Why is pornography considered a degrading thing?

Loopster, as requested (my OP):

 

I think epicauthor succinctly and deftly bashed your OP baby seal with a great big logic club right on the noggin.

 

Could this be the overbearing spawn of a union between Darth Brooks and the not-missed POLUNIS?

Or are there really people so smugly arrogant as to make me look humble?

E_S

 

Oh really? So his "great big logic club" that is based on giving a legal reason to explain a moral problem and commiting the ?is/ought fallacy? or ?naturalistic fallacy?? Please review below. Pace Loopster, you will need to do more than employ rhetoric to rehabilitate his rebuttal.

 

I thought you were going to bed.

Your reply is where you start to diverge into the realms of...of...

I can't say it for fear of being banned.

 

I'm just amazed there are people who can make me look humble!

E_S

 

I understand: defeat causes frustration.


I'm just amazed there are people who can make me look humble!


By comparing yourself to me, I hope you gain self-confidence.

 

Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

That buzzing, that's the point desperately trying to get through to you; i.e. you're so arrogant it's hoenstly not funny. See -> Not a funny face.

E_S

 

if a man with an axe banged on my door

Oh if only this were not fiction I think alot of us would sleep better this evening!

 

Defeat? That's funny seeing as how I handed your arse to you twice already.

Really. Stop and think about what you are saying. Do you really think for a minute that liberals would advocate total moral objectivity for every occasion? I agree that morals are subjective, depending on one's view but really do you think liberals do not draw the line at morality freedom when harm is caused by it?

Your ridiculous arguments about if/oughts and whatnot do not apply when most people think that causing harm to others is where you draw the morality line. Extrapolating that to other areas of morality is plain wrong and totally stupid.

Your problem, if you do have one and aren't simply baiting, is that you have a moral objection to porn and like a typical conservative want to foist your opinions and morality on others. Guess what, I can object to pornography - any pornography - that causes harm to the participants, but can also support the idea of consentual adult porn. There's no dichotomy so get your head out of where it is and you may understand that.

 

Defeat? That's funny seeing as how I handed your arse to you twice already.

This statement needs to be factually supported, because no where in any of your posts do I find you contesting my points. That is, if we remove the rhetoric from them.


Really. Stop and think about what you are saying. Do you really think for a minute that liberals would advocate total moral objectivity for every occasion? I agree that morals are subjective, depending on one's view but really do you think liberals do not draw the line at morality freedom when harm is caused by it?

(Note to future posters: The problem with many theforce.net posters is that they fail to read all of an individual's posts and, thus, fail to grasp the context of it. This, in turn, causes them to suspend logical thinking, react emotionally, and knock down straw men. My subseqent posts make it clear that my argument was aimed at relativists, and to liberals who are relativists. I understand that not all liberals are relativists, just as not all conservatives are objectivists.)

Now, as for these statements, drawing the line means that not all moral actions are subjective, right?


Your ridiculous arguments about if/oughts and whatnot do not apply when most people think that causing harm to others is where you draw the morality line. Extrapolating that to other areas of morality is plain wrong and totally stupid.


Another illustration of knocking down a straw-man and misconstruing a person's argument.

First, it's the "is/ought" fallacy. If you are to defeat my argument, then the onus is on you to solve the fallacy. Should you accomplish this task, publish it in a philosphical journal. They'll determine if you have succeeded or not.

Second, strive for clarity in your points. What is meant by "extrapolating that to other areas of morality"? What is *that*? The is/ought fallacy?

The claims some of the posters were making (i.e., child pornography "harms") were predicated on the "is/ought" fallacy. Does this sound clearer now?


Your problem, if you do have one and aren't simply baiting, is that you have a moral objection to porn and like a typical conservative want to foist your opinions and morality on others. Guess what, I can object to pornography - any pornography - that causes harm to the participants, but can also support the idea of consentual adult porn. There's no dichotomy so get your head out of where it is and you may understand that.


Your claim is self-refuting: by criticizing me for "foisting my opinions on others" you yourself are foisting your very own opinion on me. That's pretty hypocritical. Post-modernist, relativist hypocrisy.

 

I'm thinking the original poster of this thread.

 

Consider the following:

Let us ignore the "is/ought" fallacy for the sake of argument.

Now, since morality is subjective, on what *independent* basis could you possibly condemn someone's morality which says that it is holy to watch child porn and molest children?

If you criticize person X by responding that it "harms the child," then you are simply presupposing your own subjective standard of morality to condemn person X's.

That is the reducio ad absurdum of relativist morality.

 

Awwww thanks!

I'm not even going to deal with this guy anymore. Anyone who has the point handed to him over and over and over again, ignores it, and then dismisses it as wrong because he says so isn't worth any of our time.

Next.

 

And out comes the latin.

Mate, your subsequent posts don't mean jack when you tell me to respond to your "OP" only. Here's what you said in that post, your "OP", the post you asked me to comment on, the post you copied and reposted just so I knew what to respond to; First, if liberals hold to a relativistic view of morality (as most do), . Notice the (as most do)? That's you asserting something that's complete bull.

Heheh. You sir, are a dill.

If you criticize person X by responding that it "harms the child," then you are simply presupposing your own subjective standard of morality to condemn person X's.

Please put your philosphy text away. That's a ridiculous argument to condemn benign latent morality.

Oh, why bother.

 

I believe cracking out the Keating List would also be appropriate, Loopster. Using ol' Paul J on this pillock sock could be fun!

E_S

 

I'm working up to calling him a nong, E_S.

Keating would be proud.

 

Loopster, you embarass yourself each time you post with your logical fallacies.


Heheh. You sir, are a dill.


Logical Fallacy #1: argumentum ad hominem. Pretty substantive in content I might add.



Mate, your subsequent posts don't mean jack when you tell me to respond to your "OP" only. Here's what you said in that post, your "OP", the post you asked me to comment on, the post you copied and reposted just so I knew what to respond to; First, if liberals hold to a relativistic view of morality (as most do), . Notice the (as most do)? That's you asserting something that's complete bull.


More rhetoric.

Also interesting that you ignore the word ?if.? To repeat, if your view of morality is not relativistic, you need not respond. If it is, then my arguments still apply. I will repeat what I said a few posts back (I will even put this in my signature if need be):

My subsequent posts make it clear that my argument was aimed at relativists, and to liberals who are relativists. I understand that not all liberals are relativists, just as not all conservatives are objectivists.

Moreover, you are evading my arguments perhaps due to your fear of being unable to refute them. I will re-paste them for you:



?(1) If it is the case that there are no universally valid moral principles, then there is nothing objectively wrong with person X watching child porn. If person Y says person X is wrong in watching child porn, then Person Y is morally judging Person X according to his own *subjective* standard of morality.

(2) Arguments that attempt to morally justify ?regular? porn but not child are purely arbitrary, based completely on the ?is/ought fallacy.? This fallacy is when one arrives at a normative conclusion (an ?ought?) from a descriptive premise(s) (what is). Returning to the topic at hand, that children ?are people who are not even sexually developed? is simply to describe a general state of affairs just as saying adults are ?fully sexual developed.? Yet, arbitrarily, an ?ought? conclusion is derived: that one ought not to watch child porn because children are not fully developed. Necessarily, liberals will have to demonstrate how child pornography is morally wrong without predicating such a judgment on descriptive, states of affairs.

http://www.brainyencyclopedia.com/encyclopedia/i/is/is_ought_problem.html

(3) Thirdly, from the mere fact that an individual finds child pornography to be ?disgusting? it does not follow that it is, logically, morally wrong. To do so is to commit a non-sequitur. There are many things people find to be disgusting, but this does not establish whether said things are wrong or right. For example, I might find a fellow poster?s taste for KISS music as off-putting and disgusting. However, it does not follow that it is morally wrong. Indeed, it is not for emotional reasons why a Christian would object to homosexual practices or pornography of any kind. Rather, such opposition is based on moral principles, which in turn may generate the emotional responses.?


Please put your philosphy text away. That's a ridiculous argument to condemn latent morality.


Logical fallacy #2: Appeal to ridicule

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-ridicule.html

Loopster, based on (1) your gross distortions, (2) logical fallacies, (3) evasion of issues, (4) and inability to refute my positions, I will no longer continue the discussion with you. You have demonstrated no intellectual rigor in your posts and you rely on rhetoric, fallacious reasoning, and ridicule to hide your defeat.

At the end of my first OP, I said:

.......I now return to "lurk mode" unless the rebuttals to what I have raised are intelligent enough to warrant a response, which I highly doubt due to the content in some of the posts in this thread that are teeming with logical idiocy.

Based on reasons (1)-(4), your post hardly qualifies as intelligent. The same with your fellow interlocutors, such as Fire_Ice_Death and Ender Sai. The former i

 

Just one quick post to attempt to get this discussion back on track:

If you criticize person X by responding that it "harms the child," then you are simply presupposing your own subjective standard of morality to condemn person X's.

Why do you insist on harping on morality. There need not be any moral high ground when harm is being done. Lack of morals is not a prerequisite of causing harm to another individual. Nor is Harm a subjective standard. If someone is being damaged in some way, physically, emotionally, or spiritually, harm is being done. No logic argument or subjective crap-tacular excuse can argue with that.

As for your original post, you start off by saying "If", upon reading the rest of the post you continually build off of this personal supposition you have made, which is not proven but only claimed and thus nullify the entire post there after. The post is therefore considered irrelevant.

DEGRADING, that is the arguement here. Morals are not the basis for degradation, degrading is an act, morals are an opinion. Obviously the product of a degrading force could effect and cause harm to the thought process and thus negatively change a moralistic view. But you putting the cart before the horse.

Instead of using morals as the basis for your droning on and on about being subjective. Please attempt to make a point in relationship to the topic at hand. Perhaps HOW pornography has degraded the morals of society into accepting kiddie porn. Sh1t, do I have to do your job for you?

 

Well, now I'm confused. You seem to be argueing that there are moral absolutes (ie. all porn is wrong based on a moral basis) while at the same time claiming you are not a moral absolutist. This is the "either/or" which kills your arguement.

If you're not a moral absolutist then how can you argue against anything that goes against your personal morals since morals are subjective. If you are, then you lose face by maintaing you are not. Again, your arguement becomes less strong as it is made by one who is under a masquerade.

I'll say this one more time and then I'm done with you. It is possible to like adult porn and be against child porn. My post said nothing about the legality of such porn, but rather of the age of consent. Thak teh word legal out of it and you are left with moral issues regarding the age of consent. I feel child porn is morally wrong because the child in question does not have the mental faculties to make that kind of judgement, therefore their participation in said activities is coereced and akin to slavery.

THAT is why child porn is wrong. Forget sexual development for a while (even though it is extremely relevant to this discussion). Adults with a fully developed brain can decide to be in porn, children physically can not make that distinction.

 

Sorry, I know this is old but I can't let it go:
Epicauthor wrote:
"What does any of this have to do with religion? Your explanation is "sex is god's test." That makes absolutely no sense. A basic need of animals (yes, we are no different) is the basic need to pass on our genes. Sex is a NEED. Is it as big of a need as food or water? No, but it is a need.
Why would God make sex a need that is extrememly pleasureable and then sy "oh, by the way, don't do it." Answer: He wouldn't. Sex is a basic part of biology. It is morally neutral."

Obvoiously you didn't read my post when you posted your reply, becuase if you did, you would've noticed that I NEVER said "don't have sex." I never said "you're not allowed to have sex." All I said was this: yes, I agree that sex is a compelling desire, a basic human intinct, and you could say it's a need. But unlike the basic needs of air, food, and water, this one won't harm you if you don't have it. At least not on a physical level. The only way I could see it harming you is socially (when you know everyone else is doing it and you're not) which would lead to possibly harming you emotionally, which over time could cause a mental disorder. Society is to blame for this, one way or the other.

As for procreation, DUH, God says get married and "procreate" all you want. Like this you're satisfying your "need" and at the same time you're not going against something he forbid. How hard is that to understand?

So again, how is this a test. Let's say you give a little kid a lollypop, and tell him/her "Don't eat it. If you do, you're grounded, if you don't you get extra dessert after dinner." It's the exact same principle. We're all children in God's eyes, we think we know a lot but the truth is we know very little. To a little kid the lollypop is almost like a need. That's how a kid would see it. They see what's in front of them without looking forward...without looking at the big picture. We as adults are exactly the same, except on a slighlty higher level.

 

Yes, but why would you give teh kid a lollypop if you didn't want them to have it? Wouldn't it be easier to just give it to them after dinner?

 

Time to let it go:

As for procreation, DUH, God says get married and "procreate" all you want. Like this you're satisfying your "need" and at the same time you're not going against something he forbid. How hard is that to understand?

It is not hard to understand, as long as you make the assumption that you are claiming in which that God forbids sex out of marriage. I you can prove this you may have a case, and faith is not proof.

Actually your argument is further flawed in that He didn't actually say anything. MAN said "get married and then procreate all you want". If you are refering to the Bible then as your point of reference then He said, and only because some MAN wrote down what he believed God said to him, something along the lines of "be fruitful and multiply". Unless fruitful means get married I don't see how this man made institution has anything to do with making it Ok or not Ok to have sex.

So again, how is this a test. Let's say you give a little kid a lollypop, and tell him/her "Don't eat it. If you do, you're grounded, if you don't you get extra dessert after dinner."

Again your test theory analogy takes into account many religious assumptions. It should be rewrittten as this:

So again, how is this a test. Let's say you give a little kid a lollypop, The child is left standing there with a sucker in his hand and looks around to his friends. One friend, who is diabetic and can not have candy, tells him/her if he eats the lollipop the man who gave it to him will come back and whip him for eating it. His other friend tells him/her "Don't eat it. If you do, you're grounded, if you don't you get extra dessert after dinner." Another friend tells him/her don't worry, eat it and when the guy comes back you can say your sorry and he won't whip you or ground you and you can still have desert. By now a crowd has formed and more people are ready to give him/her advice. One says he should let everyone have a taste becasue some have never had a lollipop before and it would be a crime to not share it. One says he should bury the lollipop in the sand and pretend he never got it. Yet another has brought his/her own lollipop and says if you eat yours I will eat mine. Finally another comes and says it doesn't matter, I work in a candy shop and can have all the lollipops I want whenever I want to and your all infidels anyways so eat it, don't eat it, your gonna burn in hell anyways. With all this going on no one notices that the first friend has gone into shock from low blood sugar, does he/she give him the lollipop? And more importantly what is for dinner because if your not gonna finish your dinner you ain't gonna get desert anyhow!

There you go, all the advice in the world is never goign to really help the child make a decision becasue the only way to know the truth is to ask the man who gave it to him in hte first place. No matter how much the friends claim to know what the man will do when he returns they really do not know, do they?

we think we know a lot but the truth is we know very little.

Some much less than others!

 

<< They are wrong regardless of the culture or society. Just as slavery, genocide, racial discrimination, rape, and child molestation are. My worldview asserts these are wrong ? correct. And you may be inclined to disagree. But a difference of opinion is not tantamount to there not being any truth, for one of us is right and the other wrong. And in this case, anyone who believes that the following examples are right or wrong relative to the culture are simply wrong. >>

From YOUR prespective. Who are you to judge what is right for every culture and society? In my country, porn is not taboo and more so, it's a very open matter and it's okay. Is that wrong? To us, no. You might not dig it, but again, what is right and wrong for you does not make it so for everyone.


<< It?s logically possible that a society?s view can change (such as Americans may once again find racial discrimination in 2020 to be acceptable) but not the inherent wrongness or rightness of moral actions. >>

Arguing from your own moral prespective again... pointless.


<< Suppose my morality asserts that if a human is not fully developed, then the human should be sexually exploited. On what moral grounds, now, can you condemn me? None, if morality is all a matter of one?s opinion. If morality is simply a matter of personal preference, then everything goes. This is a reductio ad absurdum of relativism. >>

You are really reaching here.

<< Moreover, you use the "natural" explanation. Let us relax the "is/ought" fallacy you are commiting and consider the case of homosexuality. Using your reasoning, because we don't naturally see homosexuality in nature (male dogs having sex with male dogs), it is wrong. It follows, then, that Christians are justified in condemning homosexuality on this basis. >>

Actually, we see homosexuality quite often in nature. From human beings to other animals. But lets talk about human homosexuality. Is it natural? To me it is. Because to me sex isn't just about reproduction but also about gratification. And now you're bringing religion into this. This is not a religious debate as was stated.


< < Fine, but irrelevant. >>

Normally it would irrelevant, but since you went off on "liberals", I was making a point... so it's not irrelevant.

You challenge me to refute you? First of all, relax. Again, everything you just said is from your own prespective. And the fact is, no one can refute that. No one. Because that is the way you see things on this issue and that is perfectly fine. I got that already. But the problem lies that you are trying whole heartedly to prove me wrong when you can't do that. Because this is not a black and white issue. I can refute you as much as you can refute me and we will go back and forth for eons and eons. That doesn't sound too exciting, does it?

Because even after everything you just said... I still stand by what I said and won't move an inch.

Is porn moral? In my opinion, no.

Is porn immoral? In my opinion, no.

 

Moreover, you use the "natural" explanation. Let us relax the "is/ought" fallacy you are commiting and consider the case of homosexuality. Using your reasoning, because we don't naturally see homosexuality in nature (male dogs having sex with male dogs), it is wrong. It follows, then, that Christians are justified in condemning homosexuality on this basis.


Actually, homosexuality occurs in all mammals at about the same percentage as human beings. I dont think I need to point out the logic link in that one.