crm@duke.UUCP (Charlie Martin) (01/18/85)
Well, after THIS I won't post any more... The reason that many of us on the net have reponded the way we do -- pooh-poohing anything which has Christian in the title -- is because the people who write books supporting the "Christian" viewpoint seem to very very often resort to sophistry to support what the evidence doesn not. The methodological complaints against the "President's Commission" report are no stronger than the ones against the reports you site (you meaning Paul specifically, this time). The utterly simple and methodologically very strong gedankenexperiment I alluded to in my previous posting contradicts these studies and supports the "President's Commission" study, therefore I believe that the PC study is better. Until you can come up with a better argument than "it causes deviant behavior", you won't sell me. Especially since your causal argument is so weak. Footnote: the experiment I mean is this: the hypothesis is made that the availablity of sexual material in the US has caused the increase in the rape rate. This implies that other countries with easily-available sexual material will also have a high rape rate. When we examine other countries with lots of available sexual material, we find that they do not necessarily have high rape rates (these figures can be looked up.) Also, when we examine countries which have severe restrictions on sexual material, we should see low rape rates. This doesn't hold either. The hypothesis is not predictive, and should therefore be considered false. Any further argument should go to net.philosophy -- I don't read net.philosophy. -- Opinions stated here are my own and are unrelated. Charlie Martin (...mcnc!duke!crm)
dsi@unccvax.UUCP (Dataspan Inc) (01/19/85)
I don't think the point is whether or not crm@duke should or should
not be told what to read, write, or think. On the other hand, there is a
fairly good argument (which I've cited before) defending the ** RIGHT **
to suppress one form of expression, particularly when it already suppresses
other forms of expression.
Not that I'm against pornography per se, but it does seem to me that
when one can't exist in mainstream America without being obliterated with
continuous sexual messages (again, not that any given message is bad), including
but not limited to pornography; pretty much gives some individuals the ** RIGHT**
to decide what environment they'd like to live.
Continuous impersonal sexual harrasment can and does lead to the suppression
of other forms of behaviour which people also have the right to enjoy.
Reference:
Marcuse, Herbert: A Critique of Pure Tolerance
.
dyapmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (01/22/85)
>Charlie Martin: >The reason that many of us on the net have reponded the way we do -- >pooh-poohing anything which has Christian in the title -- is because the >people who write books supporting the "Christian" viewpoint seem to very >very often resort to sophistry to support what the evidence doesn not. Not a good reason to apply to any particular case. Especially Court's book. Can you give any reason why his book fits into that category (other than that the title contains the word "Christian)? Shouldn't Court's opinion be regarded on the same basis with other psychologists? Shouldn't his argument be considered on its own merits? >The methodological complaints against the "President's Commission" >report are no stronger than the ones against the reports you site (you >meaning Paul specifically, this time). The utterly simple and >methodologically very strong gedankenexperiment I alluded to in my >previous posting contradicts these studies and supports the "President's >Commission" study, therefore I believe that the PC study is better. How do you know they are no stronger? What similar complaints exist against the reports I cited? Do you have any specific rebuttal to the problems I pointed to in the PC study? Those that are against porn can't get away with just "alluding to" support for their position. People pressed me for references and I gave them. >Until you can come up with a better argument than "it causes deviant >behavior", you won't sell me. Especially since your causal argument is >so weak. Your argument against it is stronger here? >Footnote: the experiment I mean is this: the hypothesis is made that >the availablity of sexual material in the US has caused the increase in >the rape rate. This implies that other countries with easily-available >sexual material will also have a high rape rate. When we examine other >countries with lots of available sexual material, we find that they do >not necessarily have high rape rates (these figures can be looked up.) Where can they be looked up? How accurate are they? >Also, when we examine countries which have severe restrictions on sexual >material, we should see low rape rates. This doesn't hold either. > >The hypothesis is not predictive, and should therefore be considered >false. Why should I take your word for it when no one takes mine? >Any further argument should go to net.philosophy -- I don't read >net.philosophy. You don't wan't to hear any futher argument--in other words. Fine. -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd
crm@duke.UUCP (Charlie Martin) (01/27/85)
In article <4640@cbscc.UUCP> pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) writes: >>Charlie Martin: >>The reason that many of us on the net have reponded the way we do -- >>pooh-poohing anything which has Christian in the title -- is because the >>people who write books supporting the "Christian" viewpoint seem to very >>very often resort to sophistry to support what the evidence doesn not. > >Not a good reason to apply to any particular case. Especially Court's >book. Can you give any reason why his book fits into that category >(other than that the title contains the word "Christian)? Shouldn't >Court's opinion be regarded on the same basis with other psychologists? >Shouldn't his argument be considered on its own merits? > well, yes. However, I was not claiming that this was a GOOD reason, nor a reasonable one -- just an emotional reaction that anybody who has been persecuted for not being a Christian might share. >>Until you can come up with a better argument than "it causes deviant >>behavior", you won't sell me. Especially since your causal argument is >>so weak. > >Your argument against it is stronger here? Yes. However, I don't have to make as strong an argument in any case -- you're arguing to take away a right I already have; you must make a very strong case that there is a danger inherent in this right that overwhelms my right to continue. Let me put it this way: Buddhism in this country is deviant behavior. Unless there is a very strong reason to beleive that being a Buddhist is a danger, we would not want to restrict it. Before we did, we would want *tremendously strong evidence* that it was a danger. Besides, I *like* deviant behavior. ... also, I've cut all the material about the "alluded-to experiment" to save space. I just want to note that I added a description of the experiment I'm talking about in the original posting as the foot note which you quoted below. > >>Footnote: the experiment I mean is this: the hypothesis is made that >>the availablity of sexual material in the US has caused the increase in >>the rape rate. This implies that other countries with easily-available >>sexual material will also have a high rape rate. When we examine other >>countries with lots of available sexual material, we find that they do >>not necessarily have high rape rates (these figures can be looked up.) > >Where can they be looked up? ... ask your reference librarian -- there are lots of references. >...How accurate are they? ... considerably better than in the US, in most cases (Germany for instance). ... if you want a better example than in Germany, try Japan, where extremely violent pornography is the norm, and is well attended by both sexes. Check their rape rates. (Thanks to D. Gary Grady for this point.) > >>Also, when we examine countries which have severe restrictions on sexual >>material, we should see low rape rates. This doesn't hold either. >> >>The hypothesis is not predictive, and should therefore be considered >>false. > >Why should I take your word for it when no one takes mine? Because mine is based in the rules of inference and in scientific method, whereas your argument in fallacious on the face because of the *post hoc* fallacy involved. Can you - generate a hypothesis that is stated such that it may be disproven - attempt to disprove that hypothesis - fail? If so, then I might very well believe you. If not, then I won't. This is called "scientific method". (for a further description, read something like "Logic of Sceintific Discovery" by Popper, or a wonderful paper called "Strong Inference", which appeared in Science in about '61. I usually have a copy around my desk, but can't find it now, or I would give a better reference.) Or, can you disprove my facts, without refering to a reference that doesn't seem at least a little tainted. (I'm sorry, but when I consider the evidence on something like this, I *DO* consider something with the word "Christian" in the title likely to be tainted. Would you be likely to give as strong credence to an article on the deleterious effects of pork-eating in the Shi'ite Journal?) > >>Any further argument should go to net.philosophy -- I don't read >>net.philosophy. > >You don't wan't to hear any futher argument--in other words. Fine. No, in other words, I don't think it belongs in net.books, I don't have time to keep making replies, I want to keep reading net.books, and these continual imitations of reasoning have annoyed me into breaking my resolution and replying not once but TWICE, dammit. Look, the whole point that *I* have been trying to make is that there are well known and tested rules for making a SCIENTIFIC determination of what the facts are, and extremely well-known rules (on second thought -- make that "well-described rules; that I keep being driven to responce to fallacies probably is evidence that these rules are not well known.) for what is and what is not a good argument. NONE of these arguments are particularly strong in any case -- social "sciences" are not very predictive yet. I don't trust my argument that porn is not bad more than about 30% -- -- BUT IF YOU KEEP USING CLASSICAL FALLACIES AND POOR REASONING, YOU DESTROY YOUR OWN POINTS! ...there, you see, you've annoyed me into upper case. And the reason that I keep responding is that I have seen these fallacies (especially *post hoc* ) used a whole lot to suppress and repress people and ideas. As a philosopher (which is what I am when pressed, not withstanding my CS interests) I am violently opposed to any time when these fallacies are used to make a point -- simply because they can be so seductive. I feel that it is in some sense a duty to oppose those who would try to use the emotional appeal of fallacious argument to cause some change to be made. >-- > >Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd -- Opinions stated here are my own and are unrelated. Charlie Martin (...mcnc!duke!crm)
wfi@unc.UUCP (William F. Ingogly) (01/29/85)
>> >>>Any further argument should go to net.philosophy -- I don't read >>>net.philosophy. >> >>You don't wan't to hear any futher argument--in other words. Fine. > > No, in other words, I don't think it belongs in net.books, I don't ^ ^^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^ ^^^^^^^ ^^ ^^^^^^^^^^ I couldn't agree more. Please, people; this *really* should be moved to net.philosophy. At least, in this person's humble opinion.