women and pornography
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 847
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by Ash,Jul 15 2006, 03:35 AM
Maybe I'm bit callous or cynical. Somehow in my blockbuster queue, Syrianna and The Constant Gardener were sent to me back to back. In short - Syrianna was supposed to portray the US involvement in oil countries, the Constant Gardener was supposed to depict pharmacutical firms using 3rd world countries as testing grounds. In neither cases, were the actions taken humane, but so long as people were getting "their cut," it is allowed to continue.
As for the other, I believe morality to be a set of ideals or standards which constantly changes to include or exclude whoever the person pointing the finger wants. My point is that there doesn't need to be a finger pointing at all, or we don't need to value what the finger pointer says either.
As for the other, I believe morality to be a set of ideals or standards which constantly changes to include or exclude whoever the person pointing the finger wants. My point is that there doesn't need to be a finger pointing at all, or we don't need to value what the finger pointer says either.
As for your definition of morality here, it makes more sense to me. But the whole "finger pointing" classification is a bit strange. For example who are these "finger pointers", and why (in a deeper sense) do they want to point fingers. Obviously you don't think that there are solidified morals, ideals, standards, dictated by a higher being? And if that is the case, if morals are man-made, then there is no reason to be at all moral?
I dunno, I think you have interesting ideas, just trying to flesh them out.
-----
shotiable Posted on Jul 15 2006, 09:14 AM
how'd this go from $$$$$$ being acceptable to morality to ethics?
You answered your own question and don't even know it.
I admit it is a bit off topic from the OP, but only insofar as continuation/general moral talk and not something totally different.
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 2,507
Likes: 0
From: Mountain View
Originally Posted by IheartS2ks,Jul 15 2006, 01:08 PM
As for your definition of morality here, it makes more sense to me. But the whole "finger pointing" classification is a bit strange. For example who are these "finger pointers", and why (in a deeper sense) do they want to point fingers. Obviously you don't think that there are solidified morals, ideals, standards, dictated by a higher being? And if that is the case, if morals are man-made, then there is no reason to be at all moral?
I dunno, I think you have interesting ideas, just trying to flesh them out.
-----
shotiable Posted on Jul 15 2006, 09:14 AM
how'd this go from $$$$$$ being acceptable to morality to ethics?
You answered your own question and don't even know it.
I admit it is a bit off topic from the OP, but only insofar as continuation/general moral talk and not something totally different.
I dunno, I think you have interesting ideas, just trying to flesh them out.
-----
shotiable Posted on Jul 15 2006, 09:14 AM
how'd this go from $$$$$$ being acceptable to morality to ethics?
You answered your own question and don't even know it.
I admit it is a bit off topic from the OP, but only insofar as continuation/general moral talk and not something totally different.
The "Finger Pointers" are the ones that say "XXX is wrong and shouldn't be done." Puritans, conservative people, people who would dictate values for the masses and restrict personal freedom.
I do NOT believe there is a solidified set of morals. Maybe there is a rough set, but I think that the people who try and dictate these, do so to change whatever their needs are, whatever threatens them, or whatever they feel like it is their duty in life as being more knowledgeable or higher or smarter people.
Morals are man-made. Are there reallly any questions about this? Some animals polygamize, but this is widely frowned upon in today's society for people, but maybe not in the past?
Religion, and its role in society, and it's abiltiy to control the masses is the most common tool to keep people ignorant, keep them from being educated, and keep the gap between the "haves" and "have nots." Largely the reason for a high amount of instability in the middle east is their high reliance on religion and lack of infrastructure. If you want to bring it closer to home, why did Bush win over Kerry? Because he won the "Bible States," and yet look at his popular rating now. The people heard what they wanted to hear(good sheep), so they voted for him, and now look where we are. Many believe that we have a lame-duck for the next 2 years.
Please let it be known that I'm not necessarily in objection to the values of being moral, I just don't like the decision being made for me.
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 2,897
Likes: 1
From: Cherry Hill, NJ
Originally Posted by IheartS2ks,Jul 15 2006, 04:08 PM
But the whole "finger pointing" classification is a bit strange. For example who are these "finger pointers", and why (in a deeper sense) do they want to point fingers. Obviously you don't think that there are solidified morals, ideals, standards, dictated by a higher being? And if that is the case, if morals are man-made, then there is no reason to be at all moral?
The idea that morals are dictated by a higher being is again a strictly religious argument. Why do you have to be religious to be nice to people? Religion is used as a stick - if you don't follow our rules you'll burn in hell/get a sheep instead of 1,000 vestal virgins, etc.
Treating people as you would like to be treated has nothing to do with religion. It's just common sense.
Read Carl Sagan's book, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark, if you want to get a great viewpoint from a non-religious person. As he says, "the siren song of unreason is not just a cultural wrong but a dangerous plunge into darkness that threatens our most basic freedoms."
He also provides a "baloney detection kit" for thinking through political, social, religious, and other issues, which most people need to read.
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 22,888
Likes: 3
From: Covington WA, USA
It's a basic fact of biology that both men and women tend to like sex and sexual situations just as much, but exactly WHICH sexual situations is quite a different matter. (On average -- of course the range of individuals is much wider than the difference between the averages.)
Women are usually the ones who are selective about their partners. If they were easily turned on by random sex or the sight of naked men, that would make it hard for them to be choosy. All a guy would have to do is flash a woman, and she would be seduced -- not the way it works. But once they are in a situation where they have already made the choice, then they are as likely as men to get turned on.
Men, on the other hand, are genetically programmed to be very unchoosy. They get turned on by all kinds of random things, but especially the sight of naked women. So men are a lot more likely to be turned on by this stuff in general, but women may find it quite stimulating in the correct setting and a big turnoff otherwise.
Women are usually the ones who are selective about their partners. If they were easily turned on by random sex or the sight of naked men, that would make it hard for them to be choosy. All a guy would have to do is flash a woman, and she would be seduced -- not the way it works. But once they are in a situation where they have already made the choice, then they are as likely as men to get turned on.
Men, on the other hand, are genetically programmed to be very unchoosy. They get turned on by all kinds of random things, but especially the sight of naked women. So men are a lot more likely to be turned on by this stuff in general, but women may find it quite stimulating in the correct setting and a big turnoff otherwise.
