Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 (Tek) 9/28/84 based on 9/17/84; site tekecs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!zehntel!hplabs!tektronix!orca!tekecs!jeffw
From: jeffw@tekecs.UUCP (Jeff Winslow)
Newsgroups: net.books,net.women
Subject: Re: Defining Pornography (reply to Dubuc)
Message-ID: <5026@tekecs.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 19-Jan-85 18:58:01 EST
Article-I.D.: tekecs.5026
Posted: Sat Jan 19 18:58:01 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 23-Jan-85 06:48:45 EST
References: <4605@cbscc.UUCP>, <201@mhuxr.UUCP> <4616@cbscc.UUCP>
Organization: Tektronix, Wilsonville OR
Lines: 44
Xref: watmath net.books:1280 net.women:4186

> >I have saved the great pseudo-issue of porn's effect on society for
> >last. WHAT effect? Where are your facts? For every study that on por
> >inciting to rape, there is a counter-study that shows the opposite.
> 
> Facts are posted already. 

There are no "facts" that are not either anecdotes or statistical studies.
The former are too sparse and too laced with subjective interpretations
to be useful, and as for the latter,

> Just stating that there are counter-studies for every study doesn't
> support the counter-studies if there are any.  You can't support the
> status quo with just the fact that there is debate.  You have to show
> that the status quo represents the better side of the debate.  
  
Who among us is qualified to assess the accuracy of these studies? The fact
that experts disagree (especially if they seem to be split about 50-50,
which is the case when there is a "counter-study for every study") is cause
for *extreme* caution when the results will be used to mess with First
Amendment rights. You might say that you are qualified, but from reading
your postings, I have to say I do not trust you.

> >I think there is a mixup between violence and pornography. The two
> >are often intertwined, but are *not* the same. Don't give me the
> >"pornography is degrading" line. There has been plenty of excellent
> >rebuttal of it on this net.
> 
> Exellent?  Let each reader be the judge of that for themselves, OK? 
  
Give the guy a break, will you? You have made value judgements and
presented them as facts (for example, referring to the Supreme Court
as an oligarchy). Kindly allow others the same liberties you allow
yourself.

By the way, I agree with him, not you.

One more thing - you have accused people of not reading your articles
carefully. I respectfully (really) submit that you could help remedy
that situation with a bit more conciseness, leading to a desirable
net characteristic - brevity.

But then, you said you didn't think much of the net as a forum...

				Jeff Winslow