mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (SIMON) (01/24/85)
References: <4605@cbscc.UUCP>, <201@mhuxr.UUCP> moved from net.books. As Mark Twain did not say, never get into an argument with a man who buys disk storage by the Gigabyte. Well, I am stubborn so here goes. I contend that to discuss the merits or lack thereof of porn, especially with an eye to framing a legal context for regulating or banning publication rather than mere display, one must start with a workable legal definition of porn. You contend that a definition does not matter, we can go straight to a discussion of merit. I cannot discuss anything with you if I don't know what you are talking about. A few specific points, however: >>Kiddie porn is illegal, not as pornography,..... >See my article called "Kiddie Porn". It does not address my point at all. KIDDIE PORN IS ILLEGAL BECAUSE IT CONSTITUTES CHILD ABUSE!!!!! (again, nothing to do with pornography per se, but with laws on statutory rape, child labor, kidnapping, child molestation, etc.) >Do you consume [pornography] at football games or in front of T.V? Yes. By a possible definition of porn as the display of scantily clad female bodies in alluring poses (I don't agree with that definition, but since by your logic that does not matter, I'll use it), it is pornographic to have cheerleaders such as NFL teams have. ALL forms of advertising are also then pornographic. So there. >This is oligarchy, tied to the whim of the courts, most notably the >Supreme Court. If the courts take a conservative swing during the >next 20 years or so I wonder who will be screaming for it not to be >voiding the laws of our elected legislators then. Or do you believe >the courts represent the consensus of americans better than their >own elected officials. Tell me, if there is a consensus against porn >how is it supposed to get reflected in our laws? Do we lobby the courts? >Vote the judges out of office? Come now. I don't understand. Are the legislatures an oligarchy, or is it the Supreme Court? The SC was established BECAUSE we can trust the whims of neither the elected nor the electors. >Just stating that there are counter-studies for every study doesn't >support the counter-studies if there are any. This statement damages the credibility of the evidence you presented in your posting on "the social effect of porn" (sorry, I don't have the reference handy). However, the existence of "counter studies for every study" indicates that we don't have a handle on the "problem". I contend that there can be no valid solution to a problem we cannot define. >I think you should try and tell me what is wrong with the point of >sexuality being intrinsic in personhood rather than twist my position so. Nothing. Sexuality IS intrinsic to personhood. So what's the problem? -- BTW, can you PLEASE condense a bit? Having to read 200 line postings every other day leads to information digestion problems. Marcel Simon ..!mhuxr!mfs