PORNOGRAPHY

[Sardauker-Kirov]

Porn can be accepted -- but Child porn and other disgusting elements? No.

Take a look at some aspects of Vore(Males/Females swallowing little rodents ALIVE and WHOLE) that is cruel and sick.

Child porn? Some people kidnaps little children of the street and forces them to do dirty stuff and post the pictures on a website for $$$

I can tolerate a guy doing some naughty stuff with their sticks but violating the acceptable line? No.

[Dante]

The question is where does the acceptable line lie? Do these people think they are crossing the acceptable line? Or do they think there is no acceptable line? Who are we to dictate to others whether what they are doing is acceptable or not? We can disapprove but why should be interfere unless it directly affects us?

[Terror]

I agree with Sardaukar Kirov here.

[EWS]

What I was trying to say that in some countries the legal age of females appearing in Porn Mags is 16.  Does that make the people looking at them Peadophiles? 

[Dante]

Depends on opinion, like most things in moral debates.

But like I said, where does a picture stop being legitimate (more or less) pronography and start being paedophilia? When it starts showing children? There are at least four different points in different countries where this lies. In some countries children become adults at twelve. Yet I'm pretty sure a lot of people would see graphic pictures of twelve year olds as paedophilia.

It all depends on opinion. And if it depends on opinion, who are we to tell people what not to do? There is no 'right' or 'wrong.'

[EWS]

Dust - Taking the subjective approach to morality is a foolish way to act.  If morality is all opinion, then why should I be held responsible if I was to slay your whole family then force you to eat the remains??  Not a very nice thought but would you hold me morally responsible.  From the Subjective viewpoint I could get off with being held morally responsible.  This would then lead to me not being able to be charged with the murder.  Why do we have laws?  They are just morals that some guy came up with one day.  Whether they were for the better of the human culture or what, they were still his (or a group of peoples) morals.

However, on the other hand.  Taking the Objective way is not really much better as I can still justify why I did it!

[Dante]

Not at all. You are morally responsible for all moral choices you make (unless you are a determinist, but less of that). The thing is if you are a subjectivist then there is a 'you are responsible.' But there is no 'you are wrong.'

Making me eat people would make you responsible but it would not make you 'wrong.' No such thing. To answer, I would hold you responsible but I would not say you were 'wrong,' 'evil,' or 'bad.' Because again, these are relative terms.     

[Anathema]

Morality is completely dependent on the culture of the. Like Rousseau said, by plucking the fruits of being a citicen of that nation you become a subject to the will of the people, and bound by what they think is right.

There are things however that just about every society shares when it comes to justice. The Romans already discovered this long time ago and called it ius gentium, that they thought to be universal for any society at any time. To say that you can never deem anything objectively wrong or right is therefore false.

[Dante]

Just about every society. And within societies there will always be disagreement. As long as there is disagreement, there is no objective moral truth in existance.

[Anathema]

Every tribe the Romans encountered anyway- every rule has it's exceptions.

There's always disagreement, but it's the majority that determins what's right. The fact that all societies share at least some similarities in their moral code is because the most elementary moral principles are inherent in all human beings.

[Dante]

Are they? I disagree. Human beings all have different ideas of morals if they have them at all. If we each had an inherant moral instinct that was the same, then there wouldn't be the confusion over morals that we always have now.

It is possible, I suppose, that there are inherant morals in every human being, and we just interpret them differently...

As for the 'majority.' Well I've ranted about society and majority before...

[Chani]

  People who want to make money out of showing themselves off, fine. People who want to pay money to see what they can't do, fine.

i agree... if people dont want to see pron or watch porn, then it shouldnt be i their faces, but if people want to.. then they should be allowed to too...

[Nyarlathotep]

I don't get all the fuzz about pornography. Don't like it, then don't watch it. Easy as 1, 2, 3.

Some people do enjoy it, so let them. Respect one another. I really don't see what all the fuzz is about.

[Dragoon Knight]

Anyway, pornography, as I have said before, is vile, immoral and degrading, has no constructive purpose, and deserves banning even more than pantomime.

What's wrong with pantomime may I ask?

[Marcel71]

I don't get all the fuzz about pornography. Don't like it, then don't watch it. Easy as 1, 2, 3.

Some people do enjoy it, so let them. Respect one another. I really don't see what all the fuzz is about.

Maybe it is the thing with internet...

You just can't open a new webpage without being harresed with porno graphic material. Also spam with porn..

I am old and wise ;), but children are spammed also with that....

So a child 10 years old surfs over the internet. Pop-ups of porn.. Of course he will press the page...

[Nyarlathotep]

Skorpija, I agree, but there are many ways around it. Besides, only few (if any) respectable sites would have pronography pop ups right ? :)

[filecore]

My two, hmm, where am I again, oh yes, my two euros worth :-)

I don't think there's anything wrong with pornography, or even with public nudity ("oh my god, no, a NAKED person, that's not NATURAL" etc).  So what?  It's a body, everybody's got one (as the word suggests), and if people want to flaunt it, fine.  I enjoy looking at one that I happen to find attractive.

I am currently living in Finland where they are not as repressed as in the UK (or, god forbid, in the US) and can go into a sauna together with other naked people (gasp) who are complete strangers (GASP!) and not get upset.  To me that is just being mature.

However, the line gets drawn under some circumstances.  I don't endorse or support paedophilia (I did my fourth year dissertation on a connected issue at university) and yes, don't think there are excuses for it.  I also don't think that it's right to force people into these industries (in a similar way that actual prostitution happens).

BUT I do believe that a) anyone can participate in pornography of their own free will, and that b) anyone can view or pay for pornography if they so desire.  I believe that in no way does it lead to the "moral degredation" of society - rather, I think that suppressing something which is a purely natural and biological thing must be bad.  After all, nature (or, if you prefer, God) made us this way for a reason, and so it's just plain stupid (or, if you prefer, disrespectful to God) to be so against it.

One final point: as I mentioned already, there are many societies round the world (notably the Nordic countries - Scandinavia to you Americans - as well as large tracts of Africa, Asia and the Far East) where this is not such a big issue.  This is not because these areas are full of immoral degredants, but rather because they don't have the schizophrenic crisis of self that plagues the West, particularly the UK and USA.

Basically, if it doesn't offend you personally (for some weird, repressed reason) and doesn't involve anything illegal (eg, children, animals or people forced into it), then I don't understand what the problem is.  Loosen up, it's just a body.  In the end of the day it just gets old and saggy, so enjoy it while it lasts, just as nature intended.

[Acriku]

The way I see it, is that pornography is wrong when there is a victim involved that either is being exploited without their consent or is not coherent enough to decide for themselves (mentally deficient or undeveloped) that they consent to being involved in sexual activities

[nemafakei]

Surely pandering to the baser instincts undermines our capability for rationality and founds our psyche not in the logical parts of our mind, but in the more... uncivilised parts? And this is hardly something we want to encourage in any good society.

[Acriku]

It isn't time yet to shift over to a fully rational and logical state of mind. The society perpuated today involves irrationality embedded into our waves of thought.

[nemafakei]

Then let us seek to improve society by ourselves each casting out immorality.

[Dante]

Immorality is inherant to us as a species, why bother trying to get rid of it? It won't work...

[nemafakei]

There is a chance... and if we make a difference, all well and good. If we don't, what has been lost? Would we not be engaged instead in just another pointless activity?

[Desert_Eagle25]

It's one thing for two (or more..) conceinting adults to go through sexual intercourse, record it, and sell it on the market.  It's another to violate another's rights in the process.  Basically what Sardauker-Kirov said.

If it's the first one I stated, I'm all for it.