Re: [hackers-il] One and Zero
- On Wed, May 02, 2007, Uri Even-Chen wrote about "Re: [hackers-il] One and Zero":
> > I find this nonsense. Why is, for example, "pornography", a useless label,This is why I gave the cartoon example. Everyone how to define a 100%
> > indicating disapproval and nothing more? Pornography has a very real meaning,
> > which is depictions of sexual situations, through pictures, film, and so on.
> > People who like to watch pornography also call it that (or more usually
> > in the US, "porn"). Most content can easily be classified by everyone as
> > being "porn" or "non-porn" (except, of course, some border cases), and this
> > doesn't mean that you need to disapprove of porn. Any more than anyone can
> > classify a movie as being a "cartoon" or not a cartoon, and it doesn't mean
> > you disapprove of cartoons.
> Not everyone defines pornography the same way. What some people might
> view as art, others view as pornography. For example, naked people in
> pictures, movies, theater or in paintings. I don't think everyone
> agrees whether it is or is not pornography. Is a movie that contains
> naked people, or half naked people (topless) a pornographic movie? Is
> a movie that contains sex between men and women, or men and men, or
> women and women, a pornographic movie? I think it depends whom you're
cartoon is (e.g., Disney's "Bambi") and a 100% non-cartoon (e.g, the movie
"Home Alone"). But what about a movie which is part-cartoon, part-non-
cartoon, say, "Who Framed Roger Rabbit"? What about a movie 99% non-cartoon
but with a 1 minute cartoon segment in it? Does it really matter if we
can't rigidly call such movies "cartoon" or "non-cartoon"? Does it detract
from the validity of using these labels?
Similarly, a movie can be 99% family movie, and 1% nude scenes. It's not
100% non-porn, it's not 100% porn - it's something in between. Those who
for some reason *oppose* porn will not watch such a movie, because they
don't want to see even one second of porn. Those who *love* porn will not
watch such a movie, because it has too much family stuff and too little of
the "good stuff". Again, the fact that for this specific movie is part
porn, part non-porn, doesn't mean that porn cannot be defined.
> And also, pornography depends on geography. Pornography inYou're right that some people define porn different than others. For some,
> Iran is not necessarily the same as pornography in France (just an
porn includes topless women, or even woman without long sleeves. For others,
porn has to include completely naked individuals, and sex scenes. But again,
so what? The definition of cartoon is similar. Bambi is obviously a cartoon,
but is "Toy Story" (a computer generated movie) called a cartoon? Is a movie
made from filming play-dough (plastelina) figures, "a cartoon"? The fact
that we can argue about the definition, doesn't mean we can't make one.
Nadav Har'El | Thursday, May 3 2007, 15 Iyyar 5767
Phone +972-523-790466, ICQ 13349191 |Experience is what causes a person to
http://nadav.harel.org.il |make new mistakes instead of old ones.
- Hi Nadav,
> Similarly, a movie can be 99% family movie, and 1% nude scenes. It's notNot everyone would agree with your definition. For some people, such
> 100% non-porn, it's not 100% porn - it's something in between.
a movie is 100% non-porn. Nudity is not always pornography. It
depends whom you're asking.
> You're right that some people define porn different than others. For some,If each of us can make his own definition, then who says one
> porn includes topless women, or even woman without long sleeves. For others,
> porn has to include completely naked individuals, and sex scenes. But again,
> so what? The definition of cartoon is similar. Bambi is obviously a cartoon,
> but is "Toy Story" (a computer generated movie) called a cartoon? Is a movie
> made from filming play-dough (plastelina) figures, "a cartoon"? The fact
> that we can argue about the definition, doesn't mean we can't make one.
definition is better than others? You can define schizophrenia
however you want to define it, and I can define it however I want to
define it or not define it at all. If psychiatry professor Thomas
Szasz says "There is, in short, no such thing as schizophrenia"
[http://www.antipsychiatry.org/schizoph.htm%5d, who says your definition
is better than his? If you agree that there is no objective
definition to schizophrenia, so what's wrong with not defining it at
all? It's like defining who's pretty and who's not, who's morally
good and who's morally bad. There is and will never be any consensus.
Of course you can define it, for example some people might be
considered ugly by you. But would you agree that your state will
define who's ugly, and label those people as ugly people for the rest
of their lives? That's what they do when labeling people as mentally
ill or schizophrenics. The label is written and saved for the rest of
There are many articles on www.antipsychiatry.org (and other websites)
who deal with this issue. For example:
Psychiatric Stigma Follows You Everywhere You Go for the Rest of Your Life
I would recommend to read an entire article before labeling it "nonsense".
By the way, that's what they do to prisoners too, by labeling them as
"immoral people" for the rest of their lives. But I know very moral
people who were in prison. For example, Mohandas Gandhi, Nelson
Mandela, Abie Nathan and Tali Fahima, to name just a few. Of course,
you might not agree with me about specific people. But I hope you
don't think that ANY person who was in prison is immoral.