The porn debate
Sir: It is sad to see someone with the ".reputation of Nils Bohr putting into my mouth words I did not say, presumably because they are easier to refute than what I did say.
I have not said that David Holbrook, or his opinions, or his friends are insignificant, ignorant, puerile, jejune, or imbecile. What I do say is that he is increasingly embittered and abusive in his remarks about those who do not agree with him; that he does not oppose them either with objective evidence or with reasoned argument; that he does not support his own point of view with facts or reason either; and that he appears to demand as a right any number of platforms of his own choosing upon which he can appear as often as he likes to proclaim a message which changes not at all from year tp year except to become sligkt,tygre 'offensive in its wording. .
IfiDavid Holbrook, or anybody lse, came up with a case againit pornography presented as coolly, as objectively, and as rationally as various experts have presented (e.g.) the case against Concorde, I would read it with open-minded interest. But I do not feel called upon to read an indefinite series of turgid sermons
, which are nothing but ever more con: voluted paraphrases of "Lay down your intelligence and follow Me."
Don Peters 69 Renters Avenue, London NW4.
Previous page
