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: 584322" data-attributes="member: 38640"><p>First - why not stay consistent and call it porn. Pron makes you sound unable to discuss something with maturity.</p><p></p><p>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 <em>real </em>philosophy oh great one? J'nuh has hit the nail on the head, in that because there is <strong>no </strong>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. </p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="nickdnz, post: 584322, member: 38640"] 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 [I]real [/I]philosophy oh great one? J'nuh has hit the nail on the head, in that because there is [B]no [/B]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. [/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