Is pornography immoral?

Discussion in 'Porn Addiction' started by Paperweight, Mar 30, 2018.

  1. I love conversations about morality and have no problem debating and discussing it. I get a little sensitive around the word legality. I mean to make something illegal you are conceding more authority to the state. Which is ultimately a monopoly on violence. To enforce laws you are granting power to a group of people and allowing them to extort (fines) or put others in jail, or both. These both require threat of violence or actual violence. If I'm going to allow this, I better be sure the protection to society is worth the added policing. As much as I hate porn, allowing more violence to stop consensual activities between adults seems overboard. If porn is a drug then let's use the drug war as an example....hasn't been successful or ultimately helpful. Change people minds voluntarily and you will get the results you want. Make things illegal and you'll get black markets and a million more cops spying and arresting.
     
    Paperweight and Gotham Outlaw like this.
  2. Gotham Outlaw

    Gotham Outlaw Fapstronaut

    548
    3,927
    123
    You can't use facts. That's cheating.
     
    boborosso likes this.
  3. Bottomofthemap

    Bottomofthemap Fapstronaut

    25
    42
    13
    Your right I don’t know much about it. To me it’s just common sense start the youth out working hard and respecting the value of a dollar instead of letting them sit around and fap or play video games and eat tide pods.
     
    Deleted Account likes this.
  4. Bottomofthemap

    Bottomofthemap Fapstronaut

    25
    42
    13
    I never talked about gay men, and I never once mentioned a oil rig. I also never mentioned a island full of men. That’s all stuff you came up with in your head. I simply said we would would be better of if the youth were made to work by their parents in jobs such as the oil field. FYI there are thousands of jobs in the oil field that don’t include oil rigs. Oil companies hire accountants, lawyers, secretaries, pipe fitters, plant operators, welders, inspectors, and the list go on. This whole men on island stuff man I don’t know where you came up that at.
     
  5. AutumnPeace

    AutumnPeace Fapstronaut

    11
    9
    3
    Depends on the society and its culture. To me it is.
     
    Paperweight likes this.
  6. I don't think you know what the fallacy even is. Let me show you:

    A is an authority on a particular topic.

    A says something about that topic.

    A is correct.


    The "argument from authority" assumes that the person's word, because they're an "expert", is the correct one which is absolutely false.

    The A, being in this case, "God" is asserted to be an authority on morality, which is false in of itself, since this assumes that objectively, God exists and that he is indeed moral in the first place.

    Upon God stating words about a particular topic, he is assumed to be correct because he's been asserted as an authority on said subject which is also fallacious.

    You're continuing to assert that God is the proper authority for morality and law, which is not only implies that only God is said authority, it is still the argument from authority regardless of whether or not you believe in God.

    Even if I did still believed in God, I would still be calling you out for your use of a well-known fallacy. However, whether or not I follow God doesn't matter here for obvious reasons.

    You're ignoring my earlier argument when I stated that there are quite a few things in the Bible God does that go against his own Law such as killing over 14,000 Israelites for simply questioning him.

    Using a claimed authority's support as evidence for an argument's conclusion is logically irresponsible and horribly false. Authorities, such as God and "Coco Chanel" must prove their contentions like everybody else. Neither have.

    "Hey, everybody, God is the ultimate creator of the universe, therefore, he knows what's good and what's bad!"

    Are you honestly telling me the above quote is somehow logically valid or am I misunderstanding something here?

    You're only trying to state there's a difference because this is your position and a weak one at that. There is no difference.

    Continuing, your Coco example is false since "good taste in clothing" is largely subjective and only falls even more down the fallacy itself. Such an argument about who dressed well is also subjective. Such arguments are extremely circular.

    In your mock argument example, you would attempt to assert that your argument is the correct one because some authority agrees with you, which is consensus. Consensus ( opinion ) does not prove reality. Opinions don't prove anything.

    I can don my white-coat, hold my clipboard close to me, stand in front of a blackboard and present false findings of an ancient civilization that existed 1,234,567 years ago that were men with asses for faces and noses for dicks that worshipped a "God" that was a giant sponge and his starfish friend. Some idiot could agree with me because I claimed to be an authority on ancient civilizations. But I would be completely incorrect, now wouldn't I?

    Even if the authority was correct, it would still be fallacious because if a person understood what they were talking about, they wouldn't need to cite an authority.

    Ya done yet?
     
  7. There's no need to Reductio Ad Absurdum @Bottomofthemap's argument.
     
  8. Hard work can be good but it's not really the answer. Like people who say keeping busy is the answer to NoFap. Keeping busy might help but it won't stop you from relapsing in the long run.

    This video talks about how pain influences sex addiction:

     
  9. Paperweight

    Paperweight Fapstronaut

    91
    143
    33
    If I understand, the only difference I see between what you and I are saying is that you claim that we also have a moral duty to not harm ourselves for our own sake. I am only claiming that harming ourselves inevitably harms our community and is immoral for that reason.
     
  10. I’m saying it’s both our moral duty to not harm ourselves for our own sake and also for the sake of our community.
     
  11. Paperweight

    Paperweight Fapstronaut

    91
    143
    33
    That's what I thought. I don't think we have a moral duty to ourselves, in that sense. Care to explain your rationale?
     
  12. Paperweight

    Paperweight Fapstronaut

    91
    143
    33
    That's precisely why this isn't a discussion about legality. :)
     
    Deleted Account likes this.
  13. I’m sure you and I will disagree on this but my rationale comes from my belief in that I do not have 100% autonomy because I did not create or will myself into existence; I am not my own. I do not have the moral right to do whatever I want to myself.
     
    Castielle and Paperweight like this.
  14. Paperweight

    Paperweight Fapstronaut

    91
    143
    33
    That's fine, I wasn't intending to argue over this point, I was just interested. I think this disagreement of ours is functionally irrelevant. We each regard personal harm as immoral for the same primary reason, you just have an extra one.

    Thinking about it, I might even agree with your position.
     
    Deleted Account likes this.
  15. Porn is immoral, but the tricky bit is what exactly is it? Judging by how people decide to reset counters around here, it could be almost anything that turns you on.
     
    Paperweight likes this.
  16. Paperweight

    Paperweight Fapstronaut

    91
    143
    33
    It's hard to nail down, and this is especially a problem when it comes to legislation, luckily we don't need to draw those policy lines. We can can still take decisive moral stances in some cases while reserving judgement on more ambiguous ones.
     
    Deleted Account likes this.
  17. ivanhoe

    ivanhoe Fapstronaut

    you are missing the whole point... IF we have the presumption that Coco is the arbitrator of taste in 1920s Paris THEN her statement would prove that x woman did not dress properly.

    Example two:
    If King Hammurabi posts a code that says an eye for an eye, and you ask 'is it the law that a man who has his eye taken by another be allowed to take the eye of the man who did it, I point to the stone and say yes, that IS the law of (that) land.

    Now whether that is moral or just or whatever is opinion if you say "i think the law is wrong' than i say, well it isn't here is the stone THEN THAT is a logical fallacy on my part....

    My point, which you are missing is if one identifies as Christian and believes God is the giver of law and morality than it is not a logical fallacy at all.


    Well, yes that is what those who believe in God say, the devil (sometimes, quite literally :) ) is in the details.
     
    Paperweight likes this.
  18. I like that view.
     
  19. Paperweight

    Paperweight Fapstronaut

    91
    143
    33
    He's saying that if the concept of taste were defined as "the opinion of Coco Chanel", then it is no fallacy.
     
    ivanhoe and Deleted Account like this.
  20. Ah, I see. Then no, it wouldn't be a fallacy.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 1, 2018
    Paperweight likes this.

Share This Page