| 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 (12,554 Views) | |
| Concolor | 31 Jan 2010, 04:42 AM Post #511 |
|
Barabbas
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
@ARAZEC: What does that have to do with anything? No it does not, and if you think it does, please explain why you think so. In this discussion I haven't explicitly said that raping babies is good or bad, but we all know that it's bad. Just because you didn't say "obscene" is a word with negative connotations that doesn't make it neutral. It's a negative word, and you need to look no further than your nearest dictionary or ask a random person in the street to know that the word "obscene" is a negative judgment of somethings value. Just because obscene things may be popular that doesn't make "obscene" a positive word. People who like porn doesn't label it obscene, they use positive words. Since we are trying to find out both positive and negative sides of porn we cannot start by including positive or negative assessments in our definition. Then what would you call it. If a twelve year old boy is holding a picture of this painting in one hand and is using this picture to sexually stimulate himself, what better name to use than porn? My definition of porn is something that people get aroused by. Thereby, by definition, something people get aroused by becomes porn. Exactly ![]() I'm addressing a different point than your examples did. In both your examples the films you mentioned were recorded with the intent of using them as porn. I was making the point that even if something is not made with the intention of being used as porn, it can still be used as porn later. Hence my example with the twelve year old boy and the painting. Naturally, as a moral human being, he would care if ethical standards were followed in the making of this painting, just like we should care about ethical standards being followed in the making of our meat, our coffee and our sneakers. But my point is that it is still possible for him to use a work of art (from the makers point of view) as porn (from his point of view). Not according to my definition no. Just like there is a difference between meat as a product and a meat industry, there is a difference between porn as a product and a porn industry. Meat can be consumed by members in a hunter-gatherer society where everyone captures their own pray, meat can come from free-ranged cattle on small farms being cared for by farmers who treat them well, or it may come from giant "meat-factories" where cattle are stored in boxes and filled with growth hormones. Does this make meat good or bad? Actually it doesn't make meat anything, because meat as a product can be made in different ways. It does, however, make buying meat from a "meat-factory" bad, but hunting it yourself or getting it from a conscious farmer may be good. Like in any other industries there are most probably porn industries in which some producers do not follow ethical standards. This means buying porn from an unethical producer is obviously unethical. Likewise buying porn from an ethical producer would be ethical in that respect. In conclusion: Porn-industry is a business, porn is a product. We happen to be discussing the product. Edited by Concolor, 31 Jan 2010, 04:48 AM.
|
|
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, 07:30 AM Post #512 |
|
Deleted User
|
Obsene is defined as - things designed to incite to indecency or lust; are you saying most ppl in the street think this is a bad ? so if porns so popular and ppl (the ones you ask in the street) associate it with negative things than i would argue that and say that lust today is considered neutral...so there you go....lust used to be bad right now its neutral and as pornography floods our culture more and more who knows???? sorry you have no proof that ppl in the street beleive things designed to incite lust are negative and with my proof of the sales of Porn and growing consumption its a little hard for your statement to be credible . in short -things designed to incite lust-are neither positive or negative in todays society and what a better word to put in a modern definition ! lust about the meat industry and pornography thats why i said BUSINESS not Industry Business describes all facets industry describes the production side only so business covers it all which means we can talk about the real effects from more aspects great ! well while i understand your rigid view about products and their industries and with your self limiting ideas i can see where you are getting confused. see pornography is no longer "writings of prostitutes" you see pornography has evolved-its no longer underground libertine propaganda-its BIG BUISINESS isnt it? o.k about the vague description and you insisting on taking out words untill you have such a broad definition you can argue about hot water and sunsets being things that may arouse so would be labelled pornography- are you scared of discussing what (to use your measure stick of correctness) PEOPLE IN THE STREET WOULD TERM PORNOGRAPHY ? excuse me sir please take a moment to complete this survey... Question 1-what would you say best describes pornography? a) a sunset simulated sex on DVDQuestion 2-Do you think lust is? A) positive negativec) neutral if i ask everyone thAT PASSES me on the street call it the forum experiment and can repeat the same experiment on different days with the same results will it count as empirical evidence ? oh i hope so oppsy almost forgot to answer this one for ya ...
i would call it multitasking (both the material and the boy ) |
|
|
| Junior | 31 Jan 2010, 07:56 AM Post #513 |
![]()
Brother-in-law of Soul
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Actually, lust isn't the bad part. Lust is the gateway to sin, but with strong enough self control, the sin can be avoided. Like, if I walked by a girl on the street, and thought, "Man is she hot," and end it there, that's the lust not the sin. If I thought, "I'll follow her to the ends of the earth, just so she'll sleep with me," that's the sin. It's anything you put in front of God. |
| Call it what you want | |
![]() |
|
| Concolor | 31 Jan 2010, 04:47 PM Post #514 |
|
Barabbas
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
ARAZEC: Funny, Merriam-webster has this definition: "1 : disgusting to the senses : repulsive 2 a : abhorrent to morality or virtue; specifically : designed to incite to lust or depravity b : containing or being language regarded as taboo in polite usage <obscene lyrics> c : repulsive by reason of crass disregard of moral or ethical principles <an obscene misuse of power> d : so excessive as to be offensive <obscene wealth> <obscene waste>" I must say this is rather negative connotations. Well I agree that the word "lust" is neutral to everyone who does not believe that lust itself is a sin (this includes me) so I do not mind having it in a definition at all: 1. "subject matter exsisting primarily for sexual arousal, causing lust" 2. "subject matter being used for sexual arousal, causing lust" 3. "Material that is intended to stimulate the senses in order to lead to sexual arousal, lust, by stimulation of the imagination" No, business implies monetary transactions and would not cover free porn. If you want to discuss free porn and porn that is paid for separately then we can of course do that. No it is not. It is big business, it is small business, it is no business. It's a lot of different things all at once. You have yet to demonstrate why it is any more vague than any other description. But I do think that they can be, so of course my definition would include them. Of course not. If you want to discuss what people think about porn, please start a discussion thread about it. In this thread we are talking about porn itself, not what people think about it. What people think about something does not neccesarily have to do anything with the subject itself: Example: Some people think leprechauns are nice and give you a pot of gold, some people think they are evil and will curse you. These are both true statements about peoples opinion of leprechauns. But if we discuss leprechauns themselves, they happen to not exist. So for the properties of a leprechaun, it is really quite irrelevant that some think they are bad and others that they are good. It most certainly will. It will be excellent empirical evidence of what people's opinions are. You should include it in the thread you're starting about people's opinion of porn. Wait? Do you mean that the material is multitasking as both art and porn? Because then we absolutely agree with each-other. I think the material is still art in the eyes of it's maker, but in the eyes of the boy it has become porn (and probably also art). @Junior: Though I don't know the opinions of your God in detail, I would say that it sounds interesting, and probably quite plausible if compared to other things I have heard about similar Gods and their opinion of sin. |
|
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, 07:43 PM Post #515 |
|
Deleted User
|
thats why in my definition it says....."or the business" so my definition accurately describes both non business -free porn and monetary transactions it also describes barter business (drugs in exchange for letting 5 strangers place things in your orifices etc...etc...blah,blah) and do you think the majority of what most ppl think of when asked about pornography think that the pornography out there nowadays is "free" ? seeing as definitions aims to convey understanding and all..... so you fail to demonstrate how "or business" is not a usefull description to be included in our definition. see by including the word business it describes much while being precise while your idea of removing that word fails at clarifying much and is vague because most people would not define hotwater or the sunsetting as pornography- eg-Person says-(person who gets off on the sun setting-concolors definition of porn) im trying my hardest to kick my sexual addiction to pornography(in concolors definition of porn) as long as i dont go outside at dusktime i should be right Friend-(not understanding that pornography is the sunsetting in Concolors definition) let me help i will bring over a movie and keep you company that way you can keep yourself occupied *later that arvo the two friends sit down to a dvd one which includes the sunsetting as the friend has no idea of pornography being suns setting* feeling lonely and misunderstood the person falls back into their usual pattern..... *the friend commits suicide cause they feel so bad about bringing porn to a porn addict ! the friends dying wish is that when ppl (espeacially a particular Nordic person) have an opportunities to define pornography its done in a way that increases understanding. hows that for a demo of how your definition is being vague and not facilitating communication ? or understanding? o.k lets keep the word lust seeing that we all think it fits |
|
|
| conradw | 31 Jan 2010, 07:56 PM Post #516 |
|
Goliath
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I've been keeping quiet while this all plays out, but I feel my silence needs to be broken. First of all, my character does not need your help Concolor to be assassinated, it is very capable of (and likely to be) doing that itself. I didn't say porn is good, but that instead that it is not bad. As a fan of movies of the blue variety, it is my opinion that some porn is good, but I think this opinion is not of itself warranted by the evidence. I'd like to lead us away from discussing the definition because I feel it is stalling. Even if we do agree that porn can be defined as violent and obscene and done for profit (and I might go further and call it irredeemably evil), it does not necessarily follow that consumption of that material is in anyway detrimental or harmful to the user. In this respect, I disagree with Concolor, because I don't believe it is circular reasoning to say viewing something which is by definition bad makes me bad - however, Arazec still has all her work ahead of her in convincing us that it does indeed make us bad. In short, I recognise all of Concolor's points as entirely valid, important, and relevant (don't get me wrong, I feel it is the epitome of bad form to include value judgements in a working definition - after all it is whether or not the value judgements are justified that is the reason why we're here arguing). However, for the sake of argument I suggest we move on. I support Junior's definition entirely, but if the only way we're going to get anywhere is to use Arazec's, then so be it. |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | 31 Jan 2010, 08:26 PM Post #517 |
|
Deleted User
|
if you agree to use mine can you offer an improvement on my one? it would be appreaciated- |
|
|
| Concolor | 1 Feb 2010, 12:28 AM Post #518 |
|
Barabbas
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
@conradw:I stand corrected, and I apologize for not going back and thoroughly read your posts before making statements about what I thought you had posted. I had no illusions of ever getting to a real discussion of this topic, and for my own agenda of understanding other people I was getting heaps of information from the debate about the definition. But if others want to move on, it would be selfish of me to insist on remaining in a futile discussion trying to reach a neutral definition that could be the starting point in a real discussion about porn. I feel I've made my case as to why ARAZEC's definition is invalid, and so I should be able to suck up the rest of the discussion knowing that I've at least voiced my opinion that the following discussion will not rest on a neutral, rational basis and therefore not necessarily have any relevance for the world we live in and experience. (<- Just needed to put my disclaimer out there) Okay, let's go ![]() I didn't say it was. I said that defining something using negative value judgments will practically inevitably lead you to the conclusion that the thing itself is bad. That is circular reasoning. I don't think I discussed the usage of this thing. That is a separate issue. Thank you, my ego likes this. I also support Juniors definition. But OK, let's move on. |
|
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 | 1 Feb 2010, 03:40 AM Post #519 |
|
Deleted User
|
disclaimer? ! so you are judging before we even start ! wow thats not very neutral now is it? you prefer to bow out instead of compromise?Your not stating facts either theres no empirical evidence that compares our definitions (although my streets a little quiet to be doing any study) |
|
|
| Concolor | 1 Feb 2010, 02:32 PM Post #520 |
|
Barabbas
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
@ARAZEC:Nope. I'm saying that your definition is not a neutral, rational basis. I've been saying that quite a while now. And I'm not judging beforehand because your definition is already made. Depends on what you mean by bowing out. I think that a compromise is, if not infinitely far away, at least far enough away to make conradw suggest that we go for your definition. And since I know that I have said what I wanted about the definition of porn as clearly as I probably am capable of, I have no problems with saying "fine, you all know how I feel about it, but let's move on". I recognize that I (and possibly you as well) is the only one who feels like I'm getting valuable information from the present debate. And since this is not only my forum, I am inclined to step down to allow others to steer the discussion in a direction that they would enjoy more even if I think it's a less fruitful direction myself. How benevolent of me Uhm, no I'm not stating facts. I'm stating definitions. We haven't gotten to the investigating part of the discussion yet. That's my whole point that you have to start at the beginning and not just jump ahead. |
|
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 | 1 Feb 2010, 07:34 PM Post #521 |
|
Deleted User
|
i said you are judging beforehand- meaning the results of the debate discussion-
thats judging-thats stating negative- and thats not neutral.
my definition is not already made-my response to Condraws idea we use my definition was to ask for any ways to improve-i have been asking you too and we all seemed to agree "lust" could be incorporated into a definition so we are making progress toward a consensis -so i dont think using your comment bellow is justifyed-
Perhaps then you should move from your starting definition and compromise rather than make negative comments on the reliability of the debate results before the debate has had a chance to start.
That does not sound like a neutral approach -it is rather negative-it is judging the ppl who have contributed to this discussion and exposing your standards for neutrality as hypocritical. I am not asking everyone to agree to use my definition i am just making suggestions- I am asking for input from you in particular that combines our ideas of a definition so we have a better understanding seeing as you seem to want to debate using a very vague description and i seem to want to be more specific. i have never said my definition is right. i have never said broad definitions are wrong. i have stated many reasons for creating a new definition of modern pornography for the purposes of our discussion to facilitate understanding between the participants of this disscussion-heres a recap of just a few- The original definition was describing"writings of prostitutes" meant to depict the lives of prostitutes and that is not what most ppl today would define as porn so its fair to say what pornography actually is has changed rather recently. Your definition would include sunsets & hot water as pornography most ppl today would not describe these things as pornography-so i fail to see how using your definition aids communication. Another point is that Pornography today can very much be defined using the word "business" in that it is one or more persons engaged in any number of possible exchanges that satisfies any number of possible interests in an intentional, organized, planned manner-most |
|
|
| Concolor | 2 Feb 2010, 12:34 AM Post #522 |
|
Barabbas
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
@ARAZEC: While you rant, you can still move on with the discussion, as conradw suggested.But I am not, I am judging the basis of the discussion as it would be if we choose the present version of your definition. You may remember that my statement was a comment to conradw's proposal that we just chose your definition as it was and go with it. Yes, that's the whole point. If we start from a neutral point: "Every definition should be neutral as to not bias the discussion and conclusion", we are more likely to end up with a well founded judgment of somethings value or usefulness: "This definition is not neutral and does therefore not form a good basis for discussion". The judgment itself does of course not have to be neutral, as that would by necessity make the answer to everyone of life's dilemmas: "meh". Yes it is, just like all mine are. You may suggest that we make other, improved definitions based on that one, but that does not mean that the proposed definition does not exist and cannot be evaluated. Well I think it is. We have different opinions on that one. Ah, so you did not bother to read my three point list of definitions that I put forward in order to suit both our tastes? Have you forgotten that you have repeatedly judged my definitions as "too vague to create understanding" in the discussion? I admit to having a stick in my eye, but perhaps you should stop waving yours around so much. I think it's a realistic assessment based on previous discussions and the direction the current one is heading. What does this have to do with my demand for a neutral definition? It's like I'm saying that I think we should paint our house red, and you call me a hypocrite for wearing a green shirt. I does not follow. Once again: I was commenting on CONRADW's suggestion to use your current definition. I completely disagree to this, and you have repeatadly failed to give any reasons for why my definitions are less precise than yours. The original meaning of "cool" was something of low temperature. When we slapped the word onto things or people we thought were admirable, the use of the word changed. But admirable things and people have existed long before we started calling them cool. Are you saying there was no porn before the word was invented? I'm not discussing people's opinions. Some people like relish, I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing what I think porn IS. And if you don't agree you should tell me why these things are not porn, not that "all the other kids are saying it's not". |
|
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 | 3 Feb 2010, 06:37 AM Post #523 |
|
Deleted User
|
o.k sook we use your definition you can even start Spoiler: click to toggle Spoiler: click to toggle *disclaimer* Spoiler: click to toggle |
|
|
| Junior | 3 Feb 2010, 03:45 PM Post #524 |
![]()
Brother-in-law of Soul
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
That's kind of pathetic, Arzy. You make fun of your adversary when you lose the discussion. It's like playing with a 7 year old. |
| Call it what you want | |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | 4 Feb 2010, 07:01 AM Post #525 |
|
Deleted User
|
you think i lost the discussion ? i dont get it you play roleplay games for exploration and communication but you call having a discussion a competition with like a winner or a loser ?- i still hold my points as true and wasnt mucking about in that respect - theres a couple of ways for this to pan out and if Concolor hasnt got a strong enough case as to how pornography has benefited mankind i guess thats why he has to be stubborn and include anything and everything as pornography i hope for the readers sakes their are some new and interesting points rasised and not the same junk thats already out there on the net in respect to this debate-thats another reason to push for a new definition but yeah btw i wasnt making fun i was being affectionate |
|
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Debate · Next Topic » |




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




thats why i said BUSINESS not Industry
simulated sex on DVD

so you are judging before we even start ! wow thats not very neutral now is it? you prefer to bow out instead of compromise?

6:42 PM Jul 10