Forums
Guides
Features
Media
Zelda Wiki
Patreon
    • Discussion
    How should the Left view pornography?
    • As a lad, my very rigid spiritual beliefs made me follow all that "the body is a temple" dogma. I was convinced that sex before marriage, pornography, and such were all dastardly sins. I remember once voicing those beliefs here on Zelda Universe, where I was met with almost universal derision.

      Just as it is today, Zelda Universe largely was a liberal community back then. As I got older and got more exposure to the internet, and thus, more exposure to different views of the world, I came to see that my earlier aversion to forms of erotica was in the minority. I found it to exist almost exclusively within highly religious, very conservative groups of people. I came to make the association as -

      People who think porn is damaging - always right wing
      People who think porn is harmless - often left wing

      I also came to eventually see the innocuity in consensual pornography. However, over the last few years, I feel as though I've seen something of a split occurring among the left in regards to whether or not willful pornography is damaging to society. It seems to stem from the Feminism movement, which, for many followers, states a vehement opposition to the objectification of women for their physical attributes.

      It is similar to the left wing disapproval for the way that the modeling industry traditionally operates. Much like the modeling industry, pornography rarely uses 'normal' girls. It seeks those who would be considered 'hot', those with ideal physical features (we know which ones I'm primarily implying). It's even less likely to employ heavier-set girls. This idea of the best looking girls being those with perfect appearances as those found in general media pervades society and creates an environment where the average girl feels inadequate for her appearance.

      It also boils down to something of a similar argument that you have normally seen come from the conservative opposition to pornography, that it turns women and their bodies into objects. The growing support for women to be empowered and independent, to be viewed as capable in fields of thought and labor just the same as men, might understandably be in opposition to a field where the women are valued strictly for their appearance, and where only women with an unusually-favorable appearance are valued.

      I am an avid follower of the UFC and the sport of Mixed Martial Arts, which recently had a situation where some of my observations played out. One female fighter, 23 year old Paige Vanzant, who is widely considered to be very pretty, and has engaged in numerous entertainment opportunities outside of fighting, posted a video on social media modeling some new attire supplied to her by Reebok, the UFC's clothing sponsor. She modeled said clothing in what some would call a seductive, tantalizing manner. She ended up being slut-shamed by several other female mixed martial artists, some of which merely found her video to be vapid, and others who felt that it purported the narrative of female fighters still being valued more for their appearance than for their abilities as athletes.

      totalprosports.com/2017/04/30/…deo-on-instagram-video/#1

      So, this all leads to a few questions I have for everyone.

      Do you feel this burgeoning opposition to pornography and its related entertainment from left-minded people is a real thing? Or am I exaggerating?

      What is your personal view on pornography's innocuity or dangers to society?

      How do you, as a left-minded person think it should be judged? Or, how do you as a right-minded person think it should be judged?

      Does pornography contribute to the devaluing of women and their equality?

      If you are right-minded, do you sense a possible hypocrisy within the left for the way that pornography is/isn't condemned?

      Have at it, ladies and gents.

      I'm published! Check out -
      THE LEGEND OF LIGHT
      Book One, The Echoes of Light, available in Paperback and on Kindle - Book 2 out late 2018
      Read the first five chapters for free

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Mirren ().

    • If you're including liberals within context of "The Left™" you may get less clear answers as it's hard to reconcile capitalism and also be critical of and abolish the social functions it realizes solely for profit at the expense of the people who, in their work, created that profit.

      I should preface that sex workers deserve everyone's implicit support and that sex work itself is not inherently wrong. I personally feel that capitalism is inextricably antagonistic towards the pursuit of sex work and it makes ample use of the social and economic inequality it creates to perpetuate an unhealthy environment for sex work. It becomes increasingly more dangerous as you continue along the spectrum of marginalized people and their disproportionate economic and social inequality under capitalism.

      When you are a marginalized person and it becomes your job, your only means of not-starving or your only means of affording education and other necessities, to subjugate your body unto the whims of a studio whose interests are rooted in what they can do to you on film to earn a net profit from voyeurs (without fair and proportionate pay), it shouldn't even be a question how unethical and abhorrent that is. If you have no choice but to participate or starve, that's not consent. Despite that, no sex worker is at fault for participating in sex work, and sex work itself is an excellent occupation for those interested in doing the work of their own volition. To pretend otherwise is just needlessly regressive.

      Capitalism paves the way to corrupt sex work into just another mechanism which commodifies individuals and reduces them down to what they're capable of producing for profit. In some cases it will readily exploit the interest of sexual content and join that with the coercion of capital, often specifically targeting marginalized people to take advantage of how ~exotic~ they are (thus its interests are to never normalize them, as doing so would inhibit profit). That's a negative relationship which must be abolished in order for ethical pornography to be produced.

      It's not a simple "yes" or "no" as pornography itself is a vast field of work. You can't apply the decision to participate (or not participate) in the work for everyone because their relationship to the work is dependent upon their conditions for engaging in it in the first place. I do assert that capitalism can (and does) necessitate toxic environments at the expense of people for profit, but porn itself can be a healthy industry. I would be careful about which "leftists" denounce pornography, and for what reasons. For me, the proper approach is to dismantle capitalism and its coercive hierarchies and to instead foster voluntary, non-exploitative sex work. Be conscious of the media you consume and be ready to fight against exploitation, just make sure you don't hurt innocent workers in the process.
    • The same way anyone should view any form of labor or profession. As long as all parties involved are consenting adult, their working conditions are safe, and they are fairly compensated, then it's their business.

      /thread #commonsense
    • Does that extend to methamphetamine manufacture, or (to make the point more bluntly) contract killers?

      Each of those individuals can be consenting adults, have safe working conditions for themselves, and can be fairly compensated.

      Society has an interest in regulating, indeed prohibiting, some behavior.

      Once you acknowledge third party or consumer impact (which you must, in order to object to the above professions), the door is open to further scrutiny of any profession.

      #commonsense

      The post was edited 3 times, last by Octorocker ().

    • I think porn is fine as it is now in the western world.

      What I do find a bit hypocritical, is how countries (that could regulate prostitution) are absolutely fine with porn, but prostitution is highly illegal.
      So, since it's both a case of 'as long as you're not hurting anyone it's fine'* and 'there's consent from both parties', does the Left find prostitution OK too?
      (I personally don't have strong opinions on prostitution. But I think if it's well-regulated, it should be okay).


      *I find this reasoning often used by the left too simplistic at times. People downloading child pornography aren't hurting anyone, they're ''just'' downloading a video. Also applies to unregulated prostitution I think, as (by concept) you are not hurting anyone and there is consent, but in reality you are contributing to an industry extremely prone to exploitation.

      Sorry for the slight tangent. I'm just thinking out loud.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by john_marston ().

    • Octorocker wrote:

      Does that extend to methamphetamine manufacture, or (to make the point more bluntly) contract killers?

      Each of those individuals can be consenting adults, have safe working conditions for themselves, and can be fairly compensated.
      Murder tends to be non-consensual and meth addiction does not fall under the definition of "safe".

      Octorocker wrote:

      Once you acknowledge third party or consumer impact (which you must, in order to object to the above professions), the door is open to further scrutiny of any profession.
      I said "all parties involved"... one would think that naturally includes those as well.

      john_marston wrote:

      What I do find a bit hypocritical, is how countries (that could regulate prostitution) are absolutely fine with porn, but prostitution is highly illegal.
      So, since it's both a case of 'as long as you're not hurting anyone it's fine'* and 'there's consent from both parties', does the Left find prostitution OK too?
      (I personally don't have strong opinions on prostitution. But I think if it's well-regulated, it should be okay).
      As long as the conditions I described are fulfilled then I see no reason to make that illegal either. Usually that means regulation.

      john_marston wrote:

      *I find this reasoning often used by the left too simplistic at times. People downloading child pornography aren't hurting anyone, they're ''just'' downloading a video. Also applies to unregulated prostitution I think, as (by concept) you are not hurting anyone and there is consent, but in reality you are contributing to an industry extremely prone to exploitation.
      All industries are prone to exploitation, that's what happens when profit is the only concern in a market run by piece of shit called the human race. Regulation should go without saying.
    • Alright, since we're going to play semantics, let's play semantics. We'll go with the methamphetamine example, since the contract killer one is a bit more complicated.

      Your original post is below.

      Red Dingo wrote:

      As long as all parties involved are consenting adult,
      Satisfied easily enough for meth manufacture.

      their working conditions are safe,
      Satisfied easily enough for meth manufacture.

      and they are fairly compensated, then it's their business.
      Satisfied easily enough for meth manufacture.

      Now, if you're going to extend the analysis meth manufacture to consider third-parties and consumers (all parties involved) you are now inquiring into the detrimental effects the service has on indirect participants. When you do that, you start inquiring into indirect harm, and when you do that, you open up the same analysis for prostitution.

      Now, let's extend the meth example further.

      What if the consenting consumer is capable of using meth in a way that poses no danger to themselves, but is a parent? What if the manufacturer is adequately compensated, perfectly safe, and consenting, but his activities create a significant drag on the economy?

      Do we see the point yet? Activity always has an indirect impact on society in general, and nothing is so simple as: consent, compensation, and safety.

      You can claim that regulation goes without saying, but there comes a point when regulation of an activity crosses the cost/benefit threshold and the more pragmatic approach is simply to make the activity illegal (see certain driving maneuvers).

      Even if that wasn't the case, regulation of the intricacy necessary for the aforementioned examples (and many others) would be so onerous as to render the conduct illegal in fact, if not in theory.

      TL; DR

      Your standard is oversimplified.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Octorocker ().

    • I am equally as conservative as I am liberal in my views and do not wish to identify with either political side, but here are answers to some of the questions.

      Display Spoiler

      Mirren wrote:

      Do you feel this burgeoning opposition to pornography and its related entertainment from left-minded people is a real thing? Or am I exaggerating?
      It kinda is a both left and right thing.

      Mirren wrote:

      What is your personal view on pornography's innocuity or dangers to society?
      I don't think it harms anything. As long as you don't be a creepy and watch/view it in public, show it to minors, make it of minors, or exploit people in any way while making it or use it to exploit people, it's fine.

      Mirren wrote:

      Does pornography contribute to the devaluing of women and their equality?
      No. Porn can be made of either sex, and the person in the porn is usually fine with using their body in that sort way. If the person chooses to do that with their body, I don't see how it devalues that person's sex and equality.

      Mirren wrote:

      If you are right-minded, do you sense a possible hypocrisy within the left for the way that pornography is/isn't condemned?
      I am not right-minded, but I do see a lot of hypocrisy about it in both the left and right. From what I've seen there seems to be a lot of radical feminists who will post about porn objectifying women and calling it morally wrong, and then an hour later praise a woman for posting nudes on her twitter or instagram because doing so "empowers women." And a lot of ultra-conservative religious men who take everything written in their religion's holy book (even if it's extremely mistranslated and to fully understand it you need to find out the historical context, like the Bible for example) extremely literally and say that thinking about porn and sex is a sin and then stare at a Victoria's Secret billboard.
    • @Octorocker

      Octorocker wrote:

      Now, if you're going to extend the analysis meth manufacture to consider third-parties and consumers (all parties involved) you are now inquiring into the detrimental effects the service has on indirect participants.
      Indirectly affected participants would mean they are involved and therefore covered under the first clause.

      Octorocker wrote:

      What if the consenting consumer is capable of using meth in a way that poses no danger to themselves, but is a parent? What if the manufacturer is adequately compensated, perfectly safe, and consenting, but his activities create a significant drag on the economy?
      Involving a child again falls under the "consenting adults" part. As for the second part, again I consider indirect participants to be involved, a negative impact on the economy,

      Octorocker wrote:

      Do we see the point yet? Activity always has an indirect impact on society in general, and nothing is so simple as: consent, compensation, and safety.
      What I see is you trying to keep this topic alive just to keep it alive instead of because you had an argument pertaining to its subject matter.

      Octorocker wrote:

      TL; DR

      Your standard is oversimplified.
      TL;DR

      Your critique is superfluous


      Does anyone have an opinion on how the Left should view pornography?
    • I just want to say that the idea that an entire movement should view a particular issue a single way is not helpful in my view. Diversity of opinion even within a ideological coalition, while often frustrating to deal with politically, seems like a healthy thing to me. Whatever happened to developing one's own opinion rather than following the hive-mind? This is a big reason we have such divided politics right now, as dissent is tolerated less and less.

      I've always been unabashedly pro-pornography, with the acknowledgment that like any dopamine boosting activity, it has the potential to become habit forming and addictive for some individuals. Personally, I find a certain amount of pornography very healthy even in the context of a committed relationship because it helps satisfy a desire for novelty and variety (which I believe is innate to our biology) without having to cheat. I understand that some people may feel the act of viewing pornography itself as cheating, but thankfully my partner is okay with it, and we even watch together sometimes. It can be a sticky/uncomfortable issue to navigate, but transparency is always better. I refuse to apologize or feel guilty for enjoying the female form.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Bill ().

    • Red Dingo wrote:

      Indirectly affected participants would mean they are involved and therefore covered under the first clause.
      Then your standard is worthless because people should freely scrutinize the indirect effects of prostitution, leading to the exact same analysis that exists now.

      In turn, the three factors you mentioned are rendered irrelevant by virtue of being consumed by inquiry into the impact on indirect participants.

      How are you not seeing this?

      Involving a child again falls under the "consenting adults" part. As for the second part, again I consider indirect participants to be involved, a negative impact on the economy,
      The child wouldn't be involved in the manufacture, which was the word emphasized above.

      Under your standard, the enterprise of meth manufacture wouldn't be an issue. The child would only be an indirect participant in distribution or consumption, but the manufacture would still impact them.

      As for the indirect participants, see above.

      What I see is you trying to keep this topic alive just to keep it alive instead of because you had an argument pertaining to its subject matter.
      Then you're being purposefully blind. The argument pertains to the subject matter exactly as much as the original post it disputes: yours.

      I'll spell it out for you: the Left shouldn't just assess the three factors mentioned, because they're either under-inclusive or, if not, irrelevant to the actual analysis being undertaken. Finally, when the Left expands the scope of inquiry, prostitution runs into the same analysis that already exists.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Octorocker ().

    • Octorocker

      Octorocker wrote:

      Then your standard is worthless because people should freely scrutinize the indirect effects of prostitution, leading to the exact same analysis that exists now.
      In turn, the three factors you mentioned are rendered irrelevant by virtue of being consumed by inquiry into the impact on indirect participants.
      How are you not seeing this?
      Pretty sure I'm not the one with vision problems here.

      Octorocker wrote:

      The child wouldn't be involved in the manufacture, which was the word emphasized above.
      Under your standard, the enterprise of meth manufacture wouldn't be an issue. The child would only be an indirect participant in distribution or consumption, but the manufacture would still impact them.
      As for the indirect participants, see above.
      If meth is just being manufacture but neither sold nor consumed, how is manufacture impacting them?

      Octorocker wrote:

      I'll spell it out for you: the Left shouldn't just assess the three factors mentioned, because they're either under-inclusive or, if not, irrelevant to the actual analysis being undertaken. Finally, when the Left expands the scope of inquiry, prostitution runs into the same analysis that already exists.
      The fuck is there to analyze? If someone is being exploited or harmed as a result of the activity in question, then intervention is necessary. Is it really such problem that for once, there can be a simple answer to a topic without the need for ten page essays?
    • Great question!

      I, too, was raised in a religious, right-wing home/community, and though I definitely don't hold to the mindset I was raised with, I still see the reasons behind their thinking while now seeing the other side as well. I seem to weigh in at a different degree of the political spectrum with every issue.

      When considering the morality, so to speak, of things like sexuality in media, my conclusions usually start with two simple questions: 1) What was the process to create this [video, game, book, show] like, and 2) how does it affect me?

      Q1: What was the creation process like? Now, I've *heard* that the porn industry is not what you would call... gentle. That the pornos consumers end up watching could actually legitimately be called rape on tape. In addition to that, as a woman I can tell you that a lot of the shit they got going on in the pornos is NOT what I would on any planet ever call pleasurable. Maybe these actresses are a little kinkier than me, but there's really no telling from this side of the screen.

      Q2: How does it affect me? This question has to do with what's going on in my own head when I consume any sort of media. If I realize that over time I've started to view people in a way that's less than respectable and human, then personally I just don't want to keep at it. I think this answers your question about how porn affects society. The way I see it is that each person is responsible for the way they see the world, and society is essentially a bigger individual. We all contribute, whether we know it or not, so the way we think matters. So keep your own conscience clean.

      In addition to that last question, I'd say if it's something you're becoming addicted to, and you notice you can't go a period of time without thinking about it or needing it, that's probably a sign that you're on the track toward addiction. And no addiction--to anything-- (except maybe coffee) is ever a good thing. I say stay free.

      The last thing I'd say is that if I'm not jiving with a thing but I decide to watch it anyway, it's become a question of how I want to spend my money. Is this the kind of industry I want to support? Is my money furthering its causes over my own causes? It's not a superiority thing, it's just not how I choose to do it. I make all of my fashion choices this way--after watching the documentary The True Cost (get the feminists behind that one!!), I do 90% of my shopping at thrift/consignment stores or brands with a give-back policy.

      To your question about left- /right-wing views... it's been my experience that the left tends more toward acceptance of pornography and the right shies away, but I can totally see how the feminist movement (hells yeah!) would see mostly the negative in the porn industry.

      That leads me to another train of thought... Anne Rice, author of the Vampire Chronicles (Int'vw w/ the Vampire is one of my favorite books) wrote a series of erotica novels based on her understanding that erotica provides an outlet for sexual exploration without harming anyone. I know lots of people agree with her (to your Q, I don't know which side these people tend to lean politically, but I'm sure you could get an idea by visiting those forums), so I guess the same could be said about porn, IF the porn you're watching has been made humanely.

      I hope that helps! Thanks for the engaging question.
    • Red Dingo:
      Display Spoiler

      Red Dingo wrote:

      Pretty sure I'm not the one with vision problems here.

      Then kindly explain how your standard does anything meaningful. As it stands it is either:

      1. So limited as to be unrealistic.
      2. So consumed by the necessary inquiry into societal harm that it renders the standards superfluous to begin with.

      It does a terrible job at striking any meaningful balance.

      If meth is just being manufacture but neither sold nor consumed, how is manufacture impacting them?

      In the same manner that the manufacture of firearms (absent a sale), oil drilling in Russia, or the research into cancer medicine does (absent a sale or consumption).

      I'll leave it to someone with your visual acuity to fill in the obvious gaps.

      The fuck is there to analyze? If someone is being exploited or harmed as a result of the activity in question, then intervention is necessary. Is it really such problem that for once, there can be a simple answer to a topic without the need for ten page essays?

      To your last question: an entire sector of human industry based on sexuality isn't simple.

      As for what topics merit analysis:

      How about the peripheral impacts of prostitution on families, women (halfway the point of the thread), or on the healthcare market?

      What about the difficulty in regulating a prostitution market? How would you ensure safe sex, consent, and working hours given the difficulties of those areas in pornography, where most activity is contractual and recorded for posterity?

      I could go on, but I'd hate to write a ten-page essay for such a simple topic.

      The post was edited 3 times, last by Silver: quote wars ().

    • Octorocker:
      Display Spoiler

      Octorocker wrote:

      1. So limited as to be unrealistic.
      2. So consumed by the necessary inquiry into societal harm that it renders the standards superfluous to begin with.
      So...it's either not inclusive enough or too inclusive...this is supposed to make sense?

      Octorocker wrote:

      In the same manner that the manufacture of firearms (absent a sale), oil drilling in Russia, or the research into cancer medicine does (absent a sale or consumption).

      The manufacture of firearms requires a demand for firearms in order to be economically viable. War creates the most demand for weapons and munitions. Therefore it's illogical for a manufacturer of firearms to have any interest of conflict resolution. Indeed perpetual conflict ensures a stable financial future for any industry that profits from it. The fact that their product is designed to exsanguinate living human being via explosively propelled projectiles invites scrutiny of the industry under the first and second standard alone.

      Of course that's assuming firearms are being manufactured and distributed. If a gun manufacturer is just pumping out pieces that end up no where other than a warehouse, then they are guilty of little else other than wasting time, work, and resources. Of course it also opens the question of just how manufacturers are adequately compensating their employees if their weapons are not being sold.

      In that same way, manufacturing meth alone does nothing other than use up time and resources. The problem comes in that in its deleterious effects on health requires scrutiny under the second standard, addiction as a factor makes consent questionable, thereby making it subject to the first standard. If you're just making meth safely without bothering to consume, sell, or distribute, the only question that need be asked is: why bother?

      Oil drilling in Russia, or anywhere on this planet for that matter, assuming the drillers are adequately compensated consenting adults, still invites scrutiny under second standard via it's overall impact on the workspace called Earth. Assuming the oil can be extracted without damaging the environment, it still contributes to civilization's over reliance on a non renewable resource which will inevitably affect an energy crisis. Furthermore, the increasing use of fossil fuels leads to a rise of CO2 emissions, which, unless we can balance it out with increased oxygen production, will risk atmospheric conditions becoming unsustainable for most forms of life.

      Finally, creating a cure for cancer, while beneficial to the human race, may contribute to overpopulation. In spite of that, if you've created a cure for cancer but choose not to distribute or sell it, all you are doing is inviting the criticism best expressed as: "What the fuck is wrong with you? Ar you stupid or just sadistic?"

      After that the standards become muddled as a group of people drive to your office in cars fueled by Russian petroleum, hold you at gunpoint with firearms that were lying around in a warehouse, and force you to give them the cure with only meth as your compensation. Yes in this case, my standards would fail to address this scenario, because while all three were violated, no sane person would see the gunmen as anything other than heroes and you as anything other than a villain.

      But that's kind of why I think medicine in itself should not be seen as a business the same way that pornography is.

      Octorocker wrote:

      To your last question: an entire sector of human industry based on sexuality isn't simple.
      I never said the industry was simple...just that the answer to this question.

      Octorocker wrote:

      As for what topics merit analysis:
      How about the peripheral impacts of prostitution on families, women (halfway the point of the thread), or on the healthcare market?
      What about the difficulty in regulating a prostitution market? How would you ensure safe sex, consent, and working hours given the difficulties of those areas in pornography, where most activity is contractual and recorded for posterity?
      All means to the ends that are the standards I expressed in my first post. If you have evidence that prostitution and pornography cannot, under any circumstances, be properly regulated, then share it.
    • Red Dingo:
      Display Spoiler

      Red Dingo wrote:

      So...it's either not inclusive enough or too inclusive...this is supposed to make sense?

      It makes perfect sense. If you go back and read my posts (including the one cited), I've repeatedly said the following:

      If your standard doesn't account for effects on third-parties it's under-inclusive. However, if it does account for third-parties, that prong of inquiry immediately consumes the importance of the other two, turning your standard into the exact same argument that already exists.


      Octorocker wrote:

      The manufacture of firearms requires a demand for firearms in order to be economically viable. War creates the most demand for weapons and munitions. Therefore it's illogical for a manufacturer of firearms to have any interest of conflict resolution. Indeed perpetual conflict ensures a stable financial future for any industry that profits from it. The fact that their product is designed to exsanguinate living human being via explosively propelled projectiles invites scrutiny of the industry under the first and second standard alone.

      This strikes me as neither here nor there. Demand for firearms, and this discussion, has little to do with the impact of their manufacture on third-parties (other than the most obvious issues).

      Of course that's assuming firearms are being manufactured and distributed. If a gun manufacturer is just pumping out pieces that end up no where other than a warehouse, then they are guilty of little else other than wasting time, work, and resources. Of course it also opens the question of just how manufacturers are adequately compensating their employees if their weapons are not being sold.

      This seems more responsive. Here, though, you've made my point.

      Gun manufacture, like organized prostitution, requires the expenditure of time, work, and resources. These are some third-party effects that now have to be weighed in the legalization argument.

      Moreover, you've missed the impact that a stockpile of readily available weapons would have on the populace, even absent an individual's desire to access that stockpile. I'm sure you see the comparison I'm drawing here. That's another third-party impact that has to be weighed.

      Clearly, this demonstrates that your standard was (as I have said) either: over-simplified (if it ignores these things) or pointless (if it doesn't, because then it becomes indistinguishable from the usual discussion).

      In that same way, manufacturing meth alone does nothing other than use up time and resources. The problem comes in that in its deleterious effects on health requires scrutiny under the second standard, addiction as a factor makes consent questionable, thereby making it subject to the first standard. If you're just making meth safely without bothering to consume, sell, or distribute, the only question that need be asked is: why bother?

      As discussed above with firearms, there are peripheral effects that the manufacture of meth would have on society, even absent distribution or consumption.

      As for the question "why bother," please don't fight the hypothetical. Examples always break down at varying levels of abstraction. Hypotheticals are always artificially simple to illustrate a point. These were only useful for demonstrating the attenuated effects of activities on society, which they have.

      Oil drilling in Russia, or anywhere on this planet for that matter, assuming the drillers are adequately compensated consenting adults, still invites scrutiny under second standard via it's overall impact on the workspace called Earth. Assuming the oil can be extracted without damaging the environment, it still contributes to civilization's over reliance on a non renewable resource which will inevitably affect an energy crisis. Furthermore, the increasing use of fossil fuels leads to a rise of CO2 emissions, which, unless we can balance it out with increased oxygen production, will risk atmospheric conditions becoming unsustainable for most forms of life.

      See, now you're getting it.

      The sort of attenuated impacts on society that you're discussing here are also applicable to prostitution, and forms the backbone of the conventional debate about it.

      Again, you can see that your standard has simply replicated the normal discussion, but couched in overly simplistic terms.

      Your discussion of cancer indicates the same.

      In spite of that, if you've created a cure for cancer but choose not to distribute or sell it, all you are doing is inviting the criticism best expressed as: "What the fuck is wrong with you? Ar you stupid or just sadistic?"

      Again, please don't fight the hypothetical. Surely you've engaged with a pedagogical question before.

      After that the standards become muddled as a group of people drive to your office in cars fueled by Russian petroleum, hold you at gunpoint with firearms that were lying around in a warehouse, and force you to give them the cure with only meth as your compensation. Yes in this case, my standards would fail to address this scenario, because while all three were violated, no sane person would see the gunmen as anything other than heroes and you as anything other than a villain.

      Even though your standard would be violated here, it doesn't matter. In the given hypothetical this situation would be impossible (no distribution) so we don't have to worry about it.

      But that's kind of why I think medicine in itself should not be seen as a business the same way that pornography is.

      An entirely other discussion, but I feel you on some of (what I presume to be) your reasons.

      I never said the industry was simple...just that the answer to this question.

      Let's not descend to semantics. You said that the industry should be treated comparably to all others, based on a simplified metric; it's the same thing.

      All means to the ends that are the standards I expressed in my first post. If you have evidence that prostitution and pornography cannot, under any circumstances, be properly regulated, then share it.

      First, of course I don't have evidence of the negative proposition that something can't concievably regulated. That's a loaded request; negatives generally can't be proved.

      Next, it doesn't matter anyway. The question isn't whether something can't be regulated under any circumstances, it's whether the cost-benefit analysis of the activity justifies regulation as compared to outlawing.

      One could adequately regulate highways without posted speed limits (some places do), but in America that type of regulation failed the cost-benefit analysis so it's just illegal to drive too fast.

      Prostitution fails the cost-benefit analysis for the reasons I already mentioned, and a litany more.

      The post was edited 2 times, last by Silver: quote wars ().

    • @Octorocker

      If your standard doesn't account for effects on third-parties it's under-inclusive. However, if it does account for third-parties, that prong of inquiry immediately consumes the importance of the other two, turning your standard into the exact same argument that already exists.
      That's not really an argument, it's a catch 22

      Moreover, you've missed the impact that a stockpile of readily available weapons would have on the populace, even absent an individual's desire to access that stockpile. I'm sure you see the comparison I'm drawing here. That's another third-party impact that has to be weighed.

      What impact? Other than resource consumption, the impact of weapons manufacturing is contingent upon circulation of the product.

      .
      As discussed above with firearms, there are peripheral effects that the manufacture of meth would have on society, even absent distribution or consumption.

      Again, you haven't demonstrated any peripheral effects independent of those related to distribution and consumption. Which kind of defeats the point of bringing it up as a critique of my standards in the first place.

      Again, please don't fight the hypothetical. Surely you've engaged with a pedagogical question before.

      I was not fighting the hypothetical, I was deconstructing it. That it did not satisy the conditions of an answer which you attempted to dictate in the act of posing your question is more your problem than mine.

      Let's not descend to semantics. You said that the industry should be treated comparably to all others, based on a simplified metric; it's the same thing.

      I never said other industries were simple either...

      Prostitution fails the cost-benefit analysis for the reasons I already mentioned, and a litany more.

      What reasons? You mean the question of families, women's rights, consent, and Healthcare?

      Again, you can see that your standard has simply replicated the normal discussion, but couched in overly simplistic terms.

      So in a single post, I've summarized what takes multiple pages of quote wars to establish...and that's bad?
    • @Red Dingo

      Display Spoiler

      That's not really an argument, it's a catch 22

      This doesn't even begin to make sense. That something can't be resolved because of mutual conflict (a catch-22) is a perfectly valid argument.

      Even if it weren't, it doesn't really matter. Your standard is still hung in a catch-22. Not my fault, I didn't come up with it.

      What impact? Other than resource consumption, the impact of weapons manufacturing is contingent upon circulation of the product.

      Are we seriously going to pretend that a non-distributed stockpile of destructive force would have no impact on society?

      For instance, you don't think that, at a minimum, people might feel some anxiety over that the sheer existence of that stockpile (even if none of the weapons enter circulation)?

      Do we see the parallel yet?

      Again, you haven't demonstrated any peripheral effects independent of those related to distribution and consumption. Which kind of defeats the point of bringing it up as a critique of my standards in the first place.

      See above, and use your imagination. Since you implied that I was incapable of seeing the obvious earlier, I didn't think I'd have to go to the trouble of explaining these examples to my better.

      I was not fighting the hypothetical, I was deconstructing it. That it did not satisy the conditions of an answer which you attempted to dictate in the act of posing your question is more your problem than mine.

      Semantics. That's the same thing. A hypothetical is a given universe with a deliberately unrealistic set of rules, posited in order to make a point. "Deconstructing it" is fighting it, and it's senseless; everyone knows how hypotheticals are different from the real world.

      I never said other industries were simple either...

      Then your standard is doubly damned. I don't see how that helps.

      What reasons? You mean the question of families, women's rights, consent, and Healthcare?

      "And a litany more."

      So in a single post, I've summarized what takes multiple pages of quote wars to establish...and that's bad?

      I fail to see anything in your original post that summarized any of this quote war, other than the standard that's being argued about.

      But sure, if feeling like it summarized things helps in some way, then fine: a summary wouldn't be bad, provided it actually summarizes rather than amends.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Octorocker ().

      Post by Red Dingo ().

      This post was deleted by Pennington: Derailing ().