A question you should not ask?

julio
atheist
Posts: 290
Joined: 2008-12-27
User is offlineOffline
A question you should not ask?

Is Google promoting PORN?


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
No, people just use it to

No, people just use it to find some.

 

 

 


Stosis
Posts: 327
Joined: 2008-10-21
User is offlineOffline
They might be and also they

They might be and also they should be. You know enhance customer service and all that.


julio
atheist
Posts: 290
Joined: 2008-12-27
User is offlineOffline
Dr. Phil [I heard him

Dr. Phil [I heard him saying] wants porn out of the Internet, but he refers only to child porn, forgetting, maybe cynically, that adult porn grows from child porn, which he opposes.
But the question: where is all that immorality taking society? That’s the question!
Is Google “supporting” child porn?…
That’s the rephrasing of the first question.

No gods with indirect messages to me.


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
julio wrote:Dr. Phil [I

julio wrote:
Dr. Phil [I heard him saying] wants porn out of the Internet, but he refers only to child porn, forgetting, maybe cynically, that adult porn grows from child porn, which he opposes.

Non-torture adult porn is essentially harmless. Child porn is the violation of a child. One does not necessarily "grow" from the other, especially since child porn is a heavy taboo, and adult porn is produced largely for money.

julio wrote:
But the question: where is all that immorality taking society? That’s the question! Is Google “supporting” child porn?… That’s the rephrasing of the first question.

What do you consider immoral? Personally, I'd consider child pornography immoral, but adult pornography, largely not. It's when it starts getting into the films where they beat up or torture women -- that's where I'd draw the line personally.

But that's me. Where's your line?

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


julio
atheist
Posts: 290
Joined: 2008-12-27
User is offlineOffline
But here is a very sinister

But here is a very sinister question: Is sexual promiscuity via the pornography route [supported by Google & Internet, somehow] an end in itself to create STD [or VD] and thus help reduce the world’s population?
What is this plague of STDs costing us the taxpayer?
Is WAR on Internet Porn sound policy?

No gods with indirect messages to me.


TomJ
atheist
TomJ's picture
Posts: 112
Joined: 2008-01-20
User is offlineOffline
Sinister?

It is false to think that Internet pornography -> promiscuity -> STDs -> world population reduction.  Humans, being a social creature, are naturally promiscuous but we can be monogamous as well.  STDs are spread quicker by promiscuity, but we can have safer promiscuity by using condoms.  We also have modern antibiotics for most STDs.  AIDS is a huge problem in Africa, but they don't have universal access to Internet porn like we do here in the developed world.  So your thought chain doesn't work in Africa.

A war on Internet porn is like planting trees in your yard and wondering why there' are leaves everywhere.  Humans have sex and it's on the Internet because it's what humans like to talk about.  You must be aware that sex is needed for the human species to survive.  Sex is so important to us, that we use our technology to enhance it. Should we ban Viagra too?

Remember how you figured out there is no Santa? Well, their god is just like Santa. They just haven’t figured out he’s not real yet.


julio
atheist
Posts: 290
Joined: 2008-12-27
User is offlineOffline
It is a large band of gray,

It is a large band of gray, what we call morality, but surely promiscuity is morally damaging to society overall.

No gods with indirect messages to me.


geirj
geirj's picture
Posts: 719
Joined: 2007-06-19
User is offlineOffline
julio wrote:but surely

julio wrote:
but surely promiscuity is morally damaging to society overall.

When you talk about morality and sex, it's a slippery slope from the beginning. Some people find the act of two unmarried people having sex to be immoral. If one person has sex with several other people and uses the appropriate protection, what is immoral about it if nobody is hurt?

Nobody I know was brainwashed into being an atheist.

Why Believe?


Renee Obsidianwords
High Level DonorModeratorRRS local affiliateSilver Member
Renee Obsidianwords's picture
Posts: 1388
Joined: 2007-03-29
User is offlineOffline
I enjoy porn. My husband

I enjoy porn. My husband enjoys porn. We enjoy porn. We are married and monogamous and a search for porn on Google is enjoyable to us.

There are SO many views on sexuality and porn that it would be impossible to claim porn is okay or porn is bad.

Some may use the search to enhance their sex life.

Some may use it to build on crazy fantasies that could lead to violence.

We all have our own desires and fantasies.

To say that Google is 'promoting porn' is off base. Google is only a search engine guiding someone in their own search for porn. If there is a segment of the population that doesn't want porn on their google then

A) Filter it

or

B) Don't look for it

Slowly building a blog at ~

http://obsidianwords.wordpress.com/


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
How about one question at a

How about one question at a time?

julio wrote:
Is sexual promiscuity via the pornography route an end in itself to create STD [or VD] and thus help reduce the world’s population?

You just assumed yourself through that entire question.

Assumption 1: pornography leads to widespread sexual promiscuity

Assumption 2: widespread sexual promiscuity leads to the creation of STDs

Assumption 3: STDs reduce the world's population

1. Dunno

2. I used to work in a medical testing facility. So many people have STDs that you could hardly add to the number by watching porn. Seriously.

3. Why would there be so much sexual disease in areas with growing populations?

julio wrote:
What is this plague of STDs costing us the taxpayer?

Now you're just being silly.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
julio wrote:It is a large

julio wrote:
It is a large band of gray, what we call morality, but surely promiscuity is morally damaging to society overall.

Really? Why?

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


julio
atheist
Posts: 290
Joined: 2008-12-27
User is offlineOffline
It’s a matter you learn

It’s a matter you learn earlier and earlier in life when you’re not emotionally/mentally prepared for it. The Internet is therefore guilty for supplying the product… that’s why schools block porn from their computers.

That’s why you watch it away from young children.

No gods with indirect messages to me.


geirj
geirj's picture
Posts: 719
Joined: 2007-06-19
User is offlineOffline
julio wrote:It’s a

julio wrote:

It’s a matter you learn earlier and earlier in life when you’re not emotionally/mentally prepared for it. The Internet is therefore guilty for supplying the product… that’s why schools block porn from their computers.

That’s why you watch it away from young children.

No, actually we're guilty of not starting proper sex education early enough.

Nobody I know was brainwashed into being an atheist.

Why Believe?


julio
atheist
Posts: 290
Joined: 2008-12-27
User is offlineOffline
Agree with you, but who will

Agree with you, but who will be the teacher to your children?


geirj
geirj's picture
Posts: 719
Joined: 2007-06-19
User is offlineOffline
julio wrote:Agree with you,

julio wrote:
Agree with you, but who will be the teacher to your children?

My wife and I, hopefully.


Stosis
Posts: 327
Joined: 2008-10-21
User is offlineOffline
I think its a terrible idea

I think its a terrible idea not to tell kids about sex from the time their born. Ok, maybe not that young but as soon as they have the brain function to know what you're saying. Sex is just another essential part of life! That's all! Nothing more! This reminds of the play Spring awakening in which the characters, who are children just starting pubery, end up in all sorts of terrible sexual situations just becuase of the plan fact that they have no idea what sexuality is. It was written in the early 1900 (maybe late 1800's I forget). I would like to point out that back then, unlike now, kids didnt learn about sex until a much later age. Back then people thought that teaching kids about sex as early as 13 would make them crazy and immoral and all that. Guess what we teach 11 and 12 years olds about sex (maybe youunger now but that's when I learned about it in school) and theit no more immoral than people from the 1900's. The critic in Spring Awakening is to teach adolesents about sex, now a days its about teaching kindergarteners and other young children. I'm willing to bet that if we teach kids about sex in kindergarten it'll have no more an impact on their adult lives as if they learned at 13.


julio
atheist
Posts: 290
Joined: 2008-12-27
User is offlineOffline
Teaching by example is the

Teaching by example is the thing.
It has always been.
Therefore, when we switch out TV sets and the perverts come in uninvited, you have a bleak future regarding sexual crime.
Sorry, folks, but that’s my opinion, OK?
I do know that this and that and the other study is inconclusive and all that crap about sexual harm from TV, Internet and all, BUT this is the all-important question:
YOUR EXAMPLE TO YOUR CHILDREN?

No gods with indirect messages to me.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2483
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
julio wrote: Is Google

julio wrote:
Is Google promoting PORN?

Google promotes everything in the pursuit of profits. They are the ultimate in tolerance such that profits can be generated.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Unless you keep them

Unless you keep them isolated from contact with other children, which is definitely going to harm them emotionally and socially, they are going to discover sex, and examples from their peer group are known to be much more important than examples from the parents. 

The parents obligation is much more than just to 'set an example'. How the hell is that supposed to apply to sex education?? 

It should also be to monitor their development and inform them as early and as sensitively as their level of maturity allows, to help offset the often much more fragmentary and confused and often inaccurate information they are inevitably going to encounter in their outside life, as well as from media and the internet. This in turn assumes the parents themselves are well informed and emotionally mature about the subject themselves, which is quite often not the case.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


julio
atheist
Posts: 290
Joined: 2008-12-27
User is offlineOffline
Agree.

Agree.


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
julio wrote:It’s a

julio wrote:

It’s a matter you learn earlier and earlier in life when you’re not emotionally/mentally prepared for it. The Internet is therefore guilty for supplying the product… that’s why schools block porn from their computers.

That’s why you watch it away from young children.

Let me get this straight: you're arguing that the internet is guilty of something?

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 I get so tired of this

 I get so tired of this line of thinking.  Really, I do.

Let's get a couple of things straight before we start answering questions about Google, ok?

1. Is there any credible evidence that porn, in and of itself, is inherently harmful to anyone?

2. If Yes, exactly what about it is harmful, and to whom?

3. If No, why are we talking about this?

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


julio
atheist
Posts: 290
Joined: 2008-12-27
User is offlineOffline
Of course, porn is harmful.

Of course, porn is harmful. It is immorality, too. That’s why you do not allow your wife stand in front of a porn producer and let her undress and have her private parts filmed or photographed. And then spread the entire choreography “live” on the Internet.
If you really love your wife [or your daughter] you will not subscribe to that industry.

No gods with indirect messages to me.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
julio wrote:Of course, porn

julio wrote:
Of course, porn is harmful. It is immorality, too. That’s why you do not allow your wife stand in front of a porn producer and let her undress and have her private parts filmed or photographed. And then spread the entire choreography “live” on the Internet. If you really love your wife [or your daughter] you will not subscribe to that industry.

If it is harmful, yes, that would justify calling it wrong, or, if you like, 'immoral'.

If the people involved are being forced to do things they do not wish to do, that would also make it wrong in most people's eyes, also.

But if your wife had no problem personally with doing that, and fully understood what was going on, what would be inherently 'wrong' or 'harmful' about that?

EDIT: Your wife would presumably be aware of your disgust with the very thought of her doing such a thing, and would normally value your continuing  relationship, so even if she personally did not have a problem with it, I would expect she would not do it out of consideration for your sensibilities.

These are the sort of considerations, ethical guidelines if you like, which are appropriate, In my opinion, to decide on whether any action is acceptable.

If someone is ok personally with 'performing' in some act considered typically 'pornographic', and noone else involved is being forced to participate, and there is no-one she values as a close friend or partner who has a problem with it, and she is assured that all reasonable measures will be taken to have the film or video clearly identified and measures taken to restrict ready or accidental access to it by people who might be offended or psychologically harmed in some way, then there should be no ethical or moral problem with it. Especially if it allows people to have pleasure without any risk to themselves or partners, and so brighten their lives, especially if they have no other ready options for sexual release, it can be regarded as a positive good.

Personal repugnance at the thought of some acts should not qualify as a reason for prohibiting such acts, although it would be reasonable to ask that measures, such as labels and warnings, to allow you to avoid accidentally stumbling across an unwelcome viewing.

Even the thought of women partaking in various quite inoffensive activities, even many ordinary jobs, once used to raise feelings of disgust and even horror from men in the past.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


julio
atheist
Posts: 290
Joined: 2008-12-27
User is offlineOffline
Yes, I see your point.

Yes, I see your point.
However, it is morally wrong in a narrow point of view, if upon splashing that material on the Internet [through Google, etc.] the lady’s children and/or relatives stumbled upon it. It is immoral because it is offensive to the child’s sensitivity and/or sensibility that the parents wanted to develop in he child [by preaching good conduct and behaviour]. Imagine having such high ideals, and suddenly to discover that the mother is as promiscuous as a monkey in the forest, with no modesty or shame to be dignified with!

No gods with indirect messages to me.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:However, it is

 

Quote:
However, it is morally wrong in a narrow point of view, if upon splashing that material on the Internet [through Google, etc.] the lady’s children and/or relatives stumbled upon it.

In logical parlance, you're begging the question.  You're basically saying it's wrong because it's wrong.  That's not how things work in the objective world.

What's wrong with a person seeing their own relative having sex?

Quote:
 It is immoral because it is offensive to the child’s sensitivity and/or sensibility that the parents wanted to develop in he child [by preaching good conduct and behaviour].

So you are saying: That which is offensive is immoral.  Ok.  I'm offended by people who have more than two children.  Is having more than two children immoral for that reason?

It is offensive to Muslims to draw cartoons of Muhammed.  Is it therefore immoral for everybody?  Or... do you see how you're inventing a sensibility for yourself and imposing it on everybody else?

Quote:
 Imagine having such high ideals, and suddenly to discover that the mother is as promiscuous as a monkey in the forest, with no modesty or shame to be dignified with!

So what?  Your mother likes sex.  Your mother likes people to admire her body and to lust after her.  She's human, just like Pamela Anderson.

 

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2483
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
julio wrote:Yes, I see your

julio wrote:
Yes, I see your point. However, it is morally wrong in a narrow point of view, if upon splashing that material on the Internet [through Google, etc.] the lady’s children and/or relatives stumbled upon it. It is immoral because it is offensive to the child’s sensitivity and/or sensibility that the parents wanted to develop in he child [by preaching good conduct and behaviour]. Imagine having such high ideals, and suddenly to discover that the mother is as promiscuous as a monkey in the forest, with no modesty or shame to be dignified with!

You seemed to have missed what Bob Spence said, namely if the person involved in doing the porn is cognizant of the feelings of those whom they value or love, they would be aware that such content was out there on the Internet or at a local porn outlet. In such case, the lady's relatives and family would not be surprised. I personally know several ladies who have done on-line video and the families were aware of their activities. It was accepted as that is what mom does for a living to provide them with life's necessities, not to mention the moms in question  enjoyed it.

The children and relatives of these ladies did not dwell upon the morals of the moms in question and have grown up to be productive citizens. Your comments suggest it's you that have a problem with other people's values and behavior.  So what's the problem, you don't wish to view it? So don't.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


julio
atheist
Posts: 290
Joined: 2008-12-27
User is offlineOffline
Immorality is subjective: is

Immorality is subjective: is that what you’re selling?!…
There are people, though, with higher morality than others.
If a woman President or First Lady were splashed on the Internet in indecent "backside up" position, the nation would cry out against it. Or not?
What’s immoral?
A woman menstruating in public, with blood run down her legs?!…
Please!!!…

No gods with indirect messages to me.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2483
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
julio wrote:Immorality is

julio wrote:
Immorality is subjective: is that what you’re selling?!… There are people, though, with higher morality than others. If a woman President or First Lady were splashed on the Internet in indecent "backside up" position, the nation would cry out against it. Or not? What’s immoral? A woman menstruating in public, with blood run down her legs?!… Please!!!…

You jump from women doing porn to public figures being exploited in the media in compromising situations. WTF.

WTF does a menstruating woman in public have to do with women doing porn? 

Do you think dead bodies shown on TV, the Internet with body parts splattered everywhere is a good thing to show? Yet many countries do exactly that on the daily news.

There were people in New England during the witch trials that thought killing suspected witches was leading to higher morality. You don't see how this is subjective?

The Taliban executed women and others in soccer stadiums because they had low morals compared to their Islamic high morality. They still kill and maim women and children that don't subscribe to their moral code.

So yeah, Please!

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
julio wrote:Immorality is

julio wrote:
Immorality is subjective: is that what you’re selling?!… There are people, though, with higher morality than others. If a woman President or First Lady were splashed on the Internet in indecent "backside up" position, the nation would cry out against it. Or not? What’s immoral? A woman menstruating in public, with blood run down her legs?!… Please!!!…

Morality is ultimately subjective, but it is not purely in relation to an individual. It only has meaning in terms of interactions with other members of society.

If ALL members of society were ok with some action and all its implications and effects, it would be meaningless to call it immoral. 

If SOME people are offended by some behavior, that still doesn't justify calling it immoral. If others are aware of their aversion to something, and still openly carry on such behavior in their presence, without taking some care to do it in front of the 'sensitive' person, that is arguably not 'good' practice, depending on the details.

For example, if I openly discuss my atheism in the presence of a devout believer, they could be expected to take offense at that, but I would not necessarily consider that 'wrong' assuming I was not being gratuitously mocking and ridiculing of the beliefs. I find aspects and implications of typical religious beliefs offensive and 'wrong', so I see nothing wrong in politely making my point of view clear, even though it will most likely offend the believer. This is because I believe that the more such people and others in general are aware that there are thoughtful individuals who see serious problem with such belief, the more likely (if only to a tiny extent) will it be that more rational attitudes will prevail. This is of course my opinion, but it involves issues of free speech, tolerance of different points of view, in both directions - ie the believer's objection to atheism should not automatically take precedence over my objection to religious belief - and relative levels of offense or harm. This latter point means that I believe that my concerns about religion deserve more weight than the issue of avoiding the discomfort the believer may feel at hearing such views expressed.

At the other extreme, there may be some psychopaths who have no problem with murder, but since the vast majority of people would rather seriously object to such an act committed against themselves or others they care for, and by definition it is against the will of the victim, and it is manifestly an act which if it occurred at all frequently would massively disrupt, even destroy, society, it is widely considered a seriously wrong, ie 'immoral' action. Even here, there are potential complications and conditions. Killing another person is not universally regarded as immoral in all circumstances, whether it be in war, self-defense, capital punishment, etc.

So morality is best regarded as a consensus in a society, and there are going to be disagreements about the morality of even some of the most extreme acts, so we must remain prepared to both defend our own moral precepts, and be prepared to concede when overwhelming counter arguments are presented. It should be the subject of an ongoing debate/discussion, which it already is, to a growing extent (I hope).

It should be based on guidelines, not fixed prohibitions of specific acts or categories of action.

Considerations like degrees of physical harm or mental distress or suffering caused to others, coercion or force or emotional manipulation of others to impose your own desires upon them, and broader principles such as the implications for society at large, and so on.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 I think the trickiest part

 I think the trickiest part of the concept of morality is that it doesn't refer to just one thing.  (I should probably write an article about this...)

I believe a strong argument can be made for two kinds of morality, which I will call innate and cultural.  Innate morality is a template upon which cultural morality is built.  Consider the act of tipping at restaurants.  There is nothing inherently good or bad about the act of tipping in a restaurant.  However, it is considered quite rude in the UK, while it is considered equally rude in America if one doesn't tip.

Whether to tip or not is a matter of cultural morality, and as such, is subjective.  A person could travel around the world, and alternatively be moral and immoral based on the culture, while consistently tipping 18% at every restaurant.

There is, however, an innate moral instinct behind the cultural morality of tipping -- fairness.  Humans, as well as some other primates, demonstrate a pre-cultural understanding of reciprocal altruism.  Not only that, but across human cultures, there are constant "fairness equations" exhibited by test subjects.  That is, when we are not able to trade something in kind, we have an innate understanding of the value of our obligation.

Tipping, then, is a cultural manifestation of the universal human instinct for fairness.  In the UK, it is insulting to tip because it creates an unbalanced exchange, while in America, tipping is required to make the exchange fair.

We can apply the same idea to questions of porn, prostitution, polygamy, or any other sexual practice.  In cultures where polygamy is the norm, it is not considered cheating to have sex with multiple women, so long as they are all wives.  In monogamous cultures, it most certainly is cheating.  Again, these are cultural manifestations of a basic human instinct -- fidelity.  In polygamous cultures, a man is viewed as faithful if he does have sex with multiple wives, because most polygamous societies center around familial inheritence, and it would be unthinkable for a man to not give children to all of his wives.  In monogamous cultures, it is unthinkable to have sex with multiple women in violation of a vow to be monogamous.  Humans are designed to be culturally functional within a rather wide range of sexual bonding patterns, ranging from monogamy with mild polygamous affairs to rampant polygamy, with all the powerful males having multiple wives.  Having multiple sex partners, then, cannot be addressed as an issue of "innate morality," while fidelity to the culturally appropriate number of partners is an innate moral drive.

I haven't given a lot of thought to which moral drives are involved in a woman's decision to participate in the sex industry, but I'm sure it involves at least two or three innate drives, and lots of cultural applications of innate drives.  I'll give it some more thought.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:She's human, just like

Quote:

She's human, just like Pamela Anderson.

You inadvertantly set up a ridiculous number of possible jokes here. I'm going to see if anyone runs with it.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


julio
atheist
Posts: 290
Joined: 2008-12-27
User is offlineOffline
Very interesting comments,

Very interesting comments, thanks.
OK, in terms of morality vs. immorality it is obvious that these days all are above average.

No gods with indirect messages to me.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:You inadvertantly

 

Quote:
You inadvertantly set up a ridiculous number of possible jokes here. I'm going to see if anyone runs with it.

Oh, it wasn't inadvertant at all.  I call that "running it up the flagpole to see if anybody salutes."

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:OK, in terms of

 

Quote:
OK, in terms of morality vs. immorality it is obvious that these days all are above average.

Eh?  I don't understand what you mean.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
julio wrote:Very interesting

julio wrote:
Very interesting comments, thanks. OK, in terms of morality vs. immorality it is obvious that these days all are above average.

WTF does that comment mean?

"All are above average" has to be some sort of sarcastic remark, but I don't quite get the point...

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


julio
atheist
Posts: 290
Joined: 2008-12-27
User is offlineOffline
“All above average” is a

“All above average” is a linguistic aberration, since if all in the debate are better than the average, where is the average?… it’s like defining vacuum with empty terms…

No gods with indirect messages to me.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Seriously... what the hell

 Seriously... what the hell are you talking about?

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10510
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is onlineOnline
HisWillness wrote:julio

HisWillness wrote:

julio wrote:
Dr. Phil [I heard him saying] wants porn out of the Internet, but he refers only to child porn, forgetting, maybe cynically, that adult porn grows from child porn, which he opposes.

Non-torture adult porn is essentially harmless. Child porn is the violation of a child. One does not necessarily "grow" from the other, especially since child porn is a heavy taboo, and adult porn is produced largely for money.

julio wrote:
But the question: where is all that immorality taking society? That’s the question! Is Google “supporting” child porn?… That’s the rephrasing of the first question.

What do you consider immoral? Personally, I'd consider child pornography immoral, but adult pornography, largely not. It's when it starts getting into the films where they beat up or torture women -- that's where I'd draw the line personally.

But that's me. Where's your line?

It's kind of funny looking at this subject, but having grown up in a time where kids being naked was natural (you see a naked boy in the opening credits of Superman for an example), I personally have never had something against it, except when sexual in nature. I think the whole child porn thing has gone way overboard. You can't even take a pic of your own kid having his/her first bath (something that EVERYONE used to do a few years ago) without having some idiot call child services on you these days.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


treat2 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:julio

HisWillness wrote:

julio wrote:
Dr. Phil [I heard him saying] wants porn out of the Internet, but he refers only to child porn, forgetting, maybe cynically, that adult porn grows from child porn, which he opposes.

Non-torture adult porn is essentially harmless. Child porn is the violation of a child. One does not necessarily "grow" from the other, especially since child porn is a heavy taboo, and adult porn is produced largely for money.

julio wrote:
But the question: where is all that immorality taking society? That’s the question! Is Google “supporting” child porn?… That’s the rephrasing of the first question.

What do you consider immoral? Personally, I'd consider child pornography immoral, but adult pornography, largely not. It's when it starts getting into the films where they beat up or torture women -- that's where I'd draw the line personally.

But that's me. Where's your line?

What about chicken fucking? Is that a violation too?