Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
Forums
Other Stuff
The Clubhouse Bar
David Cameron Decides Porn is Bad for You, Blocks All Access to Pornography in UK
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="nickdnz" data-source="post: 584234" data-attributes="member: 38640"><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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?</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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 <em>feel</em> to be true - and therefore needs to be accepted as so.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="nickdnz, post: 584234, member: 38640"] 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. 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? 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. 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 [I]feel[/I] to be true - and therefore needs to be accepted as so. 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. 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. 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. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Other Stuff
The Clubhouse Bar
David Cameron Decides Porn is Bad for You, Blocks All Access to Pornography in UK
Top