posted
I think I could predict with about 85% accuracy what some given individual that I know very well would judge as pornographic or not. That is, for a close friend, I could probably pick out correctly how that person would categorize 85 out of 100 instances (visual, audio, etc).
I think I could do this with a close friend with reasonable accuracy because I would understand them well enough in so many other ways that I could pretty well get what "pornography" means to that person.
That error rate would go way up (in my experience) for people I don't know as well. For strangers, it would be a very crude estimation.
---
Edited to add: I write this to explicitly acknowledge that I am not denying a sort of objective quality of pornographic. Yes, when I am talking with a given person, I might be able to swing it so that we are talking about mostly the same thing when we use those words. But the society-wide discussion of what is pornographic is much, much harder -- and that doesn't deny the individual case, though.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:But I think even Porter agrees that having the thought and dispelling it is better then having the thought, entertaining it, and not acting on it.
Even Porter?
Actually, I'd say that entertaining the thought is acting on it.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's not necessarily that porn is in the eye of the beholder, but that the medium or venue in which it is delivered matters.
So do you consider the advertisements in the SI SE featuring models with less clothing than many of the SI models and containing sexually suggestive phrases to be pornography? SI does include the brand name, price, and contanct information for the manufacturers of the different swimsuits that are featured, so yes, you could possibly purchase the swimsuits if you really wanted to. Would your perspective change if they displayed the brand more prominently on the page? What if they divided the SE edition throughout the year and inserted a couple of pictures into each regular issue of SI with the brand prominently displayed so that they are just the same as the other ads? Would that change your classification of those pictures?
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:But I think even Porter agrees that having the thought and dispelling it is better then having the thought, entertaining it, and not acting on it.
Even Porter?
Actually, I'd say that entertaining the thought is acting on it.
As opposed to "Porter thinks that having the thought and dispelling it is just as bad as having the thought, entertaining it, and not acting on it" or "Porter thinks that having the thought and dispelling it is morally equivilant to acting on it."
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Fine substitute "fornication" in for "adultery."
But Jesus didn't say fornication. He said adultery, correct? How are you justifying substituting fornication?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It depends on whether one thinks Christ was making a statement about one sin or a more general statement using one sin as the specific case up for discussion.
If the intended message is "committing a sin in one's mind is the same as actually committing it," then the substitution of "fornication" for "adultery" is an accurate way of applying the message to the specific issue at hand.
Of course, substituting it in the quote - to suggest Jesus said X when he actually said Y - would be dishonest. But I don't get the impression anyone suggested that the gospel actually says "fornication" there. Rather, that the message in that passage applies just as strongly to fornication as it does to adultery.
If one believes Jesus though adultery was somehow unique in this respect (that is, in being a sin when committed in the mind), then the substitution can't be justified.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: It depends on whether one thinks Christ was making a statement about one sin or a more general statement using one sin as the specific case up for discussion.
If the intended message is "committing a sin in one's mind is the same as actually committing it," then the substitution of "fornication" for "adultery" is an accurate way of applying the message to the specific issue at hand.
Of course, substituting it in the quote - to suggest Jesus said X when he actually said Y - would be dishonest. But I don't get the impression anyone suggested that the gospel actually says "fornication" there. Rather, that the message in that passage applies just as strongly to fornication as it does to adultery.
If one believes Jesus though adultery was somehow unique in this respect (that is, in being a sin when committed in the mind), then the substitution can't be justified.
Thanks Dag, are you sure you shouldn't be somebody's PR rep? Publicist? Editor?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Are you saying that if I say check a girl out and imagine seducing her and having sex with her that it matters not if I actually get up and accomplish my fantasy? God will not condemn me any more then if I did not actually do it? I agree entertaining the thought is certainly a sin.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by quidscribis: I think you paid for it, therefore you're entitled to it. (My feelings on the issue completely aside.)
(Italics added)
Excuse me, but was there a pun intended here? No one seems to have commented on it, unless I'm blind and missed it.
Posts: 1099 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
