From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Pornography imbalance, right or wrong?
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 03:46:31 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.205223.15626@ils.nwu.edu> lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch) writes:
>In article <1992Nov6.051629.21275@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
[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.
 
>>>                                        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?
 
>>>RL>>You seem to have claimed that:
>>>RL>>Mere biological differences are sufficient to explain the imbalance. 
>>>RP>>You have yet to prove that it is not, nor that it is even not a factor.
>>>RP>>BTW, "Mere biological differences"? Have you risen above your biological
>>>RP>>heritage? 
>>>RL>Just giving you equal treatment.
>>>
>>>RP>The biological and developmental differences are well documented and
>>>RP>the material can be found at any library or bookstore.
>>>
>>>Perhaps, you are talking about hormonal and neurological differences.  
>>>Perhaps the physiological mechanisms of arousal.  Either way, I do not 
>>>feel that these biological differences are sufficient to explain the 
>>>dichotomy of pornographic consumption across gender lines.
>>
>>So this is all you offer as evidence, your feelings. 
>
>I ain't seen you offer anything more.
 
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.
 
>>>>Please be so good as to document that, as you seem to claim, biology is
>>>>-not- a factor.
>>>
>>>Would it suffice to show biology is not the principle factor.  Intuitively, I
>>>would say not.  Then again my intuition is not always so great and is not a
>>>great basis for scientific validification.  Presumably there could be some sort
>>>of cross-cultural sociological survey which could shed some light upon this
>>>issue.  All in all, this issue seems difficult to prove.  The social sciences
>>>would be so much easier if we could set up controlled experiments using humans.
>>
>>Since all humans live in cultures, all will show cultural bias. And if you
>>expect something as clear as causality, the 'social sciences' may be the
>>wrong place to look. At best you might get a correlation of some sort.
>
>You seem to be the one insisting on clear-cut proof, Rich.
 
No, just one ssingle shred of evidence. All I get is unsupported and
unsupportable speculation.
 
>>>A fever is also an effect.  This does not mean that lowering a fever 
>>>simply to lower a fever is a bad thing.  
>>
>>The causal nature of fevers is well understood, as is what to do and why.
>
>[nitpick:  Actually, the understanding is not all that deep, even in medicine.]
>While the causal nature of the porn imbalance is not so well understood, it's
>still a win-win situation, in theory:
>
>If it's biology that causes the difference, you can hardly claim that altering
>the porn balance will harm people biologically.

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.

>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.
 
[...]

>>>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?

[...]
 
>>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?

>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.

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

Rich

payner@netcom.com

Newsgroups: alt.feminism