From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [aus.aarnet]  Re: Aarnet should not be pornographic!
Followup-To: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,aus.aarnet
Originator: kadie@eff.org
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 07:46:37 GMT

[A repost - Carl]

Newsgroups: aus.aarnet
From: root@cltr.uq.oz.au (Hulk Hogan)
Subject:  Re: Aarnet should not be pornographic!
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 06:56:58 GMT

anthony@cs.uq.oz.au (Anthony Lee) writes:
>In <1992Dec28.041650.17112@cltr.uq.OZ.AU> root@cltr.uq.oz.au (Hulk Hogan) writes:
>>Just because knives are sharp doesn't mean no one should have them. 
>>Someone said to me recently,"porn makes good poeple better, and bad
>>people worse". I think she was right.

>Ok, then why do we ban things like Heroin and Crack ?  I am sure
>you and me can handle those things better so why ban them ?  

Well.. Since I don't consume either, it doesn't matter to me, personally.
Exactly why tobacco and alcohol are legal, once above a certain age,
and crack and heroin are not legal is a quirk of fate, I suspect, rather
than some well thought out  logically consistent plan.  A documentary I
saw once said that tobocco is more addictive than heroin.  They compared
a heroin addict with a smoker with an alcoholic, and provided the heroin
could obtain his/her drug, s/he was far more in control, able to function
in hir job and so on than either of the other two. (The example job was a
surgeon, I think, and  their example was that of an addict on methodone,
rather than a junkie getting wasted.  I dont remember all the details,
sorry I can't cite better details.)

Whether drugs should be provided to registered addicts for little/no 
money to prevent addicts needing to steal from decent folk like us
to feed their addiction is a different issue... 

>>Put simply, I believe it's better to remove the unstable people from the
>>society, than to try remove all the items from the society that can
>>provoke the unstable people.

>Please reread my post, I didn't say ban all porn did I ?
>Although, I would be happy if they were but then you would say it
>is taking away our rights (male rights).  Did you know that porn
>can be addictive and not only that it gets worse until it gets to
>the stage of violent porn.  If some addictive drugs are banned
>then why don't we ban porn.

Errr. Bullsh*t.  I bet you think that soft drugs lead inexorably to hard
drugs too. I've been drinking a lot of coke and eating chocolate for years,
and I haven't moved onto harder stuff.  Shouldn't I be drinking gallons
of coke and handfulls of chocolate bars every day by now?  It's true I
*do* have a can of Jolt Cola (twice the caffeine!) that a friend in the
US sent me, and I have resisted the temptation to open it for weeks, thus
far...  And no. You can't have any... :)

Soft core porn doesnt not necessarily lead to violent porn. In case
you hadn't realised, rape is not a sex crime. It's a crime of violence. 
Violence and sex are very different things.  Why would someone who wasn't
into violence become interested in it by viewing non-violent porn?
It doesnt make sense.  Alcohol can be addictive, too. Should be ban it
because there are some alcoholics? 

On a side note, I don't consider bondage to be "violence". Bondage
is consensual, and the use of safe words mean that it can be called
off at any stage, by the person in the "bottom" position.  Having someone
whip you if you want to be whipped isn't violence.  Exactly what it is
is ("good", etc..) left as an exercise for the reader...  :-)

/\ndy
--
Andrew M. Jones,  Systems Programmer, 	Email: {root,andy}@lingua.cltr.uq.oz.au
Centre for Lang. Teaching & Research, 	UUCP: uunet!lingua.cltr.uq.oz.au!andy
University of Queensland,  St. Lucia, 	Phone: +61  7 365 6915 (Use 07 in Oz)
Brisbane,  Qld. AUSTRALIA  4072    	Fax: +61 7 365 7077    IRC: HulkHogan

"No matter what hits the fan, it's never distributed evenly....."
-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
 =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.news