(*headdesk*) See, this is what I get for letting myself get sucked into a bad argument. Because the general public's opinion doesn't matter. The opinion of comics fandom is what matters. And comics fandom has spoken. Even pornographers agree: The cover is porn. (http://doronjosama.livejournal.com/472728.html)
You're talking about Bad Science. Maybe this would be bad science if we were talking about a verifiable fact like "a lot of people have brown eyes." But we're not. We're talking about a word and how people use it. Well, I'm going to assume that you don't have any formal training in linguistics, but let me reiterate: Semantics is based purely on what "a lot" of people say.
a lot see it as porn
Yes. That is the ONLY standard of proof required right here.
I simply object to presenting a biased inference as objective fact.
But you and I both agree: a lot see it as porn. That's the only "fact" that we need.
the opinion of a large group or even a majority does not actually make something evil porn, either.
Evil, no. Porn? Yes. Porn is defined by people. Its boundaries change across time and space. If a lot of people say that something is porn, then it's porn.
And if you keep bringing up the legal definition, I'm really going to bust out the Linguistics tl;dr. But briefly, let me say: Legal definitions are inherently more restrictive than common-usage definitions. This is also Linguistics 101, and I hate to keep bringing up that phrase because it's an appeal to authority, but whatever. It's something that somebody who has studied linguistics knows, but not something that somebody who hasn't studied linguistics might not know. Anyway, an appeal to a legal definition in an argument about "how people use a word" is automatic fail.
And this whole damn semantics argument? STILL a convenient way to skirting the issues about what's really wrong with the cover.
Re: Deleted and reposted for borked HTML, sorry.
You're talking about Bad Science. Maybe this would be bad science if we were talking about a verifiable fact like "a lot of people have brown eyes." But we're not. We're talking about a word and how people use it. Well, I'm going to assume that you don't have any formal training in linguistics, but let me reiterate: Semantics is based purely on what "a lot" of people say.
a lot see it as porn
Yes. That is the ONLY standard of proof required right here.
I simply object to presenting a biased inference as objective fact.
But you and I both agree: a lot see it as porn. That's the only "fact" that we need.
the opinion of a large group or even a majority does not actually make something evil porn, either.
Evil, no. Porn? Yes. Porn is defined by people. Its boundaries change across time and space. If a lot of people say that something is porn, then it's porn.
And if you keep bringing up the legal definition, I'm really going to bust out the Linguistics tl;dr. But briefly, let me say: Legal definitions are inherently more restrictive than common-usage definitions. This is also Linguistics 101, and I hate to keep bringing up that phrase because it's an appeal to authority, but whatever. It's something that somebody who has studied linguistics knows, but not something that somebody who hasn't studied linguistics might not know. Anyway, an appeal to a legal definition in an argument about "how people use a word" is automatic fail.
And this whole damn semantics argument? STILL a convenient way to skirting the issues about what's really wrong with the cover.