>But you're begging the question that
>to appreciate one part of
>her that I must not
>be aware or considering the
>other parts.

this is wrong. i beg no question nor make any judgement of what you are aware of or choose to do.

>If I understand
>that she is more than
>an ass- which i do
>- how have i reduced
>her by appreciating her ass?

again you misunderstand. in regards to reducing - again - i believe that to create or show an image ONLY of a females body parts is to reduce her. i also beleieve for one to watch that image is sanctioning the reduction.

if you diagree, cool. this was originally a discussion about why i am tired or choose not to sit and watch "booty videos"

>so can you admit that I
>can accept that a woman
>is more than an ass-
>while still appreciating the ass?

sure

>I asked you how
>it demonstrated such reduction you
>begged the question.

if you say so. let's flip it then - how does showing an image of some female/male behind NOT reduce them to just that behind?

>you said "to take part (in)
>any event (whether passively or
>actively) is sanctioning it. "

and i stand by that

>you also said- "internally, i
>cannot choose to take part
>in (or sanction) something i
>take issue with. period. "

what i mean by this is that internally i cannot justify taking part (or sanctioning) something i take issue with.

mind you, i don't mean i DON'T do it, merely that i cannot justify it internally (or externally for that matter).

which again goes back to the idea of this being a "moral dilema"

>but you do sanction it at
>the same time that you
>insist that you cant

close (as stated above). i guess this fits in the "i try not to do that which i do not wish to category"

it may not be "right" but it's true

>thats great for you to do-
>but id encourage you not
>to take it so seriously

why not?

>ill still give you a point
>though- that makes 3

are these points redeemable (like green stamps - anyone remember those)?

>between certain things that should be
>perceived in regards to their
>impact and things that shouldnt

i don't believe that anything shouldn't. nothing happens in a vacuum. everything has some result/effect.


>How are you advocating it by
>watching it?

how are you not

>Is it ok
>to sanction it but not
>advocate it?

is there a difference between sanctioning and advocating? to answer the question of whether it is ok to do either: no.

but does that mean it won't be done? no.

>"when you insist that there is
>nothing (remarkably) positive about it-
>are you really broadening your
>perspective at all?"
>
>you dont have to answer it-
>but dont pretend like it
>wasnt there

but see that's the thing...i'm not implying a total lack of anything positive (going back to my "sweetness in the poison" remark). and where did the horizon broadening part come from? if these things are "the arguement" i guess i missed them.



>Ive asked you plenty, you've answered
>some of them but Im
>sure you're so concerned that
>Im setting you up that
>you dont want to answer
>the rest so you claim
>that Im wrangling.

huh? the first part is funny. you assumption about my concern is wrong, and your conclusion based upon that false assumption is made up. did i accuse you of wrangling? if anything i'm saying that the focus of what we are getting at in the discussion was getting cloudy for me (amongst all the "rhetoric" i guess).