there are many ways to address it. Enemas are just one such case. Personally, I think your objections are not simply sourced in health concerns.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Thu 13 May, 2004 12:38 pm
David Henry wrote:

LOL, that's choice coming from you.
You've probably implied that I'm stupid 10 or more times already, but you're not able to show the weakness of my powerful argument.


David, merely disagreeing with you can be construed as implying that you are stupid. Sensitive people can take disagreement that way and I can do little to avoid it.

I have however focused exclusively on your arguments while you periodically abandon the argument altogether and choose instead to simply flame the individual with ad hominems.

You did it to Beth, and that's why I decided to address you. I don't mind your ad homs, they are indicative of the quality of your position and your ability to support it.

I understand that you think your argument is quite the manly and mighty one, but I disagree. And I think the ad homs make the position look more insecure than mighty. Just my two cents.
0 Replies
 
Joeblow
 
  1  
Thu 13 May, 2004 12:40 pm
David Henry, My example is quite real, and most sincere. Same principles entirely as far as I can tell.

Keep it real? The kleenex crack was simply fun.

I'll ask again, how is the nosepicking act immoral?

If you still maintain that nosepicking is immoral, do you posit that it should be treated like murder?
0 Replies
 
rufio
 
  1  
Thu 13 May, 2004 12:44 pm
David, I think you should sign up for this class that Craven is teaching, Debating 101. I don't think your ready to put your skills to the test yet.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 02/05/2025 at 04:44:39