Pornography. Shameful Pleasure, or Perfectly Natural?

[Chiki]

If we really go by logic and logic only, then there is no supreme objective truth that smashes all the counter-arguments.

It's literally impossible to "go by logic and logic only." Logic is just a method of reasoning; it doesn't give us knowledge apart from logical rules. Everyone has to rely on their gut feelings--that's exactly what dondon, you and I are doing.

I just thought that dismissing FionordeQuester's arguments as "conservative nonsense" is too extreme. Every opinion that doesn't harm others deserves to be respected.

Conservative views are actually very harmful.

Edited May 14, 2014 by Chiki

[Dwalin2010]

Conservative views are actually very harmful.

So do you actually mean that if a person thinks pornography is immoral and is disappointed when sex and romance are separated, then this is a harmful view? When the shock I am actually in has passed, then I am just going to say that I guess that I prefer harmful views then and that everyone should agree to disagree, like several people have already said there, a statement that has been disagreed with more than once in this thread. However, no matter what, I still have a hard time to believe you are serious. I hope you are not one of the people who justify the existence of certain things and tendencies because of the allegedly required concept of "freedom" to do everything physically possible in this world. I mean, freedom is a good concept that I used to like a lot, but in the modern world it has become so extremely abused that it is used to justify virtually EVERYTHING that doesn't involve violence. I really hope I just interpreted what you said wrongly.

Edited May 14, 2014 by Dwalin2010

[Chiki]

So do you actually mean that if a person thinks pornography is immoral and is disappointed when sex and romance are separated, then this is a harmful view? When the shock I am actually in has passed, then I am just going to say that I guess that I prefer harmful views then and that everyone should agree to disagree, like several people have already said there, a statement that has been disagreed with more than once in this thread. However, no matter what, I still have a hard time to believe you are serious. I hope you are not one of the people who justify the existence of certain things and tendencies because of the allegedly required concept of "freedom" to do everything physically possible in this world. I mean, freedom is a good concept that I used to like a lot, but in the modern world it has become so extremely abused that it is used to justify virtually EVERYTHING that doesn't involve violence. I really hope I just interpreted what you said wrongly.

Dondon didn't have such a restricted idea when he said "conservative." He probably meant a conservative, as in like a Republican. And I think people with views like that are very harmful.

Edited May 14, 2014 by Chiki

[Dwalin2010]

Sorry for returning to earlier posts, I had forgotten about this quote:

it's not just my opinion, it's the null hypothesis. unless you can prove to me non-romantic sexual interactions are necessarily unhealthy, then i will not reject the null hypothesis.

That this is the null hypothesis is, again, an expression of your OPINION. You have your opinion like everybody else, and that's natural, but you can't just claim that what you say is the only truth possible, because there is no way to prove that.

Anyway, I think that, of everything that has been said in this thread, the phrase that makes the most sense is "agree to disagree". How can anyone disagree with that?

Edited May 14, 2014 by Dwalin2010

[Moira]

Anyway, I think that, of everything that has been said in this thread, the phrase that makes the most sense is "agree to disagree". How can anyone disagree with that?

There are plenty of topics where people will absolutely not agree to disagree.

[Dwalin2010]

There are plenty of topics where people will absolutely not agree to disagree.

But why not? Maybe I am just tired of seeing discussions that started as normal debates degenerating into banal fights (don't mean this discussion is a banal fight, yet), but still, respecting each other's opinions all while disagreeing is pretty natural. If you don't agree even with my statement that a peaceful discussion with mutual respect is always better than a belligerent one, then I retreat, because that would mean our mentalities are too different.

[Phoenix Wright]

Sorry for returning to earlier posts, I had forgotten about this quote:

That this is the null hypothesis is, again, an expression of your OPINION. You have your opinion like everybody else, and that's natural, but you can't just claim that what you say is the only truth possible, because there is no way to prove that.

Anyway, I think that, of everything that has been said in this thread, the phrase that makes the most sense is "agree to disagree". How can anyone disagree with that?

this is not his opinion, this is simply a fact. unless you have evidence to the contrary--as dondon and now myself have requested--there is no reason to reject it.

"agree to disagree" means your opinions aren't open for discussion. if that's really how you feel, then i ask sincerely--why post here? earlier on i vented my frustration with a previous user who tried to say exactly the same thing. i don't mean this to be hostile, either, it's just that this is a niche forum dedicated to discussion, and if you're not willing to discuss--completely okay--i personally don't see a reason to post here.

Edited May 15, 2014 by Phoenix Wright

[Dwalin2010]

this is not his opinion, this is simply a fact. unless you have evidence to the contrary--as dondon and now myself have requested--there is no reason to reject it.

Everybody can say their opinion is a fact. I can say so too. Does this make my opinion more valuable? No, it doesn't. Same with yours and Dondon's.

EDIT: I am not saying that opinions aren't open for discussion, just that the existence of opinions different from yours is normal, and even if you disagree, you theoretically (in my opinion) should accept that there are always going to be people who won't change their opinion no matter how many times you will repeat to them and yourself how wrong they are.

I am perfectly ok with people discussing and disagreeing, what bothers me is when somebody just states or implies their opinion is superior by default.

Edited May 15, 2014 by Dwalin2010

[Chiki]

Sorry for returning to earlier posts, I had forgotten about this quote:

That this is the null hypothesis is, again, an expression of your OPINION. You have your opinion like everybody else, and that's natural, but you can't just claim that what you say is the only truth possible, because there is no way to prove that.

Anyway, I think that, of everything that has been said in this thread, the phrase that makes the most sense is "agree to disagree". How can anyone disagree with that?

How is casual sex with protection unhealthy?

[Phoenix Wright]

Everybody can say their opinion is a fact. I can say so too. Does this make my opinion more valuable? No, it doesn't. Same with yours and Dondon's.

by definition "non-romantic sexual encounters are not necessarily unhealthy" is the null hypothesis. if you feel that non-romantic sexual encounters do in fact correlate with unhealthiness, it is up to you to reject that hypothesis by providing evidence to the contrary.

[Dwalin2010]

How is casual sex with protection unhealthy?

I don't know about "unhealthy", I would rather say "immoral". Morality to me is just an interior feeling that prevents me from doing certain things and provokes remorse if I do that. I would feel the same way, even though to very different degrees, if I had sex without love, if I killed someone, if I stole something, if I slandered someone etc. Since I have similar feeling against all this, I put it in the same category.

I am not imposing this mentality to anybody though. If some people act differently, I think it's their right (except in cases of breaking the law). However, I got the impression (maybe wrong, I don't know) that you don't concede the same to people disagreeing with you.

[Moira]

But why not? Maybe I am just tired of seeing discussions that started as normal debates degenerating into banal fights (don't mean this discussion is a banal fight, yet), but still, respecting each other's opinions all while disagreeing is pretty natural. If you don't agree even with my statement that a peaceful discussion with mutual respect is always better than a belligerent one, then I retreat, because that would mean our mentalities are too different.

When some people feel strongly about something, they don't let it lie. Especially if they view the other opinion as something that could be potentially detrimental.

(example: gun rights)

[Dwalin2010]

When some people feel strongly about something, they don't let it lie. Especially if they view the other opinion as something that could be potentially detrimental.

(example: gun rights)

Well, then we disagree even more than I initially thought. When I defend an ideal, I usually don't allow myself to be belligerent (with the exception of cases when murder of innocents is justified for any alleged reason) because this would put me automatically on the wrong side even when what I say is logical . I have met many people on internet who disagreed with me but whose opinions I would still respect, had they not been rude, oppressive, and constantly stating their opinion is the only one worthy of existence because the opponent didn't provide logical reasons for their opinion (even this is subjective, because things that are "logical proof" for somebody may well be "not good enough" for others).

I am not saying anyone was rude or belligerent here, I was just remembering some discussions on another forum that degenerated after starting normally.

But what do you think about gun rights? Are you for it or against it?

Edited May 15, 2014 by Dwalin2010

[Moira]

Well, then we disagree even more than I initially thought. When I defend an ideal, I usually don't allow myself to be belligerent (with the exception of cases when murder of innocents is justified for any alleged reason) because this would put me automatically on the wrong side even when what I say is logical . I have met many people on internet who disagreed with me but whose opinions I would still respect, had they not been rude, oppressive, and constantly stating their opinion is the only one worthy of existence because the opponent didn't provide logical reasons for their opinion (even this is subjective, because things that are "logical proof" for somebody may well be "not good enough" for others).

I am not saying anyone was rude or belligerent here, I was just remembering some discussions on another forum that degenerated after starting normally.

But what do you think about gun rights? Are you for it or against it?

I am not trying to say my opinion at all. I am just saying that this is how people will act a lot of the time. You could say that's also an opinion, but it's not the one you think I have, and is based on a plethora of examples.

Gun rights would totally derail this topic so I'm not going to say anything.

[dondon151]

If some people act differently, I think it's their right (except in cases of breaking the law).

this argument fails to hold water when you consider existing laws that proscribe entirely harmless behaviors. 7 states prohibit atheists from holding public office; 3 states outlaw cohabitation (and let's not forget the obvious elephant in the room, which is same sex marriage). i guarantee you that those laws exist based on unchallenged moral justifications of the people who established them in the first place.

in addition, since you neglected to respond to this post:

by definition "non-romantic sexual encounters are not necessarily unhealthy" is the null hypothesis. if you feel that non-romantic sexual encounters do in fact correlate with unhealthiness, it is up to you to reject that hypothesis by providing evidence to the contrary.

i'm assuming that you concede the point on the null hypothesis.

Edited May 15, 2014 by dondon151

[Phoenix Wright]

i'm assuming that you concede the point on the null hypothesis.

i'm assuming you're quoting the wrong person. my only post on that particular topic was already in agreement with you, ha. or perhaphs i'm the one reading your post incorrectly.

Edited May 15, 2014 by Phoenix Wright

[Dwalin2010]

Dondon151, I don't concede the point of null hypothesis because in my opinion this answer was enough to explain my point of view:

I don't know about "unhealthy", I would rather say "immoral". Morality to me is just an interior feeling that prevents me from doing certain things and provokes remorse if I do that. I would feel the same way, even though to very different degrees, if I had sex without love, if I killed someone, if I stole something, if I slandered someone etc. Since I have similar feeling against all this, I put it in the same category.

Whatever this is a bad or good explanation (in your opinion), this is what motivates me.

Edited May 15, 2014 by Dwalin2010

[dondon151]

i'm assuming you're quoting the wrong person. my only post on that particular topic was already in agreement with you, ha. or perhaphs i'm the one reading your post correctly.

i was addressing dwalin2010, that since he neglected to address your point (which was made in my defense), he effectively conceded it.

and since he dodged the argument with the rambling non sequitur above, i rest my case.

[Dwalin2010]

Dondon151, you are saying "rambling non sequitur". Maybe, if you are so convinced to be in the right, it's not really the case to be condescending and self-admiring in your way of talking? Insults won't change anything in this world.

Edited May 15, 2014 by Dwalin2010

[dondon151]

it never fails to amaze how easily those who are defensive manage to contrive condescension out of a plain factual statement. we already explained to you that the null hypothesis is not an opinion, but an integral component of statistical inference. your response did nothing more than reiterate your position on the definition of morality, with all of the vocabulary of one who is not committed to an argument.

[Phoenix Wright]

i was addressing dwalin2010, that since he neglected to address your point (which was made in my defense), he effectively conceded it.

and since he dodged the argument with the rambling non sequitur above, i rest my case.

ah, the one time i skim over your post...sorry about that.

Edited May 15, 2014 by Phoenix Wright

[Dwalin2010]

it never fails to amaze how easily those who are defensive manage to contrive condescension out of a plain factual statement. we already explained to you that the null hypothesis is not an opinion, but an integral component of statistical inference. your response did nothing more than reiterate your position on the definition of morality, with all of the vocabulary of one who is not committed to an argument.

Ok, whatever. Just the last thing I am asking, before I am out of here: is you statement about this not being an opinion really change anything? Are more people going to agree with you just because you said that? This may increase your self confidence, but if somebody is used to interpret morality in a different way, they (not just me) are not going to change their opinions, especially in front of such uncompromising statements.

Edited May 15, 2014 by Dwalin2010

[Phoenix Wright]

Ok, whatever. If having the last word is so important to you, so be it. Just the last thing I am asking, before I am out of here: is you statement about this not being an opinion really change anything? Are more people going to agree with you just because you said that? This may increase your self confidence, but if somebody is used to interpret morality in a different way, they (not just me) are not going to change their opinions, especially in front of such uncompromising statements.

you know what you're saying here?

you're saying that it's an opinion that this shirt, right above this sentence, is striped. the discussion hasn't even started, as you refuse to accept principal facts, and what's more, you refuse to rethink your stance at all despite your logic being flawed. does there exist a correlation between unhealthiness and non-romantic sex? are you trying to say that there is?

why do you think that non-romantic sex is immoral?

Edited May 15, 2014 by Phoenix Wright

[Dwalin2010]

why do you think that non-romantic sex is immoral?

Because I believe that there should be at least a slightest difference between humans and animals. We have been given feelings by the nature, not just the body. Ignoring feelings at advantage of the body makes such a relationship incomplete.

Anyway, I don't see what's the point of saying anything on my part, since you and Dondon151 have already decided to dismiss whatever I say as "inconsistent" even before hearing it.

[eclipse]

Cool it, guys.