The nature of religon

Originally Posted by Minion

Well, we all do. Whether you call it religion or society. You weren't born knowing the difference.

No we don't. We weren't born knowing the difference, no. However, genuinely self-effacing people actually take the time to sit there and realize how their actions have negative effects on people. Same people don't need people/religion/society/whatever telling them something is 'wrong,' but reach their on conclusions on 'wrong' based on how it affects people.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Oh wait. You must be one of those people that understand 'wrong' as absolute. Nevermind.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Minion

Perhaps it's just me, but you're not making a great deal of sense.

I'm basically saying that your responds gave away some huge flags on how your mind probably evaluates 'right' and 'wrong.' Because I didn't want to get off topic, which I will if I took the time to arugue against your statement, I just said nevermind.

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by Minion

I don't think you would be going off topic much by answering my question. It's a simple question. How do you know your preception of right and wrong or what "affects people" is valid?

A better question would be, how do the alleged dictators of right and wrong, like society, religion, whatever, know its understanding of right and wrong is valid?

In order for me to respond more appropriately, I’d have to get into the nature of right and wrong, not so much religion. I really don’t feel like doing that.

Originally Posted by Fyodor D

Minion was saying that your interpretation of what actions might and might not affect other people can vary from person to person, and as such, that sort of standard ("only you can be the judge of whether what you do is right and wrong") is an unreliable system within which to work in…

I understand what he’s saying. I’m choosing to back off because to continue forward would mean opening up a can of worms I don’t feel like getting into. But, I can’t resist this one:

Take your porn scenario for example. On what basis do you have to say that porn causes people to develop intimacy issues, the fact that a correlation exists? This may be true, but I’ll never forget this scenario purpose to be me before:

Let’s say you were driving to work on the freeway. You happen to notice ten broken down cars on the road. In every instance a person was sitting on the hood of the car. They also were all taking to someone on their phone. Is it logical to assume that because they are all talking to someone on the hood of their car, that this is the cause of their car breaking down?

Now, let’s apply this to porn. Is it that porn is causing these things to happen. Or, is that indulging in porn is the affect of greater issues within people. Is it unreasonable to assume that people who already have underlining intimacy issue for reasons totally outside of pornography turn to porn because it allows them to be sexually satisfied without having to be intimate with another person? Who’s to say what is what, objectively? It not as easy as saying “there are numerous other reasons why pornography is wrong” because ‘wrong’ is variable.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

I wonder if I'm the only person that sees that you still haven't explained how pornography causes intimacy issues. You basically just said because it happens frequently, you consider it a causation. But, I guess that's another topic.

I was speaking idiomatically.

I really admire how you probably sat there actively chose to use the word "can't" instead of the more accurate word "won't", cute. Thanks for the article though, I'll read when I get off work.

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by Minion

Ah, I see. It's not that you have trouble communicating your ideas; just that you are far too brilliant to bother with such a trifle as me.

Pick one!

[_] Man, it’s boring
[_] Duuuuuuuuuuuuh
[y] Incapable of seeing the obvious
[_] What!?

Originally Posted by Minion

Enjoy the article. I hope you find that it is not beneath your intellectual requirements.

I didn't. But I loved how it was mostly about addictions to pornography and not how/why porn - itself - is bad. I mean, usually when something becomes an addiction, it tends to be bad. But I don't know man. What do you hold responsible, the person or the object? Don’t bother answering that, because ‘the answer’ isn't even relevant to the topic. The fact that multiple angles exists of seeing the issue, without something to arbitrate what's 'wrong' absolutely, still backs up my original point. You can't just say it's wrong. You can say, "I understand it as wrong because [insert reasoning]."

FELIPE NO

Ummm, you do know that the context of that piece was still in reference too those addicted to pornography, right?

Quote:

The issue which has caught the attention of some behavioral scientists is whether it is the violence or the sex that is doing most of the "harm" when it is fused together in so-called aggressive pornography or porno-violence. Some will say, "Just eliminate the violence. The sex is OK."

^The thesis of the selection that you conveniently chose not to quote.

What’s being deciphered here is “harm,” in which “harm” is being defined as the effects of addiction previously mentioned in the essay. ANYTHING can be detrimental when it become an addiction. This does not necessarily make it inherently wrong, absolutely. Fuck.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Man, you must really enjoy arguing. Because now, you’re just nitpicking.

So I didn’t use the formally correct term for thesis. Well whoop-dee-doo. If you want to be a prick, and call out ridiculous technicalities, technically, an antithesis is still a fucking thesis. It’s just a thesis that opposes the opposition’s. That’s exactly what I fucking said in my post. Are we really so hung up on totally stupid and irrelevant shit, that w.e. h.a.v.e. t.o. s.p.e.l.l. o.u.t. e.v.e.r.y. f.u.c.k.i.n.g t.h.i.n.g. l.i.k.e. t.h.i.s?

As far as causation goes, you guys line of logic is the same line of logic that asserts that video games and music “causes” violence. You can even think that it does if you want. I don’t care, I really don’t. I’m saying that it’s not as black and white as you’re making it out to be on the objective scale, damn. The gray area is what line of influence from an object “causes” the problem. This is the reason why I didn’t want to get into with you people that always think in absolute terms. You people consistently miss very basic points, take totally irrelevant crap, and beat a dead horse with it. Am I saying:

Person A analyzes a situation, whether it’s porn or whatever.
Person A concludes result A is ‘right.’

Person B analyzes the same situation, same facts.
Person B concludes that result B is ‘right.’

Without an objective entity (note not necessarily even ‘god’ because an objective entity could be something like the laws of physics) evaluating one of them as ‘right’ or 'wrong' their conclusions are relative to their analysis of ‘what is.’

I don’t care if you consider porn to be wrong or not. My point wasn’t even to say that porn is some perfectly angelical gift of sex viewing that does absolutely no harm to anyone in any instance. My point was to say that porn, in your opinion is wrong TO YOU because of your line of reason. I don’t agree with your line of reason, in the respect of it being a 'cause', no. But unlike you people, I’m not even trying to say that my line of reasoning is the ‘right one.’ Out of nowhere, you people keep assuming that I am. That’s why I didn’t bother answers Minion’s retarded question. His question assumed something that I never even declared in the first place. It’s like someone asking me “what’s the best shade of blue” when I JUST got done talking about how there is no best.

FINALLY, even your last statement isn't as black and white as you're making it to be. Yes, my own opinions of 'right' and 'wrong' are not going to be consistent with everybody. Get off the fucking notion that I think it will be, I never said it would. But is this conflict any different when society, religion, culture, or whatever says something is 'right' and 'wrong' and another group opposes this notion then have all out wars about it? Who's too say which one is better? What statically defines 'best' as you put it?

Because of this, fundementally what this thread is going to boil down to is right and wrong relative or absolute? Out of the 3 years I've been reading this forum, It's been done to death and I'm sick of even reading about it, let alone writing about it.

Jam it back in, in the dark.