From: sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart)
Subject: Re: Cable TV Consumer Protection Act of 1992
Organization: my opinions only
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 23:57:00 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.203c0@f8.n154.z1.fidonet.org>
jack@myamiga.mixcom.com (Jack Decker) writes:
>In article <1992Oct2.022013.12344@fid.morgan.com> dated Fri, 2 Oct 1992
>02:20:13 GMT, sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart) wrote:
>
> > That means you're not even going to try to find proof.
>
>Give this man a cookie!

No!  Don't do that!  I'm overweight and dieting.  By giving me a
cookie, or talking about giving me one, you're causing me to go off my
diet, and get hideously fat and unhealthy.  You are therefore
responsible for any resulting heart disease, and should pay to buy me
a new wardrobe in the bargain.  I have no proof that any of this is
true, but it's just common sense.  If I had any proof, you'd just deny
it anyway.

>  He finally figured it out!

Well, my paragraph above makes as much sense as Jack's reasoning.

>However, I would just point out that of ALL the messages posted in this thread,
>including those by people who vehemently disagree, NO ONE has provided "proof."

I have seen pointers to studies, including one very long posting
(reposted from alt.sex, I believe).

>This whole thread has been one message of opinion after another.  Oh, sure,
>there are vague references to this study or that study, but no one has given
>any real citations that would indicate they have done any serious research on
>the subject.

That's right, we've just pointed to studies; none of us has actually
done any research.  Have you, Jack?

> >> Thus, in the case of TV, there may be unwilling
> >> victims... not necessarily folks who actually saw the program, but people
> >> who just happen to be in the wrong place when some guy decides he's had
> >> enough of just watching and wants to go out and emulate what he's seen.

> > And in the case of censorship, there are unwilling victims, not just
> > those who were prevented from watching the program, but those who were
> > attacked by the criminal who wasn't home watching tv instead of
> > committing rape and murder.
>
>This is one of the most ridiculous suppositions I've seen in a newsgroup, and
>I'm truly amazed that supposedly educated people would post such assertions.

It makes just as much sense as your paragraph, immediately preceding.
I'm glad to observe that everyone else who has posted on this topic
has realized that.

>When someone is willing to make a statement like this, you know that you could
>give them all the "proof" in the world and they wouldn't agree with you.
>You're already grasping at straws to defend your position.

No, I'm showing that you're grasping at straws to create yours.  I'll
accept any real proof anybody can provide; I just haven't seen any
yet.

>I'd rather have them locked up where they can't hurt anyone, but since you
>can't lock them up until they've already destroyed the life of at least one
>innocent victim, I'd prefer they didn't have any external stimulus to commit
>their crimes.

You mean let's make it illegal for women to wear provocative clothing?
After all, that stimulates rapists at least as much as TV porn does.

>  And if you think they're going to be satisfied with TV, then how
>come we still have ever-increasing numbers of sex crimes, even in areas where
>hard-core pornography is freely available?

How come we have ever-increasing numbers of sex crimes in areas where
pornography is illegal?

And, for a simple test of whether or not pornography causes sex
crimes, let's realize that the members of the Meese Commission viewed
a lot of pornography in the course of their investigation.  How many
of them have subsequently been convicted of (or even arrested for) sex
crimes?

Seth		sethb@fid.morgan.com
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv,misc.consumers,alt.cable-tv.re-regulate,alt.censorship