From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Pornography imbalance, right or wrong?
Date: 5 Nov 92 06:03:24 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Nov4.205943.11988@ils.nwu.edu> lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch) writes:
>In article <1992Oct31.201637.22684@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct28.203404.14008@ils.nwu.edu> lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch) writes:
>>>Folks, I'm not even going to include the quoted texts anymore, as it doesn't
>>>help.  I snagged most of them off the net today and will hold them for a long
>>>time, case anybody needs them.  I'm gonna try to keep the future ones, also.
>>>
>>>Rich, let's try and keep this short, eh?
>>
>>Why start now???
>
>Because I'm tired of responding to *your* repetitive statements.
 
This goes back and forth, back and forth, but somehow only -my- statements
are repetitive. I hope the rest of your arguments are better than this.
 
>>>My claims:
>>>
>>>Pornography imbalance and discrimination are possibly linked in a cyclical way.
>>>Evidence:  Recent changes in the cycle, caused by equalitarians, have made 
>>>societal views on pornography change, particularly in regards to women in
>>>pornography and women's enjoyment of pornography.
>>
>>Changes in and of themselves do not indicate any sort of cycle. Nor would
>>a link establish a causal relationship. So what is the significance?
>
>Rich, there is no way one can prove or disprove the existence of this cycle.
 
OK, so we have a hypothetical cycle. Can you outline even one cycle, or at
least show a changing trend to could possibly be the beginning of some
sort of cyclic change? If not, you seem have a hypothetical cycle with no
theoretical cyclic relationship or cyclic data. Somehow this falls short
of being compelling. 
 
>>>This, to me, brings up the question of whether or not there is *any* 
>>>reason for the imbalance other than societal conditioning.
>>
>>You seem quite certain on this issue already. 
>
>So do you.
 
I am sure that you have demonstrated no problem of any sort. Any time you
care to actually -define- the problem, rather than just calling it a
problem, I am ready to read about it. We have already covered the point
that different does not equate to problem, have we not?
 
>>>You seem to have claimed that:
>>>Mere biological differences are sufficient to explain the imbalance.
>> 
>>You have yet to prove that it is not, nor that it is even not a factor.
>>BTW, "Mere biological differences"? Have you risen above your biological
>>heritage? 
>
>Just giving you equal treatment.
 
The biological and developmental differences are well documented and
the material can be found at any library or bookstore.

Please be so good as to document that, as you seem to claim, biology is
-not- a factor.
 
>>>Now, if I'm right, and you're wrong, will you at least stop calling this 
>>>a non-issue and discuss it?  Otherwise, read no further.
>> 
>>You have yet to discuss it, you just keep repeating it. Since there seems
>>to be no evidence either way, this may be all that can be done anyway.
>
>And you just repeat your views and ignore what evidence is provided.
 
You have provided no evidence, just arguments in need of support.
 
>>>If I'm right, then isn't it possible that altering the pornography imbalance,
>>>either way, will affect discrimination?  [I freely admit that there may be no
>>>way other than censorship, which is *not* a valid solution for other reasons.]
>>
>>Any change to -anything- will affect the entire system, so no matter what
>>you do, I expect the balance would change. And again, the problem seems
>>to be that women do not buy as much porno as men, -not- the other way 
>>way around. Therefore men are not the problem, assuming that there is
>>some problem to begin with. You have never demonstrated that either.
>>It was at least implied when you claimed discrimination as the cause. 
>>With this new cyclic theory, there does not even seem to be any problem 
>>that needs to be solved.
>
>Discrimination is the problem that needs to be solved.  Altering the porno
>imbalance is something that could affect the entire system in such a way as to
>reduce discrimination.
 
The imbalance is not a cause, but an effect of a great many things. This
means that to change thie balance, you -must- change something else. What
is it that you plan to change?
 
>>>PS:I double-checked the texts, and you trimmed out my first cyclic statement.
>>
>>Since you dropped it as well, and posted a -lot- without even noticing that
>>it ws gone, I have a hard time believing that it was what you were saying,
>>or even central to what you were saying. 
>>
>>>This explains why you first "saw" it just recently, rather than a couple 
>>>posts ago.  If you want it, I'll e-mail them to you, or you can just cut 
>>>this out and call it done.
>>
>>Call what done?
>
>Well, if you'll stop complaining about a "new" idea that isn't, I won't
>complain about your cutting it out in the first place.  Otherwise we can waste
>lots of bandwidth on a petty argument.  Take your pick.

You have yet to define any sort of problem. If there -is- some sort of
cycle, then the need for a problem is greatly reduced. Like the tides, they
go in, and they go out. Do not count on high tide forever, it will
eventually go out.
 
>Actually, I'm wondering if you aren't so entrenched at this point that I'm
>wasting my time in the first place.

You have already wasted a great deal of my time, but what else is new. 

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

Rich

payner@netcom.com 
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:4333 soc.women:19493 soc.men:19222