Lifestyle > Train of Thought
Chomsky on Pornography
Australian Bastard:
^I was just fuckin wit chall, I was just confused about what PIFF TANNEN said about how we shouldn't co-sign the dude so I had to go watch the video myself, but I still essentially agree with the old dude; he's just getting muddled as is with old age (your metabolism will change too someday young man!)
First of all, Noam Chomsky is an old ass dude and naturally he is conservative about sexuality and the display of pornography.
Thats his personal opinion, I quote:
'if thats people's erotica then well thats their problem, I don't have to contribute to it'.
Now, as a consumer in the free-market, thats his choice and opinion and he is entitled to it, if a product does not suit his goals he dosn't have to consume it or approve of it.
This Chomsky dude is getting old and his mind ain't as sharp as it used to be in that interview he makes the mistake of (to much glee of the 10%) of confusing in his mind the exploitive third world sex trade with the sex industry of the West (+Japan) and mistakenly criticises both as one and the same. In all reality they are totally different worlds.
As I said:
There ain't nothing wrong with the act of pornography itself, provided there is an adequate:
-level of establishment of the rule of law in that society.
-level of economic equality and economic options.
-level of availability of living necessities (food, clothing, shelter, health)
If those factors are poor, than of course; industry in general will become more prone to exploitation.
Now secondly, I got to say word, what he is saying is true; just because these individuals are given a choice between the sex-trade and some other exploitive industry, what type of choice is that?
What a free and libertarian world we are where people can choose the manner and method of their suffering and exploitation!
And it IS unnecessary:
The UNICEF estimates every child on the PLANET could be fed, housed, clothed and educated and kept WELL for $30 billion to $40 billion (US dollars) more than is currently being spent.
Incidentally,
In 2002 the US military budget amounted to $379 billion (US dollars). Chalmers Johnson estimates $1 trilllion for fiscal year 2008.
Alot of yall think that these economic structures of the world are simply how it is and always was due to its own natural progression of the free market. This ain't so yo, the free market is being manipulated so that the means (supply and demand) is an end in itself, over supply leads to less demand, so destruction of over-supply and stimulation of demand is purposefully engineered. The latest example of that in this modern century was 9/11 (stimulation of demand) and the Iraq debacle (destruction of surplus [US domestic] and expansion of the market [oil and arms]). All them Lords of War were shook after the fall of the Berlin wall...
Heres a good article on that my university professor gave us:
http://www.antiwar.com/spectator2/spec619.html
7even:
--- Quote from: Ra's al Overfiend on August 16, 2008, 06:48:41 AM ---^I was just fuckin wit chall, I knows yall read my shit, I was just confused about what PIFF TANNEN said about how we shouldn't co-sign the dude so I had to go watch the video myself, but I still essentially agree with the old dude; he's just getting muddled as is with old age (your metabolism will change too someday young man!)
First of all, Noam Chomsky is an old ass dude and naturally he is conservative about sexuality and the display of pornography.
Thats his personal opinion, I quote:
'if thats people's erotica then well thats their problem, I don't have to contribute to it'.
It is not necessary to call it "their problem", like they are sick people who need help or something.
Now, as a consumer in the free-market, thats his choice and opinion and he is entitled to it, if a product does not suit his goals he dosn't have to consume it or approve of it.
Of course, nobody would force him to watch porn, that's absurd.
This Chomsky dude is getting old and his mind ain't as sharp as it used to be in that interview he makes the mistake of (to much glee of the 10%) of confusing in his mind the exploitive third world sex trade with the sex industry of the West (+Japan) and mistakenly criticises both as one and the same. In all reality they are totally different worlds.
Exactly my nigga.
As I said:
There ain't nothing wrong with the act of pornography itself, provided there is an adequate:
-level of establishment of the rule of law in that society.
-level of economic equality and economic options.
-level of availability of living necessities (food, clothing, shelter, health)
If those factors are poor, than of course; industry in general will become more prone to exploitation.
I know you said that nigga. I didn't quote it because I agree with it in principle.
--- End quote ---
My problem with all the latter stuff you say is that it's a huge stretch, problems of poor countries go much deeper than just "bad conditions in the sex business" ... and I'm not a socialist. I don't see it as my purpose in life to try to make the life of people on the other side of the globe better, sorry. We don't even have the power to do that, all that petty charity stuff is incredibly inane in the grand scheme of things. You can't solve structural problems with individual goody-good doing. Get it through your head, it will only help you in the long run, mayne. Trade, not aid. Ya dig? Like, for instance, you know that story when that white dude goes to India and there's a baby in front of his hotel room in the morning. He's completely shocked and realizes how it seems to be something normal. So he pays some church organization some nice western money so they will raise that child n shit. He feels great. The next day, however, there are 30 babies in front of his room.
Australian Bastard:
^
I think we do. With the collective resources of the world we could change it all. Problem is; the only authority capable of implementing anything like that would be a one world government...
Anyway, George Orwell basically deemed socialism and capitalism in their respective absolutes as leading to different, but nonetheless, forms of hellish shitness....so i guess fuck it all, just make your own heaven.
7even:
--- Quote from: Ra's al Overfiend on August 16, 2008, 07:37:57 AM ---^
I think we do. With the collective resources of the world we could change it all. Problem is; the only authority capable of implementing anything like that would be a one world government...
--- End quote ---
A one world government would do a lot more fucked up shit than good shit, I'm sure of that.
TraceOneInfinite:
Ras,
I want to discuss what you said further with you. Please explain how Chomsky being "positive" rather than "normative" negates the validity of my point above? My point above being that Chomsky's thinking is fanciful and irrational.
Regardless whether it's positive or normative his perspective does not work out logically. It is a socialist perspective in an effort to bring about equality. But it is impossible to bring about equality, because all people are unique, made up of different value systems. And it is only because of these inequalities that mutual exchanges are possible. A mutual exchange benefits both parties. The Thai girl has plenty of time on her hands, so she would rather make a dollar a day then sit at home and do nothing. So she benefits from the exchange. The "greedy" business CEO/CathyLeeGifford/sweat shop owner benefits because they can increase production and profits. And Joe American benefits because he can now buy his clothes at affordable prices. So you see that anytime there is trade without coercion then you have a mutually benefiting relationship. But your Chomsky form of socialism involves coersion because you are trying to insist that the world be equal when this is impossible. If you and I are equal then there could be no means of trade between us. But you and I can never be equal because there is no such thing.
Chomsky seems like the type of irrational thinker who would be in favor of a minimum wage law. He would demand that a law says every worker should get at least $8.00 an hour. This idea hurts the same people it claims to help. Now any worker who is worth less than $8.00 an hour will go jobless and hungry. Chomsky is thinking on the assumption that the bloodsucking CEO of McDonalds will take a cut in pay and raise wage's a couple of dollars. What he neglects to realize is that 9 out of 10 businesses fail. And that a business can not afford to pay it's employee's a cent more than they are worth. Every business must seek to maximize it's profit's. If it underpays it's employee's they will naturally bear the consequences because a person who is truly worth $8.00 an hour will not work for $6.50, so therefore McDonalds must pay it's employee's what is required for them to work for the company. So naturally a business already pays it's employee's what they are worth.
Jobs are unlimited because desires are unlimited. The only way the job market can be limited is by socialist idea's such as minimum wage laws.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version