I think it's a win-win. — Noblosh

How? — Noble Dust

Simple, we all have our own beliefs reinforced by such an arrangement.

What arrangement? Hitler had his arrangement of belief. Pol Pot. Ad absurdum.

all cocaine users are addicted on the first hit — Noble Dust

Where in the hell do you get that from? I've used coke many times throughout the years and I've never become addicted. I'll do it for a day or two if it's around and not even think about it for years. I can always get it, but usually I have better or more important things to do. Porn is the same, I look at it every so often but it's not a obsession, there's probably only a small percentage of people that are porno-maniacs, most of us can self-regulate. I'm not in favor of banning stuff just because a small minority can't control themselves. The vast majority of people that own guns will never shoot anyone, the vast majority of people that drink alcohol won't become addicts or do anything to endanger anyone else, and the vast majority of porn viewers won't develop an unhealthy fixation.

That might have been misinformation. How does it relate to the topic, considering that you dredged up page 2 out of 16, from however long ago? Your underlining of my bad argument does not a good argument of yours make.

Porn is the same, I look at it every so often but it's not a obsession, there's probably only a small percentage of people that are porno-maniacs, most of us can self-regulate. — Sivad

You base your personal assessment of porn use off your personal use of coke, then?

I'm not in favor of banning stuff just because a small minority can't control themselves. — Sivad

Agreed.

You base your personal assessment of porn use off your personal use of coke, then? — Noble Dust

Most people aren't addicts, or do you have some numbers to dispute that? I just don't think we should base social policy on protecting of a small minority of dysfunctionals from themselves.

I agree. My argument in this tread, since the beginning (since page 2! which you dutifully dredged up) has not been political; my argument has been ethical.

Btw, I don't have those numbers, but do you? Totally curious.

But I don't think you're wrong, I just think you're not right. I don't even know what's the basis of your argument.

Can you sniff cocaine and not be addicted? — Agustino

Yes, that's definitely possible.

If someone is looking for a hookup, it means not just searching for someone who says "Yes," but someone else who wants to have sex with them. The goal is not for them to "get some." It's to engage in an act which benefits the well-being of someone else. — TheWillowOfDarkness

That's like squaring the circle pretty much. Two sado-masochists can claim they enjoy cutting each other up, that ain't makin' it true. A cannibal's victim can claim they enjoy being eaten - that ain't makin' it true either.

Just like the cannibal, it's self-deception for someone looking for a hookup to think they're really looking for someone who wants to have amazing, knee-shaking sex with them, as if they were doing that person a favor. A cannibal may also look for someone who wants to be eaten, does that make it more moral somehow, or beneficial for the victim?

Some people - perhaps a majority of people in today's society - are mentally deranged, to one degree or another, regarding hookups. So what makes it fascinating - why would I want to go out to find a random stranger who wants to shag so that I can fuck her brains out for a night? Clearly the pleasure I'd be looking for isn't the pleasure of orgasm, or any purely physical pleasure, cause then I'd just pull up some porn and spank the monkey.

So what is it then? Validation maybe? I want to be sexually validated by another. I want someone else -
preferably a smoking-hot, jaw-dropping beauty that is desired by many other men to validate me as macho, sexy, and strong. I want her to want me, over everyone else. Domination? I want to get her to willingly give herself to me, much like a sacrifice is provided to a God. Beg me to pleasure her, touch her, smell her, taste her. Feeling important? Oh yes, I want to take her to the peaks of pleasure where she can barely breathe anymore and feel myself being associated as the source of that pleasure - as essential to her state, as responsible for it. When she says it's the best few hours of her life, it must be me there - I must be the cause of that. Certainly then I would have provided what no one else could to one person - despite all the disadvantages I had (just knowing her for one night). Excitement and overcoming fear of the unknown? That too. I'm testing my powers, I don't know exactly how it will work out, but when it works out in my favour I feel supremely happy - my strength is validated and affirmed in the world.

Let me switch on to a woman. If I were a woman here's how I'd feel about hookups. I'd enjoy men glancing at my hot body, looking after my skin, being excited when I look back at them, desiring me. I'd enjoy knowing that my body is hot, and can dominate (attract) other men. The more the better. I'd enjoy them squirming to get between my legs, latching onto my each and every word, and desiring me with their entire beings - being willing to do anything for me. As I tease them, I love seeing their eyes burning with desire, ready to swallow me whole. To lie on my back and have a guy worshipping at my temple - that moment I would matter, I would be important, SIGNIFICANT. At least to this one person, I am everything. I may be a tiny and insignificant ant, but to this one person I matter more than all the stars and galaxies put together. My body is so hot and damn it feels so great to have another want me and pump into me. And damn, look at those sexy, strong abs. So hot, so powerful and it's all under my control. Out of all the bitches out there, this guy chose me. I want to drain him completely, I want him to surrender everything he has. I love clinging and moaning to his body, feeling his kisses on my neck, and my hair spread out all over the pillow.

So let's see. We have:

• Validation (both social and sexual)
• Domination
• Feeling Important/Significant
• Excitement
• Feeling Wanted/Needed

Now what the hell is wrong with this seductive train of thought? I can already hear Bitter Crank around being like "Hell yeah that sounds great man! Let's get this shagathon ON!" >:O

The representations above are idealised. They are hookups at their best - no worries about STDs, not worries about pregnancy - none of the actual practicalities and technicalities involved. No actual hookup is likely to live up to the descriptions above.

Now - something becomes clear. Hookups originate and have their being in a lack - in an absence. Their purpose is to fill up an emptiness inside the soul. Someone wants to be validated, to feel strong/powerful (at least sexually), to feel important and significant to another, and to feel wanted and needed. They want to feel like they mean something to another - something deep and powerful.

However, the salient point here is that hookups always involve deception. The people involved always deceive one another that they are able or capable to give to each other what they are each looking for - which is false. That deepest need is the need for strength, power, independence and self-sufficiency. Paradoxically, after the sex one feels like they can get anything they want from the world - as if they were self-sufficient. They feel strong, desired, wanted. But the truth is that they're always at the mercy of the other - they have failed to reach and gain what they were looking for - that's why they feel compelled to repeat the experience. To hit it out on Tinder once again, and take another round. Like playin' a slot machine.

In addition to this, the two people actively harm each other by treating the other as a tool for achieving their purposes (hence objectification). Hookups revolve around me - around I - the ego. They don't stem out of love, respect, dignity, and compassion for the other, but rather from personal NEED and WEAKNESS.

There is a deep humiliation in that, which is often experienced as self-pity or guilt afterwards for those who are aware of it - those who are open to feel it. The same humiliation the horse feels when after a very long journey, it still doesn't get the carrot. Why is it humiliating? Because one falls short of one's goal, and yet one was convinced they had achieved it. This self-deception feels humiliating.

So the idea that a hookup benefits the well-being of someone else is utterly contradictory and irrational - the height of self-deception. The temporary high that one receives from a hookup is only met by a much deeper and more pervading loss to be followed. Not to mention the irreparable damage that is done in terms of intimacy, and relating to others.

Yes, that's definitely possible. — Terrapin Station

>:) did you try?

Porn is the same, I look at it every so often but it's not a obsession, there's probably only a small percentage of people that are porno-maniacs, most of us can self-regulate. — Sivad

If it's not an obsession, then live without it (or hookups, etc.) for one year.

Yes. Don't forget that I've been a professional musician for a long time. I've done a lot of drug experimentation.

Yes. Don't forget that I've been a professional musician for a long time. I've done a lot of drug experimentation. — Terrapin Station

In either case, you're an outlier then. Cocaine is known to be one of the drugs that produces addiction very quickly.

In either case, you're an outlier then. Cocaine is known to be one of the drugs that produces addiction very quickly. — Agustino

Yeah, I'd not argue that people don't more often get addicted. I don't know what the percentage would be, and I don't know if anyone knows that. It's something it's difficult to get data for. I've seen plenty of both sides--people who did it a bit and had no problem with it, and people who had a huge problem with it.

Yeah, I'd not argue that people don't more often get addicted. I don't know what the percentage would be, and I don't know if anyone knows that. It's something it's difficult to get data for. I've seen plenty of both sides--people who did it a bit and had no problem with it, and people who had a huge problem with it. — Terrapin Station

Exactly, so cocaine is inherently addictive, something that can be proven chemically. So is porn. Of course there are exceptions, but these are just exceptions, not the rule.

But I don't think you're wrong, I just think you're not right. — Noblosh

How does that work?

Wouldn't the world be a better place without the passions? — anonymous66

But what's their purpose? Are they some kind of anomaly? Don't they serve any function? — noblosh

I got the concept slightly wrong... the idea I meant to convey is that the passions are forms of emotional suffering.
Here is how the Stoics thought about them...

Distress is an irrational contraction, or a fresh opinion that something bad is present, at which people think it right to be depressed.

Fear is an irrational aversion, or avoidance of an expected danger.

Lust is an irrational desire, or pursuit of an expected good.

Delight is an irrational swelling, or a fresh opinion that something good is present, at which people think it right to be elated.

I would think that the purpose of emotional suffering would be to propel us toward things that aren't harmful... and toward things that don't cause suffering.
I was looking at the passions from the standpoint of the tradition of Western Philosophy. There are some things that can't harm- it's hard to see how wisdom or justice could be harmful... And there are some things that are harmful. Lust has traditionally been thought of as being harmful.

@bitter crank & others
the thought I was conveying is that if there is evidence that making porn is harmful to the people actually involved in the industry, then it seems it is an issue that needs to be dealt with.

When I suggested that people in the porn industry are being harmed, it seems to me that others suggested they are aware of people being harmed in other industries, too, but they don't care. My thought is, perhaps we ought to care about people being harmed, no matter the industry.

I don't know that I'll stop spending my money at certain establishments (i.e. McDonalds), assuming there is evidence of harm.... But, I might do what I can to fix the problem. The first step is actually acknowledging there is an issue, instead of denying it, or minimizing it. I do care about exploited workers, no matter the industry or job.

In another post, I may have conflated the passions (harmful emotions, or emotional suffering) viewing porn can cause (Lust) with the harm that working in the industry presumably causes. For that, I apologize.

How does that work? — Noble Dust

From all I know about the porn industry, there's nothing that confirms what you're claiming.

so cocaine is inherently addictive, — Agustino

Like any other activities or substances that give a rush of dopamine, e.g. extreme sports and sweets.

Sugar consumption, I'd argue, it's also a plague on civilized societies that people don't recognize as such, maybe because there's no stigma or illegality associated with it. What about caffeine? It has withdrawal symptoms, therefore it's also addictive! So everyone should definitely stop drinking sweet coffee, ever!

I don't see the point of your arguments, people generally know what's bad for them but they still do it.

So everyone should definitely stop drinking sweet coffee, ever! — Noblosh

I agree.

Correct. And that it's not coincidence that large scale agreement occurs has absolutely no bearing on whether ethical judgments are entirely subjective. — Terrapin Station

You've changed the subject. We began by talking about right or wrong aspects, and about morality, and you've changed that to ethical judgements. The judgements themselves are entirely subjective, but it is because we are objectively such-and-such that it's not a coincidence that we largely judge certain things in the same way, and therefore largely agree on them.

Intersubjectivity doesn't amount to anything aside from the fact that people can agree with each other from a behavioral perspective. In other words, Joe can say, "I feel it's morally wrong to disagree with anything Terrapin Station says" and Bob can say, "Yes, I agree." Intersubjectivity amounts to nothing more than that.

Moral judgements are entirely subjective. — Terrapin Station

It can be taken as evidence towards objectivity regarding things other than the inherent subjectivity in judging. It can be taken as evidence that there is something about the circumstances outside of us, as subjects, and about the way in which we typically react to these circumstances, that can explain why there is large scale correspondence in a judgement that something is right or wrong.

but it is because we are objectively such-and-such — Sapientia

"Objective" and "subjective" refer to whether something occurs in a brain functioning in mental ways or not. We don't make any moral/ethical judgments (the two words are the same thing) because we're such and such outside of our brains functioning in mental ways.

No, I reject your definition. Brain functionality is objective. It is a fact that the brain functions in this way or that, regardless of whether or not that aligns with your opinion or how you feel about it. The brain can explain aspects of subjectivity, but is not itself subjective.

No, I reject your definition. — Sapientia

Okay, that's fine, but that's what I'm referring to. Subjectivity conventionally refers to, for example, "(Philosophy) relating to or of the nature of an object as it is known in the mind as distinct from a thing in itself," and what that amounts to is a brain functioning in mental ways. "Subjectivity" isn't a synonym for "opinion" in the sense of "I like dark clothes." "I like dark clothes" is subjective, because it's a mental phenomenon, but your perception is subjective, too, and that's nothing like an opinon a la "I like dark clothes."

Re facts, if you like dark clothes, it's a fact that you like dark clothes. And of course, there are facts that your brain functions however it does.

What I'm saying is that morality is strictly something that individual brains do, and that's all I'm saying (in saying that it's subjective).

Okay, that's fine, but that's what I'm referring to. Subjectivity conventionally refers to, for example, "(Philosophy) relating to or of the nature of an object as it is known in the mind as distinct from a thing in itself," and what that amounts to is a brain functioning in mental ways. "Subjectivity" isn't a synonym for "opinion" in the sense of "I like dark clothes." "I like dark clothes" is subjective, because it's a mental phenomenon, but your perception is subjective, too, and that's nothing like an opinon a la "I like dark clothes." — Terrapin Station

Only the "what it's like" of perception is subjective, and perception is much more than that.

What I'm saying is that morality is strictly something that individual brains do, and that's all I'm saying (in saying that it's subjective). — Terrapin Station

Morality without brains doing what they do in the relevant situations wouldn't make sense to me, but I think that morality encompasses more than just that, and that it includes objectivity, and equally wouldn't make sense without it.

What about caffeine? It has withdrawal symptoms, therefore it's also addictive! So everyone should definitely stop drinking sweet coffee, ever! — Noblosh

Hmm. What about this? There are some objectively measurable problems with caffeine consumption. So, perhaps we ought to be honest about them... and consider the cost. Is caffeine consumption causing problems? If it is, then what are some possible solutions?

Only the "what it's like" of perception is subjective, and perception is much more than that. — Sapientia

That definition doesn't specify that, though, and neither do other conventional definitions of the subjective/objective distinction.

but I think that morality encompasses more than just that, and that it includes objectivity, — Sapientia

Since you use "objectivity" differently than I do, I'm guessing you're referring to facts about brain functioning here?

I think that "objectification" concepts are nonsensical — Terrapin Station

ah, the I-don't-understand-it-so-it-must-be-bullshit-even-though-other-reasonable-people-get-it stance — WhiskeyWhiskers

I don't think it's the concept, I think it's just that some people talk nonsense about it.

That definition doesn't specify that, though, and neither do other conventional definitions of the subjective/objective distinction. — Terrapin Station

That doesn't seem right to me, but I'd have to look further into it.

Since you use "objectivity" differently than I do, I'm guessing you're referring to facts about brain functioning here? — Terrapin Station

Not just that. I'm talking about the bigger picture, and whether it would or would not make sense if certain elements were removed. Morality requires more than moral agents, it requires the right kind of environment and the right kind of activity.