Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!husc6!panda!genrad!decvax!cca!mirror!misc!inmet!nrh
From: nrh@inmet.UUCP
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Orphaned Response
Message-ID: <117200229@inmet>
Date: Thu, 9-Oct-86 17:33:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: inmet.117200229
Posted: Thu Oct  9 17:33:00 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 16-Oct-86 06:29:52 EDT
References: <1576@mtx5a.UUCP>
Lines: 63
Nf-ID: #R:mtx5a.UUCP:-157600:inmet:117200229:000:3188
Nf-From: inmet.UUCP!nrh    Oct  9 17:33:00 1986


>/* Written  1:15 am  Oct  3, 1986 by mat@mtx5a.UUCP in inmet:talk.pol.misc */
>/* ---------- "Re: Re: Re: Commission on Pornograp" ---------- */
>> >[certain materials linking sex with violence encourage certain acts by
>> > a certain group of people ...]
>> >
>> >Because the interaction of the two affects people (victims) of these
>> >individuals, and because patterns of victimization are not always simple and
>> >evident (look at columns by Ann Landers, look at articles on this newsgroup
>> >about dogs and cleaning the house) the simple remedy of ``well, leave him''
>> >does not protect these victims adequately.  Further, where force or threat of
>> >bodily harm is involved, that remedy is simply not available.
>> >
>> 
>>    This is as valid an argument for gun control or banning religion as it
>> is for pornography legislation.  Watch this:  Although we don't have very 
>> much evidence about the general population, there is a subpopulation which
>> uses firearms in the commission of crimes. And the legality of firearms
>> does make it easier for them to obtain guns and commit these crimes.  Because
>> these crimes have victims, the simple remedy of "well, just arrest the
>> criminals and leave us law-abiding citizens alone" does not protect these
>> victims adequately.
>
>There are a couple of differences.  First, with the horrible case of domestic
>violence put aside, the victims or crimes committed with guns and the victims
>of bigotry do not have emotional attatchments to the people harming them.

Sorry -- domestic violence is not so easily brushed aside.  My understanding
is that most murderers are known by their victims.

>Second, people who have been shot or robbed at gunpoint can either be
>identified or can identify themselves rather easily; likewise victims of most
>overt and harmful acts of bigotry.  

But Mark -- you just got through lecturing us about the use of porn by 
violent people.  Don't they count?  But it actually doesn't matter. 
This inability to identify the culprit is due to their not being a 
"clear and present danger" in porn.  If it were clear and present, it
would be... clear and present.

>Third, of all crimes committed with the
>threat of use of a firearm, only rape (which does not *require* a firearm)
>carries the potential for emotional damage that long-term assault on sexual
>dignity (by subtle demands for acts that are painful or that feel degrading)
>carries.

Establish this bald assertion with something other than your unsupported
word, please.  Or other arguments from authority.  
Rape is devastating, but doesn't carry the long-term emotional danger
that murder does.  

>In this case:
>
>1) The victims are people with emotional ties to the offenders
>2) The victims often cannot identify themselves and no one else can usually
>   identify them (except after many years when awareness begins to penetrate
>   the shame and guilt)
>3) The potential for extraordinarily deep damage is large.

If you're talking about porn, the statements are unsupported.  
C'mon, Mark -- say SOMETHING definite, SOMETHING that has some meat
attached to it: bald assertions, unsupported by data cut no ice
with me.