First of all, they won't be sexually corrupt if their culture wouldn't have taught them that being sexually corrupt confers high status and is really something to be desired so long as you're not caught. That's what their culture teaches them, they're just emulating. Second of all, yes, presumably the first who get in power and implement those changes would have escaped from the conditioning of their society. You could say that that's wishful thinking, but that's the idea.But this seems laughable. As if those in power won't still be sexually corrupt. — Baden
And Baden's answer is that the left gives Bill a pass because the right gives Trump a pass - retroactive justification >:)I fail to understand that. The left is of course eager to attack Trump. The question is why the left gives Bill Clinton a pass. — fishfry
I came to the conversation this time to raise the example of Trump in order to answer fishfry's question. — Baden
*facepalm* :-}You refute yourself. Hollywood becomes irrelevant. The behaviour remains regardless. If it's not one cultural stimuli, it's another. So what then? — Baden
I'm not so sure that the natural tendency is clearly towards "sin" and "evil". I think we are corrupted by society to large extents - when society decides on what we should expect, and then creates hope and fear in us, it makes us irrational and immoral. For example, if I expect not to marry my high school girlfriend, then obviously I won't take my relationship with her too seriously - nor would I want to get too close for fear that it will be more painful to separate later on. Then because of that, I will actually make it into a self-fulfilling prophecy by changing the way I behave, motivated by hope and fear, based on expectations and desires that aren't even mine in the first place, that are actually imported from my society.Yes, but in my view you tend to overestimate their influence and underestimate our natural tendency towards "evil" or "sin", or whatever you want to call it, in the sexual arena. — Baden
How is it a non-sequitur if your desire being turned on by high heels is shown to be a product of your society? Then no wonder that Atilla the Hun didn't need high heels to turn him on - he had other objects/features that turned him on, as his society taught him. Clearly this shows that even in the example that you gave, you don't refute me, but merely prove my point.Non-sequitur. — Baden
Hollywood is a correlate not a cause in my view. The cause is deeper. With or without Hollywood, power will have its way. — Baden
No, but you can bet that his society taught him that a real man forces himself on as many women as he can. Even the Greeks and the likes of Alexander the Great were taught that the more women you have, the greater you are as a man.Did Attila the Hun need high heels to turn him on. Give me a break. — Baden
Yes, in part also because those societies had something wrong with their culture. But in our society, culture is dictated by Hollywood - manufacturing culture is what they do.You don't think there were Trump's and Clintons before Hollywood? There are Trumps and Clintons in chimp tribes, Agu, not to mention throughout human history. — Baden
And desire just arises all by itself, it isn't mediated through your culture? We're not told that we should desire women and lust after them, especially when scantily dressed, in red high heels, with long finger nails, etc. etc.? Precisely by being shown these things on TV, we're taught to imitate them, and hence start having those desires.Desire and the power to satisfy it. — Baden
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.