Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,685   Posts: 1,548,553   Online: 1204
      
Page 17 of 32 FirstFirst ... 71112131415161718192021222327 ... LastLast
Results 161 to 170 of 315
  1. #161
    Michel Hardy-Vallée's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Montréal (QC)
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,351
    Images
    132
    Quote Originally Posted by Salmonoid View Post
    4. Children are dependant on a stable environment, and need protection from those who can easily harm them. Healthy and lifelong heterosexual relationships are the most complete and healthy relationship for raising children who become healthy adults. Our society wishes to deny this so that we can excuse our adidiction to sexual pleasure at the expense of the healthy reproduction of our species.
    The verdict is not yet out on that one, and there is a practical constraint on their value to the effect that because homosexual couples, less so ones with children, are not well tolerated in many societies, children reared in them can indeed potentially experience more travails than those reared in heterosexual couples. However, this is not conclusive to an essentialist argument about homosexual couples, which would go along the lines that such a milieu is inherently detrimental.

    IF such a milieu is currently detrimental to children, we have to take into consideration the PRESSURES by bigots that contribute to make their situation difficult. So don't piss off the gay couples with children if you really want to know whether it makes a difference on kids. In saner societies, like European countries or Québec, there has not been significant evidence of inherently detrimental factors.

    Quote Originally Posted by Salmonoid View Post
    5. Men are aroused visually. Women much less so. This is were pornography comes in.
    Baloney. Women's sexual arousing during the viewing of pornographical material follows a pattern similar to men. Tastes, however, are notoriously different. While men can be satisfied with scenario-less hump-and-pump clips, the current market for women pornography seems to indicate that other aspects come into play. Standard formulas would be: romantic settings, better light, man's sensibility to woman's need, etc. But woman still jerk off looking at picture of people having sex, you know.

    Quote Originally Posted by Salmonoid View Post
    6. Pornography is addictive to many males, and will lead to the foresaking of spouse and family for self gratification. It is a well established fact that all sexaul preditors are users of pornography first. Sexual arousal leads to sexual acts, most of which are destructive of healthy marriage, and nurturing of children.
    Premises: yes. Conclusions: nay. You are having a severe case of post hoc, ergo propter hoc. As you are a reverend, I will spare you the need to translate from the Latin. That sexual predators watch pornography, and that it has a deletrious effect on their condition is a fact. That pornography causes their condition is at best a hypothesis, not a logically following conclusion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Salmonoid View Post
    Now I certainly hope that no one here would argue with any of they truths. If they offend you, you should ask yourself why reality bites. I would also hope that you would not produce art which leads to destructive sexual behavior, but would aim for a more edifying goal. Stop being an animal, and be human.
    Oh my! what did I just do? I dared discuss TRUTH? I have CRITICIZED? I have even pushed the envelope as to wonder whether ASSUMPTIONS are justified? You mean that I have wrongfully used REASON against TRUTH? That I have perverted the sacred truth that you luckily hold aloft? How dare I?


    Quote Originally Posted by Salmonoid View Post
    Father of an adopted child who was the product of fornication, neglected by her mother, abused by a boyfriend and used for child pornography. We are currently dealing the the devasting effects of her early sexualization.
    If that last bit is true, you have my sympathy and my compassion for this child and for your efforts to help her. But I maintain my arguments, and return you to your claim "If they offend you, you should ask yourself why reality bites. "
    Using film since before it was hip.


    "One of the most singular characters of the hyposulphites, is the property their solutions possess of dissolving muriate of silver and retaining it in considerable quantity in permanent solution" — Sir John Frederick William Herschel, "On the Hyposulphurous Acid and its Compounds." The Edinburgh Philosophical Journal, Vol. 1 (8 Jan. 1819): 8-29. p. 11

    My APUG Portfolio

  2. #162
    TheFlyingCamera's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Washington DC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    8,386
    Blog Entries
    51
    Images
    439
    Quote Originally Posted by Salmonoid View Post
    "I would also like to see where you got your "fact" that a heterosexual coupling is the superior way to raise a child."

    I am speaking in idealistic terms. If you were to compare apples to apples, and not rotten bannas (maybe I should stick to vegetibles) then heterosexual coupling is superior because they model a relationship that is reproductive, vice simply erotic. Homosexual sex does not produce life, if life is superior, then heterosexual coupling is superior.

    A homosexual couple as parents is superior to no parent at all, and this is often the case in real life, and not the ideal, but we should always strive for the ideal.
    How can you say that a homosexual coupling is purely erotic, if you have not been in one? Yes, there are many homosexuals who do not seek out permanent partnerships and only seek erotic fulfillment. However, there is a silent majority (or at least plurality) who do have committed, mature, adult loving relationships which are an infinitely preferable role-model to procreative relationships which are otherwise dysfunctional, abusive, or just unloving. I would not claim superiority for one or the other - either style of parenting can be a good or bad role model. Sexuality is obviously NOT given by nurture- 100% of gay people were born via heterosexual reproduction, but 100% of them are still gay. If the heterosexual role model is so superior, why are there all these gay people out there in the world?

  3. #163
    Michel Hardy-Vallée's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Montréal (QC)
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,351
    Images
    132
    Edit: I missed TheFlyingCamera's words on homosexual couples, so I guess I could change my sentence "The verdict is not yet out on that one" to the effect that verdict is, in fact, out.
    Using film since before it was hip.


    "One of the most singular characters of the hyposulphites, is the property their solutions possess of dissolving muriate of silver and retaining it in considerable quantity in permanent solution" — Sir John Frederick William Herschel, "On the Hyposulphurous Acid and its Compounds." The Edinburgh Philosophical Journal, Vol. 1 (8 Jan. 1819): 8-29. p. 11

    My APUG Portfolio

  4. #164
    blansky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Wine country in Northern California
    Posts
    5,029
    Quote Originally Posted by Salmonoid View Post
    "Beware of universal truths. They are rarely universal, and even rarer, true."

    Is this a univeral truth?
    No. A warning. A caution.

    Like, don't eat yellow snow.


    Michael
    I couldn't think of anything witty to say so I left this blank.

  5. #165
    Salmonoid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    67
    Images
    8
    snip* "I have little evidence that one set of humans is a priori intrinsically superior to another, or that humans are inherently superior to beetles -- considerable history hints that they are not. I enjoy being human and all that comes with being human -- not being some flawed copy of a 'more perfect' boogieman."

    I am speaking of nobility of action, not any intrinsic nobility. Some actions are more noble than others. Also, who said you were a flawed copy of a 'more perfect' boogieman? Is this a jab at Jesus Christ? Nobody was talking religion here. I thought the topic was pornographic art. I was just hoping that we would better understand the implactions of sexually arousing photographs.

  6. #166
    Salmonoid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    67
    Images
    8
    "Is this a univeral truth?
    No. A warning. A caution.

    Like, don't eat yellow snow."

    Yes, this is a good warning. Those who seek truth should always be open to correction.

  7. #167
    blansky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Wine country in Northern California
    Posts
    5,029
    Somehow, I think we've seen your model before.

    A puritanical society of repressed brainwashed people, women as slaves, child abuse through indoctrination, and of course run by "reverends" like yourself.

    We've seen it here, it's flourishing in the Middle East and it always breaks down. Why? Because it removes free will and the celebration of human expression.

    One should always fear religion and its power brokers more that one ever need fear sex in its many forms.

    Michael
    I couldn't think of anything witty to say so I left this blank.

  8. #168
    Salmonoid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    67
    Images
    8
    MHV,

    I think you are not communicating with me, but jumping into your own conclusions without reading what I said.

    Quote Originally Posted by mhv View Post
    The verdict is not yet out on that one, and there is a practical constraint on their value to the effect that because homosexual couples, less so ones with children, are not well tolerated in many societies, children reared in them can indeed potentially experience more travails than those reared in heterosexual couples. However, this is not conclusive to an essentialist argument about homosexual couples, which would go along the lines that such a milieu is inherently detrimental.

    I did not denigrate homosexual couples or their adopted children's rearing. You jumped to this conclusion yourself. See my reply concerning what I think about homosexual vs. heterosexual couples with children.


    Baloney. Women's sexual arousing during the viewing of pornographical material follows a pattern similar to men. Tastes, however, are notoriously different. While men can be satisfied with scenario-less hump-and-pump clips, the current market for women pornography seems to indicate that other aspects come into play. Standard formulas would be: romantic settings, better light, man's sensibility to woman's need, etc. But woman still jerk off looking at picture of people having sex, you know.

    I did not say that women are not arroused by pornographic material, only that men are to a greater proportion. Just check out the local magazine rack for this one.



    Premises: yes. Conclusions: nay. You are having a severe case of post hoc, ergo propter hoc. As you are a reverend, I will spare you the need to translate from the Latin. That sexual predators watch pornography, and that it has a deletrious effect on their condition is a fact. That pornography causes their condition is at best a hypothesis, not a logically following conclusion.

    I said that sexual arousal brings on sexual acts. Read it again.

    Oh my! what did I just do? I dared discuss TRUTH? I have CRITICIZED? I have even pushed the envelope as to wonder whether ASSUMPTIONS are justified? You mean that I have wrongfully used REASON against TRUTH? That I have perverted the sacred truth that you luckily hold aloft? How dare I?

    Nope, you have pushed no envelope here. Thanks for responding, you don't seem to agree with what I am saying. Why is it so necessary to prove my points wrong if they are so unreasonable? By the way, what exactly are you trying to say that is contrary to my points?




    If that last bit is true, you have my sympathy and my compassion for this child and for your efforts to help her. But I maintain my arguments, and return you to your claim "If they offend you, you should ask yourself why reality bites. "

  9. #169
    Salmonoid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    67
    Images
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by blansky View Post
    Somehow, I think we've seen your model before.

    A puritanical society of repressed brainwashed people, women as slaves, child abuse through indoctrination, and of course run by "reverends" like yourself.

    We've seen it here, it's flourishing in the Middle East and it always breaks down. Why? Because it removes free will and the celebration of human expression.

    One should always fear religion and its power brokers more that one ever need fear sex in its many forms.

    Michael
    So far it seems my only offense to discussion is that I signed it "Rev." Sorry folks, that's my title. Sorry you hate me before you even know me.

    My apologies for my title.

  10. #170
    blansky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Wine country in Northern California
    Posts
    5,029
    Quote Originally Posted by Salmonoid View Post
    So far it seems my only offense to discussion is that I signed it "Rev." Sorry folks, that's my title. Sorry you hate me before you even know me.

    My apologies for my title.
    One wonders why someone would feel the need to use the title "reverend" on a photography site.

    Hate?

    My, what extremes you engulf yourself in.

    Michael
    I couldn't think of anything witty to say so I left this blank.



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin