RE: Smut for Smut
March 14, 2010 at 4:09 am
(This post was last modified: March 14, 2010 at 4:11 am by tavarish.)
I'll address your points briefly, and I'll number them, as it's easier than cutting and pasting quotes everywhere.
1. It's an argument from ignorance, and willfully so. You make the point that DNA could not have come about any other way than divine means. Please tell me how you know this to be true. It isn't paradoxical, you're just quick to say that because we don't have a viable explanation, god did it. Abiogenesis is a viable theory, but I won't be the person that says it's definitive of anything. Just let me know how you can make the claim that life on Earth could not have come about through any other means. If your argument even includes the term "irreducible complexity" I'll ask you to please go eat an ice cream sandwich, because you've obviously had a long day.
Give me evidence to support your claim.
I don't have a grudge against the bible, I have a qualm with those who need supernatural explanations for natural occurrences.
2. You have a very broken understanding of evolution. Mutations in DNA occur randomly, as self-replicating DNA isn't perfect. MOST mutations are regressive and detrimental to the survivability of the species. The only thing guiding and dictating the survivability of the organism is natural selection - the environment in which it must survive. It's not personal incredulity, this is observable scientific fact. Every single species overpopulates, that's the point. It's horribly inefficient if you believe that we were intelligently designed through some divine means. If it was an intelligent design, God sure had a hell of a lot of rough drafts, and by any measure, it's not done yet.
An animal going extinct is not a failure in the system, I never made that argument. An animal going extinct would be natural selection working, as other species have proven more advantageous. This is how evolution works. It's not survival of the fittest. It's survival of the most advantageous in their environment to provide fertile offspring.
Evolution can ONLY account for the origin of the species and development of life on Earth. It does not have a say in how life began or how the universe came to be. This is like going to English class to solve a math problem. It's simply not the correct subject.
3. You're creating an argument where there is none. Seriously, you should re-read what you post sometimes.
I'm saying it's a billion dollar a year industry and it was made that way on purpose. The only point I was trying to make is that it caters to its customers. You're the one trying to say it's immoral and evil. You're putting your opinion in, then try to pass it off like it's common knowledge, but come off sounding supremely prudish and belligerent.
Moral value has nothing to do with the money an industry makes and everything to do with the actual value you assign to it. I don't think porn is immoral, and neither do millions of others. Obviously you disagree. That's fine. Just don't make it out to be this evil juggernaut when it's just movies of people releasing their sexual inhibitions and fucking for the most part.
Can you give me actual figures to support your claim that child sex slaves make more money than the porn industry?
How about the one where drugs run the world?
4. You began a straw man argument, then continued to say that I was somehow in violation of the argument I never made. Morality and profit are completely independent of each other. I never made an appeal to popularity by somehow stating that because porn makes money, it's not wrong.
5. Jesus tap-dancing Christ. Stop with the personal incredulity.
"No one (especially not some secret silent majority) wanted to see so claled ass-to-mouth before the producers of adult films started including it as a lewd act."
You're getting this information where?
Have you ever stopped to think that it was the public who were first aroused by things you would deem sexually deviant, rather than the evil porn industry shoving it down our throats? Throughout history, mankind has been very sexual. Greek orgies, the sexual revolution. Homosexuality, semen, and sodomy were spoken of in the bible. You'd think that since then, we'd have the curiosity to get the girl to take it out of her ass and put it directly into her mouth. Apparently not. Smutty porn producers had to feed it to us, by gunpoint, no less to make us become the crazed perverts we are today.
...
6. My statement was made to be facetious. Apparently you didn't get it. I would absolutely hate a world with objective morals and stifled dissent. Probably something akin to North Korea or something, except no one puts out.
Good thing that there is no such concept in practice as objective morals.
7. You think sex is beautiful and animalistic. That's great. Why then, if you allow others to share their experience with the world, does that become a bane on humanity? Porn is harmless in the same way that a Big Mac is harmless. Moderation is key. If you watch porn and it interferes with your life, you can develop a problem, just like if you eat 10 Big Macs a day, you might have a heart attack pretty soon. It has its purposes, and it serves millions daily, with many satisfied returning customers.
You call porn fake sex, that's fine. I'd say I enjoy fake sex as well as real sex. Actually scratch that, I enjoy real sex a hell of a lot more than fake sex, as there are more people in the room, and there's usually less of a mess afterwards.
Are you a virgin? How old are you, since you said you were young?
1. It's an argument from ignorance, and willfully so. You make the point that DNA could not have come about any other way than divine means. Please tell me how you know this to be true. It isn't paradoxical, you're just quick to say that because we don't have a viable explanation, god did it. Abiogenesis is a viable theory, but I won't be the person that says it's definitive of anything. Just let me know how you can make the claim that life on Earth could not have come about through any other means. If your argument even includes the term "irreducible complexity" I'll ask you to please go eat an ice cream sandwich, because you've obviously had a long day.
Give me evidence to support your claim.
I don't have a grudge against the bible, I have a qualm with those who need supernatural explanations for natural occurrences.
2. You have a very broken understanding of evolution. Mutations in DNA occur randomly, as self-replicating DNA isn't perfect. MOST mutations are regressive and detrimental to the survivability of the species. The only thing guiding and dictating the survivability of the organism is natural selection - the environment in which it must survive. It's not personal incredulity, this is observable scientific fact. Every single species overpopulates, that's the point. It's horribly inefficient if you believe that we were intelligently designed through some divine means. If it was an intelligent design, God sure had a hell of a lot of rough drafts, and by any measure, it's not done yet.
An animal going extinct is not a failure in the system, I never made that argument. An animal going extinct would be natural selection working, as other species have proven more advantageous. This is how evolution works. It's not survival of the fittest. It's survival of the most advantageous in their environment to provide fertile offspring.
Evolution can ONLY account for the origin of the species and development of life on Earth. It does not have a say in how life began or how the universe came to be. This is like going to English class to solve a math problem. It's simply not the correct subject.
3. You're creating an argument where there is none. Seriously, you should re-read what you post sometimes.
I'm saying it's a billion dollar a year industry and it was made that way on purpose. The only point I was trying to make is that it caters to its customers. You're the one trying to say it's immoral and evil. You're putting your opinion in, then try to pass it off like it's common knowledge, but come off sounding supremely prudish and belligerent.
Moral value has nothing to do with the money an industry makes and everything to do with the actual value you assign to it. I don't think porn is immoral, and neither do millions of others. Obviously you disagree. That's fine. Just don't make it out to be this evil juggernaut when it's just movies of people releasing their sexual inhibitions and fucking for the most part.
Can you give me actual figures to support your claim that child sex slaves make more money than the porn industry?
How about the one where drugs run the world?
4. You began a straw man argument, then continued to say that I was somehow in violation of the argument I never made. Morality and profit are completely independent of each other. I never made an appeal to popularity by somehow stating that because porn makes money, it's not wrong.
5. Jesus tap-dancing Christ. Stop with the personal incredulity.
"No one (especially not some secret silent majority) wanted to see so claled ass-to-mouth before the producers of adult films started including it as a lewd act."
You're getting this information where?
Have you ever stopped to think that it was the public who were first aroused by things you would deem sexually deviant, rather than the evil porn industry shoving it down our throats? Throughout history, mankind has been very sexual. Greek orgies, the sexual revolution. Homosexuality, semen, and sodomy were spoken of in the bible. You'd think that since then, we'd have the curiosity to get the girl to take it out of her ass and put it directly into her mouth. Apparently not. Smutty porn producers had to feed it to us, by gunpoint, no less to make us become the crazed perverts we are today.
...
6. My statement was made to be facetious. Apparently you didn't get it. I would absolutely hate a world with objective morals and stifled dissent. Probably something akin to North Korea or something, except no one puts out.
Good thing that there is no such concept in practice as objective morals.
7. You think sex is beautiful and animalistic. That's great. Why then, if you allow others to share their experience with the world, does that become a bane on humanity? Porn is harmless in the same way that a Big Mac is harmless. Moderation is key. If you watch porn and it interferes with your life, you can develop a problem, just like if you eat 10 Big Macs a day, you might have a heart attack pretty soon. It has its purposes, and it serves millions daily, with many satisfied returning customers.
You call porn fake sex, that's fine. I'd say I enjoy fake sex as well as real sex. Actually scratch that, I enjoy real sex a hell of a lot more than fake sex, as there are more people in the room, and there's usually less of a mess afterwards.
Are you a virgin? How old are you, since you said you were young?
