3 ms·

You didn't say "women are X", you said "porn is X", so it could be a categorical statement about the nature of porn. I believe what is is less important that w

by Chris2048 9y ago

You didn't say "women are X", you said "porn is X", so it could be a categorical statement about the nature of porn. I believe what is is less important that what can be. Bitcoin/freenet/bitorrent is used heavily for shady and/or illegal business - that needn't be the case in the future. "porn objectifies women" is a fairly loaded term, that incorporates, on average, a lot of assumption about what that means, and why it is relevant. The context is a large effort by certain groups, trying to prove porn is "harmful" - the objectification argument is the latest round of arguments against porn.

coldtea 9y ago
>You didn't say "women are X", you said "porn is X", so it could be a categorical statement about the nature of porn. I fail to see the difference between "women are X" and "porn is X". Both are statements of the type "Y is X". Furthermore, my point is that categorical statements in casual conversation mean "most, the majority etc", unlike categorical statements in formal logic. >"porn objectifies women" is a fairly loaded term, that incorporates, on average, a lot of assumption about what that means, and why it is relevant. The context is a large effort by certain groups, trying to prove porn is "harmful" - the objectification argument is the latest round of arguments against porn. Whether "porn objectifies women" is true or not is orthogonal to what I discussed here: that someone saying "porn objectifies women" doesn't mean "all porn ever made with no exception objectifies women" -- and thus their point can't be shut down with a mere counter-example (like several parent commenters here did).
- Chris2048 9y ago
  > I fail to see the difference.. But you said "something about members of a group". Y in the first case is a group (a population), Y in the second case is not. Maybe statements about people, or groups of people, conventionally refer to the average, mean etc. but not necessarily about concepts such as "porn". > orthogonal to what I discussed here.. Your last comment says "do you really believe.." so I stated my opinion in response to that.

coldtea 9y ago

>You didn't say "women are X", you said "porn is X", so it could be a categorical statement about the nature of porn. I fail to see the difference between "women are X" and "porn is X". Both are statements of the type "Y is X". Furthermore, my point is that categorical statements in casual conversation mean "most, the majority etc", unlike categorical statements in formal logic. >"porn objectifies women" is a fairly loaded term, that incorporates, on average, a lot of assumption about what that means, and why it is relevant. The context is a large effort by certain groups, trying to prove porn is "harmful" - the objectification argument is the latest round of arguments against porn. Whether "porn objectifies women" is true or not is orthogonal to what I discussed here: that someone saying "porn objectifies women" doesn't mean "all porn ever made with no exception objectifies women" -- and thus their point can't be shut down with a mere counter-example (like several parent commenters here did).

Chris2048 9y ago
> I fail to see the difference.. But you said "something about members of a group". Y in the first case is a group (a population), Y in the second case is not. Maybe statements about people, or groups of people, conventionally refer to the average, mean etc. but not necessarily about concepts such as "porn". > orthogonal to what I discussed here.. Your last comment says "do you really believe.." so I stated my opinion in response to that.