A BRIEF ARGUMENT AGAINST PORN AS FINE ART

"...artistic political history and the overt split which developed"

Iow, a few dozen people. I'm reminded of Sam Moskowitz's "The Immortal Storm", the history of sf fandom in its first decade. All the power struggles, stories, manifestos, feuds, publications...sometimes it is difficult to keep in mind it was about some teens in the Bronx.

Like Maplethorpe, if news editors or politicians smell publicity, they'll go for it. Artists shock the bourgeois. So what else is new.

That's been part of the job description for a century and a half.

"Morally its been downhill ever since."

Downhill from what? Just when and where was this moral culture and society we have declined from? What are you comparing us to, to our disadvantage?

--

Don E

"Downhill from what? Just when and where was this moral culture and society we have declined from? What are you comparing us to, to our disadvantage?"

When a person doesn't know they're lost, then it doesn't matter. I haven't a clue how to respond to rhetorical questions like your above as the questions imply there never was a moral history in which to compare today's morality. I won't try to help the blind see as I don't have the patience. I'll share the history and the names. See, or don't see, it's your free choice:)

Here are some wonderful photographic examples of what's happening in musical art and morality today. No condemnation, let the viewer decide but the photography and the intensity "act" (entertainment) is great. Both links are provided so as to maintain context.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=20170573

http://www.musicpix.net/index.php?module=PostWrap&page=Dir_en_grey

Timothy,

I started this post as what I thought was a reasoned response to you. Then I realized I was

starting to preach and lecture you. I have no right or place to do that and I suspect that

you are not interested in engaging in any sort of dialog on this subject.

I respect your right to believe what you believe and to express your thoughts. You see the

world your way. others see things differently. I hope you have a happy and long life but

God help all of us, including you, if you try to cram your views down our throats through

politics, which cannot help but corrupt even the most morally sound of people.

"I haven't a clue how to respond to rhetorical questions like your above..."

It was not a rhetorical question. If society is going downhill, then I want to know where the top of the hill was. If you can't answer, then reconsider where the "rhetorical" might be.

--

Don E

<i>Here are some wonderful photographic examples of what's happening in musical art and morality today. </i><P>

Iggy Pop has been doing much "worse" than that since the 70s.

"Here are some wonderful photographic examples of what's happening in musical art and morality today."

Ah, stage folk. This observation was old in Plautus' day.

And dancing and card playing and likker. So frivolous.

Lost? By whom? I'm here to be Found by Whomever is looking. It is not for you to say anything about "lost" "found" or "whomever". Not my prerogative, either now, is it? And everything I know about it and you know about it is hearsay. It's a good idea, imho, to consider the source.

--

Don E

"It was not a rhetorical question. If society is going downhill, then I want to know where the top of the hill was. If you can't answer, then reconsider where the "rhetorical" might be."

To me, it was and still is a rhetorical question, despite your protests. If one doesn't have "any" sense of social/moral history, then there can't be any conversation as there's no base in which to build an intelligent conversation on.

"It is not for you to say anything about "lost" "found" or "whomever". Not my prerogative, either now, is it?"

Sure it is. We all make value judgements and it's okay to do so.

<b>Thomas G:</b> <i>It's a battle of moral cultures, which has turned into a "game" of; <p>

"There is no right or wrong as there's only what works for you and me and if you don't like it, then it's you who has issues, not me and you need to get over it."

</i><p>

Perfect relativism. It's truly a strange philosophy and only works in an affluent culture full of bliss-ninnies and fools.<p>

What you speak of doesn't apply anywhere outside of this art and morality argument, else we wouldn't have war in every generation.<p>

But you are right, IMHO; there is a wrong and a right, and everything inbetween, and nothing outside of that range by definition.<p>

The fact is simple, clear and unambiguous but yields to unending arguments which are actually all about power, and seeking power for its own sake is vanity of the worst kind.

<p>

Thanks for you post. I loved it.

<I>morally it's been downhill ever since</I><P>Morally we've been going downhill ever

since we came down out of the trees and brached off from our cousin apes.<P> Seen from a

certain point of view, the topic of public morality looks like one of M.C. Escher's endlessly

recursive starcase etchings: Even while we climbing up, someone will wag their finger and say

we are forever climbing down.

"Even while we climbing up, someone will wag their finger and say we are forever climbing down."

Interesting analogy. :)

"Sure it is. We all make value judgements and it's okay to do so."

My language was perhaps obscure. Let me try again: "Grace" is a one way street. The Godhead reveals itself to its creature or not as it pleases. Guides, since the first time the Book of the Dead was chiseled into a pyramid's wall, exist claiming to know the Godhead's email address or having directions to his abode. In this way, the circumstances are inverted. The Godhead doesn't find you and you are lost because you don't show for the appointment (see the address is right here in the Guide).

It is not my perrogative to go calling on God, but his to find me.

--

Don E

To Thomas: You wrote a while ago "Shall we make note of noted contemporary secularists in these here contemporary times? Let's see, who comes to mind, Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler, Idi Amin, Saddam, Kim ll-Sung and Kim Jong-il , Darfur, Somalia, Tusi's/Hitsu's, Gang of Four just for contemporary starters and the POPE".

Being a catholic (and practicing), I could follow your views up to a cerain degree, but after I got to that point I now see that you fall in the traps of the protestant hypocrisy. I'm afraid that your actions are much worse than your words, so please, don't talk anymore about pornography and quit being a moralist.

"To me, it was and still is a rhetorical question, despite your protests. If one doesn't have "any" sense of social/moral history, then there can't be any conversation as there's no base in which to build an intelligent conversation on." Thomas

What would such a "base" be? That I agree with you at the outset of a discussion? That would not be a conversation. It would be witnessing.

If you can't debate the heathen, then all you can do is chide them, shake your head, and count them as Lost.

--

Don E

"It is not my perrogative to go calling on God, but his to find me."

It's like learning as it's a free choice thingy:) Learn, don't learn, your choice.

As Ellis pointed out...

"Interesting analogy. :)"

"Only if it makes you think."

Yes, the anology caused me think; in understanding:) One doesn't need to agree in order to understand but most, sadly, equate understanding with agreeing.

"Oh my gosh!" "I can't understand cause then I'll agree." :O

Can't have that now. LOL

""Oh my gosh!" "I can't understand cause then I'll agree." :O

Can't have that now. LOL"

It's' all been downhill since The Fall. It's human nature. "Nature, Mr Alnutt, is what we were put on this earth to rise above".

Why not simply say you agree with the social and moral opinion prevalent in 19th century Western Europe and the US (if that is what you mean), and that that class and their standards have declined and become decadent? I would surely agree with you there. That's them.

Just about everyone I've ever known have been moral and honest persons. Perhaps you hang with the wrong crowd.

--

Don E

Religion is not the basis of morality, morality is the basis of religion. Therefore, morals can exist without religion which follows that one does not need religion to have morals and further, one cannot use the argument that any morals that exist today are a result of religion.

Morality is a relative term defined by communities.

>>And aetheists didn't come up with these can't we get along rules as they're a product of Judeo/Christian principals.<<

What you've written is a distortion; much of what gets subsumed under 'Judea/Christian whatever' is actually neo platonism. And, in case you care, you have not made an argument but rather merely asserted your fear/s.

Here is an example: "And although the imagination can play with the pornographic image, such play is irrefutably carnal, lascivious, and a direct assault even on the flesh."

First, it's a well-known rhetorical tip-off that an author hasn't 'a pot to piss in when words like "irrefutable" are used without any support.

Support? Yeah, I know. Why waste time supporting something so obviously irrefutable as what it is I contend?

The Greeks? Yeah, I know. Why read (or consider, or believe) anything from those pederasts.

>>I'm just making note of it's genesis. No condemnation, or value judgement.<<

That you've misrepresented the facts suggests that condemnation informs your "argument" at several levels. If what you've written is a true record of your beliefs, then you are judging values by illustrating which ones you cultivate and which ones you ignore or walk right over. I have in mind such things as veracity, accountability, selfunderstanding, accuracy . . .

Arguments have premises, supporting premises and conclusions. I'm afraid you've left out the middle. Someone else invoked the 'your view is a high contrast image' metaphor suggesting a range of (important) values absent from your rhetoric.

Just a heads up.

--tom

"I could follow your views up to a cerain degree, but after I got to that point I now see that you fall in the traps of the protestant hypocrisy."

No hypocrisy, just facts. You might wish to expand on your above.

"I'm afraid that your actions are much worse than your words, so please, don't talk anymore about pornography and quit being a moralist."

Sorry, I haven't a clue what actions you're on about but please, do expand on your above.

Don E.

I think you misunderstood my below as you cut out the relevant part.

""Oh my gosh!" "I can't understand cause then I'll agree." :O

Can't have that now. LOL"

"Why not simply say you agree with the social and moral opinion prevalent..."

I'll quote the relevant part:

"One doesn't need to agree in order to understand but most, sadly, equate understanding with agreeing."

I was trying to make the point that part of getting along, is the need to understand the other party's position. One doesn't have to agree with their position but they can understand. Folks have a bad habit of juxtapositioning the two terms on top of each other as if they're synonymous when they're not. Their securities or defenses get messed up in that they feel if they have an understanding of another's position, that's the same as agreeing with their position so I was making light of this point in the part you quoted. It wasn't intended to be a comment on anything you wrote and my apologies if it came across in that manner.

I hope that clarifies any misunderstanding I might have caused.

"And, in case you care, you have not made an argument but rather merely asserted your fear/s."

And what pray tell are these fears you write of? :)

Let me give you an insightful clue, as to my fears..... None of what we write or do is important cause in the end, we all die and when we die, we'll all find out what the truth is and what you choose to do in the middle is none of mine..... unless you make it mine. :O

You can run with the fear ball from there:)

"Arguments have premises, supporting premises and conclusions."

Only if you're taking a test. This is a forum of like minded individuals, here for entertainment purposes, not a philosophy course:)

I posted names, years and movements, I'd say that's more than most.

"Here is an example: "And although the imagination can play with the pornographic image, such play is irrefutably carnal, lascivious, and a direct assault even on the flesh."

It would be most kind if you would point me in the direction where I wrote that as me thinks you're ascribing to me, something written by someone else.