Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cbscc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!cbsck!cbscc!pmd
From: pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc)
Newsgroups: net.books
Subject: Re: Porn and the evidence -- short, really!
Message-ID: <4640@cbscc.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 21-Jan-85 16:41:43 EST
Article-I.D.: cbscc.4640
Posted: Mon Jan 21 16:41:43 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 22-Jan-85 06:08:47 EST
References: <5286@duke.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories , Columbus
Lines: 55

>Charlie Martin:
>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.

Not a good reason to apply to any particular case.  Especially Court's
book.  Can you give any reason why his book fits into that category 
(other than that the title contains the word "Christian)?  Shouldn't
Court's opinion be regarded on the same basis with other psychologists?
Shouldn't his argument be considered on its own merits?

>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.

How do you know they are no stronger?  What similar complaints exist
against the reports I cited?  Do you have any specific rebuttal to
the problems I pointed to in the PC study?  Those that are against porn
can't get away with just "alluding to" support for their position.  People
pressed me for references and I gave them.

>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.

Your argument against it is stronger here?

>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.)

Where can they be looked up?  How accurate are they?

>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.

Why should I take your word for it when no one takes mine?

>Any further argument should go to net.philosophy -- I don't read
>net.philosophy.

You don't wan't to hear any futher argument--in other words.  Fine.
-- 

Paul Dubuc	cbscc!pmd