From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon)
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv,misc.consumers
Subject: Re: Cable TV Consumer Protection Act of 1992
Date: 27 Sep 92 06:29:26 GMT
Organization: Green Hills and Cows

In article <1992Sep25.30329@f8.n154.z1.fidonet.org> jack@myamiga.mixcom.com (Jack Decker) writes:

>Also, I believe that it is wrong to put temptation in someone's path (the Bible
>would agree with me on this, or rather I should say that I agree with the Bible
>on this, but from some of the mail I've received in response to my previous
>message I realize that people who quote the Bible aren't exactly held in high
>esteem by a few participants on this echo.

As one who sent mail to you (rather than junk up the group with an
irrelavant discussion of "morality"), let me say that it is most
irritating to attempt to engage in discussion with you "off the air",
have you not even grace my mail with a response and then "answer" it
back on the public forum. Therefore, I will not bother with e-mail and
post my response to the group. My apologies to the rest of you.

One of the reasons Bible quotes do not go over horribly well is that
there are some of us who do not feel the the Bible is the be-all and
end-all authority for every endeavor of mankind. The Bible is a fine
book. Hell, I even used it as the basis for a theme in a European
literature course in college. Just as there are those who feel that the
Bible is the "inspired word of God", there are some who do not. You
will excuse those of us in the second category for not sitting down and
shutting up just because someone says, "The Bible says...".

>I believe that is is wrong
>to bring objectionable materials into the home capable of receiving
>objectionable materials and then tell the kids not to watch, because if they
>do, they are guilty of disobedience BUT *I* am guilty of putting temptation in
>their path. They will have plenty of opportunities while away from home to make
>choices that may or may not be right, but the home should be sort of a haven
>from the temptations of the world (unfortunately, it often is not, and
>television is one reason why).

Then you are free to have your cable service removed. How dare you tell
the rest of us that you want to shield your children from this or that
and you want it done in a way LEAST INCONVENIENT to yourself, at the
expense of OUR choices, rights, and convenience? If you think that
putting your hand over your kids' eyes so that they will not learn
about anything "bad" in the world is the way to raise children, that is
your business. But do not preach to the rest of us and insist that we
sacrifice ANYTHING to enable you in this endeavor. It is your duty,
your responsibility, and quite honestly, your problem.

And before you accuse me of intellectual dishonesty, let me say for the
record that I think television in general IS bad for children. It is
mind-numbing, and frequently substitutes for playmates, parents, and
teachers. But my reasons for disliking television are the opposite of
yours: not enough reality is shown. But you will not find me on a
crusade to "ban television" even though I feel very strongly about its
bad influence on children. That is a matter for parents to decide on an
individual basis. I do not presume to dictate how parents will raise
their kids. And I certainly do not have a "Bible" to thump to give
authority to my pronoucements.

>In our society, for example, we severely punish people who
>take the lives of others (in most cases) and that standard comes directly from
>one of the Ten Commandments, as well as the writings of some other religions.

This is not a matter of morality. I am, by secular law, guaranteed the
right to be secure in my life and property. A murderer deprives me of
life, therefore the state (not the church) will take statutory
measures.

>Personally, I think that the Biblical standards should be used... 

Yes, we figured that out. But please give chapter and verse where it
says that pornography will not be shown on cable TV and where it
defines pornography. Oh, it is not there? Then, I submit, that what you
advocate are not "Biblical standards", but rather your INTERPRETATION
of those standards. I have read the Bible many, many times, cover to
cover. Apparently it does not say to me what it says to you.

>You people who send
>mail that basically says that I should keep my morality to myself (and again,
>it's not really mine)

Oh, yes it is. And then you take those standards which you make up
(from your interpretation of whatever you use as a base) and wave the
Bible in the air claiming that it all comes from a "higher authority".
This is what we heathens do NOT want imbedded in our secular law.

>are really just saying that you see a conflict between my
>moral standards and yours, and you want yours embodied in the law, and never
>mind what I or anyone else thinks.

No, what we want is the law to be silent on these things. These things
(matters of "morality") are not appropriate matters for legislation.
Laws against violent crime, and even "white collar" crime originate
from the basic premise that citizens have a right to their lives and
property. When you start junking up the statutes with edicts concerning
what can be shown on cable and when, you are straying from this secular
principle. Cable is market driven; if it is TOO offensive, sales will
suffer and adjustments will be made. This is how it is supposed to
work. Morality has nothing to do with it.

>Liberals are real great for hollering about "freedom of speech", "freedom of
>expression" and such, right up until the time someone starts to read from the
>Bible.

Read from the Bible all you like. In fact, I will bet that I could
point out a few things to you about the Bible's contents. What we loath
and denounce is the incorporation of people's interpretation of what
the Bible says put in our laws and enforced by the power of government.

>Well, please don't tell me in one
>breath that producers should be able to put any kind of filth imaginable on
>Cable TV, and then in the next breath tell me that I have no right to express
>my views on what the law should say... that is just hypocracy.

What seems to upset you is dissent. Express your views all you like
(and if I am not mistaken, you have). Now can producers put "any kind
of filth [as determined by the Bible, I guess] on Cable TV"?

>One final point.  I said there was a link between pornography and sex crimes. A
>couple said that there was no provable link.  Look, folks, there IS a link but
>in some places it's not considered "politically correct" to say so.  Can I
>prove it?  No, I cannot.  Well, actually I could, but I know that the minute I
>tried you'd discredit my sources.

You have never quoted any sources to discredit. How about my sources?
Richard Nixon, one of the most conservative Republicans in modern
history, commissioned a study on the effects of pornography. No link
found. Furious, he disbanded the group and commissioned ANOTHER study.
Again, no link found. In fact, the second group commented on the
thoroughness and meticulousness of the first one.

Even the Meese Commission did not establish one shred of credible
evidence to support your claim.

>Never mind, for example, that mass murderer
>Ted Bundy said ON TAPE that pornography was a great influence on him (just
>hours before he went to the electric chair),

Well then. I guess the fact that a condemned murder says something ON
TAPE makes it true and credible. I do not suppose there is any
possiblity that he might have been trying to duck a little
self-responsibility for his imminent demise. Come now, you are going to
have to do better than this.

>But I've found that in UseNet you can't invoke a source
>unless it's politically correct, and the PC crowd seems to be as blind as a bat
>to the link between pornography and sex crimes.

I guess when you run out of arguments, just discredit the forum. You
blather and moan about how some of us do not "heed the word of the
Lord" and blindly take your interpretation of the Bible as divine
truth, and then you turn around and make up a theory (that there is a
provable link between pornography and sex crimes) and cannot understand
why the earth does not move for you.

>One more example.  Linda Lovelace of "Deep Throat" fame got on TV and said that
>at the time she made that film, she was on drugs and was given her supply only
>if she would perform on camera.  She said that when you watch that film, you
>are watching someone being raped.

This is a bunch of emotional claptrap. What does it prove? That someone
got hooked on drugs and fell under the control of some not very nice
people? That is justification for imposing YOUR morality on all of us?
People, including Linda Lovelace, bear some responsibility for
themselves.

>So, I stand behind everything I said but I'm not going to waste my time going
>out to dig up "proof" that you folks (some of you) won't accept anyway.

That is just fine. But do not get upset when some of us dismiss what
you say. Sulking about refusing to dig up proof does not enhance your
arguments, which you are entitled to make in a vacuum all you like.

>I will just say that the folks who claim that there is no link between
>pornography and sex crimes are of the same moral character, and are about as
>truthful as the Tobacco Institute folks who for years claimed there was no
>proven link between tobacco and lung cancer (when in fact there was
>considerable research that had established that linkage).

Then goddammit, point us to pornography-link evidence of the quality of
the many, many medical studies that have proven the tobacco-cancer
link. You are stooping to the lowest level of argumentative dishonesty:
the comparison of two things that have nothing in common between them.
Scientists have also proven that the earth revolves around the sun, a
fact that was vehemently opposed and denied for centuries by, among
others, the church. Does that enhance your pornography assertions as well?

>Generally speaking, I hate government intrusion into my private life as much as
>the next person, but it really scares me that we are turning out a generation
>with no real moral foundation.

Agreed. But let us look at what "morality" really is. You, churches,
God, and Christians do not have a lock on this item. Real morality is
when you regard the rights of others. Real morality is when you are
honest in your business and personal affairs. Real morality is when you
understand that your well-being is frequently tied to others'
well-being. Real morality is when you realize that you can do nothing
for others until you are handling yourself and your own affairs
properly. And for various reasons, our up and coming generation seems
to be bereft of these attributes.

Phony morality is what Bible thumpers come up with. Lists of
prohibitions over who you can have sex with and when; enforcement of
customs and rituals; dictation of what is sacred and what is profane;
pronoucement of what one can eat, hear, see, feel, and even be all
constitute phony morality.

You have a right to preach all of this all you like. But I have the
right to be free of it and NOT have it embedded in laws that govern me.
You have the nerve to attempt to bolster and justify your arguments
with the thinnest of factual evidence and when that fails you haul out
the Bible. You have a right to preach; but I have a right to ignore.
Heaven help us all if our legislators ever forget that.

>Anyway, I've said enough on the subject for now...

Whatever you say. Do not let us stop you (from preaching, that is).
-- 
 John Higdon  |   P. O. Box 7648   |   +1 408 264 4115     |       FAX:
 john@ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | 10288 0 700 FOR-A-MOO | +1 408 264 4407
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv