From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Pornography imbalance, right or wrong?
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 23:34:37 GMT

In article <1992Nov12.223712.4810@ils.nwu.edu> lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch) writes:
>Lots of stuff cut.  If you can't follow the arguments, just kill it...we're
>going nowhere fast.
>
>In article <1992Nov10.034631.13339@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
[2 cyclic attributes bit the bucket]
>>[2 attributes deleted]
>>>>>[description of the cycle by auer]
>>>>[claim that that's just a system with positive feedback by payne]
>>>
>>>I hate to tell you this Rich, but a system with positive feedback is often
>>>cyclic.
>>
>>For a short while. But it is never stable.
>
>Never?  *No* cyclic system with positive feedback is stable?  Not even an
>extremely complex one with *other* sorts of feedback?
 
Without getting into details, if the SYSTEM transfer function has any
roots in the right half of the complex plane, it is unstable. Essentially,
the inverse Laplace transform will always contain an exponential factor
with a positive coefficient (as in e^2t). It grows without bound. If
it oscillates, each cycle will be larger than the next. No real system
can grow without bound.

It is possible for there to be positive feedback, and the overall transfer
function to be stable. The design of compensators is a lot of fun. And as
you have probably surmised, this requires the addition of negative feedback.
 
>>>>>                                        When one treats people as icons
>>>>>rather than as individuals, one acts towards individuals based upon their
>>>>>group affiliation which smacks of bigotry.
>>>>
>>>>When one puts people in bins (bigot, feminist. anti-feminist, republican,
>>>>democrat, mother, father, zillions more, -all- significant) one does the
>>>>same. You have just done it, I suggest you take the appropriate action for
>>>>this, whatever that might be.
>>>
>>>Maybe it was in the part I clipped out that you saw him putting people in bins,
>>>but I didn't see it there.  Sounds to me like you generalized his statement,
>>>then accused him of doing more general action, but I didn't see him do it.
>>
>>There seems to be text missing, but no indication that text was omitted.
>>Perhaps you should be more careful deleting text?
>
>Gee, and I thought saying "in the part I clipped out" *was* an indication of
>text omission.  Too bad.  I wish now I hadn't so I could re-read it again to
>find that he didn't do that.  Oh well.
 
No, I split the paragraph, but included it all. When you edited, you deleted
the other first part of the paragraph. I am well known for not editing text. 
Most of my replies include everything. And I still get accused of text omission.
 
>>You have invented a non-existant problem. I only point out well understood
>>human characteristics. And it seems that you have no evidence that there
>>is a problem, no evidence of any sort.
>
>Does it have to be a problem to be worth considering?  

No, but it should be an actual problem.

>                                                   I'd be happy to say that
>the porno imbalance is not a problem, merely interesting enough to warrant
>considering several theories.
>The human characteristics you point out aren't all that well-understood, and
>you haven't shown them to be a causal factor anyway.
>
>>No, just one ssingle shred of evidence. All I get is unsupported and
>>unsupportable speculation.
>
>That's all you've offered so far, so that's ok.
 
No, I offer...

1) Men and women develop at different rates. Girls mature faster than
boys, then boys catch up. This is a developmental difference. The cause
is biological, but the effects are not.

2) Women and men have different space perceptions and verbal abilities.
This is caused by -differences- between women's brains and men's brains.
This is not trivial, and it is well documented. 

3) Biological, women and men have different hormones (the hormone imbalance)
which cause different physical development, and different expectations. 
Women have the realistic possibility of childbearing to consider, men do
not.

Note, men and women are -not- identical. 

Given the above, how can one conclude that men and women would choose
identically if not for social expectations? None of the above are trivial.
There is no reason to expect that women and men would make identical
choices except for political correctness. I would expect some differences,
although I have no idea what they might be.

[...]
 
>>No, you cannot alter the balance, all you can do is make some OTHER social
>>change and see what happens. This may well harm people's livelyhoods.
>
>Well, actually, we could alter the balance a la Dworkin and McKinnon, but we've
>already agreed *that's* not a good idea.  

Getting rid of all porn would certainly alter the balance, point taken.

>                                       As far as making a social change and
>seeing what happens, NOT making a social change may well harm people's
>livelihoods also.  Choosing the best change or non-change is probably a better
>idea.

I do not see this. Please explain.
 
>>>OTOH, if it's discrimination, altering the symptom won't harm the cause.
>> 
>>The only way to "alter the symptoms" would be to force women to buy more
>>porn, and/or force men to buy less. Either way, you would be overstepping
>>the bounds of constitutional freedoms. Therefore, you cannot alter the
>>symptoms.
>> 
>>[...]
>
>So, there's *no* way to alter the symptoms short of force?  Enlighten us as to
>how you have reached this conclusion, please.

OK, you are right. Give it away for free. This is a technique used for market
penetration, and it may or may not work. What do you propose? I do not recall
that you have detailed anything yet.

>btw, has not the women's movement altered some of these symptoms, sometimes
>without force already.  Sure, sometimes force was used [inappropriately, IMHO],
>but not always.  Some people have been convinced just by argument, have they
>not?
 
Legal argument and court orders? What do you mean. And the womens movement
has not altered the symptoms in any way that I am aware of. I have problems
with the concept of "altering the symptoms". If I do something else, and
my metric changes, then I have affected the supply or the demand, but I have
not altered the symptoms. The symptoms are a dependant variable, a result
of other things. 
 
>>>>>By changing awareness of the problem, one can heighten sensitivity to the
>>>>>issues involved.  I know I sound like something out of the sixties, but the
>>>>>sixties were good as far as I am concerned.
>>>>
>>>>Then why are the problems of the sixties still here today. What were they 
>>>>good for?
>>>
>>>Not *all* of the problems of the 60s are still with us.  And, of course, we
>>>have even better new ones.  :-(
>> 
>>Which are not?
>
>The Flower Children.  :-)

They are still around, just not newsworthy. And I do not think that they were a
problem (social or otherwise) of the 60's. OK, smiley noted. :^}

I still know a few up in Chico BTW.
 
>Seriously, I think the 60s did manage a few changes, but in no case can I claim
>the problem has gone entirely away.  But I think various forms of repression
>have decreased, eg racism and sexism, homophobia, cencorship, violations of
>civil liberties.

There is a huge chasm between awarness of a problem, and it's solution. I
suggest awareness through blame is not a system which naturally leads to 
solutions.
 
>>>>There is nothing cyclic about positive feedback. The system will eventually
>>>>destroy itself. 
>>>
>>>I think it's time we talked to an engineer about cycles and positive 
>>>feedback.
>>
>>You are, want to discuss stability criteria?
>
>Yes, why not?  [Course, you're hardly impartial at this point, but what the
>hell.]  How about you start with the question I posed at the top.

See above. 
 
>>>I'm hardly an expert, but it was my impression that cycles were one
>>>manifestation of positive feedback, or at least that some cycles involved
>>>positive feedback.
>>
>>The details are not really proper for alt.feminism. But none of these
>>cases are stable. (At least one of the roots of the transfer function must
>>lie in the right complex part of the s plane, not on either axis.
>
>You're right.  The details don't belong here, and I'm not even sure what you've
>said when it's missing all the details of definition [which I'm *not* asking
>for] which would make it even worse.  It's also entirely possible that I am
>using cycle in a looser sense than you.

Let me ask you this. If something destroys itself after 20 cycles, would you
consider it the same as something which cycles forever (or till you turn it
off, whichever comes first)? My point is that cyclic implies stable. If it is
not stable, it will eventually stop cycling.

>"TANSTAAFL"     lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu


Rich

payner@netcom.com