Studies, experts, etc., etc. It seems that one will always be able to find studies, experts and testimonials saying what one wants to claim regarding pornography.
Personally, I am willing to accept the notion that as alcohol can and does lead to nice things, as well as bad things, so too, porn can and does lead to nice things as well as bad things. Just as alcohol arouses passions and lowers our inhibitions, so too pornography arouses passions and lowers our inhibitions.
But, in our society today, there’s no push to banish alcohol, as there is an overwhelming push to banish porn. Yet the banishment of alcohol would not infringe upon any constitutional rights while the banishment of porn would. How do we explain this political circumstance?
One may be quick to point to extremist, such as fire and brimstone religous fanatics and feminazis; but they do not account for the breath of middle of the road support anti-porn measures have.
I suspect it is because more women consume alcohol than consume porn, at least openly, and therefore it is more socially and politically accetable than porn? We tend to incorporate from a very young age the puritanical notions of our ancestors, without much examination, almost as unconsciouly as we inherit DNA passed down from one generation to another. But men have been historically excused more than women from the puritanical shame heaped upon men and women alike for their sexuality.
Nonetheless, I do dare say if one were to compare the totality of the harm caused by alcohol, alone, with the totality of harm caused by porn, alone, one would find the harm caused by alcohol to be significantly more than the harm caused by porn. Why isn't NPN focusing on banishing the consumption of alcohol to the same places that it advocated banishing porn? No bad secondary effects have been associated with drinking establishments, historically?
It’s just another incongruity in our warped, puritanical society where the prison sentences for drug possession in some states can be far more severe than prison sentences for fraudulent business executives of large corporations, even though the harm caused by the fraudulent business executives far exceeds the harm caused by the ordinary drug user. Perhaps with all the best intentions, this is the insanity that NPN nonetheless ultimately serves to perpetuate.
(No, here I'm not advocating one way or another on the issue of the legalization of drugs.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
When the studies, experts and testimonials overwhelmingly favor the anti-porn side, I can understand the temptation to airily dismiss them in favor of armchair speculation.
As for Mr. Schubert's comment elsewhere, we concede that there may be some individual adult enterprises with few visible secondary effects. We never claimed a 100% cause-and-effect. On the other hand, there are many adult enterprises, including more than one Amazing.net outlet, which have been seen to cause secondary effects. A reasonable person would conclude they elevate the risk.
Zoning and health regulation of adult enterprises is not censorship, just as regulation of liquor stores is not Prohibition.
Adam Cohen
NoPornNorthampton.org
Dear Mr. Cohen,
In the comment you mention, I didn't suggest that there were no secondary effects associated with porn stores, or that I had an example of a porn store that didn't have any secondary effects. I don't really know what you're talking about.
The point I was trying to make, and this is A/C's point, not mine, is that your continued concern about the secondary effects of the proposed King St. store is worrisome.
It's worrisome becasue it makes it seem as though you haven't identified the actual cause of the secondary effects. If, as you claimed when you were lobbying for the zoning ordinance, there *are no* secondary effects associated with smallish porn stores, then we shouldn't ahve anything to worry about now. If we continue to have something to worry about, as your recent actions suggest (you think) we do, then you lobbyed for the wrong ordinance. I think that the "right ordinance" would be one that identified the actual causes of the bad effects and nipped them in the bud. That's the point.
I'm not going to get sucked into a sematic argument with you about what consitutes censorship. You advocate for government prohibition of certain porn stores. It may not be "According to Hoyle" censorship, but it's something. And if your advocacy for the prohibitive zoning ordinance is motivated by your distaste for the material, then, whatever you want to call it, it's getting close to advocacy for censorship.
There Adam Cohen of NPN goes again, arguing quantity over quality. The quality of the studies upon which NPN relies have been and are becoming increasingly more under attack for their shabbiness, if not downright intellectual dishonesty. Armchair speculation? Another NPN attempt to deflect the impact of another’s experience and critical examination of the totality of the observations to be made from that experience. Cheap rhetorical shot by NPN, that armchair comment is. Why does NPN need to restore to such tactics, if it so correct?
Mere regulation? It’s far from mere regulation when NPN would have us banish porn to the outskirts of town and away from any meaningful pedestrian traffic. Do we regulate alcohol? Yeah, but neither NPN nor anyone else advocates that it be banished to the outskirts of town and away from any meaningful pedestrian traffic, or do they? And yet the banishment of alcohol would not infringe upon any first amendment rights, while banishment of porn does.
And thanks for your comments, Doug. You more often than not you sum up a point I’m trying to make better than I.
Dear Mr. Cohen,
I take issue with your suggestion that either AC or I have "airily dismissed" any of your arguments in favor of "armchair speculation." I think that a careful examination of our comments here and elsewhere will reveal that both of make substantial challenges to the truth of your premises and the validity of your inferences.
Your continual emphaisis on the *quantity* of arguments--even the quantity of words you've used to express your arguments--demonstrates the intellectual bankruptcy of your project. As usual, you resort to a well-known fallacy with an easy-to-remember name: Proof by verbosity. Your arguments are weak; that you have a ton of them doesn't make them stronger.
Thanks, AC. I'll keep it up if you will.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0X3T6-K22o]
Post a Comment