David Cameron Decides Porn is Bad for You, Blocks All Access to Pornography in UK

[Big Ewis]

Pron is Pron... Wow living up to your grammatically challenged award I see...

Bwhahahahahaha

:lol:
Just wanted to make sure about something: everybody understand heineken is probably the dumbest poster on this forum yeh ? It's limpid to all, yes ?
I can already see the similarly stupid replies following: "and you are too yoe91" except I'm talking real here, not science fiction.
Dude, heineken man, you're really, really dumb man. I'm so sorry dude, really but your comments are borderline that thread with the siege dude and the penalty posts ! :lol:

1. We'll have to agree to disagree that there is an innate nature to everything. Right is right and wrong is wrong is an extremely dogmatic way at looking at the world. Does everyone know what is right and wrong? Because if they do I'd assume we wouldn't be disagreeing as we'd both know right from wrong. And if we don't all know right from wrong, whose right is right? I've never heard of a philosophy major with that view, basically because its so impossible to argue. You say there are norms and then you say there are rigid definitions - as one and the same. Do you not see how that is a contradiction? If something is defined by a generally agreed upon consensus - then it is discursively produced and therefore not innate.
call it what you will, dogmatic, catmatic (har har har)...it's the truth. It IS very possible to argue, it's been done in the past centuries, is being done during our times, and can be done right now. But you must understand I don't have all that much time to talk pure epistemological philosophy on a Rugby Forum nick

2. But now you are condoning censoring works of art that are not as a whole text pornographic. How do you not see that as problematic?
I'm not censoring anything; myself, personally. I'm just saying if the law passes that pron is forbidden, then pron scenes in regular movies will be censored, yes, that is the direct implication of the law. Sure.

3. No you have not. You have made claims that things do have an intrinsic value and that porn is porn is porn - but you have given no logical reason as to why that is - or given me a reason to why porn is not a discursive product. If I've missed you genius logic somewhere feel free to redirect me.
Wow. You're a little angry there. No claims to genius logic, nothing of the sort. Call me a coward if you must, though I'm not, but again, that's about the limit of what I'm willing to write on TRF.

4. I did just use a template in my expression? What are you talking about? By template do you mean a theoretical framework? If so then of course my arguments use frameworks of Foucault and Nietzche - because of relevance to the topic. I'd rather you used some kind of framework to work from other than what you feel to be true - and therefore needs to be accepted as so.
Well you can't be srs there. You'd rather I collect and throw in quotes and template expressions rather than rationalize the problem. I see your point though, ok ok...

5. Once again point to where I am being childish - your using that lazy way of arguing yet again of just labelling something - without addressing it.
If you can't even see it, then maybe that's the problem nick. I can assure you I'm referring to something real.

6. I'm not looking for any social recognition on a rugby forum - and I know I really hurt your feelings that I dismissed your expertise in Philosophy based off two years of uni, but really I think its you that seem to have a complex here. I'm sure that are people here with no uni experience and are extremely bright. Regardless I'm trying to have a discussion relating to the thread.
Okay, there we go. Now you're being childish again. No point in addressing this.

7. Well as I stated above we'll just have to agree to disagree - as you will not provide any logical reason why everything is innate.
Nope, I won't !

 

[nickdnz]

call it what you will, dogmatic, catmatic (har har har)...it's the truth. It IS very possible to argue, it's been done in the past centuries, is being done during our times, and can be done right now. But you must understand I don't have all that much time to talk pure epistemological philosophy on a Rugby Forum nick

2. But now you are condoning censoring works of art that are not as a whole text pornographic. How do you not see that as problematic?
I'm not censoring anything; myself, personally. I'm just saying if the law passes that pron is forbidden, then pron scenes in regular movies will be censored, yes, that is the direct implication of the law. Sure.

3. No you have not. You have made claims that things do have an intrinsic value and that porn is porn is porn - but you have given no logical reason as to why that is - or given me a reason to why porn is not a discursive product. If I've missed you genius logic somewhere feel free to redirect me.
Wow. You're a little angry there. No claims to genius logic, nothing of the sort. Call me a coward if you must, though I'm not, but again, that's about the limit of what I'm willing to write on TRF.

4. I did just use a template in my expression? What are you talking about? By template do you mean a theoretical framework? If so then of course my arguments use frameworks of Foucault and Nietzche - because of relevance to the topic. I'd rather you used some kind of framework to work from other than what you feel to be true - and therefore needs to be accepted as so.
Well you can't be srs there. You'd rather I collect and throw in quotes and template expressions rather than rationalize the problem. I see your point though, ok ok...

5. Once again point to where I am being childish - your using that lazy way of arguing yet again of just labelling something - without addressing it.
If you can't even see it, then maybe that's the problem nick. I can assure you I'm referring to something real.

6. I'm not looking for any social recognition on a rugby forum - and I know I really hurt your feelings that I dismissed your expertise in Philosophy based off two years of uni, but really I think its you that seem to have a complex here. I'm sure that are people here with no uni experience and are extremely bright. Regardless I'm trying to have a discussion relating to the thread.
Okay, there we go. Now you're being childish again. No point in addressing this.

7. Well as I stated above we'll just have to agree to disagree - as you will not provide any logical reason why everything is innate.
Nope, I won't !

1. Fine. We'll assume that everything is innate and fixed, and the reason why you cannot explain it to me is because you lack the sufficient time to do so. I on the other hand have given detailed reasons why things are instead relative and culturally produced, in a very limited time frame - but am wrong because you don't feel I am correct. I'm facinated what historical sources that have argued things are innate - I can only think of religious scholars.

2. Regardless of whether you condone it or not, I don't believe that examining a text everyone will arrive at the same conclusion on what genre it is. Same goes with porn. And I think someone banning something which is not illegle - based on a subjective judgement - is a dangerous road to go down.

3. Hardly angry, although once again you resort to "you mad bro?" type comments. I didn't call you a coward. I'm saying you haven't justified your point. And without providing a reason for something, then the point is of no more value than "eating cheese is immoral, because I say so". It's nothing.

4. Rationalizing something is great, but it requires showing your workings rather than arriving at conclusions. Pleased you see my point though.

5. Okay. Saying someones being "childish" and then "it's there but you can't see it". Very mature.

6. Like, do you even read your own posts?

7. So you agree that you won't provide logical responses as to why everything is innate? It contradicts your other posts but I'll accept it.

 

[j'nuh]

yoe91, I think you're mixing "pornography" and "erotica" as if they were interchangeable. It's generally accepted that there's a distinction between the sex portrayed in Back Door Sluts 6 and Jupiter et Junon (Agostino Carracci).

And although there are terms for these - "pornography" and "erotica" - their definitions can be very subjective, and often very political.

For example, you'd probably want to stop a teacher showing pictures from a porno to a classroom, whilst still granting them access to erotic art for subjects such as sexual education, biology and literature.

But because there's no clear line between the most artistic of pornography, and the most sexually appealing erotic art, the boundaries often get blurred. Add on top political motivations of abstinence-only vs. sex ed. enthusiastic groups, and you end up with very subjective definitions.

What was porn in the USA, may not be porn in Europe. What was porn 30 years ago, may not be porn now. etc.

 

[lucky number 7]

What a pile of ****e. Breach of human rights.


****ing ridiculous , I'm so happy I live in Ireland , decades of sexual repression have gone thankfully and it's perfectly acceptable to tug the guts out of oneself whenever and wherever he so wishes.

I'm going to have a **** to some fantastic porn this evening in honour of all my British comrades who are being subjected to tyrannical abuse that once again takes us a step closer to the Orwellian hell that is 1984.

Big brother is watching you ****.

And **** Cameron.

He mustn't have the balls he was born with.

 

[Big Ewis]

yoe91, I think you're mixing "pornography" and "erotica" as if they were interchangeable. It's generally accepted that there's a distinction between the sex portrayed in Back Door Sluts 6 and Jupiter et Junon (Agostino Carracci).

And although there are terms for these - "pornography" and "erotica" - their definitions can be very subjective, and often very political.

For example, you'd probably want to stop a teacher showing pictures from a porno to a classroom, whilst still granting them access to erotic art for subjects such as sexual education, biology and literature.

But because there's no clear line between the most artistic of pornography, and the most sexually appealing erotic art, the boundaries often get blurred. Add on top political motivations of abstinence-only vs. sex ed. enthusiastic groups, and you end up with very subjective definitions.

What was porn in the USA, may not be porn in Europe. What was porn 30 years ago, may not be porn now. etc.

Hey man.
No, I meant if there's an actual pron scene in a film, then it's......a pron scene in a film (that isn't pron, otherwise).
All I'm saying is call things what they are, for what they are is clear and distinct. There are complex things in this world, defining pron not being among those.
"Roses are red, violets are blue" - and pron is pron.

Pron is pron, again, because two ppl are actually doing it, while their junk is showing...that's it. That's it !

The greater point I'm wielding, and hence my tenacity on this thread, is that people will play Devil's Advocate without even noticing it. They'll face a topic, and start doubting about EVERYTHING about it, thus ultimately losing common sense whilst attempting to attain a so called higher understanding of it, and better definition.

You can 'philosophize' about anything. Grapes aren't really grapes; is the sky really a 'sky' ?! Is Man but Man ?
But that's fake philosophy, it's poetry. It's the opposite of epistemological assessment of things, anti-scientific, and necessarily a Gargantuan waste of time.
More complicated issues do remain, but are clearly elsewhere. This is a pseudo-intellectual, comfortably seated lounge debate. No substance, no point, nothing.

Porn is exactly what you and I and the common man think it is. Erotic is its own thing as well. The sky is in deed the sky, I am myself, and, AGAIN, a pron scene in an otherwise non-pornographic film IS just that; a pron scene in an otherwise non-pornographic film.

 

[j'nuh]

Pron is pron, again, because two ppl are actually doing it, while their junk is showing...that's it. That's it !

That's only part of the definition of porn.

Pornography (noun): printed or visual material containing the explicit description or display of sexual organs or activity, intended to stimulate sexual excitement.​

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/pornography​

So under this definition, when you're in a classroom, and your teacher shows you a cartoon drawing of a couple having penetrative sex, that drawing isn't pornographic as it is drawn with the intention to educate rather than stimulate sexual excitement. Similarly, sex in movies is often done for artistic merit rather than for sexual excitement and so isn't pornographic.

But the definition isn't always agreed upon:

Pornography (noun): obscene writings, drawings, photographs or the like, especially those having little or no artistic merit​

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pornography​

This definition is far less clear-cut. Who decides whether a piece of art has artistic merit, for a start?

Hence, there are two problems that occur when trying to define whether something is pornographic or not:

1. Which definition of porn do we use?
2. If we use a definition that isn't clear-cut, who decides on how to make that definition rigid for the purposes of law?

This leads to subjectivity. It makes the question, "What is porn?" a valid one. If we're going to legislate on this definition, then it's also a question of legal consequence.

The greater point I'm wielding, and hence my tenacity on this thread, is that people will play Devil's Advocate without even noticing it. They'll face a topic, and start doubting about EVERYTHING about it, thus ultimately losing common sense whilst attempting to attain a so called higher understanding of it, and better definition.

Reaching unambiguous definitions is a very important aspect of policy-making.

For example, let's say a traffic law said that "vehicles must stay on the road" and there is no further explanation. This would be far too ambiguous for a legal definition. Are bicycles and prams considered vehicles? Does this mean you cannot cross the path to get into your garage? Is parking half on the pavement allowed?

Similarly, by using your definition of pornography, we end up blocking arts such as movies or sexual education resources. Do we want to do that? Is that the purpose of the law?

Porn is exactly what you and I and the common man think it is. Erotic is its own thing as well. The sky is in deed the sky, I am myself, and, AGAIN, a pron scene in an otherwise non-pornographic film IS just that; a pron scene in an otherwise non-pornographic film.

But we cannot agree here. I'm of the view that since the sex scene isn't written to sexually excite someone, then it isn't porn, it's erotica.

May I end this by saying, what has my life become?

 

[Big Ewis]

^ haha, your life seems fine from here buddy !

But:
I understand the *intention* argument. But what I meant was a regular movie, with an actual pron scene -
people ACTUALLY having sex (not acting), junk and full nudity showing.
First of all, it can't be erotica because that would be an ambiguous choice of word as erotica is usually everything BUT full nudity and depiction of the act.

Whether it is intended to give you a boner and (and then you start touching yourself) or not, though I totally understand your point, still isn't fully relevant here. It's almost like, in parallel fashion, some drunk/sedated person committing an act without being conscious - the act still is committed, and everything from there ensues like it would had the person been conscious. It's the same result, no matter the intention. In this example, let's say he crashed the car. The car is fkd, whether it was the intention or not.

In nature, that scene is pornography. There are no two ways about it. It can then be, say, artistic pron, in all kinds of direction; serve a great purpose in the film; be a fantastic transition in the story structure, or wtvr....BUT...
but but but but but BUT...it is pron. It is obviously pron. As a distinctive component of the larger entity (that is the film).

P.S.: Oh and about the school thing, well if it fits my aforementioned acceptation of pron then I'd say it's pron. If they're doing it, everything showing...then it's pron.
UNLESS it's the coldest thing ever, intended to be that way so that it doesn't get kids excited (like covering certain parts, doing it, I dunno, like machines with no expression no passion...).

I think for educational purposes, it's imperative authorities un-porn the act as much as possible. Because watching a couple doing it, enjoying it, and junk showing is stimulating naturally. So in a way, pron naturally 'occurs' if all the criteria are there. As people, we're naturally aroused by such a sight, spontaneously *entertained*.
There's no way they could show such a thing. They'd have to censor, desensitize it the best possible way. Which is what they do...I dunno, never had sex education in the French system.

 

[nickdnz]

Hey man.
No, I meant if there's an actual pron scene in a film, then it's......a pron scene in a film (that isn't pron, otherwise).
All I'm saying is call things what they are, for what they are is clear and distinct. There are complex things in this world, defining pron not being among those.
"Roses are red, violets are blue" - and pron is pron.

Pron is pron, again, because two ppl are actually doing it, while their junk is showing...that's it. That's it !

The greater point I'm wielding, and hence my tenacity on this thread, is that people will play Devil's Advocate without even noticing it. They'll face a topic, and start doubting about EVERYTHING about it, thus ultimately losing common sense whilst attempting to attain a so called higher understanding of it, and better definition.

You can 'philosophize' about anything. Grapes aren't really grapes; is the sky really a 'sky' ?! Is Man but Man ?
But that's fake philosophy, it's poetry. It's the opposite of epistemological assessment of things, anti-scientific, and necessarily a Gargantuan waste of time.
More complicated issues do remain, but are clearly elsewhere. This is a pseudo-intellectual, comfortably seated lounge debate. No substance, no point, nothing.

Porn is exactly what you and I and the common man think it is. Erotic is its own thing as well. The sky is in deed the sky, I am myself, and, AGAIN, a pron scene in an otherwise non-pornographic film IS just that; a pron scene in an otherwise non-pornographic film.

First - why not stay consistent and call it porn. Pron makes you sound unable to discuss something with maturity.

I'm not arguing from a kind of philosophical skeptist perspective. I'm arguing that porn is a cultural text which is constructed, and therefore is open to interpretation. You claim that my point is some kind of fake philosophy? What is real philosophy oh great one? J'nuh has hit the nail on the head, in that because there is no innate nature to something which is culturally produced - we have different views on what porn is. The reason this is important is because it relates to what we are talking about - in whose definition of pornography do we all have to subscribe to for everything else to be banned. It's not a question which is so far removed from reality - its in fact incredibly related to the topic.

Guess what? Not everything is innate. Things are subjective. For a start I reject your definition of porn. I think porn isn't just graphically portraying a male and female having sex. I don't think a graphic sex scene in a horror movie counts as porn. I think porn is a meta-genre which have several notable asthetic, ideological and production features - all of which are up for debate and relevant to cultural perspectives. Prove to me why my definition is wrong and yours is correct.

Common sense isn't accepting what you automatically believe and criticizing everything that falls outside of that - you've confused common sense with ignorance. You're welcome to call it a great waste of time - however the works of Descartes, Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, Nietzsche, Hume and Kant all argued about 'what is knowledge" and criticized an inherent truth or the ability to attain it. If you don't consider them worth discussing I question exactly what you were doing in second year Philosophy.

 

[Big Ewis]

First - why not stay consistent and call it porn. Pron makes you sound unable to discuss something with maturity.

I'm not arguing from a kind of philosophical skeptist perspective. I'm arguing that porn is a cultural text which is constructed, and therefore is open to interpretation. You claim that my point is some kind of fake philosophy? What is real philosophy oh great one? J'nuh has hit the nail on the head, in that because there is no innate nature to something which is culturally produced - we have different views on what porn is. The reason this is important is because it relates to what we are talking about - in whose definition of pornography do we all have to subscribe to for everything else to be banned. It's not a question which is so far removed from reality - its in fact incredibly related to the topic.

Guess what? Not everything is innate. Things are subjective. For a start I reject your definition of porn. I think porn isn't just graphically portraying a male and female having sex. I don't think a graphic sex scene in a horror movie counts as porn. I think porn is a meta-genre which have several notable asthetic, ideological and production features - all of which are up for debate and relevant to cultural perspectives. Prove to me why my definition is wrong and yours is correct.

Common sense isn't accepting what you automatically believe and criticizing everything that falls outside of that - you've confused common sense with ignorance. You're welcome to call it a great waste of time - however the works of Descartes, Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, Nietzsche, Hume and Kant all argued about 'what is knowledge" and criticized an inherent truth or the ability to attain it. If you don't consider them worth discussing I question exactly what you were doing in second year Philosophy.

In bold, the reasons why I won't reply. You're angry, childish and insulting therefor don't deserve my patience or my knowledge/arguing.
Just this:
no, the things we've discussed aren't subjective, they're objective. And naming/quoting philosophers is nice...

 

[nickdnz]

In bold, the reasons why I won't reply. You're angry, childish and insulting therefor don't deserve my patience or my knowledge/arguing.
Just this:
no, the things we've discussed aren't subjective, they're objective. And naming/quoting philosophers is nice...

And you are unable to contribute to a discussion by providing any logical argument for your assertions, so resort to calling names. You have made no valid point and instead continually say you won't reply, which you're failing miserably at as well.

 

[Feicarsinn]

Obviously the issues discussed are subjective if there are a lot of people even from the limited TRF community who hold differing views. Generally anything that can't be backed up with rigorous facts, figures and statistics tends to be rather subjective.

 

[Big Ewis]

^ :lol:

 

[Big Ewis]

And you are unable to contribute to a discussion by providing any logical argument for your assertions, so resort to calling names. You have made no valid point and instead continually say you won't reply, which you're failing miserably at as well.

OH YEAH ?!!!! Well here's a fact for you !!!:
Craig Joubert received a hefty bonus in his bank account before the 2011 Final, from NZ Rugby authorities !

There, I said it !!!

 

[Feicarsinn]

^ :lol:

Another stunning response, You truly are an intellectual ***an.

 

[TRF_heineken]

OH YEAH ?!!!! Well here's a fact for you !!!:
Craig Joubert received a hefty bonus in his bank account before the 2011 Final, from NZ Rugby authorities !

There, I said it !!!

Ooh, getting angry are we?

WTF does this have to do with the topic??!!

Once again an epic fail from you!

 

[Big Ewis]

Another stunning response, You truly are an intellectual ***an.

Ooh, getting angry are we?

WTF does this have to do with the topic??!!

Once again an epic fail from you!

Anyone ? We all see it, right ? just makin sure here !

 

[cyRil]

What's going on here now en?

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Boobs n fannies n stuff

Sent from my GT-I9305 using Rugby Forum mobile app

 

[SelimNiai]

What's going on here now en?

Boobs n fannies n stuff

Sent from my GT-I9305 using Rugby Forum mobile app

You know, the usual

 

[Big Ewis]

What's going on here now en?

not much, trrrrust me !! :lol:

Let's PLEASE get right back to talking about the problem at hand here, clearly, okay ?...the dis-appreciation of anal sex.