Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [hackers-il] One and Zero

Expand Messages
  • Uri Even-Chen
    Hi Nadav, ... Not everyone would agree with your definition. For some people, such a movie is 100% non-porn. Nudity is not always pornography. It depends
    Message 1 of 12 , May 3, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Nadav,

      > 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.

      Not everyone would agree with your definition. For some people, such
      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,
      > 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.

      If each of us can make his own definition, then who says 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
      their lives.

      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.

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.