Pod

I personally wouldn't step foot in college if someone had a gun to my back. Have you spoken to others who have taken these exams? They could let you in on what these exams require you to know. Why not spend one year eating and breathing nothing but your field of study? That's dedicating all of your time to absorbing everything and even if you have to take those extra exams, you'll be all the better for it because you had to go through learning it on your own. You'd certainly fly past the others who didn't have to acquire that skill as hard.

I wouldn't support the work of someone who I knew was activley abusing people no one person or group can represent "Hollywood" because Hollywood isn't a borg. It's a bunch of individuals providing their talents and services, some abusive some not. That just comes down to the individual, like it always does.

Is the claim here that child abusers profit from adult pornography? Obviously child abusers profit from child pornography but you're arguing that adult porn incentivises people to abuse their children so they can go and make more adult porn when they get older? I don't understand. A father who neglects his daughter emotionally profits from people clicking a link to a video of her when she's an adult? And I'm not just talking about full-blown production porn. I'm talking about amateur anonymous stuff, animated even. Any kind of sexually stimulating content at all is what I'm referring to as porn here. Would the same logic apply to going to see UFC matches or paying to see a horror film? These things also have a high correlation of childhood trauma being the genesis of the urge to pursue/create these things.

Here's a slightly out-there proposal. Should people feel responsible for bad things that may have occurred due to a seemingly unrelated act? For example: Bob is driving home one night. Bob drives 10 miles over the limit and accidentally hits a deer and kills it. Bob is responsible for killing the deer. Same situation, but Bob doesn't stop quick enough to not bump the deer's leg. The deer limps off into the woods, bob is responsible for hitting the deer. Now that deer 2 weeks later is crossing another road. A car is going the speed limit but the deer bolts out, not fast enough to get away due to its hurt leg. The car crashes into the deer, the deer goes through the windshield and kills the driver. Is Bob responsible for the death of the driver? If Bob wouldn't have been going so fast he wouldn't have hit the deer's leg and so on. Is this a legitimate way to assign responsibility, or are there degrees? This argument is really interesting and I don't see a way to refute it because nowhere between Bob hitting the deer and the deer killing the driver is there another fork in the road of free will.

@Elizbaeth If you introduce them to sexuality during the appropriate time in puberty and help guide them through the changes, as well as raise them with kindness and interest, porn won't ever be a problem for them. My parents didn't say a word to me about the changes I went through and never had a discussion about sex. I had to discover all of that on my own, along with having no bond with my mother or father and being mentally isolated during that whole time. As long as you keep on that path of actually getting to know who your kids are, being interested in them, they won't need porn to make them happy because they'll already be happy to have you in their life.

@Elizbaeth What is your opinion on animated pornography? What about porn drawn by artists that takes advantage of no actors? Would I then be taking advantage of the artist's proclivity to draw this stuff? I'm on my third week of having not looked up any kind of porn and it's totally unbearable. There's this erotic comic that I followed before I heard this argument and I feel this deep life-threatening urge to look at its progress again. This probably sounds all hella weird to you but I appreciate the thought you're putting into this. In a way I want one of you to give me an argument that invalidates mine more than anything else right now so I can go back to what I've known for so long, but if not then I won't touch the stuff again because of what it would do to my conscience. Even if I would go back, I'd regulate it and keep it under control like I used to, but until then I'm gonna suffer through. @Tyler H, @smarterthanone, @Jot, any input?

@smarterthanone @Tyler H I guess this argument has me in a bind personally so I'll just come out and say it. When I'm about to search for porn I think about my visiting that site, clicking on a link, and viewing a video. Through my actions the site gets ad revenue, clicks, and views. By racking those up, I am increasing the likelihood of someone vulnerable to addiction finding this stuff and having it ruin their lives. Maybe that person is a 14 year old kid who knows nothing else besides finding ways to kill pain, and I'd hate for that kid to get hooked onto that stuff and have it warp his brain. I've stopped all viewing of porn at the moment because this whole argument makes porn watching unconscionable to me. I refuse to click another porn link because right now it seems like if I do I'm potentially throwing someone into the throws of porn addiction which is something I don't want on my conscience. Also sorry about these late replies. My content is being moderated so sometimes it can take a while before they're approved.

@Tyler H Right, and he would combat the non-initiation of force argument by positing: Is it immoral to expose children to sexual material? Yes. Is viewing/supporting porn increasing the likelihood that children will come in contact with sexual material? Even by a small margin, yes. So; if a child was sitting right next to you when you were about to open a porn link, is the argument that "I'm not initiating force and the parents should be monitoring him" enough to make opening that porn link in front of that child ok? Why does morality change if the kid is halfway across the country and browsing the internet on his own? Shouldn't you not be taking actions that increase the risk of others finding/having access to material that could consume their lives and maybe even destroy them? One problem with this is that the same argument could be used against playing/buying videogames. Videogames consume young people probably even more than porn, but nobody would argue that videogame purchasing/playing is immoral (maybe Sarah Palin). But videogames don't go as deep into the brain as sexuality does.

I had another thread on Self Knowledge similar to this but maybe the philosophy board can help me out with this one. I was conversing with someone who is very anti-porn and after considering FDR's perspective, he gave an argument that I can't seem to rebut on why it is immoral to consume porn. The argument goes like this: Harming children (or anyone) is morally wrong (considering it's not self-defense). Consider the fact that IT IS POSSIBLE that there is a child, young adult, or likewise out there that is emotionally needy or unstable. This child COULD go onto the internet and seek out ways to combat his anxiety and emotional emptiness. Porn is one of the most common methods of pain erasure. If you go onto a porn site and click a video, that video has a counter for views and most likely has ads that support the site financially. By doing this, you potentially give money to the site allowing it to stay up that much longer, expand that much bigger, and increase that particular video's popularity to the point where it's more likely to show up on searches. Now considering all this, your actions COULD have led to this kid or person finding this video and becoming aroused/addicted to this new form of pain management which has a chance of consuming their lives due to their lack of innate self-knowledge. Therefor, porn consumption is wrong due to the possibility of it doing harm to others. You will never know whether or not clicking on that porn video will have that butterfly effect, therefor not clicking in the first place is the only moral option. This argument seems to make logical sense but the total condemnation of porn based on what could potentially happen to someone somewhere that you'd have no idea about just seems a little self-attacky for me. I can't put my finger on why though. Thoughts?

If you wanna debunk AnCap then you gotta debunk voluntarism. If you wanna debunk voluntarism you need to be able to justify one person using coercion against another in a room.

Firstly, the age at which this was done is of note. Being that young, you have a long ways until full brain maturity, and this is the age at which sexual development is really just getting started. But I understand that the whole "you were a kid" argument may not be enough. What I think may be more prevalent on your mind is the question of incomprehensibility. What I mean by this is the confusion you might have as to why you did this thing while at the same time retaining empathy and the capacity for this kind of conversation. In a way it just doesn't fit, right? This is a common thing and I personally believe you should take this lack of comprehensibility as a sign that something hasn't been discovered yet. The narrative that may be in your head of "i must be a bad person" is only there because your history is foggy and obscured. In a way it's like having a puzzle piece marooned by itself on a table top with a slowly but uniformly developing puzzle around it. You may look at that piece as you build and say... "I have no clue what that piece connects to, what picture it forms, or if it's even supposed to be there. It's a different color than all the other pieces. It being there by itself makes no sense. Is my puzzle broken?" In reality, that piece IS a part of the puzzle, it does form an image, it does serve a purpose, and when you do form that whole image and the puzzle is figured out, there is where you will find that self-empathy that you need. Therapy is what I would recommend for starting to find those missing pieces. Maybe someone who specializes in sexual dysfunction because they may have an understanding as to how these urges develop or maybe they've had success with others of a similar situation. Another thing I'll say that I think is of incredible use that will keep you oriented is that your opinion of yourself is the only thing that matters whether you believe it or not. It's common for us to worry about other people's opinions of us, but in reality what we're really worried about is our opinion of ourselves. Remember that because it's a very useful and empowering fact that can help keep your mind on track. This is a very sensitive topic and barely scratches the surface but I believe this is something you can find self-empathy for. And remember, once you can empathize with yourself, it's universal, so others will be able to do the same. If you need to discuss anything more in depth that you're not comfortable with putting on here, I'm totally fine with PMs.

wat

Ok so 2/3 of these are beliefs of how porn is effecting people, but none are moral arguments. What I'm asking for is an argument from morality on why pornography consumption is wrong. My current belief is that morality doesn't play a part in it because it is UPB compliant. Everyone can consume porn and want others to consume porn (unlike rape/theft/murder). I think there are arguments to be made as to its addictive qualities, again, Your Brain On Porn is a goldmine of info, but I don't think a moral argument exists.

@Philociraptor I'm still ambivalent about this kinda stuff. I just get a bad feeling when I'm exposed to stuff like what was mentioned above. Even if I find some of it appealing, that feeling that something is wrong that I can't put my finger on lures me away from it. It may just be historical self-attack or maybe it's my intuition telling me it's a bad idea. Maybe if someone had a moral argument about this then I could put this to rest but until then I'm kinda floating around.

IMO, having one good person in your life is infinity preferable to having a whole network of bad people or sub-par people.

@Philosiraptor What's your opinion on the simulated/animated porn industry? Those don't use real actors/actresses and it's a smaller industry but it has the advantage of basically being able to be anything the consumer wants. Where do you think the line should be drawn?

This is a question that I've long sought an answer to but could never pin down. It's a topic I've only rarely heard discussed on the show, the most recent being the interview with Gary Wilson who wrote Your Brain On Porn (highly recommended). Basically, is pornography of any kind morally wrong to consume? If so, what is the argument that pins it to the wall so we can help perpetrators see their immorality? If not, should we treat it as an addictive behavior/substance? Like booze or opiates? Or should we be hands off in addressing it? I personally see nothing morally wrong with a guy in his room consuming weird fetish pornography, just like a guy smoking on his balcony. He isn't committing rape, theft, assault or murder, so his actions don't violate UPB. It's a different case however if he's supporting (or funding) pornography in which UPB is being violated, the content of that example I'm sure you can fill in yourselves. At the same time, I can't help but get this feeling or voice in the back of my head that tells me something is wrong. That this has an air of destructiveness that can have devastating effects on a person's life. It goes deeper than a nicotine addiction does, because sexuality is something so personal and intimate. This feels like a totally different beast that I can't get good philosophical footing on. Maybe I'm over-thinking it and if twenty-year-olds wanna watch hentai then there's nothing wrong with that, but something feels off. As for Stef's views on this, I've extracted little tid-bits from shows, one about sexual fetishism where he said sexual fetishism needs to be corrected, and in the same show he questioned the listener on his openness about his fetish with his mother. He said "How do you talk about this stuff with your mom? 'I like it this way with whip cream and a dinosaur toy-' this is just something I never wanna hear from my children." And he didn't say it in an angry or condemning way, but in a joking sort of "that's private and should stay private". The show is titled The Origins Of Sexual Fetishism for those interested. In conclusion, here's my best "argument" against the consumption of pornography that I'm unsure of: Why would you need porn to be aroused if you're in a relationship? What is it about your significant other that is lacking in the sexual department? Shouldn't your lover be the only source of arousal in your life? Porn is wrong to consume because you pledge your sexual arousal to your partner, and them to you, so using porn is like going to a prostitute or cheating. All done for sexual needs at the neglect of your partner. So what are your guys's opinions on this? Link me a previous thread if it's been talked about before.

You have to be the final decision maker about this but I know that Stefan did a show regarding this topic. From what I can recall, the basis for making this decision would be how you felt about how your parents treated you, and if you're willing to risk some kind of repetition of what happened to you with your own kids. From how you describe them, they don't sound like great people to have in your life. I can't recall you mentioning a positive. If anyone remembers the call-in show please post.

IQ is just a general measurement I think. Says nothing about an individual's abilities. I've heard about people who are low IQ, like 80 and 70, being on boards of companies and making north of six figures. IQ isn't determinism. Anybody who practices at their thing is gonna get better and better.

I think you do know why most people act as compliant slaves with no backbone. How useful would a non-compliant slave with a backbone be to abusive family structures and government? Stefan isn't joking when he says basically 99% of people you meet have been through the meat-grinder of abuse that shreds the soul down from an independent human being with a moral compass to a compliant slave with no backbone. And just like people who've had their knees shot out, I think we should have sympathy for what people have gone through when we see compliance or even abusive anger towards us, and even rampant hedonism. They're all a victim of the same thing that has churned the world into horror after horror. The cycle is older than most of our family trees and will unfortunately continue for quite a while. If you do catch yourself feeling contempt, just remind yourself that you're looking at a victim of something hundreds of thousands of years old. Really just think about that. Even in your case, think about what you were like before waking up to all this stuff. That should give you some perspective on how to view others.

Hi guys. I felt like this was the right thing to do because this could possibly help others going through the same thing. Some of you may be going through your history, and bad things may be popping up. Stuff that you'd rather forget that you did, or more honestly stuff you wish you could change/fix. I am dealing with a few things of my own, but I wanted to firstly apologize to anyone who may have read my post on JohnnyBoy's last topic a few months ago. In it I stated that "as long as you haven't done any un-restitutable harm, you can still have love". This was incredibly irresponsible of me. For someone going through a hard time, reading that and applying it to their specific situation (considering their potential lack of knowledge about this kind of stuff) may have sapped them of the drive to keep digging through their history to better understand and empathize with themselves at a younger age, or even stuff they did recently. This could have left those who saw it in a really dark place, and I don't wanna leave people in dark places. This isn't the rock-solid rule. You never know what connections you can make in therapy. You never know what insight you can hear that makes it all come into focus and makes everything clear. If you are dealing with this type of stuff, do not give up. The fact that you're here, that your true self is alive, that means something. Keep searching until you find that bit of information that makes it all understandable because your true self survived, and that is a fact that should not be over-looked. To quote/paraphrase Stefan in a podcast called Restitution and The Future: "You said we can't do anything about the past. And I don't think you understand what a thing that was to say to me, someone who has spent a lot of time focusing on the past. The truth is that there is something that we can do about the past. And that is to understand the truth about it." I hope this can help some of you or inspire others to keep pushing the bar in therapy. The answers are somewhere in your head and you owe it to yourself and your future to keep digging. IN ADDITION: If you could, could you send this post out to some of your friends on this board? I want to try to get this message out to as many people as possible. I can't do anything about those that may have seen it while browsing and not logged in (there's no way to tell how many people saw it) and that's something I have to deal with but I want as many people to see it as possible, so if you could boost the message I would greatly appreciate it.

I'm really upset with myself for not having found this resource when it first started. I know the depths of conversation were much more focused back then and that seems to be where the majority of the energy was. Not to mention for me personally, it could have stopped me from making certain mistakes that I'm now dealing with the fallout from. Better late than never I suppose. But I get what you're saying because when I log onto this site I get the feeling of a place that's more focused on topical stuff where thread interest lasts about 3 days at best. I think it has to do with Stefan's focus. He's much more politically involved now than he was in his "political efforts are useless" days due to Trump and the libertarian surge. That shift of focus from personal application of philosophy to current events along with the show's rapidly growing size means he can't communicate one-on-one with the same people anymore which means less interaction with the board members (the call-in show excluded of course, but that being brief, isolated conversations). Maybe it'll shift back to a focus on personal philosophy when the interest leans in that direction.

It may not in some cases but regardless, how would you determine moral responsibility?

In podcast 2316 Daniel Mackler, a guest host who is into self-knowledge as much if not more than Stef, asks Stefan how he would determine moral responsibility. Stefan responds by saying moral responsibility is determined via the person's use of morality to influence others' behavior. An example is used where a child molester inherently in his actions is saying to the child "the satisfaction of my wants is the good" while violating that standard with the child because sexual abuse is not something the child wants. I'm confused because I don't know if Stefan means someone is morally responsible for every decision they make following their first use of moral reasoning to another, or if a person is morally responsible for the situation to which he uses moral reasoning to justify his own actions (again to another person). For example... is it: Bob argued why it was ok for him to steal his sister's dollar when he was 6 years old, therefore Bob is morally responsible for every action forward of 6 years old because he has demonstrated an understanding of morality. Or is it... Bob argued why it was ok for him to steal his sister's dollar when he was 6 years old, therefore Bob is now morally responsible for the theft of his sister's dollar. Basically, is that specific action of justifying what you did to another person confirmation of your knowledge of ethics? Or do ethics apply regardless of whether you use ethical arguments to justify your actions to another person? The question is, how would you know someone understood ethics if they didn't try to justify what they did to another person?

I think this caller in this show has a lot that can be paralleled with your experience.