tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1780806945960886534.post4134164677698480664..comments2024-03-28T05:47:54.177+00:00Comments on Philosophical Disquisitions: The Ethics of Pornography (Part 1)John Danaherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06761686258507859309noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1780806945960886534.post-71073915038698810622011-07-11T19:51:05.497+01:002011-07-11T19:51:05.497+01:00Thanks for that. I've changed the diagram.
As...Thanks for that. I've changed the diagram.<br /><br />As for the other stuff, I don't have any immediate plans to write more stuff on feminism or sexism, but who knows how I might feel in a couple of weeks.John Danaherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06761686258507859309noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1780806945960886534.post-86385710589193122872011-07-11T17:15:26.805+01:002011-07-11T17:15:26.805+01:00Oh, and on 'male vs female privilege' thin...Oh, and on 'male vs female privilege' thing. Thanks.Leohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05962018593312392087noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1780806945960886534.post-58014965898102032122011-07-11T17:13:50.510+01:002011-07-11T17:13:50.510+01:00Isn't 2.1 + 2.2 -> 2 ? It's put converg...Isn't 2.1 + 2.2 -> 2 ? It's put convergent in the diagram but I get from what you write that's a linked argument: "I feel like the following two reasons, when COMBINED" (I capitalized for emphasis not to yell)<br /><br />"(2.1) does not say that pornography is an essential part of sexual identity. If it said that, and if that was true, then (2) would be fully supported without the need for (2.2)"<br /><br />But in the diagram it does not say "essential " so the support each other to conclude at 2; hence it's linked argument, I think.<br /><br />--<br /><br />By the way this is an interest topic do you have something more on feminism, like sexism and objectivifaction?Leohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05962018593312392087noreply@blogger.com