Original von Frank Pornazzo
I hope to write in english language without errors and the best possible !
I want to explain the best possible my opinion about the extreme sex.
I don't understand all the peoples criticize the pornography and the extreme sex.
What is it of bad ?
Doesn't these peoples to like the sex ?

I don't believe in this absolutely !!!
I hate those peoples doesn't respect the culture of the others.
What does those peoples says ?
They say who loves the porn is a vicious !
Then ?
I am a vicious !
Yes, i am a vicious, bastards !
But i am a vicious from when i had 3 years old !
Yes !
3 years old !!!
When i had 3 years old i saw myself nude in the mirror and i was looking for something that i didn't know and i was scared my mother saw me.
I had 3 years old !!!
When i had 12 years old i liked extreme sex, bondage, but nothing had told me this things; i had always this things in my mind.
Then ?
I was a vicious in 13 years old !
A children 13 years old is a vicious !
No, i was not vicious because i had 13 years old, but now that i have 31 years old i am vicious !
Why ?
I have the same desires when i were children, then the childrens are vicious them too !!!
All this is crazy !
This shows what it is all wrong !
I feel myself a normalest person, i am a very romantic person, i like love and deep feelings and i love the extreme sex.
I think that in the porn's world too there's many peoples has these feelings and a great heart.
Around myself, i am loved like a god from many peoples and women and i love them too.
I had to lose never in these discussions and i had always won and i hope in a day that the ignorance is going to die !
Bye
Frank Pornazzo

What was the reason for you to post this? ...or just some thoughts of you?
WHAT is 'extreme sex' 4 YOU?


so long,
Max

thats very interesting you see there is a philosopher called P.F Strawson (who by the way makes as much sense as a underwater hair dryier, or rubber nuclear weapons!) that argues that "free-will" is based on our reactions to those we deem responsible for a given act, but to home this convo to something of the topic at hand, taboo's etc are outside the norm of normal interactions with people.

on the other hand one can be like jean paul sartre (whom on the whole I think was a prat) that argued that there is no human nature and thus we are free to do what we will - to think of life a bit like an ongoing self filled script in short, life is what one makes it to be, there are no "rules" - not that i agree with this, but there you go. mind you he also said that to think of man as to how good comes into the world and that man is the source of what defines what is good and what is evil... blah blah blah.

just like in-chat i rant on

@mememe: isn't existentialism just a subdivision of ordinary language philosophy?


and:

@ frank: doesn't being a "pervert" just mean an ambiguity as to have more options to feel pleasure than an "ordinary" man?

hi there dragon:

not really no existentialism is a rather diverse philosophy but jean paul sartre cuts to the chase a defines existentialism at its core quiet well, see here:

anselm.edu/homepage/dbanach/sartreol.htm

the problem with existenialism is that its got alot of bad press over the yrs claiming to be a Godless philosophy, or a philosophy of no hope - far from it. you can be atheistic or theistic and still be an existenalist!

the point is extenisalism at its heart is about "human freedom" you can probably see why during the hippy momvement exterlialism seems very simlair and it is in manyways.

the problem with extenisalsim those is that they often treat nothing literally as that nothing, and then we create our nature! how can we be noting and still exist?

that's easy. nietzsche already solved that one.

LOL know he didnt

but being fair I havent read much of him, so I am always willing to learn

his most famous works "thus spoke zarathustra" and "the antichrist" not only deconstructed religion and humanity down to nothing, to a no-existence, he also offered a substitute (or rather: a remedy) for that.

The "ubermensch", which basically is an exercise of action and life: you must give value to your existence by behaving as if your existence were a work of art. The ubermensch is a requirement for human survival in the post-religious era.

since old friedrich is always quoted as being the first nihilist, he turns out to be quite a constructivist as well. *g*

well now i see were your question of lanaguge spring up from, i dont know nietzsche that well, so any comments i make might be unfair ones presenting his postion:

"his most famous works "thus spoke zarathustra" and "the antichrist" not only deconstructed religion and humanity down to nothing, to a no-existence, he also offered a substitute (or rather: a remedy) for that."


does he now? correct me if i am wrong here but his claim at least is that, langague not only labels things but to nietzche the illusion of lang garranttes the truth and value what a word refferes to? - is that right, coz i disagree with him - a word and its meaning garrentte its value when the "structure" of throught we decided to use, but as soon as we take it out of there it might lose it parrellism. - nietzche claims that this illusion of lang makes us abondon the real world, I disgree - why not say this allows us to make our own world, while not be disjointed from what other world is in fact "existence": nietzche also claims that the all good evidence of truth comes from our senses (instincts etc) but do they now? for one is there anyway of testing his hyopthesis? i say no! let me ask you to consider at the least this possiblity - our senses, the values we attach to them is not merely an sensory affair - its also one of experience, rationalty something nietzche seems to reject.

for example the abmount of sexual pleasure one feels from an act may in fact to some degree depend on experiences, and the rational or structure of thought you live your life by, so its nolonger a pure or raw sensory affair. our sense have worked with our minds for millions of years, so i say it not always meaningful to be defintion seperate rational form senses.. for they in fact effect and infulence eachother.

nietzsche also feels that the source of all good truths come from the sense - in doing so, he as places humanity quite central in reality, or rather in the void... my point is whaty evidence does he have for this, only the inquiry of humans but if humanity is all we have then humanity will be centeral in short he as set up the arguement to be true.

and we can never test if he is right or wrong. so one cant be a nietzschean philosiopher through and throught

besides if god is beyond logic... or fundational theory, then neizchter is hardly decontructign religion, religous ppl merely claim to be rational to get to god, but not all religious people claim that is the only way to god.

all good evidence of truth comes from the senses

nietzsche meant that truth has to be something that is somehow subjectively measurable or at the least: experienceable in some sort of way, regardless of one's experiences.

or, as I like to put it:
if truth is experienceable, why not create truth for myself, by myself..? this of course will lead to a reality that influences my senses in a way that I believe as truth...

which, undeniably, leads to the fundamental question: can any philosophy actually be tested if it is "right" or "wrong"? I think not. I think it would all come down to some basic beliefs (or axioms) in the end, just like in mathematics: we convinced ourselves that 1 + 1 equals 2, and from that we started something that is now able to compute string-theory in 27 dimensions. some greek guy says: I think therefor I am (which is a rather lame excuse for assuming one's own existence, but hey - those were different times) - and now here we are, knee deep in post-structuralism.

regarding this god-thing: it doesn't exist.
and it is bad.
you wouldn't want one of those at home.

"nietzsche meant that truth has to be something that is somehow subjectively measurable or at the least: experienceable in some sort of way, regardless of one's experiences."

yes i sort of felt that - but its nice to see it more clearly writen, and again i not really familar with his work...so thank for this!

in that case its needs not be subjectively has u say it must be sensed right? here is our problem much like the problem with posivism, what sense data says that truth must be experienced? there is none! we interprate it from expierence maybe but soley? - personally from what little i read for neizche i think and please correct me if i am wrong i dont mean to be assetive or rude here, that neizche claim is rather thus, truth goes beyond reasoning it is rather the raw senses or insinct if you like - personally i think this might fall on its head for truth is a concept (but to neizche this is the problem of lang by communicating i have become more abstract!!), reason is merely a tool which we hope allows us to gain truth... also reasoning is merely a step in our process in our evolution. thus we should not be pickey in picking out a particular time in our evolution say when instict ruled...... but see it as an ongoing process of development and failure.... reasoning is a tool but it doesnt mean its thus wrong or a bad move. also with reasoning our instincts change and with inticts our reasoning change so such a difference becomes blurred sometimes! so i think neizcher is wrong..

lets ask it this way is truth always was is expirenced...and what we expierence all of truth? can you prove it false or true?

"and from that we started something that is now able to compute string-theory in 27 dimensions. some greek guy says: I think therefor I am (which is a rather lame excuse for assuming one's own existence, but hey - those were different times) - and now here we are, knee deep in post-structuralism."

heheh wanna know how to "put i think therefore i am" into diffculty?

am i making sense or shall i rewrite this... its late u see so i dont mind rewritin it if u like?

holy motherfucking shit. philosphy in MY board. This is not only off-topic, this is insane!

Nevermind guys. Go ahead!

LOL I love the way people set me up for this comments;


renee keep bashing my head...

besides Philosophy ant just about talking about why, whats this whats that its an activity - its also the way we actually live, those it promotes thinking and enrichies what we do.

and besides i AM INSANITY.


if sex [or pleasure ] is part of yours you wouldnt be the frist.

mememeem is now listening to Alice Cooper.

Renee thank goodness i have not started posting my insane poems ... YET!.... I am hoping you're board will morph into the mememe tribute forum


and i shall leave this post with probably the worse "smilie face" to issue a pornstar:






:kneel: