It was difficult for me to think objectively about this passage. I have a strong disgust of pornography, so to separate myself from my initial emotional response was important to be able think logically about this one.
I have to disagree with the author on a few points.
He says in his passage that pornography is only "socially negative" and not really that bad for the culture. I disagree with this idea; I see it as a great evil in our world. It disrespects women and feeds sinful, covetous desires in men, the same desires that can lead to adultery and rape.
As far as the actual topic of this paper, I believe its conclusion is illogical. That the internet is progressed because of pornography seems strange and impossible. I was shocked to hear such an idea. After some time of head-clearing, I analyzed the structure of his argument further.
If in fact the internets advancements are made because of the "need" for porn, then those who design our faster internet are just sitting in a room trying to figure out a way to get perverts their thrills faster. What? That's ridiculous!
Not only does it sound silly, but it also does not follow a logical formula. It is a cause and effect statement. The author states that the cause is porn and the effect is faster internet. My opinion is quite the opposite. I believe that faster internet has caused the spread of pornography. It's as simple as that.
I like how you responded by giving an argument of your own, Jude-especially towards the end. I wonder if you could consider what strategies Klosterman used in writing "Porn", along with your reaction to it. For instance, when looking at our freewrite on Friday, how do you think Klosterman would respond to those statements?
ReplyDeleteDo you think Klosterman was entirely serious in writing this essay? And, if so, is it important that a reader know the genre of an essay before reading, and that the author know his audience before writing? (Just something to think about.)