Philosophical-Social Discussion over Pornographic Materials

[The Name of Love]

@ShieldWife Ah, well I don't use that framing, and here's why:

Let's say we lived in a world where people murdered Jews and ate them, and this was an acceptable position. And then, two people got into an argument about whether this practice of cannibalizing Jews is good for you. The person defending cannibalism then said "what one person may consider harmful, another may not. Maybe eating Jews is making a person feel happy and contented. It's a complicated question." Would you actually accept such an answer as legitimate? Or would you conclude that the person's own subjective preferences are disordered.

In my view, your argument assumes a kind of moral subjectivism. Your position implies that, if two people feel differently about the same moral issue, then there's no way to determine whether or not the other is correct. But we know that, regardless of how a person feels, violating another person's human rights is not good for the rights violator because the act in itself is intrinsically immoral.

Subjective harm as you define it doesn't exist. It's a spook. There is only objective harm. To every question, there is a right answer and wrong answer, even if we cannot tell what the correct answer is.

 

[Captain X]

You not only disagree with the idea that delayed gratification is vital to civilization, but you roll your eyes at it?

As it applies to human sexuality, yeah. At best it's a rationalization for your argument that finding someone sexually attractive is somehow sinful.

So if my studies are biased and therefore to be ignored, and your studies are biased and therefore to be ignored, what do we go with?

Freedom.

We shouldn't want eating pork wholly eradicated as a social stigma within every person in society.

But does not wanting Judaism to enforce their social stigma against eating pork on everyone who isn't a member of their religion the same as not wanting Judaism at all?

So it doesn't matter that I just quoted a part of the new testament that completely and directly justifies eating pork, I am still a hypocrite because I eat pork? Hell sure, I am selective here. Because the bible literally tells me that in this instance I am allowed to be selective on this specific topic. That doesn't point out any failure on my own part in the slightest or ignoring parts to harp on others.

And I know from my Bible study from when I was doing my confirmation that there are plenty of parts in that book that most Christians ignore, thankfully. But that's why it comes off as more than a little hypocritical when some Christians decide they're going to justify bigotry, for example, based on something written in the Bible.

How can being oppressively smelly be socially stigmatized without making it illegal to not bathe regularly? There is a ridiculous amount of stigmatized things that are not in any way, shape or form illegal.

Probably because it's something that can actually effect other people out in public. Lack of cleanliness is also associated with disease. And one of the pluses of porn is that you can't catch any diseases by fapping to it.

It illustrates my bias that in a discussion centric around a Christian value, I quote said value?

It does if you want to even have a chance of pretending it's more than a Christian value and that you are other than a moral busybody.

If you are then we don't have a whole lot to discuss. I am arguing purely for the existence of Christian values being a part of society, in the sense that some people adhere to and believe in them and it is not a bad thing.

And like I said, that's cool if Christians want to do Christian things amongst themselves as long as it doesn't harm anyone. The point it becomes a problem is when you try to get everyone else to do the Christian things along with you.

I believe that it is unhealthy for relationships, breaks them down and makes them more likely to fail.

It can certainly damage a relationship if one or more of the people involved do not actually feel the way they say they feel. But that is on them.

 

[Cherico]

Well, what one person might consider harmful another may not. Let me give a theoretical example relating to pornography.

Let’s say that there is a guy is isn’t very attractive and has terrible social skills. He can’t get dates and prefers to watch pornography to satisfy his sexual needs instead of trying and failing with girls.

Some might say that watching porn is leading him not to try and he could be missing out on a real loving relationship with marriage, family, kids, etc. If we think of it that way, maybe the porn use is contributing to a great tragedy in this man’s life.

Alternatively, maybe trying to date and failing again and again is driving the man to terrible despair. Maybe pornography is really making him happier and more contented. Perhaps no matter how hard he tries, he will never find a girl to date, marry, make love to.

Is pornography good or bad for this guy? It’s a complicated question and the influence it has in his life could be considered negative by some and positive by others. It is ultimately the feeling of this man that matters most in regards to his choice to view pornography or not.

It is subjective because only that man can judge whether or not those influences the pornography have on his life are positive or negative. Does pornography make him happier and more contented - if so then perhaps it is a net benefit to him.

Your also forgetting one very important thing the outside culture the man lives in.

Finding that person that you can fall in love with and have a relationship with is a numbers game.

Now understand that there are a lot of women who are insane. I mean this literally you get people who have untreated bi-polar, boarderline disorder and things like that and that's before you get to litteral psychopaths and predatory women.

And if you don't belive predatory women are a thing go to any military base and sit down and listen to the service men all of them will have horror stories about stuff that has happened to men on base.

Now realize that telling who's literally crazy, who's a psychopath, and who's just out to use you up is difficult to tell. Now It gets worse, all of those bad faith elements have been empowered.

False accusations are common and even if your a prospective surpreme court justice and there is zero proof and the womans story has obvious holes in it. Your reputation will be ruined and there will be no conquences to the woman who lied under oath to congress.

What chance do you have as an average guy? Every time you ask a woman out you have to roll those dice and the conquences of running into some one bad or crazy? Statistically that's 1 in 10. A one in ten odds of a bad experience that can easily spiral out of control into a nightmare.

Thats the world I live in.

And Im going to be honest sheild wife, the only people that can fix that problem. Its women, because men are honestly shit at dealing with women who act in bad faith. You guys are going to have to be the ones that fix the damaged social contract and ostrasize preditory women.

 

[Captain X]

@ShieldWife Ah, well I don't use that framing, and here's why:

*snipped*

You come up with some of the worst comparisons. Like what you said, really has no connection to the topic at hand other than what might be in your own imagination.

 

[The Name of Love]

@Cherico I honestly do think you are right about the current system and how it is set up to deal with men, but there are also things men can do in their personal lives to mitigate the risk of bad women taking advantage of them. Would you agree to that?

 

[Terthna]

I'd love to engage with you on the meat of your argument, but it seems it doesn't have any. In your own words, you look to the Constitution for "guidance." For what? Why? Why should I care about a document that hasn't actually been in effect since FDR? Why should I care about a document that, according to the most preeminent judges in the land, proclaims abortion on demand for any reason and same-sex "marriage" are "rights"?

I honestly think that people like you embody what is wrong with American politics in general - a philosophical liberal that obfuscates rather than clarifies and has no metaphysical leg to stand on, yet assumes their position is the default. To me, your entire position is predicated on nothing by your own personal preferences.

And to me, you're just another projecting authoritarian; either pretending, or delusional enough to believe, that your argument carries more weight than it actually does. Practically, there is no difference between you, and and the "liberals" you claim to oppose; you just want your particular oppressive ideology in charge, instead of theirs.

 

[Cherico]

@Cherico I honestly do think you are right about the current system and how it is set up to deal with men, but there are also things men can do in their personal lives to mitigate the risk of bad women taking advantage of them. Would you agree to that?

Yeah there are things you can do to mitigate the risk.

Bars for example are horrible places to try to meet people, never date coworkers, and always keep in mind that on line dating is inherently dangerous.

The weird thing is that small towns where every one knows each other are probally better places to meet your future significant other then major cities with millions of people.

 

[Bacle]

Your also forgetting one very important thing the outside culture the man lives in.

Finding that person that you can fall in love with and have a relationship with is a numbers game.

Now understand that there are a lot of women who are insane. I mean this literally you get people who have untreated bi-polar, boarderline disorder and things like that and that's before you get to litteral psychopaths and predatory women.

And if you don't belive predatory women are a thing go to any military base and sit down and listen to the service men all of them will have horror stories about stuff that has happened to men on base.

Now realize that telling who's literally crazy, who's a psychopath, and who's just out to use you up is difficult to tell. Now It gets worse, all of those bad faith elements have been empowered.

False accusations are common and even if your a prospective surpreme court justice and there is zero proof and the womans story has obvious holes in it. Your reputation will be ruined and there will be no conquences to the woman who lied under oath to congress.

What chance do you have as an average guy? Every time you ask a woman out you have to roll those dice and the conquences of running into some one bad or crazy? Statistically that's 1 in 10. A one in ten odds of a bad experience that can easily spiral out of control into a nightmare.

Thats the world I live in.

And Im going to be honest sheild wife, the only people that can fix that problem. Its women, because men are honestly shit at dealing with women who act in bad faith. You guys are going to have to be the ones that fix the damaged social contract and ostrasize preditory women.

This is all very true.

Frankly approaching women these days feels like playing Russian Roulette, only worse; at least a bullet is quick.

 

[The Name of Love]

Yeah there are things you can do to mitigate the risk.

Bars for example are horrible places to try to meet people, never date coworkers, and always keep in mind that on line dating is inherently dangerous.

The weird thing is that small towns where every one knows each other are probally better places to meet your future significant other then major cities with millions of people.

I do know a good YouTube channel that talks about what the Bible says about dating, and it's good stuff.



To sum up the video: you want a woman who is virtuous in the traditional sense, and to attract such a woman, you have to be personally virtuous in your own life.

I'd personally read it because it has some rather... spicy takes about women in there. Sirach 25:16 is pretty based: "I would rather dwell with a lion and a dragon than dwell with an evil wife."

 

[FriedCFour]

If those values are objectively wrong and harmful, as I believe yours in regards to pornography are? I will not hesitate to denounce them. Neither Jesus himself, nor Christianity in general, gets special treatment in the marketplace of ideas. That said, just because I repudiate one Christian value, does not mean I'm saying they should be done away with entirely; there are some good ideas to be found in there, like the importance of loving one's neighbor, even one's enemies, as well as not acting out in vengeance.

This is not an all or nothing situation; we have the ability to pick and choose, much as was done with the Bible itself, and the various texts that were, and were not, chosen to be included within it.

No, you really don't get to just pick to disregard whatever you want. That's how you get liberal christianity and Pete Buttigieg's brand. This passage is massively clear. I can't say I know exactly why the Apocrypha is the Apocrypha but I am sure there is a reason, and there was debate and many churches that do include texts for different reasons. They don't just ignore it because some study said that watching lots of porn is great, and that we are supposed to ignore literally every study because it is biased which is a fallacy in it of itself, even though I've already shown Psychology Today to be more overtly biased than anything else.

do not have time to read it in depth right now. But I do doubt the study accounts for how the existence of no-fault divorce laws, alimony/child support payments, and the welfare system add financial incentives into the divorce equation.

I generally feel the financial issues that make divorce look appealing are more to blame than most anything else when it comes to modern divorce rates.

Marriage and staying married is the most beneficial financially for both parties other than a very rich person being married by someone with no income, you stand to financially lose a hell of a lot more than you gain especially in divorce court with lawyers fees. I sincerely doubt most divorces are over one partner wanting to siphon money when they stand to lose more money than they had with a joint income and tax filing, and home.

Freedom.

Sure, and I am fine with that and agree with that. However, when the debate is whether or not something is beneficial to you, freedom isn't relevant here. I think smoking is bad for you but I am completely against an outright ban and even a lot of restrictions on it. That doesn't mean I now have to reject the idea smoking is harmful to your body. The one thing I would ideally hope for is something solid that helps to keep kids off it.

I do not hold the repressing sexual urges, as long as they are non-criminal (in the US), is a healthy thing. Denying our basic animal instincts and urges is part of my problems with mainline Christianity. Those sort of 'repression of natural animal urges' ideas go hand and hand with holding humans apart from nature, which is where part of our environmental issues stem from. But that's a discussion for a different thread.

Suppressing your animalistic urges builds civilization. You do it every day.

And I know from my Bible study from when I was doing my confirmation that there are plenty of parts in that book that most Christians ignore, thankfully. But that's why it comes off as more than a little hypocritical when some Christians decide they're going to justify bigotry, for example, based on something written in the Bible.

Sure, you are supposed to love everyone. You aren't supposed to hold hate. Doesn't mean you now have to say things like pride parades are great or homosexuality is a-okay.

Probably because it's something that can actually effect other people out in public. Lack of cleanliness is also associated with disease. And one of the pluses of porn is that you can't catch any diseases by fapping to it.

And pornography usage can affect your love life easily, therefore affecting someone else.

It does if you want to even have a chance of pretending it's more than a Christian value and that you are other than a christian moral busybody.

Okay so when I want to explain what is and is not a christian value, something an atheist or a muslim or a buddhist or a satanist can do that has nothing to do with anything except a direct quote of "here is x value in christianity" never quote the bible because even if I am an atheist or a jew or a satanist, the very act of quoting the bible even to just point our "here is where x christian belief comes from" makes me a "moral busybody." Got it.

 

[Terthna]

No, you really don't get to just pick to disregard whatever you want. That's how you get liberal christianity and Pete Buttigieg's brand. This passage is massively clear. I can't say I know exactly why the Apocrypha is the Apocrypha but I am sure there is a reason, and there was debate and many churches that do include texts for different reasons. They don't just ignore it because some study said that watching lots of porn is great, and that we are supposed to ignore literally every study because it is biased which is a fallacy in it of itself, even though I've already shown Psychology Today to be more overtly biased than anything else.

Actually I do; regardless of your insistence otherwise, because I say so. I am not a Christian, I'm an agnostic theist; so honestly, your particular religious beliefs are irrelevant to me. As for Psychology Today's supposed bias, you proved nothing of the sort; I watched the video you posted, and unless I missed it, and you point me to a timestamp of when he does, Crowder doesn't even mention Psychology Today, let alone shows an example of them saying that one of the positives of pornography is you "become less religious".

Honestly, I'm getting rather sick of how obstinate you've been in every argument I've had with you on this forum. You do realize that there is no such thing as "winning" an argument on the internet, right?

 

[FriedCFour]

Actually I do; regardless of your insistence otherwise, because I say so. I am not a Christian, I'm an agnostic theist; so honestly, your particular religious beliefs are irrelevant to me.

The second definition of the word you. I am saying you to mean adherents to Christianity. You cannot validly totally disregard things in it based on just picking and choosing what you like and dislike.

1. used to refer to the person or people that the speaker is addressing.
   "are you listening?"
2. 
   used to refer to any person in general.
   
   
   

As for Psychology Today's supposed bias, you proved nothing of the sort; I watched the video you posted, and unless I missed it, and you point me to a timestamp of when he does, Crowder doesn't even mention Psychology Today, let alone shows an example of them saying that one of the positives of pornography is you "become less religious".

You missed it. From 3:00 on, pause when the study screenshot comes up.

Honestly, I'm getting rather sick of how obstinate you've been in every argument I've had with you on this forum. You do realize that there is no such thing as "winning" an argument on the internet, right?

Of course. Do you, given your complaining right now about me not agreeing with you?

 

[Scottty]

I think a distinction needs to be made and remembered here, between vice and crime. A vice is something that harms only the person doing it. A crime harms other people as well.

The macabre example suggested above, of targeting people of a certain demographic for cannibalism, goes straight into the "harms other people" category.

 

[Terthna]

The second definition of the word you. I am saying you to mean adherents to Christianity. You cannot validly totally disregard things in it based on just picking and choosing what you like and dislike.

1. used to refer to the person or people that the speaker is addressing.
   "are you listening?"
2. 
   used to refer to any person in general.

And yet, that is exactly what every Christian I have ever met does. You are not the only person I've met who was utterly convince that their interpretation of Christianity is the only correct one.

In any event, this is irrelevant to Christian values on a societal level; there is nothing that says we as a society cannot pick and choose what we wish to carry forward, and what we wish to abandon.

You missed it. From 3:00 on, pause when the study screenshot comes up.

Thank you; I stand corrected. Although to be honest, I cannot find it within me to disagree with them entirely.

Of course. Do you, given your complaining right now about me not agreeing with you?

Honestly, I'm not sure. I just can't stop thinking about that time you asked me to prove my statement that certain studies in the database Captain-General posted made correlations without proper evidence, which I then did, only for you to change the subject without acknowledging my proof. I suppose maybe I was projecting a bit there; sorry about that. I still think you come across as rather obstinate, though; which is incredibly frustrating.

 

[FriedCFour]

And yet, that is exactly what every Christian I have ever met does. You are not the only person I've met who was utterly convince that their interpretation of Christianity is the only correct one.

Being convinced in your interpretation is not the same as picking and choosing which passages to follow. I am also not utterly convinced and am open to other denominations entirely. However, there are some things extremely and clearly spelled out that you cannot justify around, and this is one of them that you will find near universal agreement on among most denominations.

In any event, this is irrelevant to Christian values on a societal level; there is nothing that says we as a society cannot pick and choose what we wish to carry forward, and what we wish to abandon.

You will never have 100% agreement on any topic. With atheists and deists my only goal is to explain that christianity holds value within society and shouldn't be eradicated, and that's all I am trying to do here. You are arguing for eradicating a core pillar of christian philosophy shared by the vast majority of Protestants, Catholics, Orthodox and Coptics. disregard that and you get nonsensical pure feel good christianity which is a breed doomed to die and lead to just being a left wing atheist.

Thank you; I stand corrected. Although to be honest, I cannot find it within me to disagree with them entirely.

Why is being less religious better?

 

[Terthna]

Being convinced in your interpretation is not the same as picking and choosing which passages to follow. I am also not utterly convinced and am open to other denominations entirely. However, there are some things extremely and clearly spelled out that you cannot justify around, and this is one of them that you will find near universal agreement on among most denominations.




You will never have 100% agreement on any topic. With atheists and deists my only goal is to explain that christianity holds value within society and shouldn't be eradicated, and that's all I am trying to do here. You are arguing for eradicating a core pillar of christian philosophy shared by the vast majority of Protestants, Catholics, Orthodox and Coptics. disregard that and you get nonsensical pure feel good christianity which is a breed doomed to die and lead to just being a left wing atheist.

I see no problem with that. It wouldn't be the first time a part of christian philosophy has changed or been abandoned in response to new ideas, and it won't be the last; I see this as a good thing.

Why is being less religious better?

Let's just say I have issues with organized religions, particularly Christianity, and leave it at that; okay?

 

[FriedCFour]

I see no problem with that. It wouldn't be the first time a part of christian philosophy has changed or been abandoned in response to new ideas, and it won't be the last; I see this as a good thing.

Examples I can think of don't tend to be as completely biblically grounded as this one. Most of those are schisms on papal bulls or disagreements on the nature of Christ or how the bible should be distributed and read. This one cannot be abandoned without abandoning Christianity as a whole ultimately. If you believe in completely ignoring and disregarding one of the most direct messages of Christ, and your justification for it is in purely secular wants and desires, how can you continue to be a Christian? That cognitive dissonance ultimately leads to abandonment of faith

 

[Terthna]

Examples I can think of don't tend to be as completely biblically grounded as this one. Most of those are schisms on papal bulls or disagreements on the nature of Christ or how the bible should be distributed and read. This one cannot be abandoned without abandoning Christianity as a whole ultimately. If you believe in completely ignoring and disregarding one of the most direct messages of Christ, and your justification for it is in purely secular wants and desires, how can you continue to be a Christian? That cognitive dissonance ultimately leads to abandonment of faith

If that's what it takes, then so be it; but honestly, I think you overestimate the importance of this particular bit of Christian doctrine. After all, we legalized gay marriage, and Christianity has yet to implode; and that one is still a particularly contentious decision to most Christians.

In the end though, I'm not asking Christians to abandon their beliefs; I'm just asking them to accept that they are not, and should never be, immutable rules for how we run our society as a whole.

 

[FriedCFour]

If that's what it takes, then so be it; but honestly, I think you overestimate the importance of this particular bit of Christian doctrine. After all, we legalized gay marriage, and Christianity has yet to implode; and that one is still a particularly contentious decision to most Christians.

Legalizing gay marriage is completely and totally separate from the view that homosexuality is a sin, and even that is somewhat less clear cut than this topic.

In the end though, I'm not asking Christians to abandon their beliefs; I'm just asking them to accept that they are not, and should never be, immutable rules for how we run our society as a whole.

If you ask that everyone be totally fine with viewing and making pornography on a moral level, then yes, you are asking that.

 

[Shipmaster Sane]

The political problem of pornography is that it undermines the general sexual morality of the public, making them irreligious, unable to hold a steady relationship, and docile. It also makes people stupider by destroying their brains in a manner similar to hard drugs. If we take these problems and extrapolate them to the majority of society, then, given the increased acceptability of porn, we can expect to see the complete collapse of civilization.

Did you have a stroke? I said "that depends on what you mean by solution", not "what you mean by problem". It's like you were so eager to respond to what you thought I was going to say, you didn't even pay attention to what I actually said. If you feel you can't grant me appropriate attention, fee free to table our discussion until later when you're arguing with less people simultaneously. I am fairly confident I can bring you around to my way of thinking through discussion.