09-21-2003, 12:17 AM
Hi,
then I'd have the luxury of arguing that "I never said porn was crap, just that it included som crappy elements/facets/aspects, etc.)
And that is the first valid argument you've made on this topic. However, you again fail to see the underlying situation, which I've tried in different ways to point out to you. As long as you distinguish what you mean by porn by the quality of the material, you will always be in a position of speaking biased nonsense. The same actions performed in a cheap homemade video and in a high production value movie would be porn to you in one case but not in the other. Whatever porn may be, it cannot be distinguished by the quality of the product, any more than science fiction can be distinguished from literature because the first is the crude puerile contents of pulp magazines with green monsters and half naked women on the cover and the second is bound in leather covers.
In porn, as in any other endeavor (and probably more than in most) Sturgeon's law applies. That 90% of porn (or of science fiction, or of TV) is crap is not an indicator that porn is crap, or that science fiction is crap or that TV is crap.
Now, if you still do not understand the point, then it is beyond me to explain it to you.
Because the function of people having sex in pornographic programming differs from the function that Buffy and Spike had when they were having sex on Buffy - The vampire slayer.
So, porn is based on intent? Even if we accept that for the moment, how do you know the intent of the scenes between Buffy and Spike? To establish a relationship? I don't remember quite that degree of heavy breathing when she "established a relationship" with Angel. Even with Riley, the "establishment of a relationship" was limited to a couple of episodes, and in at least one of them, that "establishment" of itself was central to the (weak and convoluted) plot. How do you know that JW didn't say at some meeting, "Frankly, I'm all out of ideas. Have been for a season or two. The show is going into the crapper, but maybe we can rescue the ratings (the show died on graduation day anyway) by pandering to the prurient interest of our mostly immature audience." And, if he did, then that would make the intent pornographic.
So, your "intent" argument leads to the curious result that those episodes are or are not pornographic based on a remark that might or might not have been made in a meeting that never appears on the show and is at least at one remove from the show. Sorry, but that's too metaphysical to be of any value to me in identifying porn in the future.
No nudity, no pornography.
Clearly you've never seen any leather or rubber freak "literature". :)
I'm not sure what you mean when you say "That wouldn't be in Dallas, would it?" but I am not American.
I made that comment in reply to you're statement that "my feet are firmly in place on a grassy knoll." I thought you were making a joke, but clearly you did not realize the significance. Try a Google search on "grassy knoll", JFK, and Dallas and you'll get more history, conflicting stories, and conspiracy theory than you can digest in a month. Sorry, I did not assume you were an American (quite the contrary from things you've said in the past), but that information is not limited to Americans.
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.
Didn't I already say this? Is your argument different from mine here, in other ways than the mere phrasing of it?
That paragraph was a recap and summation of the four paragraphs immediately preceding it. It was in reply to your question "You feel beautiful people do not depict the -real- world?" Yes, I feel that beautiful people do not depict the real world, just as Olympic athletes don't, just as multi-millionaires don't. That is not to say those people do not exist in the real world, but that they do not *represent* it -- they do not represent the common people who make up the vast majority. And, further it was a follow on from what you've labeled point 7.
Obviously, I *can* think
There is "thinking" and then there is "thinking". "I think I'll take a nap" is thinking. But that level of thinking is not sufficient for rational discussion. That requires thought of a deeper level.
Now, while I can accept that you misread one word as you claim, had you been reading whole concepts rather than isolated words, you would have immediately seen that your first interpretation did not make sense within the context of the discussion, which was that porn is not the only field that raises a "False sense of what is desirable". Indeed if I were to contrast porn with L&O to show how they have that element in common, then proceed to claim that L&O *was* porn, I'd be ripping the guts out of my own argument. Contrasting a genre with an example of that genre is usually pointless. Thus, while the symptom of the problem might be the misreading of a single word, the underlying cause seems more like the misunderstanding of the whole concept, of the whole argument.
However, when you make a sweeping generalization [...] which assumes your conclusion to arrive at that conclusion
I tried analysing this sentence in order to have it make sense, but I was unable to do so. Would you mind terribly explaining this to me?
This goes back to your characterization of porn as crappy. Without giving justification or even a supporting argument, you simply pronounce it so. Then, by implying that Buffy is somehow too great to have anything crappy, you found your rebuttal to my comment. By putting your argument into the most simple terms, its illogic should be clear:
"Porn is bad, Buffy is good. Therefore Buffy can't possibly be porn."
You've assumed your conclusions and then used them to prove your conclusion. That's circular logic and circular logic is no logic at all. Even if I agreed with your conclusion, still would find your argument flawed and useless.
--Pete
then I'd have the luxury of arguing that "I never said porn was crap, just that it included som crappy elements/facets/aspects, etc.)
And that is the first valid argument you've made on this topic. However, you again fail to see the underlying situation, which I've tried in different ways to point out to you. As long as you distinguish what you mean by porn by the quality of the material, you will always be in a position of speaking biased nonsense. The same actions performed in a cheap homemade video and in a high production value movie would be porn to you in one case but not in the other. Whatever porn may be, it cannot be distinguished by the quality of the product, any more than science fiction can be distinguished from literature because the first is the crude puerile contents of pulp magazines with green monsters and half naked women on the cover and the second is bound in leather covers.
In porn, as in any other endeavor (and probably more than in most) Sturgeon's law applies. That 90% of porn (or of science fiction, or of TV) is crap is not an indicator that porn is crap, or that science fiction is crap or that TV is crap.
Now, if you still do not understand the point, then it is beyond me to explain it to you.
Because the function of people having sex in pornographic programming differs from the function that Buffy and Spike had when they were having sex on Buffy - The vampire slayer.
So, porn is based on intent? Even if we accept that for the moment, how do you know the intent of the scenes between Buffy and Spike? To establish a relationship? I don't remember quite that degree of heavy breathing when she "established a relationship" with Angel. Even with Riley, the "establishment of a relationship" was limited to a couple of episodes, and in at least one of them, that "establishment" of itself was central to the (weak and convoluted) plot. How do you know that JW didn't say at some meeting, "Frankly, I'm all out of ideas. Have been for a season or two. The show is going into the crapper, but maybe we can rescue the ratings (the show died on graduation day anyway) by pandering to the prurient interest of our mostly immature audience." And, if he did, then that would make the intent pornographic.
So, your "intent" argument leads to the curious result that those episodes are or are not pornographic based on a remark that might or might not have been made in a meeting that never appears on the show and is at least at one remove from the show. Sorry, but that's too metaphysical to be of any value to me in identifying porn in the future.
No nudity, no pornography.
Clearly you've never seen any leather or rubber freak "literature". :)
I'm not sure what you mean when you say "That wouldn't be in Dallas, would it?" but I am not American.
I made that comment in reply to you're statement that "my feet are firmly in place on a grassy knoll." I thought you were making a joke, but clearly you did not realize the significance. Try a Google search on "grassy knoll", JFK, and Dallas and you'll get more history, conflicting stories, and conspiracy theory than you can digest in a month. Sorry, I did not assume you were an American (quite the contrary from things you've said in the past), but that information is not limited to Americans.
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.
Didn't I already say this? Is your argument different from mine here, in other ways than the mere phrasing of it?
That paragraph was a recap and summation of the four paragraphs immediately preceding it. It was in reply to your question "You feel beautiful people do not depict the -real- world?" Yes, I feel that beautiful people do not depict the real world, just as Olympic athletes don't, just as multi-millionaires don't. That is not to say those people do not exist in the real world, but that they do not *represent* it -- they do not represent the common people who make up the vast majority. And, further it was a follow on from what you've labeled point 7.
Obviously, I *can* think
There is "thinking" and then there is "thinking". "I think I'll take a nap" is thinking. But that level of thinking is not sufficient for rational discussion. That requires thought of a deeper level.
Now, while I can accept that you misread one word as you claim, had you been reading whole concepts rather than isolated words, you would have immediately seen that your first interpretation did not make sense within the context of the discussion, which was that porn is not the only field that raises a "False sense of what is desirable". Indeed if I were to contrast porn with L&O to show how they have that element in common, then proceed to claim that L&O *was* porn, I'd be ripping the guts out of my own argument. Contrasting a genre with an example of that genre is usually pointless. Thus, while the symptom of the problem might be the misreading of a single word, the underlying cause seems more like the misunderstanding of the whole concept, of the whole argument.
However, when you make a sweeping generalization [...] which assumes your conclusion to arrive at that conclusion
I tried analysing this sentence in order to have it make sense, but I was unable to do so. Would you mind terribly explaining this to me?
This goes back to your characterization of porn as crappy. Without giving justification or even a supporting argument, you simply pronounce it so. Then, by implying that Buffy is somehow too great to have anything crappy, you found your rebuttal to my comment. By putting your argument into the most simple terms, its illogic should be clear:
"Porn is bad, Buffy is good. Therefore Buffy can't possibly be porn."
You've assumed your conclusions and then used them to prove your conclusion. That's circular logic and circular logic is no logic at all. Even if I agreed with your conclusion, still would find your argument flawed and useless.
--Pete
How big was the aquarium in Noah's ark?