Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Narz, Nov 18, 2011.
what if the porn star voted for the politician
That has nothing to do with her job.
To add on to me previous point, pornography breeds (no pun intended) a culture of gratification, whilst war and mortal combat breed cultures of strength and perseverance. I'd rather be strong than gratified (note; gratified =/= happy), thank you very much.
So I assume you take your personal fitness routine very seriously & never have any late night snack fests.
I don't want to sound like a braggart, but..er... haha
I suppose have a habit of almost masochistic self-denial of food, pleasure, and sociability; I figure it could only make me a better person; to be free from any expectations regarding outside influences, and finding happiness in what lies within. But I am getting esoteric here...
My viewpoint would better lend me to be a soldier than a porn star, as I'd rather give to the world than take from it (no pun intended haha).
The former are virtuous private sector workers, creating wealth and innovating.
The latter are leeches on the public purse, living off taxes, which are of course theft.
sure it does, she's in a union and the union supports the politicians who abuse the soldiers risking their lives for the rest of us...
Porn stars. They can have all the sex they want. Doesnt harm anybody else. On the other hand, soldiers are essentially weapons. They can have some purpose to "serve the country and protect its people" but misguided conclusions doesnt make it a good one.
A good way to think of this is comparing a hypothetical world without pornstars and one without soldiers. Answer is simple.
Thing is, the former hypothetical could actually exist, while the latter is an impossibility; with no soldiers, we would just have bandits and criminals. I prefer soldiers to lawbreakers.
As for pornography, it certainly does have repercussions beyond their own lives'; that is what makes it pornography (being exposed (this subject is ripe for word-play) outside of the intimate relationship). To say that no one ever is exploited by the sex industry, acquires diseases, or that people haven't had their romantic lives'/expectations ruined by pornography is false.
We can certainly say that soldiers do a lot to benefit this world; how do pornographers and pornographic actors help the world anymore than any other facet of the capitalist machine?
What I don't get from the discourse thussofar from those who voted for 'Modern soldier' is that nowhere in that voting option- 'Modern soldier'- does it say OUR soldiers. You would also have to defend Nazi soldiers, Hutu/ Tutsi militants, and the Janjaweed. Did that occur to any of you?
This is, of course, ignoring the whole two-faced nature of "Our soldiers are always good, their soldiers are always bad." Such idiocy. Such hypocrisy.
Well, I'm somewhat jealous, I'm a frail human who finds the pleasures of the flesh hard to resist (though I have made some progress thanks to dedication on the matter of self-control).
That's what the police are for (or, if we're talking peaceful left-leaning protestors, the anti-terrorism squad).
There's a lot of f-ed up porn out there but the majority of it seems pretty harmless. I don't think you could say the same about wars.
I don't think pornographers are particularly noble, I just think they're probably neutral. At best it's beautiful art, at worst it condones abuse/misogyny.
Well, the first post says "modern era in a first world country". So basically, that means the US and her allies (NATO) during and after WWII. These countries are liberal democracies that hold themselves to high standards regarding war (Geneva Conventions, international courts, etc), so that should make it a harder (pun....) choice for the porn addicts here haha.
And chances are, if you can afford being on the internet to discuss relatively pointless things with other people, then you soldiers are doing something right... haha
Nazi Germany was certainly in the modern era, and would be classified as a first world nation.
Yes, and we all know their soldiers were more moral than porn stars.
I can't think of any 'righteous' war being fought by modern soldiers. Well, Libya, but that wasn't a war, it was more of taking a side in a revolution. And there was limited ground action.
(And if you think all muslims are terrorists, having explosives with them to blow up NYC, then you might be a little paranoid and the ISS might be a safer place for you to live)
But it was not a liberal democracy when those things happened, but under a liberal democracy there are far higher standards to be kept. Making a soldier to have a duty of care that does not exist in the soldiers of an army not from a liberal democracy.
Nobody's saying it's 100% the soldiers' fault. But the fact is if, among other things, soldiers have killed many innocent civilians in the line of duty, then that would unquestionably affect how morally appealing the profession is in general relative to porn stars' profession.
You have a fascist streak? What a surprise.
Don't conflate fascism and militarism, good sir.
And I was under the impression that First World applied to countries allied with NATO during the Cold War, not simply any country with a reasonable economy. Communication breakdown, perhaps?
I'm not conflating fascism with militarism. Having a fascistic streak doesn't automatically make you a bona fide fascist. It just means you have a fascistic streak.
Don't worry, lots of self-professed liberals and libertarians have fascistic streaks.
Fascism and pornography are both We$tern creations that are completely alien to the Russian national character.
If you characterize everyone who considers porn actors to be less immoral than soldiers a "porn addict", I think I'm free to tag you a murder apologist.
Separate names with a comma.