SnowdropExplodes's profile . SnowdropExplodes's homepage
 |
| SnowdropExplodes |
on Mon 9 Oct 06, 10:55 PM to SnowdropExplodes's blog.
Thought I'd throw one into the mix...
There are some things that everyone knows.
There are some things that everyone knows, but actually aren't true.
For example, everyone knew that heavy things fall faster than light things - it was just common sense!
Then Galileo Galilee tried his famous experiment (one that they continue to replicate in ever more elaborate ways, to prove it wasn't a fluke) of dropping a ball of light wood, and a cannonball of the same size, from a tall building and actually measuring which one hit the ground first. And now, everyone is taught in school that things fall at the same speed regardless of their weight.
Everyone knows that Columbus was trying to prove the world was round instead of flat, but that is a myth - he wanted to find a shortcut to India to improve the profit margins for his country's trade. In the Middle Ages, they knew the world was round, because they knew about the Greeks having worked it out already.
Everyone knows that lightning never strikes twice in the same spot. Except that, when a study was actually conducted, it was found that actually, some spots are very attractive to lightning, and it *does* strike those spots more than once.
Then, of course, there are things that some people just *know*, but the rest of us find hard to believe. For example, Tony Blair and George Bush *knew* that there were WMD in Iraq...
Now, the Government would have us believe that everyone knows that "extreme" pornography causes crime, and that the performers in it are all victims of crime.
Have they gone and asked the performers if they are victims? No. Have they conducted any reliable research that shows such a link? On the contrary, the best available evidence is entirely inconclusive, and there may even be evidence for a beneficial effect.
Then they talk about "anecdotal evidence".
This sort of evidence follows the line of reasoning: "All fire engines are red; I will paint my car red, then my car will become a fire engine."
For "fire engine" read "sex criminals"; for "red" read "use extreme porn"; for "my car" read "innocent member of the public".
Of course, fire engines are not fire engines because they are red. They are red because they are fire engines. Lots of things are red that are not fire engines, and indeed, would be quite useless in fighting a fire.
60% of the responses to the Government's consultation on the matter saw through this sham logic, and saw through the lack of evidence, and told the Government that the proposal to criminalise simple possession was wrong.
So the question is, does everybody know that extreme porn causes crime, or is it something that only a few ministers know? If they invade Porn, will they find evidence of mass criminality, or will they find once again that their manipulated "intelligence" of "anecdotal evidence" has led them astray?
How many people must go to prison, on the basis of no evidence and bad logic, to satisfy the puritan desires of this Government?
Ta,
SnowdropExplodes
