That's a pretty significant chunk of comics fandom right there.
...
Surely Newsarama provides a fairly accurate cross-section of comics fandom, right?
Yes, but "comics fandom" is only a fairly small percentage of "the public".
I think my claim that "a lot" of people don't like the cover still stands.
Never said that a lot didn't.
You asked me to prove that people don't like the cover.
Actually, no. Please don't put words in my mouth. What I did say is that it's the burden of people objecting to the cover to prove that it is "porn". Its natural legal state at this moment is: "not porn". I will readily concede that a "lot" of people don't like the cover at all - and that a lot see it as porn - that's not my point. What I have been saying all along is that taking a small biased section of a group and applying their standards to imply that the entire group feels the same way is Bad Science. I think I have already given examples of that.
To say that the world at large (or even just the USA) regards the HfH cover as porn is simply not in evidence. Most of the US doesn't even know it exists. Maybe a majority would see it as porn, maybe not, it's not the point. I simply object to presenting a biased inference as objective fact.
Because I might find a theoretically large group of people who think that the cover is A-OKAY. (Which does not actually make the cover A-OKAY, but whatever.)
Keep in mind that the reverse is true - the opinion of a large group or even a majority does not actually make something evil porn, either.
Re: Deleted and reposted for borked HTML, sorry.
...
Surely Newsarama provides a fairly accurate cross-section of comics fandom, right?
Yes, but "comics fandom" is only a fairly small percentage of "the public".
I think my claim that "a lot" of people don't like the cover still stands.
Never said that a lot didn't.
You asked me to prove that people don't like the cover.
Actually, no. Please don't put words in my mouth. What I did say is that it's the burden of people objecting to the cover to prove that it is "porn". Its natural legal state at this moment is: "not porn". I will readily concede that a "lot" of people don't like the cover at all - and that a lot see it as porn - that's not my point. What I have been saying all along is that taking a small biased section of a group and applying their standards to imply that the entire group feels the same way is Bad Science. I think I have already given examples of that.
To say that the world at large (or even just the USA) regards the HfH cover as porn is simply not in evidence. Most of the US doesn't even know it exists. Maybe a majority would see it as porn, maybe not, it's not the point. I simply object to presenting a biased inference as objective fact.
Because I might find a theoretically large group of people who think that the cover is A-OKAY. (Which does not actually make the cover A-OKAY, but whatever.)
Keep in mind that the reverse is true - the opinion of a large group or even a majority does not actually make something evil porn, either.