Hi,
Did I define crap as porn? Seriously; have I? If I have, it was completely inadvertently.
Pornography in general has a few common elements
* Horrible music
* Horrible acting
Seems to me that in terms of a performing art, that comes sufficiently close to "crap" for all practical purposes. So, something like Bolero which has excellent music and adequate acting (given the cast) is not, in your opinion, porn in spite of "Naked people having sex on screen". Your attitude is self fulfilling: "Porn is crap because if it isn't crap it's not porn."
none of which can be found on Buffy - The vampire slayer.
Frankly, there have been enough lousy bands playing at the Bronze to fit the requirement for "Horrible music". The next to last season had so many flaws in the stories that god (as in George Burns) or Sir Alex Guinness couldn't have given a decent performance -- so much for "Horrible acting". And the "people having sex on screen" were about as naked as they could be and still get by the censors -- had it been on a pay channel, I suspect the nudity would have been greater. So, tell me again why the Buffy does Spike shows weren't porn according to your definition?
I'm no good when it comes to logics, but isn't "if you define crap as porn, then all porn will be crap" slightly off?
I may be wrong but the idea of "all bananas are fruit, but not all fruit are bananas" keeps spinning in my head.
Buzz, sorry, wrong. A definition is not an implication (i.e., "conditional"). It is a "bi-conditional" as in if "A is defined to be B" then "A implies B and B implies A" or, equivalently "A is B". For details see http://www.utdallas.edu/~darcy/TEACH/FALL0...cProjectmom.htm
Your example is wrong in that "all bananas are fruit" is *not* a definition of "banana". Had you said something along the lines of "bananas are the fruit of the banana tree" (making this up as I go along -- I really don't know much about bananas other than I like to eat one for breakfast) then you would have a definition and the following statement would also be true: "the fruits of the banana tree are bananas".
You feel beautiful people do not depict the -real- world?
Sorry, but that is a straw man. Let me recap:
Doc claimed that one of the flaws of porn was that by watching it ". . . you degrade your sense of sexual values and desensitize your self to beauty by fostering a false concept of what is desireable."
I did not deny that, simply pointed out that the same "false concept of what is desireable" is prevalent in *all* the performing arts and gave some examples.
You then accused me of calling L&O porn.
Within the context of the discussion, this last statement of yours is idiotic. The point is not that there are no beautiful people in the world (since, clearly, actors, actresses and models *live* in the world) but that the people featured in the visual media are *not* representative of the world at large.
my feet are firmly in place on a grassy knoll.
That wouldn't be in Dallas, would it?
I feel a bit sad and depressed knowing that you assumed I didn't use my brain, when I actually thought (and still do) I -had- used my brain.
Be that as it may. However, when you make a sweeping generalization (such as your statement on porn) which assumes your conclusion to arrive at that conclusion, or when you completely fail to follow an argument and make a false accusation (such as your claim that I considered L&O porn) then I'm left to wonder if you *can't* think or simply *didn't* think. I gave you the benefit of the doubt, but you are making me wonder if that was a mis-given gift.
--Pete
Did I define crap as porn? Seriously; have I? If I have, it was completely inadvertently.
Pornography in general has a few common elements
* Horrible music
* Horrible acting
Seems to me that in terms of a performing art, that comes sufficiently close to "crap" for all practical purposes. So, something like Bolero which has excellent music and adequate acting (given the cast) is not, in your opinion, porn in spite of "Naked people having sex on screen". Your attitude is self fulfilling: "Porn is crap because if it isn't crap it's not porn."
none of which can be found on Buffy - The vampire slayer.
Frankly, there have been enough lousy bands playing at the Bronze to fit the requirement for "Horrible music". The next to last season had so many flaws in the stories that god (as in George Burns) or Sir Alex Guinness couldn't have given a decent performance -- so much for "Horrible acting". And the "people having sex on screen" were about as naked as they could be and still get by the censors -- had it been on a pay channel, I suspect the nudity would have been greater. So, tell me again why the Buffy does Spike shows weren't porn according to your definition?
I'm no good when it comes to logics, but isn't "if you define crap as porn, then all porn will be crap" slightly off?
I may be wrong but the idea of "all bananas are fruit, but not all fruit are bananas" keeps spinning in my head.
Buzz, sorry, wrong. A definition is not an implication (i.e., "conditional"). It is a "bi-conditional" as in if "A is defined to be B" then "A implies B and B implies A" or, equivalently "A is B". For details see http://www.utdallas.edu/~darcy/TEACH/FALL0...cProjectmom.htm
Your example is wrong in that "all bananas are fruit" is *not* a definition of "banana". Had you said something along the lines of "bananas are the fruit of the banana tree" (making this up as I go along -- I really don't know much about bananas other than I like to eat one for breakfast) then you would have a definition and the following statement would also be true: "the fruits of the banana tree are bananas".
You feel beautiful people do not depict the -real- world?
Sorry, but that is a straw man. Let me recap:
Doc claimed that one of the flaws of porn was that by watching it ". . . you degrade your sense of sexual values and desensitize your self to beauty by fostering a false concept of what is desireable."
I did not deny that, simply pointed out that the same "false concept of what is desireable" is prevalent in *all* the performing arts and gave some examples.
You then accused me of calling L&O porn.
Within the context of the discussion, this last statement of yours is idiotic. The point is not that there are no beautiful people in the world (since, clearly, actors, actresses and models *live* in the world) but that the people featured in the visual media are *not* representative of the world at large.
my feet are firmly in place on a grassy knoll.
That wouldn't be in Dallas, would it?
I feel a bit sad and depressed knowing that you assumed I didn't use my brain, when I actually thought (and still do) I -had- used my brain.
Be that as it may. However, when you make a sweeping generalization (such as your statement on porn) which assumes your conclusion to arrive at that conclusion, or when you completely fail to follow an argument and make a false accusation (such as your claim that I considered L&O porn) then I'm left to wonder if you *can't* think or simply *didn't* think. I gave you the benefit of the doubt, but you are making me wonder if that was a mis-given gift.
--Pete
How big was the aquarium in Noah's ark?