“into the argument in an attempt to transform the argument from a logical one into an emotional one.”
1. Attempting to divorce emotion from matters of sexuality is foolish at best. Particularly when degradation is at issue, since degradation is felt as an emotion.
2. I was hoping, by making it personal to you, to open your eyes to the fact that porn models are also people, somebody’s daughter or son or niece.
“You wanted to elicit a response from me based on emotion, not reason.”
No, I wanted you to use a proper balance of emotion and reason in your thinking.
“every one of those women is more than likely someone's niece. Moreover, every one of those women is someone's daughter, grand-daugher, etc.”
Funny how you can acknowledge that and still miss the point.
“Since society rightly dictates that having sexual feelings for members of one's own blood family is wrong, you now have a device by which you can leap to this conclusion: "since I wouldn't want to see my niece naked in Playboy magazine, Playboy magazine---and everything pornographic in general---must therefore be wrong.”
No, no, no. Your desire to justify indulging in porn is keeping you from thinking rationally. This whole incest thing is just a straw man you’re using to run away from the real issue.
The real issue is basic human decency. How can one say that it’s all right for someone else’s niece to degrade herself when one wouldn’t want one’s own nieces to engage in the same behavior? Can you say, “I’d be upset, saddened, and embarrassed to know that women who are important to me had cheapened themselves and made themselves the object of masturbatory fantasies by appearing naked in a magazine,” and at the same time enjoy nude pictures of women who are important to someone else? One can only call that hypocrisy.
“Your attempt at sarcasm falls short.”
Actually, it was funny as hell. I’m killing me over here.
“America's best contemporary authors, including Hemingway and Mailer, for example.”
Oh, dear Lord. Hemmingway and Mailer? No wonder you’re having trouble thinking this issue through.
“More attempts to camouflage emotionalism as a rational argument”
No, it’s an attempt to get you to take the first step toward thinking this issue through. What is the moral basis for a position that it’s fine for women of other families to do what would be degrading for women of your family to do? How is it logically consistent to enjoy seeing women you don’t know degrade themselves, when it would distress you if women who are important to you did the same thing?
Is it that you just don’t care? Is it that only the women of your family matter, and so you don’t mind if other women are degraded?
“I see right through you.”
So far, all you’re seeing is your own straw men.
You started our discussion by declaring that all forms of pornography were degrading, which, in essence, is a declaration of your emotional feelings about the subject, and an appeal to emotion. I don't believe all forms of pornography are degrading. Since my emotional response is as valid as yours, how are we supposed to find any venue for argument or discussion?
2. I was hoping, by making it personal to you, to open your eyes to the fact that porn models are also people, somebody’s daughter or son or niece.
No, really?
No, no, no. Your desire to justify indulging in porn is keeping you from thinking rationally. This whole incest thing is just a straw man you’re using to run away from the real issue.
The very terms you use in your argument---"indulging"---are loaded, and you accuse me of trying to manipulate our discussion unfairly?
The real issue is basic human decency.
The real issue, in my opinion, isn't one of human decency. It's a political issue encompassing free speech, the freedom to consume a legal product, and the freedom to pursue happiness by the way of a perfectly legal occupation.
Actually, it was funny as hell. I’m killing me over here.
I'm heartened to learn you're a legend in your own mind.
Oh, dear Lord. Hemmingway and Mailer? No wonder you’re having trouble thinking this issue through.
One "m" in Hemingway. You dispute the literary prowess of Hemingway and Mailer, and/or dismiss their accomplishments?
No, it’s an attempt to get you to take the first step toward thinking this issue through.
Thanks, but I don't need to be led to the Promised Land by the likes of you.
What is the moral basis for a position that it’s fine for women of other families to do what would be degrading for women of your family to do? How is it logically consistent to enjoy seeing women you don’t know degrade themselves, when it would distress you if women who are important to you did the same thing?
What's the moral basis for eating food when others have none? What's the moral basis for buying a new home when others don't even have shelter? What's the moral basis for putting on one's heat in the winter when there are homeless people out in the streets, freezing to death? What's the moral basis for profiting from the labor of others? What's the moral basis for buying goods from China, where they employ slave laborers?
If one employed your argument rigorously, in all aspects of life, one could not get out of bed in the morning.
Is it that you just don’t care? Is it that only the women of your family matter, and so you don’t mind if other women are degraded?
If others, of their own free will, choose to engage in the production of a legal product, and I choose to consume it, a rational person should have no problem with that arrangement. Period.
So far, all you’re seeing is your own straw men.
Are you sure you know what a straw man is?