Love on a Porn Set: One Woman's Story (ABC Expose of Porn Industry)

ABC News ^ | 5/27/04

[Aquinasfan]

Yes, and the pleasurable aspect of successful combat was designed for the defense of the tribe. You have yet to find any way of logically arguing that the two cases differ.

Ready? Here goes.

Football isn't combat.

[Aquinasfan]

No. I said it evolved that way.

I know. But you said that it evolved in order to promote procreation or the survival of the species. "In order to" means the same thing as "purpose."

Are you going to retract what you said and say that there is no purpose to the pleasure involved with intercourse?

Pick one, and we can proceed from there.

[steve-b]

Applying the standard of empirical evidence to logical arguments is illogical.

The standard of empirical evidence most certainly does apply to the premeses on which a logical argument is based. If I declare that Joshua Norton was the soverign Emperor of America in 1870, that persons living within an empire owe allegiance to the emperor, and that President Grant therefore served at the sufferance of Joshua Norton, I have constructed an ironclad logical argument -- which nevertheless falls to the empirical fact that Joshua Norton was Emperor of America only in his own imagination and the words of those who chose to humor him.

[steve-b]

How very sad for you that my example plainly refers to boxing, and that boxing is most definitely a form of combat.

[tpaine]

An act that is not itself an initiation of force or fraud cannot be "intrinsically evil"
Is it evil to lie to the Nazis if you are hiding Jews in your attic?

This case is an example of choosing the lesser of two evils, lying to the Nazis or handing two people over to be killed.

You are utterly daft to consider such a concealment an 'evil', A-Fan. What you consider a 'lie' is an attempt to prevent an act of force by the nazis.

Lying remains intrinsically evil,

A lie is an act of fraud. No fraud is being committed by concealing these people from harm. Can you agree?

yet lying is the proper action in this case, since only two courses of action are possible.

The concealment is not an 'evil' act of fraud. It is a proper action to prevent force. Can you agree?

Nice try at justifying your "intrinsic evil" theory, but no sale.
-- Blind obedience to an 'authority' is the evil, not an effort to thwart it.

Well, is the person telling the truth or lying?

Neither. They are concealing the people from harm. Can you agree?

I think that the person is lying about the Jews' whereabouts.

Imagine what you like. Calling the attempt at concealment a 'lie' is your ethical cross to bear.

You can believe that the person is telling the truth if you like.

Just as you can imagine they 'lied'. You are not being honest with your own faith, imo.

As I said before, the liar is absolved of moral culpability since the lie was done under duress and was a choice of the lesser of two evils.

There was no liar, thus no culpability. The moral man has no obligation to cooperate with a fascist state. Can you agree?

You need to question your basic assumptions my son, before you meet your maker.

[Aquinasfan]

Am I supposed to be impressed by the fact that the Inquisition was not physically capable of carrying out all the evils it wished because it lacked the resources to do so?

Your assertion is incorrect. From the article:

Inquisitors did not have to be clerics, but they did have to be lawyers. The investigation was rule-based and carefully kept in check. [Remember, this is the conclusion of group of historians who began their investigation hostile to the Church]. And most significantly, historians have declared fraudulent a supposed Inquisition document claiming the genocide of millions of heretics.

What is documented is that 3000 to 5000 people died during the Inquisition's 350 year history.

This is 3000-5000 deaths in 350 years or about ten deaths per year, in an effort to eradicate Mohammedanism and Mohammedan sympathizers from Spain. Again, to keep this in perspective, compare the number of dead in this "theocracy" to the 1.3 million babies killed annually in our society. Which is morally superior?

[Aquinasfan]

The standard of empirical evidence most certainly does apply to the premeses on which a logical argument is based.

Show me the empirical demonstration that natural laws are always predictable and uniform, and that we can trust the evidence of our senses.

[Aquinasfan]

boxing is most definitely a form of combat.

Boxing is not synonymous with combat. You're equivocating.

[tpaine]

Speaking of 'equivocating', A-Fan..

Try to answer the question, - how can you claim that a verbal attempt to mislead a nazi search for jews is an 'intrinsically evil' lie?

[inflation]

Does it rain donuts in your world? And if I may ask, what color is the sky? ;->

[steve-b]

Your assertion is incorrect.

Sorry, it's not my assertion; it's the assertion of the author you chose to quote:

The inquisitors enjoyed a powerful position in the towns, but it was one constantly jostled by other power brokers. In the outlying areas, they were understaffed - in those days it was nearly impossible for 1 or 2 inquisitors to cover the thousand-mile territory allotted to each team. In the outlying areas no one cared and no one spoke to them.

The investigation was rule-based and carefully kept in check.

Meaningless. Lawful evil (e.g. fascist enforcers) and chaotic evil (e.g. mad slashers) are both evil.

[steve-b]

Boxing is not synonymous with combat.

Boxing is to combat as pornography is to sexuality -- in each case, the former is a subset of the latter which is at least partially divorced from the primary purpose of the act.

[steve-b]

Show me the empirical demonstration that natural laws are always predictable and uniform, and that we can trust the evidence of our senses.

I'm sorry; the subject under discussion is your empirical evidence supporting your premeses concerning what is "unnatural" and "disordered". We'll wait as long as it takes for you to produce something relevant to that, but we won't let you change the subject.

[balrog666]

You obviously base your opinions on reason.

True. And since you have yet to adequately support any single assertion you have made, I must guess that your opinions are based on whatever you found in your last box of Cracker Jacks.

[DannyTN]

"I don't know which government you're talking about, maybe that of Luis XIV or a Muslim country. But this country was formed by the people in order to secure their liberties."

We had help. At least our founding fathers thought so.

"In the beginning of the contest with Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayers in this room for Divine protection. Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle have observed frequent instances of superintending Providence in our favor.... And have we now forgotten this powerful Friend? Or, do we imagine we no longer need His assistance? - Ben Franklin

[DannyTN]

"I do not think that God wishs to have 60-80% of the population of the United States thrown in prison because they watch porn. You know, your WOP?"

Straw man. Were 60-80% of the population thrown in prison because they drank. Were 60-80% of the population thrown in prison because they did drugs?

Only 5% of the people in prison for drug offenses are there because of possession. In other words, the people in prison are the producers and pushers of drugs.

[Modernman]

The purpose of speech, like every other human power, is to glorify God.

That's a conclusion based on nothing except your own beliefs. You seem to be incapable of making an argument without relying on the God-crutch.

[inflation]

Not when people say that all people who use porn should be in prison.

[DannyTN]

"Not when people say that all people who use porn should be in prison."

I never said that.

[Modernman]

Mental illness is an evil because it is disorder of the mind.

Calling a mental illness evil is anthropomorphication of the highest order. It would be like calling a gun "evil."