Jonas J�rgensen wrote: > Peemm wrote: > >> It might be that I missed your point; I merely skimmed through the >> postings in this long thread, and probably I didn't get all the >> nuances. Nevertheless I've got the impression that you have a very >> positive view on porn > > > I wasn't talking about my own personal opinion on porn, I was saying > that I don't believe anyone has the right to tell me or anyone else what > we are to think about some subject -- not just porn, but anything. I > want to form my own opinions on things, and I believe everyone else > should do the same, rather than just accepting what we are told is > "correct". > >> and that you were unfairly mocking Philip M. Jones for having (amongst >> other things) a very positive view... on women(!) > > > I wouldn't call it a positive view on women that females are weaker and > more naive than males and therefore it is a mans job to protect women > from all the evilness on this planet -- I would call it an EXTREMELY > SEXIST view on women!!!
But he never wrote that! You are putting words in his mouth. Anyhow, hopefully Philip M. Jones is reading these posts, and if that is the case, he might want to speak up for himself. > > > He may be a little patronizing in his views, > >> but I think it's more sympathetic to hold such an > > > attitude, than your each-and-every-one-for-him-or-her-self outlook > > on the world. > > Now I all of a sudden have an each-and-every-one-for-him-or-her-self > outlook on the world? What in the world gave you that crazy idea? I am > very, very far from the neo-liberalistic view that you should only care > about yourself and not give a shit about others. > > > Because your view on freedom and equality implies > > only contractual relations between people, i.e. you make agreements in > > order to structure life. > > Are you saying that I have no emotional relations to other people? How > can you possibly get that idea just by hearing me say that I think > freedom and equality are good things? Or does the word "contractual" > have some other meaning that neither me or my English dictionary are > aware of? No, I'm not saying that. I don't know you that well. IF you were a porn addict, I'd suspect that the emotional relations be more or less disturbed, but you've really made me confused now, since it's obvious that you don't wanna tell what you REALLY think about porn. Well, you don't have to - let's skip the subject. I was thinking a little about the French Revolution, since you use the concepts of freedom and equality (but not brotherhood). One of the inspirers of the ideas of the French Revolution was of course Rousseau, which in 1762 published the manifest "Du contrat social" - "the social contract" - describing in what way society and its leadership ought to be organized to meet the citizens' need of freedom and security. The conclusion was that you as a citizen and the state should be drawing up a contract, regulating the relations between the state and the citizens. My thought was that if you apply such a contract, not only between the state and you, but in every private relation of every kind, then you rule out every possibility of spontaneity and real change - and real life. Why? Because then all important matters would have already been decided upon when - so to speak - signing the contract. > >> Exactly as in a porn movie all rules should be set from the beginning; >> you do your fucking and you get your money, and there is no room for >> the unexpected. And all porn movies look the same, and as a spectator >> you know what is going to happen - no surprises. > > > Does it turn you on? Is it an expression of freedom? > > No, I wouldn't call it an "expression of freedom", but I'm sure some > people would. And I will continue to defend their right to create > pornography if they want to. Some people are offended by porn, true, but > there are also people who are offended by seeing the word "fuck", a word > which I notice you use. So if we ban pornography, shouldn't we also ban > the word "fuck"? > > The problem with banning things because people find them offensive is > that you will end up banning _everything_. Here is something I am very curious about; how come that you think that I want to ban porn? There is another, new thread "Look at that", where the posters want to ban spam. Now, read this carefully: I don't even want to ban spam about porn! This is not a legal matter; this is a matter of opinions, sympathies and antipathies. I don't believe in calling for the police every time someone does something bad. > >> You've got it all mixed up, I'm afraid. I am not against freedom or >> equality. From where did you get that idea? > > > You are defending Phillip M. Jones though he repeatedly makes sexist > statements. Sexism and equality does not play well together. Again, Philip M. Jones should speak for himself, but I would say that he understands women in another way than you (or maybe I) do, and I don't believe anyone has the right to tell me or anyone else what we are to think about........etc. etc. /P.M.
