Lifestyle > Train of Thought
Chomsky on Pornography
jeromechickenbone:
I think this is Z's way of telling people to quit asking her for nekkid pics
Nat Turner-reincarnated:
eye agree with that Z individual...................... the shit is degrading to females and all of that............ and you cant really flip it around because most of the time niggas face stay hidden. but then again the choose to partake in that line of work. but nonetheless its degrading
*Z* - The Queen of Dubcc:
--- Quote from: 7even on August 16, 2008, 04:54:57 AM ---Z, if porn is always degrading to you, why would you say "you can't be in favour of porn that degrades people" ... That's like saying "I can't stand water that is wet"
--- End quote ---
if i imagined myself to be a porn-object itd be degrading to me it doesnt matter what kind of porn itd be...becuz to me this would mean humiliation.
--- Quote from: 7even on August 16, 2008, 04:54:57 AM ---
Anyways... since you categorically label all porn degrading; this is no longer up for debate anymore... as in saying, if, to me, all porn was that way I wouldn't be in favour of it either. Since it's not, I am. But since you won't put the question whether it is or isn't up for debate anymore, I'm done talking.
--- End quote ---
well debate means argumentative exchange of oppinions, so yea i guess were done here.
*Z* - The Queen of Dubcc:
--- Quote from: 7even on August 16, 2008, 07:12:04 AM ---
--- Quote from: Ra's al Overfiend on August 16, 2008, 06:48:41 AM ---
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.
--- End quote ---
bullshit, you cant look at the sex industry in third world countries seperated from the sex industry in the west. the big corporations in the sex-industry have their trades and market everywhere. and as if there was no exploitation in the western sex-industry. are u really so naive to believe that?
--- End quote ---
Australian Bastard:
--- Quote from: Abdul-Infinite on August 16, 2008, 09:23:48 AM ---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.
--- End quote ---
It dosn't. I made a mistake, my bad, sorry I did not do the knowledge. I thought you all were referring to Chomsky's literary work. Then I found that video 'Chomsky on pornography' and realised that is what yall are speaking on. And yes, the man basically looses his academic reasoning, but I think if he was given the opportuniy to respond in written word he would have a much more reasoned answer for the interviewer.
As for the rest of your post, I agree in principle with free trade (as defined by Adam Smith, ya know The Wealth of Nations). However, it is naive to think the system is not tainted by spoliation. Free trade as defined and espoused by Adam Smith is a system where people are free to pursue their goals and naturally that translates to profit and healthy selfishness and so on and so forth. Free exchange encourages division of labour which increases productivity, and some people may advance out of the original poverty. This is no injustice to those who do not, provided the relation between the two groups is one of genuinely free exchange and not spoliation. It is naive to think that people's poverty is not being taken advantage of for the benefit of the more powerful. What of the castaway confronted with the choice 'Be our slave or keep swimming'? People faced with such an alternative may consent to the bargain, and it may be in their interest to do so; is this enough to make it just? If a person must have access to land or to other means of production in order to stay alive, freedom of contract may not be enough to secure a fair exchange. It is as Thomas Hobbes said power prevails and the powerful's goals will simply trump those of the less powerful. Adam Smith's idea of a free market is a system where all people are free to pursue their goals; for some this is profit but for others profit is not necessaryily their goal, its subjective really and it is down to the 'free market' to meet that demand and in turn supply it. The problem is that demands are not met and structurally the market is not able to meet all demands and that it is certain demands, namely that of the powerful that are addressed above everybody elses. Thats why I said in principle, I agree with free trade, but it is not in actuality as perfect as the theory, although I am still an optimist that this current free market system will adjust to the emergig shift in demands. Environmental problems are increasingly being seen within the free-market paradigm and that is perhaps the best way to address environmental concerns as demand increases for safe-guards against pollution; is that a demand the free market will supply to? As I was saying the structure is not initially geared to meeting all demands and supply, for instance Japan's whaling industry does not make profits and is propped up with financial aid by the japanese government despite the demands of people all around the world and the japanese market and government is not responding with supply of that demand (supply in this case would be the cesation of whaling). You know, you can argue that socialism is infact part of the free market because profit is not the intrinsic component of free market theory (Adam Smith) as yall seem to believe, instead profit and the profit motive is more an extrinsic part of the free market and the intrinsic component is that 'individuals be free to pursue their goals and self interest'. (Of course for some this is profit, but not necessarly everybody; it is subjective). If people have voted for government to implement socialist programmes then they are simply pursuing their goals. For instance, here in Australia we have alot of what you would call socialist government funded programmes and we have centrelink (where you don't work and get money from the government because you can't find a job, yes its that simple) and the government is undergoing an intervention in the Northern Territory and I can imagine yall would be surprised to know that indigenous Australians are subject to laws that say things like you can't get your welfare-check without passing an alcohol and drug test. Well the intervention is actually quite popular with the indigenous communities and is being hailed so far as making positive progress. Government supplied basketball courts, footy fields, swimming pools, etc. So you can't necessarily dismiss democratically elected government sponsored socialist programmes if you truly are a free market supporter. (The thing is politicians don't call it socialism anymore, its too become too much of tainted word, now its more about 'universal rights').
By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of society more effectively
than when he really intends to promote it.
-Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations.
I will give an 'A' to the student who can find a single favourable reference to a businessman anywhere in the 900 pages of the Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith.
No student has ever gotten an 'A' that way.
-Dr Thomas Sowell, senior fellow at the Hoover Institution in Stanford, appearing on Face the Nation.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version