From: greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield)
Subject: Re: Cable TV Consumer Protection Act of 1992
Organization: Syracuse University, CIS Dept.
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 92 12:14:53 EDT

In article <1992Oct5.203c0@f8.n154.z1.fidonet.org> jack@myamiga.mixcom.com (Jack Decker) writes:
>
> > That means you're not even going to try to find proof.
>
>Give this man a cookie!  He finally figured it out!
>
>NO, I am not even going to try and find proof.  It's a waste of my time to try
>and find "proof" that will just be pooh-poohed by this crowd.
>
>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."
>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.  You folks who are casting stones are living in your own glass
>houses.

Sorry, the burden of proof rests upon you.  You say that there is a causal
connection between A and B.  Someone else says he doesn't believe it.

*You* have the burden of proof.  He doesn't have to prove the absence of a
a causal connection between A and B.


> >> 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.
>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.

Maybe you're starting to get it.  His statement and yours are equally
equally ridiculous.  They are both based upon unsupported conjecture about
human behavior.


I suspect that *down deep* you know that the reason your "proof" will get
pooh-poohed (and the reason why you put "proof" in quotes) is because you
know that you have no substantial proof for your claims.


This subject has been discussed before.  I recall hearing about a study that
claimed that viewers of *violent* pornography (and the key here is "violent"
as opposed to "pornography") had more violent feelings immediately after
viewing it than before.  Of course, the study did not show any causal
connection between that, and actually going out and committing violent
crimes.

But in the past, when I have requested references to this study, and any others
that may address violent *action*, those requests have been met with a
deafening silence...


-- 
J. S. Greenfield                                         greeny@top.cis.syr.edu
(I like to put 'greeny' here, 
but my d*mn system wants a 
*real* name!)                        "What's the difference between an orange?"
Xref: sparky misc.consumers:17468 alt.censorship:7883