Why is masturbation considered healthy, but watching pornography is considered unhealthy? - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Provision of the two UN HDI indicators other than GNP.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14945676
In relation to porn, if it was realistic to restrict access to it, most nations would have done more than they currently do by now. You can place age restrictions on legitimate national sites, but what about foriegn underground sites? Monitoring the activity of your children is the only way to prevent them seeing porn on the Internet - which is infested with Ponographic images and movies.

As for porn being unhealthy. It has links to impotence. If you are OK with that, then flap away my incel neighbour.
#14945678
Victoribus Spolia wrote:the greater good (collectivist utilitarianism


The greater good is not the same as the common good.

Your standard is ultimately "the greater good" and what you pragmatically admit is still ultimately based on this main criteria.


The greater good is the optimal balance of the rights of the individual with social utility, with broader historical and developmental concerns, as well as personal virtue. All of these things have a moral weight that we're obligated to recognize and respect, they're integral and intrinsic to the greater good and not just pragmatic requirements for achieving it.

Hence, you are a utilitarian or a consequentialist, not a syncretic.


I'm not sure how you're defining syncretic but for me it's recognizing that there's some validity in each of the competing theories without taking any of one of them as an absolute.
#14945682
Sivad wrote:I'm not sure how you're defining syncretic but for me it's recognizing that there's some validity in each of the competing theories without taking any of one of them as an absolute.


Thats like saying "I'm a syncretic and not a utilitarian" because "I accept all ideas from all ethical schools; whether normative, pragmatic, divine-command, egoist, existential, and deontological"......."so long as they are utilitarian." :lol:

The criteria of "for the greatest good" is itself an ethical standard, and so if all moral positions are judged by that standard, you cannot call your position "syncretic."

For Instance, I could say "I accept ideas from utilitarianism, egoism, humanism, and Kant's categorical imperative......as long as they can find some sort of support in Sacred Scripture; therefore i'm an ethical syncretic, not a divine-command theorist." That would obviously be untrue.

Sivad wrote:The greater good is the optimal balance of the rights of the individual with social utility, with broader historical and developmental concerns, as well as personal virtue. All of these things have a moral weight that we're obligated to recognize and respect, they're integral and intrinsic to the greater good and not just pragmatic requirements for achieving it.


Sure, but that is still your ultimate ethical standard and so you can't use it as your "litmus" test for which ethical concepts make it on your plate off of the buffet of moral philosophy and then tell me you're a "syncretic." You're not.

I for one reject the greatest good as my standard. I don't think ethical values can be calculated that way without committing some sort of fallacy.
#14945689
Victoribus Spolia wrote:The criteria of "for the greatest good" is itself an ethical standard, and so if all moral positions are judged by that standard, you cannot call your position "syncretic."


You're confused, you're taking it to mean the standard determines the principles and that's exactly backwards. The standard is determined by the validity of the principles.
#14945694
Sivad wrote:You're confused, you're taking it to mean the standard determines the principles and that's exactly backwards. The standard is determined by the validity of the principles.


Semantics.

Whether you call it a "standard" or a "principle" is irrelevant, the fact remains that you are using a specific value as a governing criteria for what is included in your moral pantheon and ethical smorgasbord.

That governing value is not syncreticism, its utilitarianism.

You are a utilitarian.

If you were a syncretic, you would "theoretically" accept certain moral positions even if they were not for the "greatest good."

But you don't, because you judge ethical positions taken in various moral schools based on your governing value/standard/principle which is exclusively utilitarian.


So quit pretending you are some sort of open-minded moral selectivist.

You are no more a syncretic than the Borg in Star Trek are multi-cultural cosmopolitans simply because they "Assimilate" from all groups and technologies. :lol:
#14945706
Victoribus Spolia wrote:Semantics.
you are using a specific value as a governing criteria


I'm arriving at a specific value by weighing the various principles. The greater good is not predetermined and then justified post hoc, it's discovered through rational evaluation of the relevant moral factors.
#14945709
Sivad wrote:
I'm arriving at a specific value by weighing the various principles. The greater good is not predetermined and then justified post hoc, it's discovered through rational evaluation of the relevant moral factors.


If that is the case, then how did you conclude that the "greatest good" was the most rational moral value?
#14945739
Victoribus Spolia wrote:If that is the case, then how did you conclude that the "greatest good" was the most rational moral value?


The concept of the greater good is derived from the understanding that there are multiple relevant competing and conflicting values. It's not the most rational moral value, it's the proper weighting of all the values.
#14945757
Victoribus Spolia wrote:If you think that is fair, I don't see why you would be opposed to the pornography industry being regulated to protect children from viewing it when real psychological and social harm is quite evident.
I have no problem with them regulating the porn industry, but I do have a problem with some guy who can barely operate his computer, suggesting you regulate the internet because he's too lazy to watch his kids.

Two ways to prevent your kids from seeing porn:
1) Education
2) Computer programs.

I do not need to pay for your parenting, simply because you don't want to take the time to install a program and/or educate your child as to the dangers of pornography.
#14945922
ccdan wrote:The only "exploitation" and "suffering" and "pain" related to the vast majority of porn is strictly in the heads of people like you. In actual reality porn actors are happy because they get paid well and sometimes even enjoy the stuff they're doing.


How many porn actors do you know and talk with regularly? Some do it because they have no other means to support themselves and their family, not everyone can afford college or can bear the routine that comes with attending higher education institutions. Not all of them love the work and how often are they forced to do things that they don't want to do? The things that go on when the camera is off is part of the exploitation that I mentioned. Is it the best way for them to live? How many are sex slaves? We really don't know.

I agree with pants of dog. Porn is not always realistic and can harm relationships. Some consider porn watching to be a form of cheating. The other lover is left wondering if they are enough, like desirable enough or sexy enough and this can damage their confidence.
#14945942
yes, @MistyTiger if you already have confidence issues, it can do that, but I know a few couples who watch porn not only because it gets them in the mood, but it also gives them new ideas for sex, and they don't have unrealistic expectations about their partner.

Making that assumption is similar to watching Dr. House cure someone in an hour, then complaining that your own doctor can't do the same. Most people are very well aware of the unrealistic behavior being exhibited. More teenager boys would be into pizza delivery, otherwise. ;)

Yes, it can be unhealthy if you watch too much and have unrealistic expectations, or an already unhealthy sex-life. This applies to all the so-called "vices", however.
#14945949
Godstud wrote:yes, @MistyTiger if you already have confidence issues, it can do that, but I know a few couples who watch porn not only because it gets them in the mood, but it also gives them new ideas for sex, and they don't have unrealistic expectations about their partner.

Making that assumption is similar to watching Dr. House cure someone in an hour, then complaining that your own doctor can't do the same. Most people are very well aware of the unrealistic behavior being exhibited. More teenager boys would be into pizza delivery, otherwise. ;)

Yes, it can be unhealthy if you watch too much and have unrealistic expectations, or an already unhealthy sex-life. This applies to all the so-called "vices", however.


I get what you're saying. You are talking about mature couples. But what about the immature on again off again couples? Or the horny adults who are addicted to porn or want all sexual experiences to look like what they see online or in videos? The world glorifies sex and many uneducated people cannot tell what's fantasy and what's real. They just want it.

It is so easy to have vices with so much technology and material at our fingertips. Most people don't consider overspending a vice, but I do. And with a high divorce rate in the US, how can we expect the young to live healthy, let alone know what a healthy sex life is? I am sad for the miserable kids or those kids who didn't have 2 normal parents in their lives.
#14946064
First off the age of consent for women in soft porn should be reduced. 18 is absurdly high. However with that caveat we should focus our efforts on stopping child porn. This is a massive task. Already a significant proportion of our prison populations are child porn offenders and all the signs are that that proportion will continue to grow. I expect in a few years, the majority of prisoners in western countries will be for child sex offences.

Children should be protected from paedophile predators whether that child lives in new York, Mecca or Islamabad. Stamping out child rape in the world is an even bigger undertaking. Beware the fake ultra feminists who are actually consciously or unconsciously seeking to protect Muslim paedophile predators.
#14946066
A lot of porn is dehumanising and degrading and gives the viewer a warped view of sexuality. Real sex involves touching and being touched, not banging at a weird angle so the audience gets a better view. Real people have faces and personalities and aren't disembodied body parts that get inserted into other bodies in the same positions and the same order every session.

Also, shaving makes people look pre-pubescent and stubble is disgusting.

On the plus side increased access to porn is correlated with a decrease in sexual assault and rape so I'd say it's the specific content that is the problem.
#14946134
Truth To Power wrote:It's obvious that this woman hates male sexuality for being visually oriented because she is so visually repulsive.


TTP's Mic Drop. Simply Savage Bruh.

Image

@Verv , yes, most of that post is formatted as i[…]

The U.S. foreign-born population reached a record[…]

The Outrage Exchange

Also, I'm actually in Hong Kong and while I've av[…]

I think most of Antifa would enjoy being labelled […]