Pornography Support/Disaproval Poll

[_Droopy]

Do you support or disapprove of pornography, and why? I'm going to do a couple or perhaps several polls to get at the overall leaning of the Board's population on this matter, and, of course, it will all be anonymous, so no one need worry that they will be "outed" in any sense.

This does not mean great works of art in which nudity is present and the human body is the subject of artistic study. By "pornography" I mean graphic media, of any kind, who's intent is prurient; who's intent is to stimulate, incite, and provoke sexual desire, ideation, and attempts to satiate such desires. The exploitation of human sexuality, in other words, as public entertainment stimulating further desire/craving for that entertainment as well as the activities portrayed therein.

[_Morley]

So, HBO's Game of Thrones or The Wire, right?

[_Darth J]

You are very poor at framing issues. You have the same problem in your "is pornography legitimate" thread. "Legitimate" in what sense? Legally protected speech? Acceptable entertainment? Okay for other people but not for yourself?

In this poll, you fail to explain what you mean by "approve." "Approve" in what way? Approve people's freedom to indulge in pornography if they choose to? Approve as in you think it is morally good?

And your "with or without provisos" choices are vague. Choosing that one "approves" (whatever that means) of pornography without provisos would literally mean that one "approves" (again, whatever that means) of child pornography and other non-consensual participation (people who are drugged, people who are victims of human trafficking, people who are unconscious, etc.).

"Approve without provisos" in your poll, by its plain but vague language, could mean any of these: 1. You like any and all pornography (lesbian, S&M, "vanilla" heterosexual, whatever); 2. You do not like pornography, but believe that people have the unrestricted right to view it if they so choose; 3. You think anything goes, including bestiality, child porn, etc.; 4. You "approve" of pornography in a legal sense, but not in a moral sense; 5. You "approve" of pornography in both a legal and moral sense; 6. You think that pornography should be shown in public, where anyone can view it whether they want to see it or not (without provisos); 7. You think that underage children should be watching pornography.

You would have the same problems of vagueness with wording a poll about any issue this way. "Do you 'approve' of Mormonism?" "Approve" how? If "approve" means "I think the LDS Church is the true church," by definition every former believer and non-believer will say no. If "approve" means that people have the inherent right to believe and practice Mormonism if they choose to, I think every single former believer and non-believer on this board would say yes.

Are you intentionally making your questions vague so you can claim whatever result you want, or are you just really, really bad at understanding issues?

[_Jersey Girl]

Voted and chose, "disapprove full without exception" because it seemed the easiest way for me to express what I think about porn. I think the conversation regarding porn is uncontainable and so I chose to whittle it down into black and white terms.

[_Cardinal Biggles]

I voted "disapprove" in the sense that it's best avoided in the same sense that eating one's boogers is best avoided.

[_Droopy]

You are very poor at framing issues. You have the same problem in your "is pornography legitimate" thread. "Legitimate" in what sense? Legally protected speech? Acceptable entertainment? Okay for other people but not for yourself?

You've been struggling to sustain some faint degree of intellectual seriousness for so long, Darth, against overwhelming odds (including, most likey, your legal training) that its worn you down, at this point. I think you probably know what I mean by "legitimate," or could figure it out all on your own without too much assistence, but aren't going to do that becuase you want to approch the issue using the same courtroom/sophistry/socratic technique that works there (where the search for the truth is only a marginal concern, in many cases) but is in a sling in the philosophcial world.

In this poll, you fail to explain what you mean by "approve." "Approve" in what way? Approve people's freedom to indulge in pornography if they choose to? Approve as in you think it is morally good?

You're getting warm.

And your "with or without provisos" choices are vague.

As they were meant, as I'd like others to fill them in on their own.

Choosing that one "approves" (whatever that means) of pornography without provisos would literally mean that one "approves" (again, whatever that means) of child pornography and other non-consensual participation (people who are drugged, people who are victims of human trafficking, people who are unconscious, etc.).

The ACLU approves of the production, distribution, sale, and use of all pornography, including child pornography, without exception (save, one would think, those of the "snuff" variety). My interest is just in the overall heterosexual world of "hardcore" and "softcore" pornography, as usually understood. I am not interested in various fetishes or perversions at this juncture.

To satisfy you here, I would probably have to do poll after poll based around clear definitions of each term. Perhaps I will do a few more, for clarity's sake, just to see what comes to the surface.

[_Analytics]

My position is that while porn is not good for the marrow, it is good for the bone, and for all sick cattle.

[_Darth J]

You are very poor at framing issues. You have the same problem in your "is pornography legitimate" thread. "Legitimate" in what sense? Legally protected speech? Acceptable entertainment? Okay for other people but not for yourself?

You've been struggling to sustain some faint degree of intellectual seriousness for so long, Darth, against overwhelming odds (including, most likey, your legal training) that its worn you down, at this point. I think you probably know what I mean by "legitimate," or could figure it out all on your own without too much assistence, but aren't going to do that becuase you want to approch the issue using the same courtroom/sophistry/socratic technique that works there (where the search for the truth is only a marginal concern, in many cases) but is in a sling in the philosophcial world.

Loran, you have never argued a court case and never spent a day in law school, so stop with your idiotic BS about what you imagine the practice of law to be. You don't know enough to know how much of a fool you make of yourself when you post idiotic, laughably uninformed rants like this. You consistently start babbling like an angry Foghorn Leghorn because you have not really thought through the implications of the talking points you parrot, and thus are not able to respond to questioning of those talking points.

And no, Loran, "legitimate" is not self-explanatory. It is vague.

legitimate

1.
according to law; lawful: the property's legitimate owner.
2.
in accordance with established rules, principles, or standards.
3.
born in wedlock or of legally married parents: legitimate children.
4.
in accordance with the laws of reasoning; logically inferable; logical: a legitimate conclusion.
5.
resting on or ruling by the principle of hereditary right: a legitimate sovereign.

Which definition (that would apply): 1 or 2? And if 2, WHOSE rules, principles, or standards? It can't be subjective, because one person's idiosyncratic beliefs are not "established."

In this poll, you fail to explain what you mean by "approve." "Approve" in what way? Approve people's freedom to indulge in pornography if they choose to? Approve as in you think it is morally good?

You're getting warm.

I can't be getting warm, because these questions go in different directions. "You're getting warm" in response to that questioning is just your unwitting admission that you don't understand your own statements.

And your "with or without provisos" choices are vague.

As they were meant, as I'd like others to fill them in on their own.

If people's understanding of the question is subjective, the answers are also subjective, so the poll means nothing because it conveys no objective information. You have no way of determining how people subjectively interpreted the question, and therefore no way of determining how they intended their answers to be understood. Your idea of having a follow-up poll is also meaningless, because you have no way of determining whether the same people answered the follow-up poll as the original one, and this is a poor excuse for not being able to frame the issue in an objectively clear way in the first place.

Choosing that one "approves" (whatever that means) of pornography without provisos would literally mean that one "approves" (again, whatever that means) of child pornography and other non-consensual participation (people who are drugged, people who are victims of human trafficking, people who are unconscious, etc.).

The ACLU approves of the production, distribution, sale, and use of all pornography, including child pornography, without exception (save, one would think, those of the "snuff" variety).

I don't care what the ACLU thinks, and you are misrepresenting its position, anyway. And I wonder why Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia concurred with the outcome of Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition. It must be because of their well-known, fanatically leftists ideologies.

My interest is just in the overall heterosexual world of "hardcore" and "softcore" pornography, as usually understood. I am not interested in various fetishes or perversions at this juncture.

To satisfy you here, I would probably have to do poll after poll based around clear definitions of each term. Perhaps I will do a few more, for clarity's sake, just to see what comes to the surface.

Okay, so you are being intentionally vague so you can claim whatever outcome you want. Thank you for admitting that.

[_Droopy]

To satisfy you here, I would probably have to do poll after poll based around clear definitions of each term. Perhaps I will do a few more, for clarity's sake, just to see what comes to the surface.

Okay, so you are being intentionally vague so you can claim whatever outcome you want. Thank you for admitting that.

When you have to resort to outright mendacity to score debating points, you've recused youself from the arena of debate. Go to the showers, Johnnie.

[_Droopy]

You are very poor at framing issues. You have the same problem in your "is pornography legitimate" thread. "Legitimate" in what sense? Legally protected speech? Acceptable entertainment? Okay for other people but not for yourself?

You've been struggling to sustain some faint degree of intellectual seriousness for so long, Darth, against overwhelming odds (including, most likey, your legal training) that its worn you down, at this point. I think you probably know what I mean by "legitimate," or could figure it out all on your own without too much assistence, but aren't going to do that becuase you want to approch the issue using the same courtroom/sophistry/socratic technique that works there (where the search for the truth is only a marginal concern, in many cases) but is in a sling in the philosophcial world. [/quote]

Loran, you have never argued a court case and never spent a day in law school, so stop with your idiotic b***s*** about what you imagine the practice of law to be. You don't know enough to know how much of a fool you make of yourself when you post idiotic, laughably uninformed rants like this. You consistently start babbling like an angry Foghorn Leghorn because you have not really thought through the implications of the talking points you parrot, and thus are not able to respond to questioning of those talking points.

And no, Loran, "legitimate" is not self-explanatory. It is vague.

legitimate

1.
according to law; lawful: the property's legitimate owner.
2.
in accordance with established rules, principles, or standards.
3.
born in wedlock or of legally married parents: legitimate children.
4.
in accordance with the laws of reasoning; logically inferable; logical: a legitimate conclusion.
5.
resting on or ruling by the principle of hereditary right: a legitimate sovereign.

Which definition (that would apply): 1 or 2? And if 2, WHOSE rules, principles, or standards? It can't be subjective, because one person's idiosyncratic beliefs are not "established."

In this poll, you fail to explain what you mean by "approve." "Approve" in what way? Approve people's freedom to indulge in pornography if they choose to? Approve as in you think it is morally good?

You're getting warm.

I can't be getting warm, because these questions go in different directions. "You're getting warm" in response to that questioning is just your unwitting admission that you don't understand your own statements.

And your "with or without provisos" choices are vague.

As they were meant, as I'd like others to fill them in on their own.

If people's understanding of the question is subjective, the answers are also subjective, so the poll means nothing because it conveys no objective information. You have no way of determining how people subjectively interpreted the question, and therefore no way of determining how they intended their answers to be understood. Your idea of having a follow-up poll is also meaningless, because you have no way of determining whether the same people answered the follow-up poll as the original one, and this is a poor excuse for not being able to frame the issue in an objectively clear way in the first place.

Choosing that one "approves" (whatever that means) of pornography without provisos would literally mean that one "approves" (again, whatever that means) of child pornography and other non-consensual participation (people who are drugged, people who are victims of human trafficking, people who are unconscious, etc.).

The ACLU approves of the production, distribution, sale, and use of all pornography, including child pornography, without exception (save, one would think, those of the "snuff" variety).

I don't care what the ACLU thinks, and you are misrepresenting its position, anyway. And I wonder why Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia concurred with the outcome of Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition. It must be because of their well-known, fanatically leftists ideologies.

My interest is just in the overall heterosexual world of "hardcore" and "softcore" pornography, as usually understood. I am not interested in various fetishes or perversions at this juncture.

To satisfy you here, I would probably have to do poll after poll based around clear definitions of each term. Perhaps I will do a few more, for clarity's sake, just to see what comes to the surface.

Okay, so you are being intentionally vague so you can claim whatever outcome you want. Thank you for admitting that.[/quote]


The above is, in textbook fashion, an excellent object lession in why the lawying profession, to a great degree and to the degree it has and manner in which it has developed in this country, is, to a substantial degree, a danger to a free soceity and a general drag on productive, serious intellectual discourse upon grave and weighty issues.