Porn vs. Art

[Southwind17]

If two people have sex in front of a security camera that they are honestly unaware of (and it's happened more than once), and the security camera was not placed there with any intention of catching people having sex, then there was no intention on anyone's part to produce a recording that would sexually arouse. Yet there it is, and I very much doubt you would have much luck convincing the authorities that it wasn't porn because it was produced inadvertently.

It's almost as if the intent of the viewer or distributor has something to do with whether something is pornographic, and it's not strictly attributable to the intent of the creator...

Oh come on now. I've previously asserted (and nobody denied it) that there are probably some people somewhere who collectively find just about everything sexually arousing. By your reckoning, then, everything's porn! Or is it just wishful thinking on your part?!

 

[not daSkeptic]

Well I might be an idiot, possibly even an idiot per se, but I'm not prepared to entertain you FOC!

Too late. You are doing so just by opening your mouth (or in this case using your fingers). The only way to not entertain me is to stop posting.

 

[Mirrorglass]

Well if that isn't a contradiction extraordinaire I don't know what is!

Of course you don't. That's been obvious for months now.

So "primary function" fails to classify but "primary goal" does? Interesting subtlety.

Why is this so difficult for you? I did not accept your definition. I was merely pointing out that even if it was right, one could not draw the conclusions you have from it. I never claimed a 'primary goal' can be used to classify an object 'per se'. You have made the claim several times. It is a measure of your argumentation skills that even the false premise you've created doesn't make your position less nonsensical.

I have no definition for "art", ergo I don't know what art is? Your definition, however, includes everything (seemingly), so you do know what art is. Interesting analysis.

I have a definition of art. Therefore it's possible for me to say something does not qualify as art, and I can provide sane reasoning that shows I'm right, if we assume that definition. Luckily for me, my definition is fairly broadly agreed upon by other people as well.

You, on the other hand, have no definition for art. Therefore, you cannot make any meaningful statements about art. You can't say something isn't art, and you can't say something is art either. Both are equally baseless claims.

Without knowing the definition of "zebra" one would know that it excludes elephants, otherwise zebra and elephants would be one and the same. And before you go pointing out that something can have more than one classification don't forget "per se"!

If I don't know the definition of 'zebra', I've no way of knowing if the word is synonymous to 'mammal'. I have to take that into account when making statements about it.

Would you say that without knowing the definition of 'mammal', one would know that it excludes elephants, otherwise elephants and mammal would be one and the same.

Or are elephants simply not mammals 'per se'? And how, pray tell, do we tell decide what the 'primary' classification of an animal is? Although I suppose I shouldn't call them that; after all, they can't very well be animals 'per se'.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Oh come on now. I've previously asserted (and nobody denied it) that there are probably some people somewhere who collectively find just about everything sexually arousing. By your reckoning, then, everything's porn! Or is it just wishful thinking on your part?!

You concede then that there can be film footage which is pornographic in the everyday sense that it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, would be rated X if it was rated and so forth, but yet was produced with absolutely no intention on anyone's part to sexually arouse?

Good. The conversation's over. Your definition of pornography is flawed by your own admission, hence your conclusion that pornography cannot be "art per se" falls over.

Now go do something useful instead.

 

[Southwind17]

Too late. You are doing so just by opening your mouth (or in this case using your fingers). The only way to not entertain me is to stop posting.

Wouldn't dream of it!

Why is this so difficult for you? I did not accept your definition. I was merely pointing out that even if it was right, one could not draw the conclusions you have from it. I never claimed a 'primary goal' can be used to classify an object 'per se'. You have made the claim several times. It is a measure of your argumentation skills that even the false premise you've created doesn't make your position less nonsensical.

You are the one who's introduced the notion of the "primary goal" being a defining characteristic, here:

As for "Debbie Does Dallas" - I have no way of knowing what the primary goal of director was. My primary goal in watching it was to learn about the history of pornography (and to listen to the spiffy funk riffs). So where do we get the primary function of porn, which would be provoking arousal?

I have a definition of art. Therefore it's possible for me to say something does not qualify as art, and I can provide sane reasoning that shows I'm right, if we assume that definition. Luckily for me, my definition is fairly broadly agreed upon by other people as well.

Out of interest, will you share it with us?

If I don't know the definition of 'zebra', I've no way of knowing if the word is synonymous to 'mammal'. I have to take that into account when making statements about it.

Interesting you chose "mammal" and not "elephant"!

You concede then that there can be film footage which is pornographic in the everyday sense that it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, would be rated X if it was rated and so forth, but yet was produced with absolutely no intention on anyone's part to sexually arouse?

Absolutely not. How do you draw that conclusion?! I'm getting the impression that you believe porn is defined essentially as any sexual portrayal.

Good. The conversation's over. Your definition of pornography is flawed by your own admission, hence your conclusion that pornography cannot be "art per se" falls over.

Hold your horses buddy!

 

[Mirrorglass]

Yeah, he's a troll, and he's not even trying anymore. Have fun, daSke.

 

[Southwind17]

Yeah, he's a troll, and he's not even trying anymore. Have fun, daSke.

Heat/kitchen!

 

[Megalodon]

And the context and detail of the picture of the dumpster I posted is apparent, no?!

No, because art depends also on the intent of the author - which is unknown in this case - and not just the product.

If the picture is included in any kind of artistic project - e.g. an exposition called "Dumpsters of the World" - then it is art, independently of what anyone thinks of it.

 

[quixotecoyote]

So you have seen one of these before, then:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/195334c3d2fe3a8565.jpg

Moreover, you actually have a definition for it!

No. But since it doesn't match the definition for an elephant, it's not it. Unfortunately, you can't do the same with porn since you don't have a definition for art (or art per se, or just art, or however you're trying to tapdance around your definitions today).

We know what porn is, per se. We know that art, per se (however one defines it), is not porn, per se, otherwise they'd be one and the same, always. Hence porn cannot be art, per se.

That's the fallacy of assuming your conclusion, among other problems. You cannot claim that art can't be porn (per se or not) because you lack a definition of art. If the Soutwind world, art could be defined as "socially unacceptable porn," and then all art would be porn but not all porn would be art. That's as far as you know, of course, because you still can't give a definition.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Nice try - pointing out your own flaws as grounds to disregard them. Sorry.

Nice try yourself. You're not convincing anyone here with your childish rhetoric, Southwind but you sure seem to be having a lot of fun.

 

[not daSkeptic]

... you sure seem to be having a lot of fun.

That's what it's all about. He wants to see how long he can keep people going. The really pathetic thing is there are people on these forums who refuse to accept they are being played and will just keep at it, giving people like SW exactly what they want.

 

[Southwind17]

But since it doesn't match the definition for an elephant, it's not it. Unfortunately, you can't do the same with porn since you don't have a definition for art (or art per se, or just art, or however you're trying to tapdance around your definitions today).

Do you really not see the contradiction here? In the case of the obscure sea creatuer and the elephant you're prepared to accept that A is not B because, although we don't have a definition for B, A doesn't "match" B, but if we substitute porn and art, and we do actually have a definition for porn (at least a key defining characteristics), you insist that we need a definition for both!

 

[quixotecoyote]

Do you really not see the contradiction here? In the case of the obscure sea creatuer and the elephant you're prepared to accept that A is not B because, although we don't have a definition for B, A doesn't "match" B, but if we substitute porn and art, and we do actually have a definition for porn (at least a key defining characteristics), you insist that we need a definition for both!

In the case of the sea creature, you have an example you can match against the definition of an elephant.

In the case case of an agreed upon instance of porn, you have an example that you can't match against the definition of art, because you don't have one.

 

[JFrankA]

*Opens door*

What???? This thread is STILL going on? Sheesh. IMHO, this thread should be gone months ago because all it really is about is Southwind's opinions and feelings against the facts.

Southwind, no offense meant, but you're wrong, you can't back up your opinion with facts, you back it up with only your opinion your definitions. Your definitions are your own definitions and not from any source, and your entire stand is on what you think and feel which at times in order to back up your beliefs you sometimes end up contradicting your own statements.

...can we talk about something worthwhile?

 

[JFrankA]

That's what it's all about. He wants to see how long he can keep people going. The really pathetic thing is there are people on these forums who refuse to accept they are being played and will just keep at it, giving people like SW exactly what they want.

/end thread

 

[Southwind17]

In the case of the sea creature, you have an example you can match against the definition of an elephant.

In the case case of an agreed upon instance of porn, you have an example that you can't match against the definition of art, because you don't have one.

And still you miss the point. I have an example (art/sea creature) that I can match against the defining characteristics of porn/an elephant.

What???? This thread is STILL going on? Sheesh. IMHO, this thread should be gone months ago because all it really is about is Southwind's opinions and feelings against the facts.

And what "facts", exactly, would those be?