1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Pornography

Discussion in 'Sexuality' started by Ori, Dec 26, 2005.

  1. s2a

    s2a Heretic and part-time (skinny) Santa impersonator

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2005
    Messages:
    3,255
    Ratings:
    +588
    Religion:
    Really?
    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:

    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):

    "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).

    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.

    Mischaracterization. You'll note that I said "most", not "all". Your particular individuality as a righteously independent believer and thinker are noted.


    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.

    Inferring mischaracterizations will virtually guarantee misinterpretations. You can do better. ;-)

    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).
     
  2. s2a

    s2a Heretic and part-time (skinny) Santa impersonator

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2005
    Messages:
    3,255
    Ratings:
    +588
    Religion:
    Really?
    You replied:

    To be fair, you have yet (for my consideration) to assert your particular creedal affiliation, or church upon which you might lend your pious deference (perhaps you are but another "Christ-follower" of some singular revelation, with your own individualistic interpretations of Scriptuiral/Biblical faith of which to adhere/follow...absent any specified doctrinal ties/affiliations/compunctions).

    That said, there is much within biblical scripture that both implicitly and inferentially asserts a "moral authority" of both erudition and "superiority" to impose upon infidels, heretics, and unbelievers. To wit, of many prospective illustrations:

    1 Thessalonians 4-1:12; and...2 Corinthians 10:7-8...
    "...If anyone is confident that he belongs to Christ, he should consider again that we belong to Christ just as much as he. For even if I boast somewhat freely about the authority the Lord gave us for building you up rather than pulling you down, I will not be ashamed of it."

    Christian believers freely assert the lent "authority" from their "redeemer" to effect "correction", "direction", and interpretational evaluations/dispensations of manifestly willful sinners. You may personally choose to refrain from such "responsibilities" of (moral) "authority", but the fact that many other Christian adherents most readily embrace (and seek to legislate) such "authority" as a matter of imposed secular/societal law is undeniable - regardless of your personalized position of separation from group or whole.

    Erroneous conclusion/inquiry founded on inept/inaccurate premise. While true that I do not "believe in the Judeo/Christian God", this fact alone has no relevance to the aspects of any asserted "moral superiority" furthered by others (on my behalf). I don't feel that pious adherents (of any religious/spiritual/mythological/superstitious beliefs) retain nor legitimately assert/represent any levels of due authority/superiority over my own standards of morality/ethics. My perspective has not significantly effected/deflected others from their rationalized/justified attempts to otherwise impose their own pious and righteous justifications of what society should (legally) deem as "right" or "wrong"


    Nope. Opinion can be invaluable, ageless, wise, universal, or just plain stupid. Faith-based opinions, lacking any other support, fall into the "useless" category as far as I'm concerned.


    I said:
    Well...I offered my "stance" (one) within this very thread. Would you care to address/rebut any of the comments I have offered...*specifically*?


    You replied:
    I was not especially subtle in my commentary. It was offered, in part, as tongue-in-cheek observation of the ironic "benefits" of porn in our world today. I am no "advocate" of porn. I receive no benefit from porn, nor am I a current consumer of porn. Coincidentally, just as I am neither female (nor unintentionally pregnant), nor a homosexual in love - I favor a woman's choice to control her own reproductive outcomes, and support equality of civil rights in legal marriage amongst consenting adults. I'm not "pro-abortion", nor "pro gay-marriage"; but neither am I of the "opinion" that my opinion should be imposed upon others as a matter of law. To do so, would be..."immoral"...within my own set of ethical principles.

    I remain ethically ambivalent as to any "good" or "bad" potential ramifications/outcomes of consuming porn. I believe that all adults should be both responsible and accountable (both personally and socially) for the choices they make...and that such personalized choices are none of your business (or mine) to influence or legislate as a matter of civil/criminal law. I will always consider my position of moral ambivalence if a proponent/advocate/detractor can and will provide substantive and veritable evidence that adult behavioral tastes/choices should be regulated/legislated beyond contemporary cultural norms and constitutionally protected rights/guarantees. But know that I will always hold the rights of the individual as "supreme authority" over the momentary whims and proclivities of any "majority opinion".

    Not an especially profound observation, if you'll forgive my saying so. In equality of unenlightening observation, I would suggest that modern recorded history provides no encouraging examples of any society/culture that seeks to suppress/repress free inquiry, free thought, or irreligious insightful revelations. Let us not long forget that the "Dark Ages" were the time when religious despotism ruled virtually every "developed" society in dictating morality and personalized ethics. Freethinking was tantamount to religious heresy. You know...the "good ole' days".

    Indeed, but upon what foundation supporting your "opinion" of "right/wrong", "good/bad" (of porn), is yours thus ultimately predicated upon?

    Your proffered philosophical observations here
    http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?p=330887#post330887

    certainly do not present any specified doctrinal/dogmatic decrees/commands, but they do offer those dreaded "generalizations about your audience will likely lead to miscommunication" as well.

    In that post, you said:
    Opinion, or fact? If fact, what is your source materiel in support of your claim?

    Generalization, or universally applicable?

    "Misguided"? According to which guide? What "guide" of appropriate behavior do you suggest/imply here? The Bible; Dr. Phil; the Hooters calendar of upcoming events/holidays...what?

    Inasmuch, you imply that porn is a consequentially "bad-choice" for men. By what standard of measure/source, and compared to what alternative? What is the (by default) "good-choice" to be made?

    You said:

    Apology accepted, since it seems to be non-existent within this thread.

    Shall we dance?
     
    • Like Like x 2
  3. michel

    michel Administrator Emeritus
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2004
    Messages:
    28,667
    Ratings:
    +2,657
    A good post, as usual, cal.
    I personally have always held the attitude that pornography (and Violence and violent pornography) can be the 'switch' in the minds of disturbed people. i.e some people will want to enact what they have seen. The desensatisation element of frequent viewing of such material will lower the 'acceptance ' level of committing these acts.

    Thinking along those lines (and this is substantiated by the piece down below), I suppose that can be applied to anything in life.

    Nothing is intrinsically good or bad. A car is a car; the driver can either drive it sensibly, or as an idiot, with alcohol in his blood.

    Having said that, Sex is a 'tough' subject. Women are vulnerable; I don't think there is any denying that (except for my wife:D ) . Does society have a duty to protect potential victims from a known causal source ? Would the removal of pernography (hypothetically) from society mean that there is an 'important loss' to society, as a cost to protecting vulnerable women from metally unballanced men who enact what they see ?

    In other words, would the removal of pornography from the shelves be too hard a price to pay for the safety of vulnerable women?



    http://college.hmco.com/psychology/bernstein/psychology/6e/students/chapter_outlines/ch18.html
    AGGRESSION
    Aggression is an act intended to harm another person. In 1995 in the United States a murder occurred every twenty-four minutes, a rape every five minutes, and an aggravated assault every twenty-nine seconds.
    1. Why Are People Aggressive?
      According to Freud, aggression is an inborn instinct that needs release in behavior. Evolutionary psychologists believe that aggression aided the survival of gene pools and was passed down through generations. However, in some societies, aggression is rare and peaceful coexistence is the norm. Aggressive behavior results from a nurture/nature interaction.
      1. Genetic and Biological Mechanisms. Research demonstrates hereditary influences on aggressive behavior. Lesions within certain brain areas can lead to aggression, and male hormones such as testosterone are associated with higher levels of aggression. Drugs may also affect aggression.
      2. Learning and Cultural Mechanisms. Aggression is more common in individualistic than collectivistic cultures. People learn to be aggressive by watching others or by being reinforced for aggressive acts.
    2. When Are People Aggressive?
      1. Frustration and Aggression. According to the modified frustration-aggression hypothesis, stress produces a readiness to respond aggressively, but aggression is displayed only if there are environmental cues associated with an aggressive response. The direct cause of most kinds of aggression is negative affect (emotion).
      2. Generalized Arousal. In transferred excitation, an internal characteristic and environmental conditions interact to produce aggression. Generalized arousal is most likely to produce aggression when the situation contains some reason, opportunity, or target for aggression.
      3. Environmental Influences on Aggression. Environmental psychology is the study of how people's behavior is affected by the environment in which they live. Hot weather, air pollution, noise, and crowding can all lead to increased aggression.
    3. Thinking Critically: Does Pornography Cause Aggression?
      What am I being asked to believe or accept?
      There is a casual link between the viewing of pornographic material and several forms of antisocial behavior, including sexually related crimes.
      What evidence is available to support the assertion?
      Convicted rapists use pornography extensively, and often do so right before they commit a crime. Those aroused by aggressive themes are also potentially the most sexually aggressive. Experimentally induced arousal, especially negative arousal, seems to be readily transferred into aggressive acts.
      Are there alternative ways of interpreting the evidence?
      Convicted rapists are not credible; they may have wanted to blame pornography for their crimes. Also, preferring violence-oriented pornography doesn't prove that such materials create an impulse to rape someone. With regard to the transfer-of-excitation studies, the observation of violence, not sex, could have been the cause for increased aggression.
      What additional evidence would help to evaluate the alternatives?
      Research needs to examine the effects of violence and sex when presented separately. In addition, factors that affect men's reaction to pornography that involves violence must be more clearly understood. Do men who are prone to committing rape have greater needs to dominate and control women? A recent study suggests that sexual promiscuity, hostility toward women, and consumption of pornography jointly affect sexual aggression against women.
      What conclusions are most reasonable?
      Portrayals of violence, including aggressive pornography, affect attitudes toward aggression and may make some viewers more likely to commit sexual violence. However, for most people, sexual arousal and aggression remain quite separate. Pornography alone may not lead to violence against women, but may play a role in sexual aggression when combined with other factors.
     
  4. ChrisP

    ChrisP Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2005
    Messages:
    10,956
    Ratings:
    +871
    You must spread some karma.... :biglaugh:
     
  5. coloaggie

    coloaggie New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2006
    Messages:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1
    with current state of world and internet im more concerned about human slavery used to make some porn, and the sex industruty in general. Im a guy, so i think if my sister makes porn on her own its no big deal, however all the runaways and kids taken everyday from this country but other countries makes me mad. I like porn, god has meant for 2 people to enjoy sexuallity regardless of what false prophit christian religions might wana think becouse thier pee-pees dont work. so i have compassion for those who are used yet celebration in industry a liberation for human sexuallity and the freedom to express ourselves. afterall speech is only 10% human comunication. to deal headlong in what is human, and not condem it is truely what christ would have done. and i dare say christ would may have very well experimented sexually with other adult men and women. ohhhh how shocking!!! lol, just enjoy what god has given you.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. Buttons*

    Buttons* Glass half Panda'd

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2005
    Messages:
    16,110
    Ratings:
    +1,261
    So this past Friday I went over to my friend Kristen's house for her birthday. We wound up finding some porn and watching it. Truthfully, it was so funny we almost pissed ourselves. My question would be how anyone could be turned on by it anyway? It's just sooooo stupid! haha, silly porn...
     
  7. s2a

    s2a Heretic and part-time (skinny) Santa impersonator

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2005
    Messages:
    3,255
    Ratings:
    +588
    Religion:
    Really?
    Hello Michel,
    (long time no see :))

    You said:

    Yours is not a unique perspective, and generally echos the arguments put forward in opposition to depictions/realizations of sex/violence in TV, movies, and video games (yet ironically, virtually no protests are raised against vivid and realistic depictions of the cruelties, horrors, and base inhumanities of war - of which children are typically the primary and most profoundly affected victims - within the very same mediums).

    Can nutty people be instigated by depictions of violence to act upon their unbalanced or anti-social/pathological tendencies? Probably so. But then, let's not forget that their proclivities are already manifestly anti-social/pathological at the outset. One could just as reasonably argue that watching the local evening news could/would inspire (or flip) the same disturbed mind "switch" to "ON" amongst suitable nutcases. Where is the outcry in opposition to news broadcasts describing/reporting actual (as opposed to imagined/invented) acts of violence (or sexual predation)? Are we to presume that mentally disturbed individuals don't watch the nightly news, or that opponents of graphic depictions of fantasy violence don't watch the news? ;-)

    Generally speaking, that's likely true (amongst those with an ingrained propensity/interest in perpetrating such acts). Even amongst "normal" people, there's no arguing against an inevitable element of a similar notion in "disaster fatigue"; eventually onset from endless ongoing reports of the latest distatrous example of human misery, suffering, and preventable death. "Normal" people are generous and compassionate in their hearts for the immediate needs of the most deleteriously affected...to a point. But even compassion (however heartfelt) and lent aid (however sincere and necessary), have their limits even amongst the best of humanity's nature, for each of us retains our own "troubles" to confront and overcome, and hopefully, in due time move beyond. "Mother Teresas" remain the exception (with exemplified great personal sacrifice of self) in the world, and even perhaps justly so (somebody's got to show up make the trains on time, no matter how much they may care about the plight of others).


    There's a popular axiom repeated here in "the colonies", of similar flavor: "Guns don't kill people. People kill people." The implied argument is that (hand)guns are neither "good" nor "evil" - it's all dependent on who wields the gun. Of course, handguns are expressly designed for one purpose - to kill. Cars are primarily designed as an efficient method of transportation (which ironically, when utilized in a method counter to it's intended purpose, is also an efficient killing device).

    I would simply suggest that technology/mechanisms that are designed/purposed (primarily and specifically) to destroy/maim/murder, are in fact, inherently "bad" (though perhaps being unavoidably necessary). Technology/machines designed specifically to enhance/preserve our basic humanity and existence (like modern medicine) are inherently "good" things (while still being subject to misapplication and abuse).

    She might object to propagation of repressive/regressive stereotyping. I do not consider women any more "vulnerable" than men. Women (generally speaking) are more: patient; persistent; protective; resistant to pain; tolerant (intellectually and physically); longer-lived; discriminating in choice; compassionate; empathetic; and durable...than men (why they let men run most things in the world is beyond my understanding). To top things off, women are inarguably best at manipulating men with sex (either in the offering, or withholding of) and/or their sexuality.

    Within reason and circumspect balance of individual liberty versus social "good", yes. But "society" shouldn't seek to remove any and all known sources of knowable "potential" harm. Booze and cigarettes are known poisons. Fatty foods (and poor dietary habits - especially in combination with physical inactivity) kill more people (eventually) than cars, guns, booze, cigarettes, and (preventable) cancer combined. Should individuals have inalienable rights to choose freely of things that they even know will (eventually) kill them sooner (than later) in consideration that conspicuous (or imposed) abstinence might otherwise mitigate? What presumed "duty" of societal concern for "your own good" would you seek to impose upon others, that you might not righteously apply to yourself? Prescription medicine is often abused by those that have no medicinal need of treatment. It is "knowable" that inappropriate use/abuse of these drugs will take place. To "save (or protect)" these abusers "from themselves", should society therefore dispense with all forms of prescription medicine? If you would argue that: "Prescription medicine helps more people than it potentially hurts, therefore it should not be banned"; then what "protection ratio" of potential "good vs. bad" should be applied, and by whom, and to what degree and conditions? Doesn't availabilty, measured with regulation, make more sense?

    It might. It might not. Is there any extant empirical evidence that suggests that a societal universal removal of "legal" pornography would therefore better protect/enhance the safety of vulnerable women from susceptibly emotionally unbalanced male predators? Conversely, are there any studies that suggest that pornography may reduce such potential incidences? How would such a concept be tested or measured in meaningful comparison to an hypothesized experimental "control"?

    The U.S. (societally) had a dabble (more than a few decades ago) with the universal banning of legal sale/consumption of alcohol (by means of constitutional amendment no less), presumably for "the good of society". That effort to protect the "vulnerable" (or easily influenced) resulted in no less desire or consumption of booze, but it did make criminals of those that chose to indulge anyway. It also spawned an enhanced and emboldened underworld of organized crime (existent today) that can still trace it's roots back to those troubled times of "good intentions" (in the end, after a few years of futility and blatant escalating ccriminality/violence, the ban on booze was lifted, re-amended back into law as legal).

    To this day, there remain segments within virtually every developed society that seek to enact legal prohibitions of "things" they deem as "bad", "evil", "wrong", or "sinful". These segments proclaim their "duty" to "protect" a vulnerable (or naieve, weak, or easily influenced) society from harming itself (either by use, or willful avoidance)..."for their own good". Recreational drug use (abuse); abortion by personal choice; homosexual marriage; public school prayer; public displays of the Ten Commandments; legitimization of "alternative explanation" pseudosciences, etc.; all of these domestic "cultural" issues are furthered by those that seek (by law) to either impose the "good" or prohibit the "bad"...because the "duty-bound" perceive "society" as being too irresponsible (or immoral) to make any informed choices and/or assumed responsibilities for themselves.

    "I'm doing this for your own good".

    Well...thanks, but no thanks.

    At the expense of free speech, free expression, and inherent independent freewill in indulging choices that (even) I "know" are prospectively "bad" for me?

    Too high a cost? You betcha.

    Now, if you will, pass me the goose paté...and refill my snifter with some more of that fine cognac, while I light this expensive Dunhill cigar, whilst reading my latest newsletter copy of the "Atheist Anarchist's Against Christ".

    Thanks. ;-)
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. s2a

    s2a Heretic and part-time (skinny) Santa impersonator

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2005
    Messages:
    3,255
    Ratings:
    +588
    Religion:
    Really?
    [I missed this one (popst #98) due to my infrequent visits of late (I always attempt to offer reply to any post that addresses me directly, so apologies for a tardy response.]

    Well hello Buttercup,

    You said:

    Agreed.

    As do I (how they can do so is what perplexes me most). Yet I reserve greater respect for those that may express their views with substance and compelling import, especially in debate ("noun : a discussion in which reasons are advanced for and against some proposition or proposal"). Not all views are equal in merit or substance, and sometimes earn the disdain and sardonic observations they accrue in due course.

    Pleasant and articulately expressed views rarely (if ever) receive my special attentions of "palpable meanness" in reply/rebuttal. Of course, I can be plain mean and nasty in a presented premise all by my lonesome...;-)

    Geez. I guess this means our engagement is off?

    Your counsel is herewith noted...with applicable disdain.

    Perhaps a "lighter" defense of my social inadequacies within REF can be explained by astrological/cultural means?

    My birth year was 1958 - the Year of the Dog. In 2006 (again, the Year of the Dog), I am now four years old, in a manner of speaking (just not in dog years). I am but a child...

    According to the wisdom of the ancients...

    "People born in the Year of the Dog possess the best traits of human nature. They have a deep sense of loyalty, are honest, and inspire other people’s confidence because they know how to keep secrets. But Dog People are somewhat selfish, terribly stubborn, and eccentric. They care little for wealth, yet somehow always seem to have money. They can be cold emotionally and sometimes distant at parties. They can find fault with many things and are noted for their sharp tongues."
    - From the Chinese Culture Center of San Francisco

    "DOG People are honest, straightforward, and friendly. They are extremely protective of themselves and their loved ones. With a passion for fair play and justice, they never fail to rescue you time after time. They may rant and rave, but they never rest until they right the wrong. They are true humanitarians and suffer with the world. In spite of their concern for others, social graces and fancy parties do not impress them. Having sharp eyes, they will see through people's motives. DOG People are quite private about their personal lives and someone prying into their affairs makes them secretive and withdrawn. Once you gain their confidence, they open up freely. Once DOG People classify you, they rarely change their minds. There are few in-between. Dogs perceive things either in black or white. You are either friend or enemy. Luckily, they are good judges of character and have superb insight into human nature. DOG People are tolerant of their friends. Before they approve of you, the friendship must develop slowly with a variety of meetings and conversations. If they look you over and decide they can trust you, you remain in their hearts forever. If you need them, DOG People will be there."
    http://www.findyourfate.com/chineseastro/dog.htm

    Buttercup, you conclusively offered that:

    Perhaps in extended time, you may come to see that the above "dogmatic" depictions/descriptions are (for the most part) eerily accurate regarding my REF participation/contributions to date (subject to prospective validation by others that have spent more time than you here in bravely trudging through my sometimes lengthy expressed "views"), and that you spoke in poorly-informed haste.

    Or, you may retain your estimations, and kick this ole' dog to the curb as you see fit.

    Nicetomeetcha.

    Woof!
     
    • Like Like x 1
  9. Buttercup

    Buttercup Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2006
    Messages:
    20,959
    Ratings:
    +3,693
    Nicetomeetcha 2,

    Meow
     
  10. Nick Soapdish

    Nick Soapdish Secret Agent

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2005
    Messages:
    1,281
    Ratings:
    +172
    Doesn't help me much for qualifying evidence, but ok.

    Just out of curiosity, if you were to consult someone who is interested in sharing this kind of morality, how would you instruct them on keeping their moral objectivity protected from emotional swings?

    Should I interpret this to mean that you feel what is immoral and what is illegal should be the same? In other words, if something is immoral it ought to be illegal?

    You need to work on your communication skills if you don't mind me saying so. I'm really not sure what the significance is of what you just said there, but I am sure it is not because it is an inherently difficult concept.

    It wasn't a dodge at all. I have no idea why you would put it on me to defend opinions that other Christians have simply for the reason that I too am a Christian. The only explanation would be if Christian doctrine clearly holds that position. Which is why I stated what I did.

    Would you have me defend some random proclamation that pruning trees should be illegal in the name of Christianity?

    I am sure there are some Christians out there that wish to illegalize porn. But then I believe there are many of us who see a problem with attempting to illegalize all immoral behavior (e.g. lying, gluttony, greed) from an imperfect and corruptible organization (i.e. the government). Many Christians simply don't agree with censorship. Christians hold themselves accountable to God first, ahead of any human institution (which are inherently faulty). Being illegal and being immoral are not the same thing--otherwise we would all be outlaws. The principle of freedom of speech is a righteous one, and I see no reason to suggest we ought to form some corruptible committee to ban any book, movie or publication that they perceive as impure. Talk about a bad precedent..

    Following your advice above to provide empirical evidence to your claims, do you have any evidence that "most" Christians want to illegalize all pornography?

    Of course, it doesn't really matter if you said "most" or "all". You were still bucketing me with an opinion I don't share based on my Christian faith.

    I am a protestant Christian.

    I am not sure how the Thessalonian passage applies. It is saying that we ought to live a moral life based on the commandments given by the authority of Jesus. It certainly doesn't say a non-Christian (yourself) ought to be held accountable to the commandments given by the authority of an ordinary Christian (myself).

    As far as the Corinthians passage, you need to read the verses that lead up to the one you quoted above. It is talking about having authority to pronounce the message of Christ.

    You say the Bible asserts we can "impose" the moral authority of God onto "infidels, heretics, and unbelievers". What exactly do you mean by impose? If you mean enact justice, then you have a very marred view of Christianity. If you mean bring to light, then I do not see how it is different from anyone else expressing a belief about morality.

    I'm sure you are aware of the quote, "let the one without sin cast the first stone"?

    I believe I already answered this.


    First you said:

    Well...I offered my "stance" (one) within this very thread. Would you care to address/rebut any of the comments I have offered...*specifically*?

    Then you said:

    It was offered, in part, as tongue-in-cheek observation of the ironic "benefits" of porn in our world today

    Ok, so you wanted me to address/rebut your "tongue-in-cheek observation" *specifically*. And then this is what you have to say about my response:

    Not an especially profound observation, if you'll forgive my saying so.

    Perhaps the profoundness of my "rebuttal" reflects the profoundness of your "stance".

    Ultimately my authority is the Bible, but I believe the immorality of pornography is apparent without directly referencing the Bible.
     
  11. Nick Soapdish

    Nick Soapdish Secret Agent

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2005
    Messages:
    1,281
    Ratings:
    +172
    I don't have any source material for that specific claim, nor do I specify what time period or geography the men are from, nor do I specify what exactly "dig themselves into holes" means. To me it is quite obvious that many men live with regrets for behaviors that were brought upon from sexual desires. That is the point of substance to the rest of the argument.

    I'm not sure if you really disagree with the point, or if you are just critcizing my argument because you feel obligated to. If you are really interested in empirical studies on pornography and its harmful affects, there is a ton of stuff out there. Here are a few links that seemed relevant:

    http://www.netspeed.com.au/ttguy/refs2.htm
    http://www.obscenitycrimes.org/clineart.cfm
    http://www.obscenitycrimes.org/Senate-Reisman-Layden-Etc.pdf
    http://www.protectkids.com/effects/harms.htm

    Neither. My statement should not be read as "all men continually...". Some men don't commit it, but infidelity is not an uncommon occurrence.

    My argument applies to all men that have a sex drive and are tempted by pornography. Your call if you want to label that generalizing when I just say "men". Not all men commit adultery, produce unwanted pregnancies, etc, but my point is that enough men do for the rest of us to want to be aware of what steps we should take to make sure we don't go down that road.

    Misguided, as in going against any commitment they have made to another person, either explicitly or implicitly.

    I'm not sure what you are getting at... the alternative would be to not look at porn ...

    First you said:

    I remain ethically ambivalent as to any "good" or "bad" potential ramifications/outcomes of consuming porn.

    Then you said:

    Shall we dance?

    How chivalrous of you to declare a dual with no body of your own to defend. :)
     
  12. s2a

    s2a Heretic and part-time (skinny) Santa impersonator

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2005
    Messages:
    3,255
    Ratings:
    +588
    Religion:
    Really?
    Hello atofel,

    You said (amidst a whole lot more):

    Such is the luxury afforded an atheistic perspective, with no attached adherent dogma to righteously defend nor support. ;-)

    I will beg a shorter indulgence of your time in order to lend due course and apt reply to your considerate and thoughtful rebuttal (I do have my Olympics coverage to catch up on with TiVo ;-)).
     
  13. d.

    d. _______

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2006
    Messages:
    1,937
    Ratings:
    +281
    pornography is, as anything else, a complex issue.

    it isn't offensive or degrading in itself, no. but most pornography is in my opinion. why? because it reflects and reproduces the vile power structures of modern patriarchy, where certain women is objectified and thus can be used, and then thrown away. all in the privacy of your own room with curtains drawn, which means you don't have to answer for your actions.

    objectification is absolutely crucial to maintain domination; if you start seeing your slave, for example, as a human being and not a tool, it gets impossible to maintain the master-slave hierarchy.

    it reminds me a bit of late 19th century europe, where a 'public woman' - i.e. a woman moving freely in the city - was the same as a prostitute. the men was able to have their wives more or less locked up at home while they took advantage of the fact that a lot of the poor women in the city were forced to sell their bodies for money. in this way, desire and sexuality could be controlled, and men were able to at daytime propagate for a cleaner, more moral society - and in the evenings sneak off to the bordello. the secrecy of the private sphere is absolutely vital to maintain this power structure.

    the effect that the repeated viewing of visual material - porn, violence, "days of our lives" - has on a person is something that understandably is hard to study. people adapt differently to their particular circumstances, and use visual mediums differently. so there can really be no consensus whether sexist pornography always has a negative effect how the viewers think about women. but if you ask my personal opinion, it probably does.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. Nick Soapdish

    Nick Soapdish Secret Agent

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2005
    Messages:
    1,281
    Ratings:
    +172
    True. :)
     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. s2a

    s2a Heretic and part-time (skinny) Santa impersonator

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2005
    Messages:
    3,255
    Ratings:
    +588
    Religion:
    Really?
    atofel,

    I am overdue in offering you considered and due reply, and hope to offer such within 48 hours or so...your patient indulgence inasmuch is appreciated.

    ;-)
     
  16. FaithHopeLove

    FaithHopeLove New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2006
    Messages:
    8
    Ratings:
    +5
    You know, I don't have much direct, personal experience in this realm. However, I have witnessed the effects of its addiction in my immediate family... my father's addiction to this obscene material definitely did not help matters with my mother. It caused a great deal of pain for both my mother and father when the problem was brought to light and finally dealt with. I can't help but ask... WHY would you willingly subject yourself to such material? WHY? Porn is not natural... there is nothing about porn that suggests living a pure life (Philippians 4:8). To me, from my perspective, it can only cause pain, hurt, anger, and division. None of these exemplify the kind of life my Christ would want me to live... nothing about porn says 'love one another' to me.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  17. Atheist_Dave

    Atheist_Dave *Foxy Lady*

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2006
    Messages:
    736
    Ratings:
    +118
    Heres a stab in the dark (excuse any innuendo), maybe I watch porn because it get me off, pure and simple. Pain? Hurt? Anger? I only have my experiences to go off of course, but so far I have experience nothing of the sort, and I mean, nothing ;) I willingly subject myself to it because I am human, I am not a devine creature close to god, I am but an animal. It may be on a screen, or on paper, but it is still a representation of one of our most deepest desires, and if viewed correctly can be the source of many a happy moment.

    Peace x
     
  18. michel

    michel Administrator Emeritus
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2004
    Messages:
    28,667
    Ratings:
    +2,657
    You made some very good points there; ones I agree with. I am very sorry about your Mum and Dad. Forget the Bible (for a moment); one day we went to a neighbour's house (shortly we were married), and were show a porn film.

    Quite frankly, I was embarassed, my wife was astonished, the neighbours seemed to love it............................

    The statement with which I agree the most in your post is
    To me, porn is a form of domination, of control. Not for me.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  19. meee223

    meee223 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2008
    Messages:
    52
    Ratings:
    +4
    I don't find too much wrong with porn, but I rather refer to it as "adult erotica ". I don't find it degrading at all. The only time something is degrading is when the person themselves feel that way about themselves after they've done something. No one can or has the right to tell someone else they are being degraded. Only YOU can determine if you feel that way about YOURSELF. No one else can tell you how you feel. I also don't find anything immoral about it. It's purpose is to arouse the viewer. If it does that and you end up with a pleasureable experience, either with yourself or with a partner, I think that's wonderful.
     
  20. whereismynotecard

    whereismynotecard Treasure Hunter

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2008
    Messages:
    15,093
    Ratings:
    +2,042
    I wouldn't want to look at pornography, but if someone else wants to, that is their problem... The only thing I'd say is that if you are married, you probably shouldn't look at it if you know your spouce would feel sad as a result.
     
Loading...