s2a
Heretic and part-time (skinny) Santa impersonator
Hello atofel,
When I said:
I did not object to the posting of "opinions". I noted the lack of support in voicing of said opinions.
You inquired:
"I did not object to the posting of "opinions". I noted the lack of support in voicing of said opinions. Such support is only necessary/important if you wish to persuade others to accede/accept your own lent perspective. If you simply want to be the railing unshaven evangelist on the streetcorner of injustice, then rant away...and reap the respect you prospectively sow."
If a particular "opinion" states a claim that "porn is bad" (or unhealthy, or destructive, or an erstwhile harbinger of the ultimate decline of a civil society); I simply seek/require valid empirical evidence in order to indulge a prospective contemplation of favoring/sharing such an "opinion". Any legitimized "source" that (potentially) leads to such a conclusion...matters.
There is a popular axiom that suggests that "opinions are like belly-buttons" (ergo, everyone has one) - nothing special; nothing exceptional; nothing compelling or interesting in declaring some personalized possession of a belly-button. In two words; "Big Deal", or, "So What?") However, if you wish to declare that my belly-button is evil, or that yours is perfect (or at least, morally pure); then I'm gonna need a tad more than "just an/your opinion" to lend my consent and affirmation to such a comment.
Every parent thinks their child is the most beautiful...but that doesn't make it true, nor even especially inviting to prospectively invalidate as patently false,
As an atheist, I exercize my privilege to indulge a freethinking perspective. I neither accede nor acknowledge any superior "moral authority" over/above any of which I accept/represent for myself (in personal accountability/responsibility).
I choose to defer to societal manifestations of (constitutionally-derived) legislative "rules" as established by law...simply because "order" (generally speaking) promotes/defends both individualistic liberties and social/cultural "progress" (ie., "Mob Rule" by means of: posses; lynchings; witch hunts; race/gender/creed segregation; etc...do not [ultimately] promote either long-term social nor intellectual progress/enlightenment in any given social/cultural community).
I invite any folks that wish to provide/promote a competing, valid, and compelling "opinion" to provide referenced source(s) in support of both the merit and substance of any proffered qualified observation/commentary/opinion intended to effect either enlightenment or persuasive (and prospectively beneficient) ideological/philosophical/socialogical/cultural change (amidst otherwise entrenched views).
"Porn is bad" is certainly an expressed opinion. But in my estimation, lacking any qualified support, such facile declarations remain but vapid and worthless opinion.
After quoting me in saying:
"But if you wish to propose/suggest that many Christians DO NOT seek to censor (or otherwise legally prohibit) porn, then you reside within a reality of one (or distinct few). The issues I raise are directly relevant to the issue at hand."
You said:
Interesting manipulation (and dodge) of semantics on your part (a veiled strawman).
I did not allude to any "official" doctrinal position by any organized church that debates "legalization" of porn (though both the Catholic Church and the LDS counsel their adherents to reject porn) .
Porn...is (and remains) "legal" (for the most part); and the contemporary "legality" of such a position is not represented in current court challenge by any organized religious institution that I'm aware of...but that still begs the question itself. Are there (religious) adherents of and within such organized institutions that seek to limit/prohibit the availability/access/distribution of adult-themed porn, predicated upon the teachings/instructions of their religious beliefs? The answer is an undeniable...YES.
I said:
Asserted "personal" authority (as in, "I am your King")...no.
"Moral authority" (as in, "I speak for the Word of the God of the Bible"), you betcha.
The lent (or suggested) "authority" of the Judeo/Christian Bible or (its associative) Scripture is predicated solely upon the notion that such work is the "ultimate authority" (of which, so many amateur claimants profess to be pious "experts' thereof).
When I said:
I did not object to the posting of "opinions". I noted the lack of support in voicing of said opinions.
You inquired:
Before we go there (and I'll be pleased to do so), let's revisit the proper context surrounding my quoted statement. Recall that I said (and qualified, now with boldface for emphasis):Well ok. Within the context of what is moral or ethical, what sort of "support" are you looking for?
"I did not object to the posting of "opinions". I noted the lack of support in voicing of said opinions. Such support is only necessary/important if you wish to persuade others to accede/accept your own lent perspective. If you simply want to be the railing unshaven evangelist on the streetcorner of injustice, then rant away...and reap the respect you prospectively sow."
If a particular "opinion" states a claim that "porn is bad" (or unhealthy, or destructive, or an erstwhile harbinger of the ultimate decline of a civil society); I simply seek/require valid empirical evidence in order to indulge a prospective contemplation of favoring/sharing such an "opinion". Any legitimized "source" that (potentially) leads to such a conclusion...matters.
There is a popular axiom that suggests that "opinions are like belly-buttons" (ergo, everyone has one) - nothing special; nothing exceptional; nothing compelling or interesting in declaring some personalized possession of a belly-button. In two words; "Big Deal", or, "So What?") However, if you wish to declare that my belly-button is evil, or that yours is perfect (or at least, morally pure); then I'm gonna need a tad more than "just an/your opinion" to lend my consent and affirmation to such a comment.
Every parent thinks their child is the most beautiful...but that doesn't make it true, nor even especially inviting to prospectively invalidate as patently false,
I retain my own standards/measures (of apt application); yet remain willing to entertain/contemplate the "sources" of alternate views (with compelling/testable/verifiable claims of facts/evidences as support)."In other words, what do you consider to be the moral authority or justification that would validate any sort of evidence?"
As an atheist, I exercize my privilege to indulge a freethinking perspective. I neither accede nor acknowledge any superior "moral authority" over/above any of which I accept/represent for myself (in personal accountability/responsibility).
I choose to defer to societal manifestations of (constitutionally-derived) legislative "rules" as established by law...simply because "order" (generally speaking) promotes/defends both individualistic liberties and social/cultural "progress" (ie., "Mob Rule" by means of: posses; lynchings; witch hunts; race/gender/creed segregation; etc...do not [ultimately] promote either long-term social nor intellectual progress/enlightenment in any given social/cultural community).
I invite any folks that wish to provide/promote a competing, valid, and compelling "opinion" to provide referenced source(s) in support of both the merit and substance of any proffered qualified observation/commentary/opinion intended to effect either enlightenment or persuasive (and prospectively beneficient) ideological/philosophical/socialogical/cultural change (amidst otherwise entrenched views).
"Porn is bad" is certainly an expressed opinion. But in my estimation, lacking any qualified support, such facile declarations remain but vapid and worthless opinion.
After quoting me in saying:
"But if you wish to propose/suggest that many Christians DO NOT seek to censor (or otherwise legally prohibit) porn, then you reside within a reality of one (or distinct few). The issues I raise are directly relevant to the issue at hand."
You said:
I am not aware of any Christian doctrine that discusses legislation of pornography.
Interesting manipulation (and dodge) of semantics on your part (a veiled strawman).
I did not allude to any "official" doctrinal position by any organized church that debates "legalization" of porn (though both the Catholic Church and the LDS counsel their adherents to reject porn) .
Porn...is (and remains) "legal" (for the most part); and the contemporary "legality" of such a position is not represented in current court challenge by any organized religious institution that I'm aware of...but that still begs the question itself. Are there (religious) adherents of and within such organized institutions that seek to limit/prohibit the availability/access/distribution of adult-themed porn, predicated upon the teachings/instructions of their religious beliefs? The answer is an undeniable...YES.
Mischaracterization. You'll note that I said "most", not "all". Your particular individuality as a righteously independent believer and thinker are noted."Nor do I not represent this universal opinion of those Christian people that you seem to have."
As I said, bully for you. But do not expect either praise nor admiration (on my part) for your position of amphibolous neutrality regarding free speech/expression aspects as protected/guaranteed under the Constitution."There may be some people out there that seek this legislation in the name of Christianity, but I am not one of them."
Inferring mischaracterizations will virtually guarantee misinterpretations. You can do better. ;-)Asserting such generalizations about your audience will likely lead to miscommunication.
I said:
Asserted "personal" authority (as in, "I am your King")...no.
"Moral authority" (as in, "I speak for the Word of the God of the Bible"), you betcha.
The lent (or suggested) "authority" of the Judeo/Christian Bible or (its associative) Scripture is predicated solely upon the notion that such work is the "ultimate authority" (of which, so many amateur claimants profess to be pious "experts' thereof).