[POLL] Are lewd games, text and art the most moral way to consume pornography?

[GNVE]

I'm confident you both mean well, but your arguments can be taken as "you low iq poor peasants don't have the capacity and free will to consent to sex work like we educated high iq successful elites have".

It is not as black and white as that. But trouble is that there are people who are not mentally disabled but are way too trusting and/or cannot oversee the consequences of their actions. They are easily exploited. I know and have known those people. A high IQ has little bearing on it but a low IQ at the 80 side of things can. I'm not saying they are absolutely unable to consent fully but maybe they need extra protections. And there is a point where even you will say they have to low of an intelligence to consent fully. Whether that is an IQ of 90, 80, 70, 60 or whatever.
*And yes I know that IQ is not a perfect measure of intelligence etc etc etc....

 

[anne O'nymous]

That's a pretty low view of the members of community here, that they don't act out on what they feel is right or wrong.

Okay... So in fact it's the whole "moral" part that you totally don't understand. What is pretty fucked up, since morality is the foundation of your question and, globally, the center point in all posts on this thread.

Morality is the set of principles that an individual use to distinguish between right and wrong, good and bad behavior.
Therefore, when I say that many members here have a fucked up moral compass, contrarily to what your answer say, I do not pretend "that they don't act out on what they feel is right or wrong". No, what I mean when saying this, is that their definition of what feel right or wrong isn't the one generally accepted by Society.

Look how many like NTR games, while Society frown on this for being both cheating, sexual corruption, and wife stealth.
Look how many have a lolicon, while Society despise all forms of CP.
Look how many do not care about rape in their games, while rape is a societal plague.
Look how many are into bestiality, once again something despised by Society.
And I don't talk about those sick deviants who are into head patting and hand holding...

Here, we all have a morality that do not match Society's standard ; we all have a more or less fucked up moral compass.
Yet, in their majority, members know the difference between real world and fiction, and wouldn't act in life like they act in games, because as fucked up as their moral compass can be, they aren't deprived of morality and still make the difference between good and bad.

Yes, Weinstein which had a small media company, for decades was sexually abusing and raping women precisely because he could fly below the radar.

"A small media company"... Miramax, then the Weinstein Company, were small media companies... 330 Oscar nomination, second in numbers of Oscar won (80), behind The Disney Company, this is so small and insignificant...
Two brothers where, as producers, as successful in 30 years, than a full production company was during a century... When you also count the fact that, for 12 years they worked for Disney, since it bought Miramax in 93, it in fact make the Weinstein brothers the most successful producers that Hollywood ever had.
Between 1993 and 2016, Harvey Weinstein

You must be registered to see the links

, what make him the

You must be registered to see the links

(but for him it's during a longer period of time)... as much as God according to both links...
But yeah, sure, you can only be right... No one knew who Harvey and his "small companies" were, and not a single news reporter or professional ever cared about him.

Second paragraph you wrote, second time that you are saying absolute bullshit that absolutely not correspond to the reality. I'm not sure that I want to know what come next.

Who would say that the life of an attempted murderer/beater is more important than the life of the innocent? That is deprived moral compass one would say.

Who do you thing you are, to judge the importance that a life can have ?
Anyway, I explicitly said that it is not an "a life against a life" situation. It's what it mean when I said that "there's a really limited number of situation where killing is the only way to neutralize the threat". The instant the aggressor isn't anymore in capacity to continue his act, the case is closed and there isn't more damages. This even if he isn't dead.

As for the question itself, "who would say that the life of an attempted murderer/beater is more important than the life of the innocent" ? Well in first place his parents, his wife and his children...
Accordingly to your two sentences, and among many other possible examples, is moral the fact to kill the father that try to beat the shit out you because you raped his 5 years old daughter, and your p*d*rapist life is more important than his own...

Third paragraph you wrote, and still the same smell of bullshit expressing a total lack of either knowledge or understanding.

You now: "piracy is immoral, period", you two posts ago: "It's piracy, there's a purely logical and rational reason behind this, and it's fully moral."

What do you failed to understand in the words "to keep your example" ?
I never said that piracy is immoral. It's the premise of your example, that I used as reference, not my saying.

Fourth paragraph, and still going... The suspense is near to its climax, will there be something right in what you wrote ?

See how you actually need X? And the previous poster had X, his X was that piracy is immoral cause "it steals bread"(X), but since we evidenced that piracy doesn't necessarily steal bread his moral premise broke his moral claim.

And then you demonstrated (based on something totally wrong but it's a detail) that it's possible that the same kind of action lead to two different moral response, what you claim as being false and impossible when answering to everyone asking you to be more explicit regarding what your question mean...

Five paragraph and... Oh, surprise, this time you haven't said bullshit, you just contradicted everything you said until now.

Why would you lose neurons over the fact that cheaper product with the same quaility are better products than more expensive products with the same quality?

It's over the stupidity implied by the fact that a product change when its price change, that I lost them.
Your definition of what a product is, is as absurd, irrational and disconnected to all reality, than your definition of what morality is.
Then of course, when you claim that a product become better just because it's cheaper, there's neurons that facepalm themselves so hard that they can only die from it.


Good god, not a single thing you wrote achieved to be at least a bit correct. When it's not wrong accordingly to the reality, it's wrong accordingly to your previous claims...
How the fuck is it possible ? I never seen this, yet I exchanged with Polywog and GTrader... But even them achieved to be right time to time. Even the Eunuch King had some moment of clarity.

 

[coffeeaddicted]

Yes, Weinstein which had a small media company, for decades was sexually abusing and raping women precisely because he could fly below the radar.

This isn't a correct assesment.

Weinstein was able to do it, because he held power.
Especially in the entertainment industry, if you are a women at the bottom and you want to to climb up, you won't have a lot of choices.
Besides as a women you are on the losing side because mostly you won't win even if you try to make the point that you were taken advantage off.
As a man, with power, you have a say over who is right.

Or as it was portrait in the IT Crowd, who will the jury believe? A women or an English man?

This is exactly why most rape cases aren't solved and even if, it takes years and suffering on part of the victims and police isn't really helping or rather the laws.
It was exactly the same with Lindemann from Rammstein.

Just look at the current Russel Brant case. Because he could.

I would even argue that porn isn't a liberator but a tool where young men are told how to thread women which is not romantic in any way.

And so even games aren't great because they teach nothing that is good. They just comply with (mostly) deranged fantasies.
But there is porn where it is about equal emotions and feelings. Though this is a rather small pie of porn.

 

[besre]

Okay... So in fact it's the whole "moral" part that you totally don't understand. What is pretty fucked up, since morality is the foundation of your question and, globally, the center point in all posts on this thread.

Morality is the set of principles that an individual use to distinguish between right and wrong, good and bad behavior.
Therefore, when I say that many members here have a fucked up moral compass, contrarily to what your answer say, I do not pretend "that they don't act out on what they feel is right or wrong". No, what I mean when saying this, is that their definition of what feel right or wrong isn't the one generally accepted by Society.

Look how many like NTR games, while Society frown on this for being both cheating, sexual corruption, and wife stealth.
Look how many have a lolicon, while Society despise all forms of CP.
Look how many do not care about rape in their games, while rape is a societal plague.
Look how many are into bestiality, once again something despised by Society.
And I don't talk about those sick deviants who are into head patting and hand holding...

Here, we all have a morality that do not match Society's standard ; we all have a more or less fucked up moral compass.
Yet, in their majority, members know the difference between real world and fiction, and wouldn't act in life like they act in games, because as fucked up as their moral compass can be, they aren't deprived of morality and still make the difference between good and bad.

Who cares about what vanilla society generally finds moral at this current time?

They eat unhealthy foods, consume alcohol, and other light drugs. Masturbating to animated porn regularly can be considered pristine deed compared to their daily habits.

This niche community is the right place to ask this question because individuals are likely to have both consumed real porn and animated porn and have either pondered on this question or at least thought about it for a second when they saw it asked here. There's nothing inherently immoral by masturbation in vacuum. So again, you have a really low view of the community here.

"A small media company"... Miramax, then the Weinstein Company, were small media companies... 330 Oscar nomination, second in numbers of Oscar won (80), behind The Disney Company, this is so small and insignificant...
Two brothers where, as producers, as successful in 30 years, than a full production company was during a century... When you also count the fact that, for 12 years they worked for Disney, since it bought Miramax in 93, it in fact make the Weinstein brothers the most successful producers that Hollywood ever had.
Between 1993 and 2016, Harvey Weinstein

You must be registered to see the links

, what make him the

You must be registered to see the links

(but for him it's during a longer period of time)... as much as God according to both links...
But yeah, sure, you can only be right... No one knew who Harvey and his "small companies" were, and not a single news reporter or professional ever cared about him.

Second paragraph you wrote, second time that you are saying absolute bullshit that absolutely not correspond to the reality. I'm not sure that I want to know what come next.

What does the success of a company have to do with their size?

If you took a few deep breathes before getting emotionally invested in this and though about this rationally perhaps you would've remembered this argument started about corporations vs. small companies mistreatment of their employees.

And Weinstein's company at its peak had 150 employees which makes it small to mid size company, so far from corporation which by definition is a large company, it was officially a LLC (Limited liability company) which is categorically different from a corporation.

As for the question itself, "who would say that the life of an attempted murderer/beater is more important than the life of the innocent" ? Well in first place his parents, his wife and his children...
Accordingly to your two sentences, and among many other possible examples, is moral the fact to kill the father that try to beat the shit out you because you raped his 5 years old daughter, and your p*d*rapist life is more important than his own...

You kinda missed the important "innocent life" there, unless you want to say that child rapists are innocent people void of any punishment.

Or if you don't think that, perhaps you shouldn't go in this emotionally and think these arguments through.

As for the question itself, "who would say that the life of an attempted murderer/beater is more important than the life of the innocent" ? Well in first place his parents, his wife and his children...
Accordingly to your two sentences, and among many other possible examples, is moral the fact to kill the father that try to beat the shit out you because you raped his 5 years old daughter, and your p*d*rapist life is more important than his own...

So you dropped the needing of "X" premise for something, cool that you concede there.

It's over the stupidity implied by the fact that a product change when its price change, that I lost them.
Your definition of what a product is, is as absurd, irrational and disconnected to all reality, than your definition of what morality is.
Then of course, when you claim that a product become better just because it's cheaper, there's neurons that facepalm themselves so hard that they can only die from it.

Again, yes, a cheaper product with the same quality is a better product than a more expensive product with the same quality, by default.

I see you have nothing but ad hominem for this, so I take it you concede on this issue.

Breathe deeply and think before responding next time

 

[besre]

This isn't a correct assesment.

Weinstein was able to do it, because he held power.
Especially in the entertainment industry, if you are a women at the bottom and you want to to climb up, you won't have a lot of choices.
Besides as a women you are on the losing side because mostly you won't win even if you try to make the point that you were taken advantage off.
As a man, with power, you have a say over who is right.

Or as it was portrait in the IT Crowd, who will the jury believe? A women or an English man?

This is exactly why most rape cases aren't solved and even if, it takes years and suffering on part of the victims and police isn't really helping or rather the laws.
It was exactly the same with Lindemann from Rammstein.

Just look at the current Russel Brant case. Because he could.

I would even argue that porn isn't a liberator but a tool where young men are told how to thread women which is not romantic in any way.

And so even games aren't great because they teach nothing that is good. They just comply with (mostly) deranged fantasies.
But there is porn where it is about equal emotions and feelings. Though this is a rather small pie of porn.

The argument originates from whether small companies or corporations can get away with mistreatment of employees more often, my argument was that small companies more often than not can fly below the radar compared to succesful corporations because corporations often have the law/regulatory inspections breathing down their necks.

 

[coffeeaddicted]

The argument originates from whether small companies or corporations can get away with mistreatment of employees more often, my argument was that small companies more often than not can fly below the radar compared to succesful corporations because corporations often have the law/regulatory inspections breathing down their necks.

I think that would be black or white.
It has more to do with code of contuct.
If a company values it's employees, it will have safety meassures in place so employees can seek help, report issues and such.
Obviously these companies didn't had that. There was no body that would take their issue.
So i don't think it matters if its a corporation or some smaller business.
If you look at Russel Brant, this is a large corporation but it still happened.
To me it's a men's culture that is nurtured through the image how you get things. Like Trump that grabs them by the pussy.
At least that is how i see it.
I don't want to imagine how it must feel to get raped and have to work there for years.
And it spills into gaming as well as women are highly sexualized objects that are meant to be raped or end up serving guys. No matter how you spin it, its a narrative that is popular because guys like to want to experience it in real.
So again, i don't think the size of a company matters that much but their culture and how employees can report wrong doings.

 

[Fate stay]

Different people have different moral values,
But I guess yes is the answer to your question.

 

[Thin Bastard]

The argument originates from whether small companies or corporations can get away with mistreatment of employees more often, my argument was that small companies more often than not can fly below the radar compared to succesful corporations because corporations often have the law/regulatory inspections breathing down their necks.

On the other hand, huge corporations tend to be vastly more able to negotiate with regulatory bodies/eat any penalties levied as “cost of doing business”, which unlike with companies that “fly under the radar” is significantly harder to resolve with whistleblowing/reporting.

 

[anne O'nymous]

Who cares about what vanilla society generally finds moral at this current time?

You know, if you don't understand what you read, you can say it.
Like by example when you are totally unable to understand what the word "morality" mean, and can't even notice when someone just copied what is nothing more than the definition of this word.

And it happen that, morality being something purely personal, that differ from an individual to another, and that evolved through History, the only way to talk about it is by using as reference what "vanilla society generally finds moral at this current time".
This applying even more when you are someone who ask people if something is, or not, more moral than something else. Because such question without a common referential is purely useless.
It's like being blind and asking someone who's also blind, to explain you what colors are. You'll get an answer, but absolutely no guaranties that it mean something.

So, to answer your question, who care about this ? Well, you !
Because it's your question and, to understand the answer, you need to know what the words you used for the question mean...

There's nothing inherently immoral by masturbation in vacuum.

Good, because no one said, nor even implied from a really far distance, this.

So again, you have a really low view of the community here.

Why ? Because I said that there's NTR lovers, that bestiality is frown on by Society, that liking loli in games doesn't mean that you'll rape the first underage girl that you'll encounter ?
Tell me, what is wrong in what I said ? Go, don't hesitate a single second, explain me how a list of pure facts can represent my view regarding the community...

At most it represent my view regarding the size of the resonance box between your ears.
[side note: there's no typo in the previous sentence]

If you took a few deep breathes before getting emotionally invested in this and though about this rationally perhaps you would've remembered this argument started about corporations vs. small companies mistreatment of their employees.

The sole emotional investment I have here is my attempts to not laugh.

And if you took the time, and leaflet, to use your brain, you would see that you were answering to my, "it happen that, unlike what you claimed, being under a microscope to not prevent bad things to happen in (relative) secret for years".
So, no, it wasn't about the corporations versus small companies, but about your own, wrong claim, that "women would be safer under corporation setting because corporation are under the microscope compared to small companies that actually fall between the cracks and don't follow the law".
And what better to prove this wrong, than someone who achieve to be under thousands of microscopes and still be one of the biggest threats for women ?

Of course, you surely had nothing to reply to this precisely, since it blown away your argumentation attempt, what is probably the reason why you decided to answer about something else that what I said. But alas, it's not how discussions works. Perhaps that by systematically changing the topic you achieve to always looks good to your own eyes, but it make you looks like a pure idiot to the eyes of everyone who know how to read a series of posts.

You kinda missed the important "innocent life" there, unless you want to say that child rapists are innocent people void of any punishment.

I wonder what is worse. That you don't understand what I wrote, or that you have no fucking clue about what your own words mean.

Or if you don't think that, perhaps you shouldn't go in this emotionally and think these arguments through.

Once again this emotional claim. Baby, it's a discussion on a porn forum on internet... Why the fuck would I be emotional about such futility ?
Don't confuse my hilarity with an emotion, and even less something special for you. I'm someone who take life from the bright side as often as possible, so it's the default me. You are funny to talk too, but it just happen that I have few minutes to spare.

So you dropped the needing of "X" premise for something, cool that you concede there.

I wonder how it can be a concession to drop something that I always claimed as totally irrational and useless, that you introduced yourself, and that you were the only one to defend...
Wait, what am I saying ? I can't have dropped it, because I always rejected it.

Me: "Morality isn't a question of being "X" or not being "X""
You: "See how you actually need X?"

I see you have nothing but ad hominem for this, so I take it you concede on this issue.

Haven't the thought that I can have better things to do than teaching a pre-school kid what a product is, crossed your mind ?

Breathe deeply and think before responding next time

Since we are at advice, read back the discussion next time you want to answer. I guess my neighbors will thanks you if I don't awake them again with my laughter.

 

[coffeeaddicted]

Who cares about what vanilla society generally finds moral at this current time?

Society defines what moral is and no individual.

You can of course cite romans as they loved CP a lot. At least what we would define today as CP.
But societies over time came to the conclusion with church in the backpack, that it is actually wrong.

The more decadent a society is, the more will be allowed or tollerated. It doesn't mean that it is ok but that it doesn't care about individuals as a whole.

Each group has its own morals. A criminal has a different moral that isn't defined by society and so have you but it won't shield you from the current laws in that society.

It is like western tourist to all kinds of shit in Asien countries and wonder why they have to pay or being in jail.

All it shows me is that western societies become more decadent and have no values whatsoever. More disregard for others.

This is a little off topic but matters.

 

[besre]

Society defines what moral is and no individual.

I disagree and I'll refer you to this:

"Morality can be a body of standards or principles derived from a

You must be registered to see the links

from a particular

You must be registered to see the links

,

You must be registered to see the links

or

You must be registered to see the links

, or it can derive from a standard that a person believes should be universal."

Who cares about what vanilla society generally finds moral at this current time?
They eat unhealthy foods, consume alcohol, and other light drugs. Masturbating to animated porn regularly can be considered pristine deed compared to their daily habits.

So, to answer your question, who care about this ? Well, you !

No, if you're steal unclear reread my previous reply until you're clear. I won't be going in more circles on this.

And if you took the time, and leaflet, to use your brain, you would see that you were answering to my, "it happen that, unlike what you claimed, being under a microscope to not prevent bad things to happen in (relative) secret for years".
So, no, it wasn't about the corporations versus small companies, but about your own, wrong claim, that "women would be safer under corporation setting because corporation are under the microscope compared to small companies that actually fall between the cracks and don't follow the law".
And what better to prove this wrong, than someone who achieve to be under thousands of microscopes and still be one of the biggest threats for women ?

It wasn't about corporations versus small companies in mistreating workers but, about "women who would be safer under corporations because they are under the microscopre compared to small companies who fall between the cracks".

Do you even understand words? This is the same claim.

And no, Weinstein wasn't under a microscope or he wouldn've been caught earlier, not decades later.

I wonder what is worse. That you don't understand what I wrote, or that you have no fucking clue about what your own words mean.

Ok let's go at the beginning, I wrote:

"Who would say that the life of an attempted murderer/beater is more important than the life of the innocent?"

On which you replied:

As for the question itself, "who would say that the life of an attempted murderer/beater is more important than the life of the innocent" ? Well in first place his parents, his wife and his children...
Accordingly to your two sentences, and among many other possible examples, is moral the fact to kill the father that try to beat the shit out you because you raped his 5 years old daughter, and your p*d*rapist life is more important than his own...

So you're literally claiming that a literal child rapist is an innocent life, and he could morally self defense himself from the beating of the father.

That or you have no clue about what you're talking about.

As I said, deep breathes and try to think before responding.

Second time I repeat this part to you, I won't be going in to more circles. It's frankly boring.

Once again this emotional claim. Baby, it's a discussion on a porn forum on internet... Why the fuck would I be emotional about such futility ?

How the fuck is it possible ? I never seen this, yet I exchanged with Polywog and GTrader... But even them achieved to be right time to time. Even the Eunuch King had some moment of clarity.

Brother, you even started invoking past debates you had on this forum with people I haven't even heard that are not even a part of this discussion, it like our talk triggered your PTSD or something that you got from those discussions..

I'm telling you, relax.

Wait, what am I saying ? I can't have dropped it, because I always rejected it.

Then go talk with your debate buddy on why you disagree with him on the context of "Piracy is immoral because of X"

I already explained why if someone invokes X as a premise and it's wrong his whole moral claim falls apart cause of faulty premise. I won't be going in circles on this as well.

 

[coffeeaddicted]

I disagree and I'll refer you to this:

"Morality can be a body of standards or principles derived from a

You must be registered to see the links

from a particular

You must be registered to see the links

,

You must be registered to see the links

or

You must be registered to see the links

, or it can derive from a standard that a person believes should be universal."

Let me explain it in a better way.

Society defines morales that governs how laws apply in each society.

This doesn't mean that you can not have your own morals but your own morals are overwritten by what was agreed on when writing a law.

Case in point. If you would be before court, you can claim that it wasn't wrong by your own morals. In fact, you acted on your morals, but you would lose your defense as it doesn't matter what morals you have personally. What matters are the laws that are current.

Now you can argue, i wasn't asked but you were because you voted for a party or worst, you didn't vote at all.

You answer is an explanation what morals can be. My point is that society defines morals for society and yes, by the points you made. Though last sentence would be, i imagine, a more despotic society.
If the king say, this will be from now how we conduct with each other......

 

[Doorknob22]

Any legal way to consume porn is moral.

 

[anne O'nymous]

I disagree and I'll refer you to this:

"Morality can be a body of standards or principles derived from a

You must be registered to see the links

from a particular

You must be registered to see the links

,

You must be registered to see the links

or

You must be registered to see the links

, or it can derive from a standard that a person believes should be universal."

Not only words have a meaning, but their order also have a meaning. They aren't randomly chosen, nor are they randomly thrown. And, of course, a list of definitions will always starts by the most commonly agreed and used one, and always finish by the less frequently encountered one.
What mean that the definition you provided yourself confirm what we are all saying, and invalidates what you are claiming.
It's what is explicitly said by the definition you use as reference. It's wrote, you wrote it yourself, morality is independent of an individual belief.
It's only exceptionally that it can derive from a self made standard. Yet, the person who made this standard will still believe that it should be universal, and therefore that it should be independent of an individual belief and apply to everyone.

No, if you're steal unclear reread my previous reply until you're clear. I won't be going in more circles on this.

Well, if you don't want to be going in circle, starts by addressing what is said to you, instead of systematically discarding it, and going backward in hope that you'll finally get an answer that will match your belief.

Do you even understand words? This is the same claim.

I even understand sentences and concepts, abstract or not. But the more I read you, the more I doubt that you understand what your write, and even less what you read.

And no, Weinstein wasn't under a microscope or he wouldn've been caught earlier, not decades later.

The most known, most successful, and most courted movie producer, someone with an address book bigger than any US president ever had, and who was tracked by everyone in the profession, and anyone who want to enter the profession, as well as by specialized news and gossip news, not being under a microscope...
I guess that it's like your lack of understanding regarding morality, and you also don't have a fucking clue about what the saying, "being under a microscope", effectively mean.

Perhaps should you provide a glossary with your posts, to help readers understand the strange meaning you give to words and saying.

Ok let's go at the beginning, I wrote:

"Who would say that the life of an attempted murderer/beater is more important than the life of the innocent?"

On which you replied:

Note that there's two paragraphs. It's not for the show, it have a meaning.
The answer to your question is "well in first place his parents, his wife and his children...". The rest isn't addressing the question itself, but the thinking process behind it.

In the present case, what happen once the father is dead ? While someone know what the guy did ? Have you thought about this ? Have you even considered that you should think about this ?
Since the father is dead, you wouldn't be aware of the reason behind the aggression. Therefore, you would be the first one to claim that this guy his nothing more than an innocent protecting his life, and the father nothing more than a bastard who deserved to die.

Of course, for some it can need to take the time to breath, and to think about what they read, to come to this, relatively obvious, thought, and then understand what is wrote. So, i don't know, perhaps stop being all emotional, and starts to apply your own advice, just to be sure that it's not you who have an understanding problem.

Second time I repeat this part to you, I won't be going in to more circles. It's frankly boring.

You are circling because you are totally unable to understand concepts as basic as paragraphs, while applying, to words and saying, definition that only you know, and also because you don't take a single second to think about what you read...
None of this is my fault, nor is it my responsibility.

Brother, you even started invoking past debates you had on this forum with people I haven't even heard that are not even a part of this discussion, it like our talk triggered your PTSD or something that you got from those discussions..

I'm telling you, relax.

Or perhaps do I know what "public discussion" mean ?
Then, the blank line before this part would take all its sense. Not only it wouldn't be directly related to the previous paragraph, what is the default meaning, but possibly not addressing it, perhaps even not at all addressed to you (the "public" in "public discussion").
Who know, perhaps was I saying, to the many readers that would understand, that, from my point of view, even the biggest trolls this forum ever had were less dense than you...

And then, I suddenly transform into the most relaxed guy ever. Someone who even take the time to wink at the public and address it a message that some would get.

XOXO
If you understood that it's for you, come to my PM box baby...
What ? It costs nothing to try.
No my dear bear lover, it wasn't for you, sorry.

Then go talk with your debate buddy on why you disagree with him on the context of "Piracy is immoral because of X"

As he said, and as I said twice, it's two different things.
There's the immorality of the act, and there's "X", the consequence of this act. But it's not because the two regard the same act, that they are necessarily linked by a cause and effect correlation.
By default, piracy stay immoral even if there's no consequences. And it's not because it can be a case of moral piracy (like South Africa law regarding medicine brevets) that there's no consequences. The two regard the same act, but that's all. They are independent notions and, contrarily to your wrong reading, no one ever claimed that one imply the other.

I hope you finally understood because, my youngest being adult since few years now, I'll probably not be able to drop few more grades in the way I explain it.

I already explained why if someone invokes X as a premise and it's wrong his whole moral claim falls apart cause of faulty premise. I won't be going in circles on this as well.

And three of us (sorry if I missed someone) tried to explain you that it's you, and you only, who made up a correlation that do not exist, not even as implicit intent.
But, because we are not saying, "yes you're right", but, "you totally misunderstood what he said", you are totally unable to see that you looks like an idiot. Therefore, yes you circle, but you do it around something totally unrelated to what was initially said, as well as the explanation people try to give you. You circle around your made up reading, not taking a single second to question our explanation. Since they don't match your reading, it's necessarily us who are wrong, not you who can have misunderstood.

If a metaphor can help you understand, you are angrily trying to convince people that being wet because of the rain do not mean that you jumped in a pool, and you are doing this because someone said that he sweated a lot this summer and often felt like if it just rained.
You selected few words, gave them a meaning, made up a sentence from this, then get angry anytime someone don't talk about your personal interpretation of what was said.

Edit: few obvious typo, at this hour I should be sleeping instead of keeping my insomnia at bay.

 

[coffeeaddicted]

It's only exceptionally that it can derive from a self made standard. Yet, the person who made this standard will still believe that it should be universal, and therefore that it should be independent of an individual belief and apply to everyone.

All perverts dream of that notion.
"My morals are pure, therefor it should be accepted." Which is what Trump did in a sense.

If i look at history, there were many things socially accepted that are today forbidden.
Just look at the antics. Lots of penises, and vaginas.
It was normal at the time.
In the US its a controversy because of the puritan mindset.
See Nipple Gate.

Though, there have to be some norms what is allowed and what is not and it shouldn't be for one person to decide what that is.
There has to be a consensus.

Porn can be acceptable in some form. But not in all form or depiction.
There is a taint in that picture and as we talk about porn, everyone understands what it means. Because even games can cross the boundaries of acceptable porn and the tainted fetish that you shouldn't be consumed. Even though it's fantasy, images but by depicting it becomes something else. A reenactment of events that may be very real or could happen or happened in real life. Thus it becomes immoral.

No one person can claim to say it's moral because on person isn't god but just one of millions. Therefore it must be figured out and a consensus must be reached what the moral, the ethics of things are.

 

[Wankyudo]

Who actually cares if it's moral or not? We're pirates. "Paying with exposure," is just as immoral as the outright theft because fruit from the poisonous tree. If the initial act is immoral, then any act attached afterwards is still going to make that initial act immoral. That's how it works.

This shit of "What's moral," "what's not moral," is pointless in a forum that is ultimately meant to be morally ambiguous. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go search up amateur porn of maids who originally were just meant to be cleaning someones house getting surprise buttsex. Because fuck morality.

 

[morphnet]

Then go talk with your debate buddy on why you disagree with him on the context of "Piracy is immoral because of X"

I already explained why if someone invokes X as a premise and it's wrong his whole moral claim falls apart cause of faulty premise. I won't be going in circles on this as well.

You could have just left me out of it.... but you clearly lack understanding on many levels other than how to dig holes.

First, he could not disagree with me because I was only giving 3 examples of views held by others and even I disagree with some of those views. If you somehow mistook those view as my own, you are only showing just how little comprehension you truly have.
Second, you can't claim something is wrong because "you said so", it's as if we're back on a school playground and all you are doing is running around shouting "Nah ah"

Seeing as how I'm already down this rabbit hole....
I'll start slower this time.

Who cares about what vanilla society generally finds moral at this current time?

They eat unhealthy foods, consume alcohol, and other light drugs. Masturbating to animated porn regularly can be considered pristine deed compared to their daily habits.

This is a prime example of why we think you do not understand the meaning of words. "Morals" govern and/or are used to judge deeds. What you are claiming in the above is that the act (deed) of masturbating to animated porn is better than the acts (deeds) of eating unhealth food, consuming alcohol and other light drugs. As this thread is about morality we can assume you are using that to judge the difference.

So what you are saying is that it is more immoral to eat unhealthy food, consume alcohol and other light drugs than it is to masturbate to animated porn. However it is not considered immoral to eat unhealthy foods etc. on their own.
So we have to ask ourselves (using your example above) when IS eating unhealthy food, consuming alcohol and other light drugs considered immoral? The answer is, when they are added together to make what some call an immoral life style.

As we have now figured out (through your example) which morality you are using here, we can now apply that to the rest of your example and as masturbation would be included in the "immoral life style" and so to would any kind of porn it would seem your example is incorrect.

In most of the cases where "immoral life style" is used in place of unhealthy life style, masturbation is a big no-no as is porn.
However, many that do subscribe to this morality do so only in public and/or when applying it to others and they themselves follow their own personal morality when alone.

This is why it was pointed out to you early in this thread that there are different moralities out there and without knowing which one is being applied you will always get different answers.

As I said I would go slowly, I will only address two of your points so as to not overwhelm you with thoughts.

Again, yes, a cheaper product with the same quality is a better product than a more expensive product with the same quality, by default.

When people give knee-jerk reactions, they seldom, if ever put thought into them. This is one such case. I will merely leave the below for you to ponder....

Using your statement and I hesitate to call it "logic"
If nvidia was selling 4070's at $600 and had a give away to promote them, then according to you, the guy that got the free one got a better product than the guy a week later who bought his.

In the reality that the rest of us live in, they both received the exact same product, the first guy only got a better deal ON his product.

The fact that this has to be explained to you, calls into question everything you say as it clearly shows you lack understanding on a basic level. Maybe instead of telling others to "breathe deeply" you should open a book and use your time reading rather than posting nonsensical replies to questions you asked but don't know the meaning of?

 

[besre]

You could have just left me out of it....

You could've left yourself out by not giving support emojis to your debate buddy every time he replied, but you're obviously invested in this.

First, he could not disagree with me because I was only giving 3 examples of views held by others and even I disagree with some of those views. If you somehow mistook those view as my own, you are only showing just how little comprehension you truly have.

Let's see what I wrote:

See this can't be immoral (by their own rationale) cause online pirates aren't taking food from anyone.

And I further brought evidence why X wasn't the case. On which you responded with:

Of course it can be immoral, yours are not the only moral standards out there and there are many that consider pirating to be immoral.

So the moral claim was debunked by the premise X being evidenced wrong, but you kept on doubling down with just saying "no no".

So as you said you are like the child in a playground running around saying "Nah ah". So I guess nice projection there.

I won't be going in circles on this.

The answer is, when they are added together to make what some call an immoral life style.

As we have now figured out (through your example) which morality you are using here,

No you don't, you're imagining what my moral standards might be and taking your imagination as a fact.

This is why it was pointed out to you early in this thread that there are different moralities out there and without knowing which one is being applied you will always get different answers.

This is again, asinine, individuals have one moral compass, it doesn't matter whether that moral compass was influenced by different cultures it's still one. When I ask whether you find something immoral or not, I'm asking about your individual morality. I'm not asking for you to tell me what the average person in India thinks is immoral or not. That's asinine.

When a friend asks you: "would it be right to help Y", would you ask them "what moral system do you want me to apply so I can answer this?". Or would you answer on what your own moral compass tells you is right.

Reread this as much as you need if you don't understand it, I won't be going in circles on this one as well.

In the reality that the rest of us live in, they both received the exact same product, the first guy only got a better deal ON his product.

They received the same item but a different product, product by definition is something you sell for a price, by definition the price is included in the product. So when people say "but it's cheaper that's why it's better" they're not speaking falsehoods, they factually say why one product is better than the other. They're not comparing item's characteristics at that moment.

And when products get cheaper they get better and they get praise for it, I mean you can watch all the GPUs reviews on prizing and you'd notice the same thing.

Perhaps you're the one that needs to slowly reread why I write so you understand it. My last comment on this part as well.

 

[besre]

Any legal way to consume porn is moral.

Porn is illegal in countries like Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia, is consuming porn there immoral?

To extend this into the west, if they made watching porn illegal in the west would watching porn become immoral?

EDIT:

I just noticed you have a game that is also on steam

In your personal experience do pirates overall: help your finances by giving exposure and free advertisement to your game or they hurt your finances by dissuading people from purchasing the game? Thanks in advance for answer.

 

[Doorknob22]

Porn is illegal in countries like Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia, is consuming porn there immoral?

To extend this into the west, if they made watching porn illegal in the west would watching porn become immoral?

EDIT:

I just noticed you have a game that is also on steam

In your personal experience do pirates overall: help your finances by giving exposure and free advertisement to your game or they hurt your finances by dissuading people from purchasing the game? Thanks in advance for answer.

1. Law and morality rarely meet. In Iran it is perfectly legal to "force marry" unwilling girls, spend some nights with them and then "divorce". I can go on about Saudi Arabia, but I think you get the message.

2. Your second question, while interesting, has nothing to do with the thread. As moderator, I'm not going to start an off topic discussion. Feel free to open a new thread on the subject.