Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site pucc-h Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!CS-Mordred!Pucc-H:ab3 From: ab3@pucc-h (Rich Kulawiec) Newsgroups: net.singles Subject: Re: Redbook Message-ID: <920@pucc-h> Date: Tue, 7-Aug-84 19:49:19 EDT Article-I.D.: pucc-h.920 Posted: Tue Aug 7 19:49:19 1984 Date-Received: Thu, 9-Aug-84 02:46:44 EDT References: <894@pucc-h> <184@uwmacc.UUCP> Organization: Purdue, THE Indiana University Lines: 100 [This is a continuation the Dubois-Kulawiec-Sargent roundtable, so if you're already bored, hit "n" now, and escape...] > From Paul Dubois > > Tsk tsk, Rsk: > > You can swear all you want at Jeff, and so advertise to the rest > of us by your filthy language the lack of care you take in > crafting your postings to the net, but... I take plenty of care, thank you; and I said exactly what I meant to say. You may not like my language. If not, I suggest you skip articles that I post, as I feel no compunction to limit my vocabulary to words that you, or anyone else, feel acceptable. I'm sure you've heard it all before; if not, it's about time you did. In any event, I was (and still am) very insulted by what Jeff had to say; I felt my reaction was *somewhat* restrained, considering that my first impulse was to stroll down the hall and vaporize Jeff. This, however, would not have been socially acceptable, and is also considered to contravene University staff regulations. > You still have not said why I was wrong. > > You have not demonstrated what it was about my posting that so > aroused your ire. I had concluded that Christian women enjoy > sex. You said, I believe, that the link between the results > of the Redbook study and my conclusion was, um, well...you > said something "inhospitable", shall we say. I replied with > a request for elucidation of the fallacy in my logic. Jeff > defended my conclusion. You, Paul, did not "arouse my ire". I get far nastier when "ired"! What I said was: > Well, Paul, goin' from >> [Redbook Survey] >> >> Those women who rated themselves as "deeply religious" were >> the ones who enjoyed sex the most. > to >> Since the survey was conducted in this country, we may reasonably >> assume that the religious women were Christian religion women, no? >> Therefore, one might observe that the nonsense about the Christian >> ethic is that Christians are the ones with an unhealthy attitude >> about sex. > is one of the blatant pieces of total bullshit I've seen in a while. Now, as I pointed out to Jeff, I didn't say that either the premise or the conclusion were wrong; I said that the derivation of the stated conclusion from the stated premise was bullshit. Why did I say this (here comes your answer): 1. This is a survey of Redbook readers; hardly a scientific cross-section of any group...except, of course, Redbook readers who answer surveys. In other words, the extrapolation implied in the conclusion, to American Christian women, to Christians in general (note final statement) seems very farfetched to me. For example: how many men read Redbook? 2. What is a "healthy" or "unhealthy" attitude about sex? Says who? I say that an unhealthy attitude is one which disallows sex outside of marriage; you may not agree; who is right? 3. Suppose for a moment that we neglect points 1 and 2; what does the enjoyment of sex by religious women have to do with their (Christain) ethical attitude about sex? In other words, someone who is deeply religious may enjoy lovemaking a great deal; what does that have to do with their ethical attitudes. 4. Suppose we now neglect 1, 2, and 3; we still have the problem of matching "the Christian ethic" to the attitudes of the people out there who call themselves Christians. In other words, a philosophical statement is not equivalent to the attitudes of a large number of people. Side note: As it happens, Paul, I *do* disagree with your conclusion; probably because I have my own ideas about Christianity (and for that matter, Judaism, and so on) and sex; but you've probably deduced that already, anyway. Since our definitions of "healthy attitude" probably differ, it is unlikely we will agree on that...and I'm not trying to argue you out of your view. I'm merely pointing out that the deductive process shown in your original article is faulty. -- ---Rsk UUCP: { decvax, icalqa, ihnp4, inuxc, sequent, uiucdcs } !pur-ee!rsk { decwrl, hplabs, icase, psuvax1, siemens, ucbvax } !purdue!rsk I'd rather laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints, The sinners are much more fun...and only the good die young!