From: robert@informix.com (Robert Coleman)
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,sfu.general
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Date: 12 Aug 92 23:23:36 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis) writes:

>In article <xczmsjg.barry@netcom.com> barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes:
>>	Think it through, Jamie. Leave aside the fictional nature of
>>the so-called "evidence", and imagine that the ability of porn to
>>encourage sexism and sexual violence is established. Now what? The
>>Declaration of Independence provoked a lot more violence and death, in
>>a far more immediate 

>When the American revolution broke out, fully 1/4 of the population of the
>north east American colonies disagreed.  Disagreed strongly enough with
>the way that things were developing that they took up arms to defend themselves
>and their property, and when it became obvious that they couldn't stay without
>sacrificing their own lives, they all moved up to Canada.

>Later on, when the Americans wanted to free us from our "shackles" (read,
>annex Canada as they were later to do with Texas, California etc.), they
>invaded Canada in 1812.  It was their "manifest destiny" to own the whole
>continent.  Again, the people of Canada explicitly rejected the "liberators"
>and their philosophy, and fought back.  And won.

	Noting an extreme anti-US bias here, and not so much against the
current US as against the US of 100-200 years ago...biases such as these
really can't help but warp your vision.  For instance:

>We have chosen a different route.  Chosen by our repeated refusal to become
>part of the USA.  Our constitutions are indeed similar, but we have implemented
>certain social checks and balances to try to keep things a little more orderly.
>Given the fact that the crime rate in the US is by far the highest in the western
>world (there are some war zones I'd rather live than in some US cities), we haven't
>done that badly, without giving up much at all.  Unfortunately, due to proximity
>and the overwhelming weight of US "culture" (you call *that* "culture"!), we're
>catching up fast.

	Your crime rates were low before implementing the extra social checks
and balances, and, surprise surprise, remain low afterward.  This suggests
some larger cultural issue is responsible for the violence differences than
the laws put into place.
	One example is a greater degree of cultural homogeneity; the melting
pot ideal has both it's advantages and it's disadvantages, advantages being
greater cultural diversity and disadvantages being cultural conflict.  
Another might be population density, though I don't actually know the stats 
on that.
	Unfortunately, your bias allows you to blame "America" rather than
examine what the roots of violence really are.  And, I note, that you're
prepared to blame "proximity" for the rising level of violence (uh...haven't
we been "proximate" for the entire existence of our respective governments?)
Why does that proximity suddenly cause your violence rate to increase now?)
instead, again, of looking for the root causes.  Rising population?  Greater
cultural disparity?  I don't know, but I'll sure be looking...how about you?

>People forget that at least until the turn of this century, the biggest danger
>to Canada's freedom was the United States of America.  Now that the
>Soviet Empire has fallen, there are no longer any checks and balances
>on US arrogance and imperialism.  We're not likely to win again.  God help
>us all.

	Yes, it's true, you know.  For the last hundred years, we've merely
been sublimating our lust for your fair country.  One of these days, we're
gonna get Canada alone, and...*Not*.  We haven't even annexed territories we 
officially *own*, much less challenged new territory.  Canada would have to
be pretty low on our list of targets...what have you got that would be worth
the trouble?  If we annex the Middle East, then you might have some worrying 
to do, but until then, it's just needless worry lines...

Robert C.
-- 
----------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: My company has not yet seen fit to
	    elect me as spokesperson. Hmmpf.
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,sfu.general