Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site wxlvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!zehntel!hplabs!sdcrdcf!sdcsvax!dcdwest!ittvax!wxlvax!slack
From: slack@wxlvax.UUCP (Tom Slack)
Newsgroups: net.books
Subject: Re: Mr. Dubuc on pornography
Message-ID: <389@wxlvax.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 29-Jan-85 15:51:42 EST
Article-I.D.: wxlvax.389
Posted: Tue Jan 29 15:51:42 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 2-Feb-85 13:45:22 EST
References: <764@ames.UUCP> <4612@cbscc.UUCP>
Organization: ITT-ATC SRD, Shelton Ct.
Lines: 35

> }>I have
> }>several friends who are artists and I'm pretty sure they would agree
> }>that a certain amount of constraint is required to spur creativity.
> }>Where there are no constraints, anything can pass for "art".  If an
> }>artist or author truly has talent they should be able to show it
> }>within a certain set of constraints.  To wipe away all constraint
> }>only offers false credibility to those with no talent.  I say this
> }>only to illustrate that contraints are not inherently evil, not
> }>to say that all constraints are good.
> } 
> }	So, anti-porn ordinances will spur artistic creativity! Can you
> }spell "sophistry"?
> 
> My spelling skills are often lacking, as anyone who reads my articles
> knows.
> 
> When any judgement is made there are constraints implied.  Judgements are
> meaningless without them.  How do we even recognise creativity otherwise?
> Empty rhetoric does little to expose sophistry.  Since you haven't given
> any reasoning to back up your implication (I guess it must be obvious to
> everyone but me).  There's nothing I can argue against.  I have to leave
> it at that.
> -- 
> 
> Paul Dubuc	cbscc!pmd

Although I am yet undecided as to many of the issues discussed in Paul's
article I agree that the reference to Sophistry is an extremely poor
response.  Particlularly considering the beliefs of the Sophists in
History.  Argueing (sp) that pornography is an individual freedom which
hurts no one, and that there is no right or wrong value associated with it,
but only opinion, is a much closer to sophistic philosophy than argueing,
as Paul does, that there is a line to be drawn we must only determine where.

Tom Slack