Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site mhuxr.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mfs
From: mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (Marcel F. Simon)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: Possible Ban on Pornography
Message-ID: <440@mhuxr.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 27-Sep-85 08:51:24 EDT
Article-I.D.: mhuxr.440
Posted: Fri Sep 27 08:51:24 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 28-Sep-85 08:36:56 EDT
References: <369@scirtp.UUCP> <1625@ihuxl.UUCP> <11317@rochester.UUCP>
Lines: 54

the net) being converted to a network wide newsgroup. The formula doesn't work
for other cases because it wasn't meant to.

As is apparent from reading the article, he is talking about network wide 
mailling lists.

Chuqui, how do you put up with this crap?

Terry Poot
#! rnews 4931
Relay-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site burl.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.ARPA
Path: burl!ulysses!cbosgd!ihnp4!ucbvax!uw-beaver.arpa!utcsri!mcgill-vision!v-node!webb1
From: webb1@v-node.UUCP
Newsgroups: fa.info-vax
Subject: article for INFO-VAX
Message-ID: <8509271023.AA05981@uw-beaver.arpa>
Date: 27 Sep 85 10:23:15 GMT
Date-Received: 27 Sep 85 23:43:17 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.ARPA
Reply-To: info-vax@ucb-vax.arpa
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 104

hope this gets through. The last one mailed with 
To: utcsri!uw-beaver!INFO-VAX@SRI-KL
didn't get through

Title: mVaxII vs. 11/44 compararison? (Long and Short)
Dear .

Actually, it seems at least one mass murderer (Son of Sam) knew
his actions were *illegal*, but thought of them as *moral*, within his own
twisted codes, which held that all women, particularly the ones he killed, were
whores not deserving life; or something like that.

> Morals are universal, and morals are for keeps.  Why the hell else
> even bother to have ethical principles?

First, how do you know that non-human intelligent beings would have the same
morality as you? Beyond science fiction, it is immoral in certain Eastern
cultures to save a drowninig man, unless he requests help, because doing so
would make him lose face. Even within the Judeo-Christian system of values,
the Old Testament morality of "eye for eye" has been displaced by the New
Testament's "turn the other cheek". In the face of examples like these and
others, I don't see the logic of your conclusion.

To go back to the original discussion, then: if there is no universal
morality in a heterogeneous society, a ban on pornography is defensible
only if the existence and availability of same threatens the social order.
Can you show that to be the case? If not, the topic is pretty much closed,
isn't it?

Marcel Simon


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com