| Welcome to Godlimations. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Internet Pornography; A sin that needs to be talked about | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: 18 Aug 2009, 09:13 PM (12,555 Views) | |
| Deleted User | 27 Jan 2010, 06:00 AM Post #496 |
|
Deleted User
|
well i am terribly sorry you see it that way its not my doing that the overwhelming*majority* of pornography has negative connotations-we need to look at majorities as the purpose of a definition is to have an understanding. Lets be real-we are looking at words to describe something with titles like F___ that Bi___h , Stupid Wh___es getting Fu___ .....you get the picture.....THATS JUST THE MILD TITLES AND THATS WHAT THE MAJORITY OF IT IS THESE DAYS + much,much more negative connetations like- pREpUBE AND BARELY LEGAL you want to look honestly dont you? you want to describe something honestly? i am not saying good or bad am I ? i am saying tell it like it is son you will not answer my question about your age so i am not going to say take a look for yourself if you dont beleive me ......Concolor i know you are clever at analogies and what nots but if you were looking to define a strawberry using your words there are not many out there that would understand you. so its not too helpfull its not useless because you got across a point -that being some people will ascribe negative connotations to descriptions if they already dont like them and i agree EACH OF US has negative bias so we try to stay neutral for the purposes of this dissussion SO DONT ACCUSE ME OF not being able to because thats why i am taking so long to commit to the description of Pornography-I HAVE SAID before we can make it a simple definition but we will be talking past each other-so lets keep it real-for strawberries aswell |
|
|
| Concolor | 27 Jan 2010, 03:26 PM Post #497 |
|
Barabbas
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
@ARAZEC:Uh, you sorta did it again. Like, right here in this sentence. You are demonstrating a value judgement, that the overwhelming majority of pornography has negative connotations, before the discussion even has started. Even if the majority of people in this world felt that the majority of porn gave them a sense of negativity, that would still be besides the point. Why? Because we are discussing what porn is and what it does. We are NOT discussing what people's opinions are about it. Now I must ask you this question, and I must apologize for the tone because I do not know any way to make it not sound patronizing: Do you know the difference between a fact and an opinion? If you do, please list an example of a fact (that has nothing to do with porn) and an example of an opinion (that has nothing to do with porn) and explain what separates them into fact and opinion. Really? This from the girl who refused to accept a definition that didn't include braille- and olfactory-porn? Those are not really majority driven genres you know. How can you jump so quickly between demanding minute considerations of fringe details to saying "let's just look at majority"? I could agree with the detail-focus. It is not possible to use detail-focus and generalizations at the same time. You are not allowed to jump from one to the other when you feel like it, you must choose one and stick to it. Yes you are. Please allow me to quote you from a few lines above: "the overwhelming*majority* of pornography has negative connotations" Need I remind you of your argument for subjective reality? It is like that to you. It is not necessarily like that to me, or to anybody else. I'm trying to find out if there is any conclusions we can draw about porn that can be investigated impartially, objectively neutrally, so that it can be valid for other people than myself, as I have an interest not only in myself but also other people (and I know you do too, that's why you're arguing this with me). ARAZEC. We have talked about this before. It is really hard for me to keep a meaningful conversation going with you if you refuse to read my posts. I understand that my long posts may be hard to read, but I can quote my post in it's entirety: "I'm 25, but I'm not sure what you need that information for?" I appreciate your efforts, but it would be easier to stop accusing you of not being able to be neutral if you stopped demonstrating so clearly that you have no intention of investigating this subject without starting out with a conclusion. I disagree. It is our inability to agree upon a definition that makes us talk past each other. If we agreed upon a simple definition, we would know exactly what we were talking about. The only problem would be that we might not be discussing every single thinkable form of porn. But that's not really a problem if the types of porn we would be talking about could be investigated to see if they have detrimental effects or not. As an example, why don't we start out with a definition that cover many types of porn (though not all) and we discuss only those types of porn. after we reach a conclusion, or at least a better understanding of the many sides of the subject we can try to move on to other types of porn. I propose starting with porn that falls into this category: "Printed or recorded media that is intended to stimulate the visual and auditory senses in order to lead to sexual arousal" Any objections? We don't have to cover all porn at the same time, perhaps we will reach different conclusions for different types of porn, who knows? But at least then we can start discussing ![]() Edited by Concolor, 27 Jan 2010, 03:31 PM.
|
|
Life is beautiful, love heals, people come through. Reason, compassion and love comes first. Everything else is secondary. Except for Skittles. - And emperor Cheezy!
| |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | 27 Jan 2010, 08:56 PM Post #498 |
|
Deleted User
|
FACT = a concept whose truth can be proved EXAMPLE - "scientific hypotheses are not facts" or "precising definitions facilitate understanding" OPINION = 1.a belief not based on absolute certainty or positive knowledge but on what seems true, valid, or probable to one's own mind; judgment 2.an evaluation, impression, or estimation of the quality or worth of a person or thing EXAMPLE= "precising definitions facilitate understanding more often than vague definitions when agrreement is reached on meanings of words" or "Vagueness is the characteristic of words or phrases whose meaning is not determined with precision. Use of one or more vague terms typically renders it impossible to establish the truth or falsity of the sentences in which they appear" Quote: we need to look at majoritiesReally? This from the girl who refused to accept a definition that didn't include braille- and olfactory-porn? Those are not really majority driven genres you know. How can you jump so quickly between demanding minute considerations of fringe details to saying "let's just look at majority"? I could agree with the detail-focus. It is not possible to use detail-focus and generalizations at the same time. You are not allowed to jump from one to the other when you feel like it, you must choose one and stick to it. says Concolor ! and you say i am the demanding one? what matters is the trueness not your opinion??? its not jumping when you are talking about two different things- i am saying majority as in terms we use with- in our definition sound be lexical definitions. That the majority or bulk of modern day pornography can be seen to have connetations is up to you to disprove-if you want to not accurately describe it - then you would be trying for a persuasive definition OH and so your 25 ? might not have been there because i didnt see it before anyway im not going to reccomend you check that the titles i mentioned exsist in abundance because i think you know but you dont want it reflected in a definition thats why i responded with "the overwhelming*majority* of pornography has negative connotations" YOU MADE THE NEGATIVE CALL FIRST I WAS INITIALLY ATTEMPTING TO DESCRIBE FOR PURPOSES OF THE DEFINITION we need to agree on a definition of pornography |
|
|
| Junior | 28 Jan 2010, 03:58 PM Post #499 |
![]()
Brother-in-law of Soul
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
How about this, from wiktionary.com : The explicit depiction of sexual subject matter, especially with the sole intention of sexually exciting the viewer. That's not too negative nor positive. Neutral. Let's center it around this now, since you were looking for a neutral definition. Edited by Junior, 28 Jan 2010, 03:59 PM.
|
| Call it what you want | |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | 28 Jan 2010, 04:58 PM Post #500 |
|
Deleted User
|
How about- violent or degrading or obscene subject matter exsisting primarily for sexual arrousal or the business of sexual arousal its a very rough draft....an just a suggestion |
|
|
| Concolor | 28 Jan 2010, 05:50 PM Post #501 |
|
Barabbas
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
@Junior: I think your definition is entirely functional for our purposes. As far as I can see it encompasses most kinds of porn, and most importantly it makes no assumptions as to whether porn is a positive or negative thing. this prevents it from becoming a circular argument, and so it can be used as a starting point to discuss what, if any, detrimental effects porn has, to what extent these effects are detrimental, how wide-spread they are, how they compare with the effects of other things etc. In short: I vote for Junior's definition. If anyone opposes, please state why you think this definition cannot be used for this purpose. @ARAZEC: You just started your definition with three value judgments. (I have not had time to comment on your previous post, but I'll do as soon as I can). In my limited mind, I can think of only three conclusions to draw from this. Unless someone can give me more options I would have to act as if one of these were true: A: You are completely, mind bogglingly, mentally impaired and cannot understand that you are putting value judgments into your definition and thereby creating a circular argument before we've even started. B: You are being dishonest. Either pretending that you know the difference between a value judgement and a neutral statement when you don't, or lying about your willingness to have a fair and open minded discussion while you're actually just trying to trick us into accepting a definition which already has the conclusion you want in it (circular argument) so that the discussion will inevitably lead to whatever conclusion you put into the definition. C: There is something that happens with your mind when the discussion touches upon issues that you have a strong emotional attachment to. Some strange mechanism kicks in that hot wires your thinking and puts you in a mode where your mind closes completely (though it is otherwise open and rational) and every single brain cell is working on protecting some central idea which is so unquestionable that anything that seems even vaguely threatening to it, that would erode a tiny part of this idea even the slightest bit, must be silenced at any cost. Even if it means closing the mind to new ideas, abandoning logic, abandoning clarity, abandoning consistency and even abandoning the common courtesy of reading and answering others posts without choosing what to ignore and what to take in. As I don't think you're an idiot, and I don't think you're a liar, I'm left with option C. You may not agree to this, but I see a stark difference between the open and caring ARAZEC that comes over to you and offers you a hug if you've skinned your knee, and the close-minded eyes-shut ARAZEC that appears when her view of the world is challenged. |
|
Life is beautiful, love heals, people come through. Reason, compassion and love comes first. Everything else is secondary. Except for Skittles. - And emperor Cheezy!
| |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | 28 Jan 2010, 08:56 PM Post #502 |
|
Deleted User
|
You see only 3 !! Concolor while i appreaciate you sharing your limited insight by posting your conclusions through your own reasoning -but can we try to save that to the subject matter up for discussion ? Which i will take this opportunity to say is not your evaluation of my intellect,judgement of my honesty,presumtion of my guilt or innocence or the neurological workings of my mental state i also find it unpleasureable and it makes me feel restricted in exploration of topics to be subject to forcefull attitudes and closed non negotiable absoulutes in demanding your way of reasoning Eg- i am not permitted to both generalize and be precise i have to be one way or another ???? thats your opinion not an agreed rule when making definitions So i would like for you to not post your judgements of me unless you ask for my permission on each occassion or unless you are attempting to be funny. HERE are some other options for you to consider which may also contribute to better understanding on why i dont agree with the definitions proposed so far (im not saying mines 100% tho) D - i put forward genuine contributions which may not be correct or perfect and beleive in taking risks to make mistakes publically. E -I do not agree with your beleif that descriptive language can be categorized into neutral words i beleive all words have value and are different to judgements- F - I am not creating a circular arguement because i am putting forward an idea for a DEFINITION as opposed to an ARGUEMENT. I am not stating "Porn is obscene and dangerous so lets talk about how this harmfully effects us" i am putting forward a definition of Porn with obsenity as part of its substance which could be considered as part of a modern definition G -i beleive a definition of porn that includes any reference to motive without descriptive words renders any discussion/debate incommensurable. H - value "words" differ from a "value judgements" i did not make a judgement on obsenity i merely put forward the word i did not make a judgement of wether obsene was good or bad I i am posting a contribution in our attempt to define modern pornography and all 3 of your conclusions to some degree are true of all of us intentially or unintentially which is an additional reason to reach agreement on a definition to have a meaningfull discussion ALSO I APOLOGISE for missing some details of your posts i sometimes get bored and lose interest in what you are say which we all do at times so sorry its not intended |
|
|
| Concolor | 29 Jan 2010, 12:23 AM Post #503 |
|
Barabbas
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
@ARAZEC: I'm sorry to be both brief and relatively impolite in this post, but: D = A E = B F = A G = B H = A OR They all = C |
|
Life is beautiful, love heals, people come through. Reason, compassion and love comes first. Everything else is secondary. Except for Skittles. - And emperor Cheezy!
| |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | 29 Jan 2010, 06:42 AM Post #504 |
|
Deleted User
|
ah ! an imaginary arithmatical insult ! classy and empathetic wow @Concolor i can see you are at your wits end and it hasnt taken you long to get there are we moving forward with a modern definition combining suggestions or not? |
|
|
| Concolor | 29 Jan 2010, 12:16 PM Post #505 |
|
Barabbas
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
@ARAZEC: I have been at my wits end ever since the day I met you ![]() Junior suggested a definition, I agreed to it. No one has been able to find anything that makes it unsuitable for having a discussion about porn baset on it being the definition of porn. Looks like we're going for that one. |
|
Life is beautiful, love heals, people come through. Reason, compassion and love comes first. Everything else is secondary. Except for Skittles. - And emperor Cheezy!
| |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | 29 Jan 2010, 06:19 PM Post #506 |
|
Deleted User
|
its too vague a definition Concolor your gonna talk about all your old girlfriend in the grocery store with a picture of you stuff we will go through the same points from information that is already available on the net theres nothing new take a risk to develope a new definition with me and a chance that we may agree on something despite both our "beleifs" poke your head out of that iceland and acknowledge what the majority of modern porn is like by looking at the inductive premises i can just imagine you using my own points now to justify what you want - @ARAZEC poke your head out of that ovenland you live in put your bible down by looking at the deductive premises we can do both is all i am saying so how about this compromise on my definition for modern Pornography (for the purposes of our discussion) "obscene subject matter exsisting primarily for sexual arrousal or the business of sexual arousal" |
|
|
| Concolor | 30 Jan 2010, 07:18 AM Post #507 |
|
Barabbas
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
@ARAZEC: I was about to say "nice try", but it's not really a very impressive attempt when you just blatantly ignore the demand for a neutral definition and keep throwing value-judgments into it. It's not something that can be a "compromise", it either is a circular definition or it is not. And as long as you have a value statement in the definition, you are already starting with a conclusion. It's like a christian boy meet's a buddhist girl, and the girl wants to have premarital sex, but the boy does not want to break his promise to God to always include him in a threesome (thus waiting for marriage). If he agrees to "compromise" by just having three minutes of extramarital sex, rather than a full hour, does that make everything OK? I think not. You ask for us both to stick our heads out from the sand, and I completely agree to that. But I must remind you that I have not started out with definitions of porn that include "great, beneficial, healthy to the development of a person's sexuality". Being neutral does not mean to find the median between our starting-points, because our starting points are not necessarily on opposite sides of the scale. Just using the median would allow for a tactic of always starting out with a more extreme stand point, in order to shift the median towards your end of the scale. Which is dishonest, even if it is conscious or not. By the way, conradw is the only one who has claimed porn to be beneficial. We ARE doing that. We've been doing that for weeks. Well, if I remove value judgments and repetition from your definition, I'm left with "subject matter exsisting primarily for sexual arousal". I would argue that this only focuses on the production-side of porn and not the user side. people may produce material intended for use as porn, while some may use it for education, art or entertainment. People may produce material intended for education, art or entertainment and people may use it for porn. But let's now actually make a compromise: We can discuss two different viewpoints of porn, one from the production perspective and one from the user perspective. They can be completely separate discussions and we can start with the one you like (I'm assuming that would be the producer's perspective) 1. Maker perspective: "subject matter exsisting primarily for sexual arousal" 2. User perspective: "subject matter being used for sexual arousal" A third definition would encompass both, because one can discuss both the intentions of the maker and the user, respectively: "Material that is intended to stimulate the senses in order to lead to sexual arousal by stimulation of the imagination" |
|
Life is beautiful, love heals, people come through. Reason, compassion and love comes first. Everything else is secondary. Except for Skittles. - And emperor Cheezy!
| |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | 30 Jan 2010, 03:01 PM Post #508 |
|
Deleted User
|
your third definition is too ambiguos. and defining porn from a user/ producer perspective i dont understand the point of? O.k i can understand your point on the word obsene but i use it for its denotation its actually a good descriptive word consider the adherant value of the word obsene-its changed a lot over time..... see in the past obsene would have negative connotations-but nowadays it could easily be said that it has positive ones-lots of ppl like obsene stuff -IT SELLS can you think of a better word to replace it then? |
|
|
| Concolor | 30 Jan 2010, 07:42 PM Post #509 |
|
Barabbas
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
@ARAZEC: My third definition is more precise than definition 1 and 2. Your definition assumes, with the words "exsisting primarily for sexual arrousal", the viewpoint of the maker of the porn. Because they have put it into existance primarily because they intend it to be used as porn. A user on the other hand, does not care why the material was made when he/she uses it as porn. conradw gave a great example of a piece of art that undoubtedly has been used for porn many a time. As I have explained repeatedly, what constitutes as pornographic material will therefore depend on which of these angles we choose. Yes, having no word there at all would be a perfectly good replacement. There is no need to cram in value judgements, so just removing it will be entirely sufficient. Edited by Concolor, 30 Jan 2010, 07:44 PM.
|
|
Life is beautiful, love heals, people come through. Reason, compassion and love comes first. Everything else is secondary. Except for Skittles. - And emperor Cheezy!
| |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | 31 Jan 2010, 12:05 AM Post #510 |
|
Deleted User
|
True objectivity is impossible your idea of nothing as a replacement for the word you disagree with just makes whats left a vague description and as i have repeatedly said increases misunderstandings. THIS IS WHAT A VALUE JUDGEMENT IS(from Wiki) A value judgment is a judgment of the rightness or wrongness of something, or of the usefulness of something, based on a personal view Did i say obsene was good or bad? no ! I said just the opposite obsene can be good eg-for ppl who like obsene porn its positive so yay for them !!!
Under my definition condraws example would be something other than pornography. -and how can you just "assume" that it undoubtedley becomes porn because some may get aroused by it? some ppl get aroused by hot water or looking at the sun set-hmmmm-does that mean those things "turn" into pornography? how can you say a user does not care why the material was made when they use it for porn? eg-you might be into violent sex and care about scenes on film - you might want to know why the material you view was made- was it made to represent a rape scene or was it made because someone filmed a real rape and now its doing the rounds because of one reason or the other-you may like violent sex but you want to know why the material was made because when ur using it as porn you dont want to get into trouble or you dont want to use real rape footage because you dont want to get off on that kind of stuff OR you might want to know why the material was made because if it is not real rape you cant get off hhhhmmm? seems like ppl who use material may care why its made. my contribution to the definition describes pornography as business which includes producers,distributers,consumers etc...you get the picture BECAUSE THATS WHAT ITS MOSTLY ABOUT ISNT IT ? if you dont agree pornography can be described as a business please explain why? |
|
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Debate · Next Topic » |






![]](http://z4.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)



6:42 PM Jul 10