Bigots Target
Gene Ward Smith
: This thread persists primarily as a means for Bruce Garrett to call
: me a Nazi sympathizer because of my view that homosexual acts are
: morally wrong, and for me to expose the tawdry and mawkish basis of
: his compulsive attempts to justify his sexuality to all and sundry.
A lie. Many people can manage to believe that homosexual acts are
morally wrong without going over the line into hate speech. It is the
fact that you hate, and lie about the fact that you hate, and make it
obvious that you lie about the fact that you hate, and keep repeating
this loop, which makes the Nazi comparison go.
Michael Zeleny
Gene Ward Smith <gsmith@lab1> writes:
:Michael Zeleny (zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu) wrote:
In other words, Gene Ward Smith is objecting to outspoken opposition
to his outspoken sexual perversion. There still remains a question of
what constitutes hate speech. I explicitly repudiate acts of violence
and legal persecution aiming to censure acts that occur in private
between consenting adults. Nevertheless, Mr Smith elects to classify
my moral opposition to buggery on par with Hitler's persecution of the
alleged Untermenschen. Would he be acting as irrationally without the
incentive of his deviant sensibilities?
cordially, don't
mikhail zel...@math.ucla.edu tread
writing from the disneyland of formal philosophy on
"Le cul des femmes est monotone comme l'esprit des hommes." me
Michael Zeleny
: On Sun, 26 Feb 1995 BPB...@husc.harvard.edu wrote:
:: zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
MZ:
::: The refractory homosexual is a pathetic freak of
::: nature who, whenever left to his own tawdry devices, acts as a vivid
::: reminder of the misery concomitant with willful deviance from the
::: moral ends of mankind.
GWS:
: Note, once again, that this is hate speech, and shows yet again that the
: comparison of Zeleny with the Nazis is quite apt. Note also that Zeleny
: (in a manner worthy of any Nazi, incidentally) thinks that to be a "freak
: of nature" is to be worthy of contempt; so in effect he is pouring hatred
: and contempt not just on homosexuals, but also on people with all the
: variety of ills that can or might cause them to be termed "freaks of
: nature" by spiteful homunculi of Zeleny's kind.
On the contrary, the above would apply only to people who deliberately
cultivate and proudly exhibit their diseases. A man who strives to
overcome his unwholesome inclinations merits the highest praise. But
a refractory homosexual is no different from a refractory coprophage.
GWS:
: You might also take note that in calling homosexuals "freaks of nature",
: he is contradicting the Robertsonesque "lifestyle choice" rhetoric he at
: times employs elsewhere. In his utter intellectual dishonesty, he finds
: any stick which is handy at the time a good enough one to beat homosexuals
: with.
Observe that I characterized refractory homosexuality as a willful
deviance. Inclination is mostly determined by involuntary factors;
acting upon it is invariably a matter of free choice. Not that I
would expect you to exercise your reading comprehension skills in
the midst of a self-justificatory conniption fit.
MZ:
::: Consider that the passage I have cited is part of Kant's discussion of
::: sodomy in _The Metaphysics of Morals_. Read the book.
BP:
:: You ignored my statement as usual and refused to answer my concerns.
:: If I wanted to read Kant I would be on alt.deadguy.Kant. Your logic,
:: though couched prettily, is bunk. Try again, this time less personal
:: attacks and a little INFORMATION would get you further.
GWS:
: It doesn't matter in any case. If you actually try to argue on the basis
: of Kant, as I once did, he backpedles at once, he "holds no brief for the
: Konigsburg wanker." Zeleny is even more of a pretentious fraud than most
: people realize, and that is saying a lot.
The high point of your argument "on the basis of Kant" was running a
thread dedicated to my putatively putrid pink butthole and threatening
to sabotage my career prospects. You are a bad sport, Mr Smith, but
that is to be expected. Every outburst of self-serving flatulence
emitted by your net persona goes a long way towards confirming the
timeless stereotype of the whining, scheming, hysterical rimadonna.
You are a worthy representative of your kind. Keep up the good work.
Gary Phillips
: In other words, Gene Ward Smith is objecting to outspoken opposition
: to his outspoken sexual perversion. There still remains a question of
: what constitutes hate speech. I explicitly repudiate acts of violence
: and legal persecution aiming to censure acts that occur in private
: between consenting adults. Nevertheless, Mr Smith elects to classify
: my moral opposition to buggery on par with Hitler's persecution of the
: alleged Untermenschen. Would he be acting as irrationally without the
: incentive of his deviant sensibilities?
Michael,
How can you reconcile a right to "private acts between consenting
[homosexual] adults with your alleged "moral" opposition to homosexual
sexual engagements (let's ignore the fact that "buggery" is something
that heterosexuals engage in at a much higher rate than gay people do)?
--
Gary Phillips
orp...@kaiwan.com
Laguna Beach, CA
Michael Zeleny
: Michael Zeleny (zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu) sez that since our
: parents acted heterosexually, it is immoral to act homosexually:
:: Perhaps you ought to take the trouble to think about it. If morality is
:: a universal constraint on permissible action of free rational agents, any
:: proposed course of action that directly contravenes the conditions of
:: your freedom, rationality, or agency, cannot be morally acceptable.
: You have an exceedingly poor grasp of causality.
Try to conceive a world wherein every dioecious creature deliberately
chooses essentially sterile forms of intercourse on each occasion of
sexual contact. Since such creatures must owe their provenance to an
instance of fertile sexual contact, a world operating in accordance
with the stated principle is logically impossible.
The homosexual claims that his choice to bugger his partner in no way
contravenes the possibility of conception of other creatures of their
kind occurring elsewhere, on a different occasion, between some other
human couple indulging in a disparate, fertile form of sex. But in
choosing to act in the way he does, he wilfully construes himself as
an anomaly to the principle in accordance with which such generative
action would occur -- and therefore as a deliberate exception to the
moral condition of his own genesis. Since morality admits of no
exceptions, he is acting immorally.
Our parents could not but (non possum non) have acted heterosexually
so as to become our parents; hence it is immoral to act homosexually.
: --
: Brian Kane~~~Astroboy~~~kane@{buast1,bu-ast,buast7,protostar}.bu.edu
: "The altar boy's on fire!" Mary Lorson _Bring It Down_ (1993)
: "Those dudes up in the UFO described the truth as a yellow lifeboat"
Michael Zeleny
: Michael Zeleny (zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu) wrote:
:: ka...@buast7.bu.edu (Brian Kane) writes:
::: Michael Zeleny (zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu) sez that since our
::: parents acted heterosexually, it is immoral to act homosexually:
:::: Perhaps you ought to take the trouble to think about it. If morality is
:::: a universal constraint on permissible action of free rational agents, any
:::: proposed course of action that directly contravenes the conditions of
:::: your freedom, rationality, or agency, cannot be morally acceptable.
::: You have an exceedingly poor grasp of causality.
:: Try to conceive a world wherein every dioecious creature deliberately
:: chooses essentially sterile forms of intercourse on each occasion of
:: sexual contact.
: Would you care to calculate the probability of this happening?
Consideration of probability is irrelevant because moral obligations
cannot be delegated. Otherwise you could excuse yourself from the
performance of any duty, arguing that a society of predominantly
conscientious men could -- and does -- suffer and sustain a small
proportion of parasites.
:: Since such creatures must owe their provenance to an
:: instance of fertile sexual contact,
: Morality isn't about acting because of an "owing" to the events of the
: past---it's about acting out of a sense of *present* respect for absolute
: notions of "property", "property" being any number of things including life,
: volition, ideas, and material possessions. In short, there is no temporal
: notion to morality.
Life, volition, and ideas are wholly dissimilar from any material
possessions, in arising and attaching to their owners irrespectively of
any social conventions, and in being physically inalienable therefrom.
Furthermore, morality can and does arise before and independently of the
notion of material ownership, or any other social institution whatsoever,
though this fact may be difficult to grasp for someone happily inured to
the cupidity and rapaciousness of the Anglo-American tradition. And if
we incurred no moral obligation to the events of the past, retributive
justice would be nothing but a hollow farce.
:: a world operating in accordance
:: with the stated principle is logically impossible.
: Exactly. So the chance of this happening is zero. Thus there is
: no moral imperative for everyone to reproduce.
Surely if there is a non-negative probability of an average primate
deciding to dedicate the rest of his days to sterile pursuits, there is
ipso facto a slight yet non-negative probability of the rest of his peers
deciding to follow suit. But since the universality of moral obligation
rules out all probabilistic consideration, there is no need for you to
concern yourself with a subject you evidently know nothing about.
:: The homosexual claims that his choice to bugger his partner in no way
:: contravenes the possibility of conception of other creatures of their
:: kind occurring elsewhere, on a different occasion, between some other
:: human couple indulging in a disparate, fertile form of sex.
: Right...(except that heterosexuals claim this, too...)
Are you trying to show that if buggery is good for Boris and Natasha, it
must be equally good for Brian and Bruce? Then consider that Boris and
Natasha have the immediately available option of changing the venue for a
more fruitful outcome, without changing or dissolving their partnership.
Not so with Brian and Bruce.
:: But in choosing to act in the way he does, he wilfully construes himself
:: as an anomaly to the principle in accordance with which such generative
:: action would occur -- and therefore as a deliberate exception to the
:: moral condition of his own genesis.
: Nonsense. There are no moral conditions of being. Only moral actions.
Somebody had to take a moral responsibility for his genesis, in a moral
action that constituted its moral condition.
:: Since morality admits of no exceptions, he is acting immorally.
: No, since the premise is *NOT* true (the premise being that
: there is a moral imperative for each individual to reproduce),
: this doe *NOT* follow.
In other words, you are pleading for exceptions to the common rule.
:: Our parents could not but (non possum non) have acted heterosexually
:: so as to become our parents; hence it is immoral to act homosexually.
: As I said, your notion of causality is all mixed up.
Quoting your own words does not make them more authoritative.
Gene Ward Smith
> How terribly nice for you to figure out a convoluted way of saying
> that vulgar moral rules do not apply to your extraordinary kind.
Gosh--Mikhail Zeleny, Man of the People and all around regular guy. Of
course, as we shall see, Zeleny violates his own moral rules all the time.
> I never assume a moral claim, Grasshopper -- I argue for it.
> Buggering your Adams House roommate is immoral because it is
> tantamount to willfully relinquishing your responsibility for
> the future generations to other couples, on other occasions,
> anywhere but the place where you happen to be at the moment.
Yet Zeleny admits to using contraceptive measures, which is an even greater
"violation", since it is undertaken for the purpose of preventing
conception, rather than being an incidental consequence of the type of
sexual activity in question. Zeleny is, according to Zeleny, an immoral
pervert.
--
Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/University of Toledo
gsm...@lab1.utoledo.edu
Gene Ward Smith
> Gene Ward Smith <gsmith@lab1> writes:
> In other words, Gene Ward Smith is objecting to outspoken opposition
> to his outspoken sexual perversion.
Excuse me, Pervert, but I am not the one defending what I call perversion,
you are the one defending and admitting to what you (if you were honest)
would be compelled to call sexual perversion.
So knock off the "perversion" claims, Pervert.
Caitlin Mackay Shaw
zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
>Our parents could not but (non possum non) have acted heterosexually
>so as to become our parents; hence it is immoral to act homosexually.
By this line of reasoning, it is immoral for a woman to resist being
raped by a man, because her mother had sex with a man once.
See the problem? Simply because a thing can be good done *once* does
not mean it must be done *at all times*. For instance, Michael, if your
parents had spent all their time typing on UseNet you never would have
been born; therefore, it is immoral for you to spend *any* time at all,
ever, on UseNet.
As a side note, you fail to address the question of lesbians and
artificial insemination.
Caitlin
--
___-----______________________________________________________________-----___
____---____________-- Caitlin Shaw <cms...@princeton.edu> --___________---____
_____-_____________"There is no /one true way/." --M. Lackey____________-_____
Michael Zeleny
Correction -- unlike the ongoing sexual perusal of your orifices, normal
means of contraception do not prevent conception, but merely lessen its
natural likelihood, in view of the ever-present, non-negligible chance of
pregnancy remaining under all but the unjustifiably debilitating surgical
means of birth control. Since we have been over this ground many times
before, I surmise that the deterioration of your immune system under a
perpetual ingress of foreign proteins has gravely taxed and damaged your
modest cognitive faculties. One often hears of psychosomatic ailments --
but you afford a living example of a mind irremediably corrupted by
abject bodily degradation.
Gary Phillips
: and beside the fact that you have unjustifiably conflated the issues of
: propagation and sexuality beyond merit, your argument makes several
: unwarranted practical assumptions and smacks of misogyny upon
: further analysis.
: You really have to pull the wool over everyone's eyes here, including
: your own, by stating that you are not a consequentialist in this matter.
: The reality is that you can't *afford* to be a consequentialist because,
: when taken on consequentialist grounds, your argument falls apart even
: more quickly than it does on logical grounds alone, and you know this.
: The world is a limited space with limited resources within which we are
: irremediably bound. How "rational" and "responsible" is it to presume
: unlimited space and resources when formulating your propagational sexual
: ethic? The impracticality of your argument actually highlights and informs
: its logical absurdity. So long as you refuse to consider the consequences,
: you can pretend that you are being moral. But what good is a morality
: that is inherently incapable of being applied in the real world? How
: "logical" is it? I'll answer for you: It is, in a word, vacuous, both in
: terms of its "good" and in terms of its logic.
> Look out, folks -- here comes the hoary cliche' of buggery as Higher
> Malthusianism! Never mind that the position I had expounded contains
> nothing that would mandate indiscriminate reproduction, or prohibit
> responsible contraception.
Yes it does, Michael. What's the difference between "responsible
contraception" and oral or anal sex? They are all "essentially sterile" and
"counter-purposive" to procreation, to use your phraseology. If
"responsible contraception" is morally permissible, then so are oral and
anal sex, for exactly the same reasons, regardless of the sexes of the
parties involved.
Your position also mandates indiscriminate reproduction. If any
"essentially sterile" or "contrapurposive" sexual act is excluded as a
morally acceptable sexual option then, ipso facto, the only acceptable
sexual option is one which will lead to conception -- every time. Since
sexual abstinence is "essentially sterile" and "contrapurposive" to the
"natural ends" of sexuality, we cannot choose abstinence as a morally
acceptable option either. Therefore, every time the opportunity for a
successful act of reproduction presents itself, we are duty-bound to perform
it, if we accept your position. Ergo propter ita est.
Ready to concede? ;-)
Michael Zeleny
orp...@kaiwan009.kaiwan.com (Gary Phillips) writes:
: Michael Zeleny (zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu) wrote:
I do not believe that the government has the right to punish immoral
acts that occur between consenting adults. There is not enough
certainty in our moral reasoning to countenance the legislation of
morality.
Michael Zeleny
orp...@kaiwan009.kaiwan.com (Gary Phillips) writes:
GP:
::: In addition to your argument being intrinsically absurd (logically)
::: and beside the fact that you have unjustifiably conflated the issues of
::: propagation and sexuality beyond merit, your argument makes several
::: unwarranted practical assumptions and smacks of misogyny upon
::: further analysis.
::: You really have to pull the wool over everyone's eyes here, including
::: your own, by stating that you are not a consequentialist in this matter.
::: The reality is that you can't *afford* to be a consequentialist because,
::: when taken on consequentialist grounds, your argument falls apart even
::: more quickly than it does on logical grounds alone, and you know this.
::: The world is a limited space with limited resources within which we are
::: irremediably bound. How "rational" and "responsible" is it to presume
::: unlimited space and resources when formulating your propagational sexual
::: ethic? The impracticality of your argument actually highlights and informs
::: its logical absurdity. So long as you refuse to consider the consequences,
::: you can pretend that you are being moral. But what good is a morality
::: that is inherently incapable of being applied in the real world? How
::: "logical" is it? I'll answer for you: It is, in a word, vacuous, both in
::: terms of its "good" and in terms of its logic.
MZ:
:: Look out, folks -- here comes the hoary cliche' of buggery as Higher
:: Malthusianism! Never mind that the position I had expounded contains
:: nothing that would mandate indiscriminate reproduction, or prohibit
:: responsible contraception.
GP:
: Yes it does, Michael. What's the difference between "responsible
: contraception" and oral or anal sex? They are all "essentially sterile"
: and "counter-purposive" to procreation, to use your phraseology. If
: "responsible contraception" is morally permissible, then so are oral and
: anal sex, for exactly the same reasons, regardless of the sexes of the
: parties involved.
I have an aversion to saying the same thing more than twice to any
single persom, without geting any signs of understanding in return.
It makes me wonder about the intellectual honesty and adequacy of my
interlocutor; and if I have no reason to regard him as anything other
than a mendacious moron, the conversation must come to an end. So
please help me out here. I have stated on several occasions that I
refer to essences in a precise technical sense, which ought to be
familiar to anyone who enjoyed a cursory acquaintance with the 2.5
millennia of the Western philosophical tradition, from Aristotle and
Aquinas to Putnam and Kripke. Nevertheless, you obstinately continue
to regard my "essentially impossible" as synonymous with "highly
unlikely". If you want to criticize your own arguments, there is no
need to talk to anyone else; just make like Travis Bickle facing the
mirror in _Taxi Driver_, and go for it. But if you prefer talking to
other people, consider doing so in mutually agreeable terms.
: Your position also mandates indiscriminate reproduction. If any
: "essentially sterile" or "contrapurposive" sexual act is excluded as a
: morally acceptable sexual option then, ipso facto, the only acceptable
: sexual option is one which will lead to conception -- every time. Since
: sexual abstinence is "essentially sterile" and "contrapurposive" to the
: "natural ends" of sexuality, we cannot choose abstinence as a morally
: acceptable option either. Therefore, every time the opportunity for a
: successful act of reproduction presents itself, we are duty-bound to perform
: it, if we accept your position. Ergo propter ita est.
Consider the difference between the compliance conditions of the
imperatives "Do not do X unless it can result in Y" and "Do X only if
it will result in Y." They diverge even if one assumes with Aristotle
that whatever is not explicitly permitted is ipso facto forbidden, and
with Schiller -- that whatever is not explicitly forbidden is ipso
facto permitted.
: Ready to concede? ;-)
You can do better than this.
Michael Zeleny
cms...@flagstaff.princeton.edu (Caitlin Mackay Shaw) writes:
: In article <3j59po$d...@saba.info.ucla.edu>
: zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
:: Our parents could not but (non possum non) have acted heterosexually
:: so as to become our parents; hence it is immoral to act homosexually.
: By this line of reasoning, it is immoral for a woman to resist being
: raped by a man, because her mother had sex with a man once.
There is a great deal of confusion in this analogy. Resistance to
illegitimate (not antecedently and implicitly consented to) coercion
is legitimate regardless of the aims of your opponent. And generally
speaking, you are ignoring the difference between being obligated to
avoid doing X unless it can result in Y, and incurring an obligation
to do X if and only if it can result in Y.
: See the problem? Simply because a thing can be good done *once* does
: not mean it must be done *at all times*. For instance, Michael, if your
: parents had spent all their time typing on UseNet you never would have
: been born; therefore, it is immoral for you to spend *any* time at all,
: ever, on UseNet.
I already explained the difference between fucking and net-surfing to
another poster. Feel free to look into it on your own time.
: As a side note, you fail to address the question of lesbians and
: artificial insemination.
Just like you fail to take into account the difference between sexual
intercourse and a medical procedure.
Kyle Elisabeth Overstreet
: The homosexual claims that his choice to bugger his partner in no way
: contravenes the possibility of conception of other creatures of their
: kind occurring elsewhere, on a different occasion, between some other
: human couple indulging in a disparate, fertile form of sex. But in
: choosing to act in the way he does, he wilfully construes himself as
: an anomaly to the principle in accordance with which such generative
: action would occur -- and therefore as a deliberate exception to the
: moral condition of his own genesis. Since morality admits of no
: exceptions, he is acting immorally.
That presumes that the maxim demonstrated by that choice is that "sexual
nature is to be fulfilled in sodomy", or some such. If the maxim to which
one is following is "one must act in accordance with ones sexual nature,
if in doing so one does not violate the free agency of another", then the
Categorical Imperative doesn't apply. If my parents had violated this
principle, I would not have been born, because my parents weren't homosexual.
There are a number of problems with the CI as a basis for ethics; the
most central is that it is applicable to matters we consider nonmoral
(the choice of a trade) and inapplicable to matters we consider moral
(decieving the stalker, as mentioned before). Also, the deduction of the
maxim from circumstance always presumes the question, as above demonstrated.
In a sense, the CI makes epistemological assumptions that Kant himself
disallowed.
But you are much too busy grinding an axe to be of much use for generating
light on Kant.
Michael Zeleny
k...@netcom.com (Kyle Elisabeth Overstreet) writes:
: Michael Zeleny (zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu) wrote:
:: The homosexual claims that his choice to bugger his partner in no way
:: contravenes the possibility of conception of other creatures of their
:: kind occurring elsewhere, on a different occasion, between some other
:: human couple indulging in a disparate, fertile form of sex. But in
:: choosing to act in the way he does, he wilfully construes himself as
:: an anomaly to the principle in accordance with which such generative
:: action would occur -- and therefore as a deliberate exception to the
:: moral condition of his own genesis. Since morality admits of no
:: exceptions, he is acting immorally.
: That presumes that the maxim demonstrated by that choice is that "sexual
: nature is to be fulfilled in sodomy", or some such. If the maxim to which
: one is following is "one must act in accordance with ones sexual nature,
: if in doing so one does not violate the free agency of another", then the
: Categorical Imperative doesn't apply. If my parents had violated this
: principle, I would not have been born, because my parents weren't homosexual.
You are forgetting that the only morally relevant factors for the
determination of duty in an empirically given setting are autonomy,
agency, and rationality. Desires are explicitly enjoined from playing
a constitutive role therein, on pain of vitiating autonomy. See the
first part of the Groundwork for more details.
: There are a number of problems with the CI as a basis for ethics; the
: most central is that it is applicable to matters we consider nonmoral
: (the choice of a trade) and inapplicable to matters we consider moral
: (decieving the stalker, as mentioned before). Also, the deduction of the
: maxim from circumstance always presumes the question, as above demonstrated.
The first item is grounded in a common misunderstanding -- witness
Russell's complaint that the CI forbids all competition for scarce
resources. The reason people impute this idiocy to Kant, is because
they are too lazy to read the Metaphysics of Rights. The application
of the moral rule to any social context presupposes an antecedent
determination of a rational social order. You may choose a trade iff
the general maxim of your choice is consistent with the functioning of
such order. Here something needs to be said about relating the utopian
Kingdom of Ends to the status quo -- but that is a subject for another
sermon. As for deceiving the stalker, I think that coercion vitiates
communication -- in so far as he succeeds in unjustly forcing you to
speak, he forfeits his right to a true answer; and in so far as you
remain free not to answer, you have a right and a duty not to do so.
: In a sense, the CI makes epistemological assumptions that Kant himself
: disallowed.
You have not shown that.
: But you are much too busy grinding an axe to be of much use for generating
: light on Kant.
On the contrary, my axe is much duller than Manny's razor-sharp
hatchet -- after all, I am not the one proposing castration as the
just punishment for buggery.
Richard Foy
Michael Zeleny <zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu> wrote:
>
>I have an aversion to saying the same thing more than twice to any
>single persom, without geting any signs of understanding in return.
>It makes me wonder about the intellectual honesty and adequacy of my
>interlocutor; and if I have no reason to regard him as anything other
>than a mendacious moron, the conversation must come to an end. So
>please help me out here.
I will try though I am busting in here.
Discussions on subejcts such as homosexuality, abortion etc., no
matter who carefully crafted the phrases and the words, are never
intellectual debates. They are always emotional expressions, no
matter who deeply the emotions are buried. Thus it is futile to
argue intellectually on either side of these arguments.
--
"The anti-Establishment Establishment is like the Internet, for,
by definition, it has no leaders, no membership directory and no
central philosophy." --Los Angeles Times December 4, 1994
Richard Foy ftp://ftp/netcom.com/pub/rf/rfoy/home.html
Michael Zeleny
rf...@netcom.com (Richard Foy) writes:
: In article <3j7uu9$7...@saba.info.ucla.edu>,
: Michael Zeleny <zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu> wrote:
:: I have an aversion to saying the same thing more than twice to any
:: single persom, without geting any signs of understanding in return.
:: It makes me wonder about the intellectual honesty and adequacy of my
:: interlocutor; and if I have no reason to regard him as anything other
:: than a mendacious moron, the conversation must come to an end. So
:: please help me out here.
: I will try though I am busting in here.
Your intervention is welcome.
: Discussions on subejcts such as homosexuality, abortion etc., no
: matter who carefully crafted the phrases and the words, are never
: intellectual debates. They are always emotional expressions, no
: matter who deeply the emotions are buried. Thus it is futile to
: argue intellectually on either side of these arguments.
What alternative to dispassionate discussion do you prefer?
: --
: "The anti-Establishment Establishment is like the Internet, for,
: by definition, it has no leaders, no membership directory and no
: central philosophy." --Los Angeles Times December 4, 1994
:
: Richard Foy ftp://ftp/netcom.com/pub/rf/rfoy/home.html
cordially, don't
Caitlin Mackay Shaw
Hypothetical situation: lesbian couple has a supply of frozen sperm.
Every morning they get up and do the turkey-baster thing. Is it moral
or immoral for them to have sex?
I say it's amoral -- completely irrelevent to the question of the
morality of reproduction. This is because **sex and procreation are not
intrinsically linked** in this example. For the above women, sex has as
much to do with children as music does.
Kyle Elisabeth Overstreet
: : That presumes that the maxim demonstrated by that choice is that "sexual
: : nature is to be fulfilled in sodomy", or some such. If the maxim to which
: : one is following is "one must act in accordance with ones sexual nature,
: : if in doing so one does not violate the free agency of another", then the
: : Categorical Imperative doesn't apply. If my parents had violated this
: : principle, I would not have been born, because my parents weren't homosexual.
: You are forgetting that the only morally relevant factors for the
: determination of duty in an empirically given setting are autonomy,
: agency, and rationality. Desires are explicitly enjoined from playing
: a constitutive role therein, on pain of vitiating autonomy. See the
: first part of the Groundwork for more details.
This exemplifies my suspicion of this kind of normative ethics. If,
frankly, I'm unable to reliably act ethically without having read the
Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, ethical action is a
near-impossibility for most.
I do intend to read the Groundwork, and perhaps reread SELECTIONS of the
Metaphysic itself (I'm very busy, I work full time and I stopped studying
philosophy when I left college...), but the nature of this discussion has
gone to reinforce my moral intuitionism; it is evident that normative
ethics are always held up to an extant moral intuition which is the
actual foundation for moral choice.
: : In a sense, the CI makes epistemological assumptions that Kant himself
: : disallowed.
: You have not shown that.
Perhaps I will essay such a demonstration. But as a prelude to it, I
offer that the ontology of "sexual powers" exceeds the boundaries of
practical knowledge, and is in fact a teleological claim. Otherwise, I
agree that I have not shown that. I suggested it, and I suggest it again.
: : But you are much too busy grinding an axe to be of much use for generating
: : light on Kant.
: On the contrary, my axe is much duller than Manny's razor-sharp
: hatchet -- after all, I am not the one proposing castration as the
: just punishment for buggery.
Let's be grateful for small wonders.
Michael Zeleny
: Michael Zeleny (zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu) wrote:
::: That presumes that the maxim demonstrated by that choice is that "sexual
::: nature is to be fulfilled in sodomy", or some such. If the maxim to which
::: one is following is "one must act in accordance with ones sexual nature,
::: if in doing so one does not violate the free agency of another", then the
::: Categorical Imperative doesn't apply. If my parents had violated this
::: principle, I would not have been born, because my parents weren't homosexual.
:: You are forgetting that the only morally relevant factors for the
:: determination of duty in an empirically given setting are autonomy,
:: agency, and rationality. Desires are explicitly enjoined from playing
:: a constitutive role therein, on pain of vitiating autonomy. See the
:: first part of the Groundwork for more details.
: This exemplifies my suspicion of this kind of normative ethics. If,
: frankly, I'm unable to reliably act ethically without having read the
: Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, ethical action is a
: near-impossibility for most.
This is silly. "If, frankly, I'm unable to reliably count my change
and balance my checkbook without having studied arithmetic, economical
action is a near-impossibility for most." I do this in-between writing
one book, editing two other books, organizing a non-profit foundation
presently charged with typesetting two mathematical journals, taking
care of a dozen graduate course incompletes, maintaining three Italian
motorcycles, bringing up a 100 pound puppy, and having a private life.
So please forgive me if I make a textual reference to a classic source
in lieu of proffering an extended explanation of elementary matters to
someone who appears capable of doing her own research.
: I do intend to read the Groundwork, and perhaps reread SELECTIONS of the
: Metaphysic itself (I'm very busy, I work full time and I stopped studying
: philosophy when I left college...), but the nature of this discussion has
: gone to reinforce my moral intuitionism; it is evident that normative
: ethics are always held up to an extant moral intuition which is the
: actual foundation for moral choice.
No, it is not. Certainly nothing that transpired in this discussion
constitutes evidence supporting your claim.
::: In a sense, the CI makes epistemological assumptions that Kant himself
::: disallowed.
:: You have not shown that.
: Perhaps I will essay such a demonstration. But as a prelude to it, I
: offer that the ontology of "sexual powers" exceeds the boundaries of
: practical knowledge, and is in fact a teleological claim. Otherwise, I
: agree that I have not shown that. I suggested it, and I suggest it again.
So what? Teleology and intentionality are regarded as irreducible to
efficient causation and indispensable to scientific explanation by some
of the best modern thinkers in evolutionary biology and philosophy of
mind. That makes ethics dependent on science. I see no harm and much
good in this situation, especially since the reciprocal dependence has
long been recognized by many scientists.
::: But you are much too busy grinding an axe to be of much use for generating
::: light on Kant.
:: On the contrary, my axe is much duller than Manny's razor-sharp
:: hatchet -- after all, I am not the one proposing castration as the
:: just punishment for buggery.
: Let's be grateful for small wonders.
Civil discourse is one among many.
Michael Zeleny
: On 28 Feb 1995, Michael Zeleny wrote:
:: Gene Ward Smith <gsmith@lab1> writes:
:: In other words, Gene Ward Smith is objecting to outspoken opposition
:: to his outspoken sexual perversion.
: Excuse me, Pervert, but I am not the one defending what I call perversion,
: you are the one defending and admitting to what you (if you were honest)
: would be compelled to call sexual perversion.
You are not excused, fonkin. If you are too fatuous to comprehend the
simple moral and modal difference between heterosexual contraception
and homosexual buggery, it is your own problem. Do not blame the world
for your pathetic intellectual handicap.
: So knock off the "perversion" claims, Pervert.
So sorry, I forgot my folklore --
"The inverts
(a word preferred by homosexuals to perverts)
attempt to win converts."
Have it your own way. Repeatedly.
: --
: Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/University of Toledo
: gsm...@lab1.utoledo.edu
Isn't it about time for you to invite me to fuck my ass with broken
glass? Isn't it funny how even a screaming rimadonna will use anal
penetration of a man as a term for abject humiliation?
Richard Foy
Michael Zeleny <zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu> wrote:
>
>: I will try though I am busting in here.
>
>Your intervention is welcome.
Thanks.
>
>: Discussions on subejcts such as homosexuality, abortion etc., no
>: matter who carefully crafted the phrases and the words, are never
>: intellectual debates. They are always emotional expressions, no
>: matter who deeply the emotions are buried. Thus it is futile to
>: argue intellectually on either side of these arguments.
>
>What alternative to dispassionate discussion do you prefer?
Actually I probably don't "prefer" other forms. I too tend to fool
myself that intellectual discussion can be effective on topics such
as the above.
However, when I can step back from the emotional issues, I know that
the best way of discussing them is to discuss the emotions involved
rather than the intellectual rationalizatiosn we have that support
the emotional aspects.
Michael Zeleny
: Michael Zeleny <zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu> wrote:
::: I will try though I am busting in here.
:: Your intervention is welcome.
: Thanks.
::: Discussions on subejcts such as homosexuality, abortion etc., no
::: matter who carefully crafted the phrases and the words, are never
::: intellectual debates. They are always emotional expressions, no
::: matter who deeply the emotions are buried. Thus it is futile to
::: argue intellectually on either side of these arguments.
:: What alternative to dispassionate discussion do you prefer?
: Actually I probably don't "prefer" other forms. I too tend to fool
: myself that intellectual discussion can be effective on topics such
: as the above.
If you are implying the impossibility of converting inverts through
rational appeal, my experience differs. While I find it hard to
motivate men with appeals to utilitarian considerations, Platonic
Ideas work very well indeed.
: However, when I can step back from the emotional issues, I know that
: the best way of discussing them is to discuss the emotions involved
: rather than the intellectual rationalizatiosn we have that support
: the emotional aspects.
Are desires considered to be emotions, or are they prior thereto?
Do you ever desire unwarranted sudden demise of your neighbor?
If so, what do you do about it?
Casey O'Matt Casey Matlock
>>>Presumably, it is the same right that enables the corrections officers
>>>to deny their charges their right to nose jobs and liposuction at the
>>>taxpayers' expense. For that matter, if incarceration is to serve the
>>>purposes of retributive justice, there is no reason to grant them such
>>>privileges quite regardless of who is paying for them.
I would like to offer up my noncontreversial response to the above statement.
Be advised that corrections officers make no decicions in regard to medication
or matters concerning medical pro lems regarding inmates. This is entirely up
to administration and medical staff. Thank you.
quir...@ix.wcc.govt.nz
>ka...@buast7.bu.edu (Brian Kane) writes:
>: Right...(except that heterosexuals claim this, too...)
>Are you trying to show that if buggery is good for Boris and Natasha, it
>must be equally good for Brian and Bruce? Then consider that Boris and
>Natasha have the immediately available option of changing the venue for a
>more fruitful outcome, without changing or dissolving their partnership.
>Not so with Brian and Bruce.
Alas, you have just contradicted yourself.
I requote your words:
"So Kant tells you that, since you owe your very provenance as an agent
to a single fertile act of sexual intercourse, any necessarily infertile form
of sexual intercourse cannot be willed to be an instance of a lawlike choice,
in so far as its instantiation at the moment of your conception would have
preempted your biological existence as a necessary condition of your current
moral deliberation."
And to be even clearer:
"Any *essentially* non-fertile sex act is immoral."
Anal sex is an essentially non-fertile sex act, whether between male and
male, male and female, or even female and female. Because of this, and since,
if your parents had decided to indulge in this instead of PiV sex at the
moment of your conception (*), by your own words *all* anal sex must be
immoral.
Anal sex is a sexual act unto itself, just like oral sex or mutual
masturbation. They cannot be considered "foreplay" if they lead to (male)
orgasm.
By your own logic, Bruce and Natasha (or even Michael and whoever might
be unlucky enough to occupy the same bed) are acting "immorally" if Bruce
ejaculates anywhere but in Natasha's vagina.
Care to explain why you contradicted yourself, Zeleny ?
- Tony Q.
(*) "Your" being a generic term derived from Michael's post as above. If
used as a personal term, referring specifically to Michael, I confess that
it may very well be possible that he results from anal sex.
---
Tony Quirke, Wellington, New Zealand (email for phone no)
"A cripple taught me how to dance, a blind man taught me how to see.
A fallen angel taught me how to fly, and a prisoner taught me to be free."
- Simple Image.
Michael Zeleny
: zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
:: ka...@buast7.bu.edu (Brian Kane) writes:
::: Right...(except that heterosexuals claim this, too...)
:: Are you trying to show that if buggery is good for Boris and Natasha, it
:: must be equally good for Brian and Bruce? Then consider that Boris and
:: Natasha have the immediately available option of changing the venue for a
:: more fruitful outcome, without changing or dissolving their partnership.
:: Not so with Brian and Bruce.
: Alas, you have just contradicted yourself.
Have I?
: I requote your words:
:
: "So Kant tells you that, since you owe your very provenance as an agent
: to a single fertile act of sexual intercourse, any necessarily infertile form
: of sexual intercourse cannot be willed to be an instance of a lawlike choice,
: in so far as its instantiation at the moment of your conception would have
: preempted your biological existence as a necessary condition of your current
: moral deliberation."
:
: And to be even clearer:
:
: "Any *essentially* non-fertile sex act is immoral."
I stand by that claim.
: Anal sex is an essentially non-fertile sex act, whether between male and
: male, male and female, or even female and female. Because of this, and since,
: if your parents had decided to indulge in this instead of PiV sex at the
: moment of your conception (*), by your own words *all* anal sex must be
: immoral.
Correct -- anal sex being identified with ejaculation in the anus.
: Anal sex is a sexual act unto itself, just like oral sex or mutual
: masturbation. They cannot be considered "foreplay" if they lead to (male)
: orgasm.
Lovely. Erin instructs me to inquire whether or not such acts can be
considered foreplay if they lead to female orgasm only.
: By your own logic, Bruce and Natasha (or even Michael and whoever might
: be unlucky enough to occupy the same bed) are acting "immorally" if Bruce
: ejaculates anywhere but in Natasha's vagina.
Correct -- though that would be Boris and Natasha, my culturally
challenged antipodean friend. But consider how much more depraved
it would have been to choose a partner in a way that denied one the
option of rectifying his erroneous choice of sexual venue.
: Care to explain why you contradicted yourself, Zeleny ?
What contradiction do you have in mind? You have just described the
standard Jewish account of what constitutes permissible sex between
man and wife -- it does not matter where you get started, as long as
you finish in the right place. What are you, some kind of Judeophobe?
: - Tony Q.
:
: (*) "Your" being a generic term derived from Michael's post as above. If
: used as a personal term, referring specifically to Michael, I confess that
: it may very well be possible that he results from anal sex.
I am getting confused -- are you suggesting that anal sex is not
essentially sterile after all? Have you been making yourself
available for experiments to that end?
Erin Y. Zhu
> By your own logic, Bruce and Natasha (or even Michael and whoever might
>be unlucky enough to occupy the same bed)
You know, Tony, normally I prefer to stay out of Michael's various
Usenet forays, since I like to give my partner the freedom to do his
own thinking, writing, and getting in and out of verbal tangles, but
somehow some people manage to get a little too far in the heat of, ah,
shall we say, "verbal engagements". Now it's very well and dandy to
have philosophical differences with Michael; indeed it would be rather
surprising if one did not, given the number of his philosophical and
other convictions. But I do not appreciate my bed, and my own person,
being gratuitiously dragged bodily into a discussion just so you could
vent a bit of your no-doubt well-stocked spleen.
>are acting "immorally" if Bruce ejaculates anywhere but in Natasha's vagina.
Just for the record, Michael ejaculates where he pleases, and his partner
likes to be accomodating.
>- Tony Q.
> (*) "Your" being a generic term derived from Michael's post as above. If
>used as a personal term, referring specifically to Michael, I confess that
>it may very well be possible that he results from anal sex.
You are doing far too good a job of bringing to mind the last resorts
of a drowning man. I recommend taking it easy on those straws.
--Erin
Richard Foy
Michael Zeleny <zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu> wrote:
>In article <rfoyD4y...@netcom.com> rf...@netcom.com (Richard Foy) writes:
>If you are implying the impossibility of converting inverts through
>rational appeal, my experience differs. While I find it hard to
>motivate men with appeals to utilitarian considerations, Platonic
>Ideas work very well indeed.
I probably agree with what you are saying, but I am not exacly sure
the type of thing you mean.
>
>: However, when I can step back from the emotional issues, I know that
>: the best way of discussing them is to discuss the emotions involved
>: rather than the intellectual rationalizatiosn we have that support
>: the emotional aspects.
>
>Are desires considered to be emotions, or are they prior thereto?
>Do you ever desire unwarranted sudden demise of your neighbor?
>If so, what do you do about it?
I would say that desires and emotions are often very clsoely
connected. However, the way I would use them, and considering your
example, I would say that desires are a result of emotions.
In your example, it would seem to me that your "desire" to kill your
neighbor results from some emotion, perhaps you are "angry" at him
because he makes too much noise, or you are "afraid" of him becasue
he has threatened you, or you "lust" for his wife and want him out of
the way.
--
"It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established
authorities are wrong." --Voltaire
Richard Foy ftp://ftp/netcom.com/pub/rf/rfoy/bkpo.html
dfp...@nv2.uswnvg.com
: In article <rfoyD4x...@netcom.com>
: rf...@netcom.com (Richard Foy) writes:
: : Discussions on subejcts such as homosexuality, abortion etc., no
: : matter who carefully crafted the phrases and the words, are never
: : intellectual debates. They are always emotional expressions, no
: : matter who deeply the emotions are buried. Thus it is futile to
: : argue intellectually on either side of these arguments.
: What alternative to dispassionate discussion do you prefer?
Sorry, but you do not discuss this in any sort of cordial manner.
You may be dispassionate, but it is a cold, incaring, and unthinking
dispassion that marks your words.
: cordially,
I don't see it. I just don't.
: don't
: tread
: on
: me
Step out of the way of other peoples *lives* and you will not be
tread upon. It has always amazed me that some people have the
arrogance to claim that what someone else does, in their own life,
is somehow an imposition upon theirs -- even when it is clear that
it is not.
Donn Pedro ....................................dfp...@uswnvg.com
Michael Zeleny
: Michael Zeleny (zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu) wrote:
:: rf...@netcom.com (Richard Foy) writes:
::: Discussions on subejcts such as homosexuality, abortion etc., no
::: matter who carefully crafted the phrases and the words, are never
::: intellectual debates. They are always emotional expressions, no
::: matter who deeply the emotions are buried. Thus it is futile to
::: argue intellectually on either side of these arguments.
:: What alternative to dispassionate discussion do you prefer?
: Sorry, but you do not discuss this in any sort of cordial manner.
: You may be dispassionate, but it is a cold, incaring, and unthinking
: dispassion that marks your words.
Care and warmth are imperfect duties.
:: cordially,
Nevertheless, the words proceed straight from the heart.
: I don't see it. I just don't.
:: don't
:: tread
:: on
:: me
To those unmindful of historical precedent, I counsel careful
attention to the distinction between a request and a warning.
: Step out of the way of other peoples *lives* and you will not be
: tread upon. It has always amazed me that some people have the
: arrogance to claim that what someone else does, in their own life,
: is somehow an imposition upon theirs -- even when it is clear that
: it is not.
"No man is an island."
: Donn Pedro ....................................dfp...@uswnvg.com
Rob Heyes
z...@oak.math.ucla.edu (Erin Y. Zhu) writes:
> other convictions. But I do not appreciate my bed, and my own person,
> being gratuitiously dragged bodily into a discussion just so you could
> vent a bit of your no-doubt well-stocked spleen.
Then kindly instruct Michael that we do not appreciate our beds and our own
persons being dragged into a discussion so that he can promulgate his
unpleasant 'philosophy'.
Rob
--
____
\ / Even in civilized mankind faint traces of monogamous
\/ instinct can be perceived Bertrand Russell
quir...@ix.wcc.govt.nz
>Gene Ward "I'm What Genders?" Smith <gsmith@lab1> writes:
>: Yet Zeleny admits to using contraceptive measures, which is an even greater
>: "violation", since it is undertaken for the purpose of preventing
>: conception, rather than being an incidental consequence of the type of
>: sexual activity in question. Zeleny is, according to Zeleny, an immoral
>: pervert.
>Correction -- unlike the ongoing sexual perusal of your orifices, normal
>means of contraception do not prevent conception, but merely lessen its
>natural likelihood, in view of the ever-present, non-negligible chance of
>pregnancy remaining under all but the unjustifiably debilitating surgical
>means of birth control.
Oh dear, it appears you have contradicted your own arguments yet *again*.
I quote:
"If your action is to proceed according to universal laws of your own
legislation, it cannot differ in kind from the laws that can arise uniformly
in a society of such free agents. (This is what Kant means by his transition
to the formula of the Kingdom of Ends.) Universal legislation of the maxim
of homosexual intercourse is incompatible with the genesis of men, and
therefore incompatible with human agency."
Since universal legislation of contraception would reduce the birth rate
to well below replacement levels, it is therefore incompatible with the
genesis of mankind, and therefore incompatible with human agency.
Since you claim that homosexuality is immoral on the individual level
because universal homosexuality is incompatible with the survival of mankind,
I must conclude that contraceptive sex is immoral because univeral
contraceptive sex is incompatible with the survival of mankind.
Another quote:
"If morality is universal, whatever is *generally* morally incumbent
upon anyone, is ipso facto incumbent upon everyone. Ii particular, if
the action X is required as the condition of your existence, you are
not in a position to delegate that type of action to anyone else."
Were you the result of a ruptured condom ? If not then non-contraceptive
sex was required as a condition of your existence, and therefore you are
not in a position to delegate it to anyone else. Ergo, Zeleny using
contraception is Zeleny acting immorally by his own logic.
And *another* quote:
"The homosexual claims that his choice to bugger his partner in no way
contravenes the possibility of conception of other creatures of their
kind occurring elsewhere, on a different occasion, between some other
human couple indulging in a disparate, fertile form of sex. But in
choosing to act in the way he does, he wilfully construes himself as
an anomaly to the principle in accordance with which such generative
action would occur -- and therefore as a deliberate exception to the
moral condition of his own genesis. Since morality admits of no
exceptions, he is acting immorally."
By using contraception, Zeleny, you willfully construe yourself as an
anomoly to the principle in accordance with which such generative action
would occur (defining generative action as that which leads to a level of
reproduction sufficient for survival of humanity), and therefore as a
deliberate exception to the moral condition of your own genesis. Since
morality admits of no exceptions, you would be acting immorally."
Please explain why you appear to be contradicting yourself *again*,
Zeleny.
- Tony Q.
quir...@ix.wcc.govt.nz
>The application of the moral rule to any social context presupposes an
>antecedent determination of a rational social order.
Such as a social order which includes a sufficient number of people
producing children, regardless of the non-reproductive choices of others ?
>You may choose a trade iff the general maxim of your choice is consistent
>with the functioning of such order.
So, the general maxim for someone choosing to be a student is not "be
a student" but "exercise free choice as to your occupation", given that
this has been shown to be empirically compatible with a functioning
economy.
I point out that the general maxim for the choice of non-reproductive
sex is not "have non-reproductive sex", but "exercise free choice between
non-reproductive sex and reproductive sex as you will". This is empirically
proven to be consistent with the replenishment of society.
It would appear that homosexuality is not immoral.
quir...@ix.wcc.govt.nz
>orp...@kaiwan009.kaiwan.com (Gary Phillips) writes:
>: Yes it does, Michael. What's the difference between "responsible
>: contraception" and oral or anal sex? They are all "essentially sterile"
>: and "counter-purposive" to procreation, to use your phraseology. If
>: "responsible contraception" is morally permissible, then so are oral and
>: anal sex, for exactly the same reasons, regardless of the sexes of the
>: parties involved.
:I have an aversion to saying the same thing more than twice to any
:single persom, without geting any signs of understanding in return.
:It makes me wonder about the intellectual honesty and adequacy of my
:interlocutor; and if I have no reason to regard him as anything other
:than a mendacious moron, the conversation must come to an end. So
:please help me out here. I have stated on several occasions that I
:refer to essences in a precise technical sense, which ought to be
:familiar to anyone who enjoyed a cursory acquaintance with the 2.5
:millennia of the Western philosophical tradition, from Aristotle and
:Aquinas to Putnam and Kripke. Nevertheless, you obstinately continue
:to regard my "essentially impossible" as synonymous with "highly
:unlikely". If you want to criticize your own arguments, there is no
:need to talk to anyone else; just make like Travis Bickle facing the
:mirror in _Taxi Driver_, and go for it. But if you prefer talking to
:other people, consider doing so in mutually agreeable terms.
Translation: He doesn't have a sustainable answer.
Michael Zeleny
: In article <3j7vpu$h...@saba.info.ucla.edu>
: zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
:: In article <1995Mar3.0...@Princeton.EDU>
:: cms...@flagstaff.princeton.edu (Caitlin Mackay Shaw) writes:
::: As a side note, you fail to address the question of lesbians and
::: artificial insemination.
:: Just like you fail to take into account the difference between sexual
:: intercourse and a medical procedure.
: Hypothetical situation: lesbian couple has a supply of frozen sperm.
: Every morning they get up and do the turkey-baster thing. Is it moral
: or immoral for them to have sex?
Sperm comes from testicles, which are attached to a man. It follows
that your lesbian couple is using some man as mere means to their end.
: I say it's amoral -- completely irrelevent to the question of the
: morality of reproduction. This is because **sex and procreation are not
: intrinsically linked** in this example. For the above women, sex has as
: much to do with children as music does.
Can you get pregnant by listening to the Apassionata?
Michael Zeleny
: zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
:: orp...@kaiwan009.kaiwan.com (Gary Phillips) writes:
::: Yes it does, Michael. What's the difference between "responsible
::: contraception" and oral or anal sex? They are all "essentially sterile"
::: and "counter-purposive" to procreation, to use your phraseology. If
::: "responsible contraception" is morally permissible, then so are oral and
::: anal sex, for exactly the same reasons, regardless of the sexes of the
::: parties involved.
:: I have an aversion to saying the same thing more than twice to any
:: single persom, without geting any signs of understanding in return.
:: It makes me wonder about the intellectual honesty and adequacy of my
:: interlocutor; and if I have no reason to regard him as anything other
:: than a mendacious moron, the conversation must come to an end. So
:: please help me out here. I have stated on several occasions that I
:: refer to essences in a precise technical sense, which ought to be
:: familiar to anyone who enjoyed a cursory acquaintance with the 2.5
:: millennia of the Western philosophical tradition, from Aristotle and
:: Aquinas to Putnam and Kripke. Nevertheless, you obstinately continue
:: to regard my "essentially impossible" as synonymous with "highly
:: unlikely". If you want to criticize your own arguments, there is no
:: need to talk to anyone else; just make like Travis Bickle facing the
:: mirror in _Taxi Driver_, and go for it. But if you prefer talking to
:: other people, consider doing so in mutually agreeable terms.
: Translation: He doesn't have a sustainable answer.
There is really no need for you to advertise your obvious ignorance,
exacerbated by a lack of reading comprehension.
Rod Swift
>: Translation: He doesn't have a sustainable answer.
>There is really no need for you to advertise your obvious ignorance,
>exacerbated by a lack of reading comprehension.
Translation: I can't answer Tony Quirke, so I'll just add a cute
little cop out at the end of this whole message.
Rod
--
| ... ..... | be...@fohnix.metronet.com | ******* |
| + + + + + + + + | http://nether.net/~rod/html/ | ***** |
| * * * * * * * * | | *** |
| R o d S w i f t | Hate is *NOT* a family value | * |
dfp...@nv2.uswnvg.com
: In article <3je99e$l...@golem.wcc.govt.nz> quir...@ix.wcc.govt.nz writes:
: : And to be even clearer:
: :
: : "Any *essentially* non-fertile sex act is immoral."
: I stand by that claim.
MIchael stands there, comforted by his belief, as many, many poeple
who have committed non-fertile sex acts point, laugh and go back to
their lives, secure in the knowlege that his judgement of morality
doesn't apply to them.
Donn Pedro ....................................dfp...@uswnvg.com
Gene Ward Smith
> Gene Ward Smith <gsmith@lab1> writes:
> : Excuse me, Pervert, but I am not the one defending what I call perversion,
> : you are the one defending and admitting to what you (if you were honest)
> : would be compelled to call sexual perversion.
> You are not excused, fonkin. If you are too fatuous to comprehend the
> simple moral and modal difference between heterosexual contraception
> and homosexual buggery, it is your own problem. Do not blame the world
> for your pathetic intellectual handicap.
You are either too fatuous to notice I was *not* talking about conception,
but about precisely the opposite--or you are lying, which would not be
remarkable.
Michael Zeleny
Consider that the average actual failure rate of the Pill is 15% per
couple-year. Taking the average generation gap to be 25 years leaves
us with more than adequate margin for a positive population growth.
: Another quote:
:
: "If morality is universal, whatever is *generally* morally incumbent
: upon anyone, is ipso facto incumbent upon everyone. Ii particular, if
: the action X is required as the condition of your existence, you are
: not in a position to delegate that type of action to anyone else."
:
: Were you the result of a ruptured condom ? If not then non-contraceptive
: sex was required as a condition of your existence, and therefore you are
: not in a position to delegate it to anyone else. Ergo, Zeleny using
: contraception is Zeleny acting immorally by his own logic.
Accidents do not enter into the individuation of essences. All men
are conceived as a result of a fertile sex act, regardless of the
peculiar aspects of its configuration. There is no duty to imitate
the particular conditions of your provenance implicit in the general
duty to recapitulate its possibility in all actions of the same type.
: And *another* quote:
:
: "The homosexual claims that his choice to bugger his partner in no way
: contravenes the possibility of conception of other creatures of their
: kind occurring elsewhere, on a different occasion, between some other
: human couple indulging in a disparate, fertile form of sex. But in
: choosing to act in the way he does, he wilfully construes himself as
: an anomaly to the principle in accordance with which such generative
: action would occur -- and therefore as a deliberate exception to the
: moral condition of his own genesis. Since morality admits of no
: exceptions, he is acting immorally."
:
: By using contraception, Zeleny, you willfully construe yourself as an
: anomoly to the principle in accordance with which such generative action
: would occur (defining generative action as that which leads to a level of
: reproduction sufficient for survival of humanity), and therefore as a
: deliberate exception to the moral condition of your own genesis. Since
: morality admits of no exceptions, you would be acting immorally."
Not good enough. See above.
: Please explain why you appear to be contradicting yourself *again*,
: Zeleny.
As Plato would gladly tell you, appearances are all in your head.
Gene Ward Smith
> Gene Ward Smith <gsmith@lab1> writes:
> : Excuse me, Pervert, but I am not the one defending what I call perversion,
> : you are the one defending and admitting to what you (if you were honest)
> : would be compelled to call sexual perversion.
> You are not excused, fonkin. If you are too fatuous to comprehend the
> simple moral and modal difference between heterosexual contraception
> and homosexual buggery, it is your own problem. Do not blame the world
> for your pathetic intellectual handicap.
Oops--I need new glasses. The man said "contraception". Of course, the
difference in this respect makes Zeleny more of a pervert, not less. In
the case of what Zeleny is pleased to call "buggery" (of any kind,
including heterosexual) one is unlikely to produce unintended offspring.
In the case of PIV sexual intercourse, in many cases one is quite likely.
Hence, the interference with conception involved in using for instance a
condom is far more consequential, and if this is what determines
perversion, far more perverted. Of course, it gets really interesting
when you consider that a male homosexual sex act can be undertaken with
the intent (often successful, in these cases) of producing offspring.
By the way, I notice you didn't answer my question about sex
with girls under eighteen. You ever do that, Pervert? What is
your profound analysis of it?
Gene Ward Smith
> Gene Ward "I'm What Genders?" Smith <gsmith@lab1> writes:
> : Yet Zeleny admits to using contraceptive measures, which is an even greater
> : "violation", since it is undertaken for the purpose of preventing
> : conception, rather than being an incidental consequence of the type of
> : sexual activity in question. Zeleny is, according to Zeleny, an immoral
> : pervert.
> Correction -- unlike the ongoing sexual perusal of your orifices, normal
> means of contraception do not prevent conception, but merely lessen its
> natural likelihood, in view of the ever-present, non-negligible chance of
> pregnancy remaining under all but the unjustifiably debilitating surgical
> means of birth control.
Interesting. At what probability of conception does sex using
contraceptive devices suddenly become perverse--and where is your
philosophical argument that p=0.001, say, is that point? Or is there a
perversion function of Perv(p), which returns 0 perversion when p=1, and
drops continuously to complete perversion Perv(0)=1 when p=0? I would be
interested in your analysis of this perversion function, and your
philosophical exposition of how it can be calculated and what its properties
are.
Or are we merely dealing with a recto-cranial inversion here?
> Since we have been over this ground many times
> before, I surmise that the deterioration of your immune system under a
> perpetual ingress of foreign proteins has gravely taxed and damaged your
> modest cognitive faculties.
My immune system is just fine, Pervert. Your AIDS jokes are what is
really sick. See a doctor.
Michael Zeleny
Gene Ward Smith <gsmith@lab1> writes:
:: Gene Ward Smith <gsmith@lab1> writes:
::: Excuse me, Pervert, but I am not the one defending what I call perversion,
::: you are the one defending and admitting to what you (if you were honest)
::: would be compelled to call sexual perversion.
:: You are not excused, fonkin. If you are too fatuous to comprehend the
:: simple moral and modal difference between heterosexual contraception
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
:: and homosexual buggery, it is your own problem. Do not blame the world
:: for your pathetic intellectual handicap.
: You are either too fatuous to notice I was *not* talking about conception,
^^^^^^^^^^
: but about precisely the opposite--or you are lying, which would not be
: remarkable.
Though you may feel entitled to the use of an idiolect wherein
"conception" is synonymous with "contraception", the rest of the
world is hardly obliged to follow you in your linguistico-logical
confusion.
Norman R. Gall
>Michael Zeleny (zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu) wrote:
>: In article <3je99e$l...@golem.wcc.govt.nz> quir...@ix.wcc.govt.nz writes:
>: : And to be even clearer:
>: :
>: : "Any *essentially* non-fertile sex act is immoral."
>
>: I stand by that claim.
>
>MIchael stands there, comforted by his belief, as many, many poeple
>who have committed non-fertile sex acts point, laugh and go back to
>their lives, secure in the knowlege that his judgement of morality
>doesn't apply to them.
Quite right. Not only is the idea that a sex act can be *essentially*
anything either empty or irrelevant to morality, the above judgement
doesn't even seem to express what Zeleny wants it to express.
What makes a sex act 'fertile'? Sex acts aren't able to bear offspring,
organisms are. Even in the most figurative interpretation of 'fertile'
(fruitful) we are left to ask what fruitful means... what are the fruits
of a sex act? Semen (for men)? Orgasm? A sore wrist? Unless we wish to
invoke that question begging concept 'essentiality'...
It just shows again how vacuous Zeleny's position really is...
Norm Gall
--
"If people did not sometimes do silly things, nothing intelligent
would ever get done." L. Wittgenstein, CV 50
---> Finger ga...@hadar.cc.umanitoba.ca for my pgp public key
Gary Weston
: quir...@ix.wcc.govt.nz writes:
: > Of course, I've actually *known* homosexual lovers. I see no difference
: >between the quality of their love and my own. Thus, being trained in
: >a semi-scientific fashion, I must conclude that homosexual sexual relations
: >are no more "animal" than my own.
: I'd like to see how Zeleny responds to the fact that
: heterosexuals in pre-modern times used anal sex as a form of
: natural expression in aid of contraception....
In many cultures they still do.
--
Gary Weston vi...@crl.com |Nunca entra en disputas.
Petaluma, CA Pues, de vez en cuando...
Michael Zeleny
::: "Any *essentially* non-fertile sex act is immoral."
:: I stand by that claim.
: So all contraceptive-using sex is immoral, no matter WHO does it.
Only radical surgical means of contraception result in essential
infertility. Like all forms of self-mutilation, they constitute a
willful debasement of one's own body.
: Oral sex is immoral, no matter who practices it.
Not if it is practiced as foreplay during heterosexual intercourse.
: Surely choice is a vector in this all, or do you deny freedom to
: choose pleasurable acts which have no particular purpose except
: the fulfilment of human happiness and nature??
Human nature cannot get fulfilled in sterile pleasure. At least the
heterosexual who chooses to sodomize his partner has the option of
fertile intercourse immediately available with the same partner.
Not so with the homosexual.
Cordially, - Mikhail | Why is it that all those who have become eminent
Zel...@math.ucla.edu | in philosophy or politics or poetry or art
UCLA Philosophy Dept | are clearly of an atrabilious temperament?
Michael Zeleny
: zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
::::: Translation: He doesn't have a sustainable answer.
:::: There is really no need for you to advertise your obvious ignorance,
:::: exacerbated by a lack of reading comprehension.
::: Translation: I can't answer Tony Quirke, so I'll just add a cute
::: little cop out at the end of this whole message.
:: Does the concept of a term of art have any meaning to you?
: Translation: I can't answer Rod's absolutely correct critique of
: my blathering bullshit.
You are lying. I answered you in the part you elided:
:: Essential
:: properties obtain of necessity in virtue of internal structure. The
:: least possibility of P happening therefore vitiates the claim of the
:: essential impossibility of P. Quirke's preposterous paraphrase of my
:: explanation as readily attests to his blithering stupidity as your
:: elision thereof adverts to your devious dishonesty.
Michael Zeleny
: zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
::: Since food is necessary for continued existance, and farmers
::: produce food, the Zeleny interpretation of Kant requires that
::: everyone not a farmer is acting immorally.
:: Please forgive me for interfering with your fanciful disclaimers by
:: introducing a factual reminder. Kindly recall that this discussion
:: originates in an attempt to explain Kant's explicit denunciation of
:: homosexuality, which he assimilates to sexual intercourse with
:: animals, recommending castration as an appropriate punishment under
:: the principle of ius talionis.
: Then Kant, IMHO, is wrong.
:
: Of course, I've actually *known* homosexual lovers. I see no difference
: between the quality of their love and my own. Thus, being trained in
: a semi-scientific fashion, I must conclude that homosexual sexual relations
: are no more "animal" than my own.
How can you know that? are you referring to knowledge in the Biblical sense?
:: Now, Kant is not entirely free from prejudice -- for example, he is not
:: fond of Jews, regarding their peculiar ways as an obstacle to the moral
:: progress of mankind.
: Presumably showing that you agree that Kant can be wrong.
Everyone can be wrong. Consider the next sentence, which you
conveniently elided:
:: But since he never countenances any sort of coercion or punishment
:: of a people failing to satisfy his idea of proper religious conduct,
:: it is important to ask why he thinks both appropriate in case of
:: individuals failing to satisfy his idea of proper sexual conduct.
Like many men of his time, Kant goes wildly astray in the domain of
anthropology. Moreover, his ideas of retributive justice are hardly
ours. But I think it is safe to say that he gets the principles of
his moral edifice sufficiently sound to warrant the truth of their
immediaqte conclusions, such as I have drawn in this exchange.
: [Drastically cut]
:: For the application of the moral rule to any social context presupposes
:: an antecedent determination of a rational social order. We may choose
:: a trade if and only if the general maxim of our choice is consistent
:: with the functioning of such order. In particular, our alimentary needs
:: imply an obligation to conduct ourselves in a way conforming to a possible
:: universal law consistent with the production of food, just as our sexual
:: nature implies an obligation to conduct ourselves in a way conforming to a
:: possible universal law consistent with the production of the next
:: generation. In an economy characterized by a division of labor, any
:: productive occupation satisfies this criterion.
: You have just established that, in the case of the moral requirement
: to provide sustenance, the actual moral obligation the individual has
: is modified by the foreseeable consequences of their actions within the
: context of those actions, in this case an economy with division of labour.
:
: I realise that you're still saying there *is* an obligation, but that
: the circumstances modify the actual requirements needed to fill that.
Your mistake is in using empiricist categories in the analysis of a
rationalist argument. In the case of the moral requirement to produce
goods so as to fulfill the needs presupposed by our agency (such as
sustenance, clothing, shelter, power, and so on) the actual moral
obligation incumbent upon the individual must be modified -- not by the
foreseeable consequences of their actions within their context, but by
the causal powers implicit in the structural aspects of their actions as
determined by their context -- in this case an economy dependent upon a
division of labor. The difference arises because the empiricist notion
of causal powers of the act-type P is intrinsically beholden to the
scrutiny of the temporal consequences of all individual occurrences of
the act-tokens of P, whereas the rationalist feels justified in imputing
such causal powers to each particular act-token P on the basis of its
subsumption by the corresponding universal act-type. (Incidentally,
this is why consequentialism is the concomital ethical doctrine of the
modern empiricist, whereas natural law and especially deontology are the
province of the modern rationalist. Since Aquinas preceded Hume, was
able to combine an empiricist epistemology with steadfast adherence to
an Aristotelian variety of natural law.) So your analysis is taking off
in the wrong direction.
:: However, the human nature does not admit of a sexual division of labor.
: Wrong.
:
: The fact that a replacement level of children can arise in a society
: where some breed and some do not directly implies that there can be a
: such a sexual division, between those bringing up children and the rest
: of us.
Though I cannot presume to speak for the Kiwi practices, around these
parts upbringing is decidedly not a sexual act, and our justice system
strives mightily to prevent it from being treated as one.
: I point out that the mere production of children is not the aim. We
: are talking about a whole range of activities, from supplying sperm and
: ova, to carrying and delivering the baby, to clothing, feeding and
: sheltering the child, to educating and socializing it.
You are pointing out that the mere production of children is not "the
aim" -- of what? Kant's discussion of the natural end of sexuality
being the preservation of species can apply only to that part of the
said end entirely implicit in the sexual act as such -- namely, to
conception. As important as it might be to carry and deliver the baby,
to clothe, feed, and shelter the child, or to educate and socialize it,
nothing in the action of Brian pumping away against the hairy buttocks
of Bruce is even remotely relevant to the satisfaction of these duties.
By contrast, the power of human sexuality as such is directly relevant
to human generation; and in choosing their partners in a way essentially
incompatible with the fulfillment of that purpose, both Brian and Bruce
willfully excuse themselves from contributing to the sexual economy of
mankind. The act of homosexual intercourse therefore amounts to a theft
of pleasure concomitant with a potentially generative act, accompanied
by a principled refusal to contribute anything to the task of generation.
: Since the foreseeable consequences of stressing reproduction above all
: else produces a large quantity of dead mothers and children, and a new
: generation of unhealthy savages, these activities are just as, if not more,
: important in producing moral actors than PiV sex.
If you resent generative sex, consider abstaining from it. That would
be much less harmful to others than expressing your resentment by opting
for an essentially sterile form of sexuality.
: Indeed, there is never any problem finding volunteers to indulge in
: PiV sex.
Similarly, an idle parasite might claim that there is never any problem
finding volunteers to indulge in productive labor.
:: This is not just a biological fact grounded in our dissimilarity from a
:: society of ants; it is a fact based in our moral nature as autonomous agents
:: capable of determining and fulfilling our duty without any reference
:: to our inclination.
: If, as I am not inclined to debate, there is a moral duty to produce
: *and raise* children, I apply the principle established above, that the
: actual moral obligation the individual has is modified by the foreseeable
: consequences of their actions within the context of those actions.
The foreseeable consequences of thievery is a stimulus to gainful
employment in law enforcement, criminal justice, jurisprudence, and
insurance. However the act of theft as such is bereft of productive
import. I trust that you are capable of completing the analogy.
: Since the context of sexual action is still that of human society, where
: sufficient children will be *produced* no matter what the sexual activity
: of the individual, there is no obligation to participate in the *production*
: of children, in reproductive sex.
Similarly, since the context of theft is still that of human society,
where sufficient goods will be *produced* no matter what the occupation
of the individual, there seems to be no obligation to participate in the
production of goods, in productive labor. Do you see how ludicrous your
reasoning can get?
: You claim that this is a shrugging off of moral duty onto others. I
: disagree. I claim that this is basing one's choices on empirical observation
: of the world. There is no way the choice to engage in homosexual sex will
: endanger the birthrate in aggregate. Therefore, those engaging in homosexual
: sex do not threaten the birthrate, and thus do not act contrary to the
: circumstances of their own existence, that being that *someone* reproduced.
...therefore, those engaging in theft do not threaten the economy, and
thus do not act contrary to the circumstances of their own existence,
that being that *someone* produced.
: There might very well be an obligation to *support* the production of
: children and the raising of them, but this is also achieved by participation
: in the economy, productive labour, and contributions to tax-funded school
: and medical facilities. An even more direct way to meet this obligation is
: to adopt, something that homosexual couples have already done.
So a thief can be redeemed by paying taxes and contributing to charity.
::: Translation: When people show how stupid my comments are, I refuse to
::: speak on the subject and claim victory.
:: You are mistaken in taking this for an adversarial confrontation. I
:: hurt you not in order to prevail over you, but to open your resentful
:: mind to learning and knowledge.
: You are not my teacher, Zeleny. I do not respect you, I do not respect
: the way you apply your learning, I do not respect your claim to honesty.
: Don't flatter yourself.
You are the one flattering yourself, in assuming that your respect matters.
:: It is customary to teach sword skills by hitting the pupil on the head
:: with a bamboo stick.
: Somehow, someone so obsessed with that which they despise seems pretty
: far away from Zen teaching.
I am a Jewish philosopher, not a Japanese monk. Consider the precedents
recorded in the books of the Prophets.
:: With any luck, you will walk away with more than a bruised ego.
: Likewise. Mu.
In view of your character and residence, "Baa" would be more appropriate.
quir...@ix.wcc.govt.nz
>:: The application of the moral rule to any social context presupposes an
>:: antecedent determination of a rational social order.
>: Such as a social order which includes a sufficient number of people
>: producing children, regardless of the non-reproductive choices of others ?
>This is not a permissible assumption, since there is nothing in the
>social order as such to ensure the production of even a single child.
Oh dear, you *still* haven't managed to cope with my little analogy.
There's nothing in the economic order as such to ensure the production of
even a single grain of wheat. Therefore, if we cannot leave reproductive sex
to others, we also cannot leave food production to others. Time to grab your
overalls and mosey on down to the farm, Zeleny.
We can observe the empirical results of the working of the economy, and
establish rules of thumb (such as Adam Smith's Invisible Hand), and thus
predict with an extremely high rate of probability that food will continue
to be manufactured.
We can also observe the empirical results of population trends and
establish rules of thumb (such as the correlation between women's education
levels and reproductive choices), and thus predict with an extremely high
rate of probability that children will continue to be born.
Therefore the application of your musing on moral duties to the present
social context must be modified by observing a rational social order which
will continue to provide children at a remarkably predictable rate.
Therefore there is no moral duty for any one person to reproduce, or
engage in reproductive sex.
>: I point out that the general maxim for the choice of non-reproductive
>: sex is not "have non-reproductive sex", but "exercise free choice between
>: non-reproductive sex and reproductive sex as you will". This is empirically
>: proven to be consistent with the replenishment of society.
>So is gratuitous homicide, as witness the evening news.
Thank you for evading my point.
Gratuitous homicide cannot be condemned on the grounds that it prevents
the reproduction of the next generation. Neither can consensual adult
homosexuality as chosen by those who desire it.
Gratuitous homocide can be condemned on the grounds of violating people's
rights. Consensual adult homosexuality cannot.
>: It would appear that homosexuality is not immoral.
>You are not getting any smarter.
And you're getting *less* credible.
It would appear that homosexuality is not immoral.
- Tony Q.
---
Tony Quirke, Wellington, New Zealand (email for phone no)
"Consider this a disjunctive prediction -- Quirke will end up humbled
and respectful or outed and obstreperous." - Michael Zeleny, 6 Mar 1995,
on failing to believe that a straight could disrespect his views.
Rod Swift
>The act of homosexual intercourse therefore amounts to a theft
>of pleasure concomitant with a potentially generative act, accompanied
>by a principled refusal to contribute anything to the task of generation.
Are you going to start playing "bedroom cop" to stop such acts of
theft?
Is this part of your messianic complex?
>If you resent generative sex, consider abstaining from it. That would
>be much less harmful to others than expressing your resentment by opting
>for an essentially sterile form of sexuality.
I don't *resent* heterosexual sex. I just don't particularly
find it to be compatible with my inherent nature, and hence I do
not practice it for *that* reason -- not one of resentment.
And, to take a leaf out of your book... If you resent
pleasurable consensual homosexual sex, consider abstaining from it.
That would be much less harmful to others than expressing your
resentment by opting for an essentially stupid blather over the
Usenet.
>I am a Jewish philosopher, not a Japanese monk. Consider the precedents
>recorded in the books of the Prophets.
You're the type of Jew that gave Hitler some justification for
his genocide, I'm sure.
>In view of your character and residence, "Baa" would be more appropriate.
Been talking to your animals again, Zeleny? You know, your dog
that consents to marriage with you? Did he tell you what to
write? When will you send us tapes and pictures of your dog
oracle?
Rod
--
| ... ..... | E-mail to: be...@metronet.com | ******* |
Michael Zeleny
:::: The application of the moral rule to any social context presupposes an
:::: antecedent determination of a rational social order.
::: Such as a social order which includes a sufficient number of people
::: producing children, regardless of the non-reproductive choices of others ?
:: This is not a permissible assumption, since there is nothing in the
:: social order as such to ensure the production of even a single child.
: Oh dear, you *still* haven't managed to cope with my little analogy.
Remarkable how you can claim this so unselfconsciously.
: There's nothing in the economic order as such to ensure the production of
: even a single grain of wheat. Therefore, if we cannot leave reproductive sex
: to others, we also cannot leave food production to others. Time to grab your
: overalls and mosey on down to the farm, Zeleny.
Stop. Right. Here.
There's nothing in the economic order as such to ensure the production
of even a single grain of wheat -- except for the laws of supply and
demand. As long as your labor results in production valued by the
market, you are guaranteed reciprocal access to goods of similar value
in exchange for its fruits. Looking at this from another angle: the
production of any exchange value stimulates the market economy to
enable the satisfaction of every economic need. Conformant with the
stipulation of a rational social order, these inferences are all
grounded in nomological connections salient to productive labor as
such, rather than mere predictions with an extremely high rate of
probability. Contrast: there is nothing in the possible outcome of
buggery, as distinguished from orthogenital intercourse, to connect
with the emergence of the next generation. Moreover, there is nothing
in the possible outcome of homosexual behavior as such, as
distinguished from heterosexual behavior as such, to connect with the
emergence of the next generation. Therefore, just as *only* our
personal involvement in the general economic production of goods
enables us to leave the production of any particular goods to others,
no amount of sexually *sterile* practice can warrant us to leave
reproductive sex to others.
: We can observe the empirical results of the working of the economy, and
: establish rules of thumb (such as Adam Smith's Invisible Hand), and thus
: predict with an extremely high rate of probability that food will continue
: to be manufactured.
Rationality is not comprised of rules of thumb. Rational inferences
can proceed only in accordance with laws. The laws of economics
ensure that supply meets demand, and that having exchange value at
one's disposal enables one to meet his demand.
: We can also observe the empirical results of population trends and
: establish rules of thumb (such as the correlation between women's education
: levels and reproductive choices), and thus predict with an extremely high
: rate of probability that children will continue to be born.
Contrast: though the success of your prediction of future production
of food is sustained by the incidence of productive labor, the success
of your prediction of future reproduction of mankind is not merely
disconnected from, but actually subverted by, the incidence of
homosexual sex.
: Therefore the application of your musing on moral duties to the present
: social context must be modified by observing a rational social order which
: will continue to provide children at a remarkably predictable rate.
You have no grasp of rationality.
: Therefore there is no moral duty for any one person to reproduce, or
: engage in reproductive sex.
The contrary has been shown.
::: I point out that the general maxim for the choice of non-reproductive
::: sex is not "have non-reproductive sex", but "exercise free choice between
::: non-reproductive sex and reproductive sex as you will". This is empirically
::: proven to be consistent with the replenishment of society.
:: So is gratuitous homicide, as witness the evening news.
: Thank you for evading my point.
Your point has been made in ignorance. The maxim of free choice is
indeterminate of behavior, and hence indeterminable of its moral
merit.
: Gratuitous homicide cannot be condemned on the grounds that it prevents
: the reproduction of the next generation. Neither can consensual adult
: homosexuality as chosen by those who desire it.
Prevention is too strong a term. But each act mitigates the
reproduction of the next generation in its own way.
: Gratuitous homocide can be condemned on the grounds of violating people's
: rights. Consensual adult homosexuality cannot.
Explain the rational ground of the rights violated in the former case.
::: It would appear that homosexuality is not immoral.
:: You are not getting any smarter.
: And you're getting *less* credible.
Just as buggery makes no contribution to sexual generation, stupidity
makes no contribution to the assessment of intellectual merit.
: It would appear that homosexuality is not immoral.
The contrary has been shown.
quir...@ix.wcc.govt.nz
>be...@fohnix.metronet.com (Rod Swift) writes:
>: Oral sex is immoral, no matter who practices it.
>Not if it is practiced as foreplay during heterosexual intercourse.
Sorry, but you're contradicting yourself yet *again*:
"So Kant tells you that, since you owe your very provenance as an agent to
a single fertile act of sexual intercourse, any necessarily infertile form
of sexual intercourse cannot be willed to be an instance of a lawlike choice,
in so far as its instantiation at the moment of your conception would have
preempted your biological existence as a necessary condition of your current
moral deliberation."
If, "at the moment of your conception" [passing over the disparity between
conception and ejaculation], you parents had been practising oral sex rather
than PiV sex, you wouldn't be here.
By your own words, ejaculation anywhere but in a vagina is immoral.
>: Surely choice is a vector in this all, or do you deny freedom to
>: choose pleasurable acts which have no particular purpose except
>: the fulfilment of human happiness and nature??
>Human nature cannot get fulfilled in sterile pleasure.
Wrong. Human nature includes the seeking of pleasure, and this seeking
is in itself moral.
Michael Zeleny
: zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
:: be...@fohnix.metronet.com (Rod Swift) writes:
::: Oral sex is immoral, no matter who practices it.
:: Not if it is practiced as foreplay during heterosexual intercourse.
: Sorry, but you're contradicting yourself yet *again*:
This is a lie.
: "So Kant tells you that, since you owe your very provenance as an agent to
: a single fertile act of sexual intercourse, any necessarily infertile form
: of sexual intercourse cannot be willed to be an instance of a lawlike choice,
: in so far as its instantiation at the moment of your conception would have
: preempted your biological existence as a necessary condition of your current
: moral deliberation."
:
: If, "at the moment of your conception" [passing over the disparity between
: conception and ejaculation], you parents had been practising oral sex rather
: than PiV sex, you wouldn't be here.
:
: By your own words, ejaculation anywhere but in a vagina is immoral.
Like I said, it does not matter where you start, only where you finish.
Nothing in the above quotations contradicts this principle.
::: Surely choice is a vector in this all, or do you deny freedom to
::: choose pleasurable acts which have no particular purpose except
::: the fulfilment of human happiness and nature??
:: Human nature cannot get fulfilled in sterile pleasure.
: Wrong. Human nature includes the seeking of pleasure, and this seeking
: is in itself moral.
Dear Agony Auntie: I enjoy killing. I kill animals in hunting season
with great relish. I think it would please me to kill people. Please
advise me whether fulfilling *my* human nature by seeking the pleasure
of killing an especially annoying individual would be "in itself moral."
Do not beg the question by arrogating inviolable rights to my
prospective victim, for there are no rights without morality.
Gene Ward Smith
> Actually, David, you fail to understand Zeleny's marvellous logic.
> The only "moral" reason for sex is reproduction. But you don't have
> to reproduce. All you have to do is, whenever you ejaculate, ejaculate
> inside a vagina. Unless you're with a woman, in which case you can
> ejaculate anywhere or use condoms and the Pill. This is because sex
> is for reproduction.
Actually, that isn't good enough, since Zeleny's logic goes beyond the
merely marvelous. It *isn't* all right to ejaculate in the vagina of an
XY woman, since she is in essence male, and that would be homosexual.
Zeleny himself does not know if he bears the terrible guilt of homosexual
sex.
hlids...@netins.net
Well, I had asked Zeleny in another post about having sex with women who
are engaging in contraceptive, have had damage to their womb, or who had
genetic abnormalities that prevented them from getting pregnant. His reply
was something to the effect that I was not responsible for accidents. So
I suppose having sex with an XY woman would be all right.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Leemon hlids...@ins.infonet.net
What fun is it being "cool" if you can't wear a sombrero?
- Hobbes
Michael Zeleny
Gene Ward Smith <gsmith@lab1> writes:
If the partners see each other for a month, it is possible to know for sure.
Rod Swift
>In article <3ju1jp$q...@golem.wcc.govt.nz> quir...@ix.wcc.govt.nz writes:
>: zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
>:: be...@fohnix.metronet.com (Rod Swift) writes:
>::: Oral sex is immoral, no matter who practices it.
>:: Not if it is practiced as foreplay during heterosexual intercourse.
>: Sorry, but you're contradicting yourself yet *again*:
>This is a lie.
>Like I said, it does not matter where you start, only where you finish.
So you are just using Kant to support a completely crass circular
argument by design?
How pathetic. You get a big-fat-zilch on logic, dunce.
Rod
--
| ... ..... | E-mail to: be...@metronet.com | ******* |
| + + + + + + + + | http://nether.net/~rod/html/ | ***** |
| * * * * * * * * | | *** |
| R o d S w i f t | Hate is *NOT* a family value | * |
<a href="http://nether.net/~rod/html/index.html>Surf the net to my webpage</a>
Michael Zeleny
::: zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
:::: be...@fohnix.metronet.com (Rod Swift) writes:
::::: Oral sex is immoral, no matter who practices it.
:::: Not if it is practiced as foreplay during heterosexual intercourse.
::: Sorry, but you're contradicting yourself yet *again*:
:: This is a lie.
:: Like I said, it does not matter where you start, only where you finish.
: So you are just using Kant to support a completely crass circular
: argument by design?
That was a Kantian conclusion, which has the added merit of coinciding
with traditional Jewish reasoning. Consider a reductio ad absurdum: if
we were to individuate the actions too finely, taking your pecker out
of your pants would be counterpurposive because essentially sterile.
Incidentally, I do not really expect you to understand any of it -- the
argument is meant for your betters.
: How pathetic. You get a big-fat-zilch on logic, dunce.
I think the world of you too, gonseleh.
Cordially, - Mikhail | Why is it that all those who have become eminent
Zel...@math.ucla.edu | in philosophy or politics or poetry or art
UCLA Philosophy Dept | are clearly of an atrabilious temperament?
_____________________|_________________________________________________
|"Fuck your ass with broken glass!" -- Gene Ward Smith| don't
|"You're the type of Jew that gave Hitler some justification for| tread
| his genocide, I'm sure." -- Rod Swift| on me
Michael Zeleny
:: cms...@flagstaff.princeton.edu (Caitlin Mackay Shaw) writes:
::: Hypothetical situation: lesbian couple has a supply of frozen sperm.
::: Every morning they get up and do the turkey-baster thing. Is it moral
::: or immoral for them to have sex?
:: Sperm comes from testicles, which are attached to a man. It follows
:: that your lesbian couple is using some man as mere means to their end.
: That's right, just like they're using some farmer as mere means to the
: end (of eating), using some carpenter (shelter), factory worker (tools,
: transportation, etc.)... Everything productive is the means to an end.
: I hope you're not trying to use this as a proof of immorality.
Fruits of our labor are alienated from ourselves by the miracle of
capitalist economy. Many find this alienation objectionable. You
are proposing to extend its dehumanizing effects to our offspring.
I see no merit in excusing a great evil with an existing practice
of petty wickedness.
::: I say it's amoral -- completely irrelevent to the question of the
::: morality of reproduction. This is because **sex and procreation are not
::: intrinsically linked** in this example. For the above women, sex has as
::: much to do with children as music does.
:: Can you get pregnant by listening to the Apassionata?
: It's as likely as getting pregnant from sex with another woman. Thank
: you for emphasizing my point. :)
You can get pregnant from sex as such. Our task is to determine the
moral merit of sex whose essential nature is absolutely incompatible
with pregnancy.
Proposition: Essentially sterile sex is immoral. (Compare Plato's
Laws at 841d.) Alleged refutation: woman-on-woman sex is essentially
sterile. I must be missing something, because this sounds far too
stupid for words.
Laurel Halbany
> I'd like to see how Zeleny responds to the fact that
> heterosexuals in pre-modern times used anal sex as a form of
> natural expression in aid of contraception....
And still do, actually. I've heard anal sex referred to as "Irish
birth control." (Please note that I am *not* attempting to
suggest anything about the sexual practices of Irish people--only
that there are plenty of people who see anal sex as something you
do when you don't have contraceptives.)
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Everything in moderation, especially Laurel Halbany
virtue and self-righteousness." Unwed Mother
_The Epicurian Gardener_ myt...@agora.rdrop.com
Michael Zeleny
: Michael Zeleny (zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu) wrote:
:: Sperm comes from testicles, which are attached to a man. It follows
:: that your lesbian couple is using some man as mere means to their end.
: Sort of like heterosexual women who marry a guy in order to have
: kids, yes?
I am getting confused. Are you proposing to excuse the depravity of a
homosexual practice with the loathsomeness of its heterosexual counterpart?
: --
: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
: "Everything in moderation, especially Laurel Halbany
: virtue and self-righteousness." Unwed Mother
: _The Epicurian Gardener_ myt...@agora.rdrop.com
cordially, don't
Michael Zeleny
: zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
:: If you resent generative sex, consider abstaining from it. That would
:: be much less harmful to others than expressing your resentment by opting
:: for an essentially sterile form of sexuality.
: Leaving aside the question of 'resent'ing procreation, you seem to be
: saying that there is a moral difference between no sex and no
: procreative sex and that this difference is due to the harm caused by
: nonprocreative sex, right?
Please use words more carefully. Nonprocreative sex between a man and a
woman is in no way an instance of an essentially sterile form of sexuality.
: Care to expand on this idea that nonprocreative sex is harmful? You
: have *not* supported it in any way.
There is a moral difference between suffering solitary abjection and
degrading an autonomous human being, either consensually or coercively.
Michael Zeleny
: zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
:: quir...@ix.wcc.govt.nz writes:
::: Of course, I've actually *known* homosexual lovers. I see no difference
::: between the quality of their love and my own. Thus, being trained in
::: a semi-scientific fashion, I must conclude that homosexual sexual relations
::: are no more "animal" than my own.
:: How can you know that?
: How do I know that I see no difference etc etc ?
:
: Gosh, Zeleny, if I'm not the most accurate reporter of my *own*
: perceptions, who is ?
The validity of your perceptions is not in question. Tautologically,
you are seeing things as they appear to you. On the other hand, your
categorical conclusions purport universal validity without the benefit
of any rational warrant. But that is unimportant for the time being.
What interests me is the circumstance of your personal acquaintance
with the quality of homosexual relations. For instead of addressing
the philosophical substance of my arguments, you strive to establish
my mendaciousness and hypocrisy, and in order to do so you not only
pervert the meaning of my words by taking them out of their context,
but also presume to interrogate me about my sexual comportment. Now,
my time is too valuable to waste on a discussion that generates more
heat than light. Up to this moment I could justify responding to your
repetitious challenges by incorporating my replies in the revised
version of my paper. However now that all relevant responses are on
the table, no further explanations are likely to assist me in my work.
Although I will continue to reply to interlocutors capable of showing
the barest rudiments of civility, you are hereby cut off until and
unless you withdraw your baseless accusation of lying and answer my
questions with the same candor you are demanding of me.
:: are you referring to knowledge in the Biblical sense?
: Would you consider it immoral if it was ?
You know very well that I would. More importantly, your personal
appreciation of sexual relations with other men would explain your
behavior in this discussion, as nothing else could. Thus, having
responded to your personal questions without getting a single answer
in return, I feel justified in stipulating that in order to continue
this conversation, you will have to reveal certain facts relevant to
your motivation in pursuing this argument.
Have you ever buggered a man, or been buggered by a man?
Have you ever sucked cock, or had yourself blown by another man?
Have you ever had sex with your parent, your child, or your sibling?
Have you ever had sex with a sheep, a cow, a horse, a dog, a dingo, an
emu, a wombat, or any other wild or domestic animal not of your own
species?
Feel free to volunteer any other information you may deem apposite.
Please be precise and specific.
: - Tony Q.
: ---
: Tony Quirke, Wellington, New Zealand (email for phone no)
: "Consider this a disjunctive prediction -- Quirke will end up humbled
: and respectful or outed and obstreperous." - Michael Zeleny, 6 Mar 1995,
: on failing to believe that a straight could disrespect his views.
cordially, don't
Michael Zeleny
:: Only radical surgical means of contraception result in essential
:: infertility. Like all forms of self-mutilation, they constitute a
:: willful debasement of one's own body.
: May we assume that you will soon be posting on the evils of women
: piercing their ears? Or joining in the circumcision debate on
: misc.kids?
A better analogy would be with amputation of ears and penes. When you
hear of gratuitous practice of such operations, be sure to alert me so
that I can rail against them.
:: Not if it is practiced as foreplay during heterosexual intercourse.
: So if I give my partner a blowjob, it's moral as long as he doesn't
: come in my mouth?
:
: What if we deliberately engage in mutual oral sex rather than
: vaginal intercourse--is that immoral? How about if we have
: some valid medical reason (i.e. a postpartum moratorium on
: vaginal intercourse)?
I thought your partner was another woman. I will be happy to address
your concerns if and when she develops a fully functional set of male
genitalia.
:: Human nature cannot get fulfilled in sterile pleasure.
: Could you explain that? I'm unsure of what aspect of my "human
: nature" is left wanting should I engage in non-procreative sex.
Been there, done that. See the explanation elsewhere.
:: At least the
:: heterosexual who chooses to sodomize his partner has the option of
:: fertile intercourse immediately available with the same partner.
: Not if he comes in her mouth, he doesn't.
Most men can ejaculate more than once in their lifetime.
:: Not so with the homosexual.
: Some of us consider that a *good* thing. Or do you really believe
: that the legions of unplanned, unwanted pregnancies are a good
: to the species?
Exactly how do "the legions of unplanned, unwanted pregnancies"
constitute the sole available alternative to homosexuality?
: --
: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
: "Everything in moderation, especially Laurel Halbany
: virtue and self-righteousness." Unwed Mother
: _The Epicurian Gardener_ myt...@agora.rdrop.com
cordially, don't
Michael Zeleny
: zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
:: cms...@flagstaff.princeton.edu (Caitlin Mackay Shaw) writes:
:::: cms...@flagstaff.princeton.edu (Caitlin Mackay Shaw) writes:
::::: Hypothetical situation: lesbian couple has a supply of frozen sperm.
::::: Every morning they get up and do the turkey-baster thing. Is it moral
::::: or immoral for them to have sex?
:::: Sperm comes from testicles, which are attached to a man. It follows
:::: that your lesbian couple is using some man as mere means to their end.
::: That's right, just like they're using some farmer as mere means to the
::: end (of eating), using some carpenter (shelter), factory worker (tools,
::: transportation, etc.)... Everything productive is the means to an end.
::: I hope you're not trying to use this as a proof of immorality.
:: Fruits of our labor are alienated from ourselves by the miracle of
:: capitalist economy. Many find this alienation objectionable. You
:: are proposing to extend its dehumanizing effects to our offspring.
:: I see no merit in excusing a great evil with an existing practice
:: of petty wickedness.
: I'm a capitalist. You're not making much impression on me there.
My objection is not to capitalism as such, but to certain forms
of alienation. I object to any commerce in human beings, their
organs, their issue, and their bodily services. In a similar
vein, I object to eugenics, but certainly not to mating as such.
::::: I say it's amoral -- completely irrelevent to the question of the
::::: morality of reproduction. This is because **sex and procreation are not
::::: intrinsically linked** in this example. For the above women, sex has as
::::: much to do with children as music does.
:::: Can you get pregnant by listening to the Apassionata?
::: It's as likely as getting pregnant from sex with another woman. Thank
::: you for emphasizing my point. :)
:: You can get pregnant from sex as such. Our task is to determine the
:: moral merit of sex whose essential nature is absolutely incompatible
:: with pregnancy.
: 'Pregnancy is the possible result of sex.'
:
: 'Let's consider sex that makes pregnancy impossible.'
No. Pregnancy is not merely a possible result of sex. Were my
argument based on such skimpy premisses, it would have applied
to a lot of other activities, like your walking alone at night
in a dangerous neighborhood or having a few drinks in a bar.
I observe that fertility is nomologically linked to sex, as part
of its biological function. In so far as you are essentially a
living female human being, conception is a proper function of your
sexual practice, albeit not necessarily its unique proprium. Thus
far, no normative conclusions have been made. But once we apply
the Categorical Imperative to an activity which has been shown
improper, as necessarily incapable of fulfilling its proper
biological function, moral proscriptions follow immediately.
Compare the use to which Rabelais puts the Aristotelians:
Mieux est de ris que de larmes escripre,
Pour ce que rire est le propre de l'homme.
Commentary: given that writing is an activity of risible animals,
it is better to write to elicit laughter, rather than tears.
:: Proposition: Essentially sterile sex is immoral. (Compare Plato's
:: Laws at 841d.) Alleged refutation: woman-on-woman sex is essentially
:: sterile. I must be missing something, because this sounds far too
:: stupid for words.
: You're missing the point I'm trying to refute. Proposition: Sex is
: essentially linked to pregnancy. Refutation: Female-female sex is *not*
: linked to pregnancy.
No. Proposition: Sex is essentially linked to a reproductive
capacity. Observation: Female-female sex fails to exercise the
reproductive capacity. That is all you have got so far, and I
cannot see how it can refute my thesis.
Observation: A female who chooses to have sex with another
female, chooses it instead of having sex with a male, in a way
that she does *not* choose it instead of listening to music.
Now if you wish to argue on biological grounds that there is no
functional link between sex and the human reproductive capacity,
I would be happy to oblige. To simplify your task, I recommend
Elisabeth Lloyd's "Pre-Theoretical Assumptions in Evolutionary
Explanations of Female Sexuality" in _Philosophical Studies_ 69
(1993) pp 139-153, for a concise statement of an argument to the
contrary.
Michael Zeleny
: zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
::: zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
:::: If you resent generative sex, consider abstaining from it. That would
:::: be much less harmful to others than expressing your resentment by opting
:::: for an essentially sterile form of sexuality.
::: Leaving aside the question of 'resent'ing procreation, you seem to be
::: saying that there is a moral difference between no sex and no
::: procreative sex and that this difference is due to the harm caused by
::: nonprocreative sex, right?
:: Please use words more carefully. Nonprocreative sex between a man and a
:: woman is in no way an instance of an essentially sterile form of sexuality.
: Uh, correct me if I'm wrong, but:
: sterile, adj. 1. Incapable of reproducing sexually. 2. [biological]
: 3. [biological] 4. Not productive or effective
I take it that nonprocreativity is a fact of actual outcome, rather
than one of essential nature.
: But anyway:
::: Care to expand on this idea that nonprocreative sex is harmful? You
::: have *not* supported it in any way.
:: There is a moral difference between suffering solitary abjection and
:: degrading an autonomous human being, either consensually or coercively.
: You consider sex degrading?
Only in so far as I do not consider all kinds of sex uplifting.
Michael Zeleny
:::: Only radical surgical means of contraception result in essential
:::: infertility. Like all forms of self-mutilation, they constitute a
:::: willful debasement of one's own body.
:: A better analogy would be with amputation of ears and penes. When you
:: hear of gratuitous practice of such operations, be sure to alert me so
:: that I can rail against them.
: I'm sorry, but why is a vasectomy not a good analogy to circumcision?
: After all, you don't *amputate* anything in a vasectomy.
Because a functional capacity of the human body gets disabled by the
latter and not by the former.
: Your quote (above) referred to "all forms of self-mutilation." If
: punching a hole in one's earlobes, or cutting a perfectly healthy
: piece of nerve-laden tissue of an infant's genitals, are not
: mutilation, what *is*?
See above. By contrast, I would not consider tattoos or ritual
scarification as examples of mutilation, inasmuch as they do not
incapacitate any bodily function, but merely modify some of its
social relations. Erotic cutting and fisting are borderline cases,
with the latter inherently more damaging than the former.
:: I thought your partner was another woman. I will be happy to address
:: your concerns if and when she develops a fully functional set of male
:: genitalia.
: Please address the issue. You stated that non-procreative sex is
: immoral. You further stated that oral sex is OK in heterosexual
: intercourse as long as it is part of foreplay. That implies
: quite strongly that oral sex is NOT OK in heterosexual
: intercourse if it is *not* foreplay (ie. if it is the sexual
: activity in itself). Nor did you make any exceptions for times
: when a couple cannot engage in procreative intercourse. Should
: they simply abstain?
I stated that *essentially* non-procreative sex is immoral. There is
some biological evidence that any sexual intercourse occurring between
heterosexual partners contributes to the inclusive fitness of their
progeny by dint of increasing the chances of the male sticking around.
So in a fertile sexual union, pair-bonding has indirect reproductive
benefits. So far, much of the same case can be made for the situation
of a homosexual couple bringing up children, except for the fact that
since they are incapable of having common offspring, any reproductive
contribution they might make, would not be due to any quality of their
sexual relationship. So heterosexuals, who choose an essentially
fertile union, would seem entitled to a certain latitude in the choice
of venues for sexual gratification within their union, than homosexuals,
who make an essentially sterile choice from the start.
: And yes, some of my sexual partners are women. If nonprocreative
: intercourse is wrong, what is the moral difference between
: cunnilingus when:
: a) performed on me by a female partner
: b) performed on my by a male partner when it is not followed
: by penis/vagina intercourse?
See above.
:: Been there, done that. See the explanation elsewhere.
: Could you provide a brief summary, please? I'm kind of late to
: this thread.
Unfortunately, any summary would have be anything but brief. I am
now involved in putting together a paper on sexual ethics for Barbara
Herman. Once the text is ready, I will be happy to make it available
in PostScript or hard copy. In the meantime, the thumbnail Kantian
sketch would have to suffice: the maxim of essentially sterile sexual
intercourse cannot be willed through as if it were a law of nature,
since the agent willing it owes his provenance, and hence the very
possibility of his willing, to fertile sexual intercourse.
:: Most men can ejaculate more than once in their lifetime.
: But not all men have lifetime sex with the same partner. If
: I go to bed with a man, we engage in mutual oral sex, and
: he gets hit by a car the next day, didn't we do something
: immoral? What if we instead part company and never have
: sex again?
In the latter case, you would be using each other as mere means.
In the former case, shit happens. Since there is no moral luck,
there can be no moral misfortune, either.
:: Exactly how do "the legions of unplanned, unwanted pregnancies"
:: constitute the sole available alternative to homosexuality?
: We were talking about the morality of penis/vagina intercourse,
: weren't we? If the only *moral* sex acts are those which might
: result in pregnancy, then surely you accept a certain level of
: unplanned pregnancy as the result of limiting sexuality to
: only *moral* sex acts.
Contraception greatly mitigates the chances of pregnancy in any
heterosexual encounter, without vitiating its essential fertility.
: There are plenty of alternatives to a lifetime of risky sex.
: Homosexuality is only one of them. Unlike you, however, I don't
: feel that it's an evil one.
Based on the above argument, I would not call homosexuality evil,
but "merely" wrong. Since you disagree, only one of us could be
right. Unfortunately, neither of us has any way of ascertaining
which one it is.
quir...@ix.wcc.govt.nz
>cms...@flagstaff.princeton.edu (Caitlin Mackay Shaw) writes:
>:: Please use words more carefully. Nonprocreative sex between a man and a
>:: woman is in no way an instance of an essentially sterile form of sexuality.
>: Uh, correct me if I'm wrong, but:
>: sterile, adj. 1. Incapable of reproducing sexually. 2. [biological]
>: 3. [biological] 4. Not productive or effective
>I take it that nonprocreativity is a fact of actual outcome, rather
>than one of essential nature.
The careful observer will notice that Zeleny's arguments have changed
yet again, this time in a subtle fashion designed to explain away the
contradictions found in his original thesis.
Zeleny is attempting to portray heterosexuality as a "essentially
fertile" form of sexuality.
However, Zeleny's original argument was based on individual sexual
*acts*. He used this to condemn homosexual *sex*, until it was pointed
out that this also condemned many forms of heterosexual *sex*.
I quote:
"So Kant tells you that, since you owe your very provenance as an agent
to a single fertile act of sexual intercourse, any necessarily infertile form
of sexual intercourse cannot be willed to be an instance of a lawlike choice,
in so far as its instantiation at the moment of your conception would have
preempted your biological existence as a necessary condition of your current
moral deliberation."
Thus we can see the dishonest way Zeleny attempts to evade responsibility
for his own theories.
Nonprocreative sexual acts between a man and a woman are essentially
*infertile*, and by Zeleny's theory as shown above, must be judged as
"immoral". Since it would appear that Zeleny indulges in nonprocreative
sex, he is, by his own lights, acting "immorally". and is thus a hypocrite.
Try again, Zeleny.
- Tony Q.
---
Tony Quirke, Wellington, New Zealand (email for phone no)
"Consider this a disjunctive prediction -- Quirke will end up humbled
and respectful or outed and obstreperous." - Michael Zeleny, 6 Mar 1995.
"[Y]ou are hereby cut off until and unless you withdraw your baseless
accusation of lying [Documented - TQ] and answer my questions with the
same candor you are demanding of me [Pot. Kettle. Black - TQ]" - MZ 13 Mar.
"I believe I shall consider that a win." - Tony Quirke, 15 Mar 1995.
Caitlin M. Shaw
zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
>cms...@flagstaff.princeton.edu (Caitlin Mackay Shaw) writes:
>: zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
>:: Fruits of our labor are alienated from ourselves by the miracle of
>:: capitalist economy. Many find this alienation objectionable. You
>:: are proposing to extend its dehumanizing effects to our offspring.
>:: I see no merit in excusing a great evil with an existing practice
>:: of petty wickedness.
>: I'm a capitalist. You're not making much impression on me there.
>My objection is not to capitalism as such, but to certain forms
>of alienation. I object to any commerce in human beings, their
>organs, their issue, and their bodily services. In a similar
>vein, I object to eugenics, but certainly not to mating as such.
What's your opinion of Red Cross blood donations?
...of adoption agencies?
...of physical wage labor?
>:: You can get pregnant from sex as such. Our task is to determine the
>:: moral merit of sex whose essential nature is absolutely incompatible
>:: with pregnancy.
>: 'Pregnancy is the possible result of sex.'
>: 'Let's consider sex that makes pregnancy impossible.'
>No. Pregnancy is not merely a possible result of sex. Were my
>argument based on such skimpy premisses, it would have applied
>to a lot of other activities, like your walking alone at night
>in a dangerous neighborhood or having a few drinks in a bar.
'Sex is something which possibly results in pregnancy.' (Apologies for
the previous wording, which could be read incorrectly.)
("You can get pregnany from sex as such.")
'Let's consider sex that makes pregnancy impossible.'
(I.e. female-female sex)
>I observe that fertility is nomologically linked to sex, as part
>of its biological function.
Michael...define 'sex'. Seriously, I think we may be working from
different conceptions of the argument here.
>To simplify your task, I recommend
>Elisabeth Lloyd's "Pre-Theoretical Assumptions in Evolutionary
>Explanations of Female Sexuality" in _Philosophical Studies_ 69
>(1993) pp 139-153, for a concise statement of an argument to the
>contrary.
Princeton University doesn't carry that journal. Synopsis?
Caitlin
--
Caitlin MacKay Shaw /\ /\ /\ /\ <http://www.princeton.edu/~cmshaw>
<cms...@princeton.edu> \/ \/ \/ "There is no one true way." M. Lackey
Michael Zeleny
>> Because a functional capacity of the human body gets disabled by the
>> latter and not by the former.
>When you circumcise, you are cutting off healthy, nerve-laden tissue.
>That strikes me as mutilation. If you meant "disabling mutilation,"
>you should have been clearer.
Maybe so. But some lexicographers agree with my use of the term:
MUTILATION
The action of depriving (a person or animal) of a limb or of the
use of a limb; the excision or maiming (of a limb or bodily organ);
also, an instance of the action; rarely a mutilated condition. [OED]
Regardless of such quiddities, this is what I meant.
>> See above. By contrast, I would not consider tattoos or ritual
>> scarification as examples of mutilation, inasmuch as they do not
>> incapacitate any bodily function, but merely modify some of its
>> social relations. Erotic cutting and fisting are borderline cases,
>> with the latter inherently more damaging than the former.
>Er...where do you get your information about fisting?
Brachioproctic intercourse is not a healthy practice. Any sort of anal
penetration is intrinsically harmful, even when it gets done by a
proctologist, just as any sort of radiation exposure is harmful, even
when it is administered for therapeutic or diagnostic purposes. The
physical effects of anal penetration, precipitated by the inevitable
trauma to the connecting tissue, are analogous to injecting raw sewage
into the recipient's bloodstream. Incontinence is another common and
well-documented effect of receptive anal intercourse. If in doubt,
consult your doctor.
>> I stated that *essentially* non-procreative sex is immoral.
>In other words, you are saying that penis/vagina intercourse *is*
>moral, because in many people it can lead to babies?
I am saying that what makes a sexual act morally legitimate is its
compatibility with its participants' potential contribution to the
continuation of their species. Any act that is incompatible with a
causally relevant potential contribution to a general condition of
being and rational agency, is ipso facto immoral by dint of its failure
to pass the test of the Categorical Imperative formula of the Law of
Nature.
>> There is
>> some biological evidence that any sexual intercourse occurring between
>> heterosexual partners contributes to the inclusive fitness of their
>> progeny by dint of increasing the chances of the male sticking around.
>There is plenty of sociological evidence that this is false.
Please share such evidence.
>> So in a fertile sexual union, pair-bonding has indirect reproductive
>> benefits.
>There is quite a difference between looking at the benefits of pair-
>bonding (which can occur in nonfertile sexual unions, obviously)
>to children, and looking at the benefits of procreation.
Procreation, as a sine qua non of agency, requires no benefit analysis.
>> So far, much of the same case can be made for the situation
>> of a homosexual couple bringing up children, except for the fact that
>> since they are incapable of having common offspring, any reproductive
>> contribution they might make, would not be due to any quality of their
>> sexual relationship. So heterosexuals, who choose an essentially
>> fertile union, would seem entitled to a certain latitude in the choice
>> of venues for sexual gratification within their union, than homosexuals,
>> who make an essentially sterile choice from the start.
>This is a really novel argument: intrafertility enhances sexuality
>and monogamy. Given the current statistics on divorce, I find that
>a little hard to swallow. Nor does "some evidence" of biological
>pair-bonding seem a valid way to dictate societal and legal privileges.
Setting morality aside, heterosexual unions are generally fertile,
whereas homosexual unions are never fertile. This is a sufficient
basis for determining societal and legal privileges.
>In other words, it's a poor reason to extend pro-child benefits
>to *all* MOTOS couples who seek them, rather than extending them
>to parents, say.
It is a sufficient reason to extend them to a social unit presumptively
constituted around a fertile sexual practice.
>> See above.
>You didn't answer the question. What you said is that "essentially"
>procreative sex is OK. Therefore, since cunnilingus is *not*
>essentially procreative, may I assume that you find it immoral
>regardless of the gender of the other partner involved?
I would find it immoral if and only if it were practiced to the
exclusion of any possibility of conception. This is always the case
with lesbians, but only rarely the case with heterosexuals. I see no
reason to limit the scope of benign heterosexual foreplay.
>> Unfortunately, any summary would have be anything but brief. I am
>> now involved in putting together a paper on sexual ethics for Barbara
>> Herman. Once the text is ready, I will be happy to make it available
>> in PostScript or hard copy. In the meantime, the thumbnail Kantian
>> sketch would have to suffice: the maxim of essentially sterile sexual
>> intercourse cannot be willed through as if it were a law of nature,
>> since the agent willing it owes his provenance, and hence the very
>> possibility of his willing, to fertile sexual intercourse.
>In other words, since I was the product of penis/vagina intercourse,
>I have a moral obligation to engage in penis/vagina intercourse?
>That's an interesting argument, but I'm afraid one I find rather
>unconvincing. It brings up all kinds of implausible beliefs about
>a Duty to the Species, ignoring the practical aspects of
>reproduction (*should* everyone have kids just because they can?)
>as well as the realities of human sexuality.
I think the relevant duty is to oneself, as an animal being.
>It's sort of like people who argue that eating junk food is *immoral*
>because our bodies are "designed" to eat particular natural,
>nutritious foods.
No. It is like arguing that eating earth is *immoral* because our
bodies are "designed" to eat nutritious foods. Such is the sense I can
make of Aristotle's analogy between homosexuality and that unsavory
alimentary practice.
>> In the latter case, you would be using each other as mere means.
>> In the former case, shit happens. Since there is no moral luck,
>> there can be no moral misfortune, either.
>Whether or not the misfortune is moral has nothing to do with
>whether the *act* was immoral. So in the latter case--one-shot
>cunnilingus--we are committing an immoral act, even though
>we were a MOTOS couple?
I think any one-shot sex act is immoral, for reasons given above.
>> Contraception greatly mitigates the chances of pregnancy in any
>> heterosexual encounter, without vitiating its essential fertility.
>Er, the very *point* of contraception is to vitiate the essential
>fertility of the act. That's why the Catholic Church opposes it.
They misunderstand the nature of contraception.
>Regardless, contraception is imperfect; even with diligent use,
>there will be unwanted pregnancies. Are you willing to accept
>these as a price of insisting that people engage only in
>"essentially procreative" acts?
Yes.
>> Based on the above argument, I would not call homosexuality evil,
>> but "merely" wrong. Since you disagree, only one of us could be
>> right. Unfortunately, neither of us has any way of ascertaining
>> which one it is.
>Sure we do. If you don't propose logical arguments based on
>good premises, then there's no reason to assume you are right.
Convict me of a contradiction and I will withdraw my conclusion. As
regards the merit of my premisses, if you disagree with the idea of
universal morality that binds all rational agents, there is not much
we can do to reach an agreement for want of a common ground.
henry
Michael Zeleny <zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu> wrote:
>Genetic fitness is not a sufficient ground for moral merit.
however, you have based your argument largely on grounds
of sexuality existing solely, or at least primarily, as
a means of procreation: the spreading of genes.
as such, you can not then turn around and soften this
position when it turns against you.
since genetic fitness is not sufficient in and of itself
to guarantee moral merit, it might stand that there are
other ethical and moral issues involved in sexuality than
are encompassed in your philosophy.
thus, if one is to list happiness and human fulfillment
as also possible grounds for the moral merit of an act,
a homosexual union has equal validity on these grounds,
if lacking the genetic fitness which you admit is not
sufficient grounds for moral merit.
thus, a gay man who engages in procreative sex while at
the same time being miserably unahppy with the role he
has adopted, additionally compounding this misery by
involving his wife in this fraud, not to mention the
emotional damage caused to any children by the sorrow
of being raised in an unhappy home--this gay man, by
following your credo, is committing more of a wrong than
by following natural inclination.
>In other words, you feel very certain that there can be no common
>moral ground between different people. I feel very certain that
>such common ground must exist.
well, let's hope so. you seem more inclined toward appropriating
what common ground there is and declaring it yours to judge as
you will.
h
Victor Yodaiken
Michael Zeleny <zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu> wrote:
>I am saying that the one and only thing that makes a sexual act
>legitimate is its compatibility with its participants' potential
Even granting your premise, for the moment, generating children is
not the only way one can contribute to the continuation of the
species -- and it certainly may not be the best way.
>In any event, I am not about to get involved in curing existential
>angst.
And you claim to be interested in contributing to the continuation
of the species.
Michael Zeleny
: Michael Zeleny <zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu> wrote:
:: myt...@agora.rdrop.com (Laurel Halbany) writes:
::: Michael Zeleny (zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu) wrote:
:: some biological evidence that any sexual intercourse occurring between
:: heterosexual partners contributes to the inclusive fitness of their
:: progeny by dint of increasing the chances of the male sticking around.
:: So in a fertile sexual union, pair-bonding has indirect reproductive
:: benefits.
: One needs to really think clearly about genetic fitness which is what
: I beleive you are talking about here.
:
: The best way for a man to achieve genetic fitness is to have
: unprotected sex with as many women as he possibly can.
:
: The best way for a woman to have genetic fitness is to have sex, or
: otehr close relations, with as many people as she can, in a way to
: elicite their assisstance in insuring the future well being of her
: progeny, and to have sex during her fertile period, with men who who
: hve the best genes to compliment her genes.
:
: The man's genetic strategy is much simpler than is the womans.
Genetic fitness is not a sufficient ground for moral merit.
: Of course I seriously wonder if God at this time, when humans are
: destroying so much of creation, really wants more humans on this
: planet. I don't pretend to understand the wishes of God. I don't eve
: pretend to know the full meaning of morality. But I feel very certain
: that morality is not to be found in rigid dictations about other
: people's sexuality.
In other words, you feel very certain that there can be no common
moral ground between different people. I feel very certain that
such common ground must exist.
: --
: "Power concedes nothing without demand." --Frederick Douglass
:
:
: Richard Foy ftp://ftp/netcom.com/pub/rf/rfoy/bkev.html
Michael Zeleny
:: I stated that *essentially* non-procreative sex is immoral. There is
:: some biological evidence that any sexual intercourse occurring between
:: heterosexual partners contributes to the inclusive fitness of their
:: progeny by dint of increasing the chances of the male sticking around.
:: So in a fertile sexual union, pair-bonding has indirect reproductive
:: benefits. So far, much of the same case can be made for the situation
:: of a homosexual couple bringing up children, except for the fact that
:: since they are incapable of having common offspring, any reproductive
:: contribution they might make, would not be due to any quality of their
:: sexual relationship.
: I'm sorry, Mr Zeleny, but I don't quite see the difference. If sex is
: legitimate in your terms if it "increases the chances of the male
: sticking around" to improve the children's survival chances, what does it
: matter what _kind_ of sex it is?
That is precisely my question.
: Assuming a homosexual couple (sex unspecified) is raising an adopted
: child, is it okay by you if they have sex which keeps the relationship
: together? What property of the child legitimates sex between the
: parents? Genetic relationship to them (and if so, what of test-tube
: kids)? The fact they are part of a "family"?
I think that in order for the argument to work, both parties have to
bear the ancestral relation to any actual or possible descendants.
:: Contraception greatly mitigates the chances of pregnancy in any
:: heterosexual encounter, without vitiating its essential fertility.
: This is about where I start to lose the thread of your argument. Are
: you really saying that the one and only thing that makes a sexual act
: legitimate is the continuation of the species? Even if the chance of
: continuing the species by that act is so infinitesimal it is negligible
: (say, the chance of a sperm making it past (botched) vasectomy, condom,
: spermicide, IUD and pill)?
I am saying that the one and only thing that makes a sexual act
legitimate is its compatibility with its participants' potential
contribution to the continuation of the species.
: If so, what makes our genitals so special that they must be forever
: judged by a different set of standards to the rest of our bodies, which
: we are free to do lots of things with that don't advance the continuation
: of the species?
Nothing at all. Continuation of the species is only relevant as part
of the general condition of being and rational agency. Any act that
is incompatible with a causally relevant potential contribution to a
general condition of being and rational agency, is ipso facto immoral.
Willful abuse of your hand is nearly as blameworthy as willful abuse
of your penis, the sole moral difference arising from the fact that
the latter, unlike the former, is endowed with the power to continue
Life, rather than merely advance it.
: Lastly, I have to say that I found the original, classical argument you
: base your case on to be... dodgy, to say the least. I may have come into
: being by a fertile sexual act (my parents said so, anyhow), but I do not
: feel I came into the world indebted to anyone or anything by virtue of my
: creation. As millions of teenagers have (quite reasonably) said, "I
: didn't ask to be born". I didn't _ask_ to be created by a fertile sexual
: act, or for that matter test tube experimentation, spontaneous
: materialisation or an Act Of God. Thus I owe them nothing.
Maybe so. I do not take my task here to consist in defending Kant.
Not being a transcendental (or any kind of) idealist, I advance the
Categorical Imperative only in so far as it is consistent with my
Platonism, or as a neat trick that deduces our duties and purposes
from bare material facts considered in connection with our being and
rational agency. From where I stand, our duties and purposes are
logically prior to material facts, so no such deduction is necessary.
In any event, I am not about to get involved in curing existential
angst.
: Even if (big if) I felt somehow indebted, I am _certain_ I cannot
: owe a debt to a concept like "potentially fertile sex", "test tube
: experimentation" or "spontaneous materialisation". The idea seems
: intuitively ridiculous.
I think intuition is vastly overrated as a tool for getting at the truth.
: Kevin Lowe (Fourth year philosophy, Uni of Queensland).
Richard Foy
Michael Zeleny <zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu> wrote:
>rf...@netcom.com (Richard Foy) writes:
>: Michael Zeleny <zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu> wrote:
>:
>
>Genetic fitness is not a sufficient ground for moral merit.
Perhaps.
>
>: Of course I seriously wonder if God at this time, when humans are
>: destroying so much of creation, really wants more humans on this
>: planet. I don't pretend to understand the wishes of God. I don't eve
>: pretend to know the full meaning of morality. But I feel very certain
>: that morality is not to be found in rigid dictations about other
>: people's sexuality.
>
>In other words, you feel very certain that there can be no common
>moral ground between different people. I feel very certain that
>such common ground must exist.
Not at all. There are lots of people who have a common moral ground.
However, that are lots of other people who have totally different
moral ground.
I see not way to say one is more correct than another. All the
discussion I have seen on the topic always boils dwon to simple
assertion eitehr explicity or implicity.
This IMHO includes Kan't Moral Imperative.
--
"Destiny answers the question: What is it I am called to do in this world?
--Susan Mokelke
Richard Foy ftp://ftp/netcom.com/pub/rf/rfoy/bksp.html
Gary Phillips
: Gene Ward Smith <gsmith@lab1> writes:
: : On 12 Mar 1995, Michael Zeleny wrote:
: :: You can get pregnant from sex as such.
: : No you can't.
: :
: : You can, however, get pregnant when a sperm meets and egg, if you happen
: : to have an egg handy or someone implants one. Actually, it might be
: : possible for *you* to get pregnant. In the interests of science, and
: : because it would be immoral of you to forgo this opportunity to reproduce,
: : I suggest you try.
: I find it fascinating that exhorting a man to play an insertive
: role in sexual intercourse can be used as a term of opprobrium
: by an outspoken advocate of male homosexuality.
Don't you mean 'receptive?'
If so, this seems to be the first thing that you and I agree upon.
--
Gary Phillips
orp...@kaiwan.com
Laguna Beach, CA
Michael Zeleny
: Michael Zeleny (zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu) wrote:
:: Gene Ward Smith <gsmith@lab1> writes:
::: On 12 Mar 1995, Michael Zeleny wrote:
:::: You can get pregnant from sex as such.
::: No you can't.
:::
::: You can, however, get pregnant when a sperm meets and egg, if you happen
::: to have an egg handy or someone implants one. Actually, it might be
::: possible for *you* to get pregnant. In the interests of science, and
::: because it would be immoral of you to forgo this opportunity to reproduce,
::: I suggest you try.
:: I find it fascinating that exhorting a man to play an insertive
:: role in sexual intercourse can be used as a term of opprobrium
:: by an outspoken advocate of male homosexuality.
: Don't you mean 'receptive?'
Indeed I do. Thanks for correcting me.
: If so, this seems to be the first thing that you and I agree upon.
I am glad that you agree with me about the degradation of the pathic.
Caitlin M. Shaw
>: You can, however, get pregnant when a sperm meets and egg, if you happen
>: to have an egg handy or someone implants one. Actually, it might be
>: possible for *you* to get pregnant. In the interests of science, and
>: because it would be immoral of you to forgo this opportunity to reproduce,
>: I suggest you try.
>I find it fascinating that exhorting a man to play an insertive
>role in sexual intercourse can be used as a term of opprobrium
>by an outspoken advocate of male homosexuality.
Interesting that you took this as an insult. Perhaps Gene was making
the point that you are deliberately avoiding pregnancy and therefore
immoral...?
quir...@ix.wcc.govt.nz
>Contraception greatly mitigates the chances of pregnancy in
>any heterosexual encounter, without compromising its essential
>fertility. Considering that the average actual failure rate of the
>Pill is 15% per couple-year, taking the average generation gap to be
>25 years leaves us with more than adequate margin for a positive
>population growth under universal legislation of contraception.
I don't theeenk so, Ceeesco.
If the birth rate was only 15% of it's present level, I'm reasonably
sure the human race would be in deep, deep trouble. We'd need a demographer
to be sure, but one notices that Zeleny hasn't provided any statistical
basis for his assertion that "universal legislation of contraception" is
still compatible with human existence.
>Not so with universal legislation of buggery.
One also points out that Zeleny's argument boils down to "homosexuality
is immoral because if *everyone* did it, the human race would die out".
Despite Zeleny's attempt to sidestep the issue, it can also be said that
any occupation other than farming is also equally "immoral".
Zeleny's arguments are not based on any empirical considerations, and
have no connection to the real world. They, like him, are useless.
Michael Zeleny
: zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
:: ... Thus contraceptives do not result in essential sterility, since
:: they do not exclude pregnancy, but merely lessen its likelihood. Sex
:: under contraceptives is *not* an essentially infertile sexual act, in
:: view of the ever-present, non-negligible chance of pregnancy remaining
:: under all but the unjustifiably debilitating surgical means of birth
:: control. Contraception greatly mitigates the chances of pregnancy in
:: any heterosexual encounter, without compromising its essential
:: fertility. Considering that the average actual failure rate of the
:: Pill is 15% per couple-year, taking the average generation gap to be
:: 25 years leaves us with more than adequate margin for a positive
:: population growth under universal legislation of contraception.
:: Not so with universal legislation of buggery.
: Let us see... You condemn homosexuals because their sexuality
: implies a deliberate unwillingness to particpate in the propogation
: of the species. Now, how many couples do you think use contraception,
: say, pills, in the hope that they would be among the 15% who *do* get
: pregnant? Don't you see that they hope to be among the 85%?
I think so. But by the same token, in so far as their hope is not
grounded in absolute certainty, the probity of their intention must
depend on its incorporation of full responsibility for the outcome of
the act, be it what it may. The salient difference is that there can
be no reproductive outcome in any homosexual act as such.
: While there is still a debate about homosexuality being not a choice
: a person can make but a biological dictate, it seems to me there is
: all the deliberateness possible in electing to use contraceptives
: and so to being "counter purposive".
:
: So the question would hinge on why we use contraceptives, not what
: statistics tell us about their failure rates.
I think that moral justification for the use of contraceptives regards
them as a part of a planned reproductive strategy of each individual
couple. Since reproduction and pair-bonding are both moral imperatives,
so must be responsible contraception within a stable sexual union. If our
morality had no aim beyond maximizing the human evolutionary fitness, the
optimal male reproductive strategy might have been to mimic Julius Caesar
by playing a husband to all women and a wife to all men, so as to promote
the continuation of one's own genes while subverting many similar efforts
of one's competitors. But it is equally important always to treat one's
partners as ends in themselves, rather than mere means of catering to the
end of oneself. So the man who chooses to bugger other men for pleasure
and impregnates women in order to fulfill his reproductive imperative,
must be using at least one other human being as a mere instrument of his
will.
: Reva
Gordon Fitch
| ...
| have no connection to the real world. They, like him, are useless.
Not so. For a period of several years, Mr. Z, without
adducing new material, has provided many hours of
entertainment to an ever-changing audience, who prove him
wrong again and again without visible effect.
--
>< Gordon Fitch >< g...@panix.com ><
Rob Heyes
zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
> Moral merit is predicated of deliberate actions, not of involuntary
> bodily functions.
Bearing this in mind, how can the deliberate action of using a contraceptive
device such as a condom lead to a moral act of intentionally non-procreative
sexual intercourse between heterosexual partners? The fact that there is
a small chance of impregnation occurring can have not bearing on this,
particularly if the parties concerned are not aware that this small chance
exists.
I haven't noticed any mention yet of the case of the heterosexual couple
where the man has had a vasectomy, or the woman a hysterectomy. Is is
immoral for them to have sex, particularly if they have not had children.
How about the case where one partner (or indeed both) carries a hereditary
disease with a 100% chance of expression in a child? Is it moral for them
to procreate? What if the chance were lower? Suppose the disease was always
fatal with the first few months of life?
> : so are the biological principles underlying sexuality.
> : while the sexual drive often is toward generative sex,
> : both in animals and in humans it often is toward non-generative
> : sex, as is evidenced by homosexual behavior, masturbation
> : or interspecies sex in the wild.
>
> Animals also evince a propensity for behavioral analogues of rape,
> infanticide, cannibalism, and incest.
So? Please provide the Kantian case against these activities.
> : this is neither moral, nor immoral, unless you would
> : concede that humans and animals do not obey the same
> : physical laws and laws of biology.
>
> Humans differ from other animals by being subject to the laws of
> rationality.
Laws!!!! You are so far off this planet, would you care to be the first to
plant a flag in a different solar system?
> Not all individuals are as narrow-minded as you would make them out to
> be. Most men subject their animal drives to the scrutiny of reason.
Now that's rich! When did you last meet a teenager?
Rob
--
____
\ / Even in civilized mankind faint traces of monogamous
\/ instinct can be perceived Bertrand Russell
Gene Ward Smith
> still, this fails to treat the nature of sex between
> partners one or both of whom are sterile. according
> to your rather silly pseudo-categorical imperative,
> this is immoral, as is deliberately circumventing the
> imperative by using contraception.
You just don't understand the Z-man's incredible "philosophical" insight.
The sterile people are inessentially infertile, meaning in some possible
world they are fertile. In that possible world, it is possible that if
they had sex (which they can't do, because they don't exist, but...) they
could at some point pull the possible dick out of the possible anus which
was being used in possible foreplay, and *possibly*, at least, contrive a
conception.
In other words, sex is OK so long as at some point in the proceedings it
becomes possibly possible to have a baby. That is why it is OK to have
lesbian sex so long as one of the parties has an XY genotype, but not OK
to have heterosexual sex if both parties have an XY genotype.
I would really like to hear from either Kubo or Feld or anyone else who
has possibly possibly been impressed with this preposterous excuse for a
"philosophical analysis" as to why it isn't clear that it is no such
thing. This nonsense would be merely laughable except that he is using it
as a fig-leaf for his frothing bigotry, which makes it disgusting.
--
Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/University of Toledo
gsm...@lab1.utoledo.edu
Gene Ward Smith
> ::: You can, however, get pregnant when a sperm meets and egg, if you happen
> ::: to have an egg handy or someone implants one. Actually, it might be
> ::: possible for *you* to get pregnant. In the interests of science, and
> ::: because it would be immoral of you to forgo this opportunity to reproduce,
> ::: I suggest you try.
> :: I find it fascinating that exhorting a man to play an insertive
> :: role in sexual intercourse can be used as a term of opprobrium
> :: by an outspoken advocate of male homosexuality.
> : Don't you mean 'receptive?'
> Indeed I do. Thanks for correcting me.
It doesn't help, Moron. I was talking about pregnancy, not sex. That
your third-rate mind failed to grasp this obvious fact is not *my* fault.
When we compare your intellectual pretensions to the shoddy reality, it is
really remarkable how ignorant and stupid you are.
> I am glad that you agree with me about the degradation of the pathic.
In your case, the word is "pathetic".
Donn Irving
>> I am glad that you agree with me about the degradation of the pathic.
>
>In your case, the word is "pathetic".
Being critical of a typing error? Could have been the first part of the
word was omitted? Like psycho -
DCI
henry
Michael Zeleny <zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu> wrote:
>The reproductive intention of contracepted heterosexual intercourse is
>to exercise responsibility by mitigating the chance of conception.
the _intention_ is not to mitigate the possibility of conception,
and were results to match the intent of the act, no acts of
intercourse using contraception would result in conception.
the intent is to have sex without conceiving. the way you
choose to ignore this, as if this does not alter your absurd
claims that using contraception does not alter the essential
nature of the sex act, as if the intent is irrelevant when
making moral judgments.
>: in all cases, the intention behind the act is predicated upon
>: knowledge that the sexual act is non-fertile, thus by your
>: argument of inherency, these acts are morally equivalent.
>: i notice you always get more obscure when you're trying to
>: state an obvious fallacy in a non-obvious manner.
>Sterility is an accident in most cases. And the venue of foreplay is
>reproductively irrelevant.
i am not talking about foreplay. i am talking about individual
sexual acts, complete in themselves. conveniently, you choose
to ignore this, as it leads your argument into a _reductio
absurdum_.
>: of what universal legislation of buggery do you speak?
>: this is bizarre doublespeak.
>I speak of the Categorical Imperative: "Act as if the maxim of your
>action were to become through your will a universal law of nature."
well, this is ridiculous. as nice as it may sound, i would not
prefer that the motivations underlying my every action were to
become a universal law of nature.
indeed, it is ridiculous even to speak of acting as if one were
able to change the irrevocable laws of nature.
>: your argument is specious, contradicts itself, and chews on its
>: own tail like an ouroboros. however pretty the scales of the
>: snake may be, it is still self-devouring, hateful and false.
>I can surmise your motives for gainsaying the obvious.
what obvious? if your arguments are so obvious, why do you
have to conceal what you're saying in ever-more-baroque flights
of pseudo-logical puffery and tendentious effrontery?
>cordially, don't
>mikhail zel...@math.ucla.edu tread
>writing from the disneyland of formal philosophy on
>"Le cul des femmes est monotone comme l'esprit des hommes." me
with great hostility,
h
henry
Michael Zeleny <zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu> wrote:
>I think so. But by the same token, in so far as their hope is not
>grounded in absolute certainty, the probity of their intention must
>depend on its incorporation of full responsibility for the outcome of
>the act, be it what it may. The salient difference is that there can
>be no reproductive outcome in any homosexual act as such.
the probity of intention of those engaging in gay sex must depend
on its incorporation of full responsibility for the action, be what it
may.
the probity of intention of those engaging in government work must
depend on its incorporation of full responsibility for the action,
be what it may.
this is a zero-content paragraph.
the 'salient' difference is neither salient nor a difference--one
must judge the morality of an action by the intent behind it, and
the intent behind contraception is to _avoid_ conception. the
act is morally the same regardless of the possibilty that it will
fail in its intent.
all your assertions will not alter this fact, which is obvious to
those of us not blinded by an unhealthy obsession with the sexual
practices of others.
>I think that moral justification for the use of contraceptives regards
>them as a part of a planned reproductive strategy of each individual
>couple. Since reproduction and pair-bonding are both moral imperatives,
>so must be responsible contraception within a stable sexual union.
what of those who choose not to have children?
their union would be sterile, and according to your argument
immoral. their act of contraception would not be an act
of responsibility, but a violation of your categorical imperative,
which if adopted by all would lead to the extinction of the
species.
>If our
>morality had no aim beyond maximizing the human evolutionary fitness, the
>optimal male reproductive strategy might have been to mimic Julius Caesar
>by playing a husband to all women and a wife to all men, so as to promote
>the continuation of one's own genes while subverting many similar efforts
>of one's competitors.
you make the assumption that acting in this manner subverts the
reproductive efforts of others, while not establishing by any
rational basis that all men or all women desire or compete for
reproductive advantages.
>But it is equally important always to treat one's
>partners as ends in themselves, rather than mere means of catering to the
>end of oneself.
precisely. one should not treat one's mate simply as a
means of gaining reproductive advantage, nor should egotistical
concerns be primary in any relationship, sexual or otherwise.
how a gay relationship is unable to satisfy the emotional
and physical needs of both its partners, if they treat
their partners as ends in themselves, is left to you
to establish.
you have not done so. you have puffed smoke, engaged in
circular arguments, justified your own conclusions based
on unestablished premises which you accept as axiomatic
and skipped numerous steps toward your proof, those steps
which are indefensible by logic.
>So the man who chooses to bugger other men for pleasure
>and impregnates women in order to fulfill his reproductive imperative,
>must be using at least one other human being as a mere instrument of his
>will.
you have here stated as an absolute that any act of gay
sex undertaken by an individual must be an act using another
human being as a mere instrument. the fact that at least
two must engage in any act of 'sodomy' seems to have eluded
you. if each of these is a mere instrument of the other, one
is led to a regress.
i would call this _reductio ad absurdum_ but your arguments
are on their face absurd, and do not need to be _reduced_ to
absurdity.
>cordially, don't
>mikhail zel...@math.ucla.edu tread
>writing from the disneyland of formal philosophy on
>"Le cul des femmes est monotone comme l'esprit des hommes." me
with disgust for your intellectual laziness and dishonesty,
h
Michael Zeleny
::: In addition to your argument being intrinsically absurd (logically)
::: and beside the fact that you have unjustifiably conflated the issues of
::: propagation and sexuality beyond merit, your argument makes several
::: unwarranted practical assumptions and smacks of misogyny upon
::: further analysis.
::: You really have to pull the wool over everyone's eyes here, including
::: your own, by stating that you are not a consequentialist in this matter.
::: The reality is that you can't *afford* to be a consequentialist because,
::: when taken on consequentialist grounds, your argument falls apart even
::: more quickly than it does on logical grounds alone, and you know this.
::: The world is a limited space with limited resources within which we are
::: irremediably bound. How "rational" and "responsible" is it to presume
::: unlimited space and resources when formulating your propagational sexual
::: ethic? The impracticality of your argument actually highlights and informs
::: its logical absurdity. So long as you refuse to consider the consequences,
::: you can pretend that you are being moral. But what good is a morality
::: that is inherently incapable of being applied in the real world? How
::: "logical" is it? I'll answer for you: It is, in a word, vacuous, both in
::: terms of its "good" and in terms of its logic.
:: Look out, folks -- here comes the hoary cliche' of buggery as Higher
:: Malthusianism! Never mind that the position I had expounded contains
:: nothing that would mandate indiscriminate reproduction, or prohibit
:: responsible contraception.
: Yes it does, Michael. What's the difference between "responsible
: contraception" and oral or anal sex? They are all "essentially sterile"
: and "counter-purposive" to procreation, to use your phraseology. If
: "responsible contraception" is morally permissible, then so are oral and
: anal sex, for exactly the same reasons, regardless of the sexes of the
: parties involved.
By definition, essential properties obtain of necessity in virtue of
the internal structure of their bearers. The least possibility of P
happening therefore vitiates the claim of the essential impossibility
of P. Thus contraceptives do not result in essential sterility, since
they do not exclude pregnancy, but merely lessen its likelihood. Sex
under contraceptives is *not* an essentially infertile sexual act, in
view of the ever-present, non-negligible chance of pregnancy remaining
under all but the unjustifiably debilitating surgical means of birth
control. Contraception greatly mitigates the chances of pregnancy in
any heterosexual encounter, without compromising its essential
fertility. Considering that the average actual failure rate of the
Pill is 15% per couple-year, taking the average generation gap to be
25 years leaves us with more than adequate margin for a positive
population growth under universal legislation of contraception.
Not so with universal legislation of buggery.
: Your position also mandates indiscriminate reproduction. If any
: "essentially sterile" or "contrapurposive" sexual act is excluded as a
: morally acceptable sexual option then, ipso facto, the only acceptable
: sexual option is one which will lead to conception -- every time. Since
: sexual abstinence is "essentially sterile" and "contrapurposive" to the
: "natural ends" of sexuality, we cannot choose abstinence as a morally
: acceptable option either. Therefore, every time the opportunity for a
: successful act of reproduction presents itself, we are duty-bound to
: perform it, if we accept your position. Ergo propter ita est.
The only reasonable claim in the above pertains to moral inadequacy of
celibacy, which fails the CI test for the same reason as non-benevolence.
The rest is sheer invention unconnected to anything implied by my argument.
henry
Donn Irving <DC...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
z-man wrote:
>>> I am glad that you agree with me about the degradation of the pathic.
to which gene ward smith responded:
>>In your case, the word is "pathetic".
>Being critical of a typing error? Could have been the first part of the
>word was omitted? Like psycho -
he wasn't being critical of a typing error--he was ridiculing
zeleny's word choice. 'pathic' is a word.
>DCI
h
henry
Michael Zeleny <zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu> wrote:
>anon...@nyx.cs.du.edu (henry) writes about the functional link
>between sex and the human reproductive capacity:
>: of course there is a functional link between the two. nobody
>: has yet denied them. however, a functional link does not make
>: a moral imperative.
>In this case it does.
why? because you say so?
>Moral merit is predicated of deliberate actions, not of involuntary
>bodily functions.
agreed. then you are admitting that there is no immorality
in involuntarily experiencing attraction to members of the
same sex?
>If you, the custodian of your pancreas, should deliberately interfere
>with its proper life-sustaining function, you would be acting immorally.
this, i assume, according to your categorical imperative?
according to previous arguments of yours, contraception is
moral. however, it is a deliberate interference with the
'proper' reproductive functions of the body.
so which are you saying? can you make up your mind? it's
hard to argue with someone who dodges and makes up new
rules all the time.
[. . .]
>Humans differ from other animals by being subject to the laws of
>rationality.
i would say that humans are not 'subject' to laws of rationality
but are instead empowered by them. rationlity is something which
one uses, not something to which one is subject.
>This is a very naive understanding of natural law. By this logic, the
>natural response to the aggressive impulse is to yield to it.
in many cases an aggressive impulse is both pragmatically
and morally correct, and should be acted upon. it should
be noted that there are occasions in which this is also
incorrect, but it must be decided which impulses are valid
by which cause the most harm or good, and not by some
vague, ill-defined categorical imperative.
>: animals do not have sex
>: because they wish to procreate, but because their
>: natural inclinations lead them to do so.
>Not all individuals are as narrow-minded as you would make them out to
>be. Most men subject their animal drives to the scrutiny of reason.
however, some, instead of using reason to scrutinize their
animal drives, use them to justify their irrational hatreds
and obsessions with the sex lives of others.
your obsession is evidenced by the bizarre questionnaire
with which you presented quirke, asking him in voyeuristic
detail of every aspect of his sex life, centering mainly on
those involving what you would consider to be degrading
and repulsive.
if he had volunteered this information, you would have
considered it a disgusting display, and castigated him
for bragging of his immorality. however, you feel no
guilt at turning a discussion of ethics into an inquisitorial
witch-hunt, desperately interrogating your detractors about
matters which are none of your business.
>cordially, don't
>mikhail zel...@math.ucla.edu tread
>writing from the disneyland of formal philosophy on
>"Le cul des femmes est monotone comme l'esprit des hommes." me
with fear and loathing,
h
Michael Zeleny
anon...@nyx10.cs.du.edu (henry) writes:
: Michael Zeleny <zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu> wrote:
:: The reproductive intention of contracepted heterosexual intercourse is
:: to exercise responsibility by mitigating the chance of conception.
: the _intention_ is not to mitigate the possibility of conception,
: and were results to match the intent of the act, no acts of
: intercourse using contraception would result in conception.
:
: the intent is to have sex without conceiving. the way you
: choose to ignore this, as if this does not alter your absurd
: claims that using contraception does not alter the essential
: nature of the sex act, as if the intent is irrelevant when
: making moral judgments.
Intention is important, but not overridingly so. Salient facts about
nature always take precedence. The moral merit of tilting at windmills
cannot be entirely determined by the delusion of fighting nefarious
giants, any more than the morality of gratuitous self-destruction could
be mitigated by the misguided intent to affirm the pleasure principle.
In each case, we act under an obligation to recognize and take into
account the relevant natural facts and forces.
::: in all cases, the intention behind the act is predicated upon
::: knowledge that the sexual act is non-fertile, thus by your
::: argument of inherency, these acts are morally equivalent.
::: i notice you always get more obscure when you're trying to
::: state an obvious fallacy in a non-obvious manner.
:: Sterility is an accident in most cases. And the venue of foreplay is
:: reproductively irrelevant.
: i am not talking about foreplay. i am talking about individual
: sexual acts, complete in themselves. conveniently, you choose
: to ignore this, as it leads your argument into a _reductio
: absurdum_.
In so far as oral sex or anal sex come to supplant, rather than merely
supplement coitus, they constitute paraphilic perversions of sexuality.
Note that I am not referring to a clandestine blowjob or an occasional
cornholing episode between a couple mainly involved in orthogenital sex.
::: of what universal legislation of buggery do you speak?
:::
::: this is bizarre doublespeak.
:: I speak of the Categorical Imperative: "Act as if the maxim of your
:: action were to become through your will a universal law of nature."
: well, this is ridiculous. as nice as it may sound, i would not
: prefer that the motivations underlying my every action were to
: become a universal law of nature.
: indeed, it is ridiculous even to speak of acting as if one were
: able to change the irrevocable laws of nature.
In that case you may disregard my argument. At this stage of the game,
I do not wish to convert anyone to Kantian ethics or natural law. That
will come later.
::: your argument is specious, contradicts itself, and chews on its
::: own tail like an ouroboros. however pretty the scales of the
::: snake may be, it is still self-devouring, hateful and false.
:: I can surmise your motives for gainsaying the obvious.
: what obvious? if your arguments are so obvious, why do you
: have to conceal what you're saying in ever-more-baroque flights
: of pseudo-logical puffery and tendentious effrontery?
I say nothing that has not been implied by the lapidary words of Plato
in Laws 841: spermata agona. You should ask yourself how plausible it
would be to dismiss his description of buggery as deliberate murder of
the human race as motivated by a visceral hatred of same-sex eroticism.
: with great hostility,
:
: h
Your anger is amusing.
Michael Zeleny
>what of those who choose not to have children?
They abjure their duty much like those who choose never to be benevolent.
>you have here stated as an absolute that any act of gay
>sex undertaken by an individual must be an act using another
>human being as a mere instrument.
My judgment does not depend on this assumption. It is presumably
possible to have a homosexual relationship grounded in mutual concern.
However any effort to compensate for its sterility through external
reproductive assistance is bound to rely on using at least one person
as mere reproductive means.
> the fact that at least
>two must engage in any act of 'sodomy' seems to have eluded
>you. if each of these is a mere instrument of the other, one
>is led to a regress.
Mere reciprocity does not make for genuine concern.
Michael Zeleny
: Michael Zeleny <zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu> wrote:
:: anon...@nyx.cs.du.edu (henry) writes about the functional link
:: between sex and the human reproductive capacity:
::: of course there is a functional link between the two. nobody
::: has yet denied them. however, a functional link does not make
::: a moral imperative.
:: In this case it does.
: why? because you say so?
I explained the reasons elsewhere. Look it up.
:: Moral merit is predicated of deliberate actions, not of involuntary
:: bodily functions.
: agreed. then you are admitting that there is no immorality
: in involuntarily experiencing attraction to members of the
: same sex?
Of course not. Nor is there any immorality in involuntarily
experiencing homicidal urges against them. What is your point?
:: If you, the custodian of your pancreas, should deliberately interfere
:: with its proper life-sustaining function, you would be acting immorally.
: this, i assume, according to your categorical imperative?
Not mine, but Kant's. My own reasoning is Platonic, but Kant's formulae
arrive at the same conclusions in a way that lends itself more readily to
the proper order of didactic exposition.
: according to previous arguments of yours, contraception is
: moral. however, it is a deliberate interference with the
: 'proper' reproductive functions of the body.
If your pancreas produces more juice than your duodenum can handle, such
interference is both permissible and proper. If you are unable to support
more children, contraception is both permissible and proper. I trust that
you can understand the analogy.
: so which are you saying? can you make up your mind? it's
: hard to argue with someone who dodges and makes up new
: rules all the time.
Allow me to elaborate: If you, as the owner, beneficiary, and custodian of
your pancreas, should deliberately and *gratuitously* interfere with its
proper life-sustaining function, you would be acting immorally. Remind me
to spell out the trivial qualifications next time around.
:: Humans differ from other animals by being subject to the laws of
:: rationality.
: i would say that humans are not 'subject' to laws of rationality
: but are instead empowered by them. rationlity is something which
: one uses, not something to which one is subject.
Rationality is both a tool of the human mind and its supreme regulative
principle.
:: This is a very naive understanding of natural law. By this logic, the
:: natural response to the aggressive impulse is to yield to it.
: in many cases an aggressive impulse is both pragmatically
: and morally correct, and should be acted upon. it should
: be noted that there are occasions in which this is also
: incorrect, but it must be decided which impulses are valid
: by which cause the most harm or good, and not by some
: vague, ill-defined categorical imperative.
Goodness is either of itself or in relation to other things. In the
former case, Kant's argument in the Groundwork, which may be found at
gopher://marvel.loc.gov/11/global/phil/vt, ineluctably leads to the
Categorical Imperative as the measure of intrinsic goodness of will. In
the latter case, there is no independent standard to measure the goodness
of desire that motivates our aggression or our sexuality.
::: animals do not have sex
::: because they wish to procreate, but because their
::: natural inclinations lead them to do so.
:: Not all individuals are as narrow-minded as you would make them out to
:: be. Most men subject their animal drives to the scrutiny of reason.
: however, some, instead of using reason to scrutinize their
: animal drives, use them to justify their irrational hatreds
: and obsessions with the sex lives of others.
:
: your obsession is evidenced by the bizarre questionnaire
: with which you presented quirke, asking him in voyeuristic
: detail of every aspect of his sex life, centering mainly on
: those involving what you would consider to be degrading
: and repulsive.
:
: if he had volunteered this information, you would have
: considered it a disgusting display, and castigated him
: for bragging of his immorality. however, you feel no
: guilt at turning a discussion of ethics into an inquisitorial
: witch-hunt, desperately interrogating your detractors about
: matters which are none of your business.
Self-defense is an art I have long cultivated. I feel no guilt because I
was never the first to insult my interlocutor. Nevertheless, as I stated
before, I deeply regret having lowered myself to Quirke's level. I will
no longer respond in kind to any flames.
: with fear and loathing,
:
: h
I am still amused by fear and loathing though.
Gary Phillips
: orp...@kaiwan009.kaiwan.com (Gary Phillips) writes:
: : Michael Zeleny (zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu) wrote:
: :: Gene Ward Smith <gsmith@lab1> writes:
: ::: On 12 Mar 1995, Michael Zeleny wrote:
: ::: I suggest you try.
: :: I find it fascinating that exhorting a man to play an insertive
: :: role in sexual intercourse can be used as a term of opprobrium
: :: by an outspoken advocate of male homosexuality.
: : Don't you mean 'receptive?'
: Indeed I do. Thanks for correcting me.
: : If so, this seems to be the first thing that you and I agree upon.
: I am glad that you agree with me about the degradation of the pathic.
What we seem to agree on, rather, is the idea that the active engagement
of receptive intercourse does not deserve any degree of moral opprobrium.
I don't believe that even the passive engagement of receptive intercourse
merits such ignominy. Of course, who knows what you believe but you?
henry
Michael Zeleny <zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu> wrote:
i said:
>: the intent is to have sex without conceiving. the way you
>: choose to ignore this, as if this does not alter your absurd
>: claims that using contraception does not alter the essential
>: nature of the sex act, as if the intent is irrelevant when
>: making moral judgments.
>Intention is important, but not overridingly so. Salient facts about
>nature always take precedence. The moral merit of tilting at windmills
>cannot be entirely determined by the delusion of fighting nefarious
>giants, any more than the morality of gratuitous self-destruction could
>be mitigated by the misguided intent to affirm the pleasure principle.
>In each case, we act under an obligation to recognize and take into
>account the relevant natural facts and forces.
very well then. in the case of contraception, one can not claim
that the moral value of the act is influenced by delusion--in fact,
the intent, the means of enacting that intent and the assumptions
underlying that intent all match a view of reality shared by most--
that when one wishes to have sex without conceiving, one uses
contraception.
thus the intent and the laws of biology are consonant, and both
the intent and the result of choosing to use contraception lead
to a greatly reduced chance of contraception.
thus, this act, regardless of accident or fluke, is universally
regarded by all who are not wildly dodging the issue to be an
act almost certain to avoid conception.
the intent involved makes the act morally equivalent to any other
consensual sexual act which is not likely to result in conception,
and if universally adopted as your categorical imperative would
dictate, would lead to a depopulation of the earth.
thus, why is contraception not immoral, especially when used
to circumvent contraception by a couple who wish _never_ to
have children?
why is sex between two partners one or both of whom are sterile
not immoral? by choosing a sterile partner, one is subverting
the categorical imperative that everyone reproduce.
why is voluntary celibacy not just as bad a perversion as any
other?
you have not answered these, nor will you ever, because then
you'd have to admit that your entire argument is a flimsy pack
of cards flatly contradicted by reality.
>: i am not talking about foreplay. i am talking about individual
>: sexual acts, complete in themselves. conveniently, you choose
>: to ignore this, as it leads your argument into a _reductio
>: absurdum_.
>In so far as oral sex or anal sex come to supplant, rather than merely
>supplement coitus, they constitute paraphilic perversions of sexuality.
a paraphilia is not a fondness for oral sex or anal sex, but
such obsession with the subject as to be ego-dystonic or to
cause harm to the individual or render him or him incapable
of living in society.
your hijacking of a term from the dsm-iv, 'paraphilia,' to
give pseudo-scientific justification to your drivel has not
gone unnoticed.
>Note that I am not referring to a clandestine blowjob or an occasional
>cornholing episode between a couple mainly involved in orthogenital sex.
oh, ok. so anal sex isn't immoral except when performed by
two men. this belies your original argument that non-procreative
sex is _ipso facto_ immoral.
it also seems to smack of special pleading, as it is essentially
saying 'anal sex is fine if _i_ do it, but not _you_.'
>:: I speak of the Categorical Imperative: "Act as if the maxim of your
>:: action were to become through your will a universal law of nature."
>: well, this is ridiculous. as nice as it may sound, i would not
>: prefer that the motivations underlying my every action were to
>: become a universal law of nature.
>: indeed, it is ridiculous even to speak of acting as if one were
>: able to change the irrevocable laws of nature.
>In that case you may disregard my argument. At this stage of the game,
>I do not wish to convert anyone to Kantian ethics or natural law. That
>will come later.
you certainly would not wish to convert anyone to kant, as you yourself
ignore him when it fits you.
>::: your argument is specious, contradicts itself, and chews on its
>::: own tail like an ouroboros. however pretty the scales of the
>::: snake may be, it is still self-devouring, hateful and false.
>:: I can surmise your motives for gainsaying the obvious.
>: what obvious? if your arguments are so obvious, why do you
>: have to conceal what you're saying in ever-more-baroque flights
>: of pseudo-logical puffery and tendentious effrontery?
>I say nothing that has not been implied by the lapidary words of Plato
>in Laws 841: spermata agona. You should ask yourself how plausible it
>would be to dismiss his description of buggery as deliberate murder of
>the human race as motivated by a visceral hatred of same-sex eroticism.
i can easily dismiss much of plato, actually.
he denounced poetry, drama, society and damn near everything
else in some part or another of his literature. about the only
thing plato didn't denounce was himself, and he probably would
have gotten around to that given enough time.
>: with great hostility,
>:
>: h
>Your anger is amusing.
your dishonesty is disgusting.
>cordially, don't
>mikhail zel...@math.ucla.edu tread
>writing from the disneyland of formal philosophy on
>"Le cul des femmes est monotone comme l'esprit des hommes." me
cynically,
h
henry
Michael Zeleny <zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu> wrote:
>anon...@nyx10.cs.du.edu (henry) writes:
>>what of those who choose not to have children?
>They abjure their duty much like those who choose never to be benevolent.
this is flat-out ridiculous. this, if followed to its logical
conclusion, leads to celibate clergy being considered immoral
slackers.
those who have demanding careers with travel required are also,
according to this bullshit reasoning, expected to raise miserable
children rather than commit the vile immorality of not having
children.
those who marry a sterile partner are also, thus, immoral
people who are abjuring their duty.
in addition, this makes a person without reproductive capability
a non-human, unable to have sex morally.
your moral system is shot, your logical inadequacies are
showing more with each exchange.
>>you have here stated as an absolute that any act of gay
>>sex undertaken by an individual must be an act using another
>>human being as a mere instrument.
>My judgment does not depend on this assumption.
you said that anyone who chooses to 'bugger' is using another
person merely as a tool of their own desire. if this is
universal, then yes, your judgment _does_ depend on this
assumption, which is demonstrably false.
>It is presumably
>possible to have a homosexual relationship grounded in mutual concern.
>However any effort to compensate for its sterility through external
>reproductive assistance is bound to rely on using at least one person
>as mere reproductive means.
any transfusion is bound to rely on using at least one other person
as merely a source of biological material.
why is not donating genetic material an act of benevolence? if
someone can not have children and would make a good parent,
why are they barred from using someone else's sperm?
you say that anyone who chooses not to have children is
shirking their duty, yet you also state that sperm banks
are immoral.
i suppose your 'categorical imperative' isn't categorical
after all.
>Mere reciprocity does not make for genuine concern.
i did not say it made for genuine concern, you fool.
i said that two people can not _both_ be merely an
instrument for serving the desire of the other. if
a power-situation of this sort emerges, then both
partners can not be exploitive in the same manner.
for both commutatively to be exploiting the other in
the same fashion is not possible. for there to be
subjection and subjugation, there must be one who
subjects and one to whom subjection is applied.
for both to be subject and object is regressive
and self-contradictory, yet this is what your 'logic'
inevitably reaches.
a regress.
>cordially, don't
>mikhail zel...@math.ucla.edu tread
>writing from the disneyland of formal philosophy on
>"Le cul des femmes est monotone comme l'esprit des hommes." me
disgustedly,
h
Gary Phillips
: anon...@nyx10.cs.du.edu (henry) writes:
: ::: in all cases, the intention behind the act is predicated upon
: ::: knowledge that the sexual act is non-fertile, thus by your
: ::: argument of inherency, these acts are morally equivalent.
: ::: i notice you always get more obscure when you're trying to
: ::: state an obvious fallacy in a non-obvious manner.
: :: Sterility is an accident in most cases. And the venue of foreplay is
: :: reproductively irrelevant.
: : i am not talking about foreplay. i am talking about individual
: : sexual acts, complete in themselves. conveniently, you choose
: : to ignore this, as it leads your argument into a _reductio
: : absurdum_.
: In so far as oral sex or anal sex come to supplant, rather than merely
: supplement coitus, they constitute paraphilic perversions of sexuality.
: Note that I am not referring to a clandestine blowjob or an occasional
: cornholing episode between a couple mainly involved in orthogenital sex.
You are most definitely referring to clandestine blowjobs and
occasional cornholing between heterosexual couples, regardless of whatever
else they may do at other times. You cannot descry any single homosexual
sexual interaction that a non-exclusive gay person may engage in on the
basis that it is inherently non-procreative and at the same time uphold
any similar single inherently non-procreative heterosexual act. According
to a strict application of the categorical imperative, if anal sex is
wrong for any person, it is wrong for all persons. If getting a blow-job
is wrong for any person, it is wrong for all persons. You're going to
have to commit yourself one way or another on this one. No one with a
rational mind will let you get away with sitting on both sides of the
fence here. If the categorical imperative is to be both a necessary and
sufficient criterion for moral action, any other moral rules must be
*derivative* from it, not influenced by any consideration whatsoever of
any other criterion outside itself. You cannot meet this challenge.
Ever. It is a rational impossibility. As a consequence of this, the
potential for conflict between duties derived from a plurality of basic
moral criterion ensures that some ethical considerations founded on
competing criteria will sometimes outweigh those of the categorical
imperative, even when those are well-derived with respect to the CI
itself, as yours are not.
: ::: of what universal legislation of buggery do you speak?
: :::
: ::: this is bizarre doublespeak.
: :: I speak of the Categorical Imperative: "Act as if the maxim of your
: :: action were to become through your will a universal law of nature."
: : well, this is ridiculous. as nice as it may sound, i would not
: : prefer that the motivations underlying my every action were to
: : become a universal law of nature.
: : indeed, it is ridiculous even to speak of acting as if one were
: : able to change the irrevocable laws of nature.
: In that case you may disregard my argument. At this stage of the game,
: I do not wish to convert anyone to Kantian ethics or natural law. That
: will come later.
That is the minimum you would have to do to convince anyone of your
argument's validity and it is weak, even then.
: I say nothing that has not been implied by the lapidary words of Plato
: in Laws 841: spermata agona. You should ask yourself how plausible it
: would be to dismiss his description of buggery as deliberate murder of
: the human race as motivated by a visceral hatred of same-sex eroticism.
No. One should ask oneself how anyone with a modern understanding of
the biological aspects of reproduction would ever give such unmerited
importance to sperm which, in and of themselves (and constantly available
as they are), are unable to reproduce *anything*? The only conceivable
moral value a sperm cell has is *after* it is *actually* united with an
ova. Unless and until that happens, there is no valid "moral evaluation"
of a sperm cell, either of its origins or its destinations.
henry
Michael Zeleny <zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu> wrote:
>:: In this case it does.
>: why? because you say so?
>I explained the reasons elsewhere. Look it up.
i have. and you didn't. perhaps you attempted
to excuse your beliefs, but your continued apologies
for bigotry are becoming more strained by the minute.
>:: Moral merit is predicated of deliberate actions, not of involuntary
>:: bodily functions.
>: agreed. then you are admitting that there is no immorality
>: in involuntarily experiencing attraction to members of the
>: same sex?
>Of course not. Nor is there any immorality in involuntarily
>experiencing homicidal urges against them. What is your point?
my point is that you have admitted that there is nothing wrong
with the desire to have sex with a member of one's own gender.
you have also admitted that there is no absolute ban on anal
sex. by your categorical imperative, lusting after a member
of the same sex would be tantamount to desiring it be a
universal law.
the desire to perform the act would, thus, lead to the
performance of it, and be as immoral as the act itself.
according to your admission, the desire is not immoral.
nor is the physical act itself immoral, when performed
by a heterosexual with children. if the desire is not
immoral, nor the act, where is the immorality?
in your mind, i say.
>Not mine, but Kant's. My own reasoning is Platonic, but Kant's formulae
>arrive at the same conclusions in a way that lends itself more readily to
>the proper order of didactic exposition.
you would do better if you pursued a course of
autodidacticism.
>: according to previous arguments of yours, contraception is
>: moral. however, it is a deliberate interference with the
>: 'proper' reproductive functions of the body.
>If your pancreas produces more juice than your duodenum can handle, such
>interference is both permissible and proper. If you are unable to support
>more children, contraception is both permissible and proper. I trust that
>you can understand the analogy.
however, you still leave unanswered the question of a sterile
partner. any union with a sterile partner is bound to result
in no union, just as in a gay pair.
is a sterile person thus less than human, unable to have sex
without committing a moral crime?
you might respond that the matter is not an act of will on the
part of the sterile person. however, it is an act of will for
anyone who voluntarily and knowingly enters into union with
such a person. according to your logic, such a person would
be immorally dodging their responsibilities.
>: so which are you saying? can you make up your mind? it's
>: hard to argue with someone who dodges and makes up new
>: rules all the time.
>Allow me to elaborate: If you, as the owner, beneficiary, and custodian of
>your pancreas, should deliberately and *gratuitously* interfere with its
>proper life-sustaining function, you would be acting immorally. Remind me
>to spell out the trivial qualifications next time around.
the qualification is not trivial, but quite complex.
in addition, whether the interference is gratuitous or
not depends on your point of view. from the view of
someone who, for whatever reason, believes that his
or her pancreas must be altered, the act is by no means
gratuitous. nor is it immoral to wish to do so.
one might call it foolish or wrong-headed, but not
immoral.
>:: Humans differ from other animals by being subject to the laws of
>:: rationality.
>: i would say that humans are not 'subject' to laws of rationality
>: but are instead empowered by them. rationlity is something which
>: one uses, not something to which one is subject.
>Rationality is both a tool of the human mind and its supreme regulative
>principle.
as a regulative principle rationality lacks the force
to control action. irrational behavior is far more
common than rational, as your ceaseless rock-headed
bigotry demonstrates more than adequately.
>Goodness is either of itself or in relation to other things. In the
>former case, Kant's argument in the Groundwork, which may be found at
>gopher://marvel.loc.gov/11/global/phil/vt, ineluctably leads to the
>Categorical Imperative as the measure of intrinsic goodness of will. In
>the latter case, there is no independent standard to measure the goodness
>of desire that motivates our aggression or our sexuality.
i'm familiar with kant, thank you.
however, the notion of the categorical imperative falls flat
when applied to a reality not bounded purely within metaphysical
rules.
in addition, even if one should accept a cumbersome categorical
imperative, gay sex need not violate it. if both partners are
motivated by mutual concern, as you stated was possible, then
the primary maxim behind the sexual act would be love.
this, i hope, is something which ought to be a law of nature.
[. . .]
>: your obsession is evidenced by the bizarre questionnaire
>: with which you presented quirke, asking him in voyeuristic
>: detail of every aspect of his sex life, centering mainly on
>: those involving what you would consider to be degrading
>: and repulsive.
[. . .]
>Self-defense is an art I have long cultivated. I feel no guilt because I
>was never the first to insult my interlocutor. Nevertheless, as I stated
>before, I deeply regret having lowered myself to Quirke's level. I will
>no longer respond in kind to any flames.
repeat: you never lowered yourself to quirke's level.
you started from a moral position lower than his, and
proceeded to drop even lower from there.
regardless of your regrets in this matter, the act is still
telling. you demonstrated an obsession, complete with gloating,
graphic details of the sort of sex you imagined quirke to
be having.
this was not even flaming, but an extremely uncivil breach
of etiquette greater than that involved in merely insulting
one's opponent.
>: with fear and loathing,
>I am still amused by fear and loathing though.
i am still unamused by blind bigotry.
>cordially, don't
>mikhail zel...@math.ucla.edu tread
>writing from the disneyland of formal philosophy on
>"Le cul des femmes est monotone comme l'esprit des hommes." me
didactically,
h
Michael Feld
...
#Intention is important, but not overridingly so. Salient facts about
#nature always take precedence. The moral merit of tilting at windmills
#cannot be entirely determined by the delusion of fighting nefarious
#giants, any more than the morality of gratuitous self-destruction could
#be mitigated by the misguided intent to affirm the pleasure principle.
#In each case, we act under an obligation to recognize and take into
#account the relevant natural facts and forces.
....
I'd wondered whether you'd run into this problem -- a possible clash
of basic moral orientations. Just as consequentialists like me keep
getting stick for wanting both goodness and fairness, you want both
Natural Law and the Categorical Imperative. Kant couldn't
have both, though he thought he could, and I suspect you've now
obliged yourself to develop, or at least to share with your devoted
fans, some over-arching theory that allows you to adjudicate between
cases where NL dictates one thing, and the CI another. [Notoriously,
they clash in practical law, where NL-ers allow communal good to
over-rule fairness.]
-
--
Michael Feld | E-mail: <fe...@cc.umanitoba.ca>
Dept. of Philosophy | FAX: (204) 275-2411
University of Manitoba | Voice: (604) 733-8134
Winnipeg, MB, R3T 2M8, Canada