V6M@PSUVM.BITNET (01/17/85)
Larry West's 194 line criticism of Dubuc crystalizes the conflict it many levels. Larry 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. Paul sounds like an evangelist addressing a faculty Senate Meeting!!! Obviously Paul is from the Old School. Those of you who read my postings know that I am too so here goes as I try to atone to Paul for siding the oposition on this one. 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. The brain is divided into many parts and functional area. PBS had a good series showing this. ALL self-respecting literati watch PBS don't we? :-) Paul is preaching to the intellectual Gentiles. 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". 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. 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. 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. 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. Hope I got some of the heat off of you Paul. Am I forgiven?? Marchionni V6M at PSUVM P.S. comments appreciated from SJUVAX
jeffw@tekecs.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) (01/21/85)
> 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. > > 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. 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. My, my, the great Marchionni has spoken. It's easy to prove something when you postulate what you want to prove, isn't it? But that's the method of choice for religious fanatics. And we all know the world is divided into religious fanatics and leftist secular humanists. :-) It would be simpler and more honest if you merely said, "I agree with Paul." Jeff Winslow
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (01/21/85)
Marchionni's analysis struck me as one that I would least expect. While it's true that I hold a different world-view than many who would like to protect porn, I don't think my arguments require a conversion to that world-view to be valid. I accept the constraints of a pluralistic society as healthy. (A theocracy is out of the question.) Agument on issues such as this require a "natural law" basis; one that is commonly accepted. So I'm not asking anyone to understand the human relationship to God in order to understand my argument. For the argument to even apply in our society it has to be broader based than that. There are some who seem to think that Christians have no right to contribute to the debate (even using the same broad basis as others) because of the world-view they hold. I make no apologies for my own perspective as a Christian and I don't think it should disqualify (or qualify) me any more than anyone else. I'm not frustrated by people who don't hold the same religious beliefs as my self; only by those who either ridicule me because I disagree with them or do not respond directly to my reasoning. Those frustrations are reasonable no matter who you are or what your religious beliefs. As far as your classification of Larry and myself into different schools of thought, I don't see what it has to do with the issue itself. I don't think I belong to the "Old School"--whatever that is. I have rejected most of the religious beliefs of my youth and those I hold now were not taught to me by anyone in particular. How "old" do you think I am anyway? I'll bet you I'm younger than a lot of the "Liberals" on the net. Does that make me progressive? :-) -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Pesmard Flurrmn) (01/22/85)
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
nap@druxo.UUCP (Parsons) (01/24/85)
> It's easy to prove something >when you postulate what you want to prove, isn't it? But that's the method >of choice for religious fanatics. > Careful...In all logical thought, one's conclusions are determined by one's presuppositions (i.e., postulates). No thought is possible without such presuppositions. Some of us are aware of what our presuppositions are; some of us have never examined them; and some of us assume that only our opponents have them. But if we are reasoning, we do have them and in that sense we are all "religious fanatics." Nancy Parsons AT&T ISL