Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Pesmard Flurrmn)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: MORE ON PORN AND DEGRADATION FROM MARCHIONNI
Message-ID: <384@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 22-Jan-85 14:18:27 EST
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.384
Posted: Tue Jan 22 14:18:27 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 23-Jan-85 07:43:36 EST
References: <1520V6M@PSUVM>
Organization: Strongarm Collection Agency:  WE HAVE NO SLOGAN
Lines: 81

Every so often Mr. Marchionni appears, offering a sort of arndtian
"isn't it obvious that my point of view is correct, you heathens!" argument.

We have recently seen yet another example.

> Larry [West] sounds like the urbane, contemporary American LEFTIST educated,
> secular humanist.  The main premise is one of FREEDOM and INDIVIDUAL thought.
> These are the greatest good!!!!!  (most netters sound this way in my
> egotistical opinion)  Understandable when you consider the social and
> political leanings of most faculties.

I have often asked:  if not individual personal freedom, what else?  Would
Mr. Marchionni envision a society, run according to his sensibilities, where,
if it were determined that the society would run better without individuals,
he would get rid of the individuals?  What exactly ARE people like Marchionni
suggesting as more important than the lives of individuals?  In the above
paragraph, every adjective and noun is basted with contempt.  Why?  What is
he offering in contrast?

> Paul claims published evidence for his position.  I am willing to give
> credence to his claims on past experience with his postings.  I do
> remember such claims but I can not remember specific citations.

We've heard this line of "argument" before.  Trust me.  I have "sources".

> His authority is his religious
> training and convictions.  Those of you who denigrate religious authority
> have probably lost your religion or never had one.  You CANNOT understand
> fully his position unless you understand man's relationship to God, to
> society and to himself IS indeed a proper area of religion!!!! It is not ONLY
> the area of "concerned and committed activists".

IF, and only IF, you accept Marchionni's notions about god and religion, which
are subjective and presumptive in the extreme.  Again, he speaks contemptuously
of those who "denigrate religious authority" (HORRORS!), because we "probably
have lost our religion or never had one".  (MORE HORRORS!)  True, we cannot
understand the position offered unless we agree with their (Paul's and
Marchionni's) view of "man's relationship to god".  We don't.

> Paul is correct. Porn is a moral evil.  It is indicative of moral decline.
> So is abortion and we know how the literati feel about that.  It is strange
> that social decline in critical areas has been offset by social awareness
> and gain in others.

Any change in the social order, offering more freedom to individuals, and
often taking away the control and/or predictability of society from others,
is called "social decline".  Not that it has been shown to be a "downward"
trend through any form of reasoned discourse.  It is a "decline" precisely
because it appears that way to Marchionni.

> Paul's criticism of porn is Theistic based and beautifully simple.
> Most criticisms were actually defending porn as good or at least non-harmful.
> They are wrong.

Oh...

> A moral evil is a detriment to a society and a moral society
> has the right to supress immorality.  Censorship has been considered an
> OBLIGATION of a moral society to protect itself.

A "society" protecting itself implies a social order protecting its power
base.  It has very little relation to people, their needs, their freedoms.
But then, Marchionni never claimed that there was any such relationship.
He sees higher needs than people.  He doesn't quite come out and tell us what
they are or who will administer them.

> My criticism is this: I don't trust the other guy to censor!!
> Don't tell me that academics don't censor either.
> My summary:
> PORN IS EVIL AND SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM SOCIETY.
> I DON'T TRUST THE OTHER GUYS CENSOR TO STOP AT PORN!!!!
> THEREFORE TO KEEP THE OTHER CENSOR OFF MY BACK (and me off of him)
> I HAVE TO ALLOW PORNOGRAPHY TO EXIST IN THIS MIXED SOCIETY.
> THE PROBLEM WOULD BE MOOT IN A THEOCRACY.

Good points there.  Arbitrary denotations of what is "evil" (we've been
through that, haven't we?).  Also, I noted a degree of contempt for "THIS
MIXED SOCIETY".  Why is that?
-- 
"Discipline is never an end in itself, only a means to an end."
						Rich Rosen   pyuxd!rlr