Whats up with facebook?

[BlueScarab]

I don't really like people being able to see where I'm at or what I'm doing. Which is why I deleted mine.

In the future online dating will probably be on the main social netoworking site you chat to you mom with. That's not good at all.

[trent bortknob]

honestly i watched about a minute of it and got really bored. i'll give it another shot later tonight when i'm not so busy.

i think it's a good vid but i mean if it bores you, you probably won't take it seriously so whatever.

what the hell kind of logic is that? you're condemning pornography by baseless association? this doesn't help your point. anyway, yeah, you can get your rocks off without it, because males are far more sexually charged than women (a great argument against "intelligent design" by the way)

you seemed to miss the point here. you claimed that "pornography has been around since the dawn of man, we are sexual creatures and that's normal." as if because it is old, it is somehow good. that is baseless. the only correlation i was making with murder and slavery with pornography is that they've all been around a long time, so just because something is old doesn't mean it's good. it also doesn't mean that it's bad, it just means that there is no absolute correlation between the age of a practice and its ethical consequences.

it's a catalyst to a release of tension in the male body. that's the only reason i can think of, and there's nothing wrong with it.

it's not necessary at best, but i'll get to this later.

the people in pornography chose to be in that profession. how they got there and why they do it is none of my business, and chances are they don't want or care for my respect, and they're clearly not looking for it.

that's a fine defense for the qualities of a porn star, and works fine in an apologist way for defending a porn star's character. it doesn't mean that porn itself is actually a good thing or that it's even permissible. i'm not claiming that they're looking for your respect or for anyone's, at all. what i'm saying is that the actor becomes a means to someone else's ends and not a means in themselves. this is what it means to be used for something, to become dehumanized. is there nothing wrong with that? i think there is, regardless of whether or not anyone consents to it.

then you represent the flawed understanding that belongs to people who can't separate reality from fantasy.

how so? i obviously can tell the difference, that's why i made the point that i did.

this particular point would be a lot stronger if i had some scientific or psychological evidence that suggested a real life correlation between watching porn and how people view women/how well their relationships turn out. i do not have that right now, so i will admit that my point is not the strongest, as it's mainly based on my own observation. however, even if this point is completely taken away it doesn't make the case FOR pornography much stronger.

then this point is relative and moot.

not necessarily. it would just mean that certain types of porn are bad, which would mean you couldn't claim "there's nothing wrong with porn". you'd have to change it to something like "there is porn that is not bad".

and?

if you honestly don't see anything wrong with exploiting people's emotions for profit then i don't think you'll ever understand the basics of ethics.

legally speaking, porn is - by definition - acting.

this is probably your strongest point, honestly. i don't really have a good response to this. i guess the best i can think of is that pornography is not viewed in the same ways that plays and movies are. also, the acting in porn is almost always mediocre, and then they have sex, which probably just requires a bit of "faking it".

if nothing else, porn is not very high brow entertainment. (that was supposed to be funny, not an argument. just saying because i didn't want you to actually respond to that).

it seems to me that you are leaning strongly on your second point, that porn gives men an unrealistic portrait of what sex is supposed to be like, and saps women of self-confidence. and again, i will say that if someone is unable to separate online pornography with their sex life and physical appearance, they are struggling with knowing what is reality and what is fantasy. and porn is hardly the main catalyst of society's unrealistic image of women. it mostly comes from casual media. tv, magazines, diets, celebrities, etc. in pornography it's really more about catering to personal preferences instead of one single "ideal" female image.

that is actually true. but, i also think all of those things you listed are bad, so that doesn't really go against my point, it just adds a whole new discussion that could be had.

another potential problem i had was that porn creates a sort of hyper-sexuality where real life encounters and physical attraction to other people becomes diminished. (i've actually seen this happen in people, but i'm not going to say their names for privacy reasons.)

all of this aside, i still don't see any particular reason that anyone should use porn. it certainly is unnecessary, and it's probably only a necessity for people who are used to or addicted to using it.

i also find your moral standings on this issue a bit strange. you come off as a religious person would instead of an atheist.

i actually get this quite a lot. i've had numerous discussions with people and a lot of them ask me if i'm religious, and when they find out i'm an atheist their heads explode.

a lot of times, you hear religious fanatics going on and on about the moral implications of this and that. and a lot of times, you just want them to chill the fuck out and shut up. i totally get this, but this is because all of the claims that they're making are based a moral code prescribed by an 2,000 year old collection of desert scribblings that promotes total barbarism. if they were actually taking offense based on reason, logic and human compassion, it might not be so annoying.

i take morality seriously, because what we do and how we act is pretty much the most important part of our lives. it defines who we are, so for me, it's really important to try and think through every conceivable moral stance, and so far, this is where i'm at with porn. i'm also easily confused with a religious person because of my stance on casual sex, though i certainly don't agree with the religious rite when it comes to issues like gay marriage and drug legalization.

one thing that other people think is that i'm a judgmental condescending person, but this isn't true. while it is true that i try to determine what is moral, and a lot of times this is at ends with other people's moral judgments (or lack thereof, more often than not), i don't judge PEOPLE as immoral, i judge actions that way. and with some stuff like porn and casual sex, i'm not going to freak out if you do it, because for me it's not a big deal. i still think it's bad, but i know that it doesn't really hurt anyone (except yourself, and the fact that you're supporting it helps the industry thrive, which arguably hurts other people). so don't think i'm walking away from the discussion thinking "oh man, that rtil is a bad dude". i don't think of things in total black and white.

[rtil]

you seemed to miss the point here. you claimed that "pornography has been around since the dawn of man, we are sexual creatures and that's normal." as if because it is old, it is somehow good. that is baseless. the only correlation i was making with murder and slavery with pornography is that they've all been around a long time, so just because something is old doesn't mean it's good. it also doesn't mean that it's bad, it just means that there is no absolute correlation between the age of a practice and its ethical consequences.

i never said that it was good because it was old. you're just putting words in my mouth.

my point was that it's human nature, and you can't fight it.

that's a fine defense for the qualities of a porn star, and works fine in an apologist way for defending a porn star's character. it doesn't mean that porn itself is actually a good thing or that it's even permissible. i'm not claiming that they're looking for your respect or for anyone's, at all. what i'm saying is that the actor becomes a means to someone else's ends and not a means in themselves. this is what it means to be used for something, to become dehumanized. is there nothing wrong with that? i think there is, regardless of whether or not anyone consents to it.

i don't find anything dehumanizing in it. humans have sex all the time.

how so? i obviously can tell the difference, that's why i made the point that i did.

i think you can and you're just playing stupid for the sake of your weak argument. that or you're a virgin.

this particular point would be a lot stronger if i had some scientific or psychological evidence that suggested a real life correlation between watching porn and how people view women/how well their relationships turn out. i do not have that right now, so i will admit that my point is not the strongest, as it's mainly based on my own observation. however, even if this point is completely taken away it doesn't make the case FOR pornography much stronger.

why does there need to be a case for pornography? it's a natural byproduct of human desires.

not necessarily. it would just mean that certain types of porn are bad, which would mean you couldn't claim "there's nothing wrong with porn". you'd have to change it to something like "there is porn that is not bad".

porn is acting with the consent of all the actors. if the consent isn't there, it isn't porn anymore.

if you honestly don't see anything wrong with exploiting people's emotions for profit then i don't think you'll ever understand the basics of ethics.

i would argue there are little to no emotions involved in the filming of pornography. and please, spare me the "basics of ethics". morality has nothing to do with this.

this is probably your strongest point, honestly. i don't really have a good response to this. i guess the best i can think of is that pornography is not viewed in the same ways that plays and movies are. also, the acting in porn is almost always mediocre, and then they have sex, which probably just requires a bit of "faking it".

then by that reasoning, they are good actors.

that is actually true. but, i also think all of those things you listed are bad, so that doesn't really go against my point, it just adds a whole new discussion that could be had.

another potential problem i had was that porn creates a sort of hyper-sexuality where real life encounters and physical attraction to other people becomes diminished. (i've actually seen this happen in people, but i'm not going to say their names for privacy reasons.)

all of this aside, i still don't see any particular reason that anyone should use porn. it certainly is unnecessary, and it's probably only a necessity for people who are used to or addicted to using it.

once again i get the feeling you use this "i don't watch porn and anyone who does has a problem" as a way to make yourself feel superior to other people. the majority of adult males with access to pornography watch pornography. it's a normal thing, it's a healthy thing, it's a natural thing. your only perspective is that people who do watch it are inferior and are prone to some sort of psychological disorder. well it works both ways. most sex crimes are committed by sexually repressed people, especially ones who force themselves to inhibit their natural desires, like masturbating. you know, like celibate priests, who have a good long history of raping minors.

the reason people "use" porn is due to a chemical reaction in your brain. it happens to me, it happens to you, it happens to everyone.

i actually get this quite a lot. i've had numerous discussions with people and a lot of them ask me if i'm religious, and when they find out i'm an atheist their heads explode.

a lot of times, you hear religious fanatics going on and on about the moral implications of this and that. and a lot of times, you just want them to chill the fuck out and shut up. i totally get this, but this is because all of the claims that they're making are based a moral code prescribed by an 2,000 year old collection of desert scribblings that promotes total barbarism. if they were actually taking offense based on reason, logic and human compassion, it might not be so annoying.

i take morality seriously, because what we do and how we act is pretty much the most important part of our lives. it defines who we are, so for me, it's really important to try and think through every conceivable moral stance, and so far, this is where i'm at with porn. i'm also easily confused with a religious person because of my stance on casual sex, though i certainly don't agree with the religious rite when it comes to issues like gay marriage and drug legalization.

well i don't find your position very reasonable or logical, so that's why it probably reminds me (and others) of religion.

one thing that other people think is that i'm a judgmental condescending person, but this isn't true. while it is true that i try to determine what is moral, and a lot of times this is at ends with other people's moral judgments (or lack thereof, more often than not), i don't judge PEOPLE as immoral, i judge actions that way. and with some stuff like porn and casual sex, i'm not going to freak out if you do it, because for me it's not a big deal. i still think it's bad, but i know that it doesn't really hurt anyone (except yourself, and the fact that you're supporting it helps the industry thrive, which arguably hurts other people). so don't think i'm walking away from the discussion thinking "oh man, that rtil is a bad dude". i don't think of things in total black and white.

this is another typical religious spin on the "i have the moral high ground" arguments that i hear a lot from theists. kind of like the "you're not a bad person, but you're still going to hell" kind of thing. sorry, i just don't' buy it.

[trent bortknob]

there needs to be a case for pornography because there needs to be a case for EVERYTHING. and even if you deny that, i think that pornography raises some obvious red flags.

the whole "you're not a bad person but you're still going to hell" is COMPLETELY different that what i am talking about! the fact that you'd compare them astounds me. one is the vein attempt of a religious fanatic to be both socially acceptable and true to her incredibly archaic and demanding faith. the other side (my side) is an admission of uncertainty. i'm still working out my moral understandings, i don't think i have them all totally figured out. like in science, every answer opens a hundred new questions. the other thing is that, i know that at the end, we're all just going to die anyway, so with certain actions like casual sex and porn, that really don't have much of an effect on me, i don't go around pushing people not to do it. i can still think "hey it's probably bad and i'm not going to do it", and i may even talk to some people about it if it comes up, but it doesn't affect me in any way if people do it, so in this way it's a sort of mini-dilemma. it's more of a "food-for-thought" thing than a practical thing. so because it's not something i'm 100% sure of, and because it's something that doesn't really effect me, i'm withholding judgment of other people who do it, even though i personally think that it is probably not something that anyone OUGHT to do. i don't see how this is anything like the condemnation of something like a religious nut does.

it's not true that i think that people who watch porn have psychological issues. i think that they're probably making a bad decision. you're seriously over emphasizing the strength of my position here, and this is where you are putting words in my mouth. also, i definitely understand how dangerous repressed sexuality is. sex and sexuality are obviously natural, repressing them is silly. mormonism condemns sexuality and prohibits showing any skin. however, it's also e religion in which there is a ton of sexual violence and rape amongst followers. go figure.

the main differences in our thinking is that you see pornography as the natural product of our sexual desires, whereas i see the natural product as...sex. there is a difference between having a mate and reproducing (or just "making love" for enjoyment) and filming people having sex and then having people watch it (for a fee) in order to feed their sexual urges by using the people and the content as a vehicle for pleasure. when you're in a loving relationship and you have sex, the person is not just someone who you use for pleasure, she's an end in herself (also it's a lot more fun this way). this is not true with pornography.

it's like talking to a wall on some of these issues. if the basis for every argument you make is based on a priori assumptions then nothing i could ever say that disagrees with you would ever be considered valid. this is not the proper way to have a debate (this is the tactic that a lot of theists use, by the way, if we're going to constantly compare each other to theists as an attempt to discredit each other).

and the other thing is that you're seemingly coming to this argument with preconceived negative notions. this is obvious because half of the time you're sensing hostility that isn't there and are acting defensive. it's hard to debate in this way. when you come up and just assume that i want to feel superior to people or that i'm putting words in your mouth to try to attack you, this gets really exhausting. where exactly do you get the idea that i do or want to feel superior to other people?

tbh i think you have a built up view of me that is preventing you from having a fair discussion. you seem to be on the defensive and are totally hardening my stances and making them seem way more extreme than they actually are. contrary to what you're saying, i'm not the one who only has one perspective. you seem to be seeing me in a certain lens that filters everything i say in a certain way. this is apparent when you seem to draw completely different conclusions than the ones i'm suggesting with my arguments.

[trent bortknob]

oh and for clarification i'm not a virgin. i didn't want to say this before because i didn't want people to think i was "bragging" or something like that, but because it was questioned i figured i'd cleat that up.

[rtil]

well you probably don't realize it but you come off as presuming yourself as having the superior moral high ground. why else would i assume that you were? i'm not putting words in your mouth, i'm interpreting what you've said. how it looks to you looks different to me and everyone else.

for example, again, you said this:

i don't judge PEOPLE as immoral, i judge actions that way. and with some stuff like porn and casual sex, i'm not going to freak out if you do it, because for me it's not a big deal. i still think it's bad, but i know that it doesn't really hurt anyone (except yourself, and the fact that you're supporting it helps the industry thrive, which arguably hurts other people)

which basically means you're saying "i don't think you're a bad person, i just judge what you do, and you do things i think are morally wrong that are hurting you and other people." so then what, do you feel sorry for me? how does that not make me a bad person in your eyes? does that make me a stupid person? does that make you morally superior to me? if you judge me based on my actions, then you are indirectly judging me as a person, and there's no way around it, sorry.

the main differences in our thinking is that you see pornography as the natural product of our sexual desires, whereas i see the natural product as...sex. there is a difference between having a mate and reproducing (or just "making love" for enjoyment) and filming people having sex and then having people watch it (for a fee) in order to feed their sexual urges by using the people and the content as a vehicle for pleasure. when you're in a loving relationship and you have sex, the person is not just someone who you use for pleasure, she's an end in herself (also it's a lot more fun this way). this is not true with pornography.

well maybe in your bizarre world your girlfriend just happens to be around and horny every time you wanna beat off, people obviously can't have sex every time they're feeling like it. look at it this way - sex is a fancy 5 star dinner and porn is like fast food. they're both good, but the 5 star meal is way better. but you really can't have the fancy meal all the time, so you settle for the fast food a lot. so i like to watch porn when i masturbate sometimes - FOR FREE by the way, do you really think i'm dumb enough that i can't find free porn on the internet - it just makes the job faster. nobody was "hurt", i move on with my life. if i was really hurting myself, i'd be in some sad psychological state by now. i found out i could do this when i was 12 or something. but somehow 13 years down the line i have a wife, a nice apartment, money, friends, a degree, etc.

unless i am wrong somehow. please, explain to me, how am i hurting myself. teach me.

and the other thing is that you're seemingly coming to this argument with preconceived negative notions. this is obvious because half of the time you're sensing hostility that isn't there and are acting defensive. it's hard to debate in this way. when you come up and just assume that i want to feel superior to people or that i'm putting words in your mouth to try to attack you, this gets really exhausting. where exactly do you get the idea that i do or want to feel superior to other people?

tbh i think you have a built up view of me that is preventing you from having a fair discussion. you seem to be on the defensive and are totally hardening my stances and making them seem way more extreme than they actually are. contrary to what you're saying, i'm not the one who only has one perspective. you seem to be seeing me in a certain lens that filters everything i say in a certain way. this is apparent when you seem to draw completely different conclusions than the ones i'm suggesting with my arguments.

i can't help that you put words in my mouth so i had to point it out. and now you're trying to use that against me now that i've brought it up, so, don't act like i'm the only one "attacking" you.

i get the idea that you need to feel superior to others because you act like someone who does. you take almost everything seriously, have a seemingly non-existant sense of humor, and make a point to be the exact antithesis of everyone else around you for nebulous reasons.

i've presented a lot of points to you, but the only thing you continue to harp on is that porn is morally wrong and hurts the viewer and the actors based on your own set of personal beliefs. and you act all surprised when i continue to compare your argument to a theists.. really?

[trent bortknob]

well you probably don't realize it but you come off as presuming yourself as having the superior moral high ground. why else would i assume that you were? i'm not putting words in your mouth, i'm interpreting what you've said. how it looks to you looks different to me and everyone else.

it probably comes off that way because i'm not claiming morality is relative to culture or opinion, so because i'm expressing an opinion on the basis that it might actually be somewhat true, it comes off as offensive. at least, that's probably what it is.

one thing you have to understand is that i don't engage it debates about morality in order to prove myself right, i do it in order to prove myself wrong. if i'm wrong about something, that's a good thing, it means that i have now learned something new and rid myself of an untrue belief. i don't assume i have the "moral high ground" (as you like to say), because then i would not be learning anything, and that's no way to enter into a debate, or live your life in general.

which basically means you're saying "i don't think you're a bad person, i just judge what you do, and you do things i think are morally wrong that are hurting you and other people." so then what, do you feel sorry for me? how does that not make me a bad person in your eyes? does that make me a stupid person? does that make you morally superior to me? if you judge me based on my actions, then you are indirectly judging me as a person, and there's no way around it, sorry.

no, that's not what it means. what i mean when i say that i don't judge people is that people are too complex and have too many sides for you to ever conclusively judge them good or bad. you can never know a person inside and out, you can never know everything that they think and do. also, they can change over time. people can be selfish, violent, and irresponsible, and totally change in the course of their lives. so, i never say that i think that someone is a bad person, because that would imply that i have a very large amount of knowledge of another person that is pretty much impossible to have.

the only person that i could every comfortably call bad is myself, because i know what i think and do at all hours of the day.

and the thing is, if you're listening, i explained why i don't judge people for having casual sex and watching porn, as well as doing drugs and drinking. i think that probably, we could live without all of those things, and that they probably cause unnecessary problems in our lives, and lives that consist of those activities are also probably not the best possible lives for humans to live. however, in a very real and practical sense, casual sex between two consenting partners and watching pornography that was created by consenting people does no harm to anyone directly, so i admit that judgment of whether or not they are right or wrong is, for most people, irrelevant (or at least insignificant). only for people like me do these topics matter, because i try to take many moral considerations into account. because of that, i don't really go around thinking "rtil watches porn sometimes. that means he is a bad person." or "rtil has had casual sex. that activity was immoral and now he will suffer".

i'm defining good and bad, right and wrong, moral and immoral, etc, simply as what you should and should not do. it doesn't necessarily entail any punishment. so then how can we claim that it is wrong or immoral in this sense? this is a totally different discussion, and it is based on value judgments and how we make them.

these moral claims are certainly harder to support than other claims. for example, you probably should not have incestual relationships. why? because it really IS unnatural and children who are born of incest almost always have some sort of birth defect. there's the consequence, there's the cause, easily made argument.

but for things like porn and casual sex, what are the negative consequences? this is where the arguments really do get more complex. i'm convinced the consequences of both of those actions are that you end up using a person or group of persons in the process. and what's wrong with that? well, probably a lot of things. mainly, using a person as a means to an end instead of an end in herself is dehumanizing. kant refers to this as one of the categorical imperatives.

assuming that god doesn't exist (and i hope that is a safe assumption to make here), is there any problem with dehumanizing people? (if god did exist, the case against it would be much easier to make. however, we're not trying to work with fantasy here) we have to assert what is wrong with an action before calling it immoral, not afterwards. so, what exactly is wrong with it?

i can think of a couple of things. first of all, if you think of what you should not do based upon what you would not want to have done to you (the golden rule basically. please don't compare me to a theist for this, because the golden rule predates any biblical teachings by hundred of years and is an easily used and convenient guide to the everyday ethical dilemma.), you can probably assert that you don't want people to view you as an object, or to use you for any end (regardless of what it is). i'm assuming that you'd prefer it if people treated you like you have value, not that you're just a tool for them to use to gain whatever it is that they want.  you want to be treated like a human being.

secondly, you can point to what dehumanization leads to. whether this is genocide or record companies making an example of a person in order to scare people away from illegal downloading, it happens under this mindset. this is viewing people as less than people, and specifically in the record company's case, using someone for their own ends. that company doesn't value the life of that woman who they charged several million dollars for a handful of downloaded songs. they don't give a fuck about her, they're using her as a way to prevent losing money.

i don't want to treat a person as if they're less than anyone else. because of this, i don't use pornography, because the whole thing is based on the idea of using someone as a vehicle to your pleasure.

am i saying that there is a link between pornography and genocide? hardly. what i'm saying is that they both require dehumanization and a lack of respect for other people (albeit by vastly varying degrees).

if it were totally necessary to use pornography in order to masturbate, then i would just say "well, it looks bad, but i guess it just is what it is". but i know for a fact that it is not necessary, regardless of whether or not it is bad.

[trent bortknob]

well maybe in your bizarre world your girlfriend just happens to be around and horny every time you wanna beat off, people obviously can't have sex every time they're feeling like it. look at it this way - sex is a fancy 5 star dinner and porn is like fast food. they're both good, but the 5 star meal is way better. but you really can't have the fancy meal all the time, so you settle for the fast food a lot. so i like to watch porn when i masturbate sometimes - FOR FREE by the way, do you really think i'm dumb enough that i can't find free porn on the internet - it just makes the job faster. nobody was "hurt", i move on with my life. if i was really hurting myself, i'd be in some sad psychological state by now. i found out i could do this when i was 12 or something. but somehow 13 years down the line i have a wife, a nice apartment, money, friends, a degree, etc.

unless i am wrong somehow. please, explain to me, how am i hurting myself. teach me.

funny thing, my girlfriend lives in pennsylvania and i live in california. i see her around once every 4-6 months. when i visit her, we have sex maybe once or twice in a week. so no, she is not there every time i have a sexual urge.

the whole thing you said with a 5 star dinner i'm totally in agreement with. sex is way better than masturbating. just switch out the use of the word "porn" in your paragraph to "masturbation" and i'm all set.

"look at it this way - sex is a fancy 5 star dinner and masturbation is like fast food. they're both good, but the 5 star meal is way better. but you really can't have the fancy meal all the time, so you settle for the fast food a lot." that's way more accurate, and it's true for me. (the other problem is that i don't eat fast food. btw this is another joke (even though it's true), please don't actually respond to this as though it were an argument).

i'm glad that you get porn for free. it's so easy to get that i'm surprised anyone pays for it. however, some people out there are paying for it, if they weren't there would hardly be a porn industry.

now, with your last sentence, some people really do get to that point with pornography. some people do get depressed and lonely and develop an addiction to it, some people's view of relationships and their overall sexuality are negatively affected by it. this probably isn't the case with you. so why is it bad for you to do it? this is covered in my previous response. i'm not saying that if you look at porn everything around you will crumble. it's not as absolute as that, none of this is written on a stone tablet somewhere. this is all just trying to find out the correct answers to questions through reason, and there are so many variables that it's complex. it's not as easy as something like "you shouldn't kill people most of the time".  i still think it's important, though.

i can't help that you put words in my mouth so i had to point it out. and now you're trying to use that against me now that i've brought it up, so, don't act like i'm the only one "attacking" you.

i get the idea that you need to feel superior to others because you act like someone who does. you take almost everything seriously, have a seemingly non-existant sense of humor, and make a point to be the exact antithesis of everyone else around you for nebulous reasons.

i've presented a lot of points to you, but the only thing you continue to harp on is that porn is morally wrong and hurts the viewer and the actors based on your own set of personal beliefs. and you act all surprised when i continue to compare your argument to a theists.. really?

i don't think i put words in your mouth, i think i was trying to connect the dots of your argument. if you were not implying that pornography has some value based on how old it was, why did you mention that "it has been around since the dawn of man"? i'm just trying to make sense of your arguments here. if i'm getting something wrong, it's not because i'm trying to maliciously attack you.

maybe looks can be deceiving? i don't think that because i maybe "act like someone who needs to feel superior" means that you get to dismiss everything i say. and anyway, even if you think i have no sense of humor, even if you think i take everything too seriously, and even if you think i'm just trying to be the antithesis of other people, that doesn't all add up to the conclusion that i am someone who needs to feel superior. and even if it did, that doesn't negate anything that i'm saying. this is a form of ad hominem, trying to discredit arguments based on my perceived character traits. "he's only saying that because he think it's cool to be different".

the reason i keep "harping on" is because i feel that you're not really getting what i'm trying to say. most of your responses end up being somewhat condescending and insulting, and i think you really do have a totally different idea of what this discussion is about than i do. whereas i'm trying to learn something, you seem to be trying to protect yourself from someone you view as being judgmental. this happens a lot with discussions about morality, so i'm not really too surprised, but it is disappointing. i seriously am not having this conversation as a way to bolster my ego or make you out as some bad guy, this is just the intersection of two viewpoints and if you weren't on the defensive this conversation would a lot more beneficial to everyone.

and on a side note, please keep in mind that i do judge my own actions. i have done things and then later realized that i think that it was an immoral thing to do. at that point i try to figure out a way to resolve the situation and prevent it from happening again. i'm not just sitting on a throne and condemning everyone and then acting as though i am perfect. i know that i am not, and i'm only 19, i have plenty to learn at this point.

[rtil]

so really what this boils down to is you strictly holding yourself to philosophical absolutes as a personal honor system, which you believe is fully validated simply because it is not religious. furthermore, on the subject of pornography, you view the user as dehumanizing the subject, and therefore it doesn't fit into your worldview, so you reject it and condemn those who use it.

well i'll just say this then. if i was a porn star, i would want my product to be successful. there are male and female porn stars who have become extremely successful and are proud of their work, and even branched off into other arguably more constructive careers. you may think they're being dehumanized, but i have a strong feeling they'd be offended and put off by your virtues.

[trent bortknob]

so really what this boils down to is you strictly holding yourself to philosophical absolutes

no, not absolutes. i've stated many times before that these are NOT absolutes.

as a personal honor system, which you believe is fully validated simply because it is not religious.

no, it's not validated simply because it's not religious, it's validated by all of the other shit that i said.

furthermore, on the subject of pornography, you view the user as dehumanizing the subject, and therefore it doesn't fit into your worldview, so you reject it and condemn those who use it.

i've now said 3 times that i don't condemn people who use pornography. but if i did, i do not find the above statement to be incorrect. i reject pornography because it objectifies people, yes.

well i'll just say this then. if i was a porn star, i would want my product to be successful. there are male and female porn stars who have become extremely successful and are proud of their work, and even branched off into other arguably more constructive careers. you may think they're being dehumanized, but i have a strong feeling they'd be offended and put off by your virtues.

what are you defining as success? making money? becoming famous? i don't consider either of those to be signs of success.

they very well may be put off by my "virtues". that doesn't do a lot to say that what i'm saying is false, it just means people are offended by it. in the same sense that saying "god probably does not exist" is offensive to a lot of christians, that doesn't mean it isn't a statement that is more than likely true.

you have succeeded in not understanding my arguments and casting me as some sort of stuck up asshole. i'm not really sure why this is, and since i don't really know you in real life i'm not going to make any assumptions. i'm just going to say that i find it disappointing.

[rtil]

success is subjective, everyone has their own goals.

it doesn't just mean that people would be offended by your views. but if your moral stance is correct, then their own personal view of success and their career is nothing but a sham - they're just dehumanized objects who cause their viewers to do morally wrong things - according to you. i don't think you realize the larger consequences of what you believe, and how condescending it is to people who are just living their lives. it's not quite the same as your comparison to telling christians god doesn't exist, because that's a completely faith-based belief.

i completely understand your arguments. but what you don't understand is that my view of your arguments differ from yours. i see this subject in an entirely different light, and when i say what i say, i am fully aware that i am interpreting your arguments differently than you would. you must also accept that your position on this subject is near contradictory with most atheist and humanist worldviews, and more in line with a theistic or religious worldview.

[trent bortknob]

success is subjective, everyone has their own goals.

i can accept this.

it doesn't just mean that people would be offended by your views. but if your moral stance is correct, then their own personal view of success and their career is nothing but a sham - they're just dehumanized objects who cause their viewers to do morally wrong things - according to you. i don't think you realize the larger consequences of what you believe, and how condescending it is to people who are just living their lives. it's not quite the same as your comparison to telling christians god doesn't exist, because that's a completely faith-based belief.

i don't quote see the distinction. if you tell christians that god probably isn't real, they get offended because that's the basis of their entire worldview. it could be interpreted as insulting, saying that they've spent their whole lives believing a lie, so they must be stupid, and you must think that you're some superior person with a hgher intellect. this actually happens to a lot of atheists. bill o' reilly has said this to many an atheist guest on his terrible show.

you don't think you're smarter than someone purely because of their religious beliefs, right? i don't. i don't think you do. same for me, i don't think i'm smarter, better, or more moral because of my moral reasoning. i don't think this is a hard concept to grasp. there are a lot of reasons people might be religious, and there are a lot of reasons while people might be attracted to certain moral views. that doesn't mean that all religions are correct or that are moral ideas are equal, but it does mean that you don't have to be a bigot about anything.

i completely understand your arguments. but what you don't understand is that my view of your arguments differ from yours. i see this subject in an entirely different light, and when i say what i say, i am fully aware that i am interpreting your arguments differently than you would. you must also accept that your position on this subject is near contradictory with most atheist and humanist worldviews, and more in line with a theistic or religious worldview.

i do understand that your views are different than mine, that is the point of this discussion.

i don't think you truly understand what i'm saying, to be honest. i think you are connecting dots that are not there because i'm saying things that other people have said before that you a priori have disagreements with. this is ok, i've done it before. i've hard arguments with people who, based on how they phrased their arguments, came across as saying something they were not saying. i can admit that i might be coming across this way, but please try to get past that because it is not really relevant to the actual content.

and yeah, i will submit that my particular ideas are different than a lot of atheist's. that's ok by me, there is no single doctrine of atheism that anyone must subscribe to.

a huge difference between me and a lot of atheists is that i actually believe morality exists. that is to say i believe in objective morality. i don't believe in moral absolutes (ok, maybe one or two. rape and child molestation seem like they could be good candidates), but i don't think that value judgments are totally based on opinion. i will concede that all morality is relative to conscious creatures, mainly humans in particular. i don't think that this weakens the case for objective morality, though.

for more info on this particular subject, i urge you to read "the moral landscape" by sam harris. harris is referred to as one of the "four horsemen of atheism", alongside dawkins, hitchens and dennett, and while i don't 100% agree with his book, it is at least one other atheist who believe in objective morality. he also depicts many all-too-familiar encounters with atheists who defend the absence of morality like a deeply held religious belief.

if you are at all interested in sam harris you could start out by watching this video:

The Moral Landscape

[trent bortknob]

honestly, sam harris is a much smarter person than i am and he's much more articulate. you should really watch his video

[rtil]

so what does your objective morality have to do with any of this? my point was that your moral stance on this issue requires that you see those people in a lesser light. if you disagree, it is irrelevant, because that is how it works.

societies mandate morality, and exists in that sense. but you've clearly come to your own "objective" morality based on personal circumstances and beliefs. but since you've come to that place, it's fruitless for me to attempt to change your mind, so i'm not going to bother anymore.

you can watch porn and not objectify and dehumanize people. this is unassailable. i'm done.

[trent bortknob]

so what does your objective morality have to do with any of this?

not much, it was just a side note to emphasize that i don't have that much in common with a lot atheists, especially the ones that are philosophically illiterate.

societies mandate morality, and exists in that sense. but you've clearly come to your own "objective" morality based on personal circumstances and beliefs. but since you've come to that place, it's fruitless for me to attempt to change your mind, so i'm not going to bother anymore.

this is a clear example that you don't know what i am talking about. i am not calling my own beliefs objectively true. you don't seem to understand most of what i say, and i wonder if it's because i'm not good at explaining it or if it's because you're just not reading well into what i'm saying. alas

you can watch porn and not objectify and dehumanize people. this is unassailable. i'm done.

i can tell that this is a deeply held belief for you, so i'm going to do what i do with creationists that claim that evolution is a "sham" and leave it alone.

[creamcorn]

tl;dr version ?

[BluPhoenix]

tl;dr version ?

"shut up taylor"

[funzop]

you can watch porn and not objectify and dehumanize people. this is unassailable. i'm done.

i can tell that this is a deeply held belief for you, so i'm going to do what i do with creationists that claim that evolution is a "sham" and leave it alone.

a+

[rtil]

you can watch porn and not objectify and dehumanize people. this is unassailable. i'm done.

i can tell that this is a deeply held belief for you, so i'm going to do what i do with creationists that claim that evolution is a "sham" and leave it alone.

a+

[funzop]

how can anyone resist responding to that shit