Sinfest Forum Index Sinfest
welcome to the fest
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

2012-05-31: Feminist Senses
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 18, 19, 20  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> Sinfest
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Yinello



Joined: 10 May 2012
Posts: 2377
Location: Behind you

PostPosted: Fri Jun 08, 2012 8:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

You're my hero ShadowCell!

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lich Mong



Joined: 31 May 2012
Posts: 475

PostPosted: Fri Jun 08, 2012 12:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dogen wrote:

I didn't actually say any of that. Or imply it. I said (on page 3 or 4) that your brain knows the difference between representations of things and the things they represent. I avoided saying anything at all about video games other than that.
So, ARE you against violent video games?
[not true]You implied you don't mind people laughing at cartoon cats getting blown up, so I guess maybe I was looking for constancy that's not there. I must still be missing something about your reasoning process. [/not true]
Dogen wrote:
I object to the dehumanization of people in any context that I'm aware of (that is, if there's one where it doesn't violate my morals I'm unaware of it). But the use of representations in general doesn't bother me. So, yes, it's the specific use - and probably many other specific uses of effigies. One just happens to be the use of representations of people as a means of carrying out fantasies of dehumanizing real people. Whether the people they imagine are real or not, the intent is still to gain sexual gratification from the dehumanizing itself.
[not relevant]You seem to feel it would be probably be impossible. What principle are you drawing your morality from? We must be getting close to it if you know something like a "moral dehumanization" can't happen.[/not relevant]

EDIT: NVM. I have to stop writing these before my first cup of coffee.

Dogen wrote:
It's also worth pointing out that every moral system has a base ideology for which there is no answer to the question, "Why?" except, "Because that's how I feel." If you ask, "Why?" long enough in any ethical quandary you'll reach some assertion that has no basis other than conviction. I feel that dehumanizing people is probably always wrong. I think that our humanity is unique and essential, and that denying it in others belittles it in ourselves. I can't explain why I feel this way. I just know that I do.
Well, yes, of course.
For example I try to subscribe to the Science of morality with a smattering of Robert Wright. If you ask me "why" I do that, you will (after a long time, I have a bunch of other reasons) get to a "because I feel it's right."


Edit: Anyway, reading your post with more of a clear head made me realize you already adressed what I was looking for.
Thank you!

===========

I've been TRYING to find the step right before "feels right" for the people on this forum. I am looking for the "greatest good for the greatest number" or "because my pastor told me and I trust him" statement. I'm not going to be all "AH HA, THAT'S NOT BASED ON ANYTHING" because I know there isn't one that is, mine included. I just want to know the AXIOMS and then the logic process. I know they're there.

There is a reasoning chain from that starting point to the end point of "this is wrong!" I would like to know what more about that chain to see if it is better or worse for me than my own. Also, I might have missed something in my OWN reasoning chain that examining could bring to light.

I was hoping to get at some of those base principles by using the logic found in this comic and applying it to other situations that I thought might bring the reasoning chain to light, based on what people were saying. But, everyone avoided those.
I tried asking for them directly, which did cause Heretical Rants to give me what I interpreted to be a personal approximation of the libertarian base morals about property rights, and her reasoning about the comic. However, other's -like mouse- used that time to try and "guess at" what my motives are. Since I already know my motives I found that uninteresting.

At this point I probably should just give up. It seems like most people here(certainly not all, but many) are more interested it trying to "win" a debate than exchange ideas. Ultimately, I can't say I can fault them for that, I often get that why myself. But, I've really been making a conscious effort to stop that behavior, and engaging with people at seem intent on doing only that might not be the best for me.
_________________
A MtG Webcomic
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mouse



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 16640
Location: under the bed

PostPosted: Fri Jun 08, 2012 7:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

actually, i believe i stated, explicitly, what i believe several times.

and you utterly ignored that, and put your own words in my mouth, directly contradicting what i actually said.

but, whatever - go home and feel good about yourself, Sinfesters Were Mean To You (The Bullies).
_________________
aka: neverscared!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lich Mong



Joined: 31 May 2012
Posts: 475

PostPosted: Fri Jun 08, 2012 8:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mouse wrote:
actually, i believe i stated, explicitly, what i believe several times.

and you utterly ignored that, and put your own words in my mouth, directly contradicting what i actually said.

but, whatever - go home and feel good about yourself, Sinfesters Were Mean To You (The Bullies).
What did I say you said that you did not?
I said you guessed at my motives and did not give me a useful reasoning train.
Since we seem to have a disagreement of my assessment, let's take a deeper look at the post I was referring to:
mouse wrote:
Lich Mong wrote:
mouse wrote:
seems pretty simple to me.

you think leering at and masturbating to women you don't know isn't dehumanizing women.

we think it is.

you are sacrificing countless innocent electrons to try to muddle up the fact that we have told you, repeatedly and in many ways, that looking at women as sex objects is objectifying and dehumanizing them. you are doing this because you in fact DO NOT want to understand your thinking, you want to keep doing what you are doing and get our approval for it.
I'm looking for the WHY.

WHY do you think that?


You might not want to understand my thinking, but I desperately want to understand yours.


because objectifying women is saying that they exist solely, or at least primarily, to serve your sexual desires.

whereas women also have brains, and the ability to think things and do things and create things. and they have the right, as human beings to be judged not just on how sexually attractive they are, but on the things they think and do and create. and they have the right for their thoughts and actions and creations to be judged on the same basis as men's thoughts and actions and creations, without the added distraction of their gender and (hence) sexual desirability.

you are saying, "hey, it's cool if i totally dismiss that woman's abilities as a tennis player, if i ignore the skill she's showing and how hard she is working and just wait for a glimpse of her panties which will allow me to think of sex". and you know, it really doesn't matter if, where you in her place, you would be totally fine with people tuning in to see your crotch and not the serve you've spent years perfecting, or even that you are fine getting paid less than someone of another gender who has put in the same amount of effort doing the same thing - because you don't get to speak for your entire gender. you don't get to agree that half of humanity can be looked on as simply eye-candy just because it's all good with you.

if you are happy with people objectifying you, then get a web page and post pictures of your personal crotch. but don't be surprised when the entire men's tennis association doesn't do the same thing.

You don't see anything in this post where you are guessing at my motives? There is nothing here you would count as you putting words in someone else's month?
Really? I mean, a good number of the sentences start with "YOU think this." And I will note you used the royal "we" once or twice.

Anyway, I know what I think, and -if I might say- I know it a good deal better than you. I'd rather you tell me what YOU think. That's something I know little about.

However,
I would agree there is also (between you asking me to post pictures of my crotch and telling me what I think) a bit of your own ethical reasoning. But, since it doesn't even begin to adress a real argument made I can't say I find it of much use. All it really says is that treating woman solely (or primarily) as tools for sex is wrong.

Well, no shit Sherlock.
_________________
A MtG Webcomic
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Darqcyde



Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 10089
Location: A false vacuum abiding in ignorance.

PostPosted: Fri Jun 08, 2012 9:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lich Mong: I've bet you've got (or have checked out) erotic fan-art of Raistlin and Crysania, haven't you?
_________________
...if a single leaf holds the eye, it will be as if the remaining leaves were not there.
http://12ozlb.blogspot.com Now in book form: http://amzn.to/14E6OFy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Lich Mong



Joined: 31 May 2012
Posts: 475

PostPosted: Fri Jun 08, 2012 9:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Darqcyde wrote:
Lich Mong: I've bet you've got (or have checked out) erotic fan-art of Raistlin and Crysania, haven't you?

I only really like eroticism in erotic stories, and I hate more or less all forms of erotic fan-fiction.

It is cool you caught the reference, though.
_________________
A MtG Webcomic
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mouse



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 16640
Location: under the bed

PostPosted: Fri Jun 08, 2012 9:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

fine. please read bolded text.
Lich Mong wrote:

I said you guessed at my motives and did not give me a useful reasoning train.
Since we seem to have a disagreement of my assessment, let's take a deeper look at the post I was referring to:
mouse wrote:
Lich Mong wrote:
mouse wrote:
seems pretty simple to me.

you think leering at and masturbating to women you don't know isn't dehumanizing women.

we think it is.

you are sacrificing countless innocent electrons to try to muddle up the fact that we have told you, repeatedly and in many ways, that looking at women as sex objects is objectifying and dehumanizing them. you are doing this because you in fact DO NOT want to understand your thinking, you want to keep doing what you are doing and get our approval for it.
I'm looking for the WHY.

WHY do you think that?


You might not want to understand my thinking, but I desperately want to understand yours.


because objectifying women is saying that they exist solely, or at least primarily, to serve your sexual desires.

whereas women also have brains, and the ability to think things and do things and create things. and they have the right, as human beings to be judged not just on how sexually attractive they are, but on the things they think and do and create. and they have the right for their thoughts and actions and creations to be judged on the same basis as men's thoughts and actions and creations, without the added distraction of their gender and (hence) sexual desirability.


Anyway, I know what I think, and -if I might say- I know it a good deal better than you. I'd rather you tell me what YOU think. That's something I know little about.

However,
I would agree there is also (between you asking me to post pictures of my crotch and telling me what I think) a bit of your own ethical reasoning. But, since it doesn't even begin to adress a real argument made I can't say I find it of much use. All it really says is that treating woman solely (or primarily) as tools for sex is wrong.

Well, no shit Sherlock.


so - question, direct answer - and you letting it fly right past you so you could rant about something else.


don't bother responding to whatever it is you think i said, since you have made it extremely clear you can't bother to pay attention to what i have actually said. i'm done with you.

oh, and please, PLEASE, do not post pictures of your crotch on the internet. it's the last think _i_ want to see.
_________________
aka: neverscared!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Heretical Rants



Joined: 21 Jul 2009
Posts: 4541
Location: No.

PostPosted: Fri Jun 08, 2012 9:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I hear some of it's live-action.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lich Mong



Joined: 31 May 2012
Posts: 475

PostPosted: Fri Jun 08, 2012 9:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mouse wrote:
so - question, direct answer -
Lich Mong wrote:
But, since it doesn't even begin to adress a real argument made I can't say I find it of much use. All it really says is that treating woman solely (or primarily) as tools for sex is wrong.

Well, no shit Sherlock.

_________________
A MtG Webcomic
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Leohan



Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 965

PostPosted: Sat Jun 09, 2012 4:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oh look at that a good enough reason to make a post.


Look, Lich Mong. I will start this by saying that I think you are right. Squigley was doing nothing wrong and he didn't deserve to be portrayed as "The bad guy" on this picture. Looking for sexy or, well, sexual values in people does not necessarily dehumanize them either. I can say Milla Jojovich is smokin' hot and later praise her for her performance in Joan D'Arc. Not mutually exclusive at all. And fuck it Squigley proved the very next strip that he could appreciate the athletic values of the sportswomen. I will not side with the stopping porn thing either. Sure, some kinds of porn create some sad, sad scenarios that should be dealt with individually, but on the other hand I have seen and heard interviews to really smart people absolutely comfortable and happy with working in the porn industry. I find no good reason to tell them "Fuck that shit, you are degrading yourself and shouldn't be doing this. Look for a real job." So yeah, I believe you are right here. Kudos.

That said.

Try not to be a tool in the middle of your arguments, and formulate them clearly, thinking about whether or not they do contradict prior statements made by you. If you don't, you do not make your case any favours.

Friendly advise.

This argument seems pretty much unwinnable to you at this point, so I can only tell you that I hope it to end civilly.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lich Mong



Joined: 31 May 2012
Posts: 475

PostPosted: Sat Jun 09, 2012 7:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Leohan wrote:
This argument seems pretty much unwinnable to you at this point, so I can only tell you that I hope it to end civilly.
Which argument?
I will certainly admit I was getting snippy with mouse there at the end; there is little I dislike more then being told what I think.

However, this intrigues me most of all:
Leohan wrote:
Try not to be a tool in the middle of your arguments, and formulate them clearly, thinking about whether or not they do contradict prior statements made by you. If you don't, you do not make your case any favours.
You see, there is one thing I really do hold as evil, and that is contraction, inconstancy. If you contradict yourself you are objectively WRONG. There is no other word for it.
As such, I am normally quite careful not to do that. If I did, then I am wrong, inescapably wrong. So, I must know, where is the contraction? Where is the mistake in reasoning? Where did I go so horrible wrong?
_________________
A MtG Webcomic
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Heretical Rants



Joined: 21 Jul 2009
Posts: 4541
Location: No.

PostPosted: Sat Jun 09, 2012 1:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You're using a definition of evil that is vastly different from the definition everyone else here is using.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lich Mong



Joined: 31 May 2012
Posts: 475

PostPosted: Sat Jun 09, 2012 3:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Heretical Rants wrote:
You're using a definition of evil that is vastly different from the definition everyone else here is using.
Well, I think at this point that terminology issue has been worked out.
I am now using it to mean what other people here mean, a grossly immoral act. Before, you are right I was using it to mean ANY immoral act, which is not what others meant it seems.

However, semantics aside, how is that a contrition?
_________________
A MtG Webcomic
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Darqcyde



Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 10089
Location: A false vacuum abiding in ignorance.

PostPosted: Sat Jun 09, 2012 3:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I had a thought: don't all humans engage in objectifying activities both good and bad? Is it really different than when we regard people such as police officers as upholders or defenders of justice when in reality they are actually enforcers of statutes? Don't we do this with all sorts of rolls?

My point is it's the job of porn stars to be objectified, they're being paid to be objects of lustful fantasies. The problem, as I see it, is that there's no demarcation. I don't think vilifying porn as a whole is necessarily the answer, and that seems to be the Anti-porn feminists goal (note I say 'seems to be'). Instead they should be pushing for clearly defined boundaries and professional business standards. It seems to me they are only taking a symptomatic approach by looking only at current standards.

Also, I think the issues with "porn culture" are not the same as those with the actual porn stars themselves.
_________________
...if a single leaf holds the eye, it will be as if the remaining leaves were not there.
http://12ozlb.blogspot.com Now in book form: http://amzn.to/14E6OFy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Heretical Rants



Joined: 21 Jul 2009
Posts: 4541
Location: No.

PostPosted: Sat Jun 09, 2012 6:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

^I agree with that.

Lich Mong wrote:

However, semantics aside, how is that a contradiction?


I didn't say it was. I was just pointing it out.

But you think errors in logic are immoral? That's odd. Hm.
Uh... The word wrong has several different definitions, you realize, surely?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> Sinfest All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 18, 19, 20  Next
Page 19 of 20

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group