morality Moral Argument Against Consuming Pornography

[Spiritual-Autarky]

To the

On 2/8/2018 at 7:42 AM, GoodJBoy said:

These are just initial thoughts on this subject: 

If a man sets his goals in life so that he can self actualize according to his personal essence and he decides that getting married and having a wife and children is an important goal and he decides that staying happily married is also an important goal, avoiding pornography would be a good thing. 

Having positive, physical [S's note: in other words sexual :-) Healthy sexual relations exist, contrary to beliefs of  pornosavages and M= psychopaths ], and spiritually bonding relations with ones wife in marriage helps keep the marriage strong and healthy. 

 

Porn leads to less physical relations and less meaningful relations for a husband and wife.  Porn = loss of opportunity to strengthen a marriage.  And if you are not married yet but your goal is to get married eventually, porn is addictive and will setup a future husband for the above troubles.

By nature, men are extremely sexual and porn to men is similar in some ways like crack to a crack addict.  It is obvious that crack will totally destroy one's life but the dangers of porn are not so obvious but they can be just as destructive as crack. 

Spiritually speaking, for typical husbands and future husbands, watching porn causes husband and wife to swim in their own feces rather than have loving relations.

The seocnd reply though, is to the ykw who downrepped my account yesterday!

 

I may not share your opinionswith  yoru love of prongography (your own opiinon..) but My ocmment does not merit an slander from you!

Nothing that I posted was untrue... eithe

You do not have right slander my accoutn for no reason

 

Do Eff off to your own corner if don't agree ... I have done nothing against you to stop you livng your lifestlye choice, but ifyou continue to harrass me here, I will take on it

[HenryJubeda]

On 11/22/2017 at 10:23 PM, Pod said:

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?

What nonsense. Why are the parents letting some child watch porn? You can't just say something is immoral, because immorality is specifically the initiation of force. Watching porn is a voluntary choice, as is producing it, so there's no force involved, and therefore it's not immoral to watch porn. Yes, it is BAD for you to do so, but a choice nonetheless. Cigarettes, meth and booze aren't immoral either, forcing a kid to do any of those is. Because of the force. Morality doesn't apply to anything that isn't a moral agent and the only moral agents we know are humans.

[mgggb]

On 11/22/2017 at 4:23 PM, Pod said:

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?

This argument is wrong, but porn is a violation of the NAP for other reasons.

·      There is a high correlation between the people who appear in porn and highly abusive childhoods

·      Using porn creates a market demand for more

·      Therefore, using porn incentivizes child abuse because it allows for a profitable outlet for said abuse which would have to otherwise be dealt with if there were no market for porn

·      Therefore, watching porn is a violation of the NAP

[Pod]

On 7/19/2018 at 1:49 PM, mgggb said:

·      Therefore, using porn incentivizes child abuse because it allows for a profitable outlet for said abuse which would have to otherwise be dealt with if there were no market for porn

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.  

[barn]

On 07/30/2018 at 3:18 PM, Pod said:

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.   

Hi @Pod

A chiming in, no worries if you aren't into it...

Does supporting Hollywood and its 'players' affects the continuation of malpractice enacted by those that have been revealed (and still not prosecuted, only just 'mockingly') to be 'rotting from the inside'?

ps. - (There goes my mainstream media support, evaporating like 'flying salts', but at least I think I'm 'woke')

[Pod]

4 minutes ago, barn said:

Does supporting Hollywood and its 'players' affects the continuation of malpractice enacted by those that have been revealed (and still not prosecuted, only just 'mockingly') to be 'rotting from the inside'?

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.  

[ticketyboo]

On 11/22/2017 at 1:23 PM, Pod said:

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?

The rambling argument in the original post needs to be summarized. Here: "Viewing porn will transfer money to a website, and the website will use that money to force open the eyeballs of children and make them watch porn."

And now we see that this is not an argument against viewing porn. This is an argument against forcing open the eyeballs of children and making them watch porn. Since children generally have less agency than adults, it is also an argument against bad or neglectful parenting.