Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site duke.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!mcnc!duke!crm From: crm@duke.UUCP (Charlie Martin) Newsgroups: net.books Subject: Porn and the evidence -- short, really! Message-ID: <5286@duke.UUCP> Date: Fri, 18-Jan-85 15:02:07 EST Article-I.D.: duke.5286 Posted: Fri Jan 18 15:02:07 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 21-Jan-85 02:31:45 EST Organization: Duke University Lines: 37 Well, after THIS I won't post any more... The reason that many of us on the net have reponded the way we do -- pooh-poohing anything which has Christian in the title -- is because the people who write books supporting the "Christian" viewpoint seem to very very often resort to sophistry to support what the evidence doesn not. The methodological complaints against the "President's Commission" report are no stronger than the ones against the reports you site (you meaning Paul specifically, this time). The utterly simple and methodologically very strong gedankenexperiment I alluded to in my previous posting contradicts these studies and supports the "President's Commission" study, therefore I believe that the PC study is better. Until you can come up with a better argument than "it causes deviant behavior", you won't sell me. Especially since your causal argument is so weak. Footnote: the experiment I mean is this: the hypothesis is made that the availablity of sexual material in the US has caused the increase in the rape rate. This implies that other countries with easily-available sexual material will also have a high rape rate. When we examine other countries with lots of available sexual material, we find that they do not necessarily have high rape rates (these figures can be looked up.) Also, when we examine countries which have severe restrictions on sexual material, we should see low rape rates. This doesn't hold either. The hypothesis is not predictive, and should therefore be considered false. Any further argument should go to net.philosophy -- I don't read net.philosophy. -- Opinions stated here are my own and are unrelated. Charlie Martin (...mcnc!duke!crm)