luner@uwai.UUCP (09/15/85)
Richard Threadgill (orstcs!richardt) rambles on about: > ... studies that ... link Porn and violence. Explain. Is that an established cause/effect? > Pornography does not, in and of itself, cause violent and anti-social > behavior. I agree with your argument but this is vaguely reminicent of the NRA -- "Guns don't kill..." [I favour much stronger gun control.] > Pornography does not cause violence in any sane, rational human being. Bingo. > Most Men (and Women, for that matter) have Submission/Domination fantasies, > of one variety or another. Wait a minute. As I say to my (computer science) theory instructors: "Prove it." > I do know that far to much of the world population is very sick. So I'm not the only one who has noticed this. > ... banning Pornography, or Guns, or Alchohol ... will not work. Perhaps licensing? All of these three (vices) are currently regulated by age. You have to take a driver's test, right? There surely are no gun tests. Is it unreasonable? (seriously). > ... this society is doomed. I just hope that interstellar colonization > becomes viable before civilization collapses around our ears. It may be > a cop out, but I'm taking the first slow boat out. This is seriously pessimistic. Too bad I agree. If they're selling tickets, save me a seat. /David Luner
robert@fear.UUCP (Robert Plamondon) (09/16/85)
> Richard Threadgill: > > ... banning Pornography, or Guns, or Alchohol ... will not work. David Luner: > Perhaps licensing? All of these three (vices) are currently regulated by > age. You have to take a driver's test, right? There surely are no gun > tests. Is it unreasonable? (seriously). A license to look at dirty pictures? What kind of test did you have in mind? Church membership? Hand-to-genital coordination? :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) -- Robert Plamondon {turtlevax, resonex, cae780}!weitek!robert