Finland about to get stamps with homoerotic motifs, small amount of protests arise

[HumanAbyss]

[QUOTE=sgman91;44627073]Do you even read?!?!... I'm sorry, but this is frustrating.

I've already said that past societies aren't good reasons to do something today. So why don't you apply your question to that same statement that I've made. The answer is clear.[/QUOTE]

I misread. It's edited.

So then where do you draw the line in a modern society? At where it's least or most offensive? Offensive is relative to the society of the time, so maybe we SHOULD look at the past on occasion to see when something was done, what it did to the people of the time.

We can see that being naked and embracing sexuality really hurt no one. But slavery? We can tell that hurt people.

[Sgman91]

[QUOTE=Explosions;44627084]Forget about my dumb post. I wasn't clear and I wasn't using "it was OK in the past!" to justify sexual depictions.

sgman, can you give a reason why public sexuality and sexual depictions are harmful, or how they have a negative impact on anything?[/QUOTE]

It seems to me that a good and happy society depends on humanity striving to some transcendent goal, whether that goal be truth, or decency, or courage, or anything else. I see the destroying of the idea of decency as human's slow decent back towards the barbarism that was so prevalent in ancient times.

It isn't a coincidence that the same societies that has no barriers of public decency also had a multitude of other things that we would consider unacceptable. Nothing happens without effecting a great deal of other things. Making human sexuality to be nothing more than animal sexuality is just one more step in the process of making humans out to be nothing more than animals. This logically leads to things like a lack of care for human life.

[Awesomecaek]

[QUOTE=sgman91;44627129]It seems to me that a good and happy society depends on humanity striving to some transcendent goal, whether that goal be truth, or decency, or courage, or anything else. I see the destroying of the idea of decency as human's slow decent back towards the barbarism that was so prevalent in ancient times.

It isn't a coincidence that the same societies that has no barriers of public decency also had a multitude of other things that we would consider unacceptable. Nothing happens without effecting a great deal of other things. If we made human sexuality to be nothing more than animal sexuality, then we will also start to think of humans as nothing more than animals. This then leads to a lack of regard for human life.[/QUOTE]

Slopes sure are slippery today

[HumanAbyss]

[QUOTE=sgman91;44627129]It seems to me that a good and happy society depends on humanity striving to some transcendent goal, whether that goal be truth, or decency, or courage, or anything else. I see the destroying of the idea of decency as human's slow decent back towards the barbarism that was so prevalent in ancient times.

It isn't a coincidence that the same societies that has no barriers of public decency also had a multitude of other things that we would consider unacceptable. Nothing happens without effecting a great deal of other things. If we made human sexuality to be nothing more than animal sexuality, then we will also start to think of humans as nothing more than animals. This then leads to a lack of regard for human life.[/QUOTE]

So in your eyes the protestant times of the 1800's where sexuality was a hated subject and people were told to be ashamed of their bodies, but slavery and racism were common somehow ISN'T applicable as an argument against immoral acts when you use the argument?

You equate a conservative ashamed society with good times, well that was a society that had those things AND problems, so how are you able to make that equation? I mean you say "it isn't a coincidence" so you're drawing a link between them, you're using history as a basis for what modern society should or shouldn't do.

[Explosions]

[QUOTE=sgman91;44627129]It seems to me that a good and happy society depends on humanity striving to some transcendent goal, whether that goal be truth, or decency, or courage, or anything else. I see the destroying of the idea of decency as human's slow decent back towards the barbarism that was so prevalent in ancient times.

It isn't a coincidence that the same societies that has no barriers of public decency also had a multitude of other things that we would consider unacceptable. Nothing happens without effecting a great deal of other things. If we made human sexuality to be nothing more than animal sexuality, then we will also start to think of humans as nothing more than animals. This then leads to a lack of regard for human life.[/QUOTE]

Humans sex isn't any different than animal sex though, no matter how much you would like to think so. Humans are just animals, and sex is a big part of our lives. What does hiding it and making people ashamed of it have to do with decency?

Also yes it is just a coincidence because a lot of modern, non-Western cultures have no problem with public sexuality and they don't have slavery and sacrifices or any of that crap.

[bunnyspy1]

[QUOTE=sgman91;44627129]It seems to me that a good and happy society depends on humanity striving to some transcendent goal, whether that goal be truth, or decency, or courage, or anything else. I see the destroying of the idea of decency as human's slow decent back towards the barbarism that was so prevalent in ancient times.

It isn't a coincidence that the same societies that has no barriers of public decency also had a multitude of other things that we would consider unacceptable. Nothing happens without effecting a great deal of other things. If we made human sexuality to be nothing more than animal sexuality, then we will also start to think of humans as nothing more than animals. This then leads to a lack of regard for human life.[/QUOTE]

we aren't being undecent if we start deciding that a nude person isn't bad, that's just accepting that the human body is a thing. this isn't like we're trying to destroy decency and start making people fuck in the streets. I don't see how a nude dude on a stamp leads to barbarism, or, if I'm interpreting those last two sentences correctly, lead to slavery.

[Sgman91]

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;44627175]So in your eyes the protestant times of the 1800's where sexuality was a hated subject and people were told to be ashamed of their bodies, but slavery and racism were common somehow ISN'T applicable as an argument against immoral acts when you use the argument?

You equate a conservative ashamed society with good times, well that was a society that had those things AND problems, so how are you able to make that equation? I mean you say "it isn't a coincidence" so you're drawing a link between them, you're using history as a basis for what modern society should or shouldn't do.[/QUOTE]

I think my current argument would also apply to slavery if someone were to advocate for it in modern times. Treating another human as a slave (talking about racial or national slavery, not debt related slavery) forces a person to have a lesser view of humanity as a whole. One cannot think that all humans have natural rights and also own one as a permanent slave.

Also, what led to the destruction of slavery in the US, for example? I would argue that it was a transcendent view of humanity! Take away the arguments of natural born right and human dignity and you lose a whole lot of power in your arguments against slavery.

[editline]23rd April 2014[/editline]

[QUOTE=bunnyspy1;44627192]we aren't being undecent if we start deciding that a nude person isn't bad, that's just accepting that the human body is a thing. this isn't like we're trying to destroy decency and start making people fuck in the streets. I don't see how a nude dude on a stamp leads to barbarism, or, if I'm interpreting those last two sentences correctly, lead to slavery.[/QUOTE]

Note how I previously showed how it wasn't the nudity that was the problem, but the inherent sexual nature of the picture. A picture of the nude David statue wouldn't have caused any sort of issue.

[HumanAbyss]

[QUOTE=sgman91;44627234]I think my current argument would also apply to slavery if someone were to advocate for it in modern times. Treating another human as a slave (talking about racial or national slavery, not debt related slavery) forces a person to have a lesser view of humanity as a whole. One cannot think that all humans have natural rights and also own one as a permanent slave.

Also, what led to the destruction of slavery in the US, for example? I would argue that it was a transcendent view of humanity! Take away the arguments of natural born right and human dignity and you lose a whole lot of power in your arguments against slavery.[/QUOTE]

so your argument for people having "natural dignity" rather than trying to demonstrate it exists, is exempting yourself from your own rule that you made earlier in this argument, not actually trying to prove it exists and claiming that outside of any of the actual events of the time period, that people becoming ashamed of their bodies and gaining what you call "decency" lead to transcendent period of time?

what a shallow, and ignorant view of history. what a bad argument.

[bunnyspy1]

[QUOTE=sgman91;44627234]I think my current argument would also apply to slavery if someone were to advocate for it in modern times. Treating another human as a slave (talking about racial or national slavery, not debt related slavery) forces a person to have a lesser view of humanity as a whole. One cannot think that all humans have natural rights and also own one as a permanent slave.

Also, what led to the destruction of slavery in the US, for example? I would argue that it was a transcendent view of humanity! Take away the arguments of natural born right and human dignity and you lose a whole lot of power in your arguments against slavery.[/QUOTE]

I can't even comprehend what you're trying to say with this post. Are you implying that people who want people to be alright with human sexuality are trying to remove dignity completely? I'm not sure what you're trying to say at all.

Okay, I edited this post after your response to my post.

[Sgman91]

[QUOTE=Explosions;44627177]Also yes it is just a coincidence because a lot of modern, non-Western cultures have no problem with public sexuality and they don't have slavery and sacrifices or any of that crap.[/QUOTE]

We haven't gone nearly as far as many ancient societies when it comes to public sexuality. Public orgies and temples dedicated to sexual acts with completely open and public sex going on were a norm in much of ancient human society.

Even the simple idea of openly going to a prostitute wouldn't be acceptable in the vast majority of modern societies.

[Explosions]

[QUOTE=sgman91;44627234]I think my current argument would also apply to slavery if someone were to advocate for it in modern times. Treating another human as a slave (talking about racial or national slavery, not debt related slavery) forces a person to have a lesser view of humanity as a whole. One cannot think that all humans have natural rights and also own one as a permanent slave.

Also, what led to the destruction of slavery in the US, for example? I would argue that it was a transcendent view of humanity! Take away the arguments of natural born right and human dignity and you lose a whole lot of power in your arguments against slavery.[/QUOTE]

Do you need a "transcendent" view of animals in order to stand against animal cruelty and unnecessary harm to animals?

[Ganerumo]

[QUOTE=NotMeh;44623354]This

what the fuck is wrong with all of you ?? Yeah let's put porn on stamps [I]great idea[/I] ![/QUOTE]

There's a difference between erotic and pornographic

[HumanAbyss]

[QUOTE=sgman91;44627234]

Note how I previously showed how it wasn't the nudity that was the problem, but the inherent sexual nature of the picture. A picture of the nude David statue wouldn't have caused any sort of issue.[/QUOTE]

Wrong.

Across many historical sites in the world, christian missionaries defaced and destroyed art that contained simply images of genitals. They did this across rome as well. Removing penises, covering tits, everything.

Those naked statues once caused problems. What's different today is the slightest change in views, not a drastic one. You equate how we feel about all people with how we feel about our own body, somehow you feel that being self ashamed causes you to raise humanities image in your own mind. How does that work in a non hypocritical world?

If you're ashamed of yourself, why would you care or like anyone else? Do you know what's a good segwey from this? The personal shame that is ruining many young peoples lives as they struggle to come to terms with their own bodies and society tells them to be ashamed of themselves. This causes damage to a lot of people.

You're saying it would make all people better. I'm saying you're dead wrong in every sense of the word.

[Sgman91]

[QUOTE=Explosions;44627281]Do you need a "transcendent" view of animals in order to stand against animal cruelty and unnecessary harm to animals?[/QUOTE]

At least slightly, sure. You don't care about abusing rocks do you? You've made the decision that life, as a transcendent quality, is of a higher value than non-life.

[Explosions]

[QUOTE=sgman91;44627302]At least slightly, sure. You don't care about abusing rocks do you? You've made the decision that life, as a transcendent quality, is of a higher value than non-life.[/QUOTE]

I'm not sure I understand your definition of "transcendent" then.

[HumanAbyss]

[QUOTE=sgman91;44627276]We haven't gone nearly as far as many ancient societies when it comes to public sexuality. Public orgies and temples dedicated to sexual acts with completely open and public sex going on were a norm in much of ancient human society.

Even the simple idea of openly going to a prostitute wouldn't be acceptable in the vast majority of modern societies.[/QUOTE]

oh no, we just have things like the palace of versailes being King Louies and his friends personal bathrooms.

Oh yeah, they took shits in the stairs.

But they weren't barbaric! They were christian.

[Sgman91]

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;44627297]Wrong.

Across many historical sites in the world, christian missionaries defaced and destroyed art that contained simply images of genitals. They did this across rome as well. Removing penises, covering tits, everything.

Those naked statues once caused problems. What's different today is the slightest change in views, not a drastic one. You equate how we feel about all people with how we feel about our own body, somehow you feel that being self ashamed causes you to raise humanities image in your own mind. How does that work in a non hypocritical world?

If you're ashamed of yourself, why would you care or like anyone else? Do you know what's a good segwey from this? The personal shame that is ruining many young peoples lives as they struggle to come to terms with their own bodies and society tells them to be ashamed of themselves. This causes damage to a lot of people.

You're saying it would make all people better. I'm saying you're dead wrong in every sense of the word.[/QUOTE]

When did I say anything about those times? We're talking about our current society are we not?

At this point in time the vast majority of people wouldn't have a problem with it.

[editline]23rd April 2014[/editline]

[QUOTE=Explosions;44627318]I'm not sure I understand your definition of "transcendent" then.[/QUOTE]

I mean a value judgment that doesn't logically follow from purely natural reasoning. It causes our opinion of something to rise above the purely nature description.

Naturally, animals have no more inherent value than rocks and humans have no more inherent value than animals.

[HumanAbyss]

[QUOTE=sgman91;44627328]When did I say anything about those times? We're talking about our current society are we not?

At this point in time the vast majority of people wouldn't have a problem with it.[/QUOTE]

You made a historical parallel to boost your own argument when you said, we on the opposing side could not.

I'm doing so again by asking you how you can define your sense of decency and morality across generations and various different era's without even stopping to take in for a moment ideas that are not your own

The point is you drew a parallel where nudity goes hand in hand with thinking you can own slaves. There's a parallel where people HATED nudity but were still shitty fucking people.

[catbarf]

[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;44627010]So your answer to "why" is "because most like it that way".

I am sorry but that's not a valid argument for anything ever.[/QUOTE]

What most people think is pretty important when someone is insisting that nobody should have a problem with it.

I already said that I agree that society is too restrictive of sexuality. That doesn't mean I am utterly blind to the fact that most people see a difference between different degrees of sexuality.

[Sgman91]

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;44627325]oh no, we just have things like the palace of versailes being King Louies and his friends personal bathrooms.

Oh yeah, they took shits in the stairs.

But they weren't barbaric! They were christian.[/QUOTE]

I've said nothing about religion.

[Ziks]

[QUOTE=sgman91;44627234]I think my current argument would also apply to slavery if someone were to advocate for it in modern times. Treating another human as a slave (talking about racial or national slavery, not debt related slavery) forces a person to have a lesser view of humanity as a whole. One cannot think that all humans have natural rights and also own one as a permanent slave.[/QUOTE]

Slavery actively harms people. Suggestive imagery only offends some people because of their subjective cultural conditioning.

[QUOTE]Note how I previously showed how it wasn't the nudity that was the problem, but the inherent sexual nature of the picture. A picture of the nude David statue wouldn't have caused any sort of issue.[/QUOTE]

Because we are culturally conditioned to appreciate David as art. We could have been equally culturally conditioned to appreciate healthy expressions of love (such as with this stamp) as art. If you accept things like this stamp then cultural consensus will gradually change to accept it without causing offence, and you can't claim society will be objectively worse because of it. You would probably have more success in claiming society had subjectively improved because it would help dispel homophobia.

[HumanAbyss]

[QUOTE=sgman91;44627367]I've said nothing about religion.[/QUOTE]

no just about barbarism, which is refrencing uncultured people.

I'm simply bringing it up as an example of Non barbaric people who were against nudity, but defiled their own home with their own feces.

You DO NOT get to make parallels, and then deny anyone else from making parallels to strengthen their own arguments.

How you think you get to is beyond me.

[nikomo]

6 pages of butthurt over a fucking stamp.
Finland shoots, Finland scores. 6-1 and the match is over, and Finland takes gold.

[Doom64hunter]

[QUOTE=Explosions;44627177]Humans sex isn't any different than animal sex though, no matter how much you would like to think so. Humans are just animals, and sex is a big part of our lives. What does hiding it and making people ashamed of it have to do with decency?

Also yes it is just a coincidence because a lot of modern, non-Western cultures have no problem with public sexuality and they don't have slavery and sacrifices or any of that crap.[/QUOTE]

Sorry for being a smartass here, but human sex is quite different from that of most animals, as we're one of the few species where both partners derive pleasure from it, instead of it being one-sided, or not really there at all.
We do see it more as an act of pleasure than an act of necessity. And having the genitals covered in day to day live somehow makes nudity more exciting for us. His argument that we'd go back to being savages however is still completely baseless.

[Battledrobe]

I think the point that is trying to get across is - rampant nudity and sexuality lead to degeneracy - depending whom you ask.

[Explosions]

[QUOTE=Battledrobe;44627605]I think the point that is trying to get across is - rampant nudity and sexuality lead to degeneracy - which is true, depending whom you ask.

[editline]23rd April 2014[/editline]

I think the point that is trying to get across is - rampant nudity and sexuality lead to degeneracy - depending whom you ask.[/QUOTE]

That's not how truth works.

[nikomo]

Rampant nudity and sexuality lead to degeneracy, if you believe they do, and you redefine "degeneracy" to suit your political needs.

[G3rman]

Why don't you have some stamps that are like this, and then other stamps that are different? Why is that such a terrible compromise?

[Ganerumo]

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;44627383]no just about barbarism, which is refrencing uncultured people.

I'm simply bringing it up as an example of Non barbaric people who were against nudity, but defiled their own home with their own feces.

You DO NOT get to make parallels, and then deny anyone else from making parallels to strengthen their own arguments.

How you think you get to is beyond me.[/QUOTE]

The Versailles example doesn't work because at the time there was no understanding of the direct sanitary danger of leaving feces around and proper toilets connected to a sewage system did not even exist so it was either shit in a corner or shit in a bucket that you then leave in a corner.

I mean hell back then people believed dirt acted as a natural barrier against most known disease so they refused to bathe and instead covered themselves in perfume, no shit our current standard of hygiene isn't gonna meet with the lifestyle of the French royal court from 250 years ago.

[demoguy08]

[QUOTE=Doom64hunter;44627553]Sorry for being a smartass here, but human sex is quite different from that of most animals, as we're one of the few species where both partners derive pleasure from it, instead of it being one-sided, or not really there at all.
[B]We do see it more as an act of pleasure than an act of necessity. And having the genitals covered in day to day live somehow makes nudity more exciting for us. [/B]His argument that we'd go back to being savages however is still completely baseless.[/QUOTE]

This is an entirely Westernized view of sex though. There are still parts of the world where having many children is a matter of survival and nudity is trivial.