NCSG-DISCUSS Archives

NCSG-Discuss

NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
"Andrew A. Adams" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Andrew A. Adams
Date:
Sat, 15 Jan 2011 01:20:33 +0900
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (40 lines)
> Please Andrews, have you a family? woman and child (ren)?

Utterly irrelevant to this discussion. It's called "ad hominem" where you 
attack the person not the argument, and it's just as bad to place greater 
weight on their arguments because of their background, except where their 
background is so heavily relevant that it lends them greater authority 
because of their knowledge, not because one grants them greater weight 
because of their emotions.

I am against censorship, against the creation of thought crimes, against the 
restrictions of what people choose to do with their bodies (but also against 
people being forced to do things with their bodies that they do not agree 
to). My arguments and views follow from that position and that is all you 
need to know on here. Whether I am homosexual or heterosexual, man or woman, 
back, white, yellow, red or mixed, should not matter in these discussions.

IMO, we need to create a society where no one is ashamed of their bodies nor 
is forced to display it for others7 pleasure as the _only_ way they can 
survive. The anti-sexual material lobby almost universally regards all 
displays as degrading or in some way negative. I do not, and the fact that 
countries like Sweden have the highest measurements of sexual equality and 
some of the lowest poverty rates, alongside the highest literacy rates and 
the most openness about both nudity and sex provides me with strong evidence 
that sexual material is not the automatic negative or degrading thing that 
the anti-sexual material lobby make it out to be.

Beside all that, where do you draw the line? A foot fetishist finds pictures 
of women's feet in high heels sexually alluring. Should we therefore ban any 
and all pictures of women's feet. Sexual allure is in the eyes of the 
beholder and the only material that should be banned is that which can be 
demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that either harm was caused in its 
production, or harm directly follows (without intervening choice) from its 
"consumption".

-- 
Professor Andrew A Adams                      [log in to unmask]
Professor at Graduate School of Business Administration,  and
Deputy Director of the Centre for Business Information Ethics
Meiji University, Tokyo, Japan       http://www.a-cubed.info/

ATOM RSS1 RSS2