Very similar.

If you read the interview I think Weiss compares it to gambling addictions.

Are you saying the poker world should encourage porn addictions?

The fact that humans and other animals have the propensity to become addicted to things does not, in the slightest, mean that such things should be deemed immoral.

Side note: The quality of my life has increased dramatically due to the advent of internet porn. I'm sure I'm not alone on this, in fact, I suspect I'm in the majority. Sadly, I have nothing to back this up.

Right. My assumptions are that sex is good, money is good, and trade is good, so it's easy for me to conclude that two people who voluntarily exchange money for sex aren't doing anything immoral. It's a lot harder for me to come up with a set of assumptions that would say having sex before marriage is immoral without being sociopathic in its implications.

I don't base what I feel is reasonable or moral on the law. Obviously if we're arguing whether prostitution should be legal, you can't cite current law as support for your side.

That didn't stop you from attacking the reason of the poster you quoted when he clearly was operating on a similiar set of simple assumptions that I laid out above.

great sex ldo

I think the perception of porn today is part and parcel of the whole sexual revolution. Since we now with techniques can control our reproduction system i.e. contraception abortion, etc. we think we don't have to control ("regulate" might be a better word choice) our minds or our actions any more.

An inability to control one's mind and actions is at the heart of the breakdown of the individual and the family.

Most people criticizing porn will be presumed to be self righteous bigoted moral majority types and that's because people haven't understood the subtle underlying connections very well or explained it at all. So it looks like its just a moral absolute being violated.

Once you toss out chastity and develop a taste for variety you can't now easily be content with what you have and some people will start to look for reasons to justify these tastes as some natural progression. So at the first sign of any relationship trouble they can now toss out the relationship instead of getting counseling or thinking things through. Because the individual and the pursuit of pleasure has now gotten higher on the priority list than it ever was before.

Historically pleasure while on the list of reasons for sex was probably never the top or even the only reason for sex. Sex has been for procreation, economics, and alliances also. Chastity underpinned the family. Chastity probably had and still has a lot to do with whether or not children get raised in 2 parent households today.

Porn will always introduce ideas into your mind. That's why Christ says that thing about if your eye offends you pluck it out. A lot of immorality isn't apparent and starts in the head and if a lot of young people who got into porn knew that it would later have an impact on their ability to maintain families and ultimately provide stable homes for kids wouldn't have gotten into it.

Ideas are like water in the crack of concrete. They appear innocent enough but they are like words and can have surprising power.

If you're one of the people with a predisposition to compulsion problems then stepping into porn could be like stepping into a hidden minefield. The ironic thing is some people think they are stepping into it alone. They're not. Humans are social animals and there will be a hidden causal consequence somewheres down the line.

...that you're moralizing here as an avid poker player posting this admonishment on a poker site at which you've made 6000+ posts.

I'm not moralizing I'm illustrating causal connections.

Lol...also poker is an occupation where compulsion isn't always negative. Read Barry Greenstein. Almost all gamblers/players have compulsive attributes.

You have to "know thyself".

One of the best online poker pros stated in an interview he was an obsessive compulsive. But the key is he was smart enough to make the most out of his compulsion.


Also if nothing else a compulsion will make you see a lot of flops.

Same could be said of sexual compulsions.

LOL...now that was funny....

must be why they call them "flop houses".

But then the statement should be much closer to "I take my worldview assumptions seriously" as reason is not the driving force behind the comments. Notice how most of his statements begin with a worldview assertion. It is common for people to assert that position and call it "reason." In fact, it seems from the presentation that he is one of those people. Here are some opening statements.

I don't think either of these are "reasoned" positions. Therefore, I don't think that his position is driven by his desire to take "reason" seriously.

Very often in discussions like this, non-theist position is posited as "reasoned" position and theist positions are not given the same deference. That non-theists like to pretend that their entire worldview construction is *actually* reason, and not a set of assumptions like everyone else is their own fallacy.

Very often in discussions like this, non-theist position is posited as "reasoned" position and theist positions are not given the same deference. That non-theists like to pretend that their entire worldview construction is *actually* reason, and not a set of assumptions like everyone else is their own fallacy.


This statement gets my non-theist stamp of approval.

what i'm saying is that as people on the other side of the fence on the issue of gambling we should understand how specious and vague claims like those you quoted are. america has 300M+ people, you can find a dozen or some people that are complete sob stories for any cause if you want and make them poster children. everyone sees something they see as the downfall of morality or whatever, realize that none of this stuff is as bad as people think it is. as long as you aren't hurting someone else you should be allowed to do what you want. yes some people go overboard but as long as alcohol is legal anyone worried about anything else is either a hypocrite or a liar.

And you don't?

Your whole argument in most threads stand around exactly this.

'I don't agree with your worldview blahblah' like there was an infinite number of different realities.

Wtf?

That and saying total gibberish that completely divert the point of whoever you are responding to in order to never actually respond to an argument.

I've said it in another thread but wow, every time you post I'm baffled at how good you are at mental gymnastics.

Good thing you didn't leave out this part.

Addiction works the same way for just about anything addictive. Video games are addictive, poker is addictive, porn is addictive, etc.

This does not mean that all these things are 'bad' or 'immoral'.

The fact that I can kill someone with a knife does not make possession of a knife immoral.

So what? This is how discussions work. If we had to formally justify everything we said, we'd keep getting sidetracked and never progress in the argument (hey look, it's happening right now!), so when I say "marriage is a social institution" as part of a comment in a long post, I expect you to understand my reasoning either from previous discussions or common sense. If you disagree, you can show where my reasoning is wrong or question my assumptions, but you can't trip me up at every turn to justify my claims without ever explaining your own side.

It's like if we were talking football, this is how a normal conversation would go:

"The Eagles have a good running game."
"No they don't, they only rush for 80 yards a game."
"But they average 5 yards a carry so when they try to run, it's effective."
"That's because teams don't expect it, if they tried to run more, opponents would be prepared and the average would go down.
etc.

Here's how the conversation with Aaron would go:

"The Eagles have a good running game."
"That's an assertion."
"Well they average 5 yards a rush."
"And?"
"That must mean they're fairly successful at it."
"Doesn't necessarily follow. Explain your reasoning."
"Getting 5 yards takes you halfway to a first down, so it's an effective play."
"You just take your assumptions too seriously, reason isn't the driving force behind your arguments."

Really? Do you think he just made those claims up? I think it's obvious that he at least has plausible reasons for those positions, and they shouldn't be hard to figure out for a guy like you. To flatly continue to state that he is not using reason without explaining how the reasoning is wrong is basically just trolling.

That's because it's usually easy to attack theists' reasoning for being hypocritical or incompatible with their other views without even questioning their assumptions, while atheists like me and others here spend a lot of time trying to make sure our worldview is at least consistent. Isn't that why you're still avoiding my opening question?

i have to agree with .Alex., while i feel Aaron is one of the smarter posters on the forum he tends to run through the same argument when it seems pretty clear what everyone is talking about. yes once you get down to it it gets really hard to define certain words, sometimes that is an issue, but often everyone can agree what is being talked about and the legitimate issue can be dealt with.

also Brian Westbrook, end of story.

Note my opening statement:

If I say that I don't think there's a lot of value in addressing point by point because it's quite obvious that it's already a worldview assumption conversation, why do you think would I want to continue trying to make a point by point argument?

I believe that they are simply claims. If they are conclusions, then he did not present the information on which the conclusions were based. It's not really that complicated. I've never once asserted in this thread any manner of "right" and "wrong" about his fundamental positions. Simply that they are, and I don't think there's much value in arguing over them.

You mean the one about having "connection" (ie, great sex)? If you believe that great sex is the purpose of intimate personal relationships, do you think I'm going to be able to say anything that will make you think otherwise?

If you find me saying something about all truth being purely subjective, you're welcome to quote me.

If you read carefully, my argument usually revolves around the fundamental worldview assertions that people hold. I hold that there is some sort of objective truth that is out there, and this truth is independent of whatever we may decide about it, or try to declare it to be.

then tell us the correct fundamental worldview assertion. or at least give us some objective truths you feel are unquestionably true.

I think sex life is a big part of overall physical attraction which is an important component in a relationship, but I'd love to hear arguments to the contrary.

I can tell you what I believe to be true, but this does not make it any more true than you telling me your fundamental beliefs are true.

I think it is unquestionably true that humans are fundamentally broken creatures, whose natural inclinations are evil.

You still don't get it.

define broken, evil, and natural please.

*Yawn* We both know that both sides can play this game, and it's not particularly relevant to the content of this thread.

lol, checking the river instead of checking to see if the stove's off...

I have no idea what you are talking about but I suspect you misunderstood my post.